AMD to Give RV770 a Refresh, G200b Counterattack Planned

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-07-2008, 03:33 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Because this is the foundation of your argument it simply falls flat on it's face. This portion of your post alone alludes to your claims that a higher OC potential is more important. Because you believe it will perform better. But you also say that in certain circumstances the 4870 is still stronger. That alone contradicts your very one claims. ;)

Again, you are oversimplifying the arguement.

Never at any time have I ever said that the OC potential was the most important factor for getting a video card.

That would be absurd for me to say! :rolleyes:

My arguement has always centered around the fact that OC potential can have a significant impact on performance.

The GTX 260 216 and the HD 4870 1GB perform similarly in most titles, yet the former usually has a higher OC potential than the latter.

The GTX 260 216 for instance can be made to rival or surpass the performance of a stock GTX 280 fairly easily; a card that costs up to 150 dollars extra.

Why scoff at such potential?

Quote:

But you also say that in certain circumstances the 4870 is still stronger. That alone contradicts your very one claims. ;)

No it doesn't contradict my claim.

You just want to deal in absolutes, when there are none; at least where this is concerned..

There are scenarios where the HD 4870 will outperform the GTX 260 (and vice versa) regardless of overclocking.

For example, Devil May Cry 4 runs very well on the RV770 architecture, and no amount of overclocking on the GTX 260 will make up such a gap.

Also, if you use 8xAA, then the RV770 will have an edge.

However, for most games, both cards perform similarly to each other (within a few percentage points), thus overclocking potential does have an impact assuming you want the highest level of attainable performance..
11-07-2008, 03:35 PM
Klarko

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly Fox

Let's all just agree that we need some faster cards already!!!

The 4870X2 is pretty beastly, but not yet enough :up: :D

What if they unlocked the sideport on it?
11-07-2008, 03:38 PM
SNiiPE_DoGG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klarko

These will come before 09?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP

With this, AMD looks to keep its momentum as it puts up a great competition with NVIDIA, yielding great products from both camps, at great prices, all in all propelling the fastest growing segment in the PC hardware industry, graphics processors. This is going to be a Merry Xmas [shopping season] for graphics cards buyers.[

looks like they think its going to be....
11-07-2008, 03:43 PM
Sly Fox

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klarko

What if they unlocked the sideport on it?

Can't say. Would definitely be a nice treat for current X2 owners at least.

Well, assuming it improved performance at least a bit.
11-07-2008, 03:55 PM
Klarko

Well i thought that was going to be there answer to the next Nvida card, that much performance was to be gained.. That would be awesome if it was true and would truly be a treat for people that bought them :)
11-07-2008, 03:55 PM
Slovnaft

god bless 1uppery
11-07-2008, 03:58 PM
Sly Fox

Well in theory more bandwidth = Good.

With no real world data though, there's no telling what exactly sideport will do in terms of performance.

Just gotta hope ATI let's it loose eventually.
11-07-2008, 04:01 PM
Klarko

Hell yeah, i want them to be so competitive that nvida never does there :banana::banana::banana::banana:y crap they did when they released the 280GTX (the price)
11-07-2008, 04:15 PM
003

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klarko

What if they unlocked the sideport on it?

Is the sideport only for GPUs on the same card? So there would be no sideport linking dual X2s?
11-07-2008, 04:18 PM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by 003

Is the sideport only for GPUs on the same card? So there would be no sideport linking dual X2s?

Only same PCB. A boosted sideport could remove the PLX chip tho.
11-07-2008, 04:39 PM
YukonTrooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

The GTX 260 216 for instance can be made to rival or surpass the performance of a stock GTX 280 fairly easily; a card that costs up to 150 dollars extra.

Really?
11-07-2008, 04:41 PM
Piotrsama

Die shrinking the RV770 is out of the question?
11-07-2008, 04:41 PM
SNiiPE_DoGG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

The GTX 260 216 for instance can be made to rival or surpass the performance of a stock GTX 280 fairly easily; a card that costs up to 150 dollars extra.

moot point, the 280 overclocks too don't ya know.
11-07-2008, 04:47 PM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotrsama

Die shrinking the RV770 is out of the question?

Yes. Atleast for a few months. The shrink would also be HD5000 series.
11-07-2008, 04:49 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG

moot point, the 280 overclocks too don't ya know.

How is it a moot point when it cost up to 150 dollars more?

Does the GTX 280 have that much of a performance increase over the GTX 260 216 that it's worth 150 dollars more, even with overclocking?

Not to me it doesn't. But that is subjective perhaps.
11-07-2008, 05:22 PM
AbelJemka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax;3414038
[B

Regardless, because you can get a higher percentage overclock out of the GTX 260 than you can on the 4870, the former ends up outperforming the latter[/B]; except in certain circumstances where the HD 4870 is very strong.

French review of Gainward 4870 GS (775/1000 from 750/900 so respectively 3.3% for the core and 11% for the ram) compare to 260GTX OC (720/1185 from 576/999 so respectively 25% and 18.5%!)
http://translate.google.fr/translate...-8&sl=fr&tl=en
http://www.generation-3d.com/UserImg...sample/VS1.png
http://www.generation-3d.com/UserImg...ample/VS2b.png
He latter overclocks 4870 GS and manages 835/1160 :rolleyes:
11-07-2008, 05:35 PM
SNiiPE_DoGG

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

French review of Gainward 4870 GS (775/1000 from 750/900 so respectively 3.3% for the core and 11% for the ram) compare to 260GTX OC (720/1185 from 576/999 so respectively 25% and 18.5%!)
http://translate.google.fr/translate...-8&sl=fr&tl=en
http://www.generation-3d.com/UserImg...sample/VS1.png
http://www.generation-3d.com/UserImg...ample/VS2b.png
He latter overclocks 4870 GS and manages 835/1160 :rolleyes:

this is EXACTLY what I tried to tell carfax at least 5 times in separate threads, thanks for finding :up:
11-07-2008, 05:40 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

French review of Gainward 4870 GS (775/1000 from 750/900 so respectively 3.3% for the core and 11% for the ram) compare to 260GTX OC (720/1185 from 576/999 so respectively 25% and 18.5%!)
http://translate.google.fr/translate...-8&sl=fr&tl=en
http://www.generation-3d.com/UserImg...sample/VS1.png
http://www.generation-3d.com/UserImg...ample/VS2b.png
He latter overclocks 4870 GS and manages 835/1160 :rolleyes:

Good fine! :up: Now that we have the numbers folks can see for themselves that carfax's claims have been put to rest.
11-07-2008, 06:10 PM
Carfax

Whoa, hold up a second! You guys are jumping to conclusions before you even examine the evidence!

First off, I'm pretty sure thats the old GTX 260, so it's already slower than the HD 4870 at default clocks, let alone the "golden sample."

Secondly, the guy that did the review didn't state whether he had overclocked the shaders or not. He only said he set the core to 720 and the memory to 1185.

Increasing the core and memory speed while leaving the shaders untouched would cripple the overclock!

Thirdly, in some of the games, the GTX 260 manages to scale as you would expect it to given the overclock. In CoD4 for example, you get a 21% increase in performance which is pretty hefty.

Anyway, I think you guys are definitely jumping ahead of yourselves :p

I'll swing by for another drive by later after I've had a nap :D
11-07-2008, 06:13 PM
waver_01

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

French review of Gainward 4870 GS (775/1000 from 750/900 so respectively 3.3% for the core and 11% for the ram) compare to 260GTX OC (720/1185 from 576/999 so respectively 25% and 18.5%!)

He latter overclocks 4870 GS and manages 835/1160 :rolleyes:

can you say, WIN
11-07-2008, 06:14 PM
SNiiPE_DoGG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

Whoa, hold up a second! You guys are jumping to conclusions before you even examine the evidence!

First off, I'm pretty sure thats the old GTX 260, so it's already slower than the HD 4870 at default clocks, let alone the "golden sample."

Secondly, the guy that did the review didn't state whether he had overclocked the shaders or not. He only said he set the core to 720 and the memory to 1185.

Increasing the core and memory speed while leaving the shaders untouched would cripple the overclock!

Thirdly, in some of the games, the GTX 260 manages to scale as you would expect it to given the overclock. In CoD4 for example, you get a 21% increase in performance which is pretty hefty.

Anyway, I think you guys are definitely jumping ahead of yourselves :p

I'll swing by for another drive by later after I've had a nap :D

I would expect him to have overclocked the shaders lol I don't even use current gen Nvidia cards and I at least know about that....
11-07-2008, 06:54 PM
AbelJemka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

Whoa, hold up a second! You guys are jumping to conclusions before you even examine the evidence!

