Radeon HD 5870 Six with 6 display outputs, prices, performance

[okorop]

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15436/1/

We finally figured out out the final specification of the chip that we called RV870 and the fact that AMD plans to call it Radeon HD 5870 doesn’t come as a big surprise. The chip works at 825MHz and has 1600 shaders, two times more than RV770 which indicates that the chip is two times faster than the year old RV770.

The chip has as mmany as 2.1 billion transistors and is more than twice the number the RV770 packs, which has 956 million transistors. The card uses GDDR5 memory clocked at 1.3GHz (5.2GHz in quad mode) and can provide more than 150GB/second bandwidth. The power of this card stays at 180W while in idle the power drops down to 27W, three times less than the 90W on 4870.

By a rough specification-based estimate, the Radeon HD 5870 could end up two times faster than the Radeon HD 4870 but realistically, you should expect the new card to be faster by about 60 percent across the board.

[blindbox]

See Post #38 onwards for context.

As I said - DisplayPort.

HDMI has more than adequate "bandwidth" to carry digital data at resolutions even higher than what we consider "extreme" now (ie. 2560), and I didn't think anyone would call the ability to carry full 7.1 audio data over the same cable "useless" (DisplayPort has the same functionality anyway - would you call it useless in that context?). Furthermore, HDMI supports xvYCC, which we should all be using anyway.

But this isn't about HDMI><DP, this is about DP itself - the supporters are advocating it as "HDMI for your PC", which sounds neat, but the problem is the DRM - the number of consumer-level displays which are HDCP certified is tiny compared to the number of otherwise perfectly good displays that will be needlessly and pointlessly rendered useless if DP gains wide acceptance. If Big Content (R) and Big Beige Boxes (TM) get together and enforce this standard on us, we all lose.

The point is, it isn't needed, it isn't even desirable when ordinary DVI works just fine for even the highest resolutions available today, and really it has no purpose other than to restrict consumer rights and choice.

If it is an open standard, adding another port wouldn't cost much. Like largon said in the thread you made, there are adaptors, which would nullify your point bolded in the quote. They're not electrically compatible but adaptors still exist.

http://www.monoprice.com/products/su...04&cp_id=10428

xvYCC support: When we have such capable monitors, I do think we would also have DisplayPort support it.

Well here's my conclusion: DisplayPort will not affect anything that exists today, why not embrace it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display...tages_over_DVI

Here's a few advantages. It really needs a citation link though.

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6594089.html

The only problem I see is HDMI/DVI to DisplayPort, which isn't mentioned. Then again, if that ever happen, that means all TVs, all computer monitors by that time are using DisplayPorts.

First rumored benchmark is Crysis:

HD5870 Crysis Benchmark Score
CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955BE
Win 7 RTM
VGA: HD5870 1GB

Crysis 1900x1200 4AA +16 AF DX10 Very High
min: 30 .**
avg: 43 .**
max: 54 .**



http://74.125.159.132/translate_c?hl...ivsFsnZPqEd56Q



Well looks like it is faster than 4890 Crossfire and GTX295

Crysis in full detail isn't a dream anymore

Did their memory management got more efficient? IIRC, 4xAA kills memory (though I admit, I've never tried 4x AA on Crysis myself).

[hurleybird]

Get the out of here! If those numbers are true I'm picking one of these up as soon as possible regardless of price. That and 9700pro part 2. Might just be abnormaly good at crysis though.

Damn, I hope those numbers are true.

[flopper]

The card, rocks.

[jaredpace]

another comparison from that thread:


PhII 955 + HD5870 1GB: 43FPS

It appears it is literally two perfectly scaling 4890's in a dual core. woah.

However, on the other hand, here is another perspective:


edit: here is one more from THG:


According to this, 4870x2 < GTX295 < GTX280 sli < 5870 1GB OC < GTX280 tri-sli < 4870x2 Quadfire < GTX295 quad sli

[SoulsCollective]

If it is an open standard, adding another port wouldn't cost much. Like largon said in the thread you made, there are adaptors, which would nullify your point bolded in the quote. They're not electrically compatible but adaptors still exist.

xvYCC support: When we have such capable monitors, I do think we would also have DisplayPort support it.

Well here's my conclusion: DisplayPort will not affect anything that exists today, why not embrace it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display...tages_over_DVI

Here's a few advantages. It really needs a citation link though.

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6594089.html

The only problem I see is HDMI/DVI to DisplayPort, which isn't mentioned. Then again, if that ever happen, that means all TVs, all computer monitors by that time are using DisplayPorts.

I think you're missing the point. You can convert DP or MiniDP to DVI, sure, meaning you can connect a monitor to it no probs. But because of the DRM, you can't play back HD content on that monitor, even if the monitor is perfectly capable of doing so. If DP wasn't an option, HD content marketed at PC users would have to be DRM-free, because our current standards of DVI and VGA do not support HDCP. As for colour space, I don't think you can just add support at a later stage, but I could be wrong on that point, not being an expert on such things.

DP has no advantages for the current market and will continue to have no advantages for the next few years at least. Pushing DP is all about content control and rights restriction, nothing more - it gives the end-user no benefit and there is no compelling reason for us to switch to it until HD media is regularly produced and available in resolutions above 2560*1600. And by that point I sincerely hope we've all abandoned this ridiculous screw-the-consumer DRM bullcrap.

[madcho]

super vga was the best. better than dual dvi link ...

[hurleybird]

Will you guys take it somewhere else with the displayport crap?

[SoulsCollective]

super vga was the best. better than dual dvi link ...

Er...no. Unless you mean WQUXGA, which is just silly and was to the best of my knowledge never actually implemented.

[flopper]

another comparison from that thread:


PhII 955 + HD5870 1GB: 43FPS

It appears it is literally two perfectly scaling 4890's in a dual core. woah.

However, on the other hand, here is another perspective:

and also, the 2gb version of cypress might add some higher numbers.

[zerazax]

So 5850 is 1440SP + 725MHz = 2.08 TFlops... and 5870 is 1600SP + 850 (or 825?) MHz = 2.6-2.7TFlops?

Wow, I can't even imagine what a 5870X2 would do.

As far as memory management goes... it appears that ATI has been better at memory management than the Nvidia equivalent. Take a look at benches of G92 chip cards with increased AA or increased memory vs. RV770 cards...

[hurleybird]

Er...no. Unless you mean WQUXGA, which is just silly and was to the best of my knowledge never actually implemented.

I believe it's called sarcasm!

[jmke]

Crysis or Crysis Warhead. Not the same benchmark, not the same results, and between maps there is a huge difference; those numbers

Crysis 1900x1200 4AA +16 AF DX10 Very High
min: 30 .**
avg: 43 .**
max: 54 .**

don't mean anything without more info about what benchmark was used; the fact that they refer to "DX10 Very High" means it's Crysis, not Crysis Warhead, so comparing the results to Crysis Warhead is apples vs oranges.
Without info on what map it was; if it was a fly-by or not etc... no conclusion can be drawn from this; an average of 43 fps at 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF can be had with a slightly OC'ed HD 4890 in Crysis... depending on the map/benchmark.

[jaredpace]

Crysis or Crysis Warhead. Not the same benchmark, not the same results, and between maps there is a huge difference; those numbers



don't mean anything without more info about what benchmark was used; the fact that they refer to "DX10 Very High" means it's Crysis, not Crysis Warhead, so comparing the results to Crysis Warhead is apples vs oranges.
Without info on what map it was; if it was a fly-by or not etc... no conclusion can be drawn from this; an average of 43 fps at 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF can be had with a slightly OC'ed HD 4890 in Crysis... depending on the map/benchmark.

well yes, we understand this. thats why I've posted random 1920 4xaa benchmarks from 4 differnent sites. No telling the map or if it's regular/warhead, or if its 32/64 bit, 2gb walmart ram, 12gb domintators, etc etc. it's just to give you a relative idea, since theres nothing to compare it to ....

[jmke]

no, you posted random Crysis Warhead benchmarks. not the same

if a standard "demo" was used for that 43 avg, it would mean the HD 5870 will end up close to 2x as fast as GTX 280 and HD 4870 X2.

[jaredpace]

no, you posted random Crysis Warhead benchmarks. not the same

if a standard "demo" was used for that 43 avg, it would mean the HD 5870 will end up close to 2x as fast as GTX 280 and HD 4870 X2.

no, w1zzard's are not warhead....

Also, 4870x2 & gtx280 aren't the same speed in the first place. And yes, it looks to be 2x the speed of a gtx280.

[astrallite]

If those numbers are from the first level and the ice level, then this card is golden. The flyby intro I think is the most brutal part of Crysis and even dual GPU can't maintain > 30fps. With a pair of SSC GTX285s, i7 @ 3.8ghz and X25-E SSD, during the flyby I was hitting lows of 27-28fps.

As far as the beginning of the thread, if it's true, I hope the 25-40% increased performance number does not refer to the 4890 though, because then you are talking about the same speed as an overclocked GTX285.

Lol even if this game does conquer Crysis it's been what--3 years? Crysis has the title as the longest running game to totally devastate high end PC gaming, lol. Crysis Warhead and Crysis are different though, IIRC the original Crysis is slightly more demanding by ~5%.

