|  | | ATI Radeon 5000 Series Specifications Revealed | 
German site ATI-Forum probably scored a coup of 2009 - according to their sources, ATI's RV870-based cards are already out at selected partners. We cannot say was this leak was a reaction on our joint-exclusive story about nVidia's GT300 architecture, but one thing is for sure - ATI wants to bring out their Cypress board as soon as possible - planned for July 2009.
The alleged specifications of RV870 reveal that this chip is not exactly a new architecture, but rather a DirectX 11-specification tweak of the RV770 GPU architecture. Just like nVidia's GT300 architecture, the actual RV870 chip is manufactured in TSMC's 40nm half-node process, packing more transistors than GT200 chips. Regardless of what ATI says about nVidia and large dies, the fact of the matter is that ATI is making a large die as well - but the company will continue to use the dual-GPU approach to reach high-end performance.
The RV870 chip should feature 1200 cores, divided into 12 SIMD groups with 100 cores each [20 5D units], while RV770 was based on 10 SIMD group with 80 cores total [16 5D groups consisting out of one fat and four simpler ones]. Thus, it is logical to conclude that when it comes to execution cores, not much happened architecturally - ATI's engineers increased the number of registers and other demanding architectural tasks in order to comply with Shader Model 5.0 and DirectX 11 Compute Shaders.
Read the entire article at Bright Side of News. | | 44 Comments | | | I cannot wait for the 5xxx series card, not to buy it but it will force the price on their 48xx series. I have always been getting the "last best" and I get a nice price cut for it while being able to play games at very respectable FPS. I am not sure if I agree with AMD/ATI's lets add different processors for different things. That adds space between processors and latency, and even that it is already almost nothing it still adds up. Dont get me wrong I love their products I cant wait till another price cut for the 4870 to switch from nVidia. I just wish they could come faster with their drivers. I now have 3 (2004-7) games that have problems with the latest drivers for nV 9600. While when the 48xx had NO offical drivers when first released. | | | | | | does your hoop actually hurt after you sleep with nvidia?? | | | | nvidia > ati. period.
after testing ATI for a few weeks in a friends build. i can truly say. its a piece of crap. | | | | sorry squall, only crap is that statement. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart  nvidia > ati. period.
after testing ATI for a few weeks in a friends build. i can truly say. its a piece of crap. |
You are hilarious.
And your friend's pc SUCKS.
NVIDIA have been asleep for 2 years.
ATI are taking over rapidly.
Radeon HD4870 is easily the best value for money around at the moment.
"Period." as you would say
NVIDIA suck. All they do is overclock old cards and sell it off as a new model.
Everyone knows this and that is why they are getting terrible reviews and everybody is changing to ATI. | | | | funny, last i checked the ratio's hadn't changed at all.
people are still buying what they want to buy, and basing it on their needs.
ATI sucks at development, linux and emulation. and CCC sucks
Nvidia doesn't have full dx10.1 support, Sedona CP sucks, and long used features still do not exist in the CP.
Hardware wise, nvidia and ATI are equal, its only the software support which both need to work on. | | | | funny. green goblin had a hand in killing openGL 2.0 and all that, years back, got directx ahead of openGL cause of it. now they have killed themselves. if you dont believe they are sucking harder then a oreck vacume then read theinquirer.net back stories, only reason more people dont down greengobbler cards is cause gobbler will cut them from the free hardware list. for shame.. no more 300 dollar cards... whats that 3 hours of sallery for these geeks that play all day and tell us how cool it is. only secret shopper success stories there are, are in reviews. | | | | well thing is most people arent buying what they want their buying what they see, only like 20-30% of people actually do research into what they buy the rest just see "nvidia" plastered on every game and automatically buy that, hence their market share is higher.
I agree ccc blows so I dont use it, as per linux support, with such a small user base it wont affect their market share at all
The only prop I give nvidia is that their a major factor in pc gaming staying alive, they do alot to "encourage" developers to still put out pc games which is one thing I wish ATI would really start doing too. |
Last edited by blindartist; May 15th, 2009 at 02:27 PM..
