|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22471 |   marvelous (17) Jan 19, 2010 - 10:02 pm » Edited on Jan 20, 2010 - 03:16 am
| Firingsquad sound like a Nvidia marketing department with their conclusions. So with 512SP it should be double for Nvidia and AMD with 800SP to 1600SP isn't? Never mind AMD has 5970 that Nvidia has to climb.
All that bandwidth is nice but what about texture performance as it seems lacking with GF100? it seems rather weak when comparing it to GT200 with 80TMU and GF100 with 64. Sure clock differences but it's still not going to make up for 16 raw units while AMD doubled ROP and TMU over their previous gen with faster clocks to boot.
3D vision sound like a half ass job. Tacked on to answer eyefinity as it does not support 3dvision with 1 GPU with GT200 supporting that option as well.
I have a strong feeling 5870 will be price champ over GF100 or very close in performance that Nvidia will have to drop prices once again. It is taking nearly 6 months for Nvidia to answer AMD. If GF100 is little bit faster AMD will probably drop a faster clocked 5870 as rumored AKA 5890. Nvidia has been playing catch up for the last year and this year it's no different. Good for the consumer. Bad for Nvidia. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22178 | marvelous (17) Sep 30, 2009 - 01:44 pm » Edited on Sep 30, 2009 - 01:45 pm
| | Just like there's a equilibrium with fillrate and bandwidth in a card there's equilibrium in CPU and video cards. These 58x0 cards have whole lot of GPU and games today just aren't taxing enough. So a 4ghz I7 would get you more frame rates in most of the console ports we have today. As you limit the GPU with more taxing game or some ridiculous resolution and AA the gains shrink with faster CPU. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22178 | marvelous (17) Sep 30, 2009 - 01:30 pm
| 1600SP and 512 bit is probably out of the question while pertaining smaller die and power consumption. ATI did the right thing by going 1600SP with 80TMU instead of going 512bit with lower SP and TMU. There's just more performance to be had with the latter if you want to impress all these hardware/gaming sites who only test average frame rates.
This is where the English language fails. Bottlenecks? It could mean different things and I'm understanding why you used it after your explanation. Now if the 5870 was more saturated like GTX 285 or 4890 the card would perform much faster breathing down on GTX295 a lot more than it is now. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22178 | marvelous (17) Sep 30, 2009 - 01:03 am » Edited on Sep 30, 2009 - 02:54 am
| Like Chizow mentioned in the other overclocking article I don't quite agree with your conclusion either about 58x0 being not bandwidth bottlnecked just by looking at average frame rates.
Shader usually has nothing to do with bandwidth. Games today just aren't shader limited except for maybe Crysis very high settings with these new cards. Sure we get some performance improvements but it's quite small compared to fillrate and bandwidth. Memory bandwidth raises minimal frame rates and helps AA performance while fillrate helps peak frame rates. There's an equilibrium between fillrate and bandwidth. Bandwidth doesn't quite help much on average frame rates than minimum frame rate however core clock help peak more max frame rates to get much better average frame rate. To say 5850 or 5870 isn't being bottlenecked is like saying g92 wasn't bottlenecked by bandwidth. All cards are limited to a degree except maybe 2900xt that was fillrate hungry but how much this limitation is the real question.
The fact that you don't mention you are also overclocking the shader portion in your first article when you raised core clocks in your 5870 I had a problem with. The added Shader overclocking along with core clocks added performance and gained you extra 4-5% performance compared to 2-3% memory overclocking. Now take out that shader clocking overhead and memory clocking would get equal footing as core clocks. All while GTX285 would show more of a saturated result. Raising only core clocks and not shader would net you much bigger gains over memory or shader clocking in average frame rates. Perhaps 2x fold or more as your result of 5870 overclocking and now 5850.
The fact that 5850 with 70% more pixel fill, 53% texture fill, 53% more processing power only nets you 25% on average over 4890 tells you that it's more bandwidth limited than the cards before it. Not to mention in your own overclocking result of the 5850 beating 5870 by clocking it to 878/1400 that has 72TMU and 1440SP vs 850/1200 with 80TMU and 1600SP. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19684 | marvelous (17) Feb 22, 2008 - 05:42 am
| Nice review but there was an error.
"Also like G92, G94 sports eight texture address units. This gives G94 a peak texture filtering rate of 32GTexels/sec. In comparison, the GeForce 8800 GTS can filter just 24GTexels/sec peak."
8800gt does 33.6 GTexels and 9600gt does 20.8 Gtexels Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=18689 | marvelous (17) Dec 12, 2007 - 05:31 am
| | There was an error on original G80 core texture fillrate capacity. It's only the new g92 core that doubles that of original G80 core. GTX has a fillrate of 18.4. Ultra has 19.4 and original GTS has 12.0. Only the G92 fillrate is right. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=17869 | marvelous (17) Oct 16, 2007 - 01:24 am » Edited on Oct 16, 2007 - 01:26 am
| | The review didn't have these cards on this particular benchmark. Where are you getting this info? 8600gts is still faster but yeah 2600xt raw performance is getting better than 8600gt and is near 8600gts on newer games now. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=17869 | marvelous (17) Oct 16, 2007 - 12:38 am » Edited on Oct 16, 2007 - 01:23 am
| | I'm not upset brandon. It's just a suggestion because every time I read Firingsquad 1280x1024 resolutions are usually not included. I hope us mainstream people get the same love as the uber high end people. :) Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=17869 | marvelous (17) Oct 15, 2007 - 05:34 pm » Edited on Oct 15, 2007 - 05:39 pm
| I got this LCD monitor last year. Why do I need a new monitor when this one looks fantastic compared to even new ones? I don't know about you but I don't change monitors every year. I'm actually on a widescreen. 1440x900 but it compares to 1280x1024 pixels.
There are many people using this resolution who are on medium range graphics cards like 8600gts, 2600xt, 1950pro. You are forgetting huge chunk of PC industry belongs to this part of the market. Not dual 8800gtx or 2900xt with 30" monitors.
I read firingsquad often and I can't stand web sites who only show 1920x1200 and 2560x1600. Reviewers aren't being realistic.
I think 1280x1024, 1600x1200, 1920x1200 what most people run. Drop the 2560x1600. Barely any people use that resolution. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
|
|
|
