|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22183 |  deimos47 (449) Oct 03, 2009 - 07:17 am
| Umm.. isnt 1120 SP a bit close to 5850? 5870 *only* has 1600. Is this supposed to be "midrange" series.
In the past, they had a lot less than high end.
320 vs 800 for 46xx vs 48xx
So, does this mean there wont be a "5830/5770"? Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22179 | deimos47 (449) Oct 02, 2009 - 10:23 pm
| 5890 is almost certain:
- core can OC to 1000 Mhz with little effort
- they have extra vreg phase empty on PCB.
- only using "old" 5 and 5.5Ghz GDDR5 chips. 6-7 are supposedly already entering production.
- RV870 core really has 2000 SIMD, and they disabled 400..
ok ok, once of those *may* be false.
But dont expect price cuts or 5890 for many months. As Labotomizer said, AMD is enjoying good margins for first time in MANY MANY years. Feels good being on top, doesnt it. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22185 | deimos47 (449) Oct 02, 2009 - 08:55 pm
| It could be a long (but perhaps worthwhile) wait.
Fermi board shown was confirmed to be "fake" mock-up. Its October, and first silicon just arrived from fab. That happened way back long ago early 09 for 5800s.
Assuming no extra revisions required and no problems, you'll be lucky to get a Fermi before Valentine's day.
Mainstream versions of the chip.. perhaps in the summer... no ifs or buts about it, nVidia is at least 3-4 months behind. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22180 | deimos47 (449) Oct 01, 2009 - 07:44 am
| » in retrospect...
Type in "rumour" "spec" and code name for any previous high end nVidia or ATI/AMD GPU, and prepare for some hilarious specs and forum posturing.
For 10 years, they drummed up 'eDRAM' as the 1024 bit miracle bandwidth cure. I hope "that" rumour finally dies.
- G80 specs
* Unified Shader Approach
* SM4.0 support
* DirectX 10 complaint
* maybe up to 48 shader units (unified)? or 32 pixel pipelines with 24 ROPs (considering we have 512-bit bus) & 10 vertex units.
* 1ghz core ? no i dont think so .. i'd say 700-800Mhz
* GDDR3/4 memory interface up to 2GHz and 512bit controller.
* 512MB
* SLI ready
* Porduct name : GeForce 8800GTX
* release date : Q3 2006
48 and 72 unified shader units cost way too many transistors, i'm thinking more along the lines of 32 unified shaders. That'll be work enough as it is, since 32 geometry processors + 32 shader processors tend to take a lot of space.
LOL
LOL
Link: http://journal.pcvsconsole.com/?thread=53 Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22171 | deimos47 (449) Sep 30, 2009 - 07:45 pm
| Its no 'better' or worse than 2900XT.
Especially the infamous super long 1GB GDDR4 version.
But who cares about the size really? When you're spending north of $600 video card, and $200 on PSU, I'm sure you can afford bigger case.
And certainly, nobodys foolish enough to consider mini-itx and HTPC.
Besides, when you spend so much money, its more reassuring when it feels big heavy and strong. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22179 | deimos47 (449) Sep 30, 2009 - 05:38 pm
| PREDICTION: GT300 384bit + GDDR5 3GB will pwn 2560x1600, even Crysis.
FUN FACT:
10 years ago - 120 months, GeForce 256 shattered dizzying new heights with over 50fps in Quake3 at very high 1024x768 (32bit color!) on brand spanking new state of the art $3000
Athlon700 system.
Weighing it at 23million 0.22u very hot transistors, it was world's first "GPU".
Back then many suspected nVidia went with 32MB of 166MHz SDRAM to cut costs, and axiously awaited DDR version which would provide whopping 6GB/s bandwidth.
Revolutionary stuff back then.
Not surprised Jen-Hsun feels like stuck at warp speed. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22179 | deimos47 (449) Sep 30, 2009 - 05:22 pm
| See if you can find a pattern here (you can win a cookie!)?
High-end, Date, MSRP/Street at launch
GeForce Oct99 $300
GeForce2 Apr00 $350
GeForce3 Feb01 $375
GeForce4 Feb02 $320-$450
GeForceFX Jan03 $400
6800 Apr04 $540
7800 June05 $600
8800GTX Nov06 $600 (Ultra debut at $830)
GTX280 June08 $650
ATI/AMD trend? 9700pro - $399. X800XTPE - $549. X1800XT - $549. HD5870 was **only** $379 .. cheapest high-end launch, 2nd only to $299 4870. Wow, we're incredibly spoiled. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22179 | deimos47 (449) Sep 30, 2009 - 12:31 pm
| If it will be faster than 5870, which it most certainly will - regardless if by 5% or 50% - the price will reflect costs. And there is no shred of doubt GT300 cards will cost much more to make.
