New rumor about ATI Southern Islands

[tbone8ty]

cayman xt hot daang! thats a nice chip :p

[Chickenfeed]

Hmm I'm really hoping Cayman XT is more than 10-20% in current titles and with that I hope it scales with clock speed better ( GF100 anyone ) I'm more concerned with game performance today, not in 6-12 months. If it does significantly better in the games I play now, I'd want one, if not meh. Its kind of like the 8800GTX. Although its among the first DX10 cards, it also did exceptionally well with the current DX9 titles.

A large boost to DX11 alone isn't enough to personally sway me to buy one.

[-Boris-]

Hmm I'm really hoping Cayman XT is more than 10-20% in current titles and with that I hope it scales with clock speed better ( GF100 anyone ) I'm more concerned with game performance today, not in 6-12 months. If it does significantly better in the games I play now, I'd want one, if not meh. Its kind of like the 8800GTX. Although its among the first DX10 cards, it also did exceptionally well with the current DX9 titles.

A large boost to DX11 alone isn't enough to personally sway me to buy one.

Does GF100 scale better with clockspeed? Thought most GPUs scaled roughly the same.

[zalbard]

Does GF100 scale better with clockspeed? Thought most GPUs scaled roughly the same.

5x70 may get VRAM bandwidth limited at high clocks.

[Chickenfeed]

The 480 improves substantially more with clock speed increases than the 5870. The difference of 850-1000 on a 5870 is 5-10% at *best*. A minor overclock on a 480 exceeds that noticeably.

They did a good comparison at alienbabeltech

[Manicdan]

The 480 improves substantially more with clock speed increases than the 5870. The difference of 850-1000 on a 5870 is 5-10% at *best*. A minor overclock on a 480 exceeds that noticeably.

They did a good comparison at alienbabeltech

too bad they didnt do a per clock efficiency comparison. should be simple if someone wants to just type the numbers into excel and divide framerate over ghz at stock and OC settings. (per ghz efficiency should only be compared to itself at different frequencies and not against other cards)

for best results tests should have been done with just core, just ram, and then both.

[LordEC911]

The 480 improves substantially more with clock speed increases than the 5870. The difference of 850-1000 on a 5870 is 5-10% at *best*. A minor overclock on a 480 exceeds that noticeably.

They did a good comparison at alienbabeltech

Oh really!?!?!?
Overclocking both the core and memory by 9% brings a 7-8% increase in performance, a few cases ~5% but more cases than that +10%.
Core clock increase of 9% brings usually ~4-5% performance increases or roughly half the clockspeed increase.

While GTX480 with ~18.5% increase to the core/shader clock usually brings a 5-8% increase in performance, with a few cases being ~10%. So at best roughly half the increase to the clocks but in most cases about 1/3.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/g...tx480_review/8 (used the average FPS numbers)
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ng/default.asp

[Jeager]

Speaking of drivers, does any1 know if ATI supports 120Hz in non-native res yet in latest catalyst? This is such an important thing for me using a 120Hz LCD, I'd gladly pick an ATI card but since I've heard it seems like it's not working with 120Hz in non-native res I've sticked to Nvidia so far cuz 120Hz support is better.

I don't have refresh rate problems with the 10.9 on my 4850 and my 120Hz

[tbone8ty]

3DMark Vantage (Performance-preset)/3DMark06:

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 480: P18376/19671
GeForce GTX 460 (256-bit/1GB): P13623/18601
GeForce GTX 460 (192-bit/768MB): P13386/18259
GeForce GTS 450: P9792/15793

AMD

Radeon HD 5870: P17924/19433
Radeon HD 6870: P16270/19480
Radeon HD 5850: P15593/18762
Radeon HD 6850: P14872/18750
Radeon HD 5830: P14014/17298
Radeon HD 5770: P11017/16358
Radeon HD 5750: P9124/14966

http://en.expreview.com/2010/10/11/a...ace/10638.html

[Sn0wm@n]

3DMark Vantage (Performance-preset)/3DMark06:

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 480: P18376/19671
GeForce GTX 460 (256-bit/1GB): P13623/18601
GeForce GTX 460 (192-bit/768MB): P13386/18259
GeForce GTS 450: P9792/15793

AMD

Radeon HD 5870: P17924/19433
Radeon HD 6870: P16270/19480
Radeon HD 5850: P15593/18762
Radeon HD 6850: P14872/18750
Radeon HD 5830: P14014/17298
Radeon HD 5770: P11017/16358
Radeon HD 5750: P9124/14966

http://en.expreview.com/2010/10/11/a...ace/10638.html

not even a test system was showed etc... so seriously its not even worth it to mention it ...

