HD 3870 = 825MHz core, 2400MHz RAM

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I stand by what I said. NEITHER card matters at all. Why? Because DX10 is still unplayable at any reasonable resolution with reasonable FPS...PERIOD!

I don't care what card is cheap...I want a card that is faster than a card from last year...(read: 8800GTX overclocked).

I tend to agree with that assessment. I would be thoroughly dis-satisfied if I bought a new card and it only got 25FPS in Crysis.

We need faster cards. More than that, we need faster cards from AMD.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: SRoode
It's 10% performance shy of a GTX for 60% of the price. How is that expensive?

As for the RV670... Keep waiting...

Relative to a GTX most graphics cards are cheap.

It's expensive simply because retailers are charging $50+ over MSRP ($200). People are suggesting waiting for things to settle down, and maybe even a $150 RV670 that hangs with a GTX in Crysis. If you look at the benchmarks, the R600 did surprisingly well in Crysis...

I didn't see much performance out of Nvidia's "Crysis specific beta driver". I wonder if that was to fix an issue I am not aware of.

Crysis really runs poorly in DX10 on all hardware at anything much above 1024x768 from what I've seen. However, I think the complex shaders are making AMD cards not perform so poorly compared to generally more powerful counterparts. Isn't that one area where AMD was claiming the HD2900 would do well?

 

[Miklebud]

Originally posted by: SRoode

It's 10% performance shy of a GTX for 60% of the price. How is that expensive?

LOL. $300 isnt expensive? Since when?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: SRoode
It's 10% performance shy of a GTX for 60% of the price. How is that expensive?

As for the RV670... Keep waiting...

Relative to a GTX most graphics cards are cheap.

It's expensive simply because retailers are charging $50+ over MSRP ($200). People are suggesting waiting for things to settle down, and maybe even a $150 RV670 that hangs with a GTX in Crysis. If you look at the benchmarks, the R600 did surprisingly well in Crysis...

I didn't see much performance out of Nvidia's "Crysis specific beta driver". I wonder if that was to fix an issue I am not aware of.

Crysis really runs poorly in DX10 on all hardware at anything much above 1024x768 from what I've seen. However, I think the complex shaders are making AMD cards not perform so poorly compared to generally more powerful counterparts. Isn't that one area where AMD was claiming the HD2900 would do well?

Well, the 8800GT showed that Crysis doesn't care about a 384-bit memory bus vs. a 256-bit one. We also know that the game isn't memory-starved; even the 320mb GTS did ok. Really what I take from this is that yes, the game needs massive shader power. Perhaps it was able to saturate more of those crazy AMD shaders. Perhaps Crytek worked with AMD when they initially made the game (before EA bought it).

I just don't see how anyone can make a faster GPU using current technology. Look at the G80 die size. The thing is HUGE. They would have to go 45nm. Even at 55nm, I'll bet the RV670 will be pretty big. Really I see things going multi-core on the GPU front within the next 2 years, along with the 'Fusion' project.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: SRoode
It's 10% performance shy of a GTX for 60% of the price. How is that expensive?

As for the RV670... Keep waiting...

Relative to a GTX most graphics cards are cheap.

It's expensive simply because retailers are charging $50+ over MSRP ($200). People are suggesting waiting for things to settle down, and maybe even a $150 RV670 that hangs with a GTX in Crysis. If you look at the benchmarks, the R600 did surprisingly well in Crysis...

I didn't see much performance out of Nvidia's "Crysis specific beta driver". I wonder if that was to fix an issue I am not aware of.

Crysis really runs poorly in DX10 on all hardware at anything much above 1024x768 from what I've seen. However, I think the complex shaders are making AMD cards not perform so poorly compared to generally more powerful counterparts. Isn't that one area where AMD was claiming the HD2900 would do well?

Well, the 8800GT showed that Crysis doesn't care about a 384-bit memory bus vs. a 256-bit one. We also know that the game isn't memory-starved; even the 320mb GTS did ok. Really what I take from this is that yes, the game needs massive shader power. Perhaps it was able to saturate more of those crazy AMD shaders. Perhaps Crytek worked with AMD when they initially made the game (before EA bought it).

I just don't see how anyone can make a faster GPU using current technology. Look at the G80 die size. The thing is HUGE. They would have to go 45nm. Even at 55nm, I'll bet the RV670 will be pretty big. Really I see things going multi-core on the GPU front within the next 2 years, along with the 'Fusion' project.

I don't care how or why or whatnot. I want a card that can do reasonable resolutions with DX10 features turned up with a good FPS.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I don't care how or why or whatnot. I want a card that can do reasonable resolutions with DX10 features turned up with a good FPS.

Well, at this point I'd say intel has the best shot at it seeing as they're the only ones with 45nm technology.

Hopefully the rumours of a new highend card "2.5X the power a of a GTX" before the end of the year are true.

Even then, I can't see Crysis being playable on very high at 1920x1200, especially with some AA...

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: SRoode

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: SRoode

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: SRoode

Originally posted by: Azn
All 3870 is just a revised 2900xt with same amount of ROPs and TMU I suspect. It's the same architecture with same base drivers with some tweaks. It's not going to be the geforce 8 killer but if they drop the price with a formidable price, people will buy. These $300 8800gt ain't cutting it.

The $269 I spent on a 650/1900 8800GT (at a brick and mortor store) is money well spent in my book. And, I am running it with an AMD X2 4400, so I'm no fan-boi. This is the best price/performance card I think I have ever seen.

It's still expensive. Perhaps we haven't had good midrange in a while and still running old engines that's why it seems like a good deal but it's nothing out of the ordinary that happens every year. It still runs Crysis like crap that looks truly next generation. Only pulling 35fps at high detail @ 1280x1024. That is nothing to get excited over.

Nvidia was talking about $200 for 8800gt. NOT $300. Your $269 + tax is still $15 shy of $300.

I'm waiting for RV670 and make way for under $200 midrange cards. If they don't drop the price I'm not buying.

It's 10% performance shy of a GTX for 60% of the price. How is that expensive?

As for the RV670... Keep waiting...

GTX is a year old. In the world of PC that is ancient. Prices never went down for the gtx. It should have been going down a long time ago.

Some people even got their 640meg GTS for $300 back when they were first released. I saw bunch of deals and the prices actually went up instead of going down. All this time 8800gt is only 15% faster than 8800gts and still $300.

Yet, it exists...

What it exists? These ridiculous price gouging and same lingering prices for a card that is really a year old in speed wise and still cost the same? RV670 is only about a week away from releasing. I think I can wait. It's not like I can't play any game right now with the highest detail on current mainstream cards long as I don't push the resolutions too high.

 

[SRoode]

Originally posted by: Miklebud

Originally posted by: SRoode

It's 10% performance shy of a GTX for 60% of the price. How is that expensive?

LOL. $300 isnt expensive? Since when?

I meant comparatively For $269, you get a ton for your money.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I stand by what I said. NEITHER card matters at all. Why? Because DX10 is still unplayable at any reasonable resolution with reasonable FPS...PERIOD!

I don't care what card is cheap...I want a card that is faster than a card from last year...(read: 8800GTX overclocked).

At least anything next generation looking. These cards are pretty good for high resolutions for dx9 stuff but dx10 or raise the detail by a notch and it starts CHOKING. :brokenheart:

 

[SRoode]

"What it exists? These ridiculous price gouging and same lingering prices for a card that is really a year old in speed wise and still cost the same? RV670 is only about a week away from releasing. I think I can wait. It's not like I can't play any game right now with the highest detail on current mainstream cards long as I don't push the resolutions too high."

It is a year old speed wise (of the top of the line GTX) and costs half as much (not the same).

But you are right... I would definitely wait and see. I just have no confidence in AMD/ATI at this point.

 

[bryanW1995]

now that's just mean. what has amd done lately to make you lack confidence in them? They will probably release rv670 a week early, and it will probably be an 8800 ultra killer.

sorry, ok, I'm off the lsd now. what were we talking about?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: SRoode
I just have no confidence in AMD/ATI at this point.

Why? Because of the R600? Or the Barcelona? Were the X800, X1800, and X1900 too late for you? Some of them were delayed for the Family Launch. :Q

The only problem is that by now that family must be pretty much in-bred. I wonder why they would delay a CPU and a graphics card just so they could launch them with a chipset.

