maybe, but if they are still using AFR -> failOriginally Posted by w0mbat
maybe, but if they are still using AFR -> fail
Wow, these cards LOOK a whole lot nicer then the "COFFIN" that is the GTX2xx series
We dont know that.
Odds on Ati making a dual single slot card not based on crossfire are slim imo.
True, we dont know that, I know that
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T@3.5GHz@Scythe Mugen 2 <-> ASRock 970 Extreme4 <-> 8GB DDR3-1333 <-> Sapphire HD7870@1100/1300 <-> Samsung F3 <-> Win8.1 x64 <-> Acer Slim Line S243HL <-> BQT E9-CM 480W
True, we dont know that, I know that
Some people should realize that there are members on XS who have these cards well in advance, and a LOT of them get them well before launch. That, or they have credible sources inside ATI giving them the information
Perkam
Does that mean you are agreeing with w0mbat that the r700 uses some advanced technology over the r680 besides the new bridge chip or just agreeing (which many of us already know) that there are people here that are given cards to test out or have sources
From what I could understand, both.
Are we there yet?
It's not the same - don't put ratio in balance. For 320 (or should I say 64) - 16 is not enough - I own the card and I feel that from my own experience. For 800 (or should I say 160 SP) - 40 TMU might be enough. 320/800 - that's just marketing - 64/160 SP now that's something tangible since nobody can assure me that the present games or capable of working with 5 operations per cycle. It's a different kind of optimization which should be done in particular for ATi - and game dev. work on both grounds (both ATi and nVidia - even if it hat the nVidia logo on it). It's true that ATi can get more juice from their drivers but that happens rarely and they might optimize an older game (like we've seen among time).
OK here we go again with the NDA guys...
Do you realize that if 16 was not enough in the RV670, 40 will be exactly the same with 800SPs if nothing else but the number of units has changed?
Friends shouldn't let friends use Windows 7 until Microsoft fixes Windows Explorer (link)
and i imagine you know that from first hand
About the same, but will feel much much smoother with GTX 280
Not really, in fact not at all. Get over it. All that matters is that the texture fill rate is now nearly triple of what the r600's was and that should be enough for most games at max details, except for crysis I don't see even the 4850 not bringing at least 30 fps at max details (in dx9 mode at least, we have no idea what dx10 does to the performance yet)
http://www.forumdeluxx.de/forum/showthread.php?t=500923
9850@3GHz
HD4850 CF@default
Lost Planet DX10@1920x1200, all@max, 4xAA/16xAF
Last edited by w0mbat; 06-17-2008 at 06:57 AM.
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T@3.5GHz@Scythe Mugen 2 <-> ASRock 970 Extreme4 <-> 8GB DDR3-1333 <-> Sapphire HD7870@1100/1300 <-> Samsung F3 <-> Win8.1 x64 <-> Acer Slim Line S243HL <-> BQT E9-CM 480W
^^
1920x1200x64??
http://crysis.4thdimension.info/foru...&postcount=547and i imagine you know that from first hand
9850@3GHz
HD4850 CF@default
WiC@1920x1200, all@max, 4xAA/16xAF
avg: 48fps, min: 16fps, max: 52fps
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T@3.5GHz@Scythe Mugen 2 <-> ASRock 970 Extreme4 <-> 8GB DDR3-1333 <-> Sapphire HD7870@1100/1300 <-> Samsung F3 <-> Win8.1 x64 <-> Acer Slim Line S243HL <-> BQT E9-CM 480W
You doing a great job wOmbat, keep us posted with more results, 48fps is quite close to what my 8800GTX can do at that settings. I think the 4850 looks like a winner for the price.
Sound: Asus Essense ST | Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 | Norge 2060 Stereo amp | Wharfedale SW150 sub (coming soon)
Camera Gear: Canon 6D | Canon 500D | Canon 17-40L | Canon 24-105L | Canon 50mm f1.4 | Canon 85mm f1.8 | Rokinon 14mm f2.8 | Sigma 10-20EX HSM | Benro A3580F + Vanguard SBH250 | Bag full of filters and stuff
And your point is?The GTX280 actually scores lower than 4850 CF in this test..
@ANP !!!: Ur 8800GTX does avg 48fps+ in WiC @1920x1200, all@max, 4xAA/16xAF? GTX 280 does avg 47fps w/ only 8xAA instead of 16x.
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T@3.5GHz@Scythe Mugen 2 <-> ASRock 970 Extreme4 <-> 8GB DDR3-1333 <-> Sapphire HD7870@1100/1300 <-> Samsung F3 <-> Win8.1 x64 <-> Acer Slim Line S243HL <-> BQT E9-CM 480W
Point is all though the GTX 280 is more expensive its still very fast and you get a better gaming experience with one card than two..
HD4850 are not that cheap, 2 x 8800gts can be had for cheaper and they are faster..
hah lol never
edit: you do realize thats a phenom? imagine those scores with yorkfield >4 ghz...
system:
Phenom II 920 3.5Ghz @ 1.4v, benchstable @ over 3,6Ghz (didnt test higher)
xigmatek achilles
sapphire hd4870 1gb @ 820 1020
Gigabyte GA-MA790GP-DS4H
8gb a-data 4-4-4-12 800
x-fi xtrememusic
rip 2x 160gb maxtor(now that adds up to 4...)
320gb/250gb/500gb samsung
huh, 2x8800gts for the price of a 4850??
where do you live, because the gts is more expensive than the $200 for a 4850
Wrong, who told u that? And 2x8800GTS arent cheaper and for shure not faster.
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T@3.5GHz@Scythe Mugen 2 <-> ASRock 970 Extreme4 <-> 8GB DDR3-1333 <-> Sapphire HD7870@1100/1300 <-> Samsung F3 <-> Win8.1 x64 <-> Acer Slim Line S243HL <-> BQT E9-CM 480W
Again ,I ask you where is the proof that CF 4850 is worse for gaming than GTX 280??Link the proof in your reply and stop using unproven statements to support you view.
BTW 8800GTS SLI ,following your logic,is then faster than GTX280 while costing 2x less...And don't fool yourself with SLI 8800GTS being faster than 4850 CF,you're going to be very disappointed soon.
edit:also you are wrong about the prices of SLI 8800GTS and single 4850...
Last edited by informal; 06-17-2008 at 07:34 AM.
But I would say 9800gtx sli is pretty close to what hd4850 cf perform.
Q6600@3,8ghz Asus Blitz Formula SE, 2gb gskill hk 4-4-3-5 @950mhz, EVGA 9800GTX+
Yeah, but 9800GTX SLI is much more expensive.
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T@3.5GHz@Scythe Mugen 2 <-> ASRock 970 Extreme4 <-> 8GB DDR3-1333 <-> Sapphire HD7870@1100/1300 <-> Samsung F3 <-> Win8.1 x64 <-> Acer Slim Line S243HL <-> BQT E9-CM 480W
Bookmarks