:)
:bows: :bows: :bows: :bows: :bows: :bows: :bows: :bows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
Early bird 4850 marks here (official and confirmed): http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=432522
http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/attach...1&d=1213282451
http://my.ocworkbench.com/bbs/attach...1&d=1213282451
Priced at USD $220 (HK 1700) :eek:
Enjoy :)
Perkam
I'm sorry, I never pay any attention to 3dmark scores. Is this a good card then, based on the score it has?
~£110 seems to be a good price. :)
Score is same as 9800GTX with same cpu, which is a 150-pound card.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
Perkam
It should give the 8800GT ( perhaps even the 9800GTX in some cases ) a run for the money and for a good bit less, so yes its a good card.
If that card is available here for anywhere near £110 i will be pretty surprised.. Make that flabergasted!Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
I still remember my 9800Pro.. Oh was it ever awesome. Poor sods with GeForce FX cards.:D
One could hope this will be a repeat of that, would be nice.
http://www.unleashonetera.com/ is probably the worst website I ever saw, but the cards are looking great.
About 3500 points more than my 3870@850Mhz, system in sig.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3NZ0
Price is good performance in 3dmark not so good. Just my opinion.
3Dmark is not what matters though.
Oh man
I really hope they do pull off an R300 again. That would be awesome.
NVIDIA will probably have the performance crown, but ATI will walk away with the price/performance crown. That's not the same situation as it was with R300 but still a good position for AMD/ATI to be in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark-Energy
I hate to play dumb but what is the significance of the term "Unleash One Tera"? Are they saying that with this card they have launched a product that will allow them to planted there flag on the moon? i.e. on Nvidia's behind!
One Tera = One TeraFLOP = 1000 GigaFLOPS
It would be fine indeed if they could produce card like Radeon 9700 was, oh those golden times :)
And for reference, NVIDIA's GTX280 will have 933 GigaFLOPs.
ATI's 4850 will have 1000 GigaFLOPs and the 4870 will have 1200 GigaFLOPs.
Hasn't it been determined that the above website is fake? And by fake, not officially controlled by ATI or AMD?
Its confusing seeing nVidia's 9800 card when I still have a box hanging on my wall for a 9800 Pro, 9800 Pro 256 and a 9800XT (No I did not buy all, I traded 1 card up as I went along stopping with a 9800XT). Those were great cards though!
Well that's a nice start. Looking forward to having a few of these cards in my hands, that is for sure.
webserver is located in berlin...if that means anything at all?
Question: Is the website fake?Quote:
Originally Posted by DragoonXX
Verdict: The website goes through www.cocrea.de, which is an AMD satellite website :)
They even have an AMD ad on their website :p:
http://www.cocrea.de/index.php?optio...yret&Itemid=29
Perkam
I was so caught up in the graphics that I totally missed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
The 9800 pro still does amazingly well in games these days considering its age. It'll run CoD4 OK at reduced settings :D
That said, if money works out, the 4870 may be the card I finally upgrade to. I've been holding on to my X1950XT for a long time now, and there are a few things that are starting to show its age.
well, I never explicitly said anything either way
While I think the AMD engineering department is far behind that of Nvidia, it seems that their marketing department is ahead. I really like that poster or whatever it is. It's beautiful. Everything about it just clicks for me. They shouldn't say "priced for gamers" though. It's obvious that gamers are their entire market. Who else would even buy a GPU? Does any consumer market segment spend more money on their PCs than gamers? We are the big spenders. So when they say "priced for gamers" I am thinking an MSRP of $800+ like the last card that was "priced for gamers", the 8800 Ultra.
Naw, the likes of 8800Ultra is for rich gamers. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by gojirasan
That can probably be attributed to Quad Core vs your Dual Core, and 4ghz vs 3.2ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by s1nykuL
The 3DMark score looks nice, but then one has to remember its done on a quad core running at 4ghz (which while on these forums may be similar to the norm, under normal circumstances is more than an average overclock).
u got it backwards, if ati is faster with the r600 over the g80 with maya, and solid works by like 40-60% then there is somethng wrong when games dont show that, so its NV marketing and convincing devs to make games for their cards is more marketing than engineeringQuote:
Originally Posted by gojirasan
if ati can make a dev program favoring them its amazing the performance on both platforms
atleast this will put the 800shader claim to bed
i believe the term nvidia uses is enthusiast :D;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gojirasan
Those 3dmark results suck badly. With my 2900pro overclocked to 874/1000, and a Q9450 at 3.6GHz, I score 14.5k in 3dmark06. Are you trying to tell me that a 4850 with a 4ghz yorkfield is only scoring ~500 points higher than I am? Because that really, really sucks.
ROFL, and the 4850 was supposed to be as fast/a little faster than a 9800GTX?
I'm going to wait for you to check the first post again before correcting your post. (Here's a hint: the 4850 is at stock)Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
Perkam
its at 670mhz the 4870 is supposed to be 1ghz +Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
The 4870 will be between 750-800Mhz. The architecture can't do 1ghz on air.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
Perkam
R300, haha... that kinda would mean you'd have the gpu performance crown...regardless of price period. From all hints it seems that Nvidia the one pulling a R300, two generations in a row with the 8800GTX and now GTX 280. What ati is pulling is more like a Ti4200, high end performance on a budget.
I wouldn't mind if they did, Ti4200 was Nvidia's "Comeback" card. Either way its good news for ATI ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dainas
Perkam
but why pay so much more money for an extra couple of frames , bang for buck people will go for price/performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dainas
oh yes the 8800gts was up against the x1900's for nearly a year :rofl:
Same here, but back in that era it was the "R300" (9700pro) in my main rig, and will be again.. Although as you can see from my sig I appreciate the Ti4200s too.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
GFlops amount doesnt really matter much. Else the 8800GTX should have lost bigtime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
it matters but when u neuter a card then compare the folps the r6x0 scores were it dose in game against the g80, and the 280 will have 240 streams so that should help ati outQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
My overclock shouldn't matter. You seem to be forgetting, the 4850 is supposed to have 800 SPs, more than double that of the 2900, AND it has double the TMUs, as well as general improvements to the architecture. Pair that with the fact that it's got a 4ghz yorkfield behind it ... 15k is not impressive at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Now unless it will see massive gains from memory overclocking due to being memory bandwidth limited, then I really do not see this being such an amazing card.
Maybe you are missing something...Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
Might want to go back and look to see what the GTX280 is scoring...
http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/...20&showadres=1
ATI Radeon HD4850 512mb DDR3 PCI-E x16
PREORDER: $258.50 aud
auspcmarket link seems to be broken...
I am not impressed by this FUD, if I understand the situation correctly. The R300 was more than just being cheap, for its relative performance. It was about destroying the current alternative from nVIDIA by miles, and also even being competitive with nVIDIA's next generation.
R7xx current competitor (at release) will be the GTX 2xx series, and not G80 / G92. Simplified... there is not chance in hell, that ATI can pull a R300 this time around, but nVIDIA may do exactly that, just like with G80. G80 A2 (GTX) and A3 (Ultra) can still give any card a run for its money, when resolution and settings are taken to (playable) extremes.
That said, damn, I hope I am wrong.. because ATI leading the GPU segment in terms of raw effective performance - I'll be the first to welcome that (I chose R9700 Pro over the GF TI 4600 ... and never looked back, it was even very competitive with NV3x series released many months after).
I guess I am missing something. Would you mind sharing with me what a GTX280 scored in 3DMark06 with a yorkfield at 4.0GHz? Because I am having trouble finding that information.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
1. 1 flop is not equal to 1 flop. Flops are perhaps the most hard/useless way of measure since there is no defined standard. A cell can both be 200Gflop and 17gflop etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
2. ATI dont have a 1Tflop chip. They have a theoretical 1 tflop chip. effective it will be alot less.
Also 280GTX got 240 SPs, 4870 got 160 before you apply marketing.
not bad not bad
even though 8800GT is still a great card regardless of what is coming out from either camp
i just don't see these making any difference in my machine hehehehe
ATI is doing a great job here keeping nvidia in touch as they are going to make them think twice about what pricing the'll charge :up: ...good for us i must say :D
It's so beautiful *tear*, they better have plenty of cards at launch. :up:
would you mind sharing your 3d mark scores?? your overclock does matter because this card isnt overclocked at all! maybe you should go use you 2900pro to play crysis at high res, oh wait nvm...Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
It looks like a PowerColor HD 4850 with a 3DMark score of 15,194. The test system consists of a X9650 @ 4000MHz, 2048MB RAM and Windows XP. From what I can find this 1000 GigaFLOPs card has the GPU clocks @ 625MHz and the memory @ 1000MHz. If I'm reading this correctly isn't this test done at 670MHz/1100MHz?
HD 4870 does not have 160SPs. It has 800, just like R600 has 320. They are just different than nVidia's; for one they are clocked much lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
If HD 3870 has 64SPs, then why do those 64SPs @ 775MHz outperform the 9600GT's 64SPs @ 1.625GHz by a huge margin?
Anyway, people are worrying way too much about 3D Mark 06. 3D Mark 06 is useless, haven't we learned that from G80 vs R600? IMO nobody should be benching cards on '06 anymore; it is 99% CPU dependent on just my 8800GTS 512MB, much less a RV770 / GT200 card.
Vantage is what matters, and of course games matter much more as well. In Vantage Extreme, HD 4850 scores ~2600 IIRC, meanwhile GTX 260 scores 3750~, so the GTX 260 is maybe 45% faster than the 4850. And that is at over twice the price. HD 4850 CF outperforms GTX 280 by ~100 points or so in Extreme as well. Given that HD 4870 should be ~30% faster than the 4850 that would put the GTX 260 only ~10% ahead of it in Vantage. Even GTX 280 would only be ~45-50% faster than it. That means that HD 4870 X2 will blow the 280 away.
whats that supposed to mean, and an SP is not an SP it could be a stream processor like ati has that acts like a cell and is fully programmable or it could be a shader processor and be hard coded into a bios and not allow full functionality when compared to a streamQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
and were do u get 160, if it has 480 were its speculated and this bench would forecast it to, thats 1/3rd and that makes no since, or 800 thats 1/5th that also makes no since
and on benching vantage is a BS bench its not using full dx10 its using the dx10 base so its really anti ati
Does the 4870 really have that many? I thought, they had a 1:5 ratio, in term of their FUD about SP count? R600 had 320 SP / 5 = 64 SP vs G80 GTX/Ultra that had 256 SP / 2 = 128 SP :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I thought, the 4850 / 4870 only really had 96, increased from 64, but still with more execution units per SP than nVIDIA ... 1:5 vs 1:2.
In terms of execution units ... GTX 280 and 4870 is the same: 480(1:2) vs 480(1:5). Meaning 240 SP for nvidia and 96 for ATI, and there is the clock difference.
I thought, ATI's 320 SP for R600 was FUD and not the same as nVIDIA's 128 SP, which has two execution units (and counted as ATI does, that would be 256 SP).
Please someone explain.
Yeah, with a Q9450 at 3.6GHz and my 2900Pro at 874/1000, I score 14.5K in 3DMark06. The 2900Pro has 320SPs and 16TMUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG
The 4850 is paired with a QX6850 at 4.0GHz, and the 4850 has clock speeds of 670/1100, and it has 800 SPs and 32 TMUs. It's score is not impressive.
Doesn't look too bad so far. Have to keep in mind it's early silicon.
ATi is making good gains in the value segment, which helps a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
but 2900s have always had drastically inflated 06 scores compared with their game performance, ever occurred to you that the 4850 is a different architecture...?
Wrong. You just ate the marketing raw. Does the GTX280 have 480?Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
800 sounds better than 160, specially if your competitor got 240.
Your 3870 outperform the 9600GT because they are 1:2 SPs and the 3870 are 1:5. So even the doubled clock on 9600GT leaves it around 1:4.
Why you think a 112-128 SP easily beat a 320 SP 3870 card? Even with doubled SP clock it would still be 256 vs 320 at peak.
What makes 4800 series different? Its all absed on R600 base designs. And 4800 series is nothing more than a glorified 3800 series that was nothing more than a slightly changed R600.Quote:
Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG
It is, but not that different. And 4 GHz Yorkfield, really screws up the 3DMark06 score. Compare a Q6600 at stock with a 2900XT, and then with it clocked at 4 GHz. The difference is obvious to anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG
R6xx and high CPU OC rapes my system in 3DMark06, but in games, at 2560 * 1600 and with just 4 * AA / 16 * AF, that is not so... 3DMark06 sucks for compare to anything but same GPU architecture, and CPU ... Not any good comparisson with games and high quality settings and resolutions.
BS!Quote:
IMO nobody should be benching cards on '06 anymore; it is 99% CPU dependent
anyway, gaming performance needed. let's see AA/AF in action with 4800 series please :lol:
Why does a 112SP easily beat a 320SP 3870 card? Well, it doesn't. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page8.aspQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
The HD 3870 has more shading power than a 8800GT, as seen by the Perlin Noise test.
If we take the theoretical....
8800GT = 112SP * 1.5 = 168
HD 3870 = 320SP * .775 = 248
HD 3870 should be 47% faster, in real world it is 16% faster. So yes, R600's 320 stream processors are a bit less efficient than those of G92. But by no means is it fair to compare R600 as having 64 SPs and G92 as 128. It certainly is a means of comparison, but it does not at all reflect real world performance. It is much more accurate to describe the HD 3870 as 320 SP @ 775MHz than describe it as 64SP @ 775MHz, in comparison to the 8800GT's 112SP @ 1.5GHz.
Nice FUD ... haven't you understood the numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
ATI's way of counting SP is in terms of execution units = 320, regardless of structure, which really is 64 SP * 5 EU = 320 EU total
NVIDIA was more correct and only counted SP and not EU = 128, but if counted like ATI did it, then the number is 128 SP * 2 EU = 256 EU... If the "missing MULL" is counted with nVIDIA, then it is 384 EU, but that one is shadowed area, and shouldn't be counted, as I have yet to see it to be effective.
Do the math and clocks with these numbers... but also remember shaders aren't everything, and only one part of effective performance, relative to the program executed.
By your numbers, R600 destroys G80... but that isn't the reality, now is it? Especially, when both solutions are pressed: 4 MP resolutions, and with maxed AA and AF... or even just 4 * MSAA + 16 * AF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
then how can u boot up something that uses streams and get 320 simultaneous operations, it counts them like a cell, NV counts per unit snce it cant always execute 2 operation at a time (when acting like a pixle shader or using cuda)
NV can score better since it has faster use of emulated vertex shaders it has a much faster texture fill rate than its pixle fill rate so when u have something optimized for 128 shaders then also using texture overlays instead of rendering from scratch then the NV card will score much better, but if u have full 3d rendering and texture creation (3d mark 06, maya, cad, solid works, COJ, mass effect somewhat) then ati will score much better than the NV card. thats why vantage scores better on NV it uses vary little texture rendering on gpu but handles 3d interactions on cpu/ppu
I guess this pretty much confirms the 800 shader units.
Sweet.
Oh really? How come it does that, what makes you believe that it has 800 EU?Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz
My own 8800 Ultra can match that score, with a 4 Ghz Yorkfield... It only has 128 SP ... or counted like ATI does: 256 SP.
How the hell did you come to that conclusion? It performs about the same as the 128 shader cores on the 9800GTX, so it must have 6.25x more shaders? o.0Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz
t
Hmm. Where do we start...I'll use the R600 as baseline since you seem to be familiar with that. The R600 had 64 Shader Processors, with each Shader processor having 5 scalar ALUs (the Stream Processors). One of the 5 ALUs is capable of doing transcedentals(sin, cos etc.). 64*5=320(the magic number).Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
Based on utilization achieved by the compiler(it's generally around 80% on average nowadays, it was somewhat worse at launch), you can at worse have 64 ALUs doing work(worst case scenario, exclusively dependent serial code, doesn't happen in practice), or at best have full utilization and manage to schedule 5 ops per Shader processor and thus get 320 ALUs doing work. Each ALU is MADD capable so you get 2 FLOPS (floating point ops) per ALU.
nV's 128 ALUs for the G80 are also MADD capable, and they were also supposed to be able to coissue a MUL alongside that scalar MADD, but that never quite materialized (the GT200 is supposedly capable of doing this). For all intents and purposes they're also pegged at 2 FLOPS per ALU. What's peculiar for nV's ALUs is that they work at a far higher frequency, so you can either claim you have 128 ALUs running at that frequency, or 256 ALUs running at frequency/2. One of the advantages of nV's independent scalar ALU arrangement is that scheduling is easier, and they're less sensitive to the type of code they're running.
No, the 4850 is a very much enhanced HD3000, and the HD3000 was just a die shrink of the R600. If anything, it should have an even more inflated scored than the 2900, the underlying architecture is the same. It just has more, more, more.Quote:
Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ormance-posted
oh yeah, could be fake...:shrug:Quote:
According to the site’s post, the DAAMIT benchmarketing shows its single-GPU newborns thoroughly thrashing Graphzilla’s 9800GTX (4870) and 8800GT (4850). In the first instance, the 4870 outguns the 9800GTX in all the games with anything from a 36 per cent to 48 per cent lead, in the second instance (4850 vs. 8800GT) DAAMIT has anything from 26 per cent to a 48 per cent lead. Even if these numbers are only benchmarketing, it does look like ATI took special care on improving AA, AF and DX10 performance – which also means it’s been paying attention to its customers.
Bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: was already called on those benchies, not enough variation.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
t
AMD has 5-way shaders, yes. They chose to count their stream processors a different way than nVidia, because in comparing G92 vs. RV670, we see that it reflects performance quite nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
By my numbers, R600 loses to G80 (8800GTX), but wins against the castrated parts like 8800GT / G80 GTS. In games, is this the case? No, definitely not in the case of the 8800GT. Games take into account much more than pure ALU performance. G92/G80 has more texture power and in the case of G80, more pixel power. Also, R600's SPs are not as efficient in real world usage as they are in benchmarks like Perlin Noise - the R600 design (1 "fat" SP + 4 weaker ones) proves less efficient in games than nVidia's G80 design. In theoretical ALU benchmarks like Perlin Noise, this inefficiency is not present and R600 presents itself well.
Doing the numbers your way makes no more sense than doing the numbers AMD's way. If I do what you are saying, then I compare HD 3870 with 64 SPs @ 775MHz to 9600GT with 64 SPs @ 1625MHz.... yet the 3870 wins by nearly a factor of 2x in that battle. So is that a fair comparison? Heck no.
G80/G92 and R600/RV670 have VERY different shader designs, so they deserve very different ways of counting them. AMD's way is certainly preferrable for marketing, but when you factor in that AMD's parts have less than 1/2 the clock of nVidia's, they make sense from a technical standpoint. Comparing 320 RV670 SPs @ 775MHz to 64 G94 SPs @ 1625MHz is just as valid of a comparison as it would have been to compare 16 R520 pipes @ 625MHz to 24 G70 pipes @ 430MHz..... in other words, not a good comparison because of the different architecture, but a fair one nevertheless.
When will people learn that shaders across architectures aren't meant to be literally compared and that not all shaders are made equal!
Great explanations Extelleron and Morgoth
Thank you, that is the kind of insight, I have seen from the Beyond3D forum :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgoth Bauglir
Sorry, I didn't notice your comparison (G92 vs RV670).Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
I only assumed G80 A2 (GTX) / G80 A3 (Ultra) vs ATI's offers at that time. I'll be the first to admit that G92 has its flaws vs G80 A2 / A3. I can still find benchmarks, especially with Crysis, where my two Ultras destroys 2 * G92 (GX2) ... 2 * G80 A3 vs 4 * G92.
My apologizes :yepp:
You can't compare the G80's shaders with R6xx ones. RV670/R600 only has 64 shader processors "equivalent" to the G80/G92 ones, and nVidia has them at twice the clock speed. It's everything so different that you can't compare them that way. Besides, the benchmarks' score won't tell you the exact ammount of shaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
I don't remember where I saw that, but I remember seeing some calculations proving that if ATI said it could do 1 TeraFlop, the RV770 had to have 800SPs for the numbers to match. Maybe it was in Beyond3D forums.. If I find it again I'll post in here.
We know that the 4850 comes stock at 625 MHz
ATI Flops: Frequency * SP count * 2 (for MADD)
so 625 * 480 * 2 = 600GFlops
625 * 800 * 2 = 1000 GFlops = exactly 1 Tflop
The only way 480SPs reaches 1TFlop is if it has a ~1000MHz shader clock but we do not have any evidence it still has a shader domain
Fair enough, but aren't you sure it wasn't the R700 / 2 * RV770? Even if ATI could provide that theoretical max in terms of flops, the reality of it would hard would be same. No architecture could ever get 100% of theoretical max, and ATI's architecture is very limited in this regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz
But then again, ATI still claims 320 / 480 SP vs NVIDIA's 128 / 240 SP from papers, and that alone should tell anyone, that ATI is full of it...
As soon as they called their part 320 SP vs nVIDIAs G80 GTX / Ultra's 128 SP... then anyone should know the depths this company has been lowered to, in terms of PR / FUD.
In terms of single card / single GPU, I would love ATI to be competitive in terms of raw performance and effective as well, but that is not going to happe, and thus this can never be a "R300 Deja-Vu" or even something like it.
ATI may well have the performance vs cost, in some markets, but in terms of raw effective performance, I can't see how nVIDIA can't win with the GTX 280.
If anyone wonders, then yes, only the best in terms of performance per GPU chip matters to me, no matter the cost. The GTX 280 bought from the US with tax, is about %60 the cost of each of my current Ultras...
That is my personal view and wants, but I respect and accept others see it differently :)
they call them stream processors anyways, so its not like they're using the same term
And 800 SP's is the only way 1TFlop works for the 4850 at those clocks
And while I want the best performing GPU because i run at 2560x1600, only Crysis is limited at all at this moment
when u talk about the shaders though NV isnt always doing 2 operation, and its more like hyper threading, while ati is always doing the 5 per physical unit, i always thought that ati has something equivalent to a multi core shader like a cell, and when i asked their rep at "heroes happen" he also said like a cell (thats were i got that from) so i thought that it didnt matter how they got there so long as they all were working at the same time
u wouldent say that a p4 HT had 2 cores but u would say that a 6 stream cell has 6 cores
and NV says SP = shader processor, ati and MS says SP = stream processor
How does Supreme Commander and Call of Juarez work for you at that resolution, with HQ settings (in game maxed + 4 * MSAA / 16 * AF)...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Not that I really disagree with your point. Aside from those 3 games, I have wonder why I would want to upgrade my two XFX 8800 Ultra XXX 685M.
Still, I want more... and the new offerings from NVIDIA and ATI + Intel's Nehalem, is the closest alternative for more than a year to what I have now.
You can only count the r6xx SP to 64 when you are using 64-bit double-precision floating-points. Since there are no 64-bit ALUs, the r6xx have to emulate it and does so by using the whole 5 ALU cell. Then you get 1/5 of the performance and about 100GFLOPS. Thats why you have to seperate SP FLOPS and DP FLOPS.
http://base.google.com/base/s2?autho...%26view%3DList
Froogle shows an HD4850 for $233 USD...
ASUS EAH4850 HTDI 512M ATI RADEON HD 4850 512MB DDR3 PCIE2.0 DVI HDTV HDCP HDMI
Aren't G80 / G92 also 64-bit SP FP? At least, in terms of NVIDIA's solutions (G80 / G92), that is limited to single precision, effectively, right? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eson
Yeah COJ was another game though 1920x1200 I play it just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
AA isn't that important at that res though I've never had problems with AF.
I suppose that's why the GTX280 is supposedly getting a price drop... both from competition with ATI but also Nvidia is probably getting the feeling that there just isn't enough software out there to validate super expensive hardware. Unlike a few generations ago where only SLI setups of the best card out there could run the most taxing games, nowadays its really only Crysis that's impossible to play without SLI setups at the highest res.
i like COJ and no AA with maxed in dx10 runs fine on my comp with 1 3870 a and 4ghz 3870 with 2048x1536, but im not sure on the fpsQuote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
for reference since its the only game sponsored by ATI and NV
also isnt the NDA over on monday for the new ati lineup and the NV 280
Zerazax & Zanzabar :up:
CoJ DX10 totally tanks on my system, with 2560 * 1600, maxed settings and 4 * AA / 16 * AF. It runs much worse than Crysis at comparatively IQ :p:
Haven't tried Vista Ultimate x64 for many months, but I doubt nVIDIA has improved much with drivers for my 2 * G80 A3.
I hate nVIDIA for destroying support for one of my favorite games: UFO Afterlight... Everything worked perfectly before 163.75, but any driver since makes horrible texture errors :(
I am still uncertain about what to upgrade, if at all, as aside for those 3 games, I really don't have the need for it. Everything works more than "acceptable", regardless of real fps :)
why do u use AA at those resolutions its not a vary good idea maybee 2x since it dose it in the same frame buffer or 4x or 8x in dx10.1 since thats also in the same frame buffer so there is no performance drop, but over 2x in dx9 or 10.0 is a wast IMO, and i dont see a slow down with AF if i dont have AA on with my 3870 (in some stuff on the source engine i get more fps with more AF)
I use it, because my eyes are sensitive to MSAA * 4, even at those resolution. Beyond that level of sample AA, I can't see the difference, but 0 * MSAA, 2 * MSAA and 4 * MSAA, is very obvious to be and I can typically always name exactly what is used, as nVIDIA implements all of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
DX9 in CoJ vs DX10 is so much more different, in terms of quality, regardless of AA / AF settings. Even though I believe all effects could be done in DX9C, perhaps with equal effective IQ and performance.
