GTX 260 - 216 SP Review

[AzN]

Originally posted by: dug777


If all we cared about what fps/$, we'd all have 4850s or 9600GSOs (at a guess).

Majority of us have 4850 or 9600gso actually or whatever is equivalent.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: taltamir
well, no, because the performance is similar at that level. More ram is a technical choice. Just like ram type or how many bits your bus is.

Current games need over 512mb vram at 1920x1200+. Future games will require more. That's why cards with 256mb are inadequate. Take a look at Crysis at 2560x1600. The 512mb 4870 can't be used because it doesn't have enough ram. Besides, obviously 896mb costs more than 512mb so it is an unfair comparison.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: taltamir
well, no, because the performance is similar at that level. More ram is a technical choice. Just like ram type or how many bits your bus is.

Current games need over 512mb vram at 1920x1200+. Future games will require more. That's why cards with 256mb are inadequate. Take a look at Crysis at 2560x1600. The 512mb 4870 can't be used because it doesn't have enough ram. Besides, obviously 896mb costs more than 512mb so it is an unfair comparison.

Only a few current games appear to need 512MB+ at 1920x1200. And that is usually with 4x AA or greater applied, although I'm sure that number will increase as developers keep adding additional details to games. I think that 1440x900, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 will continue to be the sweet spot for gaming monitors in the future. 2560x1600 monitors are simply too expensive to considered mainstream.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: taltamir
well, no, because the performance is similar at that level. More ram is a technical choice. Just like ram type or how many bits your bus is.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/ar...php?id=2684&cid=3&pg=8

This reviews proved that the RV770 GPU benefits from the additional RAM, I saw the HD 4870X2 review here http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...hire/HD_4870_X2/6.html and they disabled one GPU and saw those increases in performance.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: taltamir
well, no, because the performance is similar at that level. More ram is a technical choice. Just like ram type or how many bits your bus is.

Current games need over 512mb vram at 1920x1200+. Future games will require more. That's why cards with 256mb are inadequate. Take a look at Crysis at 2560x1600. The 512mb 4870 can't be used because it doesn't have enough ram. Besides, obviously 896mb costs more than 512mb so it is an unfair comparison.

When that 896mb is GDDR3 and the 512 is GDDR5 then the 896 is much CHEAPER, it does not cost more.

And while some games do benefit from the extra ram, those same games also benefit from extra ram bandwidth, in which the 4870 wins.

It makes more sense to compare FPS and realize that it happens because of ram size, speed, gpu speed, etc.

The 260 has more ram. the 4870 has a faster gpu and faster ram. It balances out.
And historically we can see that when games would start needing so much ram that performance would tank, then then you would be limited by the GPU even if you did have enough ram.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: taltamir
well, no, because the performance is similar at that level. More ram is a technical choice. Just like ram type or how many bits your bus is.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/ar...php?id=2684&cid=3&pg=8

This reviews proved that the RV770 GPU benefits from the additional RAM, I saw the HD 4870X2 review here http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...hire/HD_4870_X2/6.html and they disabled one GPU and saw those increases in performance.

yes, and when it benefits from that extra ram it outperforms the GTX260, doesn't it? making it worth more.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: taltamir
well, no, because the performance is similar at that level. More ram is a technical choice. Just like ram type or how many bits your bus is.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/ar...php?id=2684&cid=3&pg=8

This reviews proved that the RV770 GPU benefits from the additional RAM, I saw the HD 4870X2 review here http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...hire/HD_4870_X2/6.html and they disabled one GPU and saw those increases in performance.

yes, and when it benefits from that extra ram it outperforms the GTX260, doesn't it? making it worth more.

In order to get scores for single-GPU HD 4870 X2, I disabled one device in Windows Device Manager. These scores are interesting because they show how a 1024 MB GDDR5 HD 4870 would perform. The normal HD 4870 has only 512 MB of GDDR5.

that is their claim .. we don't really know that is true at all, do we?


look at the benches .. the 512MB version is outperforming the Core disabled X2 at 16x10 and 19x12 in your own example
.. and in the others they trade places

nothing conclusive there

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: taltamir
well, no, because the performance is similar at that level. More ram is a technical choice. Just like ram type or how many bits your bus is.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/ar...php?id=2684&cid=3&pg=8

This reviews proved that the RV770 GPU benefits from the additional RAM, I saw the HD 4870X2 review here http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...hire/HD_4870_X2/6.html and they disabled one GPU and saw those increases in performance.

yes, and when it benefits from that extra ram it outperforms the GTX260, doesn't it? making it worth more.

In order to get scores for single-GPU HD 4870 X2, I disabled one device in Windows Device Manager. These scores are interesting because they show how a 1024 MB GDDR5 HD 4870 would perform. The normal HD 4870 has only 512 MB of GDDR5.

that is their claim .. we don't really know that is true at all, do we?


look at the benches .. the 512MB version is outperforming the Core disabled X2 at 16x10 and 19x12 in your own example
.. and in the others they trade places

nothing conclusive there

Would a P45 help with your x3 setup? Or whatever the top doggie is now, x48?

 

[MrSpadge]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
http://www.hardwarezone.com/ar...php?id=2684&cid=3&pg=8

This reviews proved that the RV770 GPU benefits from the additional RAM

This 1GB 4870 is overclocked, which explains the performance advantage in all but 2 tests. The only cases where more memory helps are Crysis in 1600x1200 with 4x FSAA and Crysis in 1920x1440 with 4x FSAA. Actually you proved our point and not yours.

MrS

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: taltamir
well, no, because the performance is similar at that level. More ram is a technical choice. Just like ram type or how many bits your bus is.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/ar...php?id=2684&cid=3&pg=8

This reviews proved that the RV770 GPU benefits from the additional RAM, I saw the HD 4870X2 review here http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...hire/HD_4870_X2/6.html and they disabled one GPU and saw those increases in performance.

yes, and when it benefits from that extra ram it outperforms the GTX260, doesn't it? making it worth more.

In order to get scores for single-GPU HD 4870 X2, I disabled one device in Windows Device Manager. These scores are interesting because they show how a 1024 MB GDDR5 HD 4870 would perform. The normal HD 4870 has only 512 MB of GDDR5.

that is their claim .. we don't really know that is true at all, do we?


look at the benches .. the 512MB version is outperforming the Core disabled X2 at 16x10 and 19x12 in your own example
.. and in the others they trade places

nothing conclusive there

Well is up to you to believe it or not, you wasn't there when they performed those tests, and you wasn't there when Anandtech performed the X2 tests, so how would you know if both are lying? Please...

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: MrSpadge

Originally posted by: evolucion8
http://www.hardwarezone.com/ar...php?id=2684&cid=3&pg=8

This reviews proved that the RV770 GPU benefits from the additional RAM

This 1GB 4870 is overclocked, which explains the performance advantage in all but 2 tests. The only cases where more memory helps are Crysis in 1600x1200 with 4x FSAA and Crysis in 1920x1440 with 4x FSAA. Actually you proved our point and not yours.

MrS

There's no overclocking that will help you when you are VRAM limited.

 

[MrSpadge]

Oh come on man, please put your thinking cap on!

Well is up to you to believe it or not

His point is not that they are plain lying or making up the numbers. It's that if you simulate a card you can not be 100% sure if the result is correct, if you don't have anything to verify your results (i.e. a real card). Things like GPU-BIOS and driver settings come to mind here.

There's no overclocking that will help you when you are VRAM limited.

Of course not. But that's not the point.

Point is you claimed that the additional RAM benefits the card. The others say "it only benefits the card under extreme conditions, where you're likely to be too slow anyway". So in your first link the 1 GB version is consistently faster than the 512 MB version, but only by a small margain. I'm telling you that this is due to overclocking. Then there are 2 tests (or 4, including XP vs Vista) where the additional 512 MB really help: Crysis 4x FSAA 1920x1440 and 1600x1200. Under Vista we're down to 16 / 21 fps under these conditions, whereas in XP it's 27 / 36 fps.

Would you want to play a shooter at 27 fps? I certainly don't, so this leaves the "XP 1600x1200 36 fps" scenario as the only playable and therefore relevant option of these 4. Here the additional RAM plus 6.7% OC get you 18.6% more performance and in this single case the gaming experience may be significantly improved, from "sometimes chobby" to "fluent almost all the time". That's all you'll get.

MrS

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: taltamir
well, no, because the performance is similar at that level. More ram is a technical choice. Just like ram type or how many bits your bus is.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/ar...php?id=2684&cid=3&pg=8

This reviews proved that the RV770 GPU benefits from the additional RAM, I saw the HD 4870X2 review here http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...hire/HD_4870_X2/6.html and they disabled one GPU and saw those increases in performance.

yes, and when it benefits from that extra ram it outperforms the GTX260, doesn't it? making it worth more.