My guess. $699.
Anything less would be.. uncivilized. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22178 | deimos47 (449) Sep 30, 2009 - 12:25 pm
| Mynama Borat. Wow a weewa.
Load power consumption nearly same as 8800GT... I did a double-take there. Other sites show much lower than 5870, but not near 4770 levels - thats crazy impossible low.
But, in the past, poorly utilized resourced (driver) or extra unused resourced have shown unusual lower power load.
Perhaps this is a good indication that future drivers are going to greatly improve performance in today's games, and/or that need future much more demanding games to really showcase those 1600/1440 shader execution units. Scaling in 3DMark Perlin noise indicates the processing power is there. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22173 | deimos47 (449) Sep 29, 2009 - 10:42 am
| Conclusions are somewhat valid. If GPU or bandwidth should have increased more, indicating other limitations (ie perhaps PCIE, CPU, driver, who knows?). Besides, such small % are close to margin of error.
Regretably, the OC results seem to indicate future OC or 5890 would do poorly with marginally higher performance.
chizow, nobody can compare with double HD4xxx bandwidth until we have 7.5Ghz GDDR5. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22168 | deimos47 (449) Sep 26, 2009 - 09:22 pm
| I disagree about DX9 not looking better.
True, you could play Far Cry on Radeon 8500, and it looked almost the same (wow I'm old).
But, if you look at demos like 3DMARK05 (ofcourse) and rthdrlb... its thanks to DX9 you get such light caustics and shadow effects.
Marketing problem from DX9-DX10-DX11, is that effects are getting more subtle. Remember that mermaid nVidia demo how it had various shaders for skin so some light would show through, and subsurface scattering etc. Thats a LOT of calculations for something NOBODY would ever notice running around shooting in an FPS. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Siteseeing Link » /news/siteseeingarticle.asp?searchid=4544 | deimos47 (449) Sep 26, 2009 - 02:37 am
| owh, how young and naive.
In Canada, they need to keep the workforce complacent and healthy to prevent escape to US for higher wages.
In USA, if you're sick or dying, they'll just replace you with another number - er, 'person'. Millions of deperate souls to choose from. And if they give you any lip, outsource to China or India.
And all this started cause some white dudes brought in natives from Golden Colonies to pick cotton rather than do it themselves. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22158 | deimos47 (449) Sep 26, 2009 - 01:44 am
| Back in 2001 we had 3840x2400.
"As of January 2007 none of the WQUXGA monitors (IBM, ViewSonic, Iiyama, ADTX) are in production anymore. The highest-resolution color displays on sale are WQXGA. However, Eyevis produce a 56" LCD named EYELCD 56 QUAD HD which can deliver 3840x2160"
Seems even IBM T221 22" price reduction from $18,000 to $8,000 didn't help sales of these extraordinary 9MP displays.
If you have budget, Brandon can you try 5870X2 on one of these bad boys?? Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22158 | deimos47 (449) Sep 26, 2009 - 01:35 am
| » I urge everybody to have a walk down memory lane...
Far Cry 2 - 48fps @ 2560x1600 4xAA using DX10 ultra high
AND THATS JUST A SINGLE 5870 .. imagine triple CF!
Rising trend in max resolution/AA used by firingsquad over the years:
Before Radeon 9xxx - reviews rarely use AA.
9800 - 1600x1200 4AA
X800 - 1600x1200 4AA
A1900 - 2048x1536 4AA
...
4870 - 2560x1600 4AA
4870x2 - 2560x1600 24AA
I think we're running out of resolutions ;) Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22167 | deimos47 (449) Sep 26, 2009 - 01:08 am » Edited on Sep 26, 2009 - 01:11 am
| Hmmm. How far we've come in so little time:
9800pro 47W
X800XTPE 63W
X1900XTX 121W
2900XT 215W*
3870x2 225W*
4870x2 264W
measured by xbitlabs. *max spec
AGP: 50W
PCIe: 75W
6-pin: 75W
8-pin: 150W
Thus, unless violating specs, 5870x2 with 6+8 power connectors, must be less than 300W.