Is CoJ Valve Source based? If so, I didn't know that at all, but that puzzles me more, as anything Valve based (even FFCM7 and FFCM8) gives me way better performance.
EDIT: Sorry for OT
I'm feeling the same way about my 7950GX2. I've been waiting for a GPU launch like this for quite some time.Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
WOW new products, release date ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
no COJ is on a vary moded chrome engien (3d)/open dynamic (physics) with some crytech people implementing dx10, and it was basically a stripped down scimitar beta (its used in assassins creed, the new POP and the upcoming shaun whites snowboarding)
on topic----
how would the increase TMU affect the performance would that change the usable flops or strengthen the steam capabilities, wouldent that mean more than the new shaders
back off topic ------
i like the QA/debate much better than the usual flaming, this thread should be an example
some time next week for the 280gtx and 4850Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomadsoul
It's sort of funny to read this thread. I mean, here you have three people arguing over semantics of marketing, but no one responds to zanzabar. Are his posts really that bad, or are they just too technical for you to respond to? It seems like he's the only one getting the point here.
Well, my post will probably be ignored anyways, since I've fallen into zanzabar's invisibility field by talking about him.
Speak up man, we can't hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
lol, im betting that im on ignore from some peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by cegras
but, my posts are at the end of the page and get lost, or people just hate me:D
9800gtx is roughly equivalent to the 8800gtx of the previous generation lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekFSE
That may be, but then they are the fools :)Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
Perhaps, it is within a very limited scenario. I can tell from various benchmarks, using 2560 * 1600, maxed settings, and 4 * AA / 16 * AF, that isn't the case in this particular example.Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
8800 GTX and Ultra are still presently the best performance single GPU cards overall... Upgrading from one of those to a 9800 GTX, will leave one with no significant positive benefits, or even worse performance - at least at the settings I pointed out. Even a single 9800 GX2 vs single 8800 GTX / Ultra, there are tests where the 9800 GX2 falls short.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
Hence why ATI will not be out of the rut that confines it shoestring second fiddle till they have a GPU thats worth a 512bit pcb. GDDR5 is a stunt, we all know from history how fast new DDR on a narrow bus plays out (FX 5800 Ultra anyone? ok major extravagation but had to be said). Theres still allot of room for 256bit, but it effectively admits you are not releasing a Crysis crusher, not atleast without a shader miracle and certainly not above 1280x1024. But there are games a plenty that will run smooth, just hope this thing can atleast overcome the source engine dynamic shadow fps bomb that the HD3000s had.
I thought q6600 with medium oc and 8800gt (now like $160) was getting like 17k in 3dm06 six months ago. I hold out hope for the dual card but this is kind of a dud.
if that's what a mildly overclocked 4850 can do with a 4GHZ quad in XP then i am.... unimpressed. but i need not worry as it's only 3dmark!!!!:)
Exactly... those figures are slightly inflated, but they are similar. This is very unimpressive and I knew I wasn't crazy for thinking so.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcape
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surago
I would have hoped that the 3Dmark score would be higher. The CPU score is over twice my CPU score but the 3Dmark score is only around 25% higher. Accepting I have an approximate 10% overclock on my GPU. I would have hoped for an 06 score that was at least 50% greater than my score for a next gen card driven by such a CPU. As 06 is now commonly believed to be CPU bound, this to me is a disappointing score. But as I mentioned 3DMark is not where is counts. I will reserve judgment until I see some genuine in game benchmarks submitted by an entity I know and trust.
If those scores are real, the 4850 doesn't look too impressive.
Driver optimizations, you all forgot about those! : O
Nvidia cant do DP at this moments but some Nvidia employee claims that double precision will be available on all next generation products (GT2xx?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphiel
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=33079
This is not the full performance of the 4850. Because the real competitors to the series is the 9900GTX and GTS(maybe) coming in July, there is still some performance yet to be unlocked to battle those.
Perkam