The ATI Radeon 5XXX Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

Oh, I know full well crysis isn't poorly optimized. The engine was written for future cards, but sadly the following generations never delivered like CryTek had hoped for. I mean, at the rate hardware was going when crysis was being worked on, it would've hit the point required by now if it kept at that pace, ignoring dual-gpu cards.

9800xt to x800xt around a 100% increase, an even higher gain going with NVidia from fx5950 to 6800Ultra
6800Ultra to 7800GTX, again, roughly double, x1850xt to x1900xtx(I think we can all say the x1800 was to short lived to count, so we'll skip to the x1900xtx.)
7900GTX to 8800GTX... Do I even have to mention this one? ATi didn't make nearly as big of a leap on this one.
8800GTX to 9800GTX... Was this even an upgrade? I know in some cases the 8800GTX out-performed thanks to the higher rop and memory bus.
9800GTX to GTX 280? nowhere NEAR the same leap...

Basically, if we had stayed on the same course we were on, the GTX 280/4870's would've been 2 to 4x what we saw(making the dual-cards insanely fast), which would've put crysis playable at even 1920x1080p WITH 8xAA. Sadly, now we probably won't see that for another generation, unless NVidia has a serious trump card up their sleeves, which I wouldn't be surprised if they do. Many forget, during the "road to G80" not much was said other than it would be a DX10 part. Infact, NVidia just sat silent while sites like xbit labs claimed it would be a 48 PS/24 VS card. Silence means nothing from this company.

That said, I'm not placing any bets at all on this round, but the company that wins in crysis is likely to win the whole thing. Pretty much everything else is already playable maxed out anyway on current hardware... The fact that this card loses to the GTX 295(which granted, that card IS a beast and is dual-gpus) in crysis, and barely wins in crysis war head makes me sad though, very very sad.

---

I agree on both points. And we should keep in mind that the final retail of Crysis was actually watered-down when it comes to graphics relative to what it was in the development process.

5870's Crysis performance is nowhere as good as I hoped for.

But there's some serious discrepancy in these charts.

Look at LP Colonies 8xAA 16xAF in 285/295 vs 5870 charts.

In 285 vs 5870 chart, 5870 looks 2.6x faster than GTX 285 in LP Colonies 8xAA 16xAF

And in 295 vs 5870 chart, 5870 looks slower than 295 (0.8x of its performance)

So if we say 5870 is 1x, then GTX 285 is 0.38x, and GTX 295 is 1.25x?

How can 295 be 3.5 times faster than 285? Isn't this some serious discrepancy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overclock

Yes, i agree with you : if the figures are true, the 5870 is disappointing. Crysis and Stalker Clear Sky will be hardly playable.

---

wow talk about overreacting, you're not looking at some facts here, GTX295 has more memory, is a dual gpu, and yet the SINGLE 5870 is at least as competitive and mostly better in all other benchmarks, you can count on one hand the amount of games where it loses and by a small margin.

Crysis is not the only benchmark in the world. Besides, its been favorable to Nvidia architecture since the get go (remember nvidia helped develop the game ;) )

This card is competive against a GTX295, what else could you ask for?

Besides, if nearly 3 teraflops can't max our Crysis, I have a feeling the problem is not the graphics card...:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SimBy

Huh? So 5870 being slightly slower in Crysis and slightly faster in Crysis Warhead compared to nV dual GPU is disappointing? :shocked:

---

The fact that those percentages means the game will STILL not be playable fully maxed out at 60fps high resolution. Something most of us have wanted to do for two years and this makes it FOUR gpu line-ups later(8800/2900, 9800/3870, GTX280/4870, and now Rv870/GTX380). That's if you can count the 9800/3870 as another line up, but ATi/NVidia sure did.

So yes, we're definitely a bit disappointed here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

I agree on both points. And we should keep in mind that the final retail of Crysis was actually watered-down when it comes to graphics relative to what it was in the development process.

5870's Crysis performance is nowhere as good as I hoped for.

But there's some serious discrepancy in these charts.

Look at LP Colonies 8xAA 16xAF in 285/295 vs 5870 charts.

In 285 vs 5870 chart, 5870 looks 2.6x faster than GTX 285 in LP Colonies 8xAA 16xAF

And in 295 vs 5870 chart, 5870 looks slower than 295 (0.8x of its performance)

So if we say 5870 is 1x, then GTX 285 is 0.38x, and GTX 295 is 1.25x?

How can 295 be 3.5 times faster than 285? Isn't this some serious discrepancy?

---

Easy, driver bugs. There's a lot of cases in games where certain AA/AF combinations trigger issues, like huge loss of performance(sometimes AA works on one card, but chokes the one above it thanks to driver issues), or in the case of the GTX 295 SLi breaks(Wolfenstien is an example of this). That's why the best we can do is wait for the full reviews, as they are sure to cite any issues or show anything unsual about numbers acquired.... I really hope those crysis numbers are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitriman

wow talk about overreacting, you're not looking at some facts here, GTX295 has more memory, is a dual gpu, and yet the SINGLE 5870 is at least as competitive and mostly better in all other benchmarks, you can count on one hand the amount of games where it loses and by a small margin.

Crysis is not the only benchmark in the world. Besides, its been favorable to Nvidia architecture since the get go (remember nvidia helped develop the game ;) )

This card is competive against a GTX295, what else could you ask for?

Besides, if nearly 3 teraflops can't max our Crysis, I have a feeling the problem is not the graphics card...:rolleyes:

---

Crysis isn't the only benchmark, but how many other games right now are still unplayable maxed out even current hardware? Most people still rocking the old 8800GTX's haven't had the need to upgrade because they still play everything fine! Nothing else has looked as good as crysis, and no other game has brought hardware down like crysis... Thus, yes our eyes are on it's performance.

Also, it has been stated time and time again, the problem IS the hardware and not the engine. No other game has that many shaders, that far of a draw distance, that caliber of special effects, that many polygons, that much effected by the physics, AND that high resolution of textures at the same time. It was made for future hardware, but sadly that deal was sealed right before the sudden slow-down in hardware acceleration, which began when ATi realized they couldn't continue to compete in the high-end after the R600 costed them way more than they ever made back off of it.

In short, Crysis is the only bench that gives us a glimpse of what future games will really push these cards to, and as such it's the numbers most of us care most about. IF any other game tried to push that level of detail, you wouldn't be able to max that out either...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

The fact that those percentages means the game will STILL not be playable fully maxed out at 60fps high resolution. Something most of us have wanted to do for two years and this makes it FOUR gpu line-ups later(8800/2900, 9800/3870, GTX280/4870, and now Rv870/GTX380). That's if you can count the 9800/3870 as another line up, but ATi/NVidia sure did.

So yes, we're definitely a bit disappointed here.

---

So you think the problem is with the graphics cards?

I hope that GT300 will finally enable Crysis and Stalker playable at 2560x1600, maxed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

The fact that those percentages means the game will STILL not be playable fully maxed out at 60fps high resolution. Something most of us have wanted to do for two years and this makes it FOUR gpu line-ups later(8800/2900, 9800/3870, GTX280/4870, and now Rv870/GTX380). That's if you can count the 9800/3870 as another line up, but ATi/NVidia sure did.

So yes, we're definitely a bit disappointed here.

---

Maybe just you and a few feel disappointed about the HD5870 performance. It's hard to pass such judgment based on those specific 2 games, why don't we just wait for official benchmarks with more real, detail numbers?
Remember when there were some rumors about the HD5870 40-60% faster than the HD4870 and people were whinning about it and now the expected performance is much much better, comparable to the HD4870X2 and GTX295 and what do we have here? still disappointment. IMO this card is a nice performer for that price point and I bet it will sell like hot cake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xXxDieselxXx

Why comparing against GTX285 and not GTX295? wondering here...

---

well price wise its against that not the 295 + the 295 is dual gou so only comparason for that would be sli/xfire/dual gpu cards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitriman

So you think the problem is with the graphics cards?

---

driver kinks and early drivers.

a couple of driver revisions, and there be more stable crossover data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

The fact that those percentages means the game will STILL not be playable fully maxed out at 60fps high resolution. Something most of us have wanted to do for two years and this makes it FOUR gpu line-ups later(8800/2900, 9800/3870, GTX280/4870, and now Rv870/GTX380). That's if you can count the 9800/3870 as another line up, but ATi/NVidia sure did.

So yes, we're definitely a bit disappointed here.

---

Well I guess it all comes down to individual expectations. We all knew HD 5870 will be more or less 2 x HD 4870 so performance is exactly where I expected it to be.

I can understand your frustration with Crysis, but saying that 330mm2 GPU beating 2 x what 500mm2? in some cases by a large margin is hardly disappointing. And all that for less than what GTX 295 costs.

You can always go for HD 5870 X2 though ;)) :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitriman

So you think the problem is with the graphics cards?

---

Yes, I think so. It has been two years since Crysis came out and those two years saw 3 new generations of GPUs but still nothing even comes close to the awesome graphics and the gigantic scope of Crysis.

Obviously, it's because of consoles - their hardware is fixed and since the gaming industry is driven by consoles no one makes a game that'll really push the PC to its full potential.

Crysis was made to be the best looking game ever and was designed solely for the PC and to push it to its full limits. No other game has done that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitriman

So you think the problem is with the graphics cards?

---

Long story short...Yes.

Neither company has put the emphasis on the high end that they were doing with the huge jumps up until ATi couldn't keep up in the high end battle any longer, which slowed things down by half when it comes to the speed increases per generation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004

well price wise its against that not the 295 + the 295 is dual gou so only comparason for that would be sli/xfire/dual gpu cards

---

Didn't stop people from comparing the 4870 x2 to the GTX 280, did it?

Most of us compare the top-end of NVidia with the top-end from ATi, regardless of if it's dual-gpu or not. Myself, I still refuse to presently buy dual-gpu cards(although, with the price of the 4850x2 it has been tempting) because one little driver bug and you lose half the performance.

Either way, I'm still disheartened by these numbers... Guess the HD 4850 will have to last me a bit longer than I hoped.

A good summary right here: (translated)
http://translate.google.com/translat...state0=&swap=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

Long story short...Yes.

Neither company has put the emphasis on the high end that they were doing with the huge jumps up until ATi couldn't keep up in the high end battle any longer, which slowed things down by half when it comes to the speed increases per generation.



Didn't stop people from comparing the 4870 x2 to the GTX 280, did it?

Most of us compare the top-end of NVidia with the top-end from ATi, regardless of if it's dual-gpu or not. Myself, I still refuse to presently buy dual-gpu cards(although, with the price of the 4850x2 it has been tempting) because one little driver bug and you lose half the performance.

Either way, I'm still disheartened by these numbers... Guess the HD 4850 will have to last me a bit longer than I hoped.

---

im not those people i just go for single cards/dual cards as diff then i also do it by price.. like a £300 card should not be compared to a £400 card and vice versa

(and I agree, ill never have a dual gpu card thats another reason why I separate them too many problems from both sides)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004

im not those people i just go for single cards/dual cards as diff then i also do it by price.. like a £300 card should not be compared to a £400 card and vice versa

(and I agree, ill never have a dual gpu card thats another reason why I separate them too many problems from both sides)

---

XS compares top product with top product, its just how XS rolls :D

Normal consumers just go for good old price/perf.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. And price/perf then 5850 kinda pwns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

Long story short...Yes.

Neither company has put the emphasis on the high end that they were doing with the huge jumps up until ATi couldn't keep up in the high end battle any longer, which slowed things down by half when it comes to the speed increases per generation.

---

Do you believe that we would be having faster GPUs IF R600 had been much better and the industry wouldn't have had it's temporary "slowdown" back then? If so, how do you back it up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaredpace

http://www.czechgamer.com/pics/clank...hd5870hawx.jpg

---

I call bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: :down:

The numbers for GTX 285 are about right, between 50-60fps at 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF; numbers for HD 4870 X2 are too high, should be lower, also 55-65fps. Single HD 4890 sucks in HAWX... 28fps, in that chart it's faster than GTX 285...
source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid..._13.html#sect2

here another source with HAWX 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g....W.X,1337.html
GTX 285: 58.90
HD 4890: 37.90
HD 4870X2: 63.90

bottom line: GTX 285 is faster than HD 4890 in HAWX.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flopper

cant wait for full NDA to drop.

---

when does it end , what date ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Do you believe that we would be having faster GPUs IF R600 had been much better and the industry wouldn't have had it's temporary "slowdown" back then? If so, how do you back it up?

---

Quite simple... If the R600 had been able to compete with the 8800GTX, do you really think the next cycle from NVidia would've been the 9800GTX and that ATi would've followed the 2900 with the 3870?

The cycle we were on was 100% increase(in some cases more) for multiple years, as soon as one company couldn't sustain it that cycle dropped the very next round... Doesn't take rocket science to figure out why, as NVidia didn't have a push to keep it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmke

I call bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: :down:

The numbers for GTX 285 are about right, between 50-60fps at 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF; numbers for HD 4870 X2 are too high, should be lower, also 55-65fps. Single HD 4890 sucks in HAWX... 28fps, in that chart it's faster than GTX 285...
source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid..._13.html#sect2

here another source with HAWX 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g....W.X,1337.html
GTX 285: 58.90
HD 4890: 37.90
HD 4870X2: 63.90

bottom line: GTX 285 is faster than HD 4890 in HAWX.

---

The .1 of ATI hardware does makes some difference in this game so are you sure both reviews are at same settings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragy2k

when does it end , what date ??

