Cause 8% gain isn't stunning. Now a 50% gain would be stunning in my book.
-
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.
GTX 580 Review
- Thread starter Broken Hope
- Start date
Cause 8% gain isn't stunning. Now a 50% gain would be stunning in my book.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,147
So shouldn't the 6970 be called a 5890 then? or are AMD allowed to use disproportionately high numbers?
Amd will need to increase there performance around 40-45% to reach the level of gtx580 where as nvidia only increased theres by around 15% so no its a gtx485. If amd can give around 45% over a 5870 then yea its worth being called a 6 series card not to mention the differences in architecture between the 5 and the 6 series.
I think they've declined quite a bit recently, also, I'm quite interested in this review because he'd previously said a few days ago that they're not getting a 580 to review. I wonder what he's agreed to say in return for a review sample? I'm pretty sure "substantial performance increase" has something to do with it.
Soldato
isn't that usually the norm?.. not this time, looks like they are fighting to be the fastest, no matter how much faster it actually is.
That, and the fact that they've changed their naming scheme (clearly of course). It's not like the 6870 has come out at £300+.
The point is that it really really shouldn't be called a 580. It's a GTX485 at its very best. It's changed about as much as the GTX280 changed when they released a GTX285.
Soldato
Well I'm glad the "GTX480 as it should have been edition" is out and about but really, it's nothing spectacular and kind of a kick in the balls to "480" owners in my opinion.
Yeah I still don't like that review at all really, as it does seem dodgy, but at least it gives some rough facts.
Not only that but notice how the 68xx cards aren't included in the fan noise graphs, so I guess the 68xx are a lot quieter than the 580
Overall I still really hate nvidia as a company mainly due to what they do with the review sites i.e bribe them, or simply say that you don't get a card unless you do the benchmarks, games etc. on the settings we want in other words to make our card look amazing, a massive improvement, better than ATI etc. and also the way they probably makes games better optimized on nvidia hardware than ATI hardware, how ever ATI do some of this stuff probably, but in no ways as extreme as nvidia IMO.
Not only that but notice how the 68xx cards aren't included in the fan noise graphs, so I guess the 68xx are a lot quieter than the 580
Overall I still really hate nvidia as a company mainly due to what they do with the review sites i.e bribe them, or simply say that you don't get a card unless you do the benchmarks, games etc. on the settings we want in other words to make our card look amazing, a massive improvement, better than ATI etc. and also the way they probably makes games better optimized on nvidia hardware than ATI hardware, how ever ATI do some of this stuff probably, but in no ways as extreme as nvidia IMO.
Last edited:
Anything nVidia do, this guy finds stunning and can't help but gush over them. This is the same guy who has said he "loves nVidia", so it's to be expected.
It would only be a kick in the balls if nvidia eol the 480 very soon and bring in the 580 at the same price point or lower. Somehow I can't see it happening...
I bought my 480 roughly 4 or 5 months a go now for £335, I have no regrets
Last edited:
But you can't call it stunning though can you? An improvement, yes but not stunning.
In that graph, wouldn't you expect AMD to compare them in terms of best performance? They're not going to use games where the 5970 doesn't run properly (crossfire issues) to use as basis of its performance. In fact, they've probably and simply made that chart based on the gigaflop performance of each card, which of course will be faster on a 5970 than on a 6970 even if the 6970 was faster in games.
Soldato
I thought the 6870 was faster than the 5870 until i read up about it, so it seems AMD have screwed up their naming scheme as well.. someone is bound to buy one thinking they are faster
Soldato
it's not, i already said earlier i am not impressed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,147
I thought the 6870 was faster than the 5870 until i read up about it, so it seems AMD have screwed up their naming scheme as well.. someone is bound to buy one thinking they are faster
Lmao seriously have you been away that long thats been known for months.
AMD have nVidia beat, badly, at performance per MM2, I'm not sure how they will struggle really.
I thought the 6870 was faster than the 5870 until i read up about it, so it seems AMD have screwed up their naming scheme as well.. someone is bound to buy one thinking they are faster
Possibly, but all it takes is for you to look at the price, the 6870 has an RRP of almost half the 5870. (£170). Once the Cayman based GPUs are out though, it'll make the whole naming scheme a lot clearer.
Soldato