In order to get scores for single-GPU HD 4870 X2, I disabled one device in Windows Device Manager. These scores are interesting because they show how a 1024 MB GDDR5 HD 4870 would perform. The normal HD 4870 has only 512 MB of GDDR5.

that is their claim .. we don't really know that is true at all, do we?


look at the benches .. the 512MB version is outperforming the Core disabled X2 at 16x10 and 19x12 in your own example
.. and in the others they trade places

nothing conclusive there

Would a P45 help with your x3 setup? Or whatever the top doggie is now, x48?

It would only "help" the X3's 2nd GPU in the 2nd PCIe 4x slot.

My 4870x2 is running at a full 16x pciE 1.0 spec

i hope x48 will help the performance of my 2nd HD4870 .. i have an ASUS p35 deluxe x48 MB going into my PC this weekend; i will let you know how much

Well is up to you to believe it or not, you wasn't there when they performed those tests, and you wasn't there when Anandtech performed the X2 tests, so how would you know if both are lying? Please...

Who said anything about "lying" ?

Anand's tests with the 1GB 4870 were evidently properly performed against a 512MB version and his results are pretty CONSISTENT with an O/C'd 1GB version beating a regular 512MB version
ALL the other tests - with a "core disabled" 4870x2 - are *completely inconclusive* and based on a *premise* that may or may not be true - yet you quote it as gospel truth because it suits you
- in my own tests with a core-disabled 4870x2, my 512MB version also beats it .. sometimes .. so there may be other factors limiting performance in a *core disabled* 4870x2
-- do you get it now?

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: taltamir

When that 896mb is GDDR3 and the 512 is GDDR5 then the 896 is much CHEAPER, it does not cost more.

And while some games do benefit from the extra ram, those same games also benefit from extra ram bandwidth, in which the 4870 wins.

It makes more sense to compare FPS and realize that it happens because of ram size, speed, gpu speed, etc.

The 260 has more ram. the 4870 has a faster gpu and faster ram. It balances out.
And historically we can see that when games would start needing so much ram that performance would tank, then then you would be limited by the GPU even if you did have enough ram.

But the GTX 260 has 448 bit memory interface. GTX 260-111.9GB/s vs 4870-115.2GB/s, it is not that big of a difference. The GTX 260 has 384mb more of ram.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Here is what I found on an Anandtech review:

"The use of GDDR5 enabled AMD to deliver GeForce GTX 260 class memory bandwidth, but without the pin-count and expense of a 448-bit memory interface. GDDR5 actually implements a number of Rambus-like routing and signaling technologies while still remaining a parallel based memory technology, the result is something that appears to deliver tremendous bandwidth per pin in a reliable, high volume solution.

AMD most likely took a risk on bringing GDDR5 to market this early and we do expect NVIDIA to follow suit, AMD is simply enjoying the benefits of jumping on the GDDR5 bandwagon early and getting it right, at least it seems that way. It wouldn't be too far fetched to imagine a 55nm GT200 die shrink with a 256-bit GDDR5 memory interface, it should allow NVIDIA to drop the price down to the $300 level (at least for the GTX 260).
"

 

[nosfe]

lets not forget that vram requirements also depends on the architecture, the 3850 didn't seem to mind only 256mb, unlike the 256mb 8800gt for instance

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: woolfe9999

Originally posted by: taltamir
that was obviously not his point. He was countering the same "style" of pointless "accusations" about nvidia. It is a sarcastic remark in reply to woolfe9999, obviously all "why"s in both posts are ridiculous.

My post was not a "pointless accusation" against Nvidia. It was not an accusation, period. It was an inference that the appearance of this new product suggests that we more than likely will have to wait until Christmas to see .55nm. As with all inferences, I may be incorrect. However, I doubt that I am.

- woolfe

Actually it wasn't a sarcastic remark. I'm aware of ATI using GDDR5. But when they start using 512mb vram with a 256mbit memory bandwith it makes you wonder is this a next-gen card? (yes I know there is a 1gb card that has been released) The 2900XT had 1gb vram and a 512mbit memory bandwith. Instead of matching Nvidia's cards why not beat them? The 4870 never demolished the GTX 260. They were always close. On the other side what's up with Nvidia not putting DirectX 10.1? When I bought my x850XT everyone said Shader Model 3.0 isn't that important. Now most games require it. Oh, for all those saying a 4870 is way cheaper, there is a GTX 260 for $220 AR at newegg. I've never seen a price tag like that for a 4870.

Simple, GDDR5 does not need 512bit interface. The 4870 is NOT memory bandwidth limited in any way.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: woolfe9999

Originally posted by: taltamir
that was obviously not his point. He was countering the same "style" of pointless "accusations" about nvidia. It is a sarcastic remark in reply to woolfe9999, obviously all "why"s in both posts are ridiculous.

My post was not a "pointless accusation" against Nvidia. It was not an accusation, period. It was an inference that the appearance of this new product suggests that we more than likely will have to wait until Christmas to see .55nm. As with all inferences, I may be incorrect. However, I doubt that I am.

- woolfe

Actually it wasn't a sarcastic remark. I'm aware of ATI using GDDR5. But when they start using 512mb vram with a 256mbit memory bandwith it makes you wonder is this a next-gen card? (yes I know there is a 1gb card that has been released) The 2900XT had 1gb vram and a 512mbit memory bandwith. Instead of matching Nvidia's cards why not beat them? The 4870 never demolished the GTX 260. They were always close. On the other side what's up with Nvidia not putting DirectX 10.1? When I bought my x850XT everyone said Shader Model 3.0 isn't that important. Now most games require it. Oh, for all those saying a 4870 is way cheaper, there is a GTX 260 for $220 AR at newegg. I've never seen a price tag like that for a 4870.

Simple, GDDR5 does not need 512bit interface. The 4870 is NOT memory bandwidth limited in any way.

in ANY way?

sure it is .. try it at 25x16 or at 19x12 with everything completely maxed out
.. on a list of games i can give you

you will see definite limitations

However, the 4870 is a nice bit of compromise and offers good bang for buck in most practical gaming situations
- as does the GT260

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: woolfe9999

Originally posted by: taltamir
that was obviously not his point. He was countering the same "style" of pointless "accusations" about nvidia. It is a sarcastic remark in reply to woolfe9999, obviously all "why"s in both posts are ridiculous.

My post was not a "pointless accusation" against Nvidia. It was not an accusation, period. It was an inference that the appearance of this new product suggests that we more than likely will have to wait until Christmas to see .55nm. As with all inferences, I may be incorrect. However, I doubt that I am.

- woolfe

Actually it wasn't a sarcastic remark. I'm aware of ATI using GDDR5. But when they start using 512mb vram with a 256mbit memory bandwith it makes you wonder is this a next-gen card? (yes I know there is a 1gb card that has been released) The 2900XT had 1gb vram and a 512mbit memory bandwith. Instead of matching Nvidia's cards why not beat them? The 4870 never demolished the GTX 260. They were always close. On the other side what's up with Nvidia not putting DirectX 10.1? When I bought my x850XT everyone said Shader Model 3.0 isn't that important. Now most games require it. Oh, for all those saying a 4870 is way cheaper, there is a GTX 260 for $220 AR at newegg. I've never seen a price tag like that for a 4870.

Simple, GDDR5 does not need 512bit interface. The 4870 is NOT memory bandwidth limited in any way.

in ANY way?

sure it is .. try it at 25x16 or at 19x12 with everything completely maxed out
.. on a list of games i can give you

you will see definite limitations

However, the 4870 is a nice bit of compromise and offers good bang for buck in most practical gaming situations
- as does the GT260

With a 1GB 4870 hooked up to a 1080p LCD TV (1920x1080) and Crysis on very high with 4x AA it's very playable and hovers around 30fps mostly. Sure it stutters at times, but that's cause Crysis is a pig.

I don't see limitations there. You do always have to remember that the higher resolution you go, the more impact AA and AF will have to the experience. That's just what happens. But I have yet to find a game that isn't perfectly playable at 1920x1080 with everything maxed (not necessarily AA/AF though).

My original point is that GDDR5 does not need a million bit bus to get bandwidth out of it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: woolfe9999

Originally posted by: taltamir
that was obviously not his point. He was countering the same "style" of pointless "accusations" about nvidia. It is a sarcastic remark in reply to woolfe9999, obviously all "why"s in both posts are ridiculous.

My post was not a "pointless accusation" against Nvidia. It was not an accusation, period. It was an inference that the appearance of this new product suggests that we more than likely will have to wait until Christmas to see .55nm. As with all inferences, I may be incorrect. However, I doubt that I am.

