AMD Cayman info (or rumor)

[SKYMTL]

Take into account that the 6870 is only an inch away from the 5870, with only 1120 SP's. A 6950 with (supposedly) 1536 SP's is going to beat the 5870 by a bit, which puts it in 480 territory.

edit: zerazax pretty much beat me to it.

Actually, the HD 5870 is ~ 30% slower than the GTX 480 on average at 1920 x 1200 / 4xAA. Meanwhile, the HD 6870 is usually ~15-20% slower (average again) than the HD 5870.

The needed 40-50% improvement over the HD 6870 to hit GTX 480 territory is a huge jump no matter which way you look at it.

[Vipeax]

Actually, the HD 5870 is ~ 30% slower than the GTX 480 on average at 1920 x 1200 / 4xAA. Meanwhile, the HD 6870 is usually ~15-20% slower (average again) than the HD 5870.

The needed 40-50% improvement over the HD 6870 to hit GTX 480 territory is a huge jump no matter which way you look at it.

??

[informal]

Actually, the HD 5870 is ~ 30% slower than the GTX 480 on average at 1920 x 1200 / 4xAA. Meanwhile, the HD 6870 is usually ~15-20% slower (average again) than the HD 5870.

The needed 40-50% improvement over the HD 6870 to hit GTX 480 territory is a huge jump no matter which way you look at it.

5870 1GB is approx ~7% slower in 25x16 resolution and ~8% in 19x12.
AMD needs ~26/30% improvement with 6970 at 19x12/25x16 resolutions to basically match 580GTX 1.5GB.
Also your numbers for 6870 are incorrect.

EDIT: I see Vipeax beat me to it .

[SKYMTL]

5870 1GB is approx ~7% slower in 25x16 resolution and ~8% in 19x12.
AMD needs ~26/30% improvement with 6970 at 19x12/25x16 resolutions to basically match 580GTX 1.5GB.
Also your numbers for 6870 are incorrect.

EDIT: I see Vipeax beat me to it .

Sorry. No. Too many ancient games and synthetics thrown into that result unforunately and I believe Mike uses a combination of AA AND non-AA numbers. In newer games (DX11 predominantly) with AA enabled, the gap is much more significant.

I should also say that I am referring to IN-GAME results here and not certain built in and stand-alone benchmarks that have been proven to completely screw up results.

[[XC] hipno650]

you guys trust that site? i don't they have put out a few "interesting" reviews in the past.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-22.html

GTX 570 to 5870 at 1920(4X AA) is about 32%

Factor on another 10% depending on the game to the 6870 and thats 40% at the most popular settings for PC gaming... to make up that much ground with only a little more Mem bandwidth and the same number of ROP's as a 6870... that will be a feat no matter what they do to the shaders. considering the clock speed will most likely be lower as well if anything the 6950 will be a touch slower then the 570 and the 580 and 6970 will be neck and neck i would guess

[zerazax]

to make up that much ground with only a little more Mem bandwidth and the same number of ROP's as a 6870...

ROPs are doubled-up in functionality, according to slides

[generics_user]

you guys trust that site? i don't they have put out a few "interesting" reviews in the past.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-22.html

GTX 570 to 5870 at 1920(4X AA) is about 32%

Factor on another 10% depending on the game to the 6870 and thats 40% at the most popular settings for PC gaming... to make up that much ground with only a little more Mem bandwidth and the same number of ROP's as a 6870... that will be a feat no matter what they do to the shaders. considering the clock speed will most likely be lower as well if anything the 6950 will be a touch slower then the 570 and the 580 and 6970 will be neck and neck i would guess

while i don't agree with their hardware choice in driver specific reviews (no dualgpu) and hate for SLI and Crossfire configs their single GPU reviews were pretty good in the last few years


additionally somethign is fishy with that hardware canucks chart, the difference between 4xAA and no AA is significantly higher than in every other review out there were 5xxx and 4xx/5xx AA scaling is much closer, their results are completely different to most user tests and professional reviews and completely overrated....

[SKYMTL]

additionally somethign is fishy with that hardware canucks chart, the difference between 4xAA and no AA is significantly higher than in every other review out there were 5xxx and 4xx/5xx AA scaling is much closer, their results are completely different to most user tests and professional reviews and completely overrated....

Oh? I have have yet to see a review where AMD's cards don't take a massive hit when AA is enabled. It's an architectural limitation which AMD will likely resolve with upcoming products.


As for the results, I am 100% confident in saying that on average with the latest WHQL drivers, HD 5870 is at least 30% slower at 1920 x 1200 4xAA than the GTX 480 in newer games. I'd even venture that this carries over into quite a few DX9 games as well but it won't show up on charts simply due to CPU bottlenecks artificially impacting the scores.

To me, DX11 and to a lesser extent DX10 really is all that matters in terms of performance when testing $150 and above GPUs. Even a lowly GTS 450 has no issue pushing out 60 FPS+ in the current crop of DX9 games at 1920 x 1200.

[safan80]

Oh? I have have yet to see a review where AMD's cards don't take a massive hit when AA is enabled. It's an architectural limitation which AMD will likely resolve with upcoming products.


As for the results, I am 100% confident in saying that on average with the latest WHQL drivers, HD 5870 is at least 30% slower at 1920 x 1200 4xAA than the GTX 480 in newer games. I'd even venture that this carries over into quite a few DX9 games as well but it won't show up on charts simply due to CPU bottlenecks artificially impacting the scores.

To me, DX11 and to a lesser extent DX10 really is all that matters in terms of performance when testing $150 and above GPUs. Even a lowly GTS 450 has no issue pushing out 60 FPS+ in the current crop of DX9 games at 1920 x 1200.

Performance with the 10.10e drivers worst than the 10.10d drivers for. The 10.10 whql and 10.11 whql drivers are worst for me than the 10.10d. Honestly I could care less about whql drivers they suck from both nvidia and ATI.

[generics_user]

Oh? I have have yet to see a review where AMD's cards don't take a massive hit when AA is enabled. It's an architectural limitation which AMD will likely resolve with upcoming products.


As for the results, I am 100% confident in saying that on average with the latest WHQL drivers, HD 5870 is at least 30% slower at 1920 x 1200 4xAA than the GTX 480 in newer games. I'd even venture that this carries over into quite a few DX9 games as well but it won't show up on charts simply due to CPU bottlenecks artificially impacting the scores.

To me, DX11 and to a lesser extent DX10 really is all that matters in terms of performance when testing $150 and above GPUs. Even a lowly GTS 450 has no issue pushing out 60 FPS+ in the current crop of DX9 games at 1920 x 1200.

sorry to burst your bubble but you are the only review site showing such extreme differences in AA scaling between amd and nvidia

sure amd loses some 5-10% more fps in AA but in your summary it seems like it takes a hit 2-3 times bigger than nvidia which is the complete opposite to every single other review out there

[safan80]

sorry to burst your bubble but you are the only review site showing such extreme differences in AA scaling between amd and nvidia

sure amd loses some 5-10% more fps in AA but in your summary it seems like it takes a hit 2-3 times bigger than nvidia which is the complete opposite to every single other review out there

This is nothing new, when the did their 580 GTX review they had the 5970 in it which beat the 580GTX and they chose the 580GTX over the 5970 without even talking about the fact that people who already owned a 5970 would not want or need to change to the 580GTX. Their reviews are not the best anyways, they don't offer anything different (competitive advantage wise) than other review sites. What is worst is they don't like to test crossfire or SLI much, but when they do they prefer to do SLI. They are pretty much a Nvidia mouth piece kind of site.

[xdan]

Just to help you here is the article heading: "Radeon HD 6970 is 10 - 20% faster than GTX 480"
In the article he says "When we compare our own GTX 480 results and add 20 percent on top of that it turns that Cayman XT loses to both GTX 570 and especially GTX 580."
Most reviews had the GTX 570 about as fast as the GTX 480.
So can you explain how the HD 6970 can be slower than GTX 570?
Do you believe the HD 6970 is going to be slower than GTX 570?

GTX 480 is 13-15% slower than GTX 570 in Vantage.

Still my guess is that 6970 will be at midle between GTX 570 and GTX 580.
Probably 6950<GTX570<6970< gtx 580.

[SKYMTL]

Did you bother to read the article?
Just to help you here is the article heading: "Radeon HD 6970 is 10 - 20% faster than GTX 480"

Most reviews had the GTX 570 about as fast as the GTX 480.
So can you explain how the HD 6970 can be slower than GTX 570?

I never said which PART of the article was true or false since Fudo contradicted himself more than once as you can see by the highlighted portions above.

sorry to burst your bubble but you are the only review site showing such extreme differences in AA scaling between amd and nvidia

sure amd loses some 5-10% more fps in AA but in your summary it seems like it takes a hit 2-3 times bigger than nvidia which is the complete opposite to every single other review out there

What in the world are you talking about? 2-3 times? I see a 15% loss on average between AMD and NVIDIA when AA is enabled. The true difference runs the gamut from 0 all the way up to ~20%.

[DarthShader]

Oh? I have have yet to see a review where AMD's cards don't take a massive hit when AA is enabled. It's an architectural limitation which AMD will likely resolve with upcoming products.

As for the results, I am 100% confident in saying that on average with the latest WHQL drivers, HD 5870 is at least 30% slower at 1920 x 1200 4xAA than the GTX 480 in newer games.

Why pick out 4xAA? What about 8xAA?

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-18.html

10% slower at 25x16, 8xAA at worst. (I realize the sample is small, but I blame the reviewer for not doing more )

Compared to the 30% from 4xAa, is this an "architectural limitation which nVidia will likely resolve with upcoming products." ?

[cegras]

Oh? I have have yet to see a review where AMD's cards don't take a massive hit when AA is enabled. It's an architectural limitation which AMD will likely resolve with upcoming products.


As for the results, I am 100% confident in saying that on average with the latest WHQL drivers, HD 5870 is at least 30% slower at 1920 x 1200 4xAA than the GTX 480 in newer games. I'd even venture that this carries over into quite a few DX9 games as well but it won't show up on charts simply due to CPU bottlenecks artificially impacting the scores.

To me, DX11 and to a lesser extent DX10 really is all that matters in terms of performance when testing $150 and above GPUs. Even a lowly GTS 450 has no issue pushing out 60 FPS+ in the current crop of DX9 games at 1920 x 1200.

Didn't HardOCP do a piece a looong time ago where the 4870X2 would give you 'free' next levels of AA? I think this was CFAA though, so probably not relevant.