NVIDIA GF100 & Friends speculation

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by Arty, Oct 1, 2009.

  1. psolord

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    437
    If you omit the Unigine benchmark the average performance difference is 26%!

    Quite different than that 49%!
     
  2. Arty

    Arty KEPLER
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,906
    There are a lot more irrelevant numbers like Crysis being twice as fast as 7fps :razz: Looking at those numbers, the delta looks just like the previous generation.
     
  3. Silus

    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    375
    Location:
    Portugal
    And quite a bit higher than 5-10% :lol:
     
  4. GZ007

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    416
    The last 2 numbers are idle and load power of the whole computer ? Because than percents are quite misleading.
     
  5. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,644
    Location:
    London
    Aha, I was just about to congratulate you on unravelling this, before I saw your edit. I guess the only thing to do is to see if the compiler will do these...

    I find the MUL after MUL limitation peculiar and apart from how this meshes with DOT4 I also wonder how this meshes with double-precision. Oh well...

    Jawed
     
  6. RobertR1

    Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Messages:
    5,334
    Weird number. Here's a Stalker Review using 4x AA at 1920x1200. http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1253/8/ The 5870 is getting 54.3 FPS where as in the leaked numbers, we're seeing 32.6? The diff being SSAO?

    ffs, atleast bench games people are actually playing. BF:BC2, MW2, etc.
     
  7. Mindfury

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    232
    Right.
    Red number is average performance percent,
     
  8. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,644
    Location:
    London
    That was in relation to performance with depth of field active.

    Jawed
     
  9. psolord

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    437
    True, but if you continue with the omissions, taking out those 2560X1600 scores (quite possibly framebuffer limited) you end up with even lower performance difference.

    And no, I am not trying to make ATI look better, just paying attention to the resolution I game at (1920X1080).

    I mean its just stupid to draw these kind of conclusions from three different resolutions. Each resolution should have its own average!

    This is what I do in my benchmarks at least but I use one resolution anyway!:razz:
     
  10. Picao84

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    494
    I did the math without Heaven. Its not 26%, its 29%...
     
  11. psolord

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    437
    I just averaged them in Excel. Could have missed something! :S
     
  12. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend Alpha

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    10,317
    Location:
    New York
    Yaaay, we're already cherry picking and reviews aren't even out yet. This weekend will be fun! :lol:
     
  13. Picao84

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    494
    False! Go see Hexus review of Shappire HD5870 Toxic 2GB. There is virtually no effect of one more Gigabyte on the card...
     
  14. psolord

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    437
    Crap, I totally missed that! If the GTX 480 and the 5870 have 45W difference and since we know the 5870 idles at 27W then the GTX 480 idles at 72W?:shock:
     
  15. Lonbjerg

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    197
    Just wait and see...it will get worse, before things go back to normal ;)
     
  16. mao5

    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    276
    [​IMG][/QUOTE]

    [​IMG]

    wtf?

    Quakewar

    1680x1050 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 171.0fps 10.3drv 163.0fps 480-168.0fps

    1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 146.0fps 10.3drv 139.0fps 480-140.0fps

    2560x1600 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 97.0fps 10.3drv 95.0fps 480-94.0fps

    Crysis

    1680x1050 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 32.0fps 10.3drv 31.9fps 480-30.0fps

    1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 28.0fps 10.3drv 28.0fps 480-27.5.0fps

    2560x1600 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 14.1fps 10.3drv 8.2fps 480-15.4fps

    Farcry2

    1680x1050 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 77.8fps 10.3drv 72.4fps 480-105.6fps

    1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 67.9fps 10.3drv 63.9fps 480-90.4fps

    2560x1600 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 48.3fps 10.3drv 46.3fps 480-89.1fps

    UT3

    1680x1050 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 158fps 10.3drv 156fps 480-253fps

    1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 132fps 10.3drv 131fps 480-207fps

    2560x1600 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 85fps 10.3drv 85fps 480-133fps

    AMD should fire ATI Cat Team according to these two tests with the same
    hardware configuration, lol:down:
     
  17. Picao84

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    494
    Ops!! You are right. It is 26%. I was typing "." instead of ","... /slaps himself
     
    #5097 Picao84, Mar 26, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2010
  18. leoneazzurro

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    478
    Location:
    Rome, Italy
    And the cherrypicking is on a leak that could be fake (and also the other leaks with not-so-high difference between 480 and 5870 could be fake as well).
    Only a few hours are missing, so I think it's a waste of force starting to argue now...
     
  19. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,644
    Location:
    London
    CoP Benchmark has 4 different modes, the last one, Sunshafts, is much much slower than the others:

    http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...hmarks-from-DirectX-9-to-DirectX-11/Practice/

    Jawed
     
  20. mao5

    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    276
    chiphell said the two tests done on the same platform.
     

Share This Page

Loading...