5970 Reviews

[Schmide]

nm

 

[thilanliyan]

So can someone link a power supply that is on newegg that will be capable of running the 5970 even overclocked. I tried reading the anandtech and tom's hardware interviews and the powersupply part was somewhat confusing.

I would trust any 750w+ PSU from brands like Seasonic, OCZ, Corsair, PC P&C, Enermax, Silverstone, and probably a couple of other brands to run a 5970. The numbers that most sites show are the full system load numbers so you should be good with a 750w+ PSU.

 

[bryanW1995]

Considering how painful efforts to discuss topics of sports, religion, and politics can become in social circles in real life owing to rabid fanboyism I would have to say that if wreckage is the worst this social circle has contend with then we've done something right.

Seriously, if you ever want to waste your life just try and talk NFL with any one of my brothers and say something that isn't absolutely glorifying of the Patriots. Hell hath no fury... Wreckage posts are water on a ducks back.

ok, I'll bite.

Tell your brothers that I wish bledsoe had never gotten hurt so the cowboys got brady, instead.

 

[edplayer]

The card launched today. The release date is today. The benchmarks showing up everywhere are real and official. As for TSMC, both nvidia, AMD, and TSMC has stated that there are problems with the 40 nm process and supply will be extremely tight through December.

Given the noticeable and extreme scarcity of the 58XX series thus far, the 5970 will be even more scarce. It's common sense. There is nothing silly about my original post, nor this one. And no, I am not dreaming.

Your original post was silly.

Not that there was no semblance of truth to it, but that it was greatly exaggerated.

Prior to today, ATi made no mention of the 5970. Like I posted, all that you saw was a slide that had a listing of a dual gpu card. Of course reviewers had to receive their cards early to test them and whether that site broke the NDA or was given permission to post I don't know. But ATi wasn't pimping this card at all.

TSMC productions problems are real but not in the massive sense that you claimed. If there were only 10 or 15 5970s then yes, that would have been an accurate description. I believe there is an Anandtech article on 58X0 series availability with something along the lines of a claim of 500,000 or so cards to have been initially projected but now it has revised downwards to "in the hundreds of thousands" (to be produced in 2009).

 

[BFG10K]

But like I've said, it still doesn't justify the choice for the clocks ATI chose. It could have went a bit over 300 Watts, I don't think people had any problems with that.

Of course it’s justified; the ATX spec calls for a maximum of 300W. If ATi had violated that spec, one could justifiably claim they’re intentionally shipping faulty hardware.

An overclocked 5970 pulls about as much power as a pair of 5870s, but it does so through two connectors instead of four. Think about the ramifications of this for a moment.

 

[Qbah]

Crysis in that techpowerup article corrected to Very High for the HD5970. Still whoops the other cards without breaking a sweat. 44.9FPS @ Very High @ 1920x1200 + AAx4 !

 

[palladium]

Crysis in that techpowerup article corrected to Very High for the HD5970. Still whoops the other cards without breaking a sweat. 44.9FPS @ Very High @ 1920x1200 + AAx4 !

Hmm... I want that card right now. (no seriously, if I'm not travelling over the summer, I would go out and buy it now before it runs out of stock)

 

[akugami]

What do you mean?

HF5890 is a heck of a lot faster than the GTX295.

If they were able to increase resolution/detail settings/IQ to make things even more GPU bound the difference would be even greater.

Like I said, the gains are more than solid...just not enough to entice me to buy one. I was really hoping for more. As it is, I'll wait. Especially considering the higher requirements of enabling tessellation and bumping up some other eye candy.

Luckily NVIDIA's availability of PhysX games is much, much better than the availability of DX11 games. :whiste:

You conveniently forgot to mention that DX11 adoption in new games has been exponentially faster than GPU PhysX adoption and that assuming release dates don't get pushed back, DX11 in one year will have pretty much as many games released to the public as GPU accelerated PhysX games in three years.

In fact I think NVIDIA got lucky here. Even though their card appears to be showing up late, there are no top shelf DX11 games to drive demand and poor availability of the 5xxx series.

Yeah, lets make it seem like this is ATI's fault that there is poor availability of Radeon 5xx0 series of cards. Forget that there are major issues at TSMC's fabs and that it is not, in this one case, ATI's fault that there are low availability of cards.

Let's conveniently ignore that most high quality new games take anywhere from two to three years to develop. Let us also ignore that DX11 has only been officially available to the public for about two months, though I believe the API's have been around to developers for close to a year. Ignore as well that there are no unlimited resources and that DX11 (or PhysX) support in games take time. Yeah, DX11 is absolutely a disappointment! I mean, two months of public availability and there isn't already fifty games out using it? Total suckage!

I'm glad that that GPU PhysX has had amazing developer support over the last few years and dozens upon dozens of games per year gets released supporting GPU PhysX. In fact, in it's first two months of public availability there were already twenty games released using GPU PhysX!

This card has a $600 price tag, which oddly enough no one here is complaining about (much like they did when NVIDIA cards priced high).

Actually was this a paper launch as I don't see any at Newegg??

In this one case, we have nVidia to thank. This is one area I think ATI will have a hard time topping any time soon, inflation aside. I mean how do you top releasing a $800 MSRP (or was it $850) card that is released to near zero availability by nVidia.

...The TWIMTBP program involves sending nvidia engineers to help the dev code the game to run fastest on their hardware, not to sabotage the performance of the game on other hardware. If AMD were as marketing savvy and as smart as nvidia, they'd implement similar programs.

It's also been mentioned about many times that ATI implements a similar program to provide funding and support to developers. They've had this program for years. I, and many others, find it highly strange that it is only TWIMTBP games with uneven performance. The performance strangely gives better performance to nVidia by a large degree and always in favor of nVidia. Games supported by ATI's developer support program, the one you suggested ATI implement, has always had roughly even performance on both ATI and nVidia hardware. This also has been previously mentioned many times on these forums. Games not supported by either ATI or nVidia's program strangely enough runs roughly even (for the most part) on either vendor's hardware. All this is of course merely coincidence.

 

[Idontcare]

It's also been mentioned about many times that ATI implements a similar program to provide funding and support to developers. They've had this program for years. I, and many others, find it highly strange that it is only TWIMTBP games with uneven performance. The performance strangely gives better performance to nVidia by a large degree and always in favor of nVidia. Games supported by ATI's developer support program, the one you suggested ATI implement, has always had roughly even performance on both ATI and nVidia hardware. This also has been previously mentioned many times on these forums. Games not supported by either ATI or nVidia's program strangely enough runs roughly even (for the most part) on either vendor's hardware. All this is of course merely coincidence.

I'll openly admit ignorance here to the details or the backstory...but the first question that popped into my mind when reading this portion of your post is do we know whether or not:

1. TWIMTBP games make Nvidia look better because they, presumably for sinister reasons, have been optimized to perform poorly on AMD architecture?
2. TWIMTBP games make Nvidia look better because they, presumably for acceptable reasons, are better optimized for execution on Nvidia's architecture?

If AMD assists a game developer and the resultant game does not demonstrate some kind of performance bias (owing to optimization made by AMD for better code exectution on AMD's architecture) in favor of AMD's own products then I really have to question the value of AMD's program in terms of ROI for the shareholder equity that the program is consuming.

 

[tviceman]

Games not supported by either ATI or nVidia's program strangely enough runs roughly even (for the most part) on either vendor's hardware. All this is of course merely coincidence.

And, strangely enough, many many games in the TWIMTBP programmed run just as well, if not better, on AMD hardware. All of this is also, of course, merely a coincidence.

 

[Munky]

The problem currently is it is being held back by drivers, software, and the applications themselves. Current drivers are not without problems on the new Radeon HD 5000 series. There are a slew of games that have some kind of issue with this new graphics series from AMD. If it isn’t lack of AA support or poor AA performance then it is just overall slower performance than it should be in games.

Unimpressive. :\

Actually, it IS impressive, even if only considering the fact that AMD is launching a new X2 card before Nvidia even has a single current-gen gpu out the door.

 

[Seero]

Now can you please stay away from what is left of my bellowed AT forums :/

I will probably catch mod hell for posting this but really, when dozens of people make not so nice remarks about certain posters it is because they are way over the top, posting FUD, derailing threads, ruining debates, in short making the forums useless for what most of want to use them for.

Why you wish to protect this behavior that is obviously getting on the nerves of many posters here is so beyond me, I for one have yet to find a better forum than this for the information I am after, but I have at this point basically given up on there ever being any point in actually debating with people.

Any interesting discussion gets derailed so fast the only use this forum has for me now is the humor value there is in reading how people react to the obvious trolls that are allowed to roam freely here.

bah...

I am sorry, but are you having problems because there exists people with red glasses or green glasses? I said 5970 is a good card, you may be satisfied on that, but others may not. How is it good if it performs badly on games? Which games? Why does it perform badly? Does it really perform badly?

You can go to any form about video cards and most threads will ended up being a red/green war. The question is, can it be done in a civilized manner.

It is said that the 5000 series is having issues with AA in general. Is it a hardware issue? is it a software issue? or is it a driver issue? Is there even true that it is having issues?

TWIMTBP does 2 things that won't benefit ATI user, namely PhysX and 3D. PhysX and 3D can be turn off, but are there codes that must be in place to activate these functions within the game? Yes. I don't know about PhysX, but there is something about 3D that can not be turn off, which is the way 3d objects are being rendered. There are a lots of games that doesn't work well when it is played in 3D. Incorrect depth cause serious flickering. Drivers can't fix this issue, and solution must be done in game.

There are 2 companies that does 3D, namely Nvidia and IZ3D. IZ3D works with ATI cards, while 3D vision does not. However, games that do well with 3D vision also do well with IZ3D. ATI may say they don't need everything rendered in 3D as they don't support 3D anyways, but are they really doing something for people that are using 3D? (There may be more companies that does 3D, and I don't own a IZ3D hardware. I read about it only.)

The other thing that is very important is, does those code actually run faster on Nvidia's hardware? Not all Nvidia's user have 3D vision, meaning that they are on the same boat as people who uses ATI. Unless the code don't slow down 2d, both Nvidia and ATI users that don't use 3D are being hammered.

Yes, you can buy the fastest card, but is there a point if it can only show half of the eye candy? Why isn't all eye candy available for it? Are there anything unique about it other than it is super fast?

Discuss

 

[Wreckage]

You conveniently forgot to mention that DX11 adoption in new games has been exponentially faster than GPU PhysX adoption and that assuming release dates don't get pushed back, DX11 in one year will have pretty much as many games released to the public as GPU accelerated PhysX games in three years.

So far DX11 has one patched DX9 game. :hmm:

PhysX launched with a download pack that contained more than that.

You are skewing the facts a lot. There are plenty of PhysX games coming as well. Not to mention 10's of millions of people more have a PhysX capable GPU vs a DX11.

 

[SlowSpyder]

So far DX11 has one patched DX9 game. :hmm:

PhysX launched with a download pack that contained more than that.

You are skewing the facts a lot. There are plenty of PhysX games coming as well. Not to mention 10's of millions of people more have a PhysX capable GPU vs a DX11.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3679&p=5 One DX11 game.

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=842&pageid=5 Another DX11 game (interesting how the 4890 is a good deal faster than the GTX285... I guess DX10.1 does matter afterall, even though some green fans will want to say otherwise).

Who is skewing facts?

How many GPU accelerated Physx games were patched to use Physx? How many GPU accelerated Physx games are there? Less than 10 maybe? In how many years now? Physx may or may not take off, but so far it has really not gained very much traction at all.

Looks like you're running out of ways to sabotage threads, with AMD's next gen parts launched and Fermi no where in sight. The best you can do is try and point out how there aren't many games out for DX11 yet (with it's entire month or two on the market) and how there are a handful of GPU accelerated Physx games. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before you argue about market share.

 

[Wreckage]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3679&p=5 One DX11 game.

AMD sent over a special benchmark version of STALKER: Call of Pripyat

Sorry I don't consider "special benchmarks" games.

Who is skewing facts?

Anyone who would consider a "special benchmark" a game.

 

[lavaheadache]

So far DX11 has one patched DX9 game. :hmm:

PhysX launched with a download pack that contained more than that.

