The ATI Radeon 5XXX Thread

[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...