That could be early drivers afew months down the line the speed of the cards will improve along with min fps.
-
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.
****Official 6850/6870 Reviews thread****
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
That could be early drivers afew months down the line the speed of the cards will improve along with min fps.
Because 8xAA is unrealistic at that price point & expect to get high frame rates as both will be low anyway.
i only really play wow so crossfire is pointless for me as it doesnt support it
Yes it does works fine with my 4870x2, Support was added not long ago.
Well if i were to spend £200 right now,on a new gfx card, which i wouldnt (£150 is my maximum), i think i would definately go for a 470, given what i've read...
Same performance, as near as dammit, more hardware features and more stable, feature rich drivers....
Same performance, as near as dammit, more hardware features and more stable, feature rich drivers....
Associate
- Joined
- 23 May 2005
- Posts
- 812
- Location
- Hove
I think that the graph is system power (as it is normally). Hence, it is likely to be A LOT more difference. What your seeing is approximately:
- 54 W of difference between a 5850 and 6870 : probably around 50% (?) more; and
- 116 W difference between a 470 and 6870 : probably over 100% difference in power
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
470 looks to me like it's slower in every DX11 game.
Last edited:
Minimum FPS doesn't matter - Average FPS matters.
32x TRAA works fine in quite a few games on my GTX470 with mostly over 50fps with max settings.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The 5850 without overvolting overclocks like crap, default voltage I can't get above 850Mhz, with overvolting I get over 1Ghz. Not overvolting your gpu for extra overclock is just, dumb frankly, and indicative of nothing. Fermi's won't overclock well without extra volts, neither will Cypress, etc, etc.
The question is what will these cards do overvolted, same as Cypress, or less shaders and less heat, can they push up the clock speeds further, does the memory overclock further on average than most Cypress cards.
We don't know the answer to that yet.
As for higher minimums from one dodgey Chinese review, most of the graphs I'm seeing suggest that AMD has lower minimums in half the pages I bothered to look at, and in most of those Nvidia gets a significant boost in minimum framerate from no AA to whatever AA they went with.
The last page I bothered looking at was Lost Planet, no aa, mins of 17fps on the 470/480, 4xaa, the 470gtx gets 19fps, and the 480 gets 18fps mins.
In Crysis Warhead, the 470gtx goes from 9 fps to 14fps when you enabled AA, the 480gtx goes from 16 to 14fps when you enable AA.
IE< those results are rubbish in general. Even then half the games AMD has a higher or equal min fps on the 6870 to the 470gtx, a frew results have the 6850 ahead of the 6870.
Not in that link that my comment was related to.
http://translate.google.com/transla...n&u=http://www.itocp.com/htmls/97/n-1497.html
6870 CF looks good on paper but personally I'd still go SLI for more reasons that just I'm slightly bias that way honest.
Don't discount GTX460 SLI either - tho its not so much a sell now the 470 prices have dropped, GTX470 SLI @ 800MHz will take a bit of beating.
?
400 series doesn't lose a massive amount of performance going from 4x to 8x AA and even 32x AA is only a moderate drop in many cases.
Yeah min doesn't matter lol, so I'm playing a game on my 6870, a real GFX intensive moment occurs, it could be for 5 second or 5 minutes depending on what's going on, my FPS goes down to 15, that is not a nice experience compared to say 25 or 30 FPS. Min FPS still not matter?
I concur.
That link says otherwise.
neither on their own tells much of a story - you need to look at the baseline fps on a graph really.
What link? it doesn't show anything relating to 4 to 8x AA?
EDIT: Ahh I see theres some 8x AA in a couple of sections further in
EDIT2: They don't seem to really tell you much tho as they seem to be bumping into a wall at 60fps.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 490
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,009
- Location
- Billericay, UK
True but results like that should be ignored anyway as they don't really tell us anything other then if you buy that video card but play this game at these settings otherwise you will get this sort of performance.