ATI Aiming For R300 Deja-Vu: Officially Launches 4800 Campaign

Printable View

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

06-13-2008, 08:35 AM
Shintai

I prefer gaming numbers over vantage or 3dmark. The 2 just gets boring too fast compared to a game :p:
06-13-2008, 08:38 AM
Extelleron

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

I would never take a tone that pessismistic against an Nvidia fan, because there are rumours out there that the 4870 might end up being $349 due to GDDR5 cost.

In addiiton, the slides show 20-40% and you need to half those to get the unbiased marks, so 10-20% at max.

The GTX 260 is cause for worry for ATI, as well as a reasonably priced 9900GTX in July.

ATI, by no means, has it easy, but neither does Nvidia. I just go around and dispell the myths until the reviews come out :rofl:

Perkam

I never said anybody had it easy. But I'm not so sure the HD 4870 and GTX 260 are going to be priced anywhere close, no matter what the performance is.

Obviously the GT200 GPU costs $100-120 supposedly, which already means prices must be high just to break even. And the GTX 260 has 896MB of memory - it may be GDDR3, but that's still a lot of memory and it is fairly fast GDDR3 (2GHz). I would think that it is likely 512MB of slow GDDR5, as found on the 4870, wouldn't be more expensive than 896MB of fairly fast GDDR3, as found on the 260. So I wouldn't cite memory costs being something AMD has to worry about, at least versus the GTX 260.

IMO, if GTX 260 is anywhere close to the HD 4870 in price, then AMD has really won the battle. nVidia simply isn't going to win with a card selling for $400 or less that is based on the largest GPU in history, has a huge/complex PCB, 896MB of memory, and a huge cooler.

AMD should worry more about G92b than GTX 260 IMO, but I don't think they need to worry about 9900GTX capturing the performance crown in that market from the 4870. ATI has to worry most IMO about competition to the much weaker 4850 model, which may be pushed down to $150 if nVidia prices G92b competitively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
If that was intended to me, I will be so pleased when I'll show you all that Quad@4Ghz plus 8800GT@stock surpasses 15k (as as I manage to be able to run 3dmark2006 on Vista, OpenAl problems FTL).

And that means what exactly? I've said 3D Mark 06 is useless, I couldn't care less if the HD 4850 got 0 in 3D Mark 06. Vantage + games matter, and in Vantage, HD 4850 is outscoring 9800GTX by a margin.
06-13-2008, 08:42 AM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

I prefer gaming numbers over vantage or 3dmark. The 2 just gets boring too fast compared to a game :p:

What we have so far, games related:
http://diybbs.pconline.com.cn/topic.jsp?tid=8725790
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7854.html
06-13-2008, 08:44 AM
Luka_Aveiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

Nvidia First 55nm Desktop Graphics; GeForce 9800 GT
http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Nvid...0_GT/5714.html

it prety obvious :yepp:
G92b can only increase core/shader clock. There are no arquitectural changes. Overclock one G92 and you get G92b in performance numbers.
Actualy by this, the clocks look similar to a standart 8800GT:
http://www.nordichardware.com/image3.php?id=5193

3dmark 2006 gives you that, but vantage in Xtreme setings gives X2800 (tested by a user in this forum). Xtreme setings are high resolution with AA and AF. 3dmark 2006 give 1280 res, no AA, no AF.
In 3dmark 2006 GTX280 gives 17K = far from reality. Vey far. GTX280 is much faster then that
Games:
http://diybbs.pconline.com.cn/topic.jsp?tid=8725790

As stated earlier we are working on speculation, but till now any speculation gives HD 4850 = 8800GT. Only 3dmark 2006, but the same 3dmark 2006 give you GTX280 scoring very low numbers, when everyone know thats far from reality.

If we move to 3dmark Vantage Xtreme it gives HD 4850 far from 8800GT and gives GTX280 far from any other cards. Pretty obvious that vantage Xtreme setings is being more acurate then 3dmark 2006 and GTX280 proves that.

At last you made a very very good point. I don't disagree with anything you said on this post. I specially agree with you about your Vantage interpretation, and is nice to know you agree with me about HD4850=8800GT @ 3dmark2006, at least for know. :p:
(and thanks for the clarification about 9800GT, although we still don't know their final clocks, and although I really think they should have made architectural improvements with G92b in order to have a better product to fight the HD48xx and at the same time give a bit more performance @ low prices, kind of going with ATIs philosophy)

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

lol You're not a fanboy...yet :)

There are millions of Nvidia fans. I am an AMD/ATI fan, have been for a long time (or at least for as long as they have been the underdogs). You become a fanboy when you disregard the achievements of the other side completely, and begin to make statements over and over again, out of the context of the thread, and without proof.

And no it wasn't intended to you :) I'm sure an 8800GT does very well, and will give run the 4850 a run for its money, but the 4850 is no slouch and will be very worth the price, especially for all those benchers out there.

Perkam

Well, as long as ATI is the underdog and as long as I see statements defending them that are far from reality, (this 4ghz qx9650@2006 sure did that :p:) I'll keep trying to make things clear, so it might seem sometimes that I am nV biased, but I think I am not. I would really love to see a nice HD4850 performing nicely in games, but that doesn't make me stay away from reality and say it currently compares to 9800GTX @ 2006, which is clearly false, at least for now :)
Vantage seems to bring the fields a bit more interesting, so let's just see more results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

Show us 8800GT scoring X2800 in 3dmark Vantagem extreme setings ;)

I would love to, but I don't have a 1900x1200 display, don't know if I'll be able to do that :(

regards :)
06-13-2008, 08:57 AM
Unbornchild

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

What we have so far, games related:
http://diybbs.pconline.com.cn/topic.jsp?tid=8725790

Hmm, odd graph... says 3870X2 scores 24.26 but the bar is shorter than 22.99. :rolleyes:

http://www.blindnero.com/pictures/oddgraph.jpg
06-13-2008, 09:34 AM
Xello

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extelleron

IMO, if GTX 260 is anywhere close to the HD 4870 in price, then AMD has really won the battle. nVidia simply isn't going to win with a card selling for $400 or less that is based on the largest GPU in history, has a huge/complex PCB, 896MB of memory, and a huge cooler.

I don't quite understand this, what do you mean by 'win' ?

If you mean 'win the price/performance battle', then this doesn't make sense, and if you meant 'win more money from customers' then who cares [if they don't] ?
06-13-2008, 09:37 AM
Extelleron

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xello

I don't quite understand this, what do you mean by 'win' ?

If you mean 'win the price/performance battle', then this doesn't make sense, and if you meant 'win more money from customers' then who cares [if they don't] ?

:confused:

The purpose of a business is to make money. So if one business makes more than the other, the one making more money is winning.

If GTX 260 has to go down to $350 or less in price to compete with the 4870, nVidia will be making a lot less money than AMD will be, even if they are pricing it at $249 or $279.

Price/Performance, that remains to be seen. I think HD 4870 will win that war because I don't think GTX 260 will drop below $399, at least not any time soon. And it definitely won't go below $350. With the 4870 AMD has more room to manuever; they can price at $249 and still make money.
06-13-2008, 09:43 AM
grimREEFER

i dont see the point of the 4870. most ppl will just pay a bit extra for the gtx 260, or save money and get the 4850 which is essentially just an underclocked 4870.
06-13-2008, 09:44 AM
bedlamite

Well 2x lower mems clock is quite a big underclocking ;)
06-13-2008, 09:48 AM
RaZz!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unbornchild

Hmm, odd graph... says 3870X2 scores 24.26 but the bar is shorter than 22.99. :rolleyes:

http://www.blindnero.com/pictures/oddgraph.jpg

hum, the graph looks ok to me, provided that the numbers are right. the length of the graph is min+avg+max fps.