[ripken204]

not even a test system was showed etc... so seriously its not even worth it to mention it ...

let's hope those results are fake

[tajoh111]

Oh really!?!?!?
Overclocking both the core and memory by 9% brings a 7-8% increase in performance, a few cases ~5% but more cases than that +10%.
Core clock increase of 9% brings usually ~4-5% performance increases or roughly half the clockspeed increase.

While GTX480 with ~18.5% increase to the core/shader clock usually brings a 5-8% increase in performance, with a few cases being ~10%. So at best roughly half the increase to the clocks but in most cases about 1/3.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/g...tx480_review/8 (used the average FPS numbers)
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ng/default.asp

http://www.guru3d.com/article/kfa2-g...rchy-review/19

I don't know man.. in this review a 8.5% OC provides for the most part a 10% or greater speed boost and at the bare minimum a 5% in only a couple games.

And if you look at hwbot, every single, single card 3dmark record is owned by a gtx 480(I guess not 2001 which requires optimization rather than GPU power)

3dmark 06, 3dmark 05, 3dmark 03 and vantage. (the gtx 480 always being first and the top place a 5870 has achieved)

--------480" "5870" "Slowest gtx 480 beating the top 5870
3dmark05 1340clk(58738) 1350clk(48619) 88th place 701mhz
3dmark06 1360clk(42921) 1390clk(36040) 84th place 800mhz
3dmark03 1340clk(157095) 1400clk(115853) 93rd place 750mhz
vantage 1450clk(39281) 1505clk(31004) 47th place 1100mhz

To give you an idea of the lead, vantage is the best benchmark for the 5870 and it doesn't enter the ranking until 47th(the other benchmarks the 5870 shows up at 80th+ place) place and the card is overclocked to 1500+ mhz which is an exceptional overclock for the 5870. It is getting beat by the gtx 480 at 1100mhz.

If a 18.5 percent improvement only gave a 5-8% increase, I don't think this would be possible, especially when in most benchmarks, a gtx 480 with clocks of less than 1 ghz are beating 5870 at 1400mhz.

Ask an bencher and they will tell you that a gtx 480 is way better than a 5870 for single card benchmarks, not really for clocks but scaling with clocks.

[Chickenfeed]

Ask an bencher and they will tell you that a gtx 480 is way better than a 5870 for single card benchmarks, not really for clocks but scaling with clocks.

This is what I was trying to get at. I'm just hoping the coming AMD designs scale upwards better.

I've spent a fair amount of time with a friends 480 system and despite the fact his was running on stock air, it still clocked better and with more tangible real world results than my 5870 on water.

Running on water I'd take a 480 over a 5870 any day but given I bought mine at launch I'm not dissapointed for the use I've got out of it.

[madcho]

But a 480 is a lot louder and use more power and was outdated when nvidia got it on market.

I bought a 5870 359€ and just sold it 255€. It was a good deal.

[cegras]

And the million dollar question is: how well can we extrapolate performance from 3dmark? This is a genuine question as I haven't been keeping up with futuremark scores in reviews.

[tajoh111]

And the million dollar question is: how well can we extrapolate performance from 3dmark? This is a genuine question as I haven't been keeping up with futuremark scores in reviews.

Probably more than your giving credit for. Not close to ideal but 3dmark shows raw potential in processing a 3d image. It probably the reason why it is such a valuable marketing tool.

The performance of a 900mhz gtx 480.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...-den-review/10

The below benchmarks are to compare it to a 5970.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/zotac-geforce-gtx-480/12

http://www.guru3d.com/article/zotac-geforce-gtx-480/13

Bad company 2 is a worst case scenario(worst benchmark for the gtx 480) and a 900mhz gtx 480 is only 5 fps or 7% behind a 5970 at 1920*1200. Modern warfare is probably a best case scenario(bad scaling on 5970) and it is 39fps ahead or 30% faster.

I don't think a 200mhz overclock on the 5870 could bring the 5870 close to a 5970 unless scaling was broken.

[Sn0wm@n]

is it possible tajoh that the renaming was done because of the introduction of fusion parts ... and now that the ati branding is the start of such thing ... so renaming parts one slot higher would mean a higher end part is comming after the dual gpu top dog .... at least thats my logic here ...

