The ATI Radeon 5XXX Thread

[DilTech]

Oh, I know full well crysis isn't poorly optimized. The engine was written for future cards, but sadly the following generations never delivered like CryTek had hoped for. I mean, at the rate hardware was going when crysis was being worked on, it would've hit the point required by now if it kept at that pace, ignoring dual-gpu cards.

9800xt to x800xt around a 100% increase, an even higher gain going with NVidia from fx5950 to 6800Ultra
6800Ultra to 7800GTX, again, roughly double, x1850xt to x1900xtx(I think we can all say the x1800 was to short lived to count, so we'll skip to the x1900xtx.)
7900GTX to 8800GTX... Do I even have to mention this one? ATi didn't make nearly as big of a leap on this one.
8800GTX to 9800GTX... Was this even an upgrade? I know in some cases the 8800GTX out-performed thanks to the higher rop and memory bus.
9800GTX to GTX 280? nowhere NEAR the same leap...

Basically, if we had stayed on the same course we were on, the GTX 280/4870's would've been 2 to 4x what we saw(making the dual-cards insanely fast), which would've put crysis playable at even 1920x1080p WITH 8xAA. Sadly, now we probably won't see that for another generation, unless NVidia has a serious trump card up their sleeves, which I wouldn't be surprised if they do. Many forget, during the "road to G80" not much was said other than it would be a DX10 part. Infact, NVidia just sat silent while sites like xbit labs claimed it would be a 48 PS/24 VS card. Silence means nothing from this company.

That said, I'm not placing any bets at all on this round, but the company that wins in crysis is likely to win the whole thing. Pretty much everything else is already playable maxed out anyway on current hardware... The fact that this card loses to the GTX 295(which granted, that card IS a beast and is dual-gpus) in crysis, and barely wins in crysis war head makes me sad though, very very sad.

[overclock]

Oh, I know full well crysis isn't poorly optimized. The engine was written for future cards, but sadly the following generations never delivered like CryTek had hoped for. I mean, at the rate hardware was going when crysis was being worked on, it would've hit the point required by now if it kept at that pace, ignoring dual-gpu cards.

9800xt to x800xt around a 100% increase, an even higher gain going with NVidia from fx5950 to 6800Ultra
6800Ultra to 7800GTX, again, roughly double, x1850xt to x1900xtx(I think we can all say the x1800 was to short lived to count, so we'll skip to the x1900xtx.)
7900GTX to 8800GTX... Do I even have to mention this one? ATi didn't make nearly as big of a leap on this one.
8800GTX to 9800GTX... Was this even an upgrade? I know in some cases the 8800GTX out-performed thanks to the higher rop and memory bus.
9800GTX to GTX 280? nowhere NEAR the same leap...

Basically, if we had stayed on the same course we were on, the GTX 280/4870's would've been 2 to 4x what we saw(making the dual-cards insanely fast), which would've put crysis playable at even 1920x1080p WITH 8xAA. Sadly, now we probably won't see that for another generation, unless NVidia has a serious trump card up their sleeves, which I wouldn't be surprised if they do. Many forget, during the "road to G80" not much was said other than it would be a DX10 part. Infact, NVidia just sat silent while sites like xbit labs claimed it would be a 48 PS/24 VS card. Silence means nothing from this company.

That said, I'm not placing any bets at all on this round, but the company that wins in crysis is likely to win the whole thing. Pretty much everything else is already playable maxed out anyway on current hardware... The fact that this card loses to the GTX 295(which granted, that card IS a beast and is dual-gpus) in crysis, and barely wins in crysis war head makes me sad though, very very sad.

Yes, i agree with you : if the figures are true, the 5870 is disappointing. Crysis and Stalker Clear Sky will be hardly playable.

[SimBy]

Yes, i agree with you : if the figures are true, the 5870 is disappointing. Crysis and Stalker Clear Sky will be hardly playable.

Huh? So 5870 being slightly slower in Crysis and slightly faster in Crysis Warhead compared to nV dual GPU is disappointing?

[DilTech]

Huh? So 5870 being slightly slower in Crysis and slightly faster in Crysis Warhead compared to nV dual GPU is disappointing?

The fact that those percentages means the game will STILL not be playable fully maxed out at 60fps high resolution. Something most of us have wanted to do for two years and this makes it FOUR gpu line-ups later(8800/2900, 9800/3870, GTX280/4870, and now Rv870/GTX380). That's if you can count the 9800/3870 as another line up, but ATi/NVidia sure did.

So yes, we're definitely a bit disappointed here.

I agree on both points. And we should keep in mind that the final retail of Crysis was actually watered-down when it comes to graphics relative to what it was in the development process.

5870's Crysis performance is nowhere as good as I hoped for.

But there's some serious discrepancy in these charts.

Look at LP Colonies 8xAA 16xAF in 285/295 vs 5870 charts.

In 285 vs 5870 chart, 5870 looks 2.6x faster than GTX 285 in LP Colonies 8xAA 16xAF

And in 295 vs 5870 chart, 5870 looks slower than 295 (0.8x of its performance)

So if we say 5870 is 1x, then GTX 285 is 0.38x, and GTX 295 is 1.25x?

How can 295 be 3.5 times faster than 285? Isn't this some serious discrepancy?

Easy, driver bugs. There's a lot of cases in games where certain AA/AF combinations trigger issues, like huge loss of performance(sometimes AA works on one card, but chokes the one above it thanks to driver issues), or in the case of the GTX 295 SLi breaks(Wolfenstien is an example of this). That's why the best we can do is wait for the full reviews, as they are sure to cite any issues or show anything unsual about numbers acquired.... I really hope those crysis numbers are wrong.

wow talk about overreacting, you're not looking at some facts here, GTX295 has more memory, is a dual gpu, and yet the SINGLE 5870 is at least as competitive and mostly better in all other benchmarks, you can count on one hand the amount of games where it loses and by a small margin.

Crysis is not the only benchmark in the world. Besides, its been favorable to Nvidia architecture since the get go (remember nvidia helped develop the game )

This card is competive against a GTX295, what else could you ask for?

Besides, if nearly 3 teraflops can't max our Crysis, I have a feeling the problem is not the graphics card...

Crysis isn't the only benchmark, but how many other games right now are still unplayable maxed out even current hardware? Most people still rocking the old 8800GTX's haven't had the need to upgrade because they still play everything fine! Nothing else has looked as good as crysis, and no other game has brought hardware down like crysis... Thus, yes our eyes are on it's performance.

Also, it has been stated time and time again, the problem IS the hardware and not the engine. No other game has that many shaders, that far of a draw distance, that caliber of special effects, that many polygons, that much effected by the physics, AND that high resolution of textures at the same time. It was made for future hardware, but sadly that deal was sealed right before the sudden slow-down in hardware acceleration, which began when ATi realized they couldn't continue to compete in the high-end after the R600 costed them way more than they ever made back off of it.

In short, Crysis is the only bench that gives us a glimpse of what future games will really push these cards to, and as such it's the numbers most of us care most about. IF any other game tried to push that level of detail, you wouldn't be able to max that out either...

[Dimitriman]

The fact that those percentages means the game will STILL not be playable fully maxed out at 60fps high resolution. Something most of us have wanted to do for two years and this makes it FOUR gpu line-ups later(8800/2900, 9800/3870, GTX280/4870, and now Rv870/GTX380). That's if you can count the 9800/3870 as another line up, but ATi/NVidia sure did.

So yes, we're definitely a bit disappointed here.

So you think the problem is with the graphics cards?

[flopper]

So you think the problem is with the graphics cards?

driver kinks and early drivers.

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

[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.

[annihilat0r]

So you think the problem is with the graphics cards?

Yes, I think so. It has been two years since Crysis came out and those two years saw 3 new generations of GPUs but still nothing even comes close to the awesome graphics and the gigantic scope of Crysis.

Obviously, it's because of consoles - their hardware is fixed and since the gaming industry is driven by consoles no one makes a game that'll really push the PC to its full potential.

Crysis was made to be the best looking game ever and was designed solely for the PC and to push it to its full limits. No other game has done that.

[iTravis]

The fact that those percentages means the game will STILL not be playable fully maxed out at 60fps high resolution. Something most of us have wanted to do for two years and this makes it FOUR gpu line-ups later(8800/2900, 9800/3870, GTX280/4870, and now Rv870/GTX380). That's if you can count the 9800/3870 as another line up, but ATi/NVidia sure did.