| Quote | | | | | ATI has missed out on numerous occasions simply through not reaching out to developers, again if they fixed the drivers up so game dev studios didn't need to include format work arounds it would benefit them again in getting dev studios into whatever the play on ati program is called. | | | | lol i dont even know if that program exists anymore, the last time i seen the branding was on rollercoaster tycoon 3 | | | | err, wrong thread
anyway, I think its still active, | | | | Right when I've set my heart on a specific DX10.1 card (its taken me months to decide), DX11 cards are two months away... I really hope they end up making a card with power around Radeon 4870-GTX 260 sorta speed. What are big DX11 differences anyways? | | | | * Tessellation — to increase at runtime the number of visible polygons from a low detail polygonal model
* Multithreaded rendering — to render to the same Direct3D device object from different threads for multi core CPUs
* Compute shaders — which exposes the shader pipeline for non-graphical tasks such as stream processing and physics acceleration, similar in spirit to what NVIDIA CUDA achieves, and HLSL Shader Model 5 among others.[18][19]. | | | | This is nuts guys there are basically 2 discrete video card developers left, and it's been that way for quite a while. Obviously neither of them "sucks". Their business practices and products are constantly changing and often secret, so it's kind of stupid to make a sweeping statement about them. Personally I buy from Nvidia because I like their drivers better, I like their video acceleration better, and in the last couple years they have usually had the highest performance desktop graphics solution in existence. | | | | Most of you are being fanboys. ATi has been catching up for the last few years, and they have a lot to show for it. Amazing reviews, and a great customer base growing. I can't wait for the 5000 series to come out and eat the GTX 200/300 series Nvidia for breakfast. GDDR5 standard on their cards just destroy everything you throw at it. Period. | | | | GDDR5 on a 256bit bus is no faster then DDR3 on 512.. | | | | Its a lot cheaper ... And propably a little bit faster. 4870 and gtx260 might be around the same price nowdays,but 4870 is a lot cheaper to make... ATI is selling more cards in the same price that Nvidia dows and they are cost less to make... Quess who is winning! | | | | You can't compare NVidia and ATI, neither of them sucks, but I'd say that ATI is > Nvidia, because the 4870 sells like nothing and game devs will let you play games on the 4870/4890 series on moderate details for a long time. | | | | ATI has shitty levels of AA, looks like suck on older games that need higher levels. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered Right when I've set my heart on a specific DX10.1 card (its taken me months to decide), DX11 cards are two months away... I really hope they end up making a card with power around Radeon 4870-GTX 260 sorta speed. What are big DX11 differences anyways? | Hello????? July 31st already and where art thou DX11 cards??? ;D | | | | I'll admit that CCC sucks but I was previous Nvidia diehard and I just recently decided to try a crossfire setup of dual OC'd 4770 and I am blown away at the performance for the price. Nvidia has lost a customer... for now. | | | | "ATI has shitty levels of AA, looks like suck on older games that need higher levels."
Wow. Actually do some research before you open your retarded mouth. ATI is the best value for your money out there at the moment. I have no doubt that it will shift back to nVida, but I still won't buy their overpriced junk. Maybe when I want a personal space heater in the winter I'll plug one up and let it run without a case. | | | | Easy guys, it is all the same industry. I have a personal preference for ATI and AMD because when I was growing up, they were the smaller parties (and still are). It makes it easier since they are now the same company too. ATI does amazing price/performance right now, especially in the mid-range. You can call it "crap", but I got a Radeon 4650 for $45 and overclocked it to 750MHz core and 1010MHz of 1GB DDR2. Not blowing everything out of the water, but what can you do to beat that for $45? I respect nVidia as well; I have an old socket 462 beast with a 7300 GT with 512 DDR2 in it...not exactly the pinnacle of nVidia's excellence, but a great card for that system (...cost me $70 at the time).
Bottom line, both companies can pump out some good hardware. The GTX 295 is amazing, and the 4870x2 can and will outperform it...they are pretty much equal in the most extreme environments. I won't spend $500 on a gpu, no matter what I am doing or who makes it. My hand dips toward ATI, but that is my personal preference.
I also build and sell computers to spec. I recommend ATI and AMD as a personal and professional preference, but I NEVER tell someone that they are flat out wrong for siding with nVidia or Intel (unless they are just in the wrong class of processing). | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered but I NEVER tell someone that they are flat out wrong for siding with nVidia or Intel | Especially since you're wrong about Intel  | | | | why fighting over a card
am i a only person who can see that they have agreement about gpu race
every 4 years gpu companys change
for a 4 years nvidia was leading firm than was ATI and once again was nvidia and now AMD/ATI take over
lol guys | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by mkey Especially since you're wrong about Intel | Hahahahaha, wrong. AMD is easier to overclock, and has the record for OCing. Guess what? I'd rather pay 190$ for the phenom 955 then 280$ for the i7 920.
Everything after that Intel has is so unreasonably priced.... Extreme edition of intel i7 is 1000 bucks, RIP OFF.
Especially since AMD just came out with an overclocked 955- the 965 edition. Do not buy the 965, get the 955. Only thing different is a multiplier, though it's nice that the 955 price dropped 60$ =). GG
Intel i7 x4 920 @ 2.66 - 285$
AMD phenom x4 955 @ 3.2 - 190$
Average OCing on air
Intel i7 920 @ 3.4-3.6
AMD phenom 955 @ 3.8-4.2 | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered Hahahahaha, wrong. AMD is easier to overclock, and has the record for OCing. | Intel was leading with overclocking in the last 9 years. | | | | Quote: |
Hahahahaha, wrong. AMD is easier to overclock, and has the record for OCing. Guess what? I'd rather pay 190$ for the phenom 955 then 280$ for the i7 920.
| you're looking in the wrong places. a 920 D0 can be had for 199 | | | | Hey guys, We R talking about the video here aren't we??
pls,I understand that AMD cpu and ATI video are the same company,but please don't lead
this thread to Intel/AMD>>>> HELL DAMN Arguing.
