The GT300/Fermi Thread - Part 2!

Printable View

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

03-07-2010, 10:17 AM
annihilat0r

well if one is 1fps and the other is 3 then 2 fps means much :D

683/734 means a 10% increase... not too bad
03-07-2010, 10:18 AM
eric66

Quote:

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

if that happens (prices dropping to $200) then it's the only time 5830 could be considered for purchase. A $240 card can't be counted as a good card because "it's going to drop in price". The 5830 release sucks and as far as I know the only site to actually praise this launch was HardoCP. "perfect performance perfect price" lolz

performance is there but price sucks (i blame useless expensive 5870 pcbs) thats true and amd cut too much may be but that card will be only dx 11 card with acceptable performance and affordable price
03-07-2010, 10:21 AM
eric66

Quote:

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

Yeah, that was probably the worst graph ever. Looks like a 100% increase from 5870 but in reality it's less than 10%.

yeah just saw mads name on graphs so that explains great looking green bars :yepp:
03-07-2010, 10:28 AM
annihilat0r

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

performance is there but price sucks (i blame useless expensive 5870 pcbs) thats true and amd cut too much may be but that card will be only dx 11 card with acceptable performance and affordable price

"performance is good but price is not" is complete nonsense. The only case this could be true if it was the fastest card ever built or something like that.

When its performance is in the middle of somewhere, performance and PRICE are the two variables in the kick-ass-card function. Its priced $240 so its performance is not good at all, it is bad. If it was priced $200 its performance would be "good" and even then not extremely so
03-07-2010, 10:28 AM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmore

I think it's much more interesting to see what the frame rates will be like in an in-game benchmark run with the use of FRAPS for example. Do that run for a minute or so, start at around a minute into the game and repeat 5 times to take the average. That's what I want to see.

Exactly. Those min fps values are often I/O related (loading scene) and not strictly GPU related. The scenario you describe above is good starting point.
Looking at the posted numbers for the 470 model I'm really not impressed. The chip is huge,hot and clearly not designed with gaming in mind(but GPGPU). It will be inefficient in gaming from the perf./watt/$ POV and AMD scored a big win with the "small&scalable" approach. AMD will have little trouble competing with top fermi model even with single turbo clocked Cypress... And the 6xxx series refresh is not even here...
03-07-2010, 11:04 AM
Piotrsama

Quote:

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4064/bbbbbbbn.jpg

I was thinking "wow, ownage"...
Then I realized what a curious graph that unigine one is :rofl:
03-07-2010, 11:04 AM
Dimitriman

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

Exactly. Those min fps values are often I/O related (loading scene) and not strictly GPU related. The scenario you describe above is good starting point.
Looking at the posted numbers for the 470 model I'm really not impressed. The chip is huge,hot and clearly not designed with gaming in mind(but GPGPU). It will be inefficient in gaming from the perf./watt/$ POV and AMD scored a big win with the "small&scalable" approach. AMD will have little trouble competing with top fermi model even with single turbo clocked Cypress... And the 6xxx series refresh is not even here...

You mean 5000 series "refresh"

6k series will not be a refresh, as stated many times by AMD since last year or maybe longer than that. New architecture, most likely Q4 launch with Q1 availability.

Now a "5890" with 1Ghz clock should compete with the Fermi just fine although I'm afraid of what AMD will charge for that one.
03-07-2010, 11:07 AM
Yvese

Really, comparing two cards that don't have the same mem size at high resolutions is just silly. Of course a 1GB card is going to lose vs a higher memory card at 2560 res.

Come back with a 2GB 5870 comparison then we can see realistic results. Sadly, both cards don't exist for consumers atm :ROTF:
03-07-2010, 11:31 AM
Chumbucket843

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

Exactly. Those min fps values are often I/O related (loading scene) and not strictly GPU related. The scenario you describe above is good starting point.
Looking at the posted numbers for the 470 model I'm really not impressed. The chip is huge,hot and clearly not designed with gaming in mind(but GPGPU). It will be inefficient in gaming from the perf./watt/$ POV and AMD scored a big win with the "small&scalable" approach. AMD will have little trouble competing with top fermi model even with single turbo clocked Cypress... And the 6xxx series refresh is not even here...

where did you get the idea fermi was designed without gaming/graphics in mind? it has one of the biggest firsts for graphics: parallel setup. ATi has some patents on this too so we might see that in their future gpu's. double precision isnt as fast on geforce and the caches are used for graphics. there isnt much gpgpu hardware holding back graphics. they are not that different anyways.

read the graphics whitepaper.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_86775.html
03-07-2010, 11:36 AM
Marios

GTX 470 with 220W TDP doing 10% worse than 5870? No thanks.
03-07-2010, 11:55 AM
jam2k

LOL @ these cherry picked benchmarks @2560x1600 where the 5870 is obviously running out of memory.
03-07-2010, 12:07 PM
mibo

Quote:

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

Some guy at DH posted these, have you seen this before?
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4064/bbbbbbbn.jpg

