[First Look] AMD / ATI RV770 vs. NVIDIA G92-R700 ready

Attachment 79441

AMD / ATI RV770 Versus NVIDIA G92 advantage

AMD Radeon HD 4800 series in the upcoming occasion, announced RV770 comparison with the G92 under the specifications of advantages, including carrying GDDR5 memory, DirectX 10.1, 55-nanometer GPU, PCI-E2.0, UVD2 technology, PowerPlayer energy saving energy , Integrated HDMI video output, it is undeniable that, Radeon HD 4800 series of hardware features of the leading NVIDIA G92, regardless of costs such as AMD took the lead in the Radeon HD 4870 allocation of Qimonda GDDR5 memory, support more rapid frequency, more Such advantages as low power consumption, but after all, just a technical announcement significance than actual sales help, on the other hand, it also highlights the NVIDIA card technology for the forward-looking than AMD, for marketing will be part of a degree of help, and then Who UVD2 for VC-1, MPEG-2, H.264 high-definition video decoder rate has exceeded NVIDIA PureVideo HD technology.

However, some features are not immediately present advantages, such as the use of DirectX 10.1, among the game Shaodikelian support this technology, NVIDIA for PC GAME has been holding important part of the initiative, the latest assassins creed on the game because of NVIDIA Pressure, it will release updates the original DirectX 10.1 effect to DirectX 10, in other words, technical support DirectX 10.1 is still greater than the actual significance of technology announced sales help, but contribute to AMD's marketing strategy practices.
Attachment 79442
R700 more high-end desktop card early

As NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280,260 has not yet officially released, AMD estimates in the third quarter of the targeted products were not competitive, these two products included in the relevant third party said, Radeon HD 4800 series of no less than the opponent At the same level products, from the list can still see the Radeon HD 4870 listing makes NVIDIA GeForce 9800GX2 not faced pressure on the prices, the official associated Radeon HD 4850 sales, also for the current other GeForce 9800 sales prices need to take follow-up strategy, For these consumers, is a multi-Dali.
Attachment 79443

Expected to be launched Radeon HD 4870X2, 4850X2

AMD also notice Radeon HD 4800 series was published, is expected to be introduced as the single Radeon HD 3870X2 cards dual-core products, product, code-named R700, the relevant third party said that at present, although provisional, respectively Radeon HD 4870X2, 4850X2, the total memory capacity Up to 1 GB, but there are also only introduced Radeon HD 4850X2, in any case, it appears that the second half of 2008, ATI and NVIDIA's GPU battle will be intense.

Radeon HD 4800 Series Specifications
Attachment 79444

I better save up and get a Q9450 and a RV770 XT then :D

this si compared to g92 though so its really BS.... why dont they compare their $500 at launch 3870x2 to the 9800gx2 ..... or their $300 at launch 3870 to the 8800gt... i want a 4870 gddr5 dont get me wrong but this comparison is STUPID

And I want 1GB, :banana::banana::banana::banana: those 512MB.

don't we have sticked official threads for these topic??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rattle

this si compared to g92 though so its really BS.... why dont they compare their $500 at launch 3870x2 to the 9800gx2 ..... or their $300 at launch 3870 to the 8800gt... i want a 4870 gddr5 dont get me wrong but this comparison is STUPID

---

I don't get what you're trying to say......why would a marketing slide comparing R6xx products to G9x products? It's a slide deck to promote price and performance advantage of the R7XX over their competitors as well as how the new product stack replace old R6XX series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rattle

this si compared to g92 though so its really BS.... why dont they compare their $500 at launch 3870x2 to the 9800gx2 ..... or their $300 at launch 3870 to the 8800gt... i want a 4870 gddr5 dont get me wrong but this comparison is STUPID

---

How can they compare it to a product that isn't launched? Nvidia is doing the same thing in their press comparisons, comparing to their own and ATI's current generation.

FFS, Good lord, show us some mercy ppl

Edit: Just gave this marketing cr*p a quick look.
I refuse to comment on this cr*ppy marketing campaign, be it nVIDIA's, AMD's, Intel's, Matrox's, etc.

Hmm, any one else find it extremely strange that the rv770pro consumes 50w less than the rv770xt? I wonder if the 4850 will have a partially disabled rv770 die unlike the 3850 as the rv770 will be far more competitive

Why would you compare those radeon hd4xxx cards to g92 based cards?
Isn't gt200 it's competitor?

