5870 1.6 x faster than 4870

Rroff · 1 Sep 2009 at 00:53

5870 is about 60-70% faster than the 4870 in contemporary games on average - I imagine in more complex games using newer features that margin would widen.

5850 can only really be speculated at as less has been revealed about it, most of the specs banded about show the core being around 18-20% slower than the 5870 but crippled by a slower memory speed bringing it down to anything upto 40-50% slower depending on the final configuration and how sensitive to memory bandwidth it turns out.

davetrace1 · 1 Sep 2009 at 00:59

ye but how much is gonna cost, probz like the same as the gtx 295 mars edition lol

kylew · 1 Sep 2009 at 01:01

davetrace1 said:
ye but how much is gonna cost, probz like the same as the gtx 295 mars edition lol

$199 for the 5850

$299 for 5870

In £ that's £140 and £210.

kylew · 1 Sep 2009 at 01:04

Rroff said:
5870 is about 60-70% faster than the 4870 in contemporary games on average - I imagine in more complex games using newer features that margin would widen.

5850 can only really be speculated at as less has been revealed about it, most of the specs banded about show the core being around 18-20% slower than the 5870 but crippled by a slower memory speed bringing it down to anything upto 40-50% slower depending on the final configuration and how sensitive to memory bandwidth it turns out.

Outside of the speculation from Fudzilla and VRzone, there's no evidence to suggest 5870 will be only 60% faster.

VRzone and Fudzilla are reporting the same thing, yet VRzone state a doubling of shaders at 1600 and fudzilla state 1200, so it's obviously still speculation.

Wilderbeast · 1 Sep 2009 at 12:59

kylew said:
$199 for the 5850

$299 for 5870

In £ that's £140 and £210.

In £ thats £199 and £299.

lukext · 1 Sep 2009 at 13:06

Wilderbeast said:
In £ thats £199 and £299.

lol, yeh about right!

Im a little bored now of all this speculation. Just looking forward to the announcment.

drunkenmaster · 1 Sep 2009 at 13:14

Even if teh 60% faster thing was accurate, its more likely they'll be using figures from dx11 demo's, dx10.1 demo's and games. The 4870 series does dx10.1, which is a bunch of the decent performance improvements included in dx11. In otherwords it might be 60% faster in say, Assasins creed in dx10.1, that would make it more than 60% faster than a 280gtx in the same game, as Nvidia current cards can't do dx10.1, the 4870 in dx10.1 gets a massive boost in performance already.

As for doubling of performance, realistic doubling across the board in the majority of games hasn't happened for a long time, since the 9700-x800 days.

tdream · 1 Sep 2009 at 13:26

Rroff said:
I doubt thats best case... the 5870 is supposed to be 60-70% faster than the 260GTX on average from what I've heard.

The voices in your head don't count as a source.

Fenris · 1 Sep 2009 at 13:48

drunkenmaster said:
Even if teh 60% faster thing was accurate, its more likely they'll be using figures from dx11 demo's, dx10.1 demo's and games. The 4870 series does dx10.1, which is a bunch of the decent performance improvements included in dx11. In otherwords it might be 60% faster in say, Assasins creed in dx10.1, that would make it more than 60% faster than a 280gtx in the same game, as Nvidia current cards can't do dx10.1, the 4870 in dx10.1 gets a massive boost in performance already.

As for doubling of performance, realistic doubling across the board in the majority of games hasn't happened for a long time, since the 9700-x800 days.

You make a VERY good point there.

Until we see some real world benchmarks or actualy find out what they are basing their 1.6x faster mubo jumbo ON we have no idea what the cards are actualy going to be like in current games.

jigger · 1 Sep 2009 at 13:49

If the quotes of 60% are correct, then surly that will be with very little driver development or maybe using algorithms.

You could easily add another 30% with driver development could you not ?

