Would it be a good idea to sell my non-reference 5870 and get a new 6870?
I'm not sure if it would be worth it anyways, because the 5870 is obviously faster, and all the money I get from selling the 5870 would all go towards the new 6870.
Would it be a good idea to sell my non-reference 5870 and get a new 6870?
I'm not sure if it would be worth it anyways, because the 5870 is obviously faster, and all the money I get from selling the 5870 would all go towards the new 6870.
i dont think anyone can answer that until we get some proper benchmarks done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark-Energy
i am sure that there will be 6870 vs 5870 vs 5850 vs 460 benchmarks in just a few days.
if you want MAA yes, but performance should be a bit lower sometimes, and a bit upper sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark-Energy
I would say buy a cayman, or keep your 5870 ;)
Dark-Energy: I agree with ripken204....
The 5870 is a very nice card, I'm still stuck with a 4870 so if the price is right I'll definetly be getting a 6850/70 (depending on price).
IMHO, if I already had a 58xx series card though, I'd wait a while and see how things shake out. The 69xx series should be out in November, if you can wait another month it may be worth your while to hold out and see where prices settle....
Hmm, so I should probably wait for Cayman then
I'm just concerned about how much I would get for this 5870, hopefully nothing under $300 CAD, but maybe that's too optimistic....
its new ... architecture modification ..Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillo-kun
wich includes ... new shader layout ...
adding new blu ray decoding and encoding stuff ..
and probably some other architectural stuff that we dont know yet .. so sure its only a rename .....
Way under 300, that what people are getting now without the new series out even. Make sure you sell on a techforum so people actually know the performance they are getting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark-Energy
I would sell now if you can if you want max value, but its still really risky because we don't know how much of an upgrade cayman is going to be and how expensive it is going to be. We have an idea of both but nothing certain.
Performance wise 6850 and 6870 are under 5850 and 5870. I think its better to wait for the Caymans before selling any of the Cypress's.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by halfwaythere
whyQuote:
Originally Posted by Mean Machine
because someone on the internet told soQuote:
Originally Posted by Dark-Energy
Awaiting members benchmarks...
Even if it is $500 that's still $100 less then a 5970. With 1920 I could see it matching a 5970. So you'd be getting as much performance as the top card from the last generation for less money.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
If it sells for $600 then I will be quite disappointed and most likely skip this generation. But what would you say if it ends up selling for $400 like I hoped?
If it doesn't feel like it has enough price/performance advantage over what you have now then it would be most sensible to not buy it. I stuck it out with a GTX285 until I picked up my 5970 for $300.Quote:
I don't think very many people, atleast in the know and remember last generations scalping, are going to be optimistic. I think they are going to expect long last scalping until NV responds with something. I bet alot of you guys that are interested in this card are going to buy at the first reasonable price they can find because they don't want to pay crazy scalping prices like last generation. And that my friend is a pessimism alot of us share I can imagine considering NV competition right now.
Nobody is making you buy these products. If you feel the price is too high then you should not purchase the product. People who have to buy the new product even if they feel it's priced too high hurt all of us by keeping the price elevated. Part of the recent price inflation is our fault for not exercising frugality and rationality as consumers. If a significant percentage of potential customers declined to purchase the product then they would have little choice but to drop the price.
I have been wondering about the NI architecture since it was announced. Rumors indicate it is a 4d design, but of course nothing official confirms that. We shouldn't have long before finding out the truth. I doubt that they would use a different design between Barts and Cayman.Quote:
I was probably one of the only people on this board to question, whether barts or the 6xxx in general was going to have 4d shaders(and barts has a 5d shader). Sometimes pessimism can help you see through hype and perhaps high expectations or rumors.
I try to moderate my expectations. I looked at the rumored shaders and clocks of Fermi and decided 30% faster then 5870 was probably about right. Fanboys from both sides grew a few extra wrinkles from all the frowning. But as it turns out my guess was closer then any others I heard. I always advocate moderating your expectations. But that doesn't mean automatically being pessimistic about everything. It means thinking rationally about the subject and trying to come to reasonable conclusions.
