Page 86 of 109 FirstFirst ... 36768384858687888996 ... LastLast
Results 2,126 to 2,150 of 2723

Thread: The GT300/Fermi Thread - Part 2!

  1. #2126
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Istantinople
    Posts
    1,574
    well if one is 1fps and the other is 3 then 2 fps means much

    683/734 means a 10% increase... not too bad
    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
    INTEL Core i7 920 // ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 // OCZ 3G1600 6GB // POWERCOLOR HD5970 // Cooler Master HAF 932 // Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme // SAMSUNG T260 26"

  2. #2127
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by annihilat0r View Post
    if that happens (prices dropping to $200) then it's the only time 5830 could be considered for purchase. A $240 card can't be counted as a good card because "it's going to drop in price". The 5830 release sucks and as far as I know the only site to actually praise this launch was HardoCP. "perfect performance perfect price" lolz
    performance is there but price sucks (i blame useless expensive 5870 pcbs) thats true and amd cut too much may be but that card will be only dx 11 card with acceptable performance and affordable price
    Quote Originally Posted by LesGrossman View Post
    So for the last 3 months Nvidia talked about Uniengine and then Uniengine and more Uniengine and finally Uniengine. And then takes the best 5 seconds from all the benchmark run, makes a graph and then proudly shows it everywhere.

  3. #2128
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,195
    Quote Originally Posted by marten_larsson View Post
    Yeah, that was probably the worst graph ever. Looks like a 100% increase from 5870 but in reality it's less than 10%.
    yeah just saw mads name on graphs so that explains great looking green bars
    Quote Originally Posted by LesGrossman View Post
    So for the last 3 months Nvidia talked about Uniengine and then Uniengine and more Uniengine and finally Uniengine. And then takes the best 5 seconds from all the benchmark run, makes a graph and then proudly shows it everywhere.

  4. #2129
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Istantinople
    Posts
    1,574
    Quote Originally Posted by eric66 View Post
    performance is there but price sucks (i blame useless expensive 5870 pcbs) thats true and amd cut too much may be but that card will be only dx 11 card with acceptable performance and affordable price
    "performance is good but price is not" is complete nonsense. The only case this could be true if it was the fastest card ever built or something like that.

    When its performance is in the middle of somewhere, performance and PRICE are the two variables in the kick-ass-card function. Its priced $240 so its performance is not good at all, it is bad. If it was priced $200 its performance would be "good" and even then not extremely so
    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
    INTEL Core i7 920 // ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 // OCZ 3G1600 6GB // POWERCOLOR HD5970 // Cooler Master HAF 932 // Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme // SAMSUNG T260 26"

  5. #2130
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmore View Post
    I think it's much more interesting to see what the frame rates will be like in an in-game benchmark run with the use of FRAPS for example. Do that run for a minute or so, start at around a minute into the game and repeat 5 times to take the average. That's what I want to see.
    Exactly. Those min fps values are often I/O related (loading scene) and not strictly GPU related. The scenario you describe above is good starting point.
    Looking at the posted numbers for the 470 model I'm really not impressed. The chip is huge,hot and clearly not designed with gaming in mind(but GPGPU). It will be inefficient in gaming from the perf./watt/$ POV and AMD scored a big win with the "small&scalable" approach. AMD will have little trouble competing with top fermi model even with single turbo clocked Cypress... And the 6xxx series refresh is not even here...

  6. #2131
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by annihilat0r View Post
    I was thinking "wow, ownage"...
    Then I realized what a curious graph that unigine one is

  7. #2132
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Posts
    1,553
    Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
    Exactly. Those min fps values are often I/O related (loading scene) and not strictly GPU related. The scenario you describe above is good starting point.
    Looking at the posted numbers for the 470 model I'm really not impressed. The chip is huge,hot and clearly not designed with gaming in mind(but GPGPU). It will be inefficient in gaming from the perf./watt/$ POV and AMD scored a big win with the "small&scalable" approach. AMD will have little trouble competing with top fermi model even with single turbo clocked Cypress... And the 6xxx series refresh is not even here...
    You mean 5000 series "refresh"

    6k series will not be a refresh, as stated many times by AMD since last year or maybe longer than that. New architecture, most likely Q4 launch with Q1 availability.

    Now a "5890" with 1Ghz clock should compete with the Fermi just fine although I'm afraid of what AMD will charge for that one.
    Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H
    G-Skill Ripjaws X 16Gb - 2133Mhz
    Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme
    i7 2600k @ 4.4Ghz
    Sapphire 7970 OC 1.2Ghz
    Mushkin Chronos Deluxe 128Gb

  8. #2133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    101
    Really, comparing two cards that don't have the same mem size at high resolutions is just silly. Of course a 1GB card is going to lose vs a higher memory card at 2560 res.