So yes, we're definitely a bit disappointed here.

Maybe just you and a few feel disappointed about the HD5870 performance. It's hard to pass such judgment based on those specific 2 games, why don't we just wait for official benchmarks with more real, detail numbers?
Remember when there were some rumors about the HD5870 40-60% faster than the HD4870 and people were whinning about it and now the expected performance is much much better, comparable to the HD4870X2 and GTX295 and what do we have here? still disappointment. IMO this card is a nice performer for that price point and I bet it will sell like hot cake.

[SimBy]

The fact that those percentages means the game will STILL not be playable fully maxed out at 60fps high resolution. Something most of us have wanted to do for two years and this makes it FOUR gpu line-ups later(8800/2900, 9800/3870, GTX280/4870, and now Rv870/GTX380). That's if you can count the 9800/3870 as another line up, but ATi/NVidia sure did.

So yes, we're definitely a bit disappointed here.

Well I guess it all comes down to individual expectations. We all knew HD 5870 will be more or less 2 x HD 4870 so performance is exactly where I expected it to be.

I can understand your frustration with Crysis, but saying that 330mm2 GPU beating 2 x what 500mm2? in some cases by a large margin is hardly disappointing. And all that for less than what GTX 295 costs.

You can always go for HD 5870 X2 though )

[Xoulz]

The fact that those percentages means the game will STILL not be playable fully maxed out at 60fps high resolution. Something most of us have wanted to do for two years and this makes it FOUR gpu line-ups later(8800/2900, 9800/3870, GTX280/4870, and now Rv870/GTX380). That's if you can count the 9800/3870 as another line up, but ATi/NVidia sure did.

So yes, we're definitely a bit disappointed here.



Easy, driver bugs. There's a lot of cases in games where certain AA/AF combinations trigger issues, like huge loss of performance(sometimes AA works on one card, but chokes the one above it thanks to driver issues), or in the case of the GTX 295 SLi breaks(Wolfenstien is an example of this). That's why the best we can do is wait for the full reviews, as they are sure to cite any issues or show anything unsual about numbers acquired.... I really hope those crysis numbers are wrong.



Crysis isn't the only benchmark, but how many other games right now are still unplayable maxed out even current hardware? Most people still rocking the old 8800GTX's haven't had the need to upgrade because they still play everything fine! Nothing else has looked as good as crysis, and no other game has brought hardware down like crysis... Thus, yes our eyes are on it's performance.

Also, it has been stated time and time again, the problem IS the hardware and not the engine. No other game has that many shaders, that far of a draw distance, that caliber of special effects, that many polygons, that much effected by the physics, AND that high resolution of textures at the same time. It was made for future hardware, but sadly that deal was sealed right before the sudden slow-down in hardware acceleration, which began when ATi realized they couldn't continue to compete in the high-end after the R600 costed them way more than they ever made back off of it.

In short, Crysis is the only bench that gives us a glimpse of what future games will really push these cards to, and as such it's the numbers most of us care most about. IF any other game tried to push that level of detail, you wouldn't be able to max that out either...

ARMA2, Operation Flashpoint, Mortal Online, Vanguard...etc.


Crysis was sold as eyecandy... there is no game to be had!

[skugpezz]

The fact that those percentages means the game will STILL not be playable fully maxed out at 60fps high resolution. Something most of us have wanted to do for two years and this makes it FOUR gpu line-ups later(8800/2900, 9800/3870, GTX280/4870, and now Rv870/GTX380). That's if you can count the 9800/3870 as another line up, but ATi/NVidia sure did.

So yes, we're definitely a bit disappointed here.



Easy, driver bugs. There's a lot of cases in games where certain AA/AF combinations trigger issues, like huge loss of performance(sometimes AA works on one card, but chokes the one above it thanks to driver issues), or in the case of the GTX 295 SLi breaks(Wolfenstien is an example of this). That's why the best we can do is wait for the full reviews, as they are sure to cite any issues or show anything unsual about numbers acquired.... I really hope those crysis numbers are wrong.



