ATI 4xxx Series Thread

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: manko

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

What'd I miss? What is it that we are seeing? (Or that I'm not seeing?)

You missed the speculation and rumors that the 4870X2 will beat the GT280 (in August?) at $500 vs. $649 for the GT280. So, as the story goes, ATI might possibly have the fastest card for a bit, until Nvidia's refresh/die-shrink or if they can come up with a GT260X2 or GT280X2.

We should know whether or not this is true on the 4870's launch date. Two of them in crossfire should be very close in terms of performance to the 4870X2.

I personally don't get very excited about new AMD graphics cards anymore. They don't seem to be gunning for the performance crown anymore. NV should constantly be able to cripple their high-end cards to compete will all these new midrange AMD parts.

I just don't find midrange parts exciting. Hopefully I'm wrong and the 4870 is faster than the new NV cards; I'll just be quite shocked if it is.

 

[Zenoth]

But what if it's not faster but still less expensive? I'd sure be interested. I know, a difference of say... $40 or $50 wouldn't that much. But for example a difference of more than $60 then I think it starts to get quite interesting. From the eyes and pockets of a rich person the price probably doesn't make much of a difference, but for AMD to target the mid-range market the prices will obviously be very important. If they manage to make competitive prices then even if they aren't performing better than Nvidia's cards it will still attract lots of people on budgets and seeking "just enough performance", not necessarily "the best".

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Yeah thats true, usually I think those mid range/low end cards are pretty much useless... When you think about it, if you can get a card with 2x the performance for 50$ more, why the hell wouldnt you? But then you get into that dilemma, in which you then think "well, why not pay another 50$ and get a card with 3x the performance?" and so on, until youve reached the high end so, its good to set some kind of goal and stick to it

 

[Janooo]

Originally posted by: Quiksilver

Originally posted by: allies
I don't think there's anyway in hell that the R770 has 800 SPs. That "AMD" slide looks photoshopped.

It most certainly is...

It could be tweaked in the photoshop but it doesn't have to. I'd say unless you are under NDA you don't know.

 

[chewietobbacca]

What in the slide looks photoshopped? People claim it all the time and yet can't give any fact beyond the fact that it's shaded differently but even that is on assumptions

And as Extelleron posted, 800 SP's isn't that hard for AMD because their ALU's do not take up a lot of room and given that a lot of things are taken from RV670 already and supposedly put on the premium TSMC 55nm process (allowing more dense packing of transistors), it's not a reach at all

 

[Zenoth]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Yeah thats true, usually I think those mid range/low end cards are pretty much useless... When you think about it, if you can get a card with 2x the performance for 50$ more, why the hell wouldnt you? But then you get into that dilemma, in which you then think "well, why not pay another 50$ and get a card with 3x the performance?" and so on, until youve reached the high end so, its good to set some kind of goal and stick to it

But the problem comes when you don't have that extra $50.

Budgets aren't usually very flexible, if not at all. I know that if I myself have a budget of $200 for example I won't suddenly increase it the next week at $250 and then two weeks later at $300, that defeats the purpose of a budget in my book, with such a philosophy you'd better just get some X2 variant and be done with it.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: manko

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

What'd I miss? What is it that we are seeing? (Or that I'm not seeing?)

You missed the speculation and rumors that the 4870X2 will beat the GT280 (in August?) at $500 vs. $649 for the GT280. So, as the story goes, ATI might possibly have the fastest card for a bit, until Nvidia's refresh/die-shrink or if they can come up with a GT260X2 or GT280X2.

We should know whether or not this is true on the 4870's launch date. Two of them in crossfire should be very close in terms of performance to the 4870X2.

I personally don't get very excited about new AMD graphics cards anymore. They don't seem to be gunning for the performance crown anymore. NV should constantly be able to cripple their high-end cards to compete will all these new midrange AMD parts.

