AMD: R9xx Speculation

I did some more comparisons on the 6870 and the 480..

480 is 21.0% faster than the 6870 at 1920x1200, 4x, 16AF
480 is 46.4% faster than the 6870 at 1920x1200, 8x, 16AF

So that 30%~50% advantage the 6970 has may turn out to be true. It would put it right between the 480 and the 580.

 

You have way too few data points there. 1920x1200 x8 is based on 3 games. I'd rather look http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...-nvidia-geforce-gtx-580/20/#abschnitt_ratings or http://techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_580/27.html
Btw noone says that those 30-50% are only in the most gpu limited cases, but please, don't put too much into that number without any references...

 

I know. It's just s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-o-n.

 

qeustion is also, does 6970 do better than 580 using eyefinity and the answer is 100% better.
if I run hardware site I be running 3 screens, and since Nvidia cant do 3, then it shows how much better 6970 is and the cost to do 3 screens with sli cost 600euro more.
eyefinity has picked up, and since you get 3 screens for the price of one nowadays that market really has gone trough the roof.

will 6970 do better at high resolution gaming that is what is interesting not 1920x1080.
I play at 5760x1080.
Nvidia is out of that equation as it cost me 900euro to run it instead of 300 with 6850 crossfire so, performance/price, amd leads big time.

due to the delay I be waiting for january and maybe even feburary as I will upgrade to sandy bridge and the videocard is on hold now to get and I rather wait for price to drop and be in stock.

 

Err sorry? To that logic a Nvidia fan can say that the Nvidia 4xx/5xx series is better than AMD's 6970 and every thing else AMD because they can do Cuda.

Come on, be a bit realistic please.

 

In fact, he is.

If HE plays at 3x full HD res, then what he needs is performance at this res, not 1920*1080 or even 1024*768 without AA. I am more interested in performance at 1920*1xxx, so I'm in an entirely different need but still agree.

The same is true for CUDA, as long as you own and regularly use software specifically targeted at it (and not some video encoder with ultra-low quality output rendering it useless).

 

Ye but that's being fickle.

Also, can't Nvidia do 5760x1080? I've pretty sure I saw three monitoring running next to each other and doing 3D using a(or two) Nvidia GPU. The game was Bioshock 2 and I played around a bit with it(3D).

This was two months ago at a local Computer Faire.

 

2x cards at 2x$500 (or hwatever the price is), that's 2.5x the necessary price (with a proposed cheap 6970).

 

Nope, two months ago it was running on a 480GTX and like I said not sure if it was one card or two. Just saw the stand and then played around with the game and the glasses. The stand definitely had the Nvidia logo though.

I never saw a AMD 3D stand then and still haven't seen one to this day.

 

You can't run 3 displays with 1 nVidia card.

 

NV can't do three displays on one consumer card.

You were seconds quicker but my answer is more correct?

 

What Ethatron/flopper/PSU-failure are saying, one can use one AMD card for three LCDs, or two Geforce cards for the same LCDs. Eyefinity is a clear AMD advantage, as long as one is interested in it.

Edit: I should be faster next time

 

As others have said , you need two nvidia cards to do 3D. To me it becomes an expensive idea. not only do you have the possibly more expensive gtx 580 to consider but now you need two of them. Of course some will say well you get better performance, but thats still over $1,000 for those cards vs possibly $400-$500 for amd. The other issue is that the rest of the components in my system need to be up to par. Do I have a sli capable mobo ? No so thats more money. Do I have a power supply that can run two gtx 580s ? No so thats more money. Will my case keep two gtx 580s coool ? No so thats more.


I just got my third screen and most of what i'm playing is running fine on my radeon 5850 at 5760x1080 . In the future I might wnat to upgrade so i can add more fsaa to the games or when newer games wont run properly. That single card performance at these resolutions are important to me. Its more important than the tests at sub 1080p resolutions some sites like to throw out there

 

And you can't use 2 cheaper nV cards because?

 

What two cheaper cards would I use ? Gtx 460s which then i'd have to run two cards to get slightly better than gtx 580 performance.

I could use 2 gtx 460s I guess

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4008/nvidias-geforce-gtx-580/17

Of course i wouldn't want to use 510w under load furmark or 427w under load with crysis.

A 5870 which can be had for $260 now which is cheaper than the two gtx 460s will use less power and the best part. I can actually use it since my mobo doesn't support sli solutions.

Having a single card solution is great for me. Like i said the 5850 does a good job playing most games in eyefinity resolutions. I'm not sure i want to double my investment to go to nvidia's solution.

I mean just look. Last fall we had the 5870 at $400 bucks. Now you can get that performance at $260 bucks. In a few weeks we might get 5970 performance at $400 bucks. Next year with 28nm we will get another huge jump in performance.

Why would i want to invest so much money into multiple cards of the same performance where as with a single card i have more flexibility of upgrading

 

Sorry, just to clear things up. As per my original post it must've then been two Nvidia GPU's running 3D with three monitors but I can't say if it was 2x480.

Thanks, wasn't aware.

 

Thought this was about ..

 

What's there to speculate about that hasn't already been speculated?

 

Let me fill it for you.

Random 512Kb onboard -> S3 Virge 4MB -> RivaTNT2 -> GeforcePro -> GF3 -> NV3x -> R420 -> R580 -> G80 -> G92 -> 5870 -> 7870

 

So ... newer rumors seem to suggest that 3DMark11 actually waits for HD 6970, not the other way round.

The basic connection seems to be there, though.

Very interesting.