You are skewing the facts a lot. There are plenty of PhysX games coming as well. Not to mention 10's of millions of people more have a PhysX capable GPU vs a DX11.

I'm really confused as to your motive in this thread. Based on the context of your post it looks as it can be summarized as this:

DX11(which is an industry standard) is a joke and unimportant because there isn't much content available.

PhsyX, must be great because there is available content and millions of people with cards to run it.


Wreckage, I have a 9600 gt that i recently purchased that i wanna play physx content with. There is an available slot in my motherboard if I take out one of my trifired hd4870's (the x2 or the single gpu). Eveytime i try to enable physx it won't let me with the 9600 gt. What gives?

 

[Seero]

I'm really confused as to your motive in this thread. Based on the context of your post it looks as it can be summarized as this:

DX11(which is an industry standard) is a joke and unimportant because there isn't much content available.

PhsyX, must be great because there is available content and millions of people with cards to run it.


Wreckage, I have a 9600 gt that i recently purchased that i wanna play physx content with. There is an available slot in my motherboard if I take out one of my trifired hd4870's (the x2 or the single gpu). Eveytime i try to enable physx it won't let me with the 9600 gt. What gives?

Newer drivers prevent PhysX to run when there exists a video card that isn't Nvidia.

 

[Wreckage]

I'm just saying it's odd for certain people to promote DX11 when there are no real games and at the same time downplay PhysX (which is an industry standard) that has lots of games.

I'm sure eventually in a few years DX11 may become relevant. Although consoles may hold it back much like DX10. I actually like DX11 and hope it takes off. Never did I say I did not like it.

Wreckage, I have a 9600 gt that i recently purchased that i wanna play physx content with. There is an available slot in my motherboard if I take out one of my trifired hd4870's (the x2 or the single gpu). Eveytime i try to enable physx it won't let me with the 9600 gt. What gives?

Sounds like a driver conflict, try contacting ATI tech support to see if they can resolve it.

 

[dflynchimp]

I'm just saying it's odd for certain people to promote DX11 when there are no real games and at the same time downplay PhysX (which is an industry standard) that has lots of games.

I'm sure eventually in a few years DX11 may become relevant. Although consoles may hold it back much like DX10. I actually like DX11 and hope it takes off. Never did I say I did not like it.



Sounds like a driver conflict, try contacting ATI tech support to see if the can resolve it.

If you hope DX11 takes off, then you have no reason to be thinking it odd of people to promote DX11, regardless of whether its repertoire of games has taken off yet.

And I'm pretty sure it's been proven somewhere that Nvidia's actively locking out systems with ATI hardware from using PhysX. If there's a CUDA compatible card within the system there should be no reason the option for PhysX is disabled. Driver conflicts usually manifest themselves in actual gameplay and no in the "Select Options" screen.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Swampthing]

These radeon cards are kind of disappointing to me. I've been waiting for something to upgrade my gtx280 and i don't think either one of these really fit the bill. The 5870 barely beats the 280 on the benchmarks i saw on techspot, sometimes only a 5fps difference, up to 12 or so, with maybe one case higher. Doesn't seem worth it to shell out 400 bucks for that minimal of a gain. While the 5970 is definately faster i don't think the driver issues of games not being supported without driver updates and the 600 price point is really worth it.

Hopefully nvidia's new card is a more significant upgrade as i've been itching for something new for awhile.

 

[lavaheadache]

I'm just saying it's odd for certain people to promote DX11 when there are no real games and at the same time downplay PhysX (which is an industry standard) that has lots of games.

I'm sure eventually in a few years DX11 may become relevant. Although consoles may hold it back much like DX10. I actually like DX11 and hope it takes off. Never did I say I did not like it.



Sounds like a driver conflict, try contacting ATI tech support to see if the can resolve it.

Your right!!!! it is a driver conflict and it was intentional by Nvidia. Not because they had to or because of limitations but because of EGO. So ATi didn't pay for physX big deal. I did though when i bought my friggin 9600 GT x2, GTX 280, 8800 GTX , 8800 GT x2, 8800 GTS 320. Guess what though? I can't use any of them in my rig for my intended purpose.

Nvidia borked my rig, not Ati, so No i shouldn't contact Ati tech support. Thanks for the BAD advice. Best Buy sales men give better tech support and advice than you

 

[TheMeanestGuest]

AMD sent over a special benchmark version of STALKER: Call of Pripyat

Sorry I don't consider "special benchmarks" games.

Anyone who would consider a "special benchmark" a game.

If you payed attention to the article, you would notice that it has indeed been released in Russia and Germany. Or are those not real places anymore?

 

[Seero]

I'm just saying it's odd for certain people to promote DX11 when there are no real games and at the same time downplay PhysX (which is an industry standard) that has lots of games.

I'm sure eventually in a few years DX11 may become relevant. Although consoles may hold it back much like DX10. I actually like DX11 and hope it takes off. Never did I say I did not like it.

Sounds like a driver conflict, try contacting ATI tech support to see if the can resolve it.

As of now, ATI is helping developers on Dx11, while Nvidia is on PhysX. The bottom line is, the 5000 series is generally cheaper, yet faster than any Nvidia series, support Dx11 but not PhysX.

As Lavaheadache said, Fermi is no way seen. I hope it will be 50% faster then 5970, but it is probably going to be a bit faster than 5870 at a cost of an arm. PhysX is not worth the wait and the cost for Fermi IMO. If you are to compare the 5000 series with existing Nvidia's card, then there is actually no competition as ATI wins them all and Tessellation alone beats PhysX. No existing Nvidia card support Dx11, and if Fermi series ain't going to be cheap, then the result is going to be clear .

While TSMC problem may not impact the release date of Fermi series, it will impact the availability of it. There is a big quantity that they need to make before they can work on new orders. Say they fix the problem at December, they will still need to produce the quantity that they owe ATI. Unless Nvidia finds some other fab, Fermi isn't going to hit the market before April, even then will limited supplies. By then lots of ATI users are playing Dx11 games already without paying more.

Unless Nvidia is willing to sell their new card at compatible prices, meaning a card that beats 5870 with no more than 50 bucks more, Nvidia is going to have a losing year.

 

[Seero]

Your right!!!! it is a driver conflict and it was intentional by Nvidia. Not because they had to or because of limitations but because of EGO. So ATi didn't pay for physX big deal. I did though when i bought my friggin 9600 GT x2, GTX 280, 8800 GTX , 8800 GT x2, 8800 GTS 320. Guess what though? I can't use any of them in my rig for my intended purpose.

Nvidia borked my rig, not Ati, so No i shouldn't contact Ati tech support. Thanks for the BAD advice. Best Buy sales men give better tech support and advice than you

That is very arguable. All PhysX testing is done on Nvidia card, having Nvidia do PhysX while ATI card handling others is not intentional.

Think of it this way. Say Nvidia allows the cross vendor setup. One day while you play a game with physX and system crashed and can't be turn on. You realized that your ATI card has melted. You immediately send the card back to ATI as RMA, but they claimed that it was physX that cause the problem which they are not responsible for it. You can't send your ATI card to Nvidia as people will laugh at you, but you do make complains to them. Guess what? They will say they don't support ATI product. So what are you going to do with your brand new burned ATI/Nvidia card?

 

[dguy6789]

That is very arguable. All PhysX testing is done on Nvidia card, having Nvidia do PhysX while ATI card handling others is not intentional.

Think of it this way. Say Nvidia allows the cross vendor setup. One day while you play a game with physX and system crashed and can't be turn on. You realized that your ATI card has melted. You immediately send the card back to ATI as RMA, but they claimed that it was physX that cause the problem which they are not responsible for it. You can't send your ATI card to Nvidia as people will laugh at you, but you do make complains to them. Guess what? They will say they don't support ATI product. So what are you going to do with your brand new burned ATI/Nvidia card?

It's not arguable at all. It worked just fine before, and now without any hardware changes or changes to the games, it suddenly doesn't work with a new driver. It can still be "hacked" to run on the new drivers too, and it works perfectly fine, it's just not allowed normally. If Nvidia made printers they would make it so that they don't work if you have an ATI card in the system. This is no different. It's an artificial lockout with not a shred of technical purpose behind it.