Lightnix · 1 Sep 2009 at 13:55

drunkenmaster said:
Even if teh 60% faster thing was accurate, its more likely they'll be using figures from dx11 demo's, dx10.1 demo's and games. The 4870 series does dx10.1, which is a bunch of the decent performance improvements included in dx11. In otherwords it might be 60% faster in say, Assasins creed in dx10.1, that would make it more than 60% faster than a 280gtx in the same game, as Nvidia current cards can't do dx10.1, the 4870 in dx10.1 gets a massive boost in performance already.

As for doubling of performance, realistic doubling across the board in the majority of games hasn't happened for a long time, since the 9700-x800 days.

The 4800 series over the 3800 series seemed to manage the whole doubling performance thing rather nicely, I thought.

Sayso · 1 Sep 2009 at 16:22

will wait for 6 months until the 5870x2 has come down to an affordable price (under £300), will have the Nvidea cards to compare them to then, tbh theres nothing i cant max out on my monitor at the moment so im in no rush to but anything :L)

mmj_uk · 1 Sep 2009 at 16:25

drunkenmaster said:
Even if teh 60% faster thing was accurate, its more likely they'll be using figures from dx11 demo's, dx10.1 demo's and games. The 4870 series does dx10.1, which is a bunch of the decent performance improvements included in dx11. In otherwords it might be 60% faster in say, Assasins creed in dx10.1, that would make it more than 60% faster than a 280gtx in the same game, as Nvidia current cards can't do dx10.1, the 4870 in dx10.1 gets a massive boost in performance already.

It will likely be in 2560*2000 or whatever res with max AA, where you get 30fps with the 5870 vs 20 fps with a 4870, the lower the settings you go the less of an improvement it will be.

D D Danneh · 1 Sep 2009 at 16:32

jigger said:
The 295 is two cards but a lot of games will only use one of the cards. a 4890 is loads faster in this situation. Same go's for the 4870x2.

It won't be "loads" faster. A little bit maybe, but a 295 is just two underclocked 275's stuck together, so you're comparing 4890 performance, to around 260 performance. It isn't LOADS faster. Also, I'm pretty sure most games benefit from SLI/Crossfire now, at least, the ones that need it do.

reflux · 1 Sep 2009 at 16:35

All half-decent modern games will run nicely under CrossFire or SLi. Jigger, please stop banging the 'dual-gpus are evil' drum; it's getting old now.

jigger · 1 Sep 2009 at 17:16

Refulx please stop pretending all games support Dual GPU's, its still not the case.

Overslop · 1 Sep 2009 at 17:27

What recent big releases do not make use of multiple GPUs? I honestly can't think of one...

jigger · 1 Sep 2009 at 17:33

D D Danneh said:
It won't be "loads" faster. A little bit maybe, but a 295 is just two underclocked 275's stuck together, so you're comparing 4890 performance, to around 260 performance. It isn't LOADS faster. Also, I'm pretty sure most games benefit from SLI/Crossfire now, at least, the ones that need it do.

Well a 4890 give's a 260 a very hard time. One half of the 295 performs close to a 260 and a £126 4890 on ATI favoured games will whoop a 260. alah loads faster in this circumstance. Hence me saying you cant compare the new ATI card to a 295 gtx as dual GPU cards performance cant relayed on.

The point is, high end dual cards, and high end single cards cant be directly compared.

Rroff · 1 Sep 2009 at 17:35

Aside from sim type games which for some reason always seem to run poorly if at all with multi GPU, multi GPU support with good performance scaling is now widespread with most games, some need profile updates tho.

reflux · 1 Sep 2009 at 17:38

jigger said:
Refulx please stop pretending all games support Dual GPU's, its still not the case.

Never said that, check your facts before you post

Whilst support is still not 100%, it's good enough that multi-gpu systems are popular and perform well, and are thus worth buying.

Have you ever owned a CrossFire or SLi setup? I've owned three, and whilst the dual 3870s were flaky as, the other setups were great.