[tajoh111]

is it possible tajoh that the renaming was done because of the introduction of fusion parts ... and now that the ati branding is the start of such thing ... so renaming parts one slot higher would mean a higher end part is comming after the dual gpu top dog .... at least thats my logic here ...

There is so much room for naming. They have room in the 64xx or 63xx. 62xx etc, they don't need to shift anything. Zacate performance being such a lower power part would justify a naming convention probably in the 63xx or 62xx or 61xx range anyways.

In addition, I thought fusion GPU was based on 5xxx, technology and this was confirmed somewhere.

Can you answer this question, which nobody seems to have answered. What looks more attractive to the general public. A 6770 at $249 or a 6870 at $249.

To me this is why they are reshifting the naming scheme, the answer to the above question is obvious to me.

Not being able to use 63xx or 62xx seems like such an esoteric answer, that I don't know why you think fusion introduction needs a new naming scheme since there is so much room for products with AMD current naming setup.

[ripken204]

Can you answer this question, which nobody seems to have answered. What looks more attractive to the general public. A 6770 at $249 or a 6870 at $249.

That's been answered 100x already and that's why so many of us are upset...
ATI will fool the general public into thinking that they are getting more for their money when they really are not.

[FlanK3r]

let's hope those results are fake

no, its not fake....HD6850/HD6870 replaced HD5750 and 5770 ! Hope, this old news u know...for replacing HD5850/5870 coming later HD5950 and HD5970. So, do u still think, its bad performance?

[Sn0wm@n]

There is so much room for naming. They have room in the 64xx or 63xx. 62xx etc, they don't need to shift anything. Zacate performance being such a lower power part would justify a naming convention probably in the 63xx or 62xx or 61xx range anyways.

In addition, I thought fusion GPU was based on 5xxx, technology and this was confirmed somewhere.

Can you answer this question, which nobody seems to have answered. What looks more attractive to the general public. A 6770 at $249 or a 6870 at $249.

To me this is why they are reshifting the naming scheme, the answer to the above question is obvious to me.

Not being able to use 63xx or 62xx seems like such an esoteric answer, that I don't know why you think fusion introduction needs a new naming scheme since there is so much room for products with AMD current naming setup.

the 6400 would have the same power as Llano if the Llano specs are correct .. so forget the 6400 series ... so that leaves us with 6700 6800 6900 ...

the specs of the fusion parts will take that space left in the radeon naming left over .. wich is the 6400 and and the lower end laptop fusion parts etc... the rest is all radeon .. it does make sense if we look at it this way .. for a future way of thinking that 2 years down the line bulldozer will probably be close to having a gpu into the cpu ... so that would fit quite well with the new naming scheme etc... much more to learn once the nda is over ... so i wouldnt put all my hate towards amd before the nda is even over ....

That's been answered 100x already and that's why so many of us are upset...
ATI will fool the general public into thinking that they are getting more for their money when they really are not.

if the renaming scheme is how i pointed it out its not fooling people up .. its getting the proper parts for the proper markets ... no more need for cheapo 5450 type of gpu ... because now amd will have a gpu inside a cpu very soon .. so no more need for that .. that 5550 is out of there also ... 5570 also ... leaving the essentials ... 6700 6800 ... 6900 ... so since most people think higher numbers are good .. they inflated the line by one notch .. it does sound bad ... but we dont have the whole deal .. the pricing etc.... if the pricing is done nicely i think it might be brilliant ...

[zerazax]

Keep in mind the 3870 and 4870 were priced in the sub $300 markets. The 5870 was the one outside the norm.

Now that ATI might have a design for the top single GPU, something it was reluctant to do before, it might very well push the x8xx's back down the < $300 range, and re-introduce big powerful single GPU's with the x9xx's. When considered in that light... Cayman should be a beast!

[tajoh111]

the 6400 would have the same power as Llano if the Llano specs are correct .. so forget the 6400 series ... so that leaves us with 6700 6800 6900 ...

the specs of the fusion parts will take that space left in the radeon naming left over .. wich is the 6400 and and the lower end laptop fusion parts etc... the rest is all radeon .. it does make sense if we look at it this way .. for a future way of thinking that 2 years down the line bulldozer will probably be close to having a gpu into the cpu ... so that would fit quite well with the new naming scheme etc... much more to learn once the nda is over ... so i wouldnt put all my hate towards amd before the nda is even over ....





if the renaming scheme is how i pointed it out its not fooling people up .. its getting the proper parts for the proper markets ... no more need for cheapo 5450 type of gpu ... because now amd will have a gpu inside a cpu very soon .. so no more need for that .. that 5550 is out of there also ... 5570 also ... leaving the essentials ... 6700 6800 ... 6900 ... so since most people think higher numbers are good .. they inflated the line by one notch .. it does sound bad ... but we dont have the whole deal .. the pricing etc.... if the pricing is done nicely i think it might be brilliant ...

That still leaves the 63xx, 62xx and 61xx though. NV I remember started using numbers like 6100 or 6150 for their integrate parts when their 6xxx series was out. They can still use numbers in the 64xx series, just not 6450 or 6470. 6430 is obviously an option as is 6410.

The naming is scheming people thinking they are getting a 2 generation gap increase from buying a 68xx, upgrading from a 48xx. And to a much lesser quantity, it is fooling the people upgrading from a 58xx to a 68xx. Hopefully no one does this, but there are stories of people apparently upgrading from 8800gt to 9800gt(story I have yet to see for myself, but some AMD owners have claimed).

If I didn't know any better, I would be pretty pissed off from the upgrade difference between a 4870 and a 6870. It's an upgrade but not two generations(especially the rate AMD and NV as of late) worth. When considering the price of the 4870 and the 6870 might be pretty similar, this might be a common mistake as price is one of thing things that help a consumer from making this mistake.

This naming scheme is going to really hurt the value for 58xx owners trying to resell their cards to the general public though. Its going to be hard to sell like the above individual did, a 5870 for 255 euros, when a 6870 is the same price new or less when it comes out.

[Sn0wm@n]

That still leaves the 63xx, 62xx and 61xx though. NV I remember started using numbers like 6100 or 6150 for their integrate parts when their 6xxx series was out. They can still use numbers in the 64xx series, just not 6450 or 6470. 6430 is obviously an option as is 6410.

The naming is scheming people thinking they are getting a 2 generation gap increase from buying a 68xx, upgrading from a 48xx. And to a much lesser quantity, it is fooling the people upgrading from a 58xx to a 68xx. Hopefully no one does this, but there are stories of people apparently upgrading from 8800gt to 9800gt(story I have yet to see for myself, but some AMD owners have claimed).

If I didn't know any better, I would be pretty pissed off from the upgrade difference between a 4870 and a 6870. It's an upgrade but not two generations(especially the rate AMD and NV as of late) worth. When considering the price of the 4870 and the 6870 might be pretty similar, this might be a common mistake as price is one of thing things that help a consumer from making this mistake.

This naming scheme is going to really hurt the value for 58xx owners trying to resell their cards to the general public though. Its going to be hard to sell like the above individual did, a 5870 for 255 euros, when a 6870 is the same price new or less when it comes out.

no it doesnt ... all the parts lower then 6400 will be fusion parts ... carried out by amd's fusion line .. Llano ontario bobcat etc...


was there a part lower then 5450??? NO ...

Keep in mind the 3870 and 4870 were priced in the sub $300 markets. The 5870 was the one outside the norm.

Now that ATI might have a design for the top single GPU, something it was reluctant to do before, it might very well push the x8xx's back down the < $300 range, and re-introduce big powerful single GPU's with the x9xx's. When considered in that light... Cayman should be a beast!

that is actually a good observation point mate ...

[kuroikenshi]

Probably more than your giving credit for. Not close to ideal but 3dmark shows raw potential in processing a 3d image. It probably the reason why it is such a valuable marketing tool.

The performance of a 900mhz gtx 480.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforc...-den-review/10

The below benchmarks are to compare it to a 5970.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/zotac-geforce-gtx-480/12

http://www.guru3d.com/article/zotac-geforce-gtx-480/13

Bad company 2 is a worst case scenario(worst benchmark for the gtx 480) and a 900mhz gtx 480 is only 5 fps or 7% behind a 5970 at 1920*1200. Modern warfare is probably a best case scenario(bad scaling on 5970) and it is 39fps ahead or 30% faster.

I don't think a 200mhz overclock on the 5870 could bring the 5870 close to a 5970 unless scaling was broken.

true, the real issue is when you run a 5970 on 5870 clocks... that whole theory breaks apart like a cookie... and still just like you I do know and have seen that a 200Mhz overclock does not bring a 5870 anywhere near a 5970 running on turtle clocks of 750Mhz, I run the clocks on mine at 940-950Mhz per core on air... so yeah ONE beast of a card

**edit** I usually get 110+ fps on bf2 max settings...