The ATI Radeon 5XXX Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Origin_Unknown

in what sence?

---

The GeForce 8 totally destroyed them? The RV670 was quite literally a die shrink of the R600 with a slightly higher stock core clock speed and a smaller memory bus, with DX10.1 support later added in a driver update. Clock for clock, the 2900XT is actually slightly faster than the 3870 due to the 512-bit memory bus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004

and I agree about the next series although ati won.. essentially by beating them price/perf wise

---

Yeah in price/performance maybe, although the GTX280 was still faster than the 4870 and consequently the GTX295 is faster than the 4870X2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangekiwii

8800 gtx --> 9800 gtx... what 10 20% max? 9800 gtx --> gtx280 was 50 - 60% (double some cases but few)

---

The 8800GTX (G80) competes with the 2900XT and utterly destroys it. Then ATI rolls out the 3870 which is not much faster than the 2900XT, but just much cheaper to produce and sell.

Nvidia responded with the G92 (9800GTX) which was just a tweaked version of the G80, which was also cheaper to produce and sell, and obviously still destroyed the 3870.

Then when ATI released the 4870, it was finally competitive with the 9800GTX and beat it slightly in most cases, to which nvidia responded with the 9800GTX+ which is almost as fast as the 4870, and in some cases, still a bit faster.

Then, nvidia really opened the can of whoop ass and unleashed the GTX280 which is undeniably faster than the 4870. ATI responds with the 4870X2 which was faster than the GTX280, and nvidia responded with the GTX295 which is faster still.

Now as far as single GPU cards are concerned, we have the GTX285 and 4890 which are very close in terms of performance and trade blows most of the time, with some noteworthy outliers on both sides of the fence.

i'm talking generational improvement on amds side to nvidias side... the jump from 2000 to 3000 was greater than g80 to g92

the jump from 3000 to 4000 was greater than g92 to g200


the 9800gtx+ does NOT perform better than a 4870....
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...review--asus/9

4850 and 9800gtx+ are more or less equal ... thats why nvidia released the 9800 gtx + because of the 4850 not the 4870... can of whoopass? are you for real? 4890 and gtx285 are more or less equal

4870 vs gtx280 (can of whoopass my ass) is about 10 - 20% performance difference... YEAH WHAT A CAN OF WHOOPASS costs twice as much and performs 10% better...

4870 is about equal to gtx260/gtx260 216sp


nvidias can of whoopass was not a can but more of sandvich bag full of moldy whoop ass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 003

Then when ATI released the 4870, it was finally competitive with the 9800GTX and beat it slightly in most cases, to which nvidia responded with the 9800GTX+ which is almost as fast as the 4870, and in some cases, still a bit faster.

---

In which world are you living? The 9800GTX+ was released in order to keep the HD-4850 behind, not the HD-4870. I mostly agree on the rest, though I won't call HD-3000 an utterly failure. RV670 was what R600 should have been. RV770 has proven that the arch isn't bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 003

Then when ATI released the 4870, it was finally competitive with the 9800GTX and beat it slightly in most cases, to which nvidia responded with the 9800GTX+ which is almost as fast as the 4870, and in some cases, still a bit faster.

---

Wait... are you serious? Tell me you're joking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 003

The GeForce 8 totally destroyed them? The RV670 was quite literally a die shrink of the R600 with a slightly higher stock core clock speed and a smaller memory bus, with DX10.1 support later added in a driver update. Clock for clock, the 2900XT is actually slightly faster than the 3870 due to the 512-bit memory bus.

Yeah in price/performance maybe, although the GTX280 was still faster than the 4870 and consequently the GTX295 is faster than the 4870X2.

The 8800GTX (G80) competes with the 2900XT and utterly destroys it. Then ATI rolls out the 3870 which is not much faster than the 2900XT, but just much cheaper to produce and sell.

Nvidia responded with the G92 (9800GTX) which was just a tweaked version of the G80, which was also cheaper to produce and sell, and obviously still destroyed the 3870.

Then when ATI released the 4870, it was finally competitive with the 9800GTX and beat it slightly in most cases, to which nvidia responded with the 9800GTX+ which is almost as fast as the 4870, and in some cases, still a bit faster.

Then, nvidia really opened the can of whoop ass and unleashed the GTX280 which is undeniably faster than the 4870. ATI responds with the 4870X2 which was faster than the GTX280, and nvidia responded with the GTX295 which is faster still.

Now as far as single GPU cards are concerned, we have the GTX285 and 4890 which are very close in terms of performance and trade blows most of the time, with some noteworthy outliers on both sides of the fence.

---

Heh. Heheheh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 003

The GeForce 8 totally destroyed them? The RV670 was quite literally a die shrink of the R600 with a slightly higher stock core clock speed and a smaller memory bus, with DX10.1 support later added in a driver update. Clock for clock, the 2900XT is actually slightly faster than the 3870 due to the 512-bit memory bus.

Yeah in price/performance maybe, although the GTX280 was still faster than the 4870 and consequently the GTX295 is faster than the 4870X2.

The 8800GTX (G80) competes with the 2900XT and utterly destroys it. Then ATI rolls out the 3870 which is not much faster than the 2900XT, but just much cheaper to produce and sell.

Nvidia responded with the G92 (9800GTX) which was just a tweaked version of the G80, which was also cheaper to produce and sell, and obviously still destroyed the 3870.

Then when ATI released the 4870, it was finally competitive with the 9800GTX and beat it slightly in most cases, to which nvidia responded with the 9800GTX+ which is almost as fast as the 4870, and in some cases, still a bit faster.

Then, nvidia really opened the can of whoop ass and unleashed the GTX280 which is undeniably faster than the 4870. ATI responds with the 4870X2 which was faster than the GTX280, and nvidia responded with the GTX295 which is faster still.

Now as far as single GPU cards are concerned, we have the GTX285 and 4890 which are very close in terms of performance and trade blows most of the time, with some noteworthy outliers on both sides of the fence.

---

Wow, you've got so many things wrong there. First of all 9800GTX+/GTS250 is as fast as a 4850 and thus a 4870 (1GB) is 20-30% faster - actually as fast as the GTX260 (216SP). The fact that Nvidia had to increase the SP-count from 192 to 216 to compete with the 4870 has gone unnoticed by you I assume.

Also, the GTX280 and GTX260 were released prior to the 4870 launch. Nvidia had to drop the prices with 150-200$ a month later and gave cash backs to early adopters. The 9800GTX+ was released after the 4850 to give it competition since the 9800GTX was loosing...

So the alleged can of whop ass from Nvidia was never there. AMD/ATI opened some cans, first 4850/199$ beating 9800GTX/(don't know exact price but 8800GT seemed to be around 200$ at that time) and 4870(512MB)/299$ trading blows with GTX260(192SP)/450$ and then 4870X2 which took the performance crown. GTX275 was also a response to what AMD/ATI did - the 4890.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telperion

Wait... are you serious? Tell me you're joking.

---

Are you trying to suggest that the 3870 is in any way comparable to the 9800GTX?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FischOderAal

The 9800GTX+ was released in order to keep the HD-4850 behind, not the HD-4870.

---

Ah you are correct, I got that mixed up. Well most of what I said is still relevant. The 4870 is only ~30% faster than the 4850 and the GTX280 is faster than the 4870 so it mostly holds true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 003

Are you trying to suggest that the 3870 is in any way comparable to the 9800GTX?

---

You should read a few of the replies made here and maybe surf over to Anandtech to get some of your facts straight.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3341

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3415

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3340

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3334

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3408

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3354

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

So the alleged can of whop ass from Nvidia was never there. AMD/ATI opened some cans, first 4850/199$ beating 9800GTX/(don't know exact price but 8800GT seemed to be around 200$ at that time) and 4870(512MB)/299$ trading blows with GTX260(192SP)/450$ and then 4870X2 which took the performance crown. GTX275 was also a response to what AMD/ATI did - the 4890.

---

having a good performance per dollar is not opening a can of whoop ass and using prices of cards from over a year ago is completely inane. it is also important to note that 4890 is ati's single gpu flagship card while the 275 is a crippled 285.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

having a good performance per dollar is not opening a can of whoop ass and using prices of cards from over a year ago is completely inane. it is also important to note that 4890 is ati's single gpu flagship card while the 275 is a crippled 285.

---

What cards should I be using then since the only cards released this year is 4890 and GTX275... The can of whoop ass that Nvidia opened wasn't a can since AMD/ATI hade similar performance. The GTX280 was good but the 4870 (1GB) wasn't all that much slower (~10% avg at launch according to Anandtech). And the 4870X2 beat it quite easily. GTX295 isn't far superior to 4870X2 so... Adding price only magnifies the slap in the face of Nvidia when Rv770 launched but the slap would have been there even if AMD/ATI would have priced 4870 to 350-400$...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

having a good performance per dollar is not opening a can of whoop ass.

---

It is when you start outselling your competition.

Quote:

---

and using prices of cards from over a year ago is completely inane. it is also important to note that 4890 is ati's single gpu flagship card while the 275 is a crippled 285.

---

He was quoting the correct prices, as they were when the 4000 series launched, AFAIK.

Also RV790 is almost half the size of GT200 and has one-third less transistors too. That was I think the most impressive part of RV790.

The ATi architecture hasnt changed much at all over the past few generations. Its actually a VERY modular design, more parts can be added without shaking up the whole core logic. Thats what keeps making the architecture so much stronger as it shrinks. As it shrinks there is a whole lotta more room to add what ever else they need to it. It totally scales with size. Also remember this, ATi actually already has DX11 features built into the 4800 series. Its already in the architecture, but since Nvidia wouldnt implement all DX10 features it forced DX10 to be a half @ss standard. Thats where ATi DX10.1 comes from, its already in the core. DX11 is just the leftover features of DX10 that didnt get proper release.

I hope they get their driver's together,I keep getting the atiogl.dll error when I play the cod 1 using ccc 9.8.:mad: :down: :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 003

Then when ATI released the 4870, it was finally competitive with the 9800GTX and beat it slightly in most cases, to which nvidia responded with the 9800GTX+ which is almost as fast as the 4870, and in some cases, still a bit faster.

Then, nvidia really opened the can of whoop ass and unleashed the GTX280 which is undeniably faster than the 4870. ATI responds with the 4870X2 which was faster than the GTX280, and nvidia responded with the GTX295 which is faster still.

---

Umm...I dont know where you got your info from but you are dead wrong.

HD 4850 =/~ 9800GTX+ or >>>9800GTX

HD 4870 1Gb = GTX 260c216

HD 4870x2 >>> GTX 280 or =/~ GTX 295 (at stock speeds). GTX 295 does usually have better overclocking head room though.

If the 5870 is indeed faster than the GTX295, prices should tumble for all existing cards considerably

Also, nvidia will be in a world of trouble. Funny how they always reacted to every GPU ATI released hastily. 4850 was met with a 9800GTX+, 4890 made them put together a GTX275...what are they going to do now? overclock the GTX295 and cal it the GTX299 Ultra? Zzz

Quote:

---

with DX10.1 support later added in a driver update

---

oh hello thar,can I download teh gpu over teh internezz..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightSpeed

If the 5870 is indeed faster than the GTX295, prices should tumble for all existing cards considerably

Also, nvidia will be in a world of trouble. Funny how they always reacted to every GPU ATI released hastily. 4850 was met with a 9800GTX+, 4890 made them put together a GTX275...what are they going to do now? overclock the GTX295 and cal it the GTX299 Ultra? Zzz

---

Don't forget the bundled nuclearplant and phasecooler included!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightSpeed

If the 5870 is indeed faster than the GTX295, prices should tumble for all existing cards considerably

Also, nvidia will be in a world of trouble. Funny how they always reacted to every GPU ATI released hastily. 4850 was met with a 9800GTX+, 4890 made them put together a GTX275...what are they going to do now? overclock the GTX295 and cal it the GTX299 Ultra? Zzz

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartidiot89

Don't forget the bundled nuclearplant and phasecooler included!

---

:ROTF::rofl::scope::rofl::ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesker

Also RV790 is almost half the size of GT200 and has one-third less transistors too. That was I think the most impressive part of RV790.

---

this is why I like nvidia:
nvidia cards on F@H: 4 petaflops with 16,500 gpu's
ATi cards on F@H: 1 petaflop with 10,000 gpu's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

this is why I like nvidia:
nvidia cards on F@H: 4 petaflops with 16,500 gpu's
ATi cards on F@H: 1 petaflop with 10,000 gpu's

---

This is why I don't like poor coding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

This is why I don't like poor coding.

---

haha, we all know stanford cant code for sh*t.:rofl:
this is from their FAQ:

Quote:

---

Why are the ATI x86 FLOP numbers half of the ATI native FLOP numbers?

Due to a difference in the implementation (in part due to hardware differences), the ATI code must do two force calculations where the x86, Cell, and NVIDIA hardware need only do one. This increases the overall native FLOP count for ATI hardware, but since these are not useful FLOPS in a sense, we did not include them in the x86 count.

---

besides this cuda with the new mimd architecture is going to add a huge speed up due to the fact mimd achieves maximum ipc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

haha, we all know stanford cant code for sh*t.:rofl:
this is from their FAQ:

besides this cuda with the new mimd architecture is going to add a huge speed up due to the fact mimd achieves maximum ipc.

---

Seems bias to me.:yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesker

Also RV790 is almost half the size of GT200 and has one-third less transistors too. That was I think the most impressive part of RV790.

---

And yet it consumes more power and puts out more heat than the GT200b...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaredpace

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/5...0904065937.jpg
Source:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...postcount=2223

---

oh my father:shocked:
it's grate

You do realize that is fake, right?