I wouldn't say it was bandwidth limited, but I will say that while the 5870 was a good card there were 'flaws' in its design that meant it rarely got the most out of it's shaders.
The changes needed to fix them did not seem very hard to implement and in fact seemed to be similar to the changes that nvidia have made with the 460.
However we still don't know if these benchmarks are real, so until then let the speculation continue.
Last edited by Carfax; 08-29-2010 at 07:48 AM.
Intel Core i7 6900K
Noctua NH-D15
Asus X99A II
32 GB G.Skill TridentZ @ 3400 CL15 CR1
NVidia Titan Xp
Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5
Sennheiser HD-598
Samsung 960 Pro 1TB
Western Digital Raptor 600GB
Asus 12x Blu-Ray Burner
Sony Optiarc 24x DVD Burner with NEC chipset
Antec HCP-1200w Power Supply
Viewsonic XG2703-GS
Thermaltake Level 10 GT Snow Edition
Logitech G502 gaming mouse w/Razer Exact Mat
Logitech G910 mechanical gaming keyboard
Windows 8 x64 Pro
Intel Core i7 6900K
Noctua NH-D15
Asus X99A II
32 GB G.Skill TridentZ @ 3400 CL15 CR1
NVidia Titan Xp
Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5
Sennheiser HD-598
Samsung 960 Pro 1TB
Western Digital Raptor 600GB
Asus 12x Blu-Ray Burner
Sony Optiarc 24x DVD Burner with NEC chipset
Antec HCP-1200w Power Supply
Viewsonic XG2703-GS
Thermaltake Level 10 GT Snow Edition
Logitech G502 gaming mouse w/Razer Exact Mat
Logitech G910 mechanical gaming keyboard
Windows 8 x64 Pro
Not really. It may be slower, but inferior overall? I think not.
A few reasons why I, and many others have a strong preference for Nvidia are:
1) Driver support
2) Extra features ie PhysX, 3D vision, CUDA etc
3) Better filtering.
Number 3 in particular has always infuriated me concerning ATI. Since the 4800 series, GPUs have had so much raw power that there's no need to resort to filtering tricks anymore to increase performance.
Yet ATI still has their "brilinear" filtering optimizations to this day
Intel Core i7 6900K
Noctua NH-D15
Asus X99A II
32 GB G.Skill TridentZ @ 3400 CL15 CR1
NVidia Titan Xp
Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5
Sennheiser HD-598
Samsung 960 Pro 1TB
Western Digital Raptor 600GB
Asus 12x Blu-Ray Burner
Sony Optiarc 24x DVD Burner with NEC chipset
Antec HCP-1200w Power Supply
Viewsonic XG2703-GS
Thermaltake Level 10 GT Snow Edition
Logitech G502 gaming mouse w/Razer Exact Mat
Logitech G910 mechanical gaming keyboard
Windows 8 x64 Pro
they used faster memory than nvidia, but on a narrower bus
the cost to add a wider bus, and the cost for extra memory chips seems to offer a worse price/perf ratio than to leave it as is.
if they increased the memory bandwidth by 30-40%, then costs would have probably gone up by 20-30%, while perf might have only gone up by ~10%, and power consumption up by 8-15%
AMD must really be hurting if they have the balls to keep their prices the same since launch
Exactly, which goes to show that the architecture itself isn't constrained by memory bandwidth. If it was, the performance increase from widening the bus would be much greater than 10%.
The same thing with Fermi. A 512 bit bus would have been useless on the 480 in combination with the greater bandwidth already provided by GDDR5.
The only things that would have increased were complexity and power usage.
So assuming these benchmarks are true, it can't be memory bandwidth that has increased the performance, nor the added shaders. It would have to be something else.
I'm no engineer though so I'm not even going to speculate
Intel Core i7 6900K
Noctua NH-D15
Asus X99A II
32 GB G.Skill TridentZ @ 3400 CL15 CR1
NVidia Titan Xp
Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5
Sennheiser HD-598
Samsung 960 Pro 1TB
Western Digital Raptor 600GB
Asus 12x Blu-Ray Burner
Sony Optiarc 24x DVD Burner with NEC chipset
Antec HCP-1200w Power Supply
Viewsonic XG2703-GS
Thermaltake Level 10 GT Snow Edition
Logitech G502 gaming mouse w/Razer Exact Mat
Logitech G910 mechanical gaming keyboard
Windows 8 x64 Pro
If the scores are correct this is how it may play out:
1.Nvidia launches a full dual GF104 "384 shaders not 336" based GPU lets call it GTX 495
2.ATi releases the 6870 the card in crossfire makes life for the GTX 495 very hard.
3.Nvidia's partners launch overclocked versions of GTX 495 around max possible TDP.
4.ATi releases the 6970/6950 and become the raining chaps once again for single PCB cards.
Coming Soon
When a new GPU from nvidia is on market, old GPU don't have any update in drivers. Yeah support is better on green way ...
Drivers need to be improved in nvidia, they need improve how it's designed, you can be lost in this pannel ...
Nice but What do you do with cuda ? Are you a programer on CUDA yourself ? Or you use the 2-3 programs that runs on it ( and ATIs too ) with some demos ? It's nice Stuff. PhysX is nothing really good for futur graphics. So i don't want it. 3D systems tryed to exist already 10-15 years ago, but was a fail. It's gonna fail again. A lot of people are already wearing glases. They can't wear two in same time. So it's gonna fail again.2) Extra features ie PhysX, 3D vision, CUDA etc
Saying something is not a proof. ATi's filtering is far better from old RV770, proof :3) Better filtering.
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/770-...5870-5850.html
And i've don't found the page on fermi, but i remember to have seen a beter quality from RV870
I don't have any problem with filtering. I can even run HL2 EP2 in AA16x/AF16x, 24x is a bit slow but playable too.Number 3 in particular has always infuriated me concerning ATI. Since the 4800 series, GPUs have had so much raw power that there's no need to resort to filtering tricks anymore to increase performance.
Yet ATI still has their "brilinear" filtering optimizations to this day
LOL, the card hasn't even arrived, yet the ranting already begun.
I think GTX 480 will still be SUPERIOR .... as a room heater, remember, the cold days are arriving in the northern hemisphere.
It's OK to be satisfied with a product that you like, but to crap in competitor's product thread, well that shows how "mature" that particular person actually is. You CAN & has the right to doubt these numbers, but to bring driver FUD, features FUD, IQ FUD into conversation/discussion, doh ????
dont think its about people thinking they overlooked it... they thought gddr5 can only clock that high, and its not enough... and they thought that ati made a decision to rather cut costs and go for 256bit only even though it wouldnt be enough bw...
i think theres some truth to that, 320bit would probably have helped rv870, but i dont think it would have done much... and it would have made the cards notably more expensive...
i wonder how much actually... 25$ maybe if you count it all together? pcb, extra memory chips, packaging, additional transistors...
probably less than 25$ i think?
While Nvidia may have bigger resources for driver support they seem to break stuff often with new drivers too so it's not like Nvidia is like free from bugs either. For example ever since 19x.xxx drivers I've had alt-tab issues with some games, especially UT3, clocks get stuck in 2D mode or otherwise you just get very poor performance after an alt-tab or two (like 250 fps drops to 40-70 fps, not that I play with 250 fps but constant 120 fps rather) and you have to reboot to get back the FPS, highly annoying, currently on 259.32 beta and the issue still persists, might as well go back to 182.47 driver soon cuz that one worked without issues...
Speaking of drivers, does any1 know if ATI supports 120Hz in non-native res yet in latest catalyst? This is such an important thing for me using a 120Hz LCD, I'd gladly pick an ATI card but since I've heard it seems like it's not working with 120Hz in non-native res I've sticked to Nvidia so far cuz 120Hz support is better.
Intel? Core i5-4670K @ 4.3 GHz | ASRock Extreme6 Z87 | G.Skill Sniper 2x8GB @ DDR4-1866 CL9 | Gigabyte GTX 970 OC Windforce 3x | Super Flower Titanium 1000W | ViewSonic VX2268wm 120Hz LCD | Phanteks PH-TC14PE | Logitech MX-518 | Win 7 x64 Professional | Samsung 850 EVO & 840 Pro SSDs
If all people would share opinions in an objective manner, the world would be a friendlier place
What?
I don't use CUDA but many other people do. Fermi is not just a gaming GPU you know.Nice but What do you do with cuda ? Are you a programer on CUDA yourself ? Or you use the 2-3 programs that runs on it ( and ATIs too ) with some demos ? It's nice Stuff. PhysX is nothing really good for futur graphics. So i don't want it. 3D systems tryed to exist already 10-15 years ago, but was a fail. It's gonna fail again. A lot of people are already wearing glases. They can't wear two in same time. So it's gonna fail again.
As for PhysX, thats your opinion and you're welcome to it. Personally, I love a good PhysX implementation. It can really change the atmosphere of a game for the better.
Batman AA and Mafia 2 are the best examples of really good PhysX implementations.
As for 3D Vision, again, thats your opinion. But you're wrong on one thing.
3D isn't failing. Why do you think there are so many new HDTVs coming out that support 3D capability?
I recently bought a 58 inch Samsung 3D Plasma in fact, and the 3D material on it was surprisingly good. Nvidia is also coming out with a device that will allow you to play 3D games on 3D capable HDTVs rather than LCD monitors.
LOL, you must have missed the big debate we had on the forum concerning ATI cheating in Crysis.Saying something is not a proof. ATi's filtering is far better from old RV770, proof :
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/770-...5870-5850.html
And i've don't found the page on fermi, but i remember to have seen a beter quality from RV870
Read this thread.
Also, that D3D AF tester doesn't mean squat when it comes to actual image quality in real games.
Click here, and you'll see that ATI's filtering quality in games is actually inferior to that of Nvidia's.
Guru3d also noticed it as well when they published their Starcraft 2 GPU performance article.
Intel Core i7 6900K
Noctua NH-D15
Asus X99A II
32 GB G.Skill TridentZ @ 3400 CL15 CR1
NVidia Titan Xp
Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5
Sennheiser HD-598
Samsung 960 Pro 1TB
Western Digital Raptor 600GB
Asus 12x Blu-Ray Burner
Sony Optiarc 24x DVD Burner with NEC chipset
Antec HCP-1200w Power Supply
Viewsonic XG2703-GS
Thermaltake Level 10 GT Snow Edition
Logitech G502 gaming mouse w/Razer Exact Mat
Logitech G910 mechanical gaming keyboard
Windows 8 x64 Pro
Can someone run Unigine Heaven and post a comparison pic? I'd bet a bunch that the Scores number is actually bolded by the benchmark.
It seems that the data is retrieved from HTML file, no? If so, then it just proves that the bolded score is part of the Unigine layout and that means nothing.
However... It also means that simply by editing the HTML file one can produce fake screens, no? :| If so, then *** these results!
Bookmarks