The RV770 Pro using 50W less is supposedly due to the clocks being much lower this time around for them

R700 is compared to GT200, the others are at the mainstream/performance levels where G92 is priced at right now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerazax

The RV770 Pro using 50W less is supposedly due to the clocks being much lower this time around for them

R700 is compared to GT200, the others are at the mainstream/performance levels where G92 is priced at right now

---

lower clocks + lower volts to run at those clocks i think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triple_A

Why would you compare those radeon hd4xxx cards to g92 based cards?
Isn't gt200 it's competitor?

---

GT200 competitoris R700 (dual die single pcb)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triple_A

Why would you compare those radeon hd4xxx cards to g92 based cards?
Isn't gt200 it's competitor?

---

Exactly... this is a silly comparison. :up:

They're not even in the same price brackets and how would you compare it with a card you havent even tested or seen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerazax

The RV770 Pro using 50W less is supposedly due to the clocks being much lower this time around for them

R700 is compared to GT200, the others are at the mainstream/performance levels where G92 is priced at right now

---

Still not really possible for just clocks to influence the power consumption that much, especially since gddr5 hardly consumes any power, and that at most we're looking at a 300mhz differential in clocks, that wouldn't drive up power consumption that much for the 4870. There has to either be more to it or ATI's numbers are way off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerazax

They're not even in the same price brackets and how would you compare it with a card you havent even tested or seen?

---

simple, you don't ...

Life can be so freaking simple :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jas420221

Exactly... this is a silly comparison. :up:

---

they compare it to the same price range available on the market, can't compare to a unreleased product :rolleyes:

4870 msrp is around 300$, so they compare it to the 9800 gtx i don't see the problem with this, once gt 260 is in this price bracket amd is going to lower price to g92 niveau or compare it to the gt260 :shrug:

sure it's marketing slides but they don't really lie with these slides and righ now it's a normal comparison (a little bit biased but better than most other marketing slides like sony claiming that the rsx is faster than xenos or amd telling people that barcelona pwns because it got t3h spec scores or intel showing its 4ghz pentium 4 which was supposed to pwn any amd chip :rolleyes: )

And thats what they did, they didn't compare it to GT200, but compared it to G92 a card that does exist out there that can be compared to

I thought that the 3870 was supposed to be 1GB?

the chart in a way does make sense, by the time nvidia releases their 260 and 280, ati would have the 4850x2 and 4870x2 to compete with them.

these are not good. lol look at the pictures charts whatever just look at them they are totally nonsense. something is wrong with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

Still not really possible for just clocks to influence the power consumption that much, especially since gddr5 hardly consumes any power, and that at most we're looking at a 300mhz differential in clocks, that wouldn't drive up power consumption that much for the 4870. There has to either be more to it or ATI's numbers are way off

---

Higher voltage combined with much faster clocks can easily cause that difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monkeywoman

the chart in a way does make sense, by the time nvidia releases their 260 and 280, ati would have the 4850x2 and 4870x2 to compete with them.

---

But they won't, ATI will not release the r700 cards until July as they plan to tweak their drivers based on the gtx 280's impact on the market (probably meaning whether to place emphasis on power consumption or performance)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromosto

these are not good. lol look at the pictures charts whatever just look at them they are totally nonsense. something is wrong with this.

---

Doesn't mean that at all, we had just about nothing on the rv670 and g92 until like a week or two before launch, and they were fine. Besides, nvidia continued to brag about g80 for over a year because they could get more sales through doing so. That will always happen and so don't bother taking what they mean into consideration. What tells us the most (until we see benchmarks) is the MSRP, as that should give a good estimation of performance

Unfortunately they're erroneous as well, because the 9800GTX & the 9800GX2 feature HDMI ( with audio output of course ).
Second, how come having a card with GDDR5 with lower performance than the competitors card with GDDR3 is an advantage ?
Especially when that advantage is lost when using AA/AF, which is where the GPU needs memory bandwidth the most ? :D
The G92 cards are also HDCP capable ( AMD says they're not :D ).
Best HD Video experience ? Huh ? We'll see. Unless they're speaking about tests with the default drivers settings for both cards then yes...but hey, ATi has both Noise Reduction and that color enhancement feature ( I can't remember it's marketing gimmick name, sorry ) enabled, while nVIDIA has them both disabled by default.

Quote:

---

As NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280,260 has not yet officially released, AMD estimates in the third quarter of the targeted products were not competitive, these two products included in the relevant third party said, Radeon HD 4800 series of no less than the opponent At the same level products, from the list can still see the Radeon HD 4870 listing makes NVIDIA GeForce 9800GX2 not faced pressure on the prices, the official associated Radeon HD 4850 sales, also for the current other GeForce 9800 sales prices need to take follow-up strategy, For these consumers, is a multi-Dali.

---

Say what ? :D
Spick inglisch ? :p:

P.S. First look ? LOL.
Next time call it "review" lol :D

I guess in this way, a teenage boy starring at his d*ck for the first time is "First look at sex" ? :D

The AA issue is supposed to be fixed with RV770

Pretty useless slides. Of course the R7xx will beat the G92, if not, that's pretty sad.

The RValue770 was never supposed to compete w/ G(T)200, it was always clear that RV770 will focus on G92b. RV770 is 256mm² big and G(T)200 575mm², so they play in a different league.

Anyone who thought that RV770 would compete w/ G(T)200 was just totally wrong from the start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

Still not really possible for just clocks to influence the power consumption that much, especially since gddr5 hardly consumes any power, and that at most we're looking at a 300mhz differential in clocks, that wouldn't drive up power consumption that much for the 4870. There has to either be more to it or ATI's numbers are way off

---

i gave the answer 3 post above this one :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

they compare it to the same price range available on the market, can't compare to a unreleased product :rolleyes:

4870 msrp is around 300$, so they compare it to the 9800 gtx i don't see the problem with this, once gt 260 is in this price bracket amd is going to lower price to g92 niveau or compare it to the gt260 :shrug:

---

I guess my disappointment is that they arent telling me anything new. I mean, OF COURSE the new gen card would beat or have more features than the current gen. Or at least I would hope it would. Im sure we all want a postive run from AMD/ATI. Here is top hoping! :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jas420221

I guess my disappointment is that they arent telling me anything new. I mean, OF COURSE the new gen card would beat or have more features than the current gen. Or at least I would hope it would. Im sure we all want a postive run from AMD/ATI. Here is top hoping! :up:

---

Of course they're not telling you anything new, they're not meant for you!

These slides are meant for partners and maybe OEM customers to understand the marketing position of the new products. And I'm sure there are more "depth" to the slidedeck to just FOUR slides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

Unfortunately they're erroneous as well, because the 9800GTX & the 9800GX2 feature HDMI ( with audio output of course ).

---

Audio via HDMI??

Quote:

---

Second, how come having a card with GDDR5 with lower performance than the competitors card with GDDR3 is an advantage ?

---

GDDR5=lower consumption=higher BW=less complicated PCB=cheaper card=lower prices OR higher margins...

Quote:

---

Especially when that advantage is lost when using AA/AF, which is where the GPU needs memory bandwidth the most ? :D

---

Well this is NVIDIA view=your view, and this is the reason why NVIDIA is so against programmable (Shader) AA resolve, and against DX10.1… simply their architecture is tailored for mem. BW reliant approach to AA… but that doesn’t make it universally correct ;)

Quote:

---

The G92 cards are also HDCP capable ( AMD says they're not :D ).

---

Well they are, but only if AIB chooses to implement the HDCP key on PCB, ‘cos GPU itself doesn’t has it… in contrast to ATI’s GPU’s who have two of them

Quote:

---

Best HD Video experience ? Huh ? We'll see. Unless they're speaking about tests with the default drivers settings for both cards then yes...but hey, ATi has both Noise Reduction and that color enhancement feature ( I can't remember it's marketing gimmick name, sorry ) enabled, while nVIDIA has them both disabled by default.

---

and why would NVIDA disabled them by default?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

Audio via HDMI??

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

GDDR5=lower consumption=higher BW=less complicated PCB=cheaper card=lower prices OR higher margins...

---

The power consumption difference ain't that much, and I don't really care about it.
Especially when it's too small to make a difference in my electricity bill.
Plus I prefer performance over power saving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

and why would NVIDA disabled them by default?

---

Go figure :p:
But they've been tested & of course the image quality is better with those enabled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

Yes.

---

No audio via HDMI is only made by some partners (Zotac i think).
All ATI cards do this, not some of them.

Is a totaly diferent thing :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

GDDR5=lower consumption=higher BW=less complicated PCB=cheaper card=lower prices OR higher margins...

---

Your logic doesnt hold water here.

First of all GDDR5 cost alot more than GDDR3, specially this early. The extra cost might ofset the PCB and more cost of the 448/512bit etc solution. Lower consumption? Sure, until you raised the performance part. Also at those speeds PCB cost might actually increase. Its more difficult to design a 512bit one. But you need more layers for a highspeed one. Aka GDDR5.

So in reality the card cost about the same.
In the long term it will be cheaper when GDDR5 prices falls and gets refined. But that sure aint now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v_rr

No audio via HDMI is only made by some partners (Zotac i think).
All ATI cards do this, not some of them.

Is a totaly diferent thing :yepp:

---

Audio via HDMI on any performance card=useless. What would you use it for? the HTPC? Where you would use something alot different?

Audio via HDMI= You use crappy TV speakers with poor sound quality instead of your stereo etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

i gave the answer 3 post above this one :p:

---

Thing is I'm disagreeing with what you said though, not supporting, I'm saying that lower volts and clocks aren't enough for a 50w decrease in power consumption

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triple_A

Why would you compare those radeon hd4xxx cards to g92 based cards?
Isn't gt200 it's competitor?

---

Sure, but then can you tell me how Geforce 2x0 cards compare against the ATi's 48x0 cards in terms of performance and price? No? Well i guess neither can ATi so they stuck with things they know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Your logic doesnt hold water here.

First of all GDDR5 cost alot more than GDDR3, specially this early. The extra cost might ofset the PCB and more cost of the 448/512bit etc solution. Lower consumption? Sure, until you raised the performance part. Also at those speeds PCB cost might actually increase. Its more difficult to design a 512bit one. But you need more layers for a highspeed one. Aka GDDR5.

So in reality the card cost about the same.
In the long term it will be cheaper when GDDR5 prices falls and gets refined. But that sure aint now.

---

A might here and a might there get you to a definitive conclusion.

I don't think your logic holds much water either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

But they've been tested & of course the image quality is better with those enabled.

---

They are enabled by default and you can of course change them manually, but when playing HD content (720p and above) Edge-enhancement, Color vibrance and/or Flesh tone correction are not applied in the ATIs unless you edit registry. One thing is what you can see in CCC and other drastically different is what it's actually applied to the image. With SD content yes, all those are applied. Also, all these enhancements only work with certain renderers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Audio via HDMI on any performance card=useless. What would you use it for? the HTPC? Where you would use something alot different?

Audio via HDMI= You use crappy TV speakers with poor sound quality instead of your stereo etc.

---

Anyone is discussing if is useless or crappy or not. Only that Nvidia reference cards doesn´t have that feature. That´s all.
I could also think that your comment is useless and crappy, so live with it.

Some people need to be banned from AMD/ATi threads.
Their posts are useless and usually just bashing people or the company and rarely are they true/realistic.

I was going for ATI, but when i saw what they had actually changed in the die i was a little dissapointed... Im going to hold out until both NV and ATI release their cards this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v_rr

Anyone is discussing if is useless or crappy or not. Only that Nvidia reference cards doesn´t have that feature. That´s all.
I could also think that your comment is useless and crappy, so live with it.

---

I've got 3 reference 9800GTXs here, and all of them have SP/DIF in for Audio output via HDMI ( they just don't have a "onboard" HDMI port, you need to use the DVi <-> HDMI adapter included in the package )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Audio via HDMI= You use crappy TV speakers with poor sound quality instead of your stereo etc.

---

Because no one would ever hookup HDMI to their receiver and then HDMI output from the receiver to the TV for video.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

...But you need more layers for a highspeed one. Aka GDDR5.

---

This is false. Actually pretty much everything you wrote is nonsense. GDDR5 reduces PCB costs because trace routing is more flexible due to trace length timing correction built into the modules. Power consumption is about 30% lower as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

Hmm, any one else find it extremely strange that the rv770pro consumes 50w less than the rv770xt? I wonder if the 4850 will have a partially disabled rv770 die unlike the 3850 as the rv770 will be far more competitive

---

No ATI is doing it different since the introduction of RV670. Performance scaling is done in the most easy manors. So I'm 99&#37; sure RV770Pro will be a lower clocked RV770 with GDDR3 instead of GDDR5, hence the difference in power.

RV770Pro/XT refers to the complete boards with frame buffer aswell, not only the GPU itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

Edit: Just gave this marketing cr*p a quick look.
I refuse to comment on this cr*ppy marketing campaign, be it nVIDIA's, AMD's, Intel's, Matrox's, etc.

---

totally agree... this is just some lame "we rock, nvidia sucks" marketing campaign from ati/adm.
when will they finally stop this bs and realize they only hurt their own credibility with this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

totally agree... this is just some lame "we rock, nvidia sucks" marketing campaign from ati/adm.
when will they finally stop this bs and realize they only hurt their own credibility with this?

---

It's just marketing slides. NVIDIA does the same, though theirs aren't usually so focused on comparisons with the other manufacturer.
Of course, we all know not to believe marketing BS, but to wait for benchmarks :) :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

And I want 1GB, :banana::banana::banana::banana: those 512MB.

---

i'll go the 1gb, if it helps...