• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder what the overhead for overclocking is going to be like and if they have actually addressed this complaint people have with the coolers. I had a 4850 at launch, never had a problem with noise, although I guess it was the 4870 people complained about. It did however, act like radiator :/ (the 4850 atleast)
 
Can't see a single one being faster, should be close though, as the 4870x2 isn't much slower than it, but imagine 2x of them in Xfire, gona kick ass :D
 
Dont think im likeing what im seeing so far, if the 5870 = 4870X2
then why are people with 2x 4870x2`s selling them off to get 2x 5870s when they will be exactly the same performance ?

cant just be becuse of DX11 right ?
 
ViRuS2k said:
Dont think im likeing what im seeing so far, if the 5870 = 4870X2
then why are people with 2x 4870x2`s selling them off to get 2x 5870s when they will be exactly the same performance ?

cant just be becuse of DX11 right ?
Click to expand...

Probably because crossfire / sli scale much better from one card to two, than from two cards to 4.
 
Zarf said:
Probably because crossfire / sli scale much better from one card to two, than from two cards to 4.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's a shame that multi-GPU rendering is pretty much limited to two cards and even then support is far from universal. It would be much more impressive if they could get them to scale 60-80 for each card and would no doubt result in more sales.
 
If Fudzilla believe that there will be a theoretical 0.6x improvement, then the only numbers which work so well when comparing to the HD 4870 is

1200 shaders @ 800mhz. So (1200/800)*(800/750) = 1.6.

Do they really know the real specs? I guess we'll find out soon.

edit:

VR-Zone for example are confused.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/-rumour-ati-evergreen-is-1.6x-faster-than-hd-4870-/7539.html?doc=7539

They seem to suggest a doubling of shaders, which doesn't equate to only a 1.6x theoretical performance of HD4870 unless clock speeds are severely crippled.
 
Last edited:
ghost101 said:
If Fudzilla believe that there will be a theoretical 0.6x improvement, then the only numbers which work so well when comparing to the HD 4870 is

1200 shaders @ 800mhz. So (1200/800)*(800/750) = 1.6.

Do they really know the real specs? I guess we'll find out soon.

edit:

VR-Zone for example are confused.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/-rumour-ati-evergreen-is-1.6x-faster-than-hd-4870-/7539.html?doc=7539

They seem to suggest a doubling of shaders, which doesn't equate to only a 1.6x theoretical performance of HD4870 unless clock speeds are severely crippled.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't beleive that they'll be 1.6x the performance of a 4870. Especially when you take in to account what they've said about a 58XX being able to drive current games across 3 monitors.
 
He said 1.6x the performance though, that makes it slower doesn't it, so its not as fast as the 4870, its only 1.6 of it, either that or ive had to much to drink tonight :p
 
LoadsaMoney said:
1.6x THE performance of the 4870, makes it slower no ?

I.e its not as fast as the 4870, its only 1.6x the speed of it. :p
Click to expand...

Say A 4870 gets 70 FPS in a game and a 5870 was 60% faster, you'd multiply 70FPS by 1.6.

70 x 1.6 = 112 FPS

What you're thinking of is x0.6

70 x 0.6 = 42

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom