Same performance, much lower power draw. Sort of like HD3850-->HD4670.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xope_Poquar
Same performance, much lower power draw. Sort of like HD3850-->HD4670.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xope_Poquar
Which is great, but people are far more likely to buy the card because it has a bigger number rather than it being more efficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobsama
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobsama
http://i51.tinypic.com/2rh9oh0.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/30szg5x.jpg
If those slides are AMD genuine then BARTS performance is below 5870 (between 460 and 5850) and at the same time it has more than 150W when 5850 has 151W. I don’t see where BARTS has much lower power consumption than Evergreen.
NO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
KitGuru is much more likely :up:
Are you serious? Even the 4870X2 had PCI-E on the side of the card.Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
Does this mean I will be kicking myself for just buying a 5970 card?:rofl:
Not until the 6970 comes out.
I can't be the only person that thinks this sucks. What about the enthusiast that doesn't care about power draw and wants something FASTER.
We're all overclocking capable correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by munim
If power draw is down and these cards overclock like mad, then we have no problem.
not until a high end 6970 comes out, and by then I will be willing to buy out your 5970 for some nice x-fire goodnessQuote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
As much as I love power, I also love value cards that run cool, OC well, and are cheap enough to buy 3.
Despite the retarded naming scheme, I have a feeling these new cards will be
http://comedymeltdown.com/wp-content...ss-450x337.jpg
check this out
http://www.guru3d.com/news/radeon-hd...ntally-listed/
Quote:
Originally Posted by guru3d
maybe im crazy but am I the only one who noticed the fact that there is only one Crossfire X connector on this card which is obviously pointing to a Barts part. now what im really confused about is why everyone thinks this card will be so great because to me a few things just don't add up. The first being how this card offers similar performance to a 5850 (maybe a little faster) while using the same amount of power for the same price and NOT offering Triple Crossfire solutions.... would some one please explain to me why this card is better than a 5850 for the most part.... and to who ever thinks that this will be faster than a 5870 please pass me some of what your smoking..... it has less shadders, way less TMU's, less mem bandwidth and pretty much the same clock speed....Quote:
Originally Posted by SubZero.it
as to the naming, I was really liking what AMD was doing with their naming, it was easy to understand and made sense, but this, this is bad, just plain bad. if it's not faster don't call it faster... seems simple enough, at least the renamed nvidia cards were the same performance not SLOWER.
so unless im missing something I don't see what all the fuss is about...
its done because Barts only supports dual card crossfire X.
Cayman will support quad card crossfirex
thats just the pcb, it should do 4 cards if u have some1 that makes a 2 bridge card or an x2, but ether way do u realy want more than 2 cards for anything but benching were u would not use a barts chip anywaysQuote:
Originally Posted by kuroikenshi
First of all.... new architecture. None of the numbers you read for specs matter, because its their first new architecture since R600Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Second, naming wise, things change... when the 7 series comes out, few might even remember what things were once named. It appears AMD/ATI is going back to making powerful single GPU solutions with the Cayman / 6900 series... had AMD never named the 5870X2 the 5970, people wouldnt think as much about it
Agree with value cards statement. I can't tell you how many times I've almost bought the 460 GTX in the last month. Would be my first Nvidia card since 8800gts. I love the fact it's cheap, low power, and overclocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron_Davis
5850 has been just out of my price range.
Honestly I don't know why AMD would name a card 6870 if it lacks a REAL performance increase. :shrug:
that's right, for anything else. use cayman...
Also to answer your Question Hypno..... ahh, more and bigger don't mean perf... as displayed by GF100, having more on the same die does not necessarily mean the card will perform better.
Considering Cayman is almost a double of Bart outside of ROP & buswidth, within less than 400 mm^2 limit, i think Cayman specs would be 1920 SP, 32 ROP. Might not be twice as fast as Bart, but on average, i think we can expect it to be around 60-70% faster, so the leaked 12 K Vantage Xtreme score seems justified & correct. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
The Holland prices are preorder prices. Do you ever know preorder prices that are rationally & justifiably priced ? :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xope_Poquar
Err, Cayman in November ??? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by munim
Tell me about it...Quote:
Originally Posted by JAWS
Don't confuse low power with "lower than GF100 power".Quote:
Originally Posted by JAWS
are you out of your tree? where did they say the clock speeds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
the new chip can be clocked to perform more or less or the same as existing chips.
does anyone here think the clock speeds will happen by accident? if 6870 comes out and beats 5870 on half the benchmarks, and loses on the other half, does anyone think that will be an accident?
That's definately not true. I'd love tri-fire barts. But I don't think I'll buy them just because of how retarded the naming scheme is. I will wait for Cayman.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
It low power for a next generation 68xx series from AMD. I can easily suspect the 5850 pricing being true. E.g 259 for a 5870, I kind of predicted it. Way too high for a 6770 series, so it understandable why AMD shifted it as a higher product.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo75
Well, I still dont think this naming was right.
6770 and 6830 would have been good. That would leave Cayman room at 6850 and 6870, putting Antilles at 6970 or 6950. Leaving renamed 5770's as 6750 and renamed 5750's to 6730.
IMO, that would have been much better than this.
frankly i dont care about the naming of the card, i care about price and performance....and i get why there doing it, their just moving it up a number basically so they can charge more for the whole series.
people need to stop complaining about the naming, its all Ive heard in these threads. waaaaah
the 6870 looks sexy and for $250 its an awesome deal with the improved efficiency and smaller die. just wait for cayman XT its gonna be a sweet card which will be much deserved of the 9 series naming.