• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

;)

You what? if those numbers are accurate the 5850 beats the 470 over a lot of the benchmarks and the 470 is very likely to be more expensive :confused:

What the, 470 is much faster than the 5850 form those slides, een gives the 5870 a run for the money.

Those are the performance figures i'm expecting. Just a couple of days to wait see how much the other reviews confirm these kind of results.
 
/me tries to think of an appropriate bribe in order to reserve cards

I'll invite you to LAN? Send a few slags your way? send you a trendy graze box, let you come to iceland with me (its freaking awesome there). bring you a cup and a bacon sarny in the morning? That'd actually be quite impressive since i live FAR from OCUK.
 
I'm laying bets on £350 for the 470 and £500 for the 480. Any takers? :D

For me it would be in-between £320-335 and £440-460 respectively. This is imo the most realistic atm (unless some high "new technology bonus" will be put on top of these prices).

If the claimed performance increases are true, it won't make me happy at all. We are not to be expecting any price drops since... a year or so now? It really only messes up with our wallets and a new 5850 to my x-fire setup has to wait for better times yet.

GeForce 470/480s TDPs are already high. If so, we should not await any major overclocking capabilities too. This with currently designed new Radeon 5870s/5890s makes 480GTX even less of a deal. Real world performance difference of 5-10% does not make any difference to 5870. It can be oveclocked well beyond it.
 
Last edited:
FS, now im looking at 3 120hz monitors, but there is no way i can justify i grand on them +3d, while it only actually gives me 50% more pixels to play with. Considering I doubt i could sell my 30 for more than around 500 as its got a "stuck" pixel on it, that i cant "unstick".


I hate seeing shiny things, especially on pay day :/
 
We all know these will sell and fast even if they do go up for 500 notes. Reading around the web various sites are claiming polar opposite stock figures, some claim next to no cards will be available, some claim 2 if not 3 times more stock available at launch than the 5xxx series. Others claiming that AIB's still don't have any cards just empty boxes, some claiming AIB's have taken huge numbers but are all sold out already !. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, but I do think there will be cards on sale on Friday night. I doubt I'll buy one though, my self imposed maximum spend on GFX is ~£200, I doubt very much I'll get a Fermi card for that any time soon.
 
Last edited:
Its not just a huge increase in speed that this series of cards brings over the ati competition.

But a whole new range of AA and AF settings and other image improvements compared to ati.

But we hardly need to pile on EXTRA aa/af at the resolutions people are going to be running. Its all about pushing the FPS envelope and running at the highest possible resolution. 2560x1440

I'm disappointed looking at the slides TBH.
 
As did the people that bought a 5970, blind fanboyism works both ways ;)

Can't compare those two, 5970 is a dual-GPU graphics card, no matter what its real performance gains are (and they are decent).

GeForce 295GTX was dual of 275GTX and was asking double of its prices.

Radeon 5970 is two Radeon 5870s (with lower clocks) and it's only 60% more expensive.

GeForce 480GTX is a single GPU card.
 
Last edited:
I dont know if I would even trust 'real' benchmarks when they do appear. I have a feeling NV fanboys will overclock the card to squeeze the max out of it before benching, and the ATI boys will underclock it or use crappy drivers or whatnot. I've seen rivalry between green and red for years, but there is a hatred these days. It used to be banter and proper discussions, of course sometimes heated, but there is a real hatred from some parts now so I fully expect even 'real' benchmarks to be skewed.
 
But we hardly need to pile on EXTRA aa/af at the resolutions people are going to be running. Its all about pushing the FPS envelope and running at the highest possible resolution. 2560x1440

I'm disappointed looking at the slides TBH.

What?

2560*1600 first off :P
AA is still needed at this res, remember screen size goes up with higher resolution, unless we get silly amounts of pixel density some how....

1920*1080 needs a load of AA on it, since it tends to be played on far bigger screens than it should be (eg 24") and as such edges show up massively.

meh, more words but i cba
 
Back
Top Bottom