Im expecting that HD7800 will be double the HD7700 at 1280 ALUs and close to 240-260mm2.
Uh, the 7770 is already showing potential is some more modern games like Dirt3 and batman it's matching/beating the 6850. In CIV5 where there are a crap ton of advanced DX11 effects and compute. The 7770 beats the 6870. So it all depends of how games will be designed going forward. I'm inclined to think future games will sway towards the 7770 drivers improvements or not. This price is still stupid though
the 4870 can run several games at settings that exceed 512mb of vram.
yes I know the 4870 can come with 1gb of vram. that has nothing to do with my reply to him about his claims that the 4870 is not fast enough to utilize more than 512mb though.You can(could) get the 4870 with 1gb. Hell, I had one before it died, you can find some benches of it. Anyway, the point is that instead of losing almost to every bench, the 5770 on newer drivers mostly ties the 4870. And you'll see drivers making a much larger difference for GCN based cards.
yes I know the 4870 can come with 1gb of vram. that has nothing to do with my reply to him about his claims that the 4870 is not fast enough to utilize more than 512mb though.
For the gamer, there are three main factors that have the most influence on how much graphics RAM you'll need: resolution, visual quality detail settings, and AA. For the most part, 512MB of RAM seems sufficient to push one of these factors to the limit, and in most cases, it can handle two of them at once. But if you plan to maximize all three--the highest resolutions, visual quality settings, and AA--then more video RAM than 512MB is a good idea.
This makes no sense. The 4870 is very, very close to the GPU power of the 5770, but the 5770 has 1 GB and the 4870 has 512 MB. They're very, very close to one another aside from the memory size and bandwidth.
So why is the 4870 less able to handle 1GB and the 5770 more able to handle it?
you are WRONG. a 4870 most certainly has the ability to play many games at settings that exceed 512mb of vram. I used a 192sp gtx260 for 3 years and there were many games that exceeded 512mb of vram at playable settings at 1920x1080. not mention that resolution is NOT the only factor.You have no clue of what you're talking about. Neither card is meant for a res higher than 1680x1050, and they're not fast enough to push the amount of textures needed to use more than 512MB. As in, by the time they can exploit it they're already at unplayable framerates.
You have the same situation with the HD 6950 1GB but at 2560x1600 instead. The only situation in which getting the bigger framebuffer versions makes sense, for both of them, is if you're running CrossFire.
you are WRONG. a 4870 most certainly has the ability to play many games at settings that exceed 512mb of vram. I used a 192sp gtx260 for 3 years and there were many games that exceeded 512mb of vram at playable settings at 1920x1080. not mention that resolution is NOT the only Lfactor.
keep telling yourself that. its a fact that there are games that NEED more than 512mb of vram at settings that are still playable on a 4870 level of card. with my gtx260 in Clear Sky I had to reduce settings causing me to bump right against my 896mb of vram and would cause hitching even though the framerate was playable before the hitching.That doesn't prove anything. Just because software is reporting usage of more than 512MB of VRAM doesn't mean there's a difference. Many people arguing for the 2GB 6950 make the same argument, pointing at how some games, according to their software readings, "use" more than 1GB. Unless it causes the card with the lower framebuffer to take a framerate dip from running out of memory for textures (going from 40 FPS to 15-20 FPS, for example), there's no difference. When that happens for the 512MB 4870 it's already at unplayable framerates.
4870's came out in 512mb versions after reference version launch, similar to the 69502gb coming out in 69501gb's.
keep telling yourself that. its a fact that there are games that NEED more than 512mb of vram at settings that are still playable on a 4870 level of card. with my gtx260 in Clear Sky I had to reduce settings causing me to bump right against my 896mb of vram and would cause hitching even though the framerate was playable before the hitching.
AT has the GeForce 8800GT in their Bench system, which is a fairly similar card.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/521?vs=536
He said 7750, not 7770.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/521?vs=535
This. The balance of Cape Verde is very close to Tahiti in everything but ROPs -- the most sensible place left for a new card is smack down in the middle of them.
You have no clue of what you're talking about. Neither card [4870 or 5770] is meant for a res higher than 1680x1050, and they're not fast enough to push the amount of textures needed to use more than 512MB. As in, by the time they can exploit it they're already at unplayable framerates.
You have the same situation with the HD 6950 1GB but at 2560x1600 instead. The only situation in which getting the bigger framebuffer versions makes sense, for both of them [4870 and 6950], is if you're running CrossFire.
keep telling yourself that. its a fact that there are games that NEED more than 512mb of vram at settings that are still playable on a 4870 level of card. with my gtx260 in Clear Sky I had to reduce settings causing me to bump right against my 896mb of vram and would cause hitching even though the framerate was playable before the hitching.
you can roll your eyes all you want but you are being a fool if you think that the 4870 cant play games at settings that can need more than 512mb vram.Yes, and as we all know NVIDIA and AMD cards have the exact same architecture and handle textures and assign video memory the same way.
Your anecdotal evidence for a GTX 260 definitely translates into a valid argument for cards with a completely different architecture. Right.
you can roll your damn eyes all you want but are are being a fool if you think that the 4870 cant play games at settings can need more than 512mb vram.
Haha, Star Craft 2 ultra settings @ whatever epic resolution? Right there is a game that if you had a 1GB 4870 you were happy and a 512MB one you were sad. Your minimum framerates tanked.
And still a very current game I might add... It doesn't matter if it uses older tech. People build PCs to play this game, specifically, frequently. It is relevant.
During the last black friday they had a 1GB 4870 for ~$50. Incredibly solid buy, even today.
you can roll your eyes all you want but you are being a fool if you think that the 4870 cant play games at settings that can need more than 512mb vram.
I'm sure you were. With Ultra at 1680x1050 and 4xAA you were looking at around 25 FPS avg. and 20 FPS min. with a 1GB 4870. Definitely seems playable if you consider sub-30 FPS avg. framerates and 20 FPS min "playable".
Unless you turn off AA, of course, in which case it uses less video memory and both the 512MB and 1GB version are brought to over 30 FPS min.
what do you want to hear? I tell you that plenty of games can go over 512mb but then your argument is that those games dont really need 512mb. if I give you experience I have with equal Nvidia card then you say that does not count either. again you are a fool if you think a 4870 can not play some games at settings that use more than 512mb of vram.Wow, what an astonishing argument! The same one people use for recommending the 6950 2GB over the 1GB version even though they're both unplayable at 2560x1600 with 4xAA anyway.
The reason you buy the cards with the bigger frame buffer is to CrossFire. By then, framerates are high enough in most games to warrant using higher in-game settings so they can actually exploit the additional VRAM.
what do you want to hear? I tell you that plenty of games can go over 512mb but then your argument is that those games dont really need 512mb. if I give you experience I have with equal Nvidia card then you say that does not count either. again you are a fool if you think a 4870 can not play some games at settings that use more than 512mb of vram.