Awww... you missed the early review at hardwarezone?I can't say anything about the 5670 performance or nothing yet, but now that there is a picture of it public...ISN'T IT JUST ADORABLE?!?!
I thought you lived on here.
AMD: R8xx Speculation
- Thread starter Shtal
- Start date
I thought you lived on here.
I can't say anything about the 5670 performance or nothing yet, but now that there is a picture of it public...ISN'T IT JUST ADORABLE?!?!
Its very adorable. Its my favourite series of cards as it represents the highest performance a person with a standard desktop PC can achieve in 3D apps without changing out the underpowered OEM PSUs.
nApoleon hints Cedar being 160SPs.
Juxtapose package below with RV710, die size comparison imminent
http://news.mydrivers.com/Img/20100111/S03371982.jpg
At 160 + GDDR5, we are talking... 8600GT/S performance?
EDIT2:
5100 is for the rebrands (mobile)
5200 is base IGP (probs lower clock + no sideport/GDDR3 sideport)
5300 is either higher end IGP or 80SP Cedar.
Juxtapose package below with RV710, die size comparison imminent
http://news.mydrivers.com/Img/20100111/S03371982.jpg
At 160 + GDDR5, we are talking... 8600GT/S performance?
EDIT2:
5100 is for the rebrands (mobile)
5200 is base IGP (probs lower clock + no sideport/GDDR3 sideport)
5300 is either higher end IGP or 80SP Cedar.
Also this review the image: http://news.mydrivers.com/Img/20100111/03391529.jpgnApoleon hints Cedar being 160SPs.
Juxtapose package below with RV710, die size comparison imminent
http://news.mydrivers.com/Img/20100111/S03371982.jpg
Was looking at these yesterday, first thought was the 2nd linked one was for GDDR5 based SKUs(and very similar image on the amd mobility presentation last week), first was for RV710 compatible SKUs so dont need to redo board.
Second thought was maybe these were fake....the first shot looks a little weird, isnt there supposed to be a little triangle on one corner for alignment?
Last edited by a moderator:
Guess you didn't have to wait too long.I can't say anything about the 5670 performance or nothing yet, but now that there is a picture of it public...ISN'T IT JUST ADORABLE?!?!
Reviews
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews.php?reviewid=915
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5670-review-test-crossfire/
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=21916
http://hothardware.com/Articles/ATI-Radeon-HD-5670-DX11-For-Under-100/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru.../27732-sapphire-hd-5670-1gb-gddr5-review.html
http://www.elitebastards.com/index....e&id=1132&catid=13:hardware-reviews&Itemid=27
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/2010/test_ati_radeon_hd_5670/
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=441&Itemid=72
Hmmm... I see triangles in both pics. First pic is bottom left and second pic is bottom right, covered by name of website.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah see it now
Anandtech also have their review up state die size is 104mm2
Edit: 50k Redwoods at launch(!!...so much for the shortages being over) and a Febuary 6th release date for Cedar(Page 4)
Last edited by a moderator:
So hd5670 is quite nice indeed. A bit faster than I'd expected it to be, at least in comparison to hd4670 (that is, it beats it by more than the increased shader throughput, despite having theoretically less efficient shader arrays due to larger batch size and vastly less texturing units). Granted, it has twice the memory bandwidth, but with only 8 rops it seems like almost overkill (or comparatively, rv840 and rv870 would suffer from not enough bandwidth). Probably need to wait for the gddr3 versions to draw any conclusions.
If I'd have to criticize anything, it would be price. On a pure price/performance scale, it actually doesn't really come out on top against neither GT240 nor 9800GT (in what must be pure coincidence these just seemed to have price cuts, the GT240 now no longer costing more than a GT9600 (guess it's time for nvidia to retire that...) and definitely cheaper than HD5670, while the 9800GT being about the same price and faster).
But at a die size of only 104 mm², it's a very solid performer (that's very close to GT216 die size, and not GT215, which is at least somewhat comparable in performance...). If AMD can sell it at 99$, all the better for them. That has to be way more profitable than 9800GTs at the same price...
If I'd have to criticize anything, it would be price. On a pure price/performance scale, it actually doesn't really come out on top against neither GT240 nor 9800GT (in what must be pure coincidence
these just seemed to have price cuts, the GT240 now no longer costing more than a GT9600 (guess it's time for nvidia to retire that...) and definitely cheaper than HD5670, while the 9800GT being about the same price and faster).But at a die size of only 104 mm², it's a very solid performer (that's very close to GT216 die size, and not GT215, which is at least somewhat comparable in performance...). If AMD can sell it at 99$, all the better for them. That has to be way more profitable than 9800GTs at the same price...