    Come back with a 2GB 5870 comparison then we can see realistic results. Sadly, both cards don't exist for consumers atm

  9. #2134
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bloomfield
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
    Exactly. Those min fps values are often I/O related (loading scene) and not strictly GPU related. The scenario you describe above is good starting point.
    Looking at the posted numbers for the 470 model I'm really not impressed. The chip is huge,hot and clearly not designed with gaming in mind(but GPGPU). It will be inefficient in gaming from the perf./watt/$ POV and AMD scored a big win with the "small&scalable" approach. AMD will have little trouble competing with top fermi model even with single turbo clocked Cypress... And the 6xxx series refresh is not even here...
    where did you get the idea fermi was designed without gaming/graphics in mind? it has one of the biggest firsts for graphics: parallel setup. ATi has some patents on this too so we might see that in their future gpu's. double precision isnt as fast on geforce and the caches are used for graphics. there isnt much gpgpu hardware holding back graphics. they are not that different anyways.

    read the graphics whitepaper.
    http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_86775.html

  10. #2135
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    427
    GTX 470 with 220W TDP doing 10% worse than 5870? No thanks.

  11. #2136
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    193
    LOL @ these cherry picked benchmarks @2560x1600 where the 5870 is obviously running out of memory.

  12. #2137
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by annihilat0r View Post
    Some guy at DH posted these, have you seen this before?
    I would call this "betraying your readers". The GTX470 is less than 10% faster in Unigine what is not represented by the graph at all.

  13. #2138
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Istantinople
    Posts
    1,574
    yeah, it looks like the performance slides from both AMD and Nvidia. An independent reviewing site shouldn't do things like this
    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
    INTEL Core i7 920 // ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 // OCZ 3G1600 6GB // POWERCOLOR HD5970 // Cooler Master HAF 932 // Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme // SAMSUNG T260 26"

  14. #2139
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    427
    The reviewer gave numbers, not graphs.

  15. #2140
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,125
    It's only the Unigine one that's off, and the scores are misleading: 29 vs 27FPS is not 734/683

    Anyways, min fps on one Crysis Warhead run? He should have run it at least 3 times, to eliminate the possibility that it was a single hitch or I/O error for example. Then again, PHK got in trouble for biased benching the GTX2xx's vs the RV770 back in the day./shrug

  16. #2141
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Istantinople
    Posts
    1,574
    Quote Originally Posted by zerazax View Post
    the scores are misleading: 29 vs 27FPS is not 734/683
    Hahahahaha what? 29/27 is equal to 734/683. Who cares if its 2900 to 2700 or 29 to 27? The difference is the same.
    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
    INTEL Core i7 920 // ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 // OCZ 3G1600 6GB // POWERCOLOR HD5970 // Cooler Master HAF 932 // Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme // SAMSUNG T260 26"

  17. #2142
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    [M] - Belgium
    Posts
    1,744
    Quote Originally Posted by annihilat0r View Post
    Some guy at DH posted these, have you seen this before?
    of course I've "seen" them before, made them from the data posted in this thread...
    http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f...website-70508/


    Quote Originally Posted by SimBy View Post
    I love the Unigine graph. It almost looks like it's done by nV
    Quote Originally Posted by eric66 View Post
    love how they used score instead of fps same chinese numbers but with awesome bars difference was 2 fps as much i remember
    Quote Originally Posted by marten_larsson View Post
    Yeah, that was probably the worst graph ever. Looks like a 100% increase from 5870 but in reality it's less than 10%.
    Quote Originally Posted by eric66 View Post
    yeah just saw mads name on graphs so that explains great looking green bars
    do I detect sarcasm? ;p

    Quote Originally Posted by Piotrsama View Post
    I was thinking "wow, ownage"...
    Then I realized what a curious graph that unigine one is
    Quote Originally Posted by mibo View Post
    I would call this "betraying your readers". The GTX470 is less than 10% faster in Unigine what is not represented by the graph at all.
    blame Excel 2007
    for the other charts it auto-scaled the values correctly, starting at 0, that's how I like all my charts (check www.madshrimps.be charts if you don't believe me);
    for the last one it didn't start from 0 for some reason

    ah well... thing to take away from those chinese benchmarks is that GTX 470 is slower than HD 5870, no matter what synthetic benchmark output says


    Belgium's #1 Hardware Review Site and OC-Team!

  18. #2143
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by annihilat0r View Post
    Some guy at DH posted these, have you seen this before?