[Jamesrt2004]

Crysis in full detail isn't a dream anymore

Did their memory management got more efficient? IIRC, 4xAA kills memory (though I admit, I've never tried 4x AA on Crysis myself).

iirc they've changed the way they do AA so it could just be the way it calculates it it better & more efficient =)

plus memory management im sure wil get tweaks

[flopper]

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/sh...&postcount=543

[blindbox]

I think you're missing the point. You can convert DP or MiniDP to DVI, sure, meaning you can connect a monitor to it no probs. But because of the DRM, you can't play back HD content on that monitor, even if the monitor is perfectly capable of doing so. If DP wasn't an option, HD content marketed at PC users would have to be DRM-free, because our current standards of DVI and VGA do not support HDCP. As for colour space, I don't think you can just add support at a later stage, but I could be wrong on that point, not being an expert on such things.

DP has no advantages for the current market and will continue to have no advantages for the next few years at least. Pushing DP is all about content control and rights restriction, nothing more - it gives the end-user no benefit and there is no compelling reason for us to switch to it until HD media is regularly produced and available in resolutions above 2560*1600. And by that point I sincerely hope we've all abandoned this ridiculous screw-the-consumer DRM bullcrap.

You can convert DP to HDMI. From what I see, they use packet-based delivery system, which probably would allow addition of extra colour gamut easily (I'm no expert nonetheless).

I don't get it, DP can implement HDCP (and they did), so what's there about incompatibility? They even mentioned backward compatibility as one of their main/important/strong points.

[vardirox]

Gaming Nirvana!





http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming...-review-634244

[flopper]

dang, need moe money to get screens

Finally gaming as it was meant to be played on ati cards!

[blindbox]

I wish they post a close-up view of the card running. It's there! Not in a case, c'mon just a little closer

[FischOderAal]

Dang. Did noone bring a mirror-shot and a tele-zoom to one of the presentations? I'm getting sick and tired of this blurred shots taken with mobiles...

[jaredpace]

Here is a repost - everyone is saying, "Dual-core" regarding 5870 :

Dual core / MCM: This generation supports a new "hard" method of dual gpu rendering that differs from previous Crossfire implementation that we see R800 and in rv870 crossfire situations. The chinese translation is "dual core" or split frame hardware- Has something to do with the way the shaders/alus etc operates inside an individual gpu (a method of simultaneous operations in the hardware, similar to dual core, yet not actually two dies in one package ala MCM). Perhaps there is no more real-time compiler in the driver and its all handled on the hardware level by the scheduler. Because the core of the chip is so modular & scalable with certain areas sharing parts of the die (ROPS + Memory controller logic), you are able to divide the specs in half (1600/256/80/32 to 800/128/40/16) and have two parts (rv870/rv830) and rv870 appears as two rv830's, yet it is still only one die. Hence term "dual-core" - more like "modular". Some people think, yes, but all GPUs are multi-core because each of the shaders is like a core by itself. Well, here we are dealing with two large arrays of 800 shaders, along with other standalone logic that communicates with either one of the two identical arrays. More specifically, one Rv870 die is composed of two Rv830-like 160x5 clusters/shader arrays (like two current-gen revamped rv770's in one die) sharing certain features, but connected via "internal crossfire" working in unison and the entire design is a continuation of R600 architecture. It is load balanced, efficient, and requires no crossfire software optimization (because it is hardware level communication); it works via SFR 8*8-32*32, and is bandwidth intensive. The board is using next-gen 5ghz Gddr5 to provide the required bandwidth. So, apparently they've slapped together two 40nm rv770's... so it's easy to see where "dual-core" confusion comes from. Cypress is like a 40nm 4890x2 in one die! -So, it is like a "native dual core" CPU. Now that specs are known for Cypress & Juniper (rv870 & rv830) you can expect that the remaining parts Cedar & Redwood (rv840 & rv810) are 3/4 Cypress & 1/4 Cypress respectively, and that Hemlock (r800) is 2 x Cypress in the same fashion as the HD4870x2 on a single PCB. So, Cypress is like a larabee, except that it uses 2 rv770 cores, whereas larabee is using several P54C cores. (Even though this isn't an actual rv870 die shot, rather an artist's rendition posted earlier - when you do see an actual one, it will look more like the first two images ie. a symmetrical reflection of two identical core areas over a center axis, rather than the third picture - which is an actual die shot of rv770. Notice in the 3rd pic that the rv770 is asymmetrical by design, not resembling a dual core architecture.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=174
I wrote this a few weeks ago about the rv870 core based off what i was reading about it. In the bolded part, the report I read said that it was "200% efficient" in scaling between the two cores because of zero overhead.