AMD: R8xx Speculation

[psolord]

There is an interesting off base chart here but it is lacking vital information!
http://itbbs.pconline.com.cn/diy/10568055.html

Please remind me where did i see a graph like that in the past?

 

[Wirmish]

Better graph: http://i28.tinypic.com/r9oill.jpg

Fake ?

 

[nutball]

I do wish people would take the time to match the fonts properly when they Photoshop. It's not *that* hard and the result is so much more convincing.

 

[Robin B]

Some more here.

ATI Radeon HD 5870
> od +5% do +155% oproti GTX 285 (testováno na 17 hrách a 40 konfiguracích) > From 5% to 155% compared to GTX 285 (tested at 17 games and 40 configurations)
> od -25% do +95% oproti GTX 295 (AA 2x/8x, AF 8x/16x v 16 hrách) > From -25% to +95% compared to GTX 295 (AA 2x/8x, AF 8x/16x in 16 games)

ATI Radeon HD 5870 v CrossFire ATI Radeon HD 5870 in CrossFire
> X2 od -5% do +90% oproti GTX 295 SLI > X2 from -5% to +90% compared to GTX 295 SLI
> X3 od +10% do +160% oproti GTX 295 (testováno v 15 hrách) > X3 from 10% to 160% compared to GTX 295 (tested in 15 games)

ATI Radeon HD 5850 ATI Radeon HD 5850
> od -25% do +120% oproti GTX 285 (testováno v 19 hrách a 50 konfiguracích) > From -25% to +120% compared to GTX 285 (tested in 19 games and 50 configurations)

http://vr-zone.com/forums/483009/5870-benchmark-from-amd-labs.html

 

[psolord]

I wouldn't know if it's fake or not but if it is indeed real and according to this, AMD seems to be using 1.0 as base value of the compared product and each line above that is an extra 10%!

In which case it wouldn't be very impressive! I mean less than +20% compared to the GTX 285? I think that even the 4870X2 can much that!

 

[leoneazzurro]

I wouldn't know if it's fake or not but if it is indeed real and according to this, AMD seems to be using 1.0 as base value of the compared product and each line above that is an extra 10%!

In which case it wouldn't be very impressive! I mean less than +20% compared to the GTX 285? I think that even the 4870X2 can much that!

If the graph is related to the performances hints in the Robin B post, then each line is 20% and not 10%

 

[neliz]

I wouldn't know if it's fake or not but if it is indeed real and according to this, AMD seems to be using 1.0 as base value of the compared product and each line above that is an extra 10%!

In which case it wouldn't be very impressive! I mean less than +20% compared to the GTX 285? I think that even the 4870X2 can much that!

The 4770 slides had 0.8 as it's base value

So each line is 10%

on the other hand, the photoshop work is commendable, they slipped when positioning Prey.

 

[psolord]

I dunno!

Anyway the chart would be invalid if you take udner consideration the HAWX benchmark mentioned today, which is almost 100% faster on the 5870 and in this chart it's shown like it's 10%-20%.

My guess is that today's HAWX benchmark is the correct one, because my 4870X2 could indeed do about 90fps DX10 and there is no reason that the 5870 could only be 10-20% faster than the GTX 285.

 

[v_rr]

http://bbs.chiphell.com/viewthread.php?tid=54363&extra=page=1

 

[no-X]

I dunno!

Anyway the chart would be invalid if you take udner consideration the HAWX benchmark mentioned today, which is almost 100% faster on the 5870 and in this chart it's shown like it's 10%-20%.

My guess is that today's HAWX benchmark is the correct one, because my 4870X2 could indeed do about 90fps DX10 and there is no reason that the 5870 could only be 10-20% faster than the GTX 285.

Depends on setting, look at HD5870 vs GTX295 comparision - HD5870 is almost 70% faster then dual GTX295 there.

 

[neliz]

I dunno!
My guess is that today's HAWX benchmark is the correct one, because my 4870X2 could indeed do about 90fps DX10 and there is no reason that the 5870 could only be 10-20% faster than the GTX 285.

With todays benchmark, do you mean the guy that multiplied all the 4870 scores with 1.6?

 

[DegustatoR]

With todays benchmark, do you mean the guy that multiplied all the 4870 scores with 1.6?

x1.6 RV770 might turn out to be a pretty accurate description if the above graphs are true, don't you think?

 

[neliz]

x1.6 RV770 might turn out to be a pretty accurate description if the above graphs are true, don't you think?

If we take 1.6, we certainly won't be dissapointed.

 

[psolord]

With todays benchmark, do you mean the guy that multiplied all the 4870 scores with 1.6?

No I meant the vr-zone HAWX scores.

These scores still do not compute with the better slides our friend posted above/earlier.

I have seen my 4870X2 scoring 90fps and my highly OCed GTX 260c216 OC scoring 57fps on the same settings!

So these slides suggest that the 5870 is only 20% faster than the GTX 285 which still doesn't make sense to me. I mean OK probably the GTX 285 is faster than my OCed 260 but how much faster can it be?

Could someone of our forum friends tell us how much his GTX 285 scores?

 

[psolord]

x1.6 RV770 might turn out to be a pretty accurate description if the above graphs are true, don't you think?

It seems to me it's 1.6X the GTX 285, not rv770!

 

[DegustatoR]

It seems to me it's 1.6X the GTX 285, not rv770!

If you count in MSAA 8x scores then yes.
If not then it's more like 1.3x GTX285.

 

[neliz]

No I meant the vr-zone HAWX scores.

Fake as can be 1.6 the 4890 score (5107) is 8171 which coïncidentally is also what the 5870 scores there. Same goes for the Vantage Score (alhough that should be 107 instead of 109)

 

[Slappi]

Looking at those numbers I would say ATI is in trouble IF nVidia has a G300 card out by November.

 

[psolord]

If you count in MSAA 8x scores then yes.
If not then it's more like 1.3x GTX285.

To tell you the truth, i couldn't care less about 8XAA. I am always using 4XAA anyway.

The fact remains though, that 8XAA is a valid option for some people and heavy one at that, so it is only fair that it should be included!

 

[DegustatoR]

The fact remains though, that 8XAA is a valid option for some people and heavy one at that, so it is only fair that it should be included!

Agreed. But then you should include CSAA 16x vs MSAA 8x numbers there as well.