We know so little about Cayman that I have very few expectations at all, high or low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Because you trying to be a smartass,
Those three are different architectures
http://api.photoshop.com/v1.0/accoun...=1287560133000
Have a look at ATIs generations
HD38xx (320 SP, 666mil, 192mm2, 55nm)
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...3870/Archb.png
HD48xx (800 SP, 956mil, 259mm2, 55nm)
http://images.bit-tech.net/content_i...v770-block.jpg
HD58xx (1600 SP, 2.1bil, 334mm2, 40nm)
http://techreport.com/r.x/radeon-hd-...ck-diagram.jpg
HD68xx (1120 SP, 1.7bil, 255mm2, 40nm)
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/9...e8uvbwbu99.jpg
I believe now you do understand that 6870 is a reconfigured Cypress. Even AMD themselves said it.
Those of us in Aus have prices already...Some stores even list them as being in stock and available for purchase (But who knows if that is accurate or just an attempt at a price gouge pre-order stunt)
6850 lowest price is $259 (Sapphire)
http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/...?q=6850&spos=1
6870 lowest price is $288 (MSI)
http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/...?q=6870&spos=1
That is pretty cheap IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by SkItZo
Where is slide 19?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
wait 48 hours to get it at the very least would be my best guess
The rumors have always pointed to NI being a mix of the original NI front-end with the shader core of the previous generations. Nothing has been wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
First, you can already see that G80 and GT200 are pretty damn identical, so it's hardly 3 different architectures :rolleyes:. Fermi is of course new, but here's the kicker to your pointless argument:
Until you see what ATI did on the front end, which won't necessarily be known until the NDA is lifted, how can you say its any more of a reconfiguration than Nvidia? In your own diagram, one would just say GT200 is a GT200 is an expanded G80/G92 (in a similar style to 5800 from 4800). And Fermi had a large change in the shader/arithmetic part of the architecture, and not as much around it - one could say R6xx -> R7xx was the opposite, which was identical shader/arithmetic, major changes on the other stuff (such as TMU/RBEs)
So if you're going to play the "not much of an architecture game" card, one could just as easily point to other aspects of Nvidia and say the exact same thing, which was my point, but one you obviously missed :rolleyes: But that's the thing about unified shader architecture, you'll rarely see every aspect overhauled as we saw with G7x->G80 and R5xx->R600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
AMDs David Hoff have said the followingQuote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
http://www.techradar.com/news/comput...s&attr=newsall
"Hoff was also happy to speak about it's upcoming new range of DirectX 11 graphics cards. "It's certainly more than changing a sticker," he said with a grin. "I wouldn't say it's an absolute, complete from the ground up new architecture .It's a nice, different architecture."
Yes they changed the Front End and they have every right to call it 6000 if they want to but that doesn’t change the fact that 6000 is not a new architecture.
Here are some figures from some aussies:
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/sh...postcount=2196
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/sh...postcount=2186
The card in the quoted system in the second link is the 6870. Hopefully you guys can view it :up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
some proof that its not a rebrand rename yadayada thingy .... :D thanks for the link .. i couldnt find it in the other 20 or so pages of random stuff ... thanks for the linky again
This thread is full of pointless discussion...
why argue if its a complete change or a small change when we already know it wont be a direct rename?
why argue if the naming is misleading when we know its priced for mainstream and any small confusion will only last one month till cayman?
let me throw in a new topic:
will you be able to crossfire barts with cypress if you wanted?
(if so, that is what i recomend for Dark-Energy)
Hm... GTX 470 performance from a cooler and lower power draw card? Sweet!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontl1ne
Radeon HD 6870 is Twice Faster than GeForce GTX 460 in MSI Kombustor
6870
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/2...d6800score.jpg
GTX 460
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/9...tx460score.jpg
:shocked::shocked::shocked:
How much CPU affects the final results of this test???Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaul
HD 6870 - Phenom II X4 @ 4063Mhz
GTX 460 - Core 2 X9650 @ 3007Mhz
To be honest,CPUs are clocked at different frequencies(QC Deneb @ 4Ghz,QC Penryn @ 3Ghz),but that is not nearly enough to offset the more than 2x performance difference between 460 and 6870. Amazing what a GPU like Barts can pull.
edit:
ethomaz ,C2 X9650 is a QC as far as I know.
This is interesting because MSI Kombustor like FurMark is very GPU intensive and the CPU does not affect much the final score. Of course FurMark-like tests are not representative of real 3D tests like in game rendering but it shows the GPU raw power… :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by ethomaz
Also better min frame rates. I don't really think this is a very good real world benchmark, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaul
Yes to both. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Regarding MSI Kombustor benchs, how much 58xx got for that bench? Seems architecture changes are not that tiny even it is tiny bench :D
Sorry... I read just X and thought it was a dual core... so it's QX9650.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Mine...Quote:
Originally Posted by ethomaz
Stock cpu and 775/1125 gpu
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4715/komph.jpg
Yeah, right so it's irelevant, 5850 is also twice as GTX 460 in Msi Kombustor...
kombustor made for Ati xD I guess even 48xx series faster than GTX4xx in kombustorQuote:
Originally Posted by xdan
its based on Furmark, which has since the 2900s, been doing very well with the simple shaders on ATI hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dezmen
i still remember the whole fiasco where ATI cards would overheat and shut down, or throttle. and everyone is freaking out, yet none of them ever cared to realize their fps was also 50-100% faster than the competitions.
just did a test on my 4850, got 220fps average, however i only had opengl 2 or 3 to choose from, no d3d10:shrug:
http://www.geeks3d.com/20100810/gpu-...1-3-available/ here you go. same as on ss, 1.1.3 versionQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
thanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Dezmen
heres my OpenGL 2 numbers
212 min
252 avg
292 max
score: 15134
single 4850 @ 675/1150
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/9810/9436.png
oddly things didnt run at that resolution. the text was a bit blurry and i had a popup from my monitor saying i wasnt running 1080p, not sure how much that affects things
but basically ATI cards do great, and consume massive amounts of heat in these fuzzy programs
now i see that is not good bench to judge
even my 4850 beats 460GTX :D
The difference in scores seems quite close to the difference in GFLOPS between 6870 and 460 (and the other cards posted here).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaul
Some more FUD info (looks accurate): link
Quote:
We are still getting some last minute details about Barts PRO and XT. This time we can tell you that Barts PRO and XT parts feature a 255mm2 die size. This is quite good as Radeon HD 5850 and 5870 had 334mm2 size. The chip is almost 30 percent smaller and the new one consumes up to 151W in the XT version, which is less than the Radeon HD 5850 series. Radeon HD 5850 had 2.15 billion transistors while the Radeon HD 6850 and 6870 have 1.8 billion.
Radeon HD 6870 has a total memory bandwidth of 134.4 GB/s, 900 million polygon/ sec geometry throughput and 14 SIMD engines, four less than Radeon HD 5850. the total number of stream processors is 1120, while HD 5850 has 1440, the 6870 has 56 texture units, 128 Z/stencil ROPs and 32 color ROPs.
AMD claims that with a good CPU it scores 7730 in 3Dmark Vantage Extreme, most likely with a six core top notch CPU. The maximal board power is as we previously reported 151W while the idle power stays at 19W. The idle power is better than Radeon 5850's 27W while the maximal board power remains the same.
Launch day is as Friday the 22nd, as we've already said a few times. All this comes from the mouth of Eric Demers, CTO of graphics group and a very nice chap. Of course he didn't tell us this directly, but these specs is what he showed to AMD's tame press.
this rename arguing is completely pointless; when did we see completely new architectures?