    What...GTX 470 is worse then GTX 295 by those numbers.
    --lapped Q9650 #L828A446 @ 4.608, 1.45V bios, 1.425V load.
    -- NH-D14 2x Delta AFB1212SHE push/pull and 110 cfm fan -- Coollaboratory Liquid PRO
    -- Gigabyte EP45-UD3P ( F10 ) - G.Skill 4x2Gb 9600 PI @ 1221 5-5-5-15, PL8, 2.1V
    - GTX 480 ( 875/1750/928)
    - HAF 932 - Antec TPQ 1200 -- Crucial C300 128Gb boot --
    Primary Monitor - Samsung T260

  19. #2144
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Istantinople
    Posts
    1,574
    Quote Originally Posted by LiquidReactor View Post

    What...GTX 470 is worse then GTX 295 by those numbers.
    This is getting ridiculous. At launch the highest Cypress chip (5870) was slower than the x2 version of the latest generation. (4870x2 > 5870) Now it's a problem that 470 (not even 480) is slower than a GTX 295?
    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
    INTEL Core i7 920 // ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 // OCZ 3G1600 6GB // POWERCOLOR HD5970 // Cooler Master HAF 932 // Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme // SAMSUNG T260 26"

  20. #2145
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by annihilat0r View Post
    This is getting ridiculous. At launch the highest Cypress chip (5870) was slower than the x2 version of the latest generation. (4870x2 > 5870) Now it's a problem that 470 (not even 480) is slower than a GTX 295?
    Yes, because ATI launched a mid range chip with 2.15 Billion Transistor and nvidia is releasing a real high end monster with 3 Billion Transistors.

  21. #2146
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Istantinople
    Posts
    1,574
    Since when a 5870 is midrange and a GTX 470 is a "real high end monster"? That's funny
    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
    INTEL Core i7 920 // ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 // OCZ 3G1600 6GB // POWERCOLOR HD5970 // Cooler Master HAF 932 // Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme // SAMSUNG T260 26"

  22. #2147
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by annihilat0r View Post
    This is getting ridiculous. At launch the highest Cypress chip (5870) was slower than the x2 version of the latest generation. (4870x2 > 5870) Now it's a problem that 470 (not even 480) is slower than a GTX 295?
    Quote Originally Posted by mapel110 View Post
    Yes, because ATI launched a mid range chip with 2.15 Billion Transistor and nvidia is releasing a real high end monster with 3 Billion Transistors.
    Well thats cause ATI plainly screwed. In three weeks we will know if same happened with nVidia.
    --lapped Q9650 #L828A446 @ 4.608, 1.45V bios, 1.425V load.
    -- NH-D14 2x Delta AFB1212SHE push/pull and 110 cfm fan -- Coollaboratory Liquid PRO
    -- Gigabyte EP45-UD3P ( F10 ) - G.Skill 4x2Gb 9600 PI @ 1221 5-5-5-15, PL8, 2.1V
    - GTX 480 ( 875/1750/928)
    - HAF 932 - Antec TPQ 1200 -- Crucial C300 128Gb boot --
    Primary Monitor - Samsung T260

  23. #2148
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    1,021
    edit
    Last edited by Andrea deluxe; 03-07-2010 at 01:30 PM.

  24. #2149
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by annihilat0r View Post
    Hahahahaha what? 29/27 is equal to 734/683. Who cares if its 2900 to 2700 or 29 to 27? The difference is the same.
    Oops, you're right, I screwed up my math

    Quote Originally Posted by LiquidReactor View Post
    Well thats cause ATI plainly screwed. In three weeks we will know if same happened with nVidia.
    Quote Originally Posted by mapel110 View Post
    Yes, because ATI launched a mid range chip with 2.15 Billion Transistor and nvidia is releasing a real high end monster with 3 Billion Transistors.
    Uh, and how do you guys know that games aren't reaching the limits of shading/texture power? Neither side might have "screwed up", it might be that hardware is reaching a saturation point

  25. #2150
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cairo
    Posts
    2,366
    Quote Originally Posted by zerazax View Post
    Uh, and how do you guys know that games aren't reaching the limits of shading/texture power? Neither side might have "screwed up", it might be that hardware is reaching a saturation point
    Saturation point is when you switch from a 5870 to a 5970 in a game supporting crossfire and gets the same fps , then overclock your CPU and keep getting the same fps
    Intel Core I7 920 @ 3.8GHZ 1.28V (Core Contact Freezer)
    Asus X58 P6T
    6GB OCZ Gold DDR3-1600MHZ 8-8-8-24
    XFX HD5870
    WD 1TB Black HD
    Corsair 850TX
    Cooler Master HAF 922

Page 86 of 109 FirstFirst ... 36768384858687888996 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •