Discussion On The ATI Radeon 5*** Series Before They Have Been Released Thread

tmaxxthomson · 14 Sep 2009 at 13:12

well those benchmarks, although they dont show much, they do show that the card loves AA and there is hardly a hit when ur turn it on! look at crysis 0AA then 4xAA hardly a performance hit atall. looking good!

SfnX · 14 Sep 2009 at 13:14

id love it if they were fake and it was at about the same as the 295...id rofl copter to ati

r0cky · 14 Sep 2009 at 14:00

tmaxxthomson said:
well those benchmarks, although they dont show much, they do show that the card loves AA and there is hardly a hit when ur turn it on! look at crysis 0AA then 4xAA hardly a performance hit atall. looking good!

Would be nice to actually use AA, as normally I end up sacrificing AA to get better frame rates (can't stand jaggies too).

Raikiri · 14 Sep 2009 at 14:05

tmaxxthomson said:
well those benchmarks, although they dont show much, they do show that the card loves AA and there is hardly a hit when ur turn it on! look at crysis 0AA then 4xAA hardly a performance hit atall. looking good!

Are you refferring to this?

If so the only thing you can tell from it regarding AA performance is that the drop in % is similar to that of the 285GTX.

It's a rubbish graph, without numbers it shows basically nothing.

Dark_Angel · 14 Sep 2009 at 14:08

Looking good so far.

Might have to spend some penies on this depending on what games are released...

dragy2k · 14 Sep 2009 at 14:31

proper reviews and sources or it didnt happen , low resolutions charts mean nothing !

straxusii · 14 Sep 2009 at 14:35

I guess the dotted horizontal line is double the performance

Edit - no it is 150% the performance

miker1 · 14 Sep 2009 at 14:35

SfnX said:
id love it if they were fake and it was at about the same as the 295...id rofl copter to ati

Why?

Because you love NVidia?
Because you hate ATI?
Because you have just bought a 295?

EVERYONE should want these to be better than the current fastest, as it will drive the constant increases in performance.

Just laughing because you are a "fanboy" is very sad......

Rroff · 14 Sep 2009 at 14:57

According to the updated graphs in the other thread the 295GTX is close or beating it in half the tests and only really a lot slower than it in tests where SLI doesn't work so well.

http://i25.tinypic.com/2emg9zs.jpg

And some of those are false coz they appear not to be running with the latest SLI update i.e. the wolfie MP one.

EDIT: Infact thats even less impressive than I first thought as according to the info that goes with those slides the 295GTX would be running close to or out of VRAM...

Wakinglimb · 14 Sep 2009 at 15:14

Rroff said:
According to the updated graphs in the other thread the 295GTX is close or beating it in half the tests and only really a lot slower than it in tests where SLI doesn't work so well.

http://i25.tinypic.com/2emg9zs.jpg

And some of those are false coz they appear not to be running with the latest SLI update i.e. the wolfie MP one.

EDIT: Infact thats even less impressive than I first thought as according to the info that goes with those slides the 295GTX would be running close to or out of VRAM...

Looks more believable though, as the 295 wins at CoD4, which nVidia cards own for some reason. The Crysis "score" is at odds with all of the other "benchmarks" that have been released though.

tdream · 14 Sep 2009 at 15:15

Rroff said:
According to the updated graphs in the other thread the 295GTX is close or beating it in half the tests and only really a lot slower than it in tests where SLI doesn't work so well.

http://i25.tinypic.com/2emg9zs.jpg

And some of those are false coz they appear not to be running with the latest SLI update i.e. the wolfie MP one.

EDIT: Infact thats even less impressive than I first thought as according to the info that goes with those slides the 295GTX would be running close to or out of VRAM...

It's less impressive if you thought it was going to completely dominate the 295, because this graphs shows it's on equal pegging with the 295. Which is pretty good considering it's single card and will be cheaper to boot. Since it's not dominating the 295, AMD will have to sell this for less than £300 IMO.

X2 will lay the smackdown though

Rroff · 14 Sep 2009 at 15:16

Wakinglimb said:
Looks more believable though, as the 295 wins at CoD4, which nVidia cards own for some reason. The Crysis "score" is at odds with all of the other "benchmarks" that have been released though.

I've seen "crysis" benchmarks posted with results all over the place so I'm not sure what to believe there... in theory it should manage atleast 45% faster in crysis than a 295GTX.

As for COD4 its not really a good benchmark of anything as you can change a couple of cvars and get almost identical visual quality but the performance will suddenly favor ATI or nVidia.

nutter · 14 Sep 2009 at 15:23

Im happy with those performances vs GTX 295 TBH. We was never expecting it to kill the GTX 295, being on par is more than enough for me, considering i had a hd 4890 in my mind for a system due to the price of a GTX 295 being outside my budget, the HD version will be DX11 and give same performance as a GTX 295, but at a much better price.

Whats to moan about?

SfnX · 14 Sep 2009 at 15:27

nutter said:
Im happy with those performances vs GTX 295 TBH. We was never expecting it to kill the GTX 295, being on par is more than enough for me, considering i had a hd 4890 in my mind for a system due to the price of a GTX 295 being outside my budget, the HD version will be DX11 and give same performance as a GTX 295, but at a much better price.

Whats to moan about?

rofl everyone wanted it to be a 295 killer including me, more performance foe the money!!!!

Final8y · 14 Sep 2009 at 15:28

Rroff said:
I've seen "crysis" benchmarks posted with results all over the place so I'm not sure what to believe there... in theory it should manage atleast 45% faster in crysis than a 295GTX.

As for COD4 its not really a good benchmark of anything as you can change a couple of cvars and get almost identical visual quality but the performance will suddenly favor ATI or nVidia.

Most games can be altered but the assumption is that only the standard setting will be adjusted in benches.

Rroff · 14 Sep 2009 at 15:29

To be fair... it has none of the disadvantages of the 295GTX, power consumption/heat, reliance on SLI, etc.

Rroff · 14 Sep 2009 at 15:30

Final8y said:
Most games can be altered but the assumption is that only the standard setting will be adjusted in benches.

Yeah but what I mean is - you can see dramatically different results from one review site to the next with COD4 just because they benchmarked with a couple of minor cvar settings different... in most games when you run similiar settings you still get a similiar theme in the results.

nutter · 14 Sep 2009 at 15:31

SfnX said:
rofl everyone wanted it to be a 295 killer including me, more performance foe the money!!!!

And any game would actually take advantage?

Graphics in a lot of games look pretty average to me, day i see a game that blows me away, then i might consider £400 on a graphics card.

Final8y · 14 Sep 2009 at 15:33

Rroff said:
Yeah but what I mean is - you can see dramatically different results from one review site to the next with COD4 just because they benchmarked with a couple of minor cvar settings different... in most games when you run similiar settings you get similiar results even if the exact difference changes a bit.

That would be seen as cheating & i have not seen any suggestion that's what been going on.
The possibility & the likelihood are not the same thing.

Jezcentral · 14 Sep 2009 at 15:33

Rroff said:
To be fair... it has none of the disadvantages of the 295GTX, power consumption/heat, reliance on SLI, etc.

Which you'd expect for a card that came out at the start of this year.

It's looking very good for ATI, but it's instructive that we are measuring them against an Nvidia card.