New Sapphire 5850 vs BFG 8800GTX OC Benchies :)

RavenXXX2 · 26 Feb 2010 at 13:55

Just ran Dirt 2 at 1680x1050 max settings, forced DX9 and no AA, on a 5870 clocked at 5850 speeds and an i7 920 underclocked to 2.2 GHZ and two cores disabled. Results tell me the OP has got some major performance issues..

Greebo · 26 Feb 2010 at 13:57

Blackbadger said:

LMAO. I had noticed the OP had gone bonkers with his graphs. He could work for ATI or Nvidia any day.

dlknight · 26 Feb 2010 at 14:00

Blackbadger said:

I suggest you go and take a look at the "stacked bar chart" template in Microsoft Excel 2007 before you post anymore crap.

Then maybe if you take a look at the key you will see that the minimum and average FPS have been combined into one bar. Hence why the FPS is shown on each segment of the bar.

How I present my results is purely up to me and didn't realise you were the master here...

I could have flooded the entire post with all my results in graph format with seperate bars for minium and average fps but then you probably would have complained that the webpage didn't fit into your crappy 15" LCD that you mommy and poppy bought you last xmas.

dlknight · 26 Feb 2010 at 14:05

RavenXXX2 said:
Just ran Dirt 2 at 1680x1050 max settings, forced DX9 and no AA, on a 5870 clocked at 5850 speeds and an i7 920 underclocked to 2.2 GHZ and two cores disabled. Results tell me the OP has got some major performance issues..

Posting results from a totally different architecture even though you might have disabled cores/underclocked etc. Doesn't help does it? what version of Windows are you using? driver versions, disk configuration etc...

Actually looking at online reviews my results are about right - http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,700780/Dirt-2-CPU-benchmarks-with-DirectX-9-and-DirectX-11-Phenom-doing-well-quad-cores-rule/Practice/

But then I guess you will say these are incorrect too ?

dlknight · 26 Feb 2010 at 14:10

titaniumx3 said:
4890 results are very flawed, which makes me think the 5850 are too.

Just for comparision I was getting 55 fps in Crysis @ 1680x1050/High with my 5850. This was on a 3.4ghz Q9550, but since Crysis hardly uses multi-core processors, it's not going to make a huge difference.

Regardless of this though, a 4890 destroys a 8800GTX, so there's something wrong anyway.

You are correct about the 4890, did you read my first post although it may not have been entirely clear.

The 4890 appears to have been from a dodgy batch of XFX HD4890's produced and sold in August last year, hence why I returned it and they seller gave me a full refund.

http://www.overclock.net/ati/634248-xfx-4890-bad-batch-discussion.html

The guy I bought it off is twodigitz and has posted in the forum linked to above.

Your Crysis results are similar to mine at that resolution and settings.

RavenXXX2 · 26 Feb 2010 at 14:10

Just face facts your results are screwed up, noway does a 5850 get that lower FPS in dirt 2, it's just about on par with a 8800GTX according to your results, it's crrrrrrrrrrrrazy...

dlknight · 26 Feb 2010 at 14:16

RavenXXX2 said:
Just face facts your results are screwed up, noway does a 5850 get that lower FPS in dirt 2, it's just about on par with a 8800GTX according to your results, it's crrrrrrrrrrrrazy...

Have you ever heard of a system bottleneck? I'm guessing it is my CPU because if I decrease resolution to 800x600 then the FPS increases to over 100FPS.

I'm pretty happy with my 5850, I posted my results as they were reported by the software. I have been pretty comprehensive with my posting and yes maybe I could have made the graphs look a little bit better.

SteveOBHave · 26 Feb 2010 at 14:44

Ignore them - they are just know it all keyboard warriors with a semantics complex. I for one appreciate the effort and have enough of a brain to be able to spot a CPU bottleneck for what it is.

Locky · 26 Feb 2010 at 14:48

This review shows me how good the 8800gtx is/was

Rroff · 26 Feb 2010 at 14:55

According to these results... 8800GTX SLI would run the 5850 hard sometimes beating it by a not insignificant amount.

titaniumx3 · 26 Feb 2010 at 15:01

dlknight said:
Have you ever heard of a system bottleneck? I'm guessing it is my CPU because if I decrease resolution to 800x600 then the FPS increases to over 100FPS.

But surely that indicates that you do not have CPU bottlekneck, because resolution affects only the GPU. :confused:

Rroff said:
According to these results... 8800GTX SLI would run the 5850 hard sometimes beating it by a not insignificant amount.

Keeping the balance eh?

cupofchow · 26 Feb 2010 at 15:01

who actually games at less than 1680 these days ?

i think everyone games at 1920 really, and if they dont they need to be

i think you should re-run the tests in 1920 and watch the 5850 stretch its legs.

RavenXXX2 · 26 Feb 2010 at 15:03

WoW, you think it's that much of a difference between 1680 and 1920..do the math... :rolleyes:

dlknight · 26 Feb 2010 at 15:22

titaniumx3 said:
But surely that indicates that you do not have CPU bottlekneck, because resolution affects only the GPU.

Ahh yes you maybe right I will check this later on when I get home and post the result of running at lower resolution. I may have changed the quality setting and the resolution when I was getting 100FPS+

james.miller · 26 Feb 2010 at 15:23

RavenXXX2 said:
WoW, you think it's that much of a difference between 1680 and 1920..do the math...

17%, which can be quite a hit with AA

dlknight - good effort. Stacked graphs are a pain and wouldnt be the way to go without some data-fiddling. Clustered bars would be better and easier with excel

dlknight · 26 Feb 2010 at 15:38

james.miller said:
17%, which can be quite a hit with AA

dlknight - good effort. Stacked graphs are a pain and wouldnt be the way to go without some data-fiddling. Clustered bars would be better and easier with excel

I may do some clustered bars on the weekend if I feel the need for some Excel time LOL.

Rroff · 26 Feb 2010 at 15:50

titaniumx3 said:
Keeping the balance eh?

lol - not everyone has an agenda.

titaniumx3 · 26 Feb 2010 at 17:13

Rroff said:
lol - not everyone has an agenda.

Agenda or not, you seem to have a habit of randomly posting irrelevant, unsubstantiated and poorly veiled pro-nvidia comments when ever the opportunity arises, yet whenever someone picks this up, you claim to have no agenda.

Clearly the OPs results are not consistent with many benchmarks posted elsewhere. For a start, the Crysis and Dirt 2 results don't seem to match up with my own.

It's not a huge deal, but what's the point in posting it on the forums if you know people will try to verify the results?

Rroff · 26 Feb 2010 at 17:33

titaniumx3 said:
Agenda or not, you seem to have a habit of randomly posting irrelevant, unsubstantiated and poorly veiled pro-nvidia comments when ever the opportunity arises, yet whenever someone picks this up, you claim to have no agenda.

Clearly the OPs results are not consistent with many benchmarks posted elsewhere. For a start, the Crysis and Dirt 2 results don't seem to match up with my own.

It's not a huge deal, but what's the point in posting it on the forums if you know people will try to verify the results?

I hope your not being serious... if so you have severely mis-read me.

I said:

Rroff said:
According to these results... 8800GTX SLI would run the 5850 hard sometimes beating it by a not insignificant amount.

I'm not saying it DOES I'm saying that according to these result... I'm also not promoting nVidia over ATI at all in this case just observing that with SLI scaling if these results are correct the 8800GTX in SLI would still pack quite a punch (which it does anyway but thats another story).

titaniumx3 · 26 Feb 2010 at 18:22

Rroff said:
I hope your not being serious... if so you have severely mis-read me.

I said:

I'm not saying it DOES I'm saying that according to these result... I'm also not promoting nVidia over ATI at all in this case just observing that with SLI scaling if these results are correct the 8800GTX in SLI would still pack quite a punch (which it does anyway but thats another story).

As I said 'poorly veiled'. You know what you're doing.