I just don't find midrange parts exciting. Hopefully I'm wrong and the 4870 is faster than the new NV cards; I'll just be quite shocked if it is.

maybe you're rolling in cash and can afford to throw $600 every year at the highest end cards, but I think most of us get excited over what is extremely good midrange performance for a reasonable cost. Heck, I think you should get excited for it as well if only because it means more gamers will be able to obtain the processing power required to continue the advancement of PC gaming...

 

[Bateluer]

ATI/NV/Card makers always sell more mid and low end cards than they do high end cards. Most gamers want to spend between 200 and 300 dollars on a graphics card, its only a a small percent that spends 400+ on a graphics card. Its why they usually wait several months after the launch of their high end products to announce the mid and low end parts, they want you to go buy the high cards so they make more money. Some people don't want to to wait and will buy the high end card out right, or jump on the first first 'decent' deal that comes long.


I love high end visuals and get irritated when I have to turn down settings to make a game playable, so I feel I get better longevity out of a higher end card, but I've never bought an uber high end card, such as the 8800 Ultra. Those cards are typically rip offs.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: manko

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

What'd I miss? What is it that we are seeing? (Or that I'm not seeing?)

You missed the speculation and rumors that the 4870X2 will beat the GT280 (in August?) at $500 vs. $649 for the GT280. So, as the story goes, ATI might possibly have the fastest card for a bit, until Nvidia's refresh/die-shrink or if they can come up with a GT260X2 or GT280X2.

We should know whether or not this is true on the 4870's launch date. Two of them in crossfire should be very close in terms of performance to the 4870X2.

I personally don't get very excited about new AMD graphics cards anymore. They don't seem to be gunning for the performance crown anymore. NV should constantly be able to cripple their high-end cards to compete will all these new midrange AMD parts.

I just don't find midrange parts exciting. Hopefully I'm wrong and the 4870 is faster than the new NV cards; I'll just be quite shocked if it is.

maybe you're rolling in cash and can afford to throw $600 every year at the highest end cards, but I think most of us get excited over what is extremely good midrange performance for a reasonable cost. Heck, I think you should get excited for it as well if only because it means more gamers will be able to obtain the processing power required to continue the advancement of PC gaming...

The main reason I'm not too excited is that the 4850/70 look to be barely more powerful (based on the leaked specs) than my 8800GTS that I bought a year and a half ago.

Really, the most important specs look pretty much equal to an 8800GT, and there have been some leaked benchmarks which state that the 4850 is 10% faster than the 8800GT in 3DMark06 (which based on imperical evidence meanst that it will be equal or slower than the 8800GT in games - if true of course).

I don't have $600 for graphics cards. My GTS cost me $325 and has felt like a good value considering how long it has been useful for me. Really the only thing that would truly interest me at this point is a card that would double my current performance for $200 or so. I do find the GT200 cards interesting simply because I will be able to afford one used someday for $200 or less, and it will probably give me 2-3 times my current performance.

 

[chewietobbacca]

True it will one day but I also feel like this last year was a bit of an abomination, that is, cars being this cheap for that much performance. Looking back one year ago, mid-ranged offers were the 2600XT and 8600GTS (lol!) while now, we're expecting high end performance at those same prices. If the companies had it their way, they'd like it to same way where high end prices were just that way until a year or two later when a new gen is released and the mid-ranged cards then perform like the previous high-ends.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: manko

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

What'd I miss? What is it that we are seeing? (Or that I'm not seeing?)

You missed the speculation and rumors that the 4870X2 will beat the GT280 (in August?) at $500 vs. $649 for the GT280. So, as the story goes, ATI might possibly have the fastest card for a bit, until Nvidia's refresh/die-shrink or if they can come up with a GT260X2 or GT280X2.

We should know whether or not this is true on the 4870's launch date. Two of them in crossfire should be very close in terms of performance to the 4870X2.

I personally don't get very excited about new AMD graphics cards anymore. They don't seem to be gunning for the performance crown anymore. NV should constantly be able to cripple their high-end cards to compete will all these new midrange AMD parts.

I just don't find midrange parts exciting. Hopefully I'm wrong and the 4870 is faster than the new NV cards; I'll just be quite shocked if it is.

Always in the past 2x individual card outperformed cardX2 with 2 GPU on one card...
But AMDs claims that they replaced the PCIe splitter with a new type of interconnect that shares info through the ram... well, that could mean that the x2 will greatly outperform 2 individual cards

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: chewietobbacca
True it will one day but I also feel like this last year was a bit of an abomination, that is, cars being this cheap for that much performance. Looking back one year ago, mid-ranged offers were the 2600XT and 8600GTS (lol!) while now, we're expecting high end performance at those same prices. If the companies had it their way, they'd like it to same way where high end prices were just that way until a year or two later when a new gen is released and the mid-ranged cards then perform like the previous high-ends.

it is not conspiring (illigal) if nvidia just happens to raise the price to 50% more then a similarly performing AMD, and then AMD raises their price to match, and neither ever discussed the issue with each other

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Always in the past 2x individual card outperformed cardX2 with 2 GPU on one card...
But AMDs claims that they replaced the PCIe splitter with a new type of interconnect that shares info through the ram... well, that could mean that the x2 will greatly outperform 2 individual cards

The X2 will never perform twice as fast as a single card, though. :thumbsdown:

I did read something awhile ago that suggested that the X2 will actually be able to take advantage of the entire 1GB of onboard memory. If that's true it's great, but it still doesn't fully address the scaling issues.

I'm just really disappointed in the specs of the 4850/70. It looks like AMD is once again going with a shader-heavy card that is severely lacking in texturing performance. If the rumours of them fixing their AA/shader 'problem' are true, that helps somewhat, but really the GT200's look like powerhouses in comparison on paper.

I don't see why we need another midrange card that's in the same performance range as the 8800GT. Hopefully I'm wrong on this, but really the 4850 is looking like a cheap 8800GTX, and the 4870 might be 20-25% faster (for around the current cost of an 8800GTX).

 

[taltamir]

what i was saying... is that if two 4870 in CF got 50% more then a single one... a 4870x2 card could potentially get 70% improvement due to the new communcation method, beating the two individual cards.. that would GREATLY decrease the value of a motherboard with two PCIe slots, meaning that choosing SLI/CF no longer limits your upgrade options / chipset selections. The motherboards with two slots would be reserved for 4xGPU solutions, with 2x always being on a single card via one PCIe slot... a great improvements..

But yea, it will still never reach 100% scaling.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: taltamir
what i was saying... is that if two 4870 in CF got 50% more then a single one... a 4870x2 card could potentially get 70% improvement due to the new communcation method, beating the two individual cards.. that would GREATLY decrease the value of a motherboard with two PCIe slots, meaning that choosing SLI/CF no longer limits your upgrade options / chipset selections. The motherboards with two slots would be reserved for 4xGPU solutions, with 2x always being on a single card via one PCIe slot... a great improvements..

But yea, it will still never reach 100% scaling.

Perhaps it would make board with intel chipsets and dual slots redundant, but you're neglecting the fact that NV still has not put two GPUs onto a single PCB yet (let alone implement this rumored AMD 'feature').

To me it would be huge if AMD could actually figure out how to share the full amount of texture memory between the two GPUs (as they are rumored to have done). That would be a huge step forward and would add a great deal of value to this type of setup.

In terms of the scaling issues, I really do believe that close to 100% scaling is indeed possible. From my experience in 3D rendering, tiling was the best way to use multiple CPUs, however that has been dead on the GPU front ever since PowerVR died (and I assume they took their patent to the grave with them).

 

[taltamir]

close to 100% yes, but not EXACTLY 100%... but with AFR and some new improvements very close is doable. in the future, in theory.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
ATI/NV/Card makers always sell more mid and low end cards than they do high end cards. Most gamers want to spend between 200 and 300 dollars on a graphics card, its only a a small percent that spends 400+ on a graphics card. Its why they usually wait several months after the launch of their high end products to announce the mid and low end parts, they want you to go buy the high cards so they make more money. Some people don't want to to wait and will buy the high end card out right, or jump on the first first 'decent' deal that comes long.


I love high end visuals and get irritated when I have to turn down settings to make a game playable, so I feel I get better longevity out of a higher end card, but I've never bought an uber high end card, such as the 8800 Ultra. Those cards are typically rip offs.

hold on, you mean a card with 7% higher clocks and 50% higher cost is a rip-off???

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: manko

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

What'd I miss? What is it that we are seeing? (Or that I'm not seeing?)

You missed the speculation and rumors that the 4870X2 will beat the GT280 (in August?) at $500 vs. $649 for the GT280. So, as the story goes, ATI might possibly have the fastest card for a bit, until Nvidia's refresh/die-shrink or if they can come up with a GT260X2 or GT280X2.

We should know whether or not this is true on the 4870's launch date. Two of them in crossfire should be very close in terms of performance to the 4870X2.

I personally don't get very excited about new AMD graphics cards anymore. They don't seem to be gunning for the performance crown anymore. NV should constantly be able to cripple their high-end cards to compete will all these new midrange AMD parts.

I just don't find midrange parts exciting. Hopefully I'm wrong and the 4870 is faster than the new NV cards; I'll just be quite shocked if it is.

They may not grab the performance crown (or they might, we still don't have any hard numbers) but if their cards offer 90% of the peroformance of the Nvidia stuff at 70% the cost, and they continue to release 4-5 official drivers for every single official Nvidia driver release, then I think there is plenty of reason to be excited.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: allies
I don't think there's anyway in hell that the R770 has 800 SPs. That "AMD" slide looks photoshopped.

What makes you think it will not have 800SPs?

The die size is enough to accomodate it. AMD's SPs do not take up much die area.

Because we've heard from EVERYWHERE that it's 480, including AMD. Yet this slide leaks out that is obviously photoshopped claiming 800.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: chewietobbacca
What in the slide looks photoshopped? People claim it all the time and yet can't give any fact beyond the fact that it's shaded differently but even that is on assumptions

And as Extelleron posted, 800 SP's isn't that hard for AMD because their ALU's do not take up a lot of room and given that a lot of things are taken from RV670 already and supposedly put on the premium TSMC 55nm process (allowing more dense packing of transistors), it's not a reach at all

Look at anywhere there is text. And the "fuzziness" around it. It's freaking photoshopped.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: allies
I don't think there's anyway in hell that the R770 has 800 SPs. That "AMD" slide looks photoshopped.

What makes you think it will not have 800SPs?

The die size is enough to accomodate it. AMD's SPs do not take up much die area.

Because we've heard from EVERYWHERE that it's 480, including AMD. Yet this slide leaks out that is obviously photoshopped claiming 800.

When did AMD ever tell us anything about RV770, except that it would use GDDR5 memory?

The guy who runs Nordic Hardware said that the person that slide came from is highly reliable and has been 100% accurate in the past. He says that all of his contacts in the East have said 800SP's from the beginning, and the 480SP rumor originated from a German website.

And the slide is not obviously photoshopped. It is possible that it is, but it is not exactly obvious. Anyway, doesn't the previously rumored (and from CCC shots, apparently accurate) 625MHz core clock for the HD 4850 equalling exactly 1 TFLOP seem too perfect for it not to be true?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: allies
I don't think there's anyway in hell that the R770 has 800 SPs. That "AMD" slide looks photoshopped.

What makes you think it will not have 800SPs?

The die size is enough to accomodate it. AMD's SPs do not take up much die area.

Because we've heard from EVERYWHERE that it's 480, including AMD. Yet this slide leaks out that is obviously photoshopped claiming 800.

When did AMD ever tell us anything about RV770, except that it would use GDDR5 memory?

The guy who runs Nordic Hardware said that the person that slide came from is highly reliable and has been 100% accurate in the past. He says that all of his contacts in the East have said 800SP's from the beginning, and the 480SP rumor originated from a German website.

And the slide is not obviously photoshopped. It is possible that it is, but it is not exactly obvious. Anyway, doesn't the previously rumored (and from CCC shots, apparently accurate) 625MHz core clock for the HD 4850 equalling exactly 1 TFLOP seem too perfect for it not to be true?