ATI:
9800-X800 refresh
X1k series completely new
HD2xxx new shader part; same memory controller (2x wider)
HD3xxx tweaked shader part; different mem controller
Hd4xxx same shader, tweaked mem, bigger = refresh
HD5xxx tweaked shader (DX11; tesselation); same MC, same front end
HD6xxx tweaked shader / new shader (barts/cayman); unknown MC; new frontend
so when was the last time we saw a completely new architecture?
i think that was the x1xxx....
going by the logic of some people in here we'd call the next card X1999 XTXXXX edition v2....
if there is a major perf improvement or power efficiency improvement you can give it a new name; which has been the case since the 7xxx days with ati....
nvidia on the other hand had some very inconsistent naming in the last few years....
this post shows why Nvidia has large dies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
from G80-GT200 you gain 33% larger SIMD array (I think) The node shrink only help so much in design
and from GT200 to GF100 you gain an even larger SIMD array.
They have only kept adding to the SIMD arrays and have not taken anything out to shrink it's design size.
ATI here did this
3870-4870 did away with Ring bus and added more UDV stuff
4870-5870 did away with crossbar in there and add more powerfull tesseltion unit
5870- 6870 did away with 5:1 simd and went to 4:1 and add even more powerful tessellation unit lastly dual Rasterzisted.
(this excludes any AA and AF changes)
Yep I agree with you , and think bout it logically why would the design a new arch over and over again when there is plenty of improvement and tweaks to be had with the old arch , its not like this is the exact same thing, its the old arch with stuff readjusted, its been tweaked it uses less to do more and that is what progress is all about. I mean nvidia arent going to redo fermi from the ground up, they are going to tweak it , redo bits to deal with the issues, but they are going to call next set 5xx.
This whole arch-u-ment is pointless, it doesn't have to be a complete redesign, to be new.
they tweak and make small improvements and offer a better price/performance ratio.
if u run a company, its kinda hard to justify a Fermi approach especially since amd still runs red in the books.
however I do expect the 6970 be a little extra than last gens 5870.
I will be surprised if you can qualitatively tell the difference between 6870 and 5870.
a judge of this will be the normally ridiculous (but well intentioned) hardocp benchmarking system.
if hardocp thinks there isn't enough difference to warrant different visual settings, they will benchmark both cards at the same settings.
Yeah I just about lost it when I saw this too. LOL TWICE AS MUCH POWER!!! :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
Some MOAR pics
http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1287586369
http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1287586433
sorry if they were posted earlier
It is a bug for Kombustor:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaul
1600x1200 >>> 1920x1080 < 1920x1200 < 1920x1440 :eek:
I just called a large local computer store chain in the area to ask when they will have stock of the 6800 series and this is the reply I got: "Herpity herp herp derp... derp, maybe a month or two? We dunno, lol."
Absolutely useless, not one store can confirm when they will have stock even though the release is supposedly this Friday.
Edit, nevermind, found some comparison:Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuTnicK
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...1&limitstart=7
Taking into consideration 1080 vs 1200 vertical pixels and CPU, looks to be right between 5850 and 5870.
^^
not every game.. sometimes needs more sometimes needs less
I just scored higher then this with my 5870 :/Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Duh?Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
scored higher with my gtx 470 and the pc in sign... but i guess that the 68xx card will consume a lot less power, not that i care about that...
so as expected; 6850 @ gtx 460 level and 6870 between 5850 and 5870; pretty impressive considering the tiny die size and if prized at 200 / 250$ they'll give the 460 a run for its money!
-_-, where is Improved Tessellation ?Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Tessellation is set to normal and 6870<5870 in terms of GPU performance and better in terms of tessellation performance...Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
it might just not be limited from that, how heavy is "normal" tessellation anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
So no ringbus, no crossbar... So what are they using exactly in the 5870 :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
And the 4slot VLIW design actually increases die size, but also efficiencyQuote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
only 2 way crossfire? not good.
I don't see why you need to use 4 cards
After all, these are mid-range cards, not even high end. It's a shame they had to call it the 68xx series, and now I can totally see this causing confusion with all the tech illiterates (not saying you are, btw). I suppose Cayman will have 4 way for obvious reasons. Juniper did as well, but, I can't really see this being of any use anyway unless for the sole purpose of benching and/or record breaking, but then, Cayman would suite that area much better?
Meh, I don't really think it's that big of a deal.
Why?
Wait for 6950/70 if you want more power than 6870 x-fire....
Edit: Or non reference pcb...
GTX 460 1gb, 800/4000, i'm not to impressed by 6870...Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
http://forum.lab501.ro/attachment.ph...9&d=1287606971
That's actually quite a noticeable missing feature actually. The 5870, 4870 and 3870 all had 3 or 4 way crossfire. Heck even the 5770 had it. For the price, this is a feature they should not have skipped on.Quote:
Originally Posted by HelixPC
Didn't read all of posts, are there any info on OC room on 6850 or 70 ?
6850 will be my pick, should be good upgrade from 8800 GT :p:
Phenom x4 and 6850 should serve me some time :)
No info yet. If it is just an up-clocked and modified 5830 though, it might not have as much slack as a completely new architecture would.Quote:
Originally Posted by n!Cola
I always feel stupider after reading through these launch threads :mad:
No it is not an up-clocked and modified 5830. It's far smaller than a 5830Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Tessellation: normalQuote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Look closer next time
I said IF. But I'm sure you realize that 5830 has the same size as the rest of the Cypress line, just with some shaders disabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
performance is higher, shaders are same / or less (depending on the model); it has more ROPs and TMUs; so i guess it's not just a new 5830...Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
TMU's are both 56 on both cards. ROPs are twice as high on the 6870 though.Quote:
Originally Posted by generics_user
Don't get so worked up over it. We don't know if it really is 4d or 5d. But if it is 5d then it is probably an evolution of the cypress core. If it is 4d then it is probably a whole new architecture. I'm not saying either is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by generics_user
Edit:
If a reworked cypress is AMD's backup plan to the canceled 32nm, I can't really blame them for being conservative. It's a lot better then Nvidia's "we don't need a backup plan".
Hmm.. Looking forward to a nice 6870 vs 450's in SLI comparo.
I would love to see a benchmark with Tesselation extreme and AA 8x.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Sigh...after following this thread for so long and seeing these preview benchmarks up, I think they should've called the cards the 6840 and the 6860...I know they don't use those numbers typically, but it seems more suited as the performance is slightly below the 5850 and the 5870.
Aside from the fact that the number 4 is bad luck in a lot of circles, I don't think the naming scheme will matter much when the 6900's come out, and everyone is looking at those
That's what I mean by smaller. Barts is 255mm^2, Cypress is 334mm^2Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Right, but a 5830 just has some of the cores disabled, it started life as a potential cypress chip. They could, however, make a chip that only includes 1120 shaders from the start, based on an upgraded/modified cypress architecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Most of the rumors so far pointed to a 4d design and that's what I had hoped for. But the early numbers and AMD slides have given me pause. Perhaps we won't get the 4d arch until Cayman or even 28nm. I suppose we will find out soon enough.
That's what I mean, Barts was designed from the get-go to be smaller. One could just as easily call it a re-designed compact-er Cypress, but one could also call it a beefed up Juniper mated to a 256-bit interface.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
I think given that AMD found out about the cancellation of 32nm relatively late in the game, they decided they needed a product to fill the gap between old 40nm products and when 28nm is ready, and hence NI is going to be a half-way architecture. That is, Evergreen 4+1 shaders but the new front endQuote:
Most of the rumors so far pointed to a 4d design and that's what I had hoped for. But the early numbers and AMD slides have given me pause. Perhaps we won't get the 4d arch until Cayman or even 28nm. I suppose we will find out soon enough.
Actually that makes Cayman more interesting, because even if it isnt 4D, the fact that Cypress is (allegedly) very ineffcient despite all its functional units (its literally 2x Juniper on a single die, yet 2 x Juniper in CF beats it often), that the front-end changes might affect Cayman a lot more
Curious why the bottom box is cut off on the right side:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Anyways....