I would call this "betraying your readers". The GTX470 is less than 10% faster in Unigine what is not represented by the graph at all.
03-07-2010, 12:15 PM
annihilat0r

yeah, it looks like the performance slides from both AMD and Nvidia. An independent reviewing site shouldn't do things like this
03-07-2010, 12:44 PM
Marios

The reviewer gave numbers, not graphs.
03-07-2010, 12:45 PM
zerazax

It's only the Unigine one that's off, and the scores are misleading: 29 vs 27FPS is not 734/683

Anyways, min fps on one Crysis Warhead run? He should have run it at least 3 times, to eliminate the possibility that it was a single hitch or I/O error for example. Then again, PHK got in trouble for biased benching the GTX2xx's vs the RV770 back in the day./shrug
03-07-2010, 12:48 PM
annihilat0r

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerazax

the scores are misleading: 29 vs 27FPS is not 734/683

Hahahahaha what? 29/27 is equal to 734/683. Who cares if its 2900 to 2700 or 29 to 27? The difference is the same.
03-07-2010, 12:49 PM
jmke

Quote:

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

Some guy at DH posted these, have you seen this before?

of course I've "seen" them before, made them from the data posted in this thread... :rolleyes:
http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f...website-70508/

Quote:

Originally Posted by SimBy

I love the Unigine graph. It almost looks like it's done by nV ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

love how they used score instead of fps same chinese numbers but with awesome bars :ROTF: difference was 2 fps as much i remember :ROTF:

Quote:

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

Yeah, that was probably the worst graph ever. Looks like a 100% increase from 5870 but in reality it's less than 10%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric66

yeah just saw mads name on graphs so that explains great looking green bars :yepp:

do I detect sarcasm? ;p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotrsama

I was thinking "wow, ownage"...
Then I realized what a curious graph that unigine one is :rofl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mibo

I would call this "betraying your readers". The GTX470 is less than 10% faster in Unigine what is not represented by the graph at all.

blame Excel 2007 :(
for the other charts it auto-scaled the values correctly, starting at 0, that's how I like all my charts (check www.madshrimps.be charts if you don't believe me);
for the last one it didn't start from 0 for some reason :shrug:

ah well... thing to take away from those chinese benchmarks is that GTX 470 is slower than HD 5870, no matter what synthetic benchmark output says
03-07-2010, 12:54 PM
LiquidReactor

Quote:

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

Some guy at DH posted these, have you seen this before?

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1312/aaaayo.jpg

:rolleyes:

What...GTX 470 is worse then GTX 295 by those numbers. :down:
03-07-2010, 01:00 PM
annihilat0r

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidReactor

What...GTX 470 is worse then GTX 295 by those numbers. :down:

This is getting ridiculous. At launch the highest Cypress chip (5870) was slower than the x2 version of the latest generation. (4870x2 > 5870) Now it's a problem that 470 (not even 480) is slower than a GTX 295?
03-07-2010, 01:07 PM
mapel110

Quote:

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

This is getting ridiculous. At launch the highest Cypress chip (5870) was slower than the x2 version of the latest generation. (4870x2 > 5870) Now it's a problem that 470 (not even 480) is slower than a GTX 295?

Yes, because ATI launched a mid range chip with 2.15 Billion Transistor and nvidia is releasing a real high end monster with 3 Billion Transistors.
03-07-2010, 01:13 PM
annihilat0r

Since when a 5870 is midrange and a GTX 470 is a "real high end monster"? That's funny
03-07-2010, 01:23 PM
LiquidReactor

Quote:

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

This is getting ridiculous. At launch the highest Cypress chip (5870) was slower than the x2 version of the latest generation. (4870x2 > 5870) Now it's a problem that 470 (not even 480) is slower than a GTX 295?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapel110

Yes, because ATI launched a mid range chip with 2.15 Billion Transistor and nvidia is releasing a real high end monster with 3 Billion Transistors.

Well thats cause ATI plainly screwed. In three weeks we will know if same happened with nVidia.
03-07-2010, 01:27 PM
Andrea deluxe

edit
03-07-2010, 01:34 PM
zerazax

Quote:

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

Hahahahaha what? 29/27 is equal to 734/683. Who cares if its 2900 to 2700 or 29 to 27? The difference is the same.

Oops, you're right, I screwed up my math :rofl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidReactor

Well thats cause ATI plainly screwed. In three weeks we will know if same happened with nVidia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapel110

Yes, because ATI launched a mid range chip with 2.15 Billion Transistor and nvidia is releasing a real high end monster with 3 Billion Transistors.

Uh, and how do you guys know that games aren't reaching the limits of shading/texture power? Neither side might have "screwed up", it might be that hardware is reaching a saturation point
03-07-2010, 01:47 PM
kemo

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerazax

Uh, and how do you guys know that games aren't reaching the limits of shading/texture power? Neither side might have "screwed up", it might be that hardware is reaching a saturation point

Saturation point is when you switch from a 5870 to a 5970 in a game supporting crossfire and gets the same fps , then overclock your CPU and keep getting the same fps :D

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