The ATI Radeon 5XXX Thread

[labs23]

We need real reviews and benchmarks, not a stupid chart from AMD or NVIDIA themselves, we all know those charts are worthless.

+1. If anybody remembered, the chart looks familiar, last time when nVidia was about to release their GT200 series.
Oh yes, green colors dominated the chart way back then.

The performance was there, but those charts are just way off, w/ less data and hard to understand.
I guess its just the trend for unreleased products.

[jaredpace]

Well i guess these are the scores:
ATI Radeon HD 5870
> From 5% to 155% compared to GTX 285 (tested at 17 games and 40 configurations) Represented in the graph average is ~70% faster.
> From -25% to +95% compared to GTX 295 (AA 2x/8x, AF 8x/16x in 16 games)

ATI Radeon HD 5870 in CrossFire
> X2 from -5% to +90% compared to GTX 295 SLI
> X3 from 10% to 160% compared to GTX 295 (tested in 15 games)

ATI Radeon HD 5850
> From -25% to +120% compared to GTX 285 (tested in 19 games and 50 configurations)

So in this test it 5870 would represent 170% relative to the GTX285 (much faster than both 4870x2 and gtx295):

Up to 900% the performance of a GTX285...?

apparently the longest bar is representative of 155% and the dotted line 70% of a 285.

so like this?


more here:



http://www.czechgamer.com/novinky/50...sou-venku.html

[STaRGaZeR]

Since when Assault on Dark Athena is OpenGL? Escape from Butcher Bay is OpenGL, but AoDA is a 360 port.

Isn't Prey OpenGL too? ...

You gotta love official benchmarks.

[BenchZowner]

Prey is OpenGL.
AoDA is DirectX.
TCOR:EFBB is OpenGL.

And the benchmarks are... *

[annihilat0r]

%155 over means 2.5 times GTX 285, if that's the highest difference, according to the chart it's LP colonies 8xAA.
There, 285 = 1 bars, 5870 = 8.9 bars, this means (above 1 bars) each bar is about %20 of GTX 285 performance.

Checking this with the lowest one:

%5 should be Devil May Cry 4.
There, 285 = 1 bars, 5870 = 1.8 bars .

So yeah, that is consistent.

And the dotted line is the 50% line.

[annihilat0r]

So interpreting it according to the games, 5870 is approx. %40 faster than GTX 285 in Crysis, good but not as good as I was expecting; I think marketing got me and set my expectations high

[DilTech]

So interpreting it according to the games, 5870 is approx. %40 faster than GTX 285 in Crysis, good but not as good as I was expecting; I think marketing got me and set my expectations high

Another reason why I'm playing wait and see...I want to see 60+ with 45 MINIMUM at 1080p in crysis for my money next time. Sure, these gains in other games are fine and dandy, but in the end I still want to play through crysis & warhead at 1920x1080 maxed out with 8xAA and 16xAF... Is that really too much to ask when it comes to a game that old?

At this rate, by the time I can do that, we'll have Crysis 2 on CryEngine 3 and be right back to the drawing board on actually being able to run it.

In the mean time, sold my old 8800GTX(got a nice sale on it from someone who wanted it for Tri-SLi) and picked up a XFX 4850 1gb(it was only $70 shipped...new) to play around with while waiting for the dust to settle on the DX11 war. She's a temporary, but I still made a bit off the deal so I'm happy...It'll at least give me a reintroduction to ATi, and perhaps some Volt Modding fun in the process.

[trinibwoy]

World's fastest GPU!

Jen-Hsun must be fuming.....

[gurusan]

World\s Most Useless Chart!

[Lightman]

Just look at the numbers from CzechGamer.

They are in FPS's and points so no magic there

[Xoulz]

%155 over means 2.5 times GTX 285...

[annihilat0r]

yeah... its stupid to think that %155 means 2.5 times; and keeping in mind the %5... this means in some games 5870 is so slow that its performance is one TWENTIETH gtx 285 this is so bad

Good Old Mathematics...

[marten_larsson]

Just look at the numbers from CzechGamer.

They are in FPS's and points so no magic there

Yeah, but according to his chart, the 5870 is >100% faster than GTX285 in HAWX

[labs23]

Another reason why I'm playing wait and see...I want to see 60+ with 45 MINIMUM at 1080p in crysis for my money next time. Sure, these gains in other games are fine and dandy, but in the end I still want to play through crysis & warhead at 1920x1080 maxed out with 8xAA and 16xAF... Is that really too much to ask when it comes to a game that old?

Very much agree on this. And might as well expect a lil' bit more.
I'm on 1080P res. monitor too.

We can go back again and said how badly optimized Crysis coding is. But come on, this upcoming gen. is gonna be the third.

[jaredpace]

Yeah, but according to his chart, the 5870 is >100% faster than GTX285 in HAWX

Yes true, but according to the first chiphell benchmark last week, 5870 is > 100% faster than GTX285 in Crysis VH 4xAA. According to those other benches, 5870 is > 100% faster than GTX285 in Prey, dmc4, LP colonies, Stormrise, ETQW, and riddick (using 8xAA).

So it's possible for situations where it's > 100% faster. In checkgamer's 3dV bench, 5870 is only 40% faster than GTX285. And in the other bench, in Cod WAW, and DMC4 using noAA, 5870 is only 5-15% faster than GTX285. So performance is varying depending on game and use of filters. Like they said, "+5% - 155%", fairly inconsistent across the board.

[annihilat0r]

Crysis coding is not badly optimized. Keep in mind that in Crysis you're always in the middle of an open island and you can see miles and miles on every direction, plus all those miles are covered by dense forests which are rendered in amazing detail. People usually confuse Crysis with console games which have very little draw distance. Crysis's scope is amazing and this is why the FPS's are so low.

That being said, even in the 20 FPS's range Crysis' controls are really tight and I found the game actually playable in the 20 FPS range when I had a 8800 GT and played the game 1680x1050 at Very High. FPS's were low but in the milliseconds range, you can see that every frame is rendered in pretty much constant speed and delay which makes the game appear a lot smoother than you would expect at 20 FPS.

[prava]

That graph is crap. Obviously they centered all the GTX285 results and cut the lower part of the graph to create the image that 5870 is like 500%...which is not.

[annihilat0r]

Crysis coding is not badly optimized. Keep in mind that in Crysis you're always in the middle of an open island and you can see miles and miles on every direction, plus all those miles are covered by dense forests which are rendered in amazing detail. People usually confuse Crysis with console games which have very little draw distance. Crysis's scope is amazing and this is why the FPS's are so low.

That being said, even in the 20 FPS's range Crysis' controls are really tight and I found the game actually playable in the 20 FPS range when I had a 8800 GT and played the game 1680x1050 at Very High. FPS's were low but in the milliseconds range, you can see that every frame is rendered in pretty much constant speed and delay which makes the game appear a lot smoother than you would expect at 20 FPS.

[xXxDieselxXx]

Why comparing against GTX285 and not GTX295? wondering here...

[jaredpace]

Somebody had lots of fun with that first leak













http://bbs.chiphell.com/viewthread.p...extra=page%3D1

~GTX295 x 1.1

~GTX285 x 1.5

[marten_larsson]

Looks like great performance, not that I wasn't expecting anything else..

[DilTech]

Oh, I know full well crysis isn't poorly optimized. The engine was written for future cards, but sadly the following generations never delivered like CryTek had hoped for. I mean, at the rate hardware was going when crysis was being worked on, it would've hit the point required by now if it kept at that pace, ignoring dual-gpu cards.

9800xt to x800xt around a 100% increase, an even higher gain going with NVidia from fx5950 to 6800Ultra
6800Ultra to 7800GTX, again, roughly double, x1850xt to x1900xtx(I think we can all say the x1800 was to short lived to count, so we'll skip to the x1900xtx.)
7900GTX to 8800GTX... Do I even have to mention this one? ATi didn't make nearly as big of a leap on this one.
8800GTX to 9800GTX... Was this even an upgrade? I know in some cases the 8800GTX out-performed thanks to the higher rop and memory bus.
9800GTX to GTX 280? nowhere NEAR the same leap...

Basically, if we had stayed on the same course we were on, the GTX 280/4870's would've been 2 to 4x what we saw(making the dual-cards insanely fast), which would've put crysis playable at even 1920x1080p WITH 8xAA. Sadly, now we probably won't see that for another generation, unless NVidia has a serious trump card up their sleeves, which I wouldn't be surprised if they do. Many forget, during the "road to G80" not much was said other than it would be a DX10 part. Infact, NVidia just sat silent while sites like xbit labs claimed it would be a 48 PS/24 VS card. Silence means nothing from this company.

That said, I'm not placing any bets at all on this round, but the company that wins in crysis is likely to win the whole thing. Pretty much everything else is already playable maxed out anyway on current hardware... The fact that this card loses to the GTX 295(which granted, that card IS a beast and is dual-gpus) in crysis, and barely wins in crysis war head makes me sad though, very very sad.

[iTravis]

ATI Radeon HD 5870 in CrossFire
> X3 from 10% to 160% compared to GTX 295 (tested in 15 games)

Scaling issue?

[overclock]

Oh, I know full well crysis isn't poorly optimized. The engine was written for future cards, but sadly the following generations never delivered like CryTek had hoped for. I mean, at the rate hardware was going when crysis was being worked on, it would've hit the point required by now if it kept at that pace, ignoring dual-gpu cards.

9800xt to x800xt around a 100% increase, an even higher gain going with NVidia from fx5950 to 6800Ultra
6800Ultra to 7800GTX, again, roughly double, x1850xt to x1900xtx(I think we can all say the x1800 was to short lived to count, so we'll skip to the x1900xtx.)
7900GTX to 8800GTX... Do I even have to mention this one? ATi didn't make nearly as big of a leap on this one.
8800GTX to 9800GTX... Was this even an upgrade? I know in some cases the 8800GTX out-performed thanks to the higher rop and memory bus.
9800GTX to GTX 280? nowhere NEAR the same leap...

Basically, if we had stayed on the same course we were on, the GTX 280/4870's would've been 2 to 4x what we saw(making the dual-cards insanely fast), which would've put crysis playable at even 1920x1080p WITH 8xAA. Sadly, now we probably won't see that for another generation, unless NVidia has a serious trump card up their sleeves, which I wouldn't be surprised if they do. Many forget, during the "road to G80" not much was said other than it would be a DX10 part. Infact, NVidia just sat silent while sites like xbit labs claimed it would be a 48 PS/24 VS card. Silence means nothing from this company.

That said, I'm not placing any bets at all on this round, but the company that wins in crysis is likely to win the whole thing. Pretty much everything else is already playable maxed out anyway on current hardware... The fact that this card loses to the GTX 295(which granted, that card IS a beast and is dual-gpus) in crysis, and barely wins in crysis war head makes me sad though, very very sad.

Yes, i agree with you : if the figures are true, the 5870 is disappointing. Crysis and Stalker Clear Sky will be hardly playable.

[SimBy]

Yes, i agree with you : if the figures are true, the 5870 is disappointing. Crysis and Stalker Clear Sky will be hardly playable.

Huh? So 5870 being slightly slower in Crysis and slightly faster in Crysis Warhead compared to nV dual GPU is disappointing?