The ATI Radeon 5XXX Thread

[Calmatory]

Quite simple... If the R600 had been able to compete with the 8800GTX, do you really think the next cycle from NVidia would've been the 9800GTX and that ATi would've followed the 2900 with the 3870?

The cycle we were on was 100% increase(in some cases more) for multiple years, as soon as one company couldn't sustain it that cycle dropped the very next round... Doesn't take rocket science to figure out why, as NVidia didn't have a push to keep it up.

No. No and no.

...unless current µArchs would be much more "efficient" than what they are now.

How can AMD make faster cards now? Increase everything. Slap faster RAM and GPU clock. It yields bigger dies, which alone lower the yields.

Basically regardless of R600's hypotethical success, we wouldn't be having any better price/performance ratio, or any better performance/watt ratio, or any better performance/mm² ratio.

The 40 nm process' leakage, transistor density and yields define the speed of the cards.

Actually, if anything, the "slowdown" made game developers to slow down too, which now means better FPS's for us on those games, though possibly at the expense of IQ.

The ONLY way which could have changed how the things are now, is the efficiency(perf/mm²) of the R600 core and it's derivates(Anything until R900(?)). That would've meant that Nvidia would been severe underdog. With current µArchs and TSMC process it's impossible to get any better results really. There are dozens, possibly hundreds chip architects doing everything they can to get better stuff out.

[Mr. K6]

driver kinks and early drivers.

a couple of driver revisions, and there be more stable crossover data.

Amen. I'm saving judgment at least until official reviews, maybe even Cat 9.10 or 9.11. Interesting to note is that all comparisons are usually done with 8xAA, and that performance differences are not so exaggerated at lower AA levels. If I remember correctly, nVIDIA GPUs show very poor performance at AA levels higher than 4xMSAA/4xSSAA (hence their CSAA derivatives). If someone knows more about this, please extend/correct my statement. I do notice it on my GTX295 though. I'd like to see some comparisons with no AA as well.

Either way, I still think AMD has done well with the 5870. They packed some incredible performance in a small package (only 190W TDP!, 28W idle!) as well as some revolutionary features. I don't think you can expect a guaranteed 100% performance boost per generation anymore. The 8800 series jump was an exception, not the rule. Having dedicated vertex and pixel shader units was a gross inefficiency in GPU design, so it was no surprise how much performance was gained when that inefficiency was surmounted with nVIDIA's 8800 series. However, the more "perfected" GPU designs become as companies learn from their (and each other's) mistakes each generation, it becomes harder and harder to innovate over great designs. Sometimes there's still great room for improvement (3870 -> 4870 in my book), sometimes there isn't.

[flopper]

Amen. I'm saving judgment at least until official reviews, maybe even Cat 9.10 or 9.11. Interesting to note is that all comparisons are usually done with 8xAA, and that performance differences are not so exaggerated at lower AA levels. If I remember correctly, nVIDIA GPUs show very poor performance at AA levels higher than 4xMSAA/4xSSAA (hence their CSAA derivatives). If someone knows more about this, please extend/correct my statement. I do notice it on my GTX295 though. I'd like to see some comparisons with no AA as well.

Either way, I still think AMD has done well with the 5870. They packed some incredible performance in a small package (only 190W TDP!, 28W idle!) as well as some revolutionary features. I don't think you can expect a guaranteed 100% performance boost per generation anymore. The 8800 series jump was an exception, not the rule. Having dedicated vertex and pixel shader units was a gross inefficiency in GPU design, so it was no surprise how much performance was gained when that inefficiency was surmounted with nVIDIA's 8800 series. However, the more "perfected" GPU designs become as companies learn from their (and each other's) mistakes each generation, it becomes harder and harder to innovate over great designs. Sometimes there's still great room for improvement (3870 -> 4870 in my book), sometimes there isn't.

There is also a dimishing return on lower levels of resolutions.
I used to play on 17inch screen, 2 years ago.
Now I use 1920x1200 for MMOG etc..
still use CRT for Bf2 at 800x600 for simple reason as inputlag.
and yes I notice..that..as u die

The hardware is becoming really powerful for both sides, and soon intel arrive, this also means, the gamer side, would have no compelling reason to buy one card over another if the reason would be speed, fps etc...
That is why we see, eyefinity, 3D glasses, physics etc...

[annihilat0r]

Either way, I still think AMD has done well with the 5870. They packed some incredible performance in a small package (only 190W TDP!, 28W idle!) as well as some revolutionary features. I don't think you can expect a guaranteed 100% performance boost per generation anymore. The 8800 series jump was an exception, not the rule. Having dedicated vertex and pixel shader units was a gross inefficiency in GPU design, so it was no surprise how much performance was gained when that inefficiency was surmounted with nVIDIA's 8800 series. However, the more "perfected" GPU designs become as companies learn from their (and each other's) mistakes each generation, it becomes harder and harder to innovate over great designs. Sometimes there's still great room for improvement (3870 -> 4870 in my book), sometimes there isn't.

There's no question that 5870 is/will be an awesome card (and my next card). However, I am disappointed on its level of awesomeness - the hype had made me expect something like 2x GTX 285 performance on Crysis.

[largon]

Calmatory,
I'd say...
IF R600 was made on 65nm like the rest of HD2k series, it could have had 16RBE/32TMUs/640SPs and it would've easily competed/beaten G80. nV would have been forced to make the successor of G80 (that is, 65nm "G90") a real upgrade with more SPs than on G80, instead of a tweaked shrink of G80, aka. G92. Then both would've shrinked to 55nm just to decrease die sizes. Then a new round; R600's architectural successor could have been a 55nm 24ROP/56TMU/1120SP chip (320SP RV670 would never had existed!) to battle nV's 55nm 32ROP/64TMU/256SP "G100". Then shrink to 40nm -> ad nauseam.

[flopper]

There's no question that 5870 is/will be an awesome card (and my next card). However, I am disappointed on its level of awesomeness - the hype had made me expect something like 2x GTX 285 performance on Crysis.

get 5870x2 and get two of them

I just look forward Diablo 3 in 3 screen mode.

[annihilat0r]

I don't think I'll ever get a dual GPU card. The microstuttering issues I had with 8800 GT SLI were too disheartening (wow, did I just say that)

[jaredpace]

There's no question that 5870 is/will be an awesome card (and my next card). However, I am disappointed on its level of awesomeness - the hype had made me expect something like 2x GTX 285 performance on Crysis.

Yes that chiphell leaked bench of crysis last week was massively overstated. It made it seem like it was +60% faster than a GTX295, when it is actually +/- 10% of the GTX295 in crysis warhead & crysis. Overall it seems to perform like 4890 crossfire, which would put it at about 110% of a GTX295. Although it is supposed to have excellent advantages at hi-res with hi-AA/AF.

[jaredpace]

die shot, dual core?

[Jamesrt2004]

Yes that chiphell leaked bench of crysis last week was massively overstated. It made it seem like it was +60% faster than a GTX295, when it is actually +/- 10% of the GTX295 in crysis warhead & crysis. Overall it seems to perform like 4890 crossfire, which would put it at about 110% of a GTX295. Although it is supposed to have excellent advantages at hi-res with hi-AA/AF.

+1, and at a price point of $100 under ( of some...) of the 295's its an awesome card

so i dont get why people are pissed off.. they hyped it their selves

[highoctane]

I just look forward Diablo 3 in 3 screen mode.

I'm looking forward to Diablo 3 as well but wouldn't LOS be a big limitation for 3 screen mode.

[largon]

die shot, dual core?

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/579...3be6536170.jpg

Only a block diagram will tell if it's "dualcore".

This could be said "dualcore". But not this.

edit:
I think the chip in that pic you quoted has 2×16 SIMD blocks so it would have 128TMUs/2560SPs.
RV970, is that you?

[jaredpace]

pics
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,69...e/?iid=1192616

[jaredpace]

edit:
I think the chip in that pic you quoted has 128TMUs/2560SPs.

Maybe it is 16 x 5 instead of 8 x 10 on each side?

WTF Hey, what do you make of this http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=771

[kadozer]

I don't think I'll ever get a dual GPU card. The microstuttering issues I had with 8800 GT SLI were too disheartening (wow, did I just say that)

OT: You would be surprised how the ms issue has improved drastically (over the 8 series Nvidia cards sli) with the 4870x2. Its not even noticeable anymore and even harder to find.

5870x2 should max out Crysis and hoping to see even higher resolutions than 19xx 1200.

[annihilat0r]

You would be surprised how the ms issue has improved drastically with the 4870x2. Its not even noticeable anymore and even harder to find.

Actually yeah I know about that, MS was a hot issue during 4870x2's release times so I had seen a couple of timedemo results but I hadn't gone deeper into the issue. 8800GT SLI was really horrible on that aspect and the worst part of it all was that no big review sites really took up the issue and went on saying "if you add another 8800GT your performance gets boosted amazingly!!!!" where in most games the added frames were on the worst times possible and while FPS numbers were great, there was no real improvement in smoothness.

[ajaidev]

pics
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,69...e/?iid=1192616

Its down it seems

"The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error.
Please contact the website administrator.
"

[largon]

ajaidev,
That PCGH page had just 14 pics from all sides of the card. Nothing we haven't seen before.

Maybe it is 16 x 5 instead of 8 x 10 on each side?

What do you mean by "16 x 5 instead of 8 x 10"?
In RV770 ALUs are arranged in 10 blocks of 80ALUs each, with internal structure of 16×5ALUs.
Since Cypress has 1600SPs that pic would mean there are no longer blocks of 80ALUs, but 50ALUs (1600/32=50). And that would mean the internal structure was reduced to 10×5ALUs, instead of 16×5ALUs. That might mean the ALUs are now easier to keep busy and as such, RV870 would have a higher shader core IPC.

Maybe.

[jaredpace]

Its down it seems

"The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error.
Please contact the website administrator.
"

hah, they took it down. I was going to save the images too, and host them from tinypic or imageshack because pcgh didnt allow deeplinking for this thread. It was just 14 images of the card like you would see in a professional review. You'll probably see them in PCGH's review. Nothing new, it was a 5870 1gb, but it had some closeups of the fan, top-plate, backplate, vent holes, and 2x6pin.

edit: google cache to the rescue!




http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache...qj3Xf6M4YIyKVg

[jaredpace]

instead of 10 blocks of 80 alus i mean 16 blocks of 40alus on each side, i dont know if thats possible, just what it looks like from the pic. otherwise, it's like you said 16 blocks on each side of 80 alus = 2560SP



It does look like 2560 SP... I'm confused. Perhaps its a fake?

[jaredpace]

@t2k, it's 10% faster than the dual chip GTX295. The 5870 1gb is not the fastest card, there is still the 2gb 5870 six trillian, and the 5870x2, and possibly whatever this chip is.... hahahah

[largon]

16×40×2=1280
We know the sum is 1600 so that literally doesn't add up.

[blindbox]

Nobody posted this.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...postcount=2969

AMD's slides.

[largon]

http://home.akku.tv/~akku38901/rv770-870.png

It does look like 2560 SP... I'm confused. Perhaps its a fake?

I think you missed this:

(...) 128TMUs/2560SPs.
RV970, is that you?

[jaredpace]

So it's either got the potential to have that many SP's and is only using 10 of 16 blocks on each side, or that shot is completely fake, or what?



edit: ah, rv970! But we are only at 870, and it isn't even officially released yet.... hahah. Is it possible that they already have rv970 going into production? Doesn't make sense, why would we see a 970 pic before an 870? I don't know what to make of this image.

*going to read some*