---

Sept. 22 North America, 23 for Europe, same as the hard launch. IIRC.

No idea on Asia's date, albeit its where I'm at.
But I'd speculate that earlier than Sept. 22/23 there'll be some guys running those cards, proly w/ beta/leaked drivers.:D
Unless AMD will release official drivers before 22nd.:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmke

I call bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: :down:

The numbers for GTX 285 are about right, between 50-60fps at 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF; numbers for HD 4870 X2 are too high, should be lower, also 55-65fps. Single HD 4890 sucks in HAWX... 28fps, in that chart it's faster than GTX 285...
source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid..._13.html#sect2

here another source with HAWX 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g....W.X,1337.html
GTX 285: 58.90
HD 4890: 37.90
HD 4870X2: 63.90

bottom line: GTX 285 is faster than HD 4890 in HAWX.

---

whats your opinion of their 3DV bench?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prava

That graph is crap. Obviously they centered all the GTX285 results and cut the lower part of the graph to create the image that 5870 is like 500%...which is not.

---

Thats why there was a dotted line....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Do you believe that we would be having faster GPUs IF R600 had been much better and the industry wouldn't have had it's temporary "slowdown" back then? If so, how do you back it up?

---

What about this perspective: 8800 GTX was released in 2006, and no single card had meaningfully surpassed it until 2008?

I think it's obvious that it's initiated by 2900XT's failure. If 2900XT had been able to compete with 8800GTX (instead of 8800 GTS) that would mean that 3870 would be about fast as a GTX 285 (with the old speed of acceleration - 2x the old generation), a 4870 would be 1.5 times faster than a GTX 295; and finally a 5870 would be 3 times faster than the GTX 295. But instead it's now about the same or slightly faster than a 295. A 5870x2 ? Would be 5 times.

Obviously all this is not because of a single failure (R600). R600 was just what "marked" the beginning of this "slow acceleration era". Certainly R600's failure was a factor in this slowness but we're talking about 3x slowness relative to older acceleration ratios, so it should be something deeper than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmke

I call bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: :down:

The numbers for GTX 285 are about right, between 50-60fps at 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF; numbers for HD 4870 X2 are too high, should be lower, also 55-65fps. Single HD 4890 sucks in HAWX... 28fps, in that chart it's faster than GTX 285...
source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid..._13.html#sect2

here another source with HAWX 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g....W.X,1337.html
GTX 285: 58.90
HD 4890: 37.90
HD 4870X2: 63.90

bottom line: GTX 285 is faster than HD 4890 in HAWX.

---

I believe thats at dx 10... 10.1 ati cards get a noticible boost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragy2k

when does it end , what date ??

---

22nd iirc same time people seem to think the carda are hitting the shelves, we will see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

The fact that those percentages means the game will STILL not be playable fully maxed out at 60fps high resolution. Something most of us have wanted to do for two years and this makes it FOUR gpu line-ups later(8800/2900, 9800/3870, GTX280/4870, and now Rv870/GTX380). That's if you can count the 9800/3870 as another line up, but ATi/NVidia sure did.

So yes, we're definitely a bit disappointed here.



Easy, driver bugs. There's a lot of cases in games where certain AA/AF combinations trigger issues, like huge loss of performance(sometimes AA works on one card, but chokes the one above it thanks to driver issues), or in the case of the GTX 295 SLi breaks(Wolfenstien is an example of this). That's why the best we can do is wait for the full reviews, as they are sure to cite any issues or show anything unsual about numbers acquired.... I really hope those crysis numbers are wrong.



Crysis isn't the only benchmark, but how many other games right now are still unplayable maxed out even current hardware? Most people still rocking the old 8800GTX's haven't had the need to upgrade because they still play everything fine! Nothing else has looked as good as crysis, and no other game has brought hardware down like crysis... Thus, yes our eyes are on it's performance.

Also, it has been stated time and time again, the problem IS the hardware and not the engine. No other game has that many shaders, that far of a draw distance, that caliber of special effects, that many polygons, that much effected by the physics, AND that high resolution of textures at the same time. It was made for future hardware, but sadly that deal was sealed right before the sudden slow-down in hardware acceleration, which began when ATi realized they couldn't continue to compete in the high-end after the R600 costed them way more than they ever made back off of it.

In short, Crysis is the only bench that gives us a glimpse of what future games will really push these cards to, and as such it's the numbers most of us care most about. IF any other game tried to push that level of detail, you wouldn't be able to max that out either...

---

ARMA2, Operation Flashpoint, Mortal Online, Vanguard...etc.


Crysis was sold as eyecandy... there is no game to be had!