Providing there's no loss of image quality, I don't see the problem.
-
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.
6870 is here! for £170, WTF?? HELP!!
- Thread starter slim01
- Start date
Providing there's no loss of image quality, I don't see the problem.
Most mobo's will do
Nearly all m/b's are compatible with SLI AND X-fire. I would personally go for Intel as the boards are better suited for gaming. The minimum speed you should go for is 8x as there isn't that much of a difference (percentage wise) between 16x and 8x.
as for using two cards, i would recommend going for one good card instead of two cheaper ones as it takes up less space and heat. There isn't much of a difference between how good some cards are for x-fire. all the 6xxx cards will be good with x fire for certain.
It may be worth waiting a couple of months to see if there are more pci-e 2.1 boards out there but it won't make that much of a difference.
Nearly all m/b's are compatible with SLI AND X-fire. I would personally go for Intel as the boards are better suited for gaming. The minimum speed you should go for is 8x as there isn't that much of a difference (percentage wise) between 16x and 8x.
as for using two cards, i would recommend going for one good card instead of two cheaper ones as it takes up less space and heat. There isn't much of a difference between how good some cards are for x-fire. all the 6xxx cards will be good with x fire for certain.
It may be worth waiting a couple of months to see if there are more pci-e 2.1 boards out there but it won't make that much of a difference.
6850/6870 still only have the single tesselation unit don't they? according to this there were only very minor optimizations to tessellation whereas the 69xx series will have some additional tessellation chip bolted on to the side.
Nvidia's cards were designed from the ground up for DX11 whereas AMD are still evolving an old architecture.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,749
- Location
- Planet Earth
Hmmm, DX11 + Tessellation performance still seems to be a bit behind on the 6850 / 6870 cards:
Civ V on maximum settings which uses tessellated terrains sees exactly the same kind of performance comparison that you get in Heaven benchmark with extreme tessellation. The 768 Mb GTX 460 is giving better performance with DX11 + Tessellation than the 5870 + 6870, and the 6870 isnt managing any better than the 5870 (6870 was supposedly meant to have improved tessellation performance).
Crossfire is scaling a lot better than SLI though, I looked at Civ V as a comparison because its one of the few games so far that use tessellation and its what I'm playing.
The GTX460 1GB is only slightly ahead of an HD6850 1GB in this review with launch drivers:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/10/21/amd_radeon_hd_6870_6850_video_card_review/3
Hmmm, DX11 + Tessellation performance still seems to be a bit behind on the 6850 / 6870 cards:
Civ V on maximum settings which uses tessellated terrains sees exactly the same kind of performance comparison that you get in Heaven benchmark with extreme tessellation. The 768 Mb GTX 460 is giving better performance with DX11 + Tessellation than the 5870 + 6870, and the 6870 isnt managing any better than the 5870 (6870 was supposedly meant to have improved tessellation performance).
Crossfire is scaling a lot better than SLI though, I looked at Civ V as a comparison because its one of the few games so far that use tessellation and its what I'm playing.
I wouldnt trust anantech as far as I could throw them.
Inserting a 460 GTX *** EVGA (cherry picked £200 460) in their comparison.
Just because one performed better than the other at a given task does not mean that the lesser was not designed for it its just not designed as well as another.
NV cards don't have any hardware tessellation at all so that contradicts your statement.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 611
Nvidia themselves were pushing reviewers to add that card in. Tomshardware says the same thing and imo, whilst it may not be exactly "fair", for me, it's handy because I want to know how well an overclocked 460 stacks up to the rest. They also did include the stats for a stock 460 so not a lot is lost.I wouldnt trust anantech as far as I could throw them.
Inserting a 460 GTX *** EVGA (cherry picked £200 460) in their comparison.
Are you sure about that?
No i'm not but that was the last thing that i read about the chip, but my point still stands that just because one product is not as good as another does not mean it was not designed for it..
ATI cards top out at 24XAA NV cards can do 32 & 64 that does not main that ATI cards were not designed with AA in mind because they don't go as high.
You can take any product & find a lessor alternative that does not mean that it was not designed for the same purpose.
Cars don't all handle the same or have the same top speed, that does not mean that the slower cars where not designed to driven because they don't drive as well.
Last edited:
All of which is irrelevant to the fact that the Evergreen architecture was basically the same as the previous one but with DX11 tacked on and Fermi had DX11 pulled into and built up in the design once they realised they were gonna have to use it for their next GeForce GPU - as a GeForce chip DX11 functionality was built from the ground up. Tessellation is not done in software on the GF100 cores.
Sure you can debate the merits of each approach.
Sure you can debate the merits of each approach.
And that's the only relevant part because even if the whole chip was completely new you can not assume that the Tessellation part of it would be any better because its upto AMD as to how much of a chip is dedicated to a particular function or not.
What of the NV 4xx line is comparable in chip size that performs equal or better.
Last edited:
Well its a crucial factor.
You & some others say that its gets better results because of its design so it should be able to do the same or better job at the same chip size as AMD.
NV should be able to do it with its superior design.
Maybe AMD should have finished with a final chip size the same as NV & dedicated all the extra die space on Tessellation
Last edited:
Going to answer or has he just smacked you with check and mate?
Hardly check mate... playing the die size card is always a sign of a last resort.
No one other than AMD fan boys actually care aslong as nVidia keep bringing up the goods.
My point is totally valid & stop with the childish fanboy card because i have never used it so don't use it with me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,222
On 40nm there is no real arguement amd has the edge in design. I don't even think amd are pushing the boundaries with cayman tbh like nv did with g100. I think 28nm will tell us more about fermi though. If it flops again then it surely is a bad architecture and no nv fan can say other wise.
Theres a number of flaws in your logic there - for one thing the card has a number of features related to GPGPU that ATI lack, also it has a far more significant portion of the core dedicated to geometry processing which ATI lacks - again something that is useful for advanced DX11 processing, although not hugely used at this time.