R600 also had a ridiculous number of SPs for its time, and we all know how that turned out. :roll:

Beyond a certain point, SPs become useless. Several of us verified this a few months ago by disabling SPs on our graphics cards. Up to a certain point, there was absolutely zero performance impact in doing so.

If AMD did in fact dedicate enough die space for 800SPs, to me that shows that they lack proper direction in terms of the type of GPU power that current games require. With that many SPs and so few TMUs and ROPs, the leaked specs make the card look terribly unbalanced IMO.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: allies
I don't think there's anyway in hell that the R770 has 800 SPs. That "AMD" slide looks photoshopped.

What makes you think it will not have 800SPs?

The die size is enough to accomodate it. AMD's SPs do not take up much die area.

Because we've heard from EVERYWHERE that it's 480, including AMD. Yet this slide leaks out that is obviously photoshopped claiming 800.

When did AMD ever tell us anything about RV770, except that it would use GDDR5 memory?

The guy who runs Nordic Hardware said that the person that slide came from is highly reliable and has been 100% accurate in the past. He says that all of his contacts in the East have said 800SP's from the beginning, and the 480SP rumor originated from a German website.

And the slide is not obviously photoshopped. It is possible that it is, but it is not exactly obvious. Anyway, doesn't the previously rumored (and from CCC shots, apparently accurate) 625MHz core clock for the HD 4850 equalling exactly 1 TFLOP seem too perfect for it not to be true?

R600 also had a ridiculous number of SPs for its time, and we all know how that turned out. :roll:

Beyond a certain point, SPs become useless. Several of us verified this a few months ago by disabling SPs on our graphics cards. Up to a certain point, there was absolutely zero performance impact in doing so.

If AMD did in fact dedicate enough die space for 800SPs, to me that shows that they lack proper direction in terms of the type of GPU power that current games require. With that many SPs and so few TMUs and ROPs, the leaked specs make the card look terribly unbalanced IMO.

R600 did not have a rediculous number of stream processors. It had 64 5-way processors that marketing makes sound crazy, with the 320SP figure. Even if you say that R600 is 320SP, they are clocked at only 745MHz compared to 1.35GHz for G80. R600 did not have a rediculous amount of shading power compared to G80. Vertex shading, maybe. But not pixel.

You make it sound as if RV770 will not have enough texture power.... I don't think that is true. 32 TMU at 750MHz is a significant amount of texture power. G80 did fine with 32 TMU @ 575MHz, didn't it? So why is 32 TMU at a much higher frequency now not enough? Pixel wise RV670 had enough power. HD 3870 has much more pixel power than even the 9800GTX and rumors seem to suggest that the RBE's in RV770 will be improved a bit from RV670.

The point is, SP's do not take up much die space at all. So there is really no reason not to have 800SP. Having a significant amount of shading power will improve performance in games that benefit from it and also will make the card great for GPGPU uses such as F@H, etc; TMUs don't do much for non-gaming purposes. Obviously gaming is 1st priority, but I don't think anyone will be complaining about gaming performance on a HD 4870. Except for Crysis @ VH 1920x1200++, a $300 HD 4870 will be the best buy on the market (from what I am speculating and from what I am hearing). If you have a CF mobo, HD 4850 CF for $400 will be a great deal too.

 

[crisium]

Has it been known yet if the 4800 series will be able to crossfire with the 3800 series? If yes, will it work in This motherboard?

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Crisium
Has it been known yet if the 4800 series will be able to crossfire with the 3800 series? If yes, will it work in This motherboard?

It definitely hasn't been confirmed (very little, almost nothing, has been confirmed about HD 4800) but I doubt you will be able to CF 4800 + 3800. 3870 + 3850 is one thing, but 4870 should be slightly diff architecture (some improvements) plus significantly faster.... so I really doubt it.

I have that mobo.... you could do CF with it, but the second card would be only 4x. Since it's PCI-E 2.0 it's probably not that bad, because it would be like PCI-E 1.0 x8.