- woolfe

Actually it wasn't a sarcastic remark. I'm aware of ATI using GDDR5. But when they start using 512mb vram with a 256mbit memory bandwith it makes you wonder is this a next-gen card? (yes I know there is a 1gb card that has been released) The 2900XT had 1gb vram and a 512mbit memory bandwith. Instead of matching Nvidia's cards why not beat them? The 4870 never demolished the GTX 260. They were always close. On the other side what's up with Nvidia not putting DirectX 10.1? When I bought my x850XT everyone said Shader Model 3.0 isn't that important. Now most games require it. Oh, for all those saying a 4870 is way cheaper, there is a GTX 260 for $220 AR at newegg. I've never seen a price tag like that for a 4870.

Simple, GDDR5 does not need 512bit interface. The 4870 is NOT memory bandwidth limited in any way.

in ANY way?

sure it is .. try it at 25x16 or at 19x12 with everything completely maxed out
.. on a list of games i can give you

you will see definite limitations

However, the 4870 is a nice bit of compromise and offers good bang for buck in most practical gaming situations
- as does the GT260

With a 1GB 4870 hooked up to a 1080p LCD TV (1920x1080) and Crysis on very high with 4x AA it's very playable and hovers around 30fps mostly. Sure it stutters at times, but that's cause Crysis is a pig.

I don't see limitations there. You do always have to remember that the higher resolution you go, the more impact AA and AF will have to the experience. That's just what happens. But I have yet to find a game that isn't perfectly playable at 1920x1080 with everything maxed (not necessarily AA/AF though).

My original point is that GDDR5 does not need a million bit bus to get bandwidth out of it.

perhaps you are correct ,, you just don't see it

Crysis is not playable on a 4870 at very high "hovering around 30FPS mostly"
- try using FRAPS and you will see Frame rates regularly in the teens - 30s is your fastest frames with low-20s as average
.. as every credible reviewer reports for 19x12 .. for No/AA

--what magic card are you using to get 30FPS average with 4xAA?
... with the 512MB version of 4870, you ,,, i mean i .. see even more limitations

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: taltamir
well, no, because the performance is similar at that level. More ram is a technical choice. Just like ram type or how many bits your bus is.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/ar...php?id=2684&cid=3&pg=8

This reviews proved that the RV770 GPU benefits from the additional RAM, I saw the HD 4870X2 review here http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...hire/HD_4870_X2/6.html and they disabled one GPU and saw those increases in performance.

evolution8 you post these reviews and claiming there is mathematically measurable 'benefit' from 1GB for 4870....

Hardwarezone: Framerates went up from 8.48 to the unplayable 15.56 at 1920x1440. So what that actual frames almost doubled? You can't play crysis at that rez on 4870 regardless of ram. Therefore there is no actual benefit in the real world since you wouldn't be able to play the game any better.

In the other review:

COD4: immaterial and actually the single X2 performed worse in COD4 you linked at higher rez.
Call of Juarez: There is a benefit but 4870 is getting above 60FPS at highest rez they tested while single X2 is at 75.
COH: immaterial - 512mb is already getting in 190 frames...
Crysis: good benefit but <30 frames in 1920x1200, so not more playable
ET: QW: single X2 is slower
Far Cry: single X2 is slower
FEAR: single X2 is slower
Prey: immaterial - 512mb is already getting 117 frames...
Quake 4: immaterial - 512mb is already getting 95 frames...
Splinter Cell 3: single X2 is slower
STALKER: single X2 is slower
Supreme Commander: immaterial - 1.6 frames difference at 1920x1200
Team Fortress 2: immaterial - 1.8 frames difference at 1920x1200
UT3: single X2 is slower
WiC: single X2 is slower

I am not seeing any more 'benefit'.

 

[taltamir]

in this gen, the big jump in performance is choosing 512MB over 256MB... not 1GB....

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: woolfe9999

Originally posted by: taltamir
that was obviously not his point. He was countering the same "style" of pointless "accusations" about nvidia. It is a sarcastic remark in reply to woolfe9999, obviously all "why"s in both posts are ridiculous.

My post was not a "pointless accusation" against Nvidia. It was not an accusation, period. It was an inference that the appearance of this new product suggests that we more than likely will have to wait until Christmas to see .55nm. As with all inferences, I may be incorrect. However, I doubt that I am.