 

[AzN]

Why do you keep on mentioning your GT is like GTX? It's not a GTX. You have a GT. It performs right in the dab between a gts and gtx. Once you raise the resolution and AA it performs more like a GTS and not a GTX.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Hopefully the rumours of a new highend card "2.5X the power a of a GTX" before the end of the year are true.

Which rumours?? I haven't heard anything high end before the end of the year...just Q1 of next year. Got any links?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Azn
Why do you keep on mentioning your GT is like GTX? It's not a GTX. You have a GT. It performs right in the dab between a gts and gtx. Once you raise the resolution and AA it performs more like a GTS and not a GTX.

Perhaps because 128 vs. 112 shaders is not much difference at all, and the 384-bit bus has proven to be relatively useless.

A 10% overclock on an 8800GT makes it perform on-par with a GTX, but it has way more overclocking headroom than that. My guess is that with both cards overclocked, the GT will match the GTX.

Where did you see a GTX smoking a GT?

 

[firewolfsm]

Originally posted by: SRoode

I'll bet my left nut that this card will not beat the 8800GT, let alone the 8800GTX Ultra.

Is that because you know you'll never get to use it anyways?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Hopefully the rumours of a new highend card "2.5X the power a of a GTX" before the end of the year are true.

Which rumours?? I haven't heard anything high end before the end of the year...just Q1 of next year. Got any links?

No links, just my brain...I read it some time ago (maybe a month ago).

Perhaps it got delayed until next year. Sounds typical.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: ronnn
fudzilla doesn't even rate as rumours. Give it a couple of weeks and we will see. Looks to me like a nice mid range card. Low power usage, cheap to make and good performance. Ati could lose the performance battle, but still win the war. Is mid range........

ATI lost the performance battle over a year ago......With a new GTS coming shortly, next year a new GTX, the GT will be the mid-range card and with the drop to $200, AMD will lose out there too!....Maybe the integrated graphics chips?

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Originally posted by: ronnn
fudzilla doesn't even rate as rumours. Give it a couple of weeks and we will see. Looks to me like a nice mid range card. Low power usage, cheap to make and good performance. Ati could lose the performance battle, but still win the war. Is mid range........

ATI lost the performance battle over a year ago......With a new GTS coming shortly, next year a new GTX, the GT will be the mid-range card and with the drop to $200, AMD will lose out there too!....Maybe the integrated graphics chips?

Lots of maybes here. Anyways what happens next year won't effect how ati's midrange cards sell this year.

 

[SickBeast]

What's the clockspeed of the core on R600?

2400mhz memory sounds fast and too good to be true (so it probably is).

Isn't an 825mhz core really fast? My 8800GTS hits 660mhz overclocked.

 

[n7]

743/1000 was the official speed on the HD 2900 XT 1 GB.
But many came factory OCed to around 825/1050.

I know my 2900XT 1 GB did close to 1150 MHz on the memory IIRC.

Anyway, i don't see 825/2400 being unrealistic at all.

But i still don't see it beating the 8800 GT.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: n7
743/1000 was the official speed on the HD 2900 XT 1 GB.
But many came factory OCed to around 825/1050.

I know my 2900XT 1 GB did close to 1150 MHz on the memory IIRC.

Anyway, i don't see 825/2400 being unrealistic at all.

But i still don't see it beating the 8800 GT.

If they changed the shader tech and gave it AA power, then maybe...but really...that's a big maybe.

I wonder how hard it would be for them to juice up an X1900 and give it DX10.

 

[n7]

X1900s were such great cards; that'd be interesting to see.

DX10 needs a lot better performance than our current HD 2900s/8800s though, so not sure how helpful X1900 DX10 models would be

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: n7


X1900s were such great cards; that'd be interesting to see.

DX10 needs a lot better performance than our current HD 2900s/8800s though, so not sure how helpful X1900 DX10 models would be

Maybe they could make it support DX9-alpha and have it hardware-accelerate hacked-Crysis. :Q

I wonder what Microsoft would think of that. A hacked edition of its own API to allow DX10 effects under DX9 in XP...

 

[chewietobbacca]

GTX at 2560 x 1600 and w/ AA beats a GT pretty considerably iirc. Plus, the NVidia people said the same thing.

Actually, w/ AA in Crysis, the GTX tensd to beat the GT a lot more since AA seems to affect the 512MB of the GT a lot harder.