EDIT: 5870 is nearly 200W, so it will take low volts/clocks, a miracle or a die shrink. Rumours are 32nm! BW should be 350GB/s+ - 50% higher than 4870x2! Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22160 | deimos47 (449) Sep 26, 2009 - 12:47 am
| 1. By its very nature, GPU is not a "stable" platform. AMD/ATI and nVidia GPUs do things differently and have different precision and capabilities. Even Radeon 9700 and 9800 had shader capability differences.
2. Back in '03-04ish, when AMD released 64bit CPU with built in mem controller, everybody got excited about the memory bandwidth and scalability for clustered database servers. Ofcourse, others noticed X800XT had WAY MORE bandwidth and FPU power, and started looking into running database on GPU.
3. 5 years later, and GPU is still scarcly used outside of 3D. Folding, Espresso encoding, and a few Adobe accelerations.. thats about it.
4. Back around 2001, around Itanium launch, folks including INtel, predicted demise of archaic x86, SoC eventually leading to north bridge and even GPU on CPU die, and even memory.. remember the hype about eDRAM (also Z-RAM) and BitBoyz? 10 years later and IBM POWER7 is first practical application (consoles dont count).
Trend is towards MIMD. To have flexible execution units that can act like GPU or CPU or SATA RAID controller, and even use SMT to do both. Thus the "CPU" no longer has "cores", but allocatable pools of executions and memory resources. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22166 | deimos47 (449) Sep 24, 2009 - 10:51 pm
| Can't make Win7 deadline? competition has got you down? Afraid of losing your audience?
Sir, I've got the answer to your woes...
you just park that here cash filled dump trunk over yonder developer and all.
Are developers delaying to 2010 to wait for GT300, or for 'legit' reasons. Seriously hope COD:MW2 and LFD2 aren't affected. Otherwise all we got left is RE5 and Batman till next year. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22158 | deimos47 (449) Sep 23, 2009 - 07:42 am
| Is HD5870 bandwidth starved..? these games where 4870x2 is faster suggest so:
FO3 82.5 72.3 14%
FC2 75.6 66.5 14%
RE5 124.9 98.9 25%
BAT 131.9 108.2 22%
HAWX 105 74 42%
5870 is double everything, so just as 4870x2, although not handicapped by lower 750Mhz and CF efficiency. Only explanation is x2s 230GB/s vs 153GB/s bandwidth.
Solution? 6Ghz GDDR5 chips would provide 184GB/s - that extra 20% should close gap. However, to get 230GB/s would require 7.5Ghz GDDR5... AMD probably left room for the 5890! Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22158 | deimos47 (449) Sep 22, 2009 - 11:15 pm » Edited on Sep 22, 2009 - 11:33 pm
| Brandon - Conclusion page is blank... fix?
Im blown away by CF scaling in STALKER and Crysis.. expected all the graphs to converge at some limit like other games (ie Fallout3, COD4). Obviously that "low" 1200Mhz GDDR5 is not holding the HD5870 back as I had feared (at least not in these games).
Although time will tell how Lynnfield does compared to your i7-975 in this review.
Any chance for 4.2Ghz+ CF comparison with Lynnfield? Also, where is Battleforge and COD:WAW? Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22136 | deimos47 (449) Sep 21, 2009 - 11:33 pm
| PREDICTION:
Most of you will be disappointed with AMD 58xx.
1. CPU bound. Problem worse on Lynnfield which struggles to get 4Ghz on air, and has PCIE bandwidth limit for CF.
2. Price. We've been spoiled by $99 HD4850s for months. Sticker shock? But, the $300-400 price suggests very high performance.
3. If rumours of 1200Mhz true, marginally higher mem bandwidth than HD4890 - ie where needed most for high res and/or AA.
4. Games. L4D, Warhead, COH, UT3, COD:WAW, STALKER... these games are 1-3 years old.
Common Brandon hurry up and post the review already... Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22136 | deimos47 (449) Sep 19, 2009 - 10:14 am
| Wrong way of thinking. It has never been the hardware. Other way around.
Before it was..
"Oh man, sucks I have GF2... if I had that X800pro I wouldn't have to put up with this choppy lagfest. I could finally play Far Cry, HL2, Doom3 and BF2 in all their glory" T_T
Followed by weeks of old school college noodle soup diet - *MUST GET* X800... faint. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22128 | deimos47 (449) Sep 19, 2009 - 10:08 am » Edited on Sep 19, 2009 - 10:15 am
| Long ago, in a galaxy far away, high end video cards like 9800pro topped out in 60-70W TDP range.
Steadily this crept up, to 100W+ for DX10, with dual GPU cards scorching at 200W+ TDP.
If rumours are true, this upcoming DX11 mainstream generation may be first to require extra 6pin power plug, and about 100W.
