HD 5870 below expectations?

[wolf]

Gentlemen, I direct your attention, here.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpo...00&postcount=8

UNCONFIRMED working or any improvements as of yet.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by wolf

Gentlemen, I direct your attention, here.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpo...00&postcount=8

UNCONFIRMED working or any improvements as of yet.

i'll be testing these on my 4870's as well

[wolf]

Marked improvement in NFS Shift gents, well worth the try IMO, so far only this seems noticeably improved, still amidst testing.

[Bo_Fox]

Originally Posted by HalfAHertz

There are no winners and losers. We're not competing with one another, we're having a friendly discussion with the occasional jib-jabs in the back

At least that's what I'm aiming for

Aiming for the jib-jabs or for a friendly discussion? Anyways, I'm glad to hear that, my friend!

[grimeleven]

Hey guys.. check out this really nice document that explains a lot

http://developer.download.nvidia.com...ming_Guide.pdf

I think with the proper tools some of you might find more info out of this, could it be the 5870 is idling too much? who knows this doc explains several bottlenecks

N'joy!

[Binge]

a wheeee bit out-dated.

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

LOL how could you possibly think a 7 series nvidia manual can tell you anything about the HD5k series ridiculous

[grimeleven]

Did you even read it? it's not a 7 series manual, it talks GPU programming not "Nvidia programming" all the way... coders still got to work on same stuff so what it points out is ways to find bottlenecks. Like they say... RTFM lol i guess some people got no clue about this stuff so they stop reading after they see "Nvidia" = bad in their mind.

[Steevo]

Yahhh.



Nvidia still on the lowest precision possible for ultimate FPS kick I see.


Mebey the performance increses with TWIMPTBP is from lowering color quality and performing fixed calculations for things instead of a ahlf 16bit or a float 32 bit. It would be interesting to see the IQ difference in a game where ATI hardware has to use half, or float and Nvidia is using fixed 12 bit colors and calculations.

[Benetanegia]

Originally Posted by Steevo

Yahhh.



Nvidia still on the lowest precision possible for ultimate FPS kick I see.


Mebey the performance increses with TWIMPTBP is from lowering color quality and performing fixed calculations for things instead of a ahlf 16bit or a float 32 bit. It would be interesting to see the IQ difference in a game where ATI hardware has to use half, or float and Nvidia is using fixed 12 bit colors and calculations.

WTH are you talking about? A little bit off topic don't you think, not to mention that's pure BS (i.e since g80 and until HD5xxx Nvidia has been using a WAY better anlge independent anisotropic filtering). I think you actually ARE off-topic, maybe this was supposed to be in another thread??

[sm86]

Bhom Bhole....

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by sm86

Bhom Bhole....

and that means?

[wolf]

I vote best first post ever.

[Bo_Fox]

A quick review of today's cards to buy (1GB configurations for all versions will be compared against each other):

Radeon HD 4770: 750 MHz, 640 shaders / 32 TMU's, 1.6 GB/s

Radeon HD 4850: 625 Mhz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (roughly equal GPU fillrate to 4770), 2.0 GB/s (result: 8% faster than 4770 overall)

Radeon HD 5750: 700 MHz, 720 shaders / 36 TMU's (roughly equal GPU fillrate to 4770), 2.3 GB/s (result: 15% faster than 4770 overall)

___

Radeon HD 5770: 850 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (36% more GPU clock than HD 4850), 2.4 GB/s (result: 35% faster than 4770 overall) (25% faster than 4850)

Radeon HD 4870: 750 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (20% more GPU clock than HD 4850), 3.6 GB/s (result: 45% faster than 4770 overall)

Radeon HD 4890: 850 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (36% more GPU clock than HD 4850), 3.9 GB/s (result: 60% faster than 4770 overall)

___

Radeon HD 5850: 725 MHz, 1440 shaders / 72 TMU's / 32 ROP's (54% more GPU fillrate than HD 4890), 4.0 GB/s (result: 32% faster than 4890)

Radeon HD 5870: 850 MHz, 1600 shaders / 80 TMU's / 32 ROP's (100% more GPU fillrate than HD 4890), 4.8 GB/s (result: 60% faster than 4890)


Enjoy the numbers!!!!

The 4770 and the 5xxx series are made on 40nm process. A 5750 should eat around half the power that a 4850 requires, and still be faster. All of the 40nm GPU's are incredibly energy-efficient when idle.

The 5xxx series come with DX11 support (and tiny bit better I.Q. with AF and new SSAA modes) which is another plus, but hardly makes up for relatively low bandwidth. The 5750 seems to be the least bandwidth-bottlenecked of all the 5xxx cards.

Originally Posted by AzN

Bandwidth plays a vital role in minimum frame rates where 4890 has whole lot of. You go back track some reviews of the 5770 vs 4870/4890 and the average frame rate difference and minimum frame rate difference show quite a bit of discrepancy. So if 5770 was 10-15% slower in avg frame rates it might be 25% slower in minimum frame rates which matter more to a gamer than peak frame rates.

Also, just avoid the 512MB version if you can. It hardly makes sense to buy a card because of DX11 support, but with 512MB instead of 1GB (unless you game at lower than 1680x1050). A 1GB version is usually only $20 more or so.

Hope this post is helpful for newcomers who try to decide on which card to buy this year!

[mrsemi]

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

A quick review of today's cards to buy (1GB configurations for all versions will be compared against each other):

Radeon HD 4770: 750 MHz, 640 shaders / 32 TMU's, 1.6 GB/s

Radeon HD 4850: 625 Mhz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (roughly equal GPU fillrate to 4770), 2.0 GB/s (result: 8% faster than 4770 overall)

Radeon HD 5750: 700 MHz, 720 shaders / 36 TMU's (roughly equal GPU fillrate to 4770), 2.3 GB/s (result: 15% faster than 4770 overall)

___

Radeon HD 5770: 850 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (36% more GPU clock than HD 4850), 2.4 GB/s (result: 35% faster than 4770 overall) (25% faster than 4850)

Radeon HD 4870: 750 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (20% more GPU clock than HD 4850), 3.6 GB/s (result: 45% faster than 4770 overall)

Radeon HD 4890: 850 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (36% more GPU clock than HD 4850), 3.9 GB/s (result: 60% faster than 4770 overall)

___

Radeon HD 5850: 725 MHz, 1440 shaders / 72 TMU's / 32 ROP's (54% more GPU fillrate than HD 4890), 4.0 GB/s (result: 32% faster than 4890)

Radeon HD 5870: 850 MHz, 1600 shaders / 80 TMU's / 32 ROP's (100% more GPU fillrate than HD 4890), 4.8 GB/s (result: 60% faster than 4890)


Enjoy the numbers!!!!

The 4770 and the 5xxx series are made on 40nm process. A 5750 should eat much less power than a 4850, and still be faster. A 4770 eats even less power. All of the 40nm GPU's are incredibly energy-efficient when idle.

The 5xxx series come with DX11 support (and tiny bit better I.Q. with AF and new SSAA modes) which is another plus, but hardly makes up for relatively low bandwidth. The 5750 seems to be the least bandwidth-bottlenecked of all the 5xxx cards.



Also, just avoid the 512MB version if you can. It hardly makes sense to buy a card because of DX11 support, but with 512MB instead of 1GB (unless you game at lower than 1680x1050). A 1GB version is usually only $20 more or so.

Hope this post is helpful for newcomers who try to decide on which card to buy this year!

Great post sir, worthy of stickiness.