Graphic Cards GTX 200 Vs RV770 - Architecture Review
- Thread starter muzux2
- Start date
muzux2 said:
which is exactly why its marketing fud
hyeah:the number of flops which they mention is PEAK THEORETICAL.. its NEVER practically achievable.
If you want to measure the actual sustained performance.. then you are gonna have to code your own app for that.
and why would anyone be scared of me? :S
i_max2k2 said:
yep..
the negatives and positives of each card are pretty unique.. and in the end all they do is end up canceling out one another. at the bottom, we have the 4850 which is obsly the best vm soln. in the midrange with the 4870/260, nvidia seems to be getting it right.. thanks to their pricing revamp.. cheap trick.. nonetheless something good for the consumer.
and if you just need the fastest possible (current gen) card you can buy.. then the 280 is always there..
i_max2k2 said:
^^ O rly?
at 2560x1600 let's see how GTX280, HD 4850 Crossfire and HD 4870 Crossfire compare. In raw power as well as price/performance ratio
at Hardware Canucks:
3D Mark 06 (default+4AA, 16AF
4870 C: 14322
4850C: 11523
GTX280: 8896
3D Mark Vantage (extreme+default res)
4870 C: 6430
4850C: 5172
GTX280: 4900
Unreal Tournament (everything max)
4870 C: 96
4850C: 78
GTX280: 61
Prey (everything max)
4870 C: 120
4850C: 94
GTX280: 97
Devil May Cry 4 (dx9, Super high details)
4870 C: 125
4850C: 93
GTX280: 75
Crysis (DX10, 1920X1080, High, 2AA)
4870 C: 34
4850C: 32
GTX280: 30
CoD4 (Everything max, 4AA, 16AF)
4870 C: 107
4850C: 95
GTX280: 67
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
4870 C: 103
4850C: 86
GTX280: 76
World in Conflict (Everything max, 4AA, 16AF, DX10)
4870 C: 28
4850C: 25
GTX280: 24
Couple it with what Guru3D found with their review of Crossfire of HD 48XX and TweakTown recently found from their Crossfire of HD4850 Toxic, and I don't get what you are talking about when you say HD 48XX crossfire is not enough for 2560x1600 res. There are three reviews and in none of them Crossfire solution buckles under the load.
As for the supposedly justified price of GTX280, cant you see that two HD 4850s pile up shame on this card. Ok there are some disadvantages like power requirements and heat (with cards like Toxic, even this is not an issue anymore) but just see the price difference between these two solutions. GTX280 still costs not less than $400 while two HD 4850s can be bought for, in worst case scenario, $370. In India, GTX280 costs not less than 30,000. On the otherhand, two HD 4850s can be bought for just 22,000. That's saving of Rs 8,000 (almost $200). :tongue:
GTX 280 costs a lot because of its manufacturing quirks. But in no way its performance justifies its price. Yes, GTX260 is priced alright.
As for SLI and Crossfire, this is what Hilbert said in his review of CrossfireX:
Honestly, except Crysis, is there a game that you can not play with almost max settings on a 2560x1600 res with a pair of 4850, let aside 4870. And this will cost you not more than $750 ($360 for GPU, $180 for Crossfire compatible mobo and rest of the money for a sturdy PSU).
Contrast it with cost of SLI of GTX280s. can you get it for less than than $1100? This is almost $400 dollar difference and it offers you almost no significant advantage over the cheaper option.
I wonder if a sane person will still go nuts over SLI
muzux2 said:
1.2 TeraFLOPS = 800x750x2
4800 series has 10 SIMDs(you know what a SIMD is?) each having 16 shaders(ATi marketing FUD). Each shader has 5 ALUs(Arithmatic and logical unit). Each ALU can do 2 FLOPS per clock as they can do 1 MADD operation in 1 clock. Its like (a*b+c) so thats 2 floating point operations.
So It is actually 5*16*10(ALU*shader*SIMD) = 800 total ALUs which can actually do 1.2 teraFLOPS of work.
But theres a catch, the 5 ALUs in a shader can work on a single thread only, thats why ATI's architecture is called superscalar as compared to Nvidia's which is scalar, that is there is no limitation on what calculation their individual ALUs are performing. All 240 alus can work on different threads in Nvidia gtx280.
In pure efficiency terms Nvidia's architecture is better than ATI's but as your shader size increases you can get more vec5(you will know when you write a shader) instruction threads so its hard to tell which one is better. It all depends on what kind of shader you are using.
SO dont talk crap that there are only 160 shaders, it has actually 800 ALUs(the term shader is misleading) which WILL do 1.2 teraFLOPS given the right shader instruction.
morgoth said:
O yea, I mean what I said.
Dude your comparing the cards with 3d mark 06 , prey a game which even my 7900gt could max out :rofl: . The only relevant games that I see in the review were WIC, Crysis, ET QW & UT3, I'm not including cod4 cause its already beyond maxxed as of now by current hardware. And I wonder why most people always take out crysis as an exception, their engine has been licensed by so many companies and it is what many upcoming games will use.
If all games were like COD4 and ET QW then ofcourse a 280 SLI would be a over kill, but its not so still many games cant be maxxed out on current hardware on 2560x1600. If a person is going to be buying a 30" monitor just for gaming I'm sure he will not get a 4850 CF, I'm not saying this - its a fact - I know some guys who play on those resolutions and none have a 4850CF. A 280 SLI is the fastest solution out right now, some games can only be maxed on these cards. Also another figure that many reviews dont show is the minimum fps, a single 280 would give you much smoother game play in many situations where average fps is near 30, where as with a 4850 CF you might see the minimums pretty close to single digits!
a quote from the hardware canucks
And yes for that resolution my only recommendation would be a 280 SLI, if you still think that 4850CF should be recommended, the person should get ready for some stuttery game play.
Btw I hope you were calculating those total's including a toxic version of the cards since your talking about them all the time (btw are those cards for $180 each?).
gamervivek
Adept
i_max2k2 said:
QFT,min fps is almost as important as the avg if not more,but low min fps maybe due to the 512MB vram handicap,so if you decide to CF 1GB cards you might not face the low min fps situation.:hap5:
Forrest said:
The ATI shader compiler tries to pack 5 instructions into a VLIW(very long instruction word) to feed the 5 ALU in a shader. As you can see these are the alu utilisation for different games.
so if crysis goes to 4.2 from 3.8 my 3870 can keep up with a 8800gt,damn so close yet so far
nice info mama,where from?reppy
SidhuScorpion
Skilled
He has mentioned "CF 1GB cards " in his post imax.
But whats the value for money, if 30-40$ more spent on 512MB more buffer. 230+230 = 460$, why not buy single GTX280, even if its 85-90% of 4850 CF, still single card always better.
But whats the value for money, if 30-40$ more spent on 512MB more buffer. 230+230 = 460$, why not buy single GTX280, even if its 85-90% of 4850 CF, still single card always better.
Aces170
ex-Mod
Forrest said:
Hmm there are two branches of discussions here, but thats a nice chart showing the ALU utilization. Thats what I meant it much more difficult for gaming programmers to fully utilize the AMD units.
ALso back to Larrabee, dont make the mistake of comparing it current Intel gfx, this is going to be a discrete card, and they will have dedicated team working to update its compilers constantly.
muzux2
ex-Mod
Forrest said:
LOL, first read my post #23, i've mentioned it.
no i don't know about SIMD:rofl: , could u elobrate it here?
How can u say that? give your justification on this..
Who is talking crap? u must double check all posts..huh
lol, that was most hilarious post from you.:rofl: you are comparing GTX 280 SLI with 4850CF..how much will be the price diffrence between them?:hap5:i_max2k2 said:
i_max2k2 said:
Ok, you get a candy!
And now show me a link comparing SLI of GTX280 to Crossfire of 4870 and let us see the power draw at load, price and finally how much performance exactly two GTX280s offer over two 4870s.
As for the Hardware Canucks, I included 3D Marks coz they are a benchmark alright. though quite poor. I would say as poor a benchmark as Crysis is. In fact, show me a setup that can render Crysis (very high with AA+AF at 2560x1600) and you will get one more candy
COD4 is a new game and so is Quake Wars and both of them are pretty demanding.
WIC frames rates are a little low but this is maximum settings we are talking about and then because it's RTS, it is immensely playable with these settings.
The newest games are Mass Effect, Grid, DMC4, And Age of Conan. Check out reviews at HardOCP and Guru3D to see what a pair of 4870 can do to them.
Benchmarks are to test a card's ability and most of the games in a benchmark are a lot more demanding than over 80% of other games out there. FEAR, even when it's two years old, is a hell lot more demanding that a newer title like R6V2. And same is true for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
If a system can deal with Mass Effect, Grid, Age of Conan, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Bioshock, WiC and Crysis (at decent settings) trust me you won't find an available game that it can't render at playable settings.
As for your friends, if they are still going for GTX 280 SLI, that's their problem and that could be because:
1- They have truckloads of money
2- They are yet to hear about 48XX
PS: No the total was for vanilla 4850s. Toxic was just an example and mentioned as an option for those who like their cards very cool and Factory OC.
Google is your friend, anyways I saved you some keystrokes: 4.4 Basic CPU Design
Go to section 4.8.5 , those 'execution units' you see are SIMDs, the only difference is that in a CPU you have lots of instructions and little data, but in a GPU we have few instructions(read shader code) and lots of data(pixels). So we require SIMDs(Single insruction multiple data) which will operate on different pixels(say 1680x1050) on a given shader code.
I just explained in my post that you cannot compare 800 stream processors to 240 unified shaders.
Those are 160 shader processors that do 5 instructions per shader clock, compared to 240 which can do 1 instruction per clock. ATI uses 800 cause it pwns nvidia on paper.
Nvidia has 1 advantage in this case, they have a separate shader clock domain, so they can increase their clock to overcome the 5 instructions per clock, but ati has their stream processors at the same clock as their core clock, which they cannot increase much because it will generate much more heat.
morgoth said:Ok, you get a candy!
And now show me a link comparing SLI of GTX280 to Crossfire of 4870 and let us see the power draw at load, price and finally how much performance exactly two GTX280s offer over two 4870s.
As for the Hardware Canucks, I included 3D Marks coz they are a benchmark alright. though quite poor. I would say as poor a benchmark as Crysis is. In fact, show me a setup that can render Crysis (very high with AA+AF at 2560x1600) and you will get one more candy
So your saying that Crysis is as bad as a benchmark as 3D Mark 06 is? Hats off sir :clap: , I dont think there's a point in arguing anymore, with my limited info, I wonder why so many forums have crysis leaderboard even though crysis is just a game, I dont really remember if any game ever has achieved this status! Man and I kept thinking crysis was the most demanding game right now, shoot!
GeForce GTX 280 SLI Dual | Triple review test
GeForce GTX 280 SLI Dual | Triple review test
Scroll down to see A SLI and in the next link a tri SLI both in very playble framerates, @ 25x16 we dont really need AA, and with both setups enabling AF shouldn't have a huge hit.
Are you serious? I installed COD4 on my laptop, and I could max it out on my laptop's default resolution and I bought my laptop like 2 yrs back (c2d 2ghz, 7900gtx). So well if you still say its demanding.
And for ET QW here are some numbers from AT @ 2560x1600 with 4x AA
SLI 280 - 124.1
single 280 - 70.2
4870CF - 64.1
4850CF - 53.7
I would say WIC is a demanding game, and well the fps is low with both card's crossfire setup's. A SLI would be pretty nice here wont it be?
I do agree for some games above that the crossfire setup's would prolly be able to render these games at the mentioned resolution and yes for a budget 4870 would be a good choice, but if you want to be sure that you can play all games, I dont think you can still suggest 4870CF! Also tell me one game where SLI fails and there are a few games where CF doesn't work. If it scales it scales very well, but SLI scales in almost all games that I have seen.
Its not so, they very well know about either cards, but as I mentioned for such resolutions the best bet is 280 sli and NOT a 4870CF! Or lets put it this way, for any situation if a SLI 280 wont do it, 4870CF with a higher probability wont either!
EDIT: And i totally forgot power consumption u did mention it somewhere, check any review GT200 is way better than any 48XX in terms of power consumption!
muzux2 said:
I'm glad u laughed, u desperately needed one!
It was a reply to morgoth as he had mentioned that for 2560x1600 even a 4850CF would be enough.^^COD4 is ok at normal resolutions....but when you go up to 30inch screens with AA, it does become demading...infact anything with AA above 1680X1050 its a hog
go try it on your system too
crysis is unfair as a benchmark because it doesnt scale on multi gpus(most games nowadays do) and ofcourse you have the developed in conjunction with nvidia shit
and coming to WIC, it is largely cpu limited i think(not sure though)
go try it on your system too
crysis is unfair as a benchmark because it doesnt scale on multi gpus(most games nowadays do) and ofcourse you have the developed in conjunction with nvidia shit
and coming to WIC, it is largely cpu limited i think(not sure though)