5850 725/1000, 10.4 Driver, Crossfire Disabled
http://i54.tinypic.com/vifr6b.jpg
5850 900/1050, 10.4 Driver, Crossfire Disabled
http://i52.tinypic.com/5ydi6s.jpg
I recall they made some driver improvements for 2.1 Heaven after 10.4 and being as close as these are and the bottom box being chopped I'd like to think someone just benched a 5850 at 6870 clocks.
Otherwise coming from $250 5850's a 6870 for the same price is:down:
The cut off box pretty much says its been photoshopped
Whether its relevant photoshopping or not, it doesn't say, but it doesn't help its credibility
I see what you are saying. Maybe my choice of words wasn't the best. I guess calling it a scaled up juniper or cut down cypress depends partially on if you are trying to convey a negative or positive impression. "Modified Evergreen" might be a more neutral way of putting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
I never believed the rumors about a frankenstein between cypress and NI. Making parts of two separate architectures work together would be an incredible amount of work and has so many potential pitfalls that it doesn't seem like a sound backup plan, IMO. Now they may have back-ported some of the lessons learned in developing NI to a modified Evergreen, but I doubt it would be the full NI front end.Quote:
I think given that AMD found out about the cancellation of 32nm relatively late in the game, they decided they needed a product to fill the gap between old 40nm products and when 28nm is ready, and hence NI is going to be a half-way architecture. That is, Evergreen 4+1 shaders but the new front end
Actually that makes Cayman more interesting, because even if it isnt 4D, the fact that Cypress is (allegedly) very ineffcient despite all its functional units (its literally 2x Juniper on a single die, yet 2 x Juniper in CF beats it often), that the front-end changes might affect Cayman a lot more
any shots of the heatsink yet?
But a 6870 can be OCed as well, try to compare default 5850 with default 6870 because both of them have OC potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by slaveondope
I dont think that bench was legit for one. Notice the same clocks and ~equal scores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
If it is a legit bench then this only shows clock for clock they are equal in this bench.
Secondly I dont feel we will see much high overclocking head room on the 68xx.
I expect the same ~1000-1080mhz core limit as 58xx's but we should find out for sure in the next few hours :D:up:
EDIT: I did post a default 5850 run in the first SS ;)
but i think that 5850 OC potential is significantly higher considering the very low baseclock; 5850s in ref design run up to 1ghz on the core; i think that we can't expect more than 1.1ghz from barts -> they'll end up with equal performance when overclockedQuote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
i'll stick to my 5850; it's been doing its job for a year now and i still can't see a proper replacement, never had a graphics card hold out that long :D
I thought the new front end for the hd6xxx was going to give the architecture more efficiency (clock for clock)
well it gives it.
900 Mhz 5850 (1440 shaders) = 900 Mhz Bart XT, with 1120 shaders. So i think the efficiency is there.
Those HD68X0 parts deserve HD67X0 branding, nothing more, AMD marketing failed ...
Really? Then explain where they'd put the 5770's if they're against rebranding cards? Which do you think would be the bigger PR hit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Well yes but then again AMD did have to make room for the fusion parts also i mean saying that this processor has 80 SP gpu is no good and instead they can now brand it properly like dual core cpu with HD61xxQuote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Cart before the horse. Wait a quarter see how many they sell first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Assuming the Heaven bench was legit. Where are the Vantage bench's that were leaked?Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
Id like to make a run at the same clocks to compare IF they are performance preset/ No 1920x1200 Xtreme for me:(
Could you update your driver and rerun both at default and 900MHz ?
:rofl: And leave my beloved 10.4:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
JK sure I'll run it over on my bench drive;)
Can anyone dig up some leaked Vantage/06 benchmarks with some details on cpu clocks etc:shrug: Thx:up:
well isn't there plenty of room for that in the lower levels ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
why disturbing the upper segment ?
i think that the point is that they are consistent in price more then in naming.
witch is better as one might expect higher price = higher performance
also there is smaller chip, maybe improved manufacturing of chip .. I really hope of improved OC :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu