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

[awdrifter]

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

[w0mbat]

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.

[GoThr3k]

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

[jas420221]

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

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

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!

[thephenom]

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!

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.

[Nedjo]

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

Audio via HDMI??

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...

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

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

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

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

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?

[BenchZowner]

Audio via HDMI??

Yes.

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.

and why would NVIDA disabled them by default?

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

[v_rr]

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

[Shintai]

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.

[Shintai]

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

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.

[AliG]

i gave the answer 3 post above this one

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

[Syn.]

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.

[LowRun]

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.

[STaRGaZeR]

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.

[v_rr]

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.

[LordEC911]

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.

[oohms]

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.

[BenchZowner]

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 )

[Sly Fox]

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.

[eleeter]

...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.

[Kinc]

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.

[saaya]

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?

[Zytek_Fan]

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

[adamsleath]

And I want 1GB, those 512MB.

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