First off, I'm pretty sure thats the old GTX 260, so it's already slower than the HD 4870 at default clocks, let alone the "golden sample."
Old 260GTX and "golden sample" it's just a barely overclocked 4870 :rolleyes:

Secondly, the guy that did the review didn't state whether he had overclocked the shaders or not. He only said he set the core to 720 and the memory to 1185.
Increasing the core and memory speed while leaving the shaders untouched would cripple the overclock!
He overclocked shaders, he is Nvidia specialist!

Thirdly, in some of the games, the GTX 260 manages to scale as you would expect it to given the overclock. In CoD4 for example, you get a 21% increase in performance which is pretty hefty.
And?

Anyway, I think you guys are definitely jumping ahead of yourselves :p
Why don't do the test yourself? I want to see your results:up:

I'll swing by for another drive by later after I've had a nap :D

And 260GTX or 260GTX 216 is the gains so incredible?
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3408
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...216/crysis.png
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...re216/GRID.png
Ass Whooping! :rofl:
11-07-2008, 07:14 PM
Bo_Fox

Ugh, it's a pain reading this page... those arguments on the 4870 overclocking vs. 280 overclocking are absolutely pointless. (Anybody notice that the 4870 was slightly "pre-overclocked" by the retailer, while the GT200 was overclocked as far as possible with the drivers? Also, when upping the core clocks, the shader clocks are automatically increased too at least when using RT, unless checking the box for separate controls. Sheesh...)

Anyways, I think that 4870 can easily afford a slight voltage bump that allows for 800 MHz, if not 850 MHz. Remember how ATI cherry-picked the 3870's for 825MHz on X2 boards? Perhaps ATI has been binning their chips for a couple months now, ready to unleash them in large volumes. The stock cooler seems to cool nicely, and can probably be turned up just a little bit, and still not be as noisy as the single-slot 4850.

I say to ATI, go for 850 MHz!!! We want it to be worth it, not a measly 50 MHz increase, but a full 100 MHz increase at least! Then we could overclock them to an earth-shattering 900 MHz.

The RV870 better have more than 16 ROP's.. or I aint buying it since it's going to bottleneck the whole thing. I think for anything more than a 4870, there must be more than 16 ROP's--16 is as little as the 4870 and the 9800GTX could get away with.
11-07-2008, 07:47 PM
tajoh111

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

French review of Gainward 4870 GS (775/1000 from 750/900 so respectively 3.3% for the core and 11% for the ram) compare to 260GTX OC (720/1185 from 576/999 so respectively 25% and 18.5%!)
http://translate.google.fr/translate...-8&sl=fr&tl=en
http://www.generation-3d.com/UserImg...sample/VS1.png
http://www.generation-3d.com/UserImg...ample/VS2b.png
He latter overclocks 4870 GS and manages 835/1160 :rolleyes:

You can't take a golden samples overclock as what most people will get.

First off they are cherry picked chips and additionally they are using a cooler that up to 24C cooler than a stock cooler.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...1&limitstart=0

Add in these are the most expensive 4870 you can get and you can't use this as evidence as what a normal 4870 will overclock.

My 4870 x2 will crash every once in a while unless I overclock it to less than 766 of the core and 915 on the memory. My 4870 x2 overclocks brutally.
11-07-2008, 08:13 PM
villa1n

Quote:

Originally Posted by tajoh111

You can't take a golden samples overclock as what most people will get.

First off they are cherry picked chips and additionally they are using a cooler that up to 24C cooler than a stock cooler.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...1&limitstart=0

Add in these are the most expensive 4870 you can get and you can't use this as evidence as what a normal 4870 will overclock.

My 4870 x2 will crash every once in a while unless I overclock it to less than 766 of the core and 915 on the memory. My 4870 x2 overclocks brutally.

An 4870x2 is not a 4870... and 775 is a modest overclock.....
Regardless, golden sample or not, most can reach 775mhz.. the 830mhz he later reached is a challenge if you dont have a high binned card, i ll grant that, but just comparing the results, puts to rest the point. Its overall performance...
its like saying because an atom processor can be clocked 100% to 3.2ghz.. that it is therefore better than a k8 with only 30% headroom... and doesnt scale as well.
Its raw output that matters when comparing different architectures... its that simple. If you want to compare a 216 vs a normal 260, by those ratio s vs dollars, yes that would make sense. but cross architecture, those metrics dont mean anything... the raw numbers do.

And to Carfax.. The 260 is being compared to 4870 because they are in the same price range. the core 216 is more expensive than a 4870.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page