Crysis isn't the only benchmark, but how many other games right now are still unplayable maxed out even current hardware? Most people still rocking the old 8800GTX's haven't had the need to upgrade because they still play everything fine! Nothing else has looked as good as crysis, and no other game has brought hardware down like crysis... Thus, yes our eyes are on it's performance.

Also, it has been stated time and time again, the problem IS the hardware and not the engine. No other game has that many shaders, that far of a draw distance, that caliber of special effects, that many polygons, that much effected by the physics, AND that high resolution of textures at the same time. It was made for future hardware, but sadly that deal was sealed right before the sudden slow-down in hardware acceleration, which began when ATi realized they couldn't continue to compete in the high-end after the R600 costed them way more than they ever made back off of it.

In short, Crysis is the only bench that gives us a glimpse of what future games will really push these cards to, and as such it's the numbers most of us care most about. IF any other game tried to push that level of detail, you wouldn't be able to max that out either...

so you expected the 5870 to be 4x 4870...LOL

[Farinorco]

If these charts are more or less accurate, HD5870 is more or less what I expected when specs were finally leaked. I've been trying to pack some info from that mess of bars and numbers, and more or less:

HD5870 vs GTX285: Average +53%, with 40% of the tests being >+50% difference, with huge variations due to the different configurations (specially AA).

Taking into account only 4xAA mode except in the few cases where it's not possible (STALKER CS and BattleForge) for consistency, I got: Average +46%, with ~33% of the titles being >+50%, and ~66% of the titles being >+33%. Those results are much more consistent between them.

Great improvements since RV770, I think this is going to make hard for NVIDIA to change the last round situation (little to no performance advantage depending on the models for much bigger and higher end focused chips = losses and difficulties to compete on other market segments) when they release their GT300 parts, but let's hope the Green Goblin can make a miracle (like ATi did with RV770) and balance the market again...

[XKaan]

This is more or less exactly what I expected as well, and having said that I'm pleased.

Currently I am running a 4870X2, so I will be waiting until the 5870X2 comes out to upgrade. The performance increase will be worth the investment, especially since I am sure to get some decent money out of my 4870X2 anyways.

[zerazax]

Crysis isn't the only benchmark, but how many other games right now are still unplayable maxed out even current hardware? Most people still rocking the old 8800GTX's haven't had the need to upgrade because they still play everything fine! Nothing else has looked as good as crysis, and no other game has brought hardware down like crysis... Thus, yes our eyes are on it's performance.

Also, it has been stated time and time again, the problem IS the hardware and not the engine. No other game has that many shaders, that far of a draw distance, that caliber of special effects, that many polygons, that much effected by the physics, AND that high resolution of textures at the same time. It was made for future hardware, but sadly that deal was sealed right before the sudden slow-down in hardware acceleration, which began when ATi realized they couldn't continue to compete in the high-end after the R600 costed them way more than they ever made back off of it.

In short, Crysis is the only bench that gives us a glimpse of what future games will really push these cards to, and as such it's the numbers most of us care most about. IF any other game tried to push that level of detail, you wouldn't be able to max that out either...

With all due respect, that's quite an assumption that all game companies out there want to code their games like Crysis.

Truth of the matter is, different companies code things differently - and yes, while Crysis is visually stunning, that doesn't mean it was coded properly for the hardware

Who's to say that Crytek didn't realize they made a huge mistake and are changing things for the path that video cards and API standards are going? Keep in mind that at the time CryEngine2 was being developed (and keep in mind, these things are laid out well before they get released), the industry also wasn't sure how DX10 and unified shaders would go, how video card and fab technology would work, etc. For all we know, since we do not know how the internal workings of Crytek goes (and they wouldn't admit it anyways), they gambled on the wrong architecture path or direction that DX went off on.

Looking at the demo of CryEngine3 on the EyeInfinity - the fact that CryEngine3 is already running on large resolutions in what looks to be pretty good details, who's to say that Crytek didn't realize their deficiencies and have now optimized their new engine for what direction hardware is going on now?

Crysis might be the most visually stunning game right now, but that does not mean it is the future direction of video game design (it could be, but I'm saying that it's a big logical assumption due to the limited knowledge we have of how it was actually coded/optimized to work).

As for the rest of the benchmarks out there...

Can people friggin' wait for some real world benches? When the 48xx series was released, the cards were being compared to the 9800 GTX and 8800GT and people were saying "Wow, 48xx is such a dissapointment, it's only being benched against the 9800GTX and 8800GT." - Then real world benches came out and showed that they were too close for comfort for the GT200 cards

[Dimitriman]

Yes, i agree with you : if the figures are true, the 5870 is disappointing. Crysis and Stalker Clear Sky will be hardly playable.

wow talk about overreacting, you're not looking at some facts here, GTX295 has more memory, is a dual gpu, and yet the SINGLE 5870 is at least as competitive and mostly better in all other benchmarks, you can count on one hand the amount of games where it loses and by a small margin.

Crysis is not the only benchmark in the world. Besides, its been favorable to Nvidia architecture since the get go (remember nvidia helped develop the game )

This card is competive against a GTX295, what else could you ask for?

Besides, if nearly 3 teraflops can't max our Crysis, I have a feeling the problem is not the graphics card...

[annihilat0r]

Oh, I know full well crysis isn't poorly optimized. The engine was written for future cards, but sadly the following generations never delivered like CryTek had hoped for. I mean, at the rate hardware was going when crysis was being worked on, it would've hit the point required by now if it kept at that pace, ignoring dual-gpu cards.

9800xt to x800xt around a 100% increase, an even higher gain going with NVidia from fx5950 to 6800Ultra
6800Ultra to 7800GTX, again, roughly double, x1850xt to x1900xtx(I think we can all say the x1800 was to short lived to count, so we'll skip to the x1900xtx.)
7900GTX to 8800GTX... Do I even have to mention this one? ATi didn't make nearly as big of a leap on this one.
8800GTX to 9800GTX... Was this even an upgrade? I know in some cases the 8800GTX out-performed thanks to the higher rop and memory bus.
9800GTX to GTX 280? nowhere NEAR the same leap...

Basically, if we had stayed on the same course we were on, the GTX 280/4870's would've been 2 to 4x what we saw(making the dual-cards insanely fast), which would've put crysis playable at even 1920x1080p WITH 8xAA. Sadly, now we probably won't see that for another generation, unless NVidia has a serious trump card up their sleeves, which I wouldn't be surprised if they do. Many forget, during the "road to G80" not much was said other than it would be a DX10 part. Infact, NVidia just sat silent while sites like xbit labs claimed it would be a 48 PS/24 VS card. Silence means nothing from this company.

That said, I'm not placing any bets at all on this round, but the company that wins in crysis is likely to win the whole thing. Pretty much everything else is already playable maxed out anyway on current hardware... The fact that this card loses to the GTX 295(which granted, that card IS a beast and is dual-gpus) in crysis, and barely wins in crysis war head makes me sad though, very very sad.

I agree on both points. And we should keep in mind that the final retail of Crysis was actually watered-down when it comes to graphics relative to what it was in the development process.

5870's Crysis performance is nowhere as good as I hoped for.

But there's some serious discrepancy in these charts.

Look at LP Colonies 8xAA 16xAF in 285/295 vs 5870 charts.

In 285 vs 5870 chart, 5870 looks 2.6x faster than GTX 285 in LP Colonies 8xAA 16xAF

And in 295 vs 5870 chart, 5870 looks slower than 295 (0.8x of its performance)

So if we say 5870 is 1x, then GTX 285 is 0.38x, and GTX 295 is 1.25x?

How can 295 be 3.5 times faster than 285? Isn't this some serious discrepancy?

[tajoh111]

Oh, I know full well crysis isn't poorly optimized. The engine was written for future cards, but sadly the following generations never delivered like CryTek had hoped for. I mean, at the rate hardware was going when crysis was being worked on, it would've hit the point required by now if it kept at that pace, ignoring dual-gpu cards.

9800xt to x800xt around a 100% increase, an even higher gain going with NVidia from fx5950 to 6800Ultra
6800Ultra to 7800GTX, again, roughly double, x1850xt to x1900xtx(I think we can all say the x1800 was to short lived to count, so we'll skip to the x1900xtx.)
7900GTX to 8800GTX... Do I even have to mention this one? ATi didn't make nearly as big of a leap on this one.
8800GTX to 9800GTX... Was this even an upgrade? I know in some cases the 8800GTX out-performed thanks to the higher rop and memory bus.
9800GTX to GTX 280? nowhere NEAR the same leap...