Well, I'd rather say, fixed function interpolator done wrong for the 4670, considering its much lower score than 4850 (and rv770 didn't have enough interpolators neither for that kind of test)... Really wondering how much these 32 texture units actually helped rv730 in practice given the 16 interpolators...Some internal results - 3DM-V:
notice the higher texture-fillrate (despite teoretical texturing rate is much lower)... shader-based interpolation done right™
FrameBuffer
Banned
So hd5670 is quite nice indeed. A bit faster than I'd expected it to be, at least in comparison to hd4670 (that is, it beats it by more than the increased shader throughput, despite having theoretically less efficient shader arrays due to larger batch size and vastly less texturing units). Granted, it has twice the memory bandwidth, but with only 8 rops it seems like almost overkill (or comparatively, rv840 and rv870 would suffer from not enough bandwidth). Probably need to wait for the gddr3 versions to draw any conclusions.
If I'd have to criticize anything, it would be price. On a pure price/performance scale, it actually doesn't really come out on top against neither GT240 nor 9800GT (in what must be pure coincidence
But at a die size of only 104 mm², it's a very solid performer (that's very close to GT216 die size, and not GT215, which is at least somewhat comparable in performance...). If AMD can sell it at 99$, all the better for them. That has to be way more profitable than 9800GTs at the same price...
Well on a performance aspect, the 5670 out performs the GT240 is the 4 reviews I've read so far (Anand, Tech Report, THG, Computerbase), most often then not beating the 9600GT and depending on the site/game sits about even with the 9800GT (wins some, loses some.. ties in some). In price relative to the GT240 it often outperforms it by greater than the price difference, the 9600GT fairs a tad better (same price as 240 better perf) while the 9800GT I'd say on terms of perf vs price pulls ever so slightly ahead, for when it does lose to the 5670 it doesn't lose by much but when it does win it does so at a greater margin. Though if one is really comparing at price/performance the big winner without a doubt would be the 4850. At about 10% higher cost vs 9800GT, performance is nearly 3X as much as the cost differential. Admittedly though the place where the 5670 and it's ilk will find it's home (HTPC), performance is 2nd to feature set (HD Decode including dual stream ie pip and 3D Bluray, bitstream, power consumption and noise), where the 9800GT/4850 are a bit over.
FrameBuffer
Banned
Yeah see it now
Anandtech also have their review up state die size is 104mm2
Edit: 50k Redwoods at launch(!!...so much for the shortages being over) and a Febuary 6th release date for Cedar(Page 4)
as noted above (me), I don't think supply (shortage) has anything to do with amounts allotted towards the launch. The 5670 is hardly going to be in high demand like that seen with the 5800 series, honestly anyone thinking so might want to study market division a bit more, if anything I suspect the 5400/5500 will be the choice of OEMs given similar feature set at much reduced prices and where the bulk of allotment will go to.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Well, Nvidia bumped down the 240 to a lower tier so it's now competing against lower tier cards, taking already low margins and slashing them further.
As for 9800 GT, you get slightly better performance sometimes and similar performance at other times. All while having greater power consumption and less features. I'd say after a few months useage, the 5670 would be well ahead in price/performance.
4850 is overall better no doubt as long as you don't need the new features and you manage to find one for sale. And even then, the added performance is pretty tempting when compared to 5670.
Regards,
SB
Well computerbase for instance puts the GT240 at 65 Euros and the HD 5670 at 80 Euros, which is just enough for the GT240 to win that price/performance comparison (granted it's so close you could call it a draw).
I think though the 1GB HD5670 is even worse, costing around 100 Euros. For that price you could get (at least almost) a 512MB HD5750, which will be (at any settings the 1GB HD5670 is playable) still much faster.
Right. Or the HD4770 too. Neither card is really widely available, however.
And all things the GT240 does just as well.
FrameBuffer
Banned
what about upcoming BluRay 3D ?
FrameBuffer
Banned
Any word (looking at you Mr. Dave ;-) ) if/when ATI will be adapting DP 1.2 ? Will this require a new generation (HD6000/RV970 ?) or is it something that can be adapted (added) with minor change ??
give me 5 secs to upload a pic to tinypic and I'll give you more questions on that!
I wonder if that 4 monitor thing is related to DP1.2 daisy-chaining.
Last edited by a moderator:
FrameBuffer
Banned
give me 5 secs to upload a pic to tinypic and I'll give you more questions on that!
I wonder if that 4 monitor thing is related to DP1.2 daisy-chaining.
Not being obtuse nor am I trying to be rude in anyway but (maybe it's just me not understanding) that seems to relate to Eyefinity (DP+VGA+DVI .. "across three monitors" .. DP = 1, VGA = 2 and DVI = 3), I think the up to 4 displays ("Max Displays: Up to 4 simultaneously") is part of the Eyefinity " engine (for lack of a better word on my part) that all HD5000 series seem to have (not sure of sub 5600), though the 5870 Six has me a bit perplexed and am eagerly awaiting it's arrival. The choice to use 3 currently is an OEM choice iirc . DP 1.2 does add daisy chaining and doubles the "bandwidth" which could power 120Hz (2560 x 1600) displays down the road. It would seem to me that if ATI developed DP as part of the HD5000 series GPUs then it would be something they can't change and will have to wait for a new GPU (R900 series ?) to add the added bw and daisy chain and not something that can be added via software (bios) updates. I could very much be wrong or misunderstanding how ATI implements this and look forward to any response by Dave (or anyone else really) on this matter.
Similar threads
