-
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.
RV770 expected to release in May?
- Thread starter Tejstar
- Start date
If these are true http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=266425
Then the only difference between the 4870 and 4850 is clock speeds, assuming they overclock well then the 4850 could be great bang for the buck
Then the only difference between the 4870 and 4850 is clock speeds, assuming they overclock well then the 4850 could be great bang for the buck
Like i said in different tread speculations was if core would been 1ghz and had 56 tmu it would have been 50% faster but now i think its going to be only 20% maybe even less
i though core will be 1ghz not 850mhz
and 32 TMUs only? not 56?
still buying one lol
i though core will be 1ghz not 850mhz
and 32 TMUs only? not 56?
still buying one lol
I take it memory controllers are an appreciable part of the cost- aren't 256-bit controllers what stop G92 from beating the 8800GTX at high res/AA/AF?
Would it have killed them to stick to 512-bit and not equal but beat bandwidth performance from old cards.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,392
looking forward to these for a new rig in september- thats if they are any good.
Like i said in different tread speculations was if core would been 1ghz and had 56 tmu it would have been 50% faster but now i think its going to be only 20% maybe even less
i though core will be 1ghz not 850mhz
and 32 TMUs only? not 56?
still buying one lol
The shaders alone means a 50% boost, with the added TMUs and clock speed, it has to be more, 20% is WAY off, I'm guessing you just plucked it out of thin air?
If you clocked a 3870 to 1GHz, that alone would be over a 20% performance increase, no way with extra shaders and TMU equal no extra performance. If it was only 20% from these additions, it would be totally pointless.Edit - a core of 1050Mhz is a 35% overclock on the core, plus the faster RAM if it really is GDDR5. All based purely on the supposed specs, it wouldn't add up to 20%. I'm not saying this as if it's fact of course.
Last edited:
But it will beat the bandwidth with just 256bit bus. Plus there no point in over engineering the chip in some parts and not others. It was shown by the r600 and R670. The chip just didn't need such a large amount of bandwidth, the core wasn't powerful enough to use it all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
256bit interface is this card going to cut it when you apply AA/AF or are we in for another 2900 "when the drivers mature" card? Is the interface not that important anymore that the bus size is going down? ie 8800gtx has a greater bus size than 9800gtx
As has been stated, the 2900 XT had way more bandwidth than it needed, notice that the 3870 copes fine on its 256-bit bus and keeps up with the 2900 XT fine (which, incidentally, had a 512-bit bus). The inclusion of GDDR5 is going to bring large bandwidth gains of its own. That, and a 512-bit bus coupled with the cost of GDDR5 would cost a lot to produce, they're aiming these cards at more than just the 'xtreem enthusiast' who buys a new skulltrail setup every month, so they can't afford to throw money away on something that looks lovely on paper, but in real terms brings no benefit.
Edit: Just to really hit the point home, the 4870 will actually have more bandwidth than either the 2900 XT or 8800 Ultra going by current clock speeds.
Edit: Just to really hit the point home, the 4870 will actually have more bandwidth than either the 2900 XT or 8800 Ultra going by current clock speeds.
Last edited:
Right, that's raster operations, it's not changing much from the 3870. Hear me out, though: most of the pixel fillrate power on the geforce 8 series goes towards anti-aliasing, thus increasing the amount of ROPs and pixel fillrate power on a GeForce 8 series cards results in a reasonable boost in performance when anti-aliasing is enabled (this is also the reason why AA performance dropped going from the 8800 GTX to the 9800 GTX).
However, since the radeon 2900 XT, all ATi cards have been performing anti-aliasing on the shaders (which since the radeon 3800 series has been used to comply with DX10.1), so increasing the amount of raster operators for the 4800 series would've been, for all intents and purposes, a complete waste of silicon. Yes, I'm aware that the raster operators do more than AA, but that's what typically hogs it most.
However, since the radeon 2900 XT, all ATi cards have been performing anti-aliasing on the shaders (which since the radeon 3800 series has been used to comply with DX10.1), so increasing the amount of raster operators for the 4800 series would've been, for all intents and purposes, a complete waste of silicon. Yes, I'm aware that the raster operators do more than AA, but that's what typically hogs it most.
