-The_Mask-
Newcomer
AMD: R9xx Speculation
- Thread starter Lukfi
- Start date
Judging from the benches of the guys posting on Hardwareluxx.de, HD6970 is better than a GTX580 even on Crysis at 1920x1200 AA4x.
To me it's not bad at all... It seems like by cherrypicking benches an HD6970 could challenge a GTX580, so it is probably a bit slower across the line (5-10% below), but closer to the top NVidia single gpu card than HD5870 and HD4870 were.
It could also be that the HD6950 is a worse shot for the money than HD5850 and HD4850 were (too close to an HD6870 to be 100€/$ more expensive).
-The_Mask-
Newcomer
They are real...
Are you sure they are real REAL? Like the ones delivered to reviewers? If they are... they need to get better "powerpoint slaves"
Man from Atlantis
Veteran
i dont believe any rumours slides from phk expreview whatever you call.. they did fake slides a couple of days ago, why should i believe them now?
Apart from that I've yet to see any title for which 1.5GB is not enough, even at 2560x1600 and 8xAA.
I'd suspect even the 1.25GB of the GTX 470 are enough for that resolution and AA setting for almost any benchmark used.
-The_Mask-
Newcomer
I really want to believe that all the slides are fakes by AMD and that Cayman is much faster then a GTX580, but I don't think that's gonna happen.
If these slides are true, Neliz, how do they justify your claim that "GTX 580 can trade some blows with HD6950?".
Im still finding all this veeeeery fishy.
Fake slides don't indicate anything about performance one way or another. I can believe the slides are fake and still believe 6970 is slower than the 580.
Well, these are outdated. The new ones are more professional (starting at 90%)
In AMD slides?
This means that there could be room for improvement even on what shown on marketing slides?
That seems pretty pointless from AMD if it is so... I mean, shouldn't marketing material show best case scenarios?
Well, these are outdated. The new ones are more professional (starting at 90%)
Hmm, so are you saying that these slides are real but older, when 10.12 performance was still not known?
But what's the point of showing results on official slides with drivers which are still not fully finalized?
Last edited by a moderator:
It can read SIMD configurations in order to differentiate between a HD 5870 and 5850 or GTX 460 and "SE". But if not backed up by it's database, it cannot know how many ALUs are present within each SIMD. At least as far as I know.
Not as fun as Fermi one, definitely. At least we had the jokes about termonuclear meltdown, the baconator, etc..
Well, these are outdated. The new ones are more professional (starting at 90%)
So, could these slides have been done, BEFORE GTX580 was launched? With an unoptimized driver? Starting at 90% could be a hint of 10% more performance?
So, could these slides have been done, BEFORE GTX580 was launched? With an unoptimized driver? Starting at 90% could be a hint of 10% more performance?
HD5870 on the leaked Catalyst 8.79.6.2 RC2, ComputeMark 2.0, 1920x1200, Extreme: 233
Driver bug, i presume.
So are there any improvements in the professional chart compared to these ones?Well, these are outdated. The new ones are more professional (starting at 90%)
Yes, both cards now exhaust rainbows instead of hot air!
Similar threads