(screenshots of bigh 5850 and 5870 heatsinks suggest very high power output approaching 200W).
All I suppose in name of progress. Still, odd that Intel, the maker of the P4, has been so careful to reducing idle and peak power, only to have it negated by GPU power consumption.
-- What Lynnfield giveth, 5870 taketh away. -- Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22144 | deimos47 (449) Sep 19, 2009 - 09:58 am
| nVidia pretty much invented "GPU" with GeForce (1st DX7), GeForce3 (1st DX8), and 8800GTX (1st DX10). But obviously as we all know, 9700pro was first DX9 :).
Exactly as Labotomizer said, DX11 offers little new functionality, but just brings it under DX umbrella. Now instead of being required to buy nVIDIA GPU for extra physics effects in a game, you can use any DX11 GPU.
nVidia (unfortunately) squandered the opportunity of DX10 dominance of past 3 years. PhysX (few) highlights are Mirror's Edge and Ghostbusters. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22139 | deimos47 (449) Sep 19, 2009 - 09:47 am
| » The good, the bad, and the ugly
Good: AMD dominates in $100-$150 CPU sector. Intel's cheapest is priced much higher and doesn't have the DDR2/DDR3 socket compatiblity. Great for OEM, since "Quad" looks great on new PC add regardless of cache size.
Bad: Intel has been selling Quads for 35+ months (20+ @45nm). Low-clock no-cache doesn't do well for gamers, who either run 4Ghz Wolfdales or have/will gone/go i920/Lynnfield route.
Ugly: I'm sure Joe-six-pack will love his shiny new $499 HP with AMD Quad. But, this undermines AMD's triple and dual core lineup.
For a company that has consistently lost hundreds of millions every quarter, they're sure sticking to their pattern. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22136 | deimos47 (449) Sep 15, 2009 - 10:11 am
| its so big that .. it comes with connectors, where you plug in "Add-ons" like motherboard, CPU etc..
AMD also ships rebates for utility company bills..
I just hope both Intel and AMD realize you cant just keep doubling cores, or SP in GPU every year... not sustainable. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22130 | deimos47 (449) Sep 14, 2009 - 02:45 pm » Edited on Sep 14, 2009 - 03:34 pm
| if Scientists and Engineers ruled the world...
max E8600, around 6.8Ghz. Virtually all Nehalem (both 1336 and 1156 socket), just under 6Ghz. Seems 32nm doesn't improve things at all!
INTEL Core i3 540 Clarkdale x2 1156 5999.95 95.65 1.98 pt1t Cascade
INTEL Core i3 540 Clarkdale x2 1156 5924.03 93.18 1.79 coolaler L LN2
INTEL Core i3 540 Clarkdale x2 1156 5883.57 91.86 1.87 CNM_Team LN2
INTEL Core i3 540 Clarkdale x2 1156 5544.89 80.81 1.59 coolaler L DryIce
INTEL Core i3 540 Clarkdale x2 1156 5106.29 66.51 1.58 pt1t Air
INTEL Core i3 540 Clarkdale x2 1156 4753.49 55.01 1.50 Chrisch
INTEL Core i3 540 Clarkdale x2 1156 4200.14 36.96 1.31 brutus999 Air Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22122 | deimos47 (449) Sep 13, 2009 - 04:33 pm
| www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_i7_nehalem_performance_preview
In summer 2005, first dual cores were launched.
By end of 2006, Extreme Quad Core2.
By end of 2008, Nehalem - now you can encode 4 clips, watch one and play windowed game all at the same time.
We've made incredible progress in 3 years. I think users haven't had time to catch up... back in the day, you waited for Windows to pop up... nowadays 4 cores are impatiently faiting for you to feed them.
Link: http://www.firingsquad.com/har......ormance_preview Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22126 | deimos47 (449) Sep 13, 2009 - 04:22 pm
| in my opinion, the problem is the growing gulf between demos and what each DX release promises, and the reality seen in games (often several years later).
The hype for DX10 was unreachable. I hope everyone recalls those infamous FS X screenshots with the photo realistic water along with the immense performace improvements.
Since Red Faction back like 10 years ago, I've yet to see games with destructible terrain. Where are all the geometry shader effects we were enticed with? Remember that Riddick game that cool blue vision mode.. besides Wolfenstein, don't see anybody doing that. More and more it seems like we're running out of ideas.
Now, to be perfectly clear, if some sfx can be done with DX9, no senes using DX11 just to make it a "DX11" game. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
