ATI 4xxx Series Thread

[Rusin]

nothing

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Rusin
So according to Bit-Tech this game doesn't even support AA and has 'film grain' to hide that fact..but BT recomends to disable this option because it makes game look worse (enemies with greater distance looks just bad) :frown:

ugh, I hate that "effect"... I have had it disabled or hacked out of any game that I could... some games are downright unplayable before you disable that crap.

As for no AA... GOOD, AA is over rated crap.
It is an extremely expensive operation with extremely low benefits. All the time wasted on implementing it should go into actually improving the engine/drivers where it matters.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
This game has been ported from Xbox. So does that maybe help some out on the AA. If you don't know google is your friend.

That may explain why ATI is doing better, but it doesn't explain why in the lower rez test, a 9600gt beats a 9800GTX. Isn't a 9800GTX and 8800 GTS/512 very close to being the same card? Their scores should be much closer.

I'm not saying this one thing invalidates all the benchmarks, but it does indicate that they should be taken with a grain of salt until more test are done.

It doesn't matter who does it first. But who ever gets multi-Gpus to scale 100% Be it ATI R800/ Larrabbee or nv 300series. Is going to own the graphics /cpu business . That narrows the field to 2 players. ATI can do QPlink . But is intel going to let NV . Ihope not the way NV has handle sli screw them hard intel. make them bag for mercy than give none.

The winner of this war is going to be core scaling. We all know this. If AMD had the performance lead right know with CPU's I would be all over there stock. But with Intel leading and Nehalem top of the line requireing QPling to gpu NV is in a bad way . ATI on the other hand is looking good with both cpu makers preferring the ATI cards. AMD is looking better all the time. Question is how much time do they have?

 

[dv8silencer]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
AMD is looking better all the time. Question is how much time do they have?

Nah... Unless you're a necrophiliac, AMD is not looking better.

 

[taltamir]

firstly, 100% scaling is highly unlikely.
Secondly, it is NOT a race to the magic 100% mark... if company A is at 100% scale and company B at 97% scale, or even 80%, then they can still be competative depending on cost of production of each unit, size of unit, cost of each individual unit, power consumption, and ACTUAL PERFORMANCE per individual unit. (197% of 2 is greater then 200% of 1).

Now if either company could magically increase their scaling from the current 30% to 100% in one fell swoop, then they will own, but just because of the difference between top end parts is so small (typically 10% or so) between companies that a 70% increase in efficiency (flat increase.. aka 30 to 100%) will annihilate any comparison.

 

[Bateluer]

I've had very good luck with ATI cards, so the odds of me buying a 4870 is about 95%.

 

[Sylvanas]

Originally posted by: Rusin
The reason why there aren't any AA scores is that this game uses Unreal3-engine and AMD's graphics cards don't support it. AMD-card + Unreal3 based game + no AA seems to work well. Problem is that Nvidia cards don't seem to take big performance hit when enabling AA. For example in Unreal Tournament 3 game is still playable at 1920x1200 8xAA 16xAF with 8800 GTS 512..and fps numbers on 0xAA aren't as much higher that one could imagine.

We have seen these driver issues so many times. Radeon cards sucked..it self.. in Lost planet DX9 first, but new driver release made really strong player (well they still lose badly in DX10 mode). 8600 GTS were first closer to 7600 GT in some game and after driver update it was on par with 7900 GTO etc.

WTF, so much BS the meter is off the charts. Actually ATI cards Support UE3 and run it Very Well

Unreal3 engine is not nice on AA + AMD graphics card. I wouldn't be suprised if this Mass Effect PC-version wouldn't even have anti-aliasing support at all.

AA has been supported in UE3 based games since Catalyst 8.3- and there have been further improvements on performance since then. I have run UT3 on my setup @ max 1920x1200 2x/4x AA and still around 40fps.

Lost planet is a console port, and performs pathetically for what it is- it should not be used as a benchmark when proper multi GPU / multithreaded engines are out. E.g. Fear (scales well) UE3 (multithreaded) Crysis (self explanatory)

 

[taltamir]

8.3? march of 2008? can you really fault him for not knowing that since 2 months ago it has been fixed?

 

[Sylvanas]

Originally posted by: taltamir
8.3? march of 2008? can you really fault him for not knowing that since 2 months ago it has been fixed?

Well I am not going to sit there and let false information be proclaimed to the masses. There was a large 8.3 thread here on AT that clearly mentioned this.

 

[taltamir]

WTF, so much BS the meter is off the charts

Ok, but that was uncalled for

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: taltamir
isn't the 9600GT the only card to increase the PCIe bandwidth? remember that whole deal with people accusing nvidia of "cheating" because the 9600GT increases the PCIe bandwidth with 174+ driver and an nforce mobo? Maybe the 9600GT being a 9800GTX with half the shaders and lower clockspeed is compensated for by the ... no wait that makes no sense, the 9600GT also has a lower bus if I recall correctly, with less then 256bit that the 9800GTX has. It makes no sense for it to come on top.

Maybe multiple testes checked the cards on different systems and this was the result?

Or maybe we have something similar to the NWN2 (also aurora engine) bug where the 8800GTX suffered from an infinite loop while trying to render water reflections, causing severe slowdowns and much lower performance compared to lower end nvidia cards.

9600GT has a 256-bit bus.
9600GSO has 192-bit.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: taltamir

WTF, so much BS the meter is off the charts

Ok, but that was uncalled for

Actually both Rusin (NV) and Nemesis 1 (ATI) have been strong on fanboyism here, theyre almost ruining a good discussion thread

But do carry on... Cant wait for some performance figures to show up

 

[bryanW1995]

more info:

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7796.html


http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7789.html

 

[Hauk]

X48 board up and running, time to sell my 9800 GTX.

Hmm, two 4870's or one GTX 280...

 

[Foxery]

I'm surprised there hasn't been much discussion of the rumored 1GB (yet single GPU) models. Are games ready for >512 yet, or is ATI jumping the gun here? That also adds a lot to the cost when the RAM is also the first release of its generation - GDDR5. No doubt board partners will release 512MB versions, but the plans I've seen imply that the intended difference between 4870 and 4850 performance should be pretty wide.

 

[bryanW1995]

gtx 280 will be 1gb and 4870 should have a similar amount of bandwidth, so I think that 1gb is justified in this case. Obviously it won't be needed for power users like me who game at 14x9, but nitro or bfg-type users with 30" monitors should actually see quite a bit of benefit this time around from the added memory.

 

[Rusin]

Well according to AMD that $330 mrsp. HD4870 will have 512MB vram..and if there will be HD4870 1024MB it's not reference model.

 

[raddreamer3kx]

will there be a mid range card with the newer ati cards,im building a pc and im not sure if I should wait, like a $150-$175?

 

[Rusin]

HD4600-series. Though in that AMD's slide there were no mention about them..but there already was mention about R700 which will launch mid to late Q3.

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: Foxery
I'm surprised there hasn't been much discussion of the rumored 1GB (yet single GPU) models. Are games ready for >512 yet, or is ATI jumping the gun here? That also adds a lot to the cost when the RAM is also the first release of its generation - GDDR5. No doubt board partners will release 512MB versions, but the plans I've seen imply that the intended difference between 4870 and 4850 performance should be pretty wide.

I need that 1GB card for Oblivion. 512MB is not enough with Qarl's Texture Pack 3.

 

[ajaidevsingh]

Fudzilla is ticking me off they said 4870 costs $229 to which i PMed and told it was wrong.. Still not a thing and i also told them to correct the RV770Pro vs 9800 GT which is again wrong!!! Rv770PRO will take on the 9800 GTX ????????

My PM's are falling on deaf ears/ Blind eye's!!

 

[JPB]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

Originally posted by: Foxery
I'm surprised there hasn't been much discussion of the rumored 1GB (yet single GPU) models. Are games ready for >512 yet, or is ATI jumping the gun here? That also adds a lot to the cost when the RAM is also the first release of its generation - GDDR5. No doubt board partners will release 512MB versions, but the plans I've seen imply that the intended difference between 4870 and 4850 performance should be pretty wide.

I need that 1GB card for Oblivion. 512MB is not enough with Qarl's Texture Pack 3.

Awesome graphics mod. I have this as well, and you are totally right

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: JPB

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

Originally posted by: Foxery
I'm surprised there hasn't been much discussion of the rumored 1GB (yet single GPU) models. Are games ready for >512 yet, or is ATI jumping the gun here? That also adds a lot to the cost when the RAM is also the first release of its generation - GDDR5. No doubt board partners will release 512MB versions, but the plans I've seen imply that the intended difference between 4870 and 4850 performance should be pretty wide.

<I need that 1GB card for Oblivion. 512MB is not enough with Qarl's Texture Pack 3.

Awesome graphics mod. I have this as well, and you are totally right

Cursed game. I stopped working out and gained weight when playing it! Trying to forget that it's sitting on the top shelf of my closet..

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: JPB


Awesome graphics mod. I have this as well, and you are totally right

I want QTP 4 dammit!!

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
gtx 280 will be 1gb and 4870 should have a similar amount of bandwidth, so I think that 1gb is justified in this case. Obviously it won't be needed for power users like me who game at 14x9, but nitro or bfg-type users with 30" monitors should actually see quite a bit of benefit this time around from the added memory.

I think BFG has a 19" CRT- he hates LCDs.

I agree that 1GB memory with more bandwidth should be a big plus for me.