3870x2: 3,45 + 13,98 + 24,26 = 41,69
3870: 7,61 + 15,83 + 22,99 = 46,34

so 3870>3870x2 according to these numbers, exactly what the graphs show.
06-13-2008, 10:33 AM
kemist

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i dont see the point of the 4870. most ppl will just pay a bit extra for the gtx 260, or save money and get the 4850 which is essentially just an underclocked 4870.

4850 is likely bottlenecked by bandwidth in quite a few scenarios
06-13-2008, 10:39 AM
Luka_Aveiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemist

4850 is likely bottlenecked by bandwidth in quite a few scenarios

And also limited by it's default clocks...
06-13-2008, 11:02 AM
generics_user

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i dont see the point of the 4870. most ppl will just pay a bit extra for the gtx 260, or save money and get the 4850 which is essentially just an underclocked 4870.

4870 has 2 times the memory bandwith and 125 mhz higher core + GDDR5, i don'T see how the 4850 is just an underclocked 4870, no way you can clock the 50s as high as the 70s :shrug:
06-13-2008, 11:13 AM
003

Quote:

Originally Posted by generics_user

4870 has 2 times the memory bandwith and 125 mhz higher core + GDDR5, i don'T see how the 4850 is just an underclocked 4870, no way you can clock the 50s as high as the 70s :shrug:

Unless the 4850 is simply a 4870 with lower BIN GDDR3 memory, and a lowered clock speed, with a smaller cooler.
06-13-2008, 11:40 AM
Xello

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extelleron

If GTX 260 has to go down to $350 or less in price to compete with the 4870, nVidia will be making a lot less money than AMD will be, even if they are pricing it at $249 or $279.

Yeah, at the end of the day though in an all-out price war considering the financial situations of both sides i think the mean green nv team have that one wrapped up.

Personally i just want my card, at lowest price possible, i'll worry about the company's bank balance later :D
06-13-2008, 11:57 AM
artissco

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extelleron

nVidia simply isn't going to win with a card selling for $400 or less that is based on the largest GPU in history, has a huge/complex PCB, 896MB of memory, and a huge cooler.

Hmm, but how many gamers and other pc users buy stuff which one's with bigger numbers and size... Size is what matters in so many people eyes... Or price, if it's bigger then card is better...
06-13-2008, 12:34 PM
perkam

I wouldn't start comparing the 4850s to the 4870s just yet. :) Wait for actual launch and actual numbers. As Luke pointed out, the GDDR5 memory difference makes it far too difficult to make guesstimations :)

Perkam
06-13-2008, 02:26 PM
ownage

I believe this one is not posted yet.
http://www.madpixelz.net/nv/
:D
06-13-2008, 02:31 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by ownage

I believe this one is not posted yet.
http://www.madpixelz.net/nv/
:D

it was allready :p
06-13-2008, 02:34 PM
[XC] hipno650

Quote:

Originally Posted by ownage

I believe this one is not posted yet.
http://www.madpixelz.net/nv/
:D

oh boy that made my day!! for $400 a 4850 crossfire might be fun to try out:D finally put all this microstuddering to the test form myself.
06-13-2008, 02:35 PM
ownage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

it was allready :p

Hmm, stupid search option is worthless :shakes:
06-13-2008, 02:58 PM
Dark-Energy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ownage

I believe this one is not posted yet.
http://www.madpixelz.net/nv/
:D

lmao:rofl::ROTF:
06-13-2008, 03:53 PM
Kingcarcas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

I prefer gaming numbers over vantage or 3dmark. The 2 just gets boring too fast compared to a game :p:

+ Folding PPD, who cares about that slideshow:up:
06-13-2008, 04:04 PM
adamsleath

there will be so many card options on the market...3000 series probly drop in price a bit plus g92b, plus new 4xxx and gtx's...:nuts:
:confused:
06-13-2008, 04:34 PM
biohead

http://www.hpm-computer.de/index.php...n-HD-4850.html
http://www.hpm-computer.de/index.php...n-HD-4870.html

Quote:

Launch 16./17./18. Juni 2008

?

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