DavidGraham
Veteran
AMD: R9xx Speculation
- Thread starter Lukfi
- Start date
but only works on 6800?
Nvidia released an SLI profile for Civ 5 a day or two after that review. The review I'm referring to is based on single cards.
http://www.techspot.com/review/320-civilization-v-performance/
replace but with so far?
I don't understand that post. Does that option found in Cat A.I. only show up using the 6800 series using the leaked Cat 10.10 (8782a)? I've been lurking in other threads using the leak driver and so far no one with a 5000 series card reported such a feature in Cat A.I. Perhaps that's my answer to the question.
Maybe Dave ought to chime in here. If Barts were a curry, what curry would Barts be? I know he loves the curries so maybe hes going to respond. Lol drunk posting aha!
Also the official word on what Dave is a product manager on this time around would be nice as well as an explanation as to why ATI hasn't disseminated the fact you can do 3D with their cards. I want to know why most people think 3D is Nvidia only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I exclaim much!
Also the official word on what Dave is a product manager on this time around would be nice as well as an explanation as to why ATI hasn't disseminated the fact you can do 3D with their cards. I want to know why most people think 3D is Nvidia only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I exclaim much!
Because, sadly, you need 3rd party drivers to drive the glasses for ATI, and you need to find 3rd party glasses too.
I'm still waiting for Bit Cauldron's glasses to enter the market, as they're made in tight cooperation with AMD and according to their site, they only work with AMD too
ATI Radeon 4870 = 256mm2 (160 x5D)
ATI Radeon 6870 = 255mm2 (224 x5D)
ATI Radeon 5870 = 334mm2 (320 x5D)
Note-
(64 x5D) more streams processors for same die area as "HD4870" for "HD6870".
Calculation: BartsXT at (384 x5D) will be same die are as "HD5870" 334mm2
BartsXT at (464 x5D) stream processors die will be 373mm2
BartsXT at (504 x5D) stream processors die will be 393mm2
CaymanXT should NOT be over 400mm2 die area.
EDIT: I don't understand how it could be - up to 300W DTP
ATI Radeon 6870 = 255mm2 (224 x5D)
ATI Radeon 5870 = 334mm2 (320 x5D)
Note-
(64 x5D) more streams processors for same die area as "HD4870" for "HD6870".
Calculation: BartsXT at (384 x5D) will be same die are as "HD5870" 334mm2
BartsXT at (464 x5D) stream processors die will be 373mm2
BartsXT at (504 x5D) stream processors die will be 393mm2
CaymanXT should NOT be over 400mm2 die area.
EDIT: I don't understand how it could be - up to 300W DTP
Last edited by a moderator:
Except that the ISA(?) confirmed already there's at least 2 4D ASICs coming?
Jawed
Legend
I don't think they increase the throughput for 8-bit texels at the unit level, and I doubt there are more units per core than in Barts. I think the positive effect might only come with filtering of fp16 format textures.
I am thinking of SIMDs with 32 4D-ALUs and a double TMU like specified in the patents.
There are not so many possibilities for going 4D and keep wavefront-size of 64:
There are not so many possibilities for going 4D and keep wavefront-size of 64:
- SIMDs with 16 4D ALUs and 4 TMUs (30 SIMDs @ 1920SPs)
- R600-style with decoupled SIMDs and TMUs (3x 5 ALU-SIMD (each 128SPs) and one TU-SIMD (32 TMUs))
Last edited by a moderator:
Jawed
Legend
GTX460 is notably faster than HD5870, with tessellation off or on in that Techspot review. The gap increases with tessellation. If this game is indicative of "good tessellation" then AMD doesn't have a point - let alone the fact that the performance of HD5870 is not competitive at the baseline.
You know, there is also a HD6850 for less than $200. Wouldn't that be a good competitor to the GTX460?
Btw., competition means competetive performance for a competetive price, not more power for the same money, the same power for less money, or even more performance for less money. Then it isn't a competetion anymore!
The 4850 came out 18 months after the 8800GTX. It cost 150 euros at launch while the 8800 GTX cost 550 euros at launch. The 4850 was faster. This is what competition is supposed to bring for the consumer.
The drop in the texture units may not be so grave. After all, If I am not mistaken, the texture units belong to the part of the chip that has been equipped with the new architecture.
No surprise that those who are going to be disappointed are those who were disappointed even before anythihng concrete came out
I don't even see where official pricing has been listed, much less any real performance #'s or architecture deep dives, so why not wait 3 days before jumping to conclusions?
This looks like official pricing to me. Not exact pricing but a very informative field nonetheless.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jawed
Legend
I strongly doubt that a doubling of hardware thread size is likely - 16 is preferable to 128, let alone the problems that 128 causes in terms of blocking (size and shape) in compute algorithms. It's unwieldy.
There's a third option: SIMDs are always in pairs, so a pair consists of two 16-wide VLIW-4 SIMDs. The pair shares an octo-TMU. The TMUs normally operate in dedicated mode for 8-bit texture filtering, where each SIMD has exclusive access to a quad-TMU. In fp16 filtering mode, throughput falls to half as now the octo-TMU serves one SIMD at a time.
This seems pretty much the same as NVidia used in G80...GT200.
I envisage an entire clause of TEX instructions being served by the octo-TMU - this maximises coherency of L1 usage, feeding a stream of results to a single SIMD before the other SIMD gets its turn. fp16 textures consume much more space in cache, so coherency becomes more of a problem.
Yes, we've seen that, but that's nothing conclusive, given that a card can occupy a $100+ range. Quite the difference between $150 and $250 or 200/300$ in terms of perception if nothing else, I'd say
Er unless I'm reading that wrong, did you just add 64 on top of the 5870 and get the 384 x 5D?
Cause HD4870 was 55nm, whereas 6870 is 40nm as is the 5870...
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1484162&postcount=82
Download the "original" station-drivers package (6800 only), there is its C7106344.inf (...\Packages\Drivers\Display\W76A_INF)
So in this INF you will find new options:
So start you regedit an add these SZ (-> UMD!). After you restart the CCC, you will see the new options (or you break your CCC). But it doesn't mean, these new options will work.
But they are not doing that. For what reason should they give up maybe 25% computational performance in SP for a possible 50% gain in DP? It's simply not worth it.
And the VLIW4 stuff in the driver has 1/4 for multiplication/FMA and 1/2 for ADDs, basically the same as RV670 through Cypress for that matter.
Similar threads