- woolfe

Actually it wasn't a sarcastic remark. I'm aware of ATI using GDDR5. But when they start using 512mb vram with a 256mbit memory bandwith it makes you wonder is this a next-gen card? (yes I know there is a 1gb card that has been released) The 2900XT had 1gb vram and a 512mbit memory bandwith. Instead of matching Nvidia's cards why not beat them? The 4870 never demolished the GTX 260. They were always close. On the other side what's up with Nvidia not putting DirectX 10.1? When I bought my x850XT everyone said Shader Model 3.0 isn't that important. Now most games require it. Oh, for all those saying a 4870 is way cheaper, there is a GTX 260 for $220 AR at newegg. I've never seen a price tag like that for a 4870.

Simple, GDDR5 does not need 512bit interface. The 4870 is NOT memory bandwidth limited in any way.

in ANY way?

sure it is .. try it at 25x16 or at 19x12 with everything completely maxed out
.. on a list of games i can give you

you will see definite limitations

However, the 4870 is a nice bit of compromise and offers good bang for buck in most practical gaming situations
- as does the GT260

With a 1GB 4870 hooked up to a 1080p LCD TV (1920x1080) and Crysis on very high with 4x AA it's very playable and hovers around 30fps mostly. Sure it stutters at times, but that's cause Crysis is a pig.

I don't see limitations there. You do always have to remember that the higher resolution you go, the more impact AA and AF will have to the experience. That's just what happens. But I have yet to find a game that isn't perfectly playable at 1920x1080 with everything maxed (not necessarily AA/AF though).

My original point is that GDDR5 does not need a million bit bus to get bandwidth out of it.

perhaps you are correct ,, you just don't see it

Crysis is not playable on a 4870 at very high "hovering around 30FPS mostly"
- try using FRAPS and you will see Frame rates regularly in the teens - 30s is your fastest frames with low-20s as average
.. as every credible reviewer reports for 19x12 .. for No/AA

--what magic card are you using to get 30FPS average with 4xAA?
... with the 512MB version of 4870, you ,,, i mean i .. see even more limitations

A SINGLE 4870 1GB at 790/1100 is getting 30fps using devmode in game to see an fps counter. Like I said it stutters at times due to the engine being poor. I never said average, and I never mentioned a timedemo. Please read what I said, and NOT what you think.

Remember that the timedemos are designed as a worst case scenerio, not actual gameplay. Walking through the jungle and doing general gameplay it's a good experience. There are only a few times where it really wasn't good at all.

 

[apoppin]

A SINGLE 4870 1GB at 790/1100 is getting 30fps using devmode in game to see an fps counter. Like I said it stutters at times due to the engine being poor. I never said average, and I never mentioned a timedemo. Please read what I said, and NOT what you think.

Remember that the timedemos are designed as a worst case scenerio, not actual gameplay. Walking through the jungle and doing general gameplay it's a good experience. There are only a few times where it really wasn't good at all.

You have it completely backwards. The Crysis time demos generally *run better* than the game - especially the last level. That is the noise HardOCP and the "real world" guys are making, that the demos are extra optimized and do not present the picture.

... And if you are just "walking thru the jungle" you are not playing Crysis

You sure appear to exaggerate the ability of your 4870 to play Crysis on Very High
--30 FPS is not "average" for 4870 with 4xAA
:roll:


i have 4870 and i also play Crysis, and i play at both 16x10 and 19x12 - without AA - even Warhead doesn't run that well with some settings at Very High/High [or on "enthusiast', now]:
.. what fantasy are you describing that gets 30 FPS on average - and with 4xAA?

 

[MrSpadge]

*bump*

Originally posted by: MrSpadge
Hi guys,

in the comments section to the article I posted the following:

"I read somewhere that the first batches of 48x0 cards had a bug in their bios which prevented power play from working properly. This is supposed to be fixed since some time now and idle power draw should be decreased significantly.

I'd say contact AMD or a card manufacturer. If it's true they should be more than happy to assist you in obtaining updated numbers. The current numbers are just plain horrible and may keep people from buying the Radeons.

Regards, MrS"

Seems like it was a pretty bad choice to post there - seems like no one noticed. Do you know anything about this? I mean, the 38x0 series had such great idle power consumption, it was one of their primary strengths! Sure, the RV7700 is more complex, but all of this logic should be switched off at idle anyway. Something seems wrong here!

MrS