Basically, if we had stayed on the same course we were on, the GTX 280/4870's would've been 2 to 4x what we saw(making the dual-cards insanely fast), which would've put crysis playable at even 1920x1080p WITH 8xAA. Sadly, now we probably won't see that for another generation, unless NVidia has a serious trump card up their sleeves, which I wouldn't be surprised if they do. Many forget, during the "road to G80" not much was said other than it would be a DX10 part. Infact, NVidia just sat silent while sites like xbit labs claimed it would be a 48 PS/24 VS card. Silence means nothing from this company.

That said, I'm not placing any bets at all on this round, but the company that wins in crysis is likely to win the whole thing. Pretty much everything else is already playable maxed out anyway on current hardware... The fact that this card loses to the GTX 295(which granted, that card IS a beast and is dual-gpus) in crysis, and barely wins in crysis war head makes me sad though, very very sad.

This is the worst part. These are AMD slides, so these are canned benchmarks which show best case scenario, and probably alot slower in alot of situations.

I am surprised alot more people didn't question the first crysis benchmarks someone posted without even a screenshot and consisted of just forum text. Similarly people aren't even pointing out how bad these slides are and that they are even AMD slides. Just shows how biased his forums has become lately.

Looks like I get performance like this or better with my trifire setup. This consume alot less power obviously, but I think I will wait to see what NV comes up with.

If NV is able to cure its AA8x problems, AMD is in for a beating.

[Final8ty]

This is the worst part. These are AMD slides, so these are canned benchmarks which show best case scenario, and probably alot slower in alot of situations.

I am surprised alot more people didn't question the first crysis benchmarks someone posted without even a screenshot and consisted of just forum text. Similarly people aren't even pointing out how bad these slides are and that they are even AMD slides. Just shows how biased his forums has become lately.

Looks like I get performance like this or better with my trifire setup. This consume alot less power obviously, but I think I will wait to see what NV comes up with.

If NV is able to cure its AA8x problems, AMD is in for a beating.

Maybe because they are AMD slides & people couldn't careless about them why people are not commenting on them.
But parts of your post surely shows your bias, so why complain about bias.

[Farinorco]

This is the worst part. These are AMD slides, so these are canned benchmarks which show best case scenario, and probably alot slower in alot of situations.

I am surprised alot more people didn't question the first crysis benchmarks someone posted without even a screenshot and consisted of just forum text. Similarly people aren't even pointing out how bad these slides are and that they are even AMD slides. Just shows how biased his forums has become lately.

Looks like I get performance like this or better with my trifire setup. This consume alot less power obviously, but I think I will wait to see what NV comes up with.

If NV is able to cure its AA8x problems, AMD is in for a beating.

We can't know if those AMD papers are similar or different to what we will see when reviews come, but I don't think the numbers they are giving are bad at all. What did you expected?

GTX 285 was already ~25% more performant than HD4870 1GB at 4xAA configuration. Those papers show HD5870 like ~45% better than GTX285 at 4xAA. So both combined make a ~80% improvement over HD4870 1GB.

That's a wonderful real world improvement for a +120% theoretical computational power increase (10% higher clocks and 2x processing units) and a 33% memory bandwidth increase, given that those real world tests with games don't always take full advantage of the architectures (you know, there are titles more or less optimized for every architecture so not every title takes full advantage of it) and that GPU's are not the only variable that affects framerates.

I don't think NVIDIA has an easy path to "beat" this, depending on what you call "beat". Of course, if beating is having a marginal win in raw performance with a twice as big and expensive chip compared to the competitor... but this is exactly what happened last time, and I don't think NVIDIA considered that like if they had won anything...

[ChinStrap]

i don't know if this has been said yet, or not. but those new clear pictures have the vGPU controlled by a Volterra voltage controller.

vGPU softmods out of the gate.

which. IMO. is SWEET!

[GLENBOY]

nicely spotted mate lovely jubbly

i don't know if this has been said yet, or not. but those new clear pictures have the vGPU controlled by a Volterra voltage controller.

vGPU softmods out of the gate.

which. IMO. is SWEET!