For me I'll dip my hand on the ATI's card (my wallet will say F@#$ U to me if bought the Nvidia),but if I can kick my budget ass and say shut up,I'll bought 2 ATI + crossfire + 1 Nvidia card
(I just want the PhysX tech from them, not their SUCKS graphic) | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered Hahahahaha, wrong. AMD is easier to overclock, and has the record for OCing. Guess what? I'd rather pay 190$ for the phenom 955 then 280$ for the i7 920.
Everything after that Intel has is so unreasonably priced.... Extreme edition of intel i7 is 1000 bucks, RIP OFF.
Especially since AMD just came out with an overclocked 955- the 965 edition. Do not buy the 965, get the 955. Only thing different is a multiplier, though it's nice that the 955 price dropped 60$ =). GG
Intel i7 x4 920 @ 2.66 - 285$
AMD phenom x4 955 @ 3.2 - 190$
Average OCing on air
Intel i7 920 @ 3.4-3.6
AMD phenom 955 @ 3.8-4.2 | actly there`s plenty of i7 920 oced to 4.0ghz and above(stable) only by using air coolers =X u shud read more mate(i7 the temp is quite scary compared to ph II)
n it`s hardly seeing any ph II user manage to oc their 4.0ghz stable w/o excessive voltage.. even my ph II 720 stuck @3.8ghz with 1.52v but im quite satisfied with the price i paid for the proc | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart ATI has shitty levels of AA, looks like suck on older games that need higher levels. | How so? I mean I don't know what the levels are like on lower resolutions and how old the games you are talking about playing but at 6 or 8 I stop noticing for the most part and still stay over the threshold for 12 and 24 times for the really old stuff... (ah UT99... you may look horrific but with high AA and AF... you still look horrific)
I don't really find nVIDIA or ATi to have any lead in the AA field. | | | | because nvidia has controls for a wider range of AA types, including the hidden SSAA settings.
not to mention the 4xxx series had the shitty AF issues that plagued the nvidia 6 and 7 series. | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart because nvidia has controls for a wider range of AA types, including the hidden SSAA settings.
not to mention the 4xxx series had the shitty AF issues that plagued the nvidia 6 and 7 series. | (I am suprisingly finding myself agreeing with you slightly here... the AA settings are fine for me as of moment, as in why want any more... Buuuutttt the AF is screwed and overall performance is haltered like all crap... but that is what has come from the 2 weeks of my 4890 experiance... even in crossfire I am at a loss for a real purpose to have them in crossfire... I know a total change of tune from before but the 3xxxx series was atleast cooler and more reliable than this)
On a side topic what do you preffer... a large 32"screen at native 2560x1600 or a 27" screen at the same resolution. | | | | im happy with 1920x1200, 2560x1600 is just over the top. | | | | Ive never bought a Nvidia card in my entire life and i gotta say, ati is very impressive. i dont know what people look for better performance or that extra 10 fps. Its based on the customers choice, you cant really say either suck, because thats only based on your opinion... what would others say? | | | | ATI sucks, and since im saying that from a developers standpoint, it makes it true. | | | | sorry squall but really thats just your biased opinion |
Last edited by blindartist; September 27th, 2009 at 06:31 AM..
| Quote | | | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart im happy with 1920x1200, 2560x1600 is just over the top. | NEVER... I love 2560x1600... nothing will make me turn back for photo editing, large scale graphics design, video editing, sound editing... why didnt I just say media editing... oh well.
Then again it all depends on what you can afford or fit.
Lol funniest thing is I have a friend who was happy because he bought two overpriced 275's put them into sli on an overpriced machine... bought a meh motherboard that only supported ddr2 (I mean if you are going to spend 3k on a machine why cheap out on an extra 200 for ram and motherboard upgrades) and after all of this... run it on a 17" crt that supported 1280x1024... seriously what was the point is all I could ask. Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_leonhart ATI sucks, and since im saying that from a developers standpoint, it makes it true. | Hahahaha, -slaps with fish- silly boy... or girl... just going by the username... mind you squall is quite girly... still my favourite FF after FF4. | | | | Nvida sucks. By comparison to other "arguments" in this thread, this is a full fledged fact. | | | | [QUOTE=Unregistered;81559]Hahahahaha, wrong. AMD is easier to overclock, and has the record for OCing. Guess what? I'd rather pay 190$ for the phenom 955 then 280$ for the i7 920.
My i7 owns your pos amd card. | | | | Performance Per Clock > Overclock Record. | | | | | |
|
