HD 3870 = 825MHz core, 2400MHz RAM

[CrystalBay]

The Whole problem is early adopters are supposed to take an extra 33A% at retail/etaial up thier bum....No thanks you wiill not rape my ass.....

 

[n7]

Patience is a virtue with these things.

Truth be told though, the way the market for video cards is right now though, i can see the $300 GT staying that way for a long time.

nV & AMD have done a fantastic job over the last few years bumping the price of the high end up higher & higher to point where $300 seems like a great deal...

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: n7
Patience is a virtue with these things.

Truth be told though, the way the market for video cards is right now though, i can see the $300 GT staying that way for a long time.

nV & AMD have done a fantastic job over the last few years bumping the price of the high end up higher & higher to point where $300 seems like a great deal...

I'm pretty sure the GeForce 2 retailed at $300 at launch.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: 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.

maybe they could call it the x1975xxx. with that many x's it must be good, right?

 

[Pez D Spencer]

Until I see something that will give me some decent performance in Crysis then I'm keeping my X1950PRO. Aside from Crysis, I see no reason at all to upgrade right now. Depending on how SOF: Payback performs I MIGHT have a reason to upgrade, but until then I have no plans on getting rid of my current card. This X1950PRO along with some ATi Tray Tools tweaks and my Q6600 kills anything I throw at it. It might not have DX10, but who cares? Even if I had a DX10 card it'd still run Crysis like crap anyway.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: 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?

128 vs 112. Actually a SC version of 8800gt has more shader operations per second than 8800gtx yet 8800gtx wins SC 8800gt every time. It's not all about shaders. Some games are more shader intensive while some are not.

384 bit memory bus is not useless especially at higher resolutions with AA. Only reason 8800gt does so well is because of it's Texture fillrate is actually much higher than 8800gts/GTX which in fact hangs with a 8800gtx at lower resolutions when memory bandwidth isn't the biggest factor but crank up that resolution and you will start to see 8800gt only weakness. 8800gt has more things in common with 8600gt/gts than her bigger brothers.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: 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.

??, just the one maybe!, maybe they will get the integrated chipset performance crown....

There is no maybe lose the performance battle....its has been over since the nov 06

 

[biostud]

I just played QW:ET on a Athlon 2600XP and Ati 9600 this weekend, and after that I appreciate my current setup much more

 

[Keysplayr]

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).

Would you say that 1280x1024 is a reasonable resolution? Actually, this is a bit tougher than 14x9. Cause these guys seem to be getting pretty good playability under Vista.

Hard Forum Crysis 1280x1024 scores. All settings high, no AA

With a good CPU, and 8800GT's, even GTS's, average framerates look to be not as abysmal as you make it out to be. And this is beta.

I am seeing average framerates from the high 30's to mid 40's (36-45 fps) for 8800GT and up.
The GTS640 averages low to mid 30's.

These scores are with single cards. SLI is not functional yet (as per these results).

When the prices of the 8800GT's levels out (gouging calms down) you can pick up two of these for less than the current cost of a single 8800GTX if you have an SLI capable system.
That is extraordinarily nice deal. 2 8800GT's will be more than powerful enough for Crysis at 1650x1080, if single 8800GT's are playable with all settings high at 1280x1024. Could maybe even throw some AA at the game with dual cards.

Face it, Crysis is a beast, but that doesn't mean there aren't ways to play this game without breaking the bank. So,,,,, current technology graphics cards CAN play this game. Contrary to your findings.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: thilan29
Well, if they lowered the clocks then maybe it performs better than it was though to?

That doesn't jibe though. If it could handle higher clocks stock, they would use higher clocks to ensure it competes or even dominates the competition. The reality is it probably runs too hot to handle anything higher, which would makes sense given ATI's inability to produce a card that runs at decent temps without cranking up a noisy fan.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: thilan29
Well, if they lowered the clocks then maybe it performs better than it was though to?

That doesn't jibe though. If it could handle higher clocks stock, they would use higher clocks to ensure it competes or even dominates the competition. The reality is it probably runs too hot to handle anything higher, which would makes sense given ATI's inability to produce a card that runs at decent temps without cranking up a noisy fan.

A refined, improved core may yield more performance at lower clocks.

Look at the G92 core compared to G80. At identical clocks and sp's, the G92 would outpace it's G80 brethren thanks to core improvements.

So there is a possibility that a refined, improved R600 core could yield the same benefits. If it is just simply a die shrink and nothing more was done to the core, I would think that at clock per clock, they would perform the same. But if so, lowering the clock speed does not make sense especially considering the lower power usage and cooler process. What gives? Dunno.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Face it, Crysis is a beast, but that doesn't mean there aren't ways to play this game without breaking the bank. So,,,,, current technology graphics cards CAN play this game. Contrary to your findings.

Playing it at VERY HIGH is another story though. It's basically unplayable with any card at 1680x1050 and higher resolutions.

I had to drop to 1280x960 and drop shadows to medium and 0xAA to get playable frames with my 650/1000 OCed 8800GTS.

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: thilan29
Well, if they lowered the clocks then maybe it performs better than it was though to?

That doesn't jibe though. If it could handle higher clocks stock, they would use higher clocks to ensure it competes or even dominates the competition. The reality is it probably runs too hot to handle anything higher, which would makes sense given ATI's inability to produce a card that runs at decent temps without cranking up a noisy fan.

Who knows, maybe with the 55nm process they got it fairly cool.

 

[yacoub]

Well let's look at the info we have available to use to make an educated guess:

We know that the last three Radeon series cards (X1800 X1900 and HD2900) were hot beasts with noisy cooling.
We know that this new one is supposed to be 55nm which should mean it runs cooler.

We know that the rumors so far for this new card's hardware setup is that it will be under-performing the 8800GT.

That means that it will need all the speed it can get out of its hardware to compete as well as possible against the NVidia cards.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: yacoub
Well let's look at the info we have available to use to make an educated guess:

We know that the last three Radeon series cards (X1800 X1900 and HD2900) were hot beasts with noisy cooling.
We know that this new one is supposed to be 55nm which should mean it runs cooler.

Apparently there was a lot of leakage on the 80nm process of the 2900 so if they don't run into that problem again then they should be fine. And at the very least X1800 and X1900 were very good performers...now if only RV670 will be as well.

Something is off...I find it hard to believe NVidia would "rush" the 8800GT launch, and ATI would squander away ANOTHER opportunity, especially after the rumours of a successful process jump. If the 2900 is EOL'd, I think RV670 should be ATIs top performer so it would be hard to imagine it being a lot slower than the 2900. They may be selling it cheaper because they CAN, since the chips are cheaper to make, so they can get some market share back.

I really hope they pull a rabbit out of a hat with RV670...they really need it.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

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).

Would you say that 1280x1024 is a reasonable resolution? Actually, this is a bit tougher than 14x9. Cause these guys seem to be getting pretty good playability under Vista.

Hard Forum Crysis 1280x1024 scores. All settings high, no AA

With a good CPU, and 8800GT's, even GTS's, average framerates look to be not as abysmal as you make it out to be. And this is beta.

I am seeing average framerates from the high 30's to mid 40's (36-45 fps) for 8800GT and up.
The GTS640 averages low to mid 30's.

These scores are with single cards. SLI is not functional yet (as per these results).

When the prices of the 8800GT's levels out (gouging calms down) you can pick up two of these for less than the current cost of a single 8800GTX if you have an SLI capable system.
That is extraordinarily nice deal. 2 8800GT's will be more than powerful enough for Crysis at 1650x1080, if single 8800GT's are playable with all settings high at 1280x1024. Could maybe even throw some AA at the game with dual cards.

Face it, Crysis is a beast, but that doesn't mean there aren't ways to play this game without breaking the bank. So,,,,, current technology graphics cards CAN play this game. Contrary to your findings.

35fps ever good? Give me 50fps at least. By that same logic anyone can play dx10 games long as you turn stuff down.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
We'll find out for certain in a few weeks. Until then, I will reserve all judgment.

Yup.

AAMD's focus will be on price points. They will adjust performance to suit the price point where they feel they are best suited to take $$$ from nVidia. It looks like that range of price points will be between $180 - $250.

I know this will come as a shock to some of yahs but there just isn't enough $$$ to be made above that level :shocked:

 

[ayabe]

The best possible scenario is that HD3800 series will outperform the GT's in Crysis due to the extra shader horsepower and lose in most other games.

Why would AMD have the cards release coincide with Crysis is this were not the case?

 

[jaykishankrk]

If it helps to you people here's the article about RV670 leak out on PC Perspective!!

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=472

 

[P229SAS]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9542

Higher-end Radeon HD 3870 will feature GDDR4 instead of GDDR3 while using the same RV670 core found on HD 3850. This GDDR4 memory is clocked at 1.2 GHz, and the core frequency is bumped to 775 MHz. The GDDR3 version of HD 3870 will feature the same core frequency as the GDDR4 card, but comes standard with lower frequency GDDR3 instead of GDDR4 to target a better price point.

The red flag is that Radeon HD 3850 touts exactly the same features found on the 80nm Radeon HD 2900 design with the exception of reduced GDDR3 memory. HD 3850 will reduce the thermal envelope when compared to the previous generation, but performance should be nearly identical to Radeon HD 2900.

Pricing on RV670 has not been confirmed. However, given that Radeon HD 3850 is essentially Radeon HD 2900 in a single-slot design, it's easy to expect AMD will price those cards similarly to R600 cards available today.

 

[jskagg]

Different Specifications are found on the powercoler site regarding the 3850 (specifically the memory interface).

http://www.powercolor.com/eng/...eci.asp?ProductID=1608

 

[Matt2]

As I have said before, I dont expect anything spectacular from RV670.

Barring any architectural improvements (which i doubt have been made), I fully expect HD3870 to be the same speed or a splotch slower than my 825/910 2900XT.

 

[Xellos2099]

Actually, this is schedule to release after crysis launch, which is a pretty bad move imo.

 

[jskagg]

well some say the card is to be released the 15th, which would be before.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Matt2
As I have said before, I dont expect anything spectacular from RV670.

Barring any architectural improvements (which i doubt have been made), I fully expect HD3870 to be the same speed or a splotch slower than my 825/910 2900XT.

I really hope you're wrong...but judging by the lack of leaked benchmarks (other than that BS NVidia PR slide), you may be more right than wrong.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: yacoub
Well let's look at the info we have available to use to make an educated guess:

We know that the last three Radeon series cards (X1800 X1900 and HD2900) were hot beasts with noisy cooling.
We know that this new one is supposed to be 55nm which should mean it runs cooler.

We know that the rumors so far for this new card's hardware setup is that it will be under-performing the 8800GT.

That means that it will need all the speed it can get out of its hardware to compete as well as possible against the NVidia cards.

In short we don't know jack **** so why don't we just sit and wait? :roll: