D
Deleted member 174368
Guest
They haven't even announced any new consoles yet, let alone the hardware specs. It's going to be awhile.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Exactly, I didn't think it was that much of an issue.In case you care. If card A has 150% of card B's performance, it's 50% faster or 1.5 times faster. The wording is specific and can't be exatly interchanged w/o screwing up the meaning. Maybe English is a second language?
Lol, wow. Not only do you continually ignore the rebuttals I've made that show how wrong you are, you insist on showing again and again that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.Thanks for the link to the review Mr K6, you're only making your case worse.
The reviewer chose to use MSI Afterburner to overclock and not CCC, and Afterburner does not yet support the 68xx cards, so they do not downclock to 2D idle but low power 3D when overclocked. That's reviewer's fault, not the cards. Again, if you knew a single thing about hardware, you would have recognized this.URL="http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_6800series/7.htm"]http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_6800series/7.htm[/URL]
Awww shucks, so when I'm not gaming, which is the majority of the time the computer is on, I'm actually using LESS power. Another reason to pick a 470.
So you're saying you think that a GTX 470, overlcocked 42%, only consumes an extra 20W over stock? What do you think is more probable, that the reviewer listed the wrong number or that this card defies the laws of physics? Answer this question in your next response so the forum can know whether or not to outright ignore you from now on.
For the couple hours of gaming it consumes 40Watts more. Wait, did we read that right? 40 Frickin Watts!! Yeah, so much for that "double the power consumption" even when overclocked with "heavily voltage modded" LOL theory...
Exactly, I didn't think it was that much of an issue.
Lol, wow. Not only do you continually ignore the rebuttals I've made that show how wrong you are, you insist on showing again and again that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
The reviewer chose to use MSI Afterburner to overclock and not CCC, and Afterburner does not yet support the 68xx cards, so they do not downclock to 2D idle but low power 3D when overclocked. That's reviewer's fault, not the cards. Again, if you knew a single thing about hardware, you would have recognized this.
So you're saying you think that a GTX 470, overlcocked 42%, only consumes an extra 20W over stock? What do you think is more probable, that the reviewer listed the wrong number or that this card defies the laws of physics? Answer this question in your next response so the forum can know whether or not to outright ignore you from now on.
Here's a hint for reference: http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_470,11.html a GTX 470 overclocked only to 760MHz core, nevermind 852MHz core, already consumes an extra 60W.
As the entire review showed, the majority of the time the GTX 470 @ 852MHz core is <10-15% ahead of the 6870. How many people do you think actually have their GTX 470's at 852MHz? How come you consider that but not the 6870 at 1200MHz that I linked? The truth hurts, doesn't it? You fell into NVIDIA's trap, bought an inferior card, and now you have to live with it. Don't think you're fooling anyone here, we're all well aware of what the situation is .
Not only did I save $19 but apparently having more FPS is "inferior" to you. Just keep telling yourself that fanboy. I buy what's good at the time of purchase, not which brand I blindly support. My 5870 has served its purpose and we'll see whether a 6950 is worth switching back for or not once the 580 comes out.
eh? Who's got the 6870 in hand already? I don't think anyone here has one yet, may be wrong tho.There is no need for anyone to be retarded. It's the sign of a small-minded person who, instead of just enjoying his own purchase, has to jump down others' throats for their own purchase decisions to make himself feel superior.
If you like the 6870 more than the 470, good for you.
The article was referenced for performance comparisons and showed quite well how a GTX 470 is at best competitive performance-wise with a 6870 while being inferior in all other metrics. The fact that this rips the rug out from under your arguments, once again, and your sequential temper tantrum, shows that you have nothing, and that this discussion is above you. If you would like to actually prove any of your points, go right ahead. So far your best arguments have been "I found this number!" all the while with a clear indication that you have no idea what the number means, never mind how it relates to an actual video card's function. Sorry, laughing like a child and typing in all caps doesn't prove your point, no matter how much you would like it.So, instead of accepting the truth, you try to make up a story about how the review site that YOU linked doesn't know how to review anymore. Maybe you should of read the article that you claimed supported your ideas before posting it. You're just sounding pathetic trying to make up any story to support your claims at this point.
I asked how many people run their GTX 470's at 852MHz core, don't change the question.How many people OC their 470s you ask? You're asking this on a OCing site. So the answer is, just about everyone.
Where did I say that? Go quote it.You seem to think that ONLY AMD graphics cards have the ability to idle.
Are you talking about stock performance or overclocked performance? You continually mix up the two, and seem to believe that overclocking doesn't change power consumption, which is ridiculous. Power consumption increases approximately linearly with clockspeed and quadratically with voltage, welcome to EE 101. If you want to argue stock performance and power consumption, do that, or argue overclocked performance and power consumption, but you can't mix and match and to create impossible, and ridiculous, situations. At stock, the 6870 consumes about 50W less than a GTX470 and is on average 3% slower across most gaming resolutions, with the 6870 being faster at higher resolutions: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6870/29.html .The 470 is about 25 Watts in idle and 210W when maxed out. Yeah, so much for the doubling the power of a 6870 idea...
You haven't made a thing clear. I've disproved every one of your ill-contrived arguments and you have not even attempted to rebut any of them. Ad hominem attacks and shouting without any proof just further detract from your arguments. That crap may work on other forums, but at [H] people pay attention and know what they're talking about.You seem to be under the assumption that just because the 480 is a power guzzler that the 470 is too. You've made it clear to everyone that you have no idea what you're talking about and are just speaking irrationally.
It's a good thing NVIDIA got you hook, line, and sinker. You enjoy your 1% more performance and all the heat, noise, and inferior image quality that comes with it.Not only did I save $19 but apparently having more FPS is "inferior" to you. Just keep telling yourself that fanboy. I buy what's good at the time of purchase, not which brand I blindly support. My 5870 has served its purpose and we'll see whether a 6950 is worth switching back for or not once the 580 comes out.
At the pricepoint that the 470 very quickly fell to, it's been a good deal for a long time. The additional RAM is also a nice assurance at triple monitor resolutions.
Arguments aside, I have sort of a question for you, why go from 5870 to GTX 470. Kind of a side or down grade hmm. Was there something the 5870 wouldn't do for you that the 470 will or does? I've never read someone who went from a single 5870 to a 470. Dual yes, single no. Just want to see what your motivation was.
Unigine Heaven Benchmark 2.1
Default Config
Normal Tessellation - 2560x1600 - 4X AF - High - DX11
6870:
FPS: 23.7
Scores: 597
Min FPS: 16.2
Max FPS: 47.5
gtx 460 1gb
FPS: 20.8
Scores: 523
Min FPS: 14.4
Max FPS: 40.0
5850:
FPS: 20.6
Scores: 518
Min FPS: 13
Max FPS: 43.6
6850:
FPS: 20
Scores: 505
Min FPS: 14.3
Max FPS: 39.6
Because of the price drop to $220. It's cheaper to sell the 5870 and get 2 470s than a second 5870 while still having almost as good framerates. I also wanted to try BC2 in 32xCSAA while taking only a minimal performance hit in fps. I'm using two 460s in another machine for CUDA and I was thinking of buying a separate 9800gtx just for PhysX with the 5870 but now I'll be able to do it all with the 470. I'm not so concerned with the extra $1-2/mo in electricity like some other posters apparently and the computer isn't in a room that's 5x5 feet where the so called "extra heat" won't even be noticeable.
The 470 does triple monitors?
http://hardocp.com/article/2010/03/26/nvidia_fermi_gtx_470_480_sli_review/7
Last graph on the page is most relevant to my post in that, under load all these cards get hot, but the GTX4x0 cards DO get hotter and while it may only be a few degrees, its quite a noticeable amount, especially in a home.
So does the 6870 = 5770 replacement?
Yes it does. and likewise, 6850=5750 replacement
Actually, power consumption is more important than core temp. If both cards are at 80C, but one uses 150 W, and the other one 250 W, the latter one will heat the room more.
So does the 6870 = 5770 replacement?
Did you realize that the 6870 is ATI's second best single GPU card as well? Both ATI(6900) and Nvidia(580) are releasing new higher end models in a couple months. I'm not sure how ATI is "kicking Nvidia's ass" when they have equally priced cards and the 470 is performing better. The 480 still walks all over a 5870, but we're comparing mid-range cards here.
it was $220 at Newegg today and sold out.You just don't get it . The 470 is a high end card which was retailing for $400 earlier this year and is now forced mid range thanks to AMD's superiority. It is a low yield card and very expensive to manufacture. I have not seen the card near $220 anywhere which kind of makes your argument moot as well. When one company's mid range effort can compete with anothers high end, I think the word ass kicking is pretty accurate.
As for the power savings, even at a conservative $2 per month savings, you would be looking at saving $72 over a 3 year lifespan which is about average for most consumers. The devil is in the details.
How long have you been buying video cards? Today's highend is tomorrow's low end. A 8800GTX was a high end model as well, until the newer models came out and knocked it down. The 470 has been out for awhile and it's bound to be bumped down as newer models are about to be released(580). A 6870 isn't THAT far behind a 5870 which had been a high end model for awhile now. To be honest, a 6850 looks more like a mid-range card anyways. The 6870 is more lower-highend. Try reading page 1 for the link to the 470 priced @ $220. You can buy SLI combos from newegg at around $240 as well.You just don't get it . The 470 is a high end card which was retailing for $400 earlier this year and is now forced mid range thanks to AMD's superiority. It is a low yield card and very expensive to manufacture. I have not seen the card near $220 anywhere which kind of makes your argument moot as well. When one company's mid range effort can compete with anothers high end, I think the word ass kicking is pretty accurate.
As for the power savings, even at a conservative $2 per month savings, you would be looking at saving $72 over a 3 year lifespan which is about average for most consumers. The devil is in the details.
show me a good old DX9 card that can play Just Cause 2, Metro 2033, and Alien vs Predator at 1920x1080 on decent settings.
you do realize that the gtx275 is a pretty high end last gen DX10 card don't you? he said an old DX9 card. and Metro 2033 played just fine on high DX10 AAA settings at 1920x1080 with my gtx260 so it should be no prob with a gtx275.Yea actually my fac O/C GTX 275 can play Just Cause 2 Predator just fine 40+ FPS, sure I have to turn down AA, but I can see much of a diff above 4x AA at these resolutions anyway. Metro is the exception but the game sucks.
Still trying to convince myself I need a upgrade, but the latest game I am play is Fallout Vegas and that sits on like 80FPS, so that's not helping the upgrade itch much.
"Almost" pressed the butting on a 6870, but just......cant...... do ..... it
Yea, I was only calling a 6870 lower-highend because at the moment, the 6900s aren't out and it's barely behind a 5870. The 6850 is definitely much more mid-range powered compared to the higher end models that are available today.AMD classified the 6850 and 6870 as mid-range cards. I think it was stated on one of slides they were spewing out. The high-end cards are the 6950, 6970 and 6990. The 6950 being the low high-end model.
BTW, I reckon the 580 will costs around $500+.
You're right in that todays hi end is tomorrow's low/mid end. A company's newer cards will routinely bump down their older cards - that's pretty much a given.The 470 has been out for awhile and it's bound to be bumped down as newer models are about to be released(580).
Right. What's wrong with them lowering prices though? Happens all the time between the two companies.You're right in that todays hi end is tomorrow's low/mid end. A company's newer cards will routinely bump down their older cards - that's pretty much a given.
However, in the case of the 470, it didn't get bumped down by any of NVidia's cards since the successor isn't out yet, it got bumped down by a competitor's card. I think that's what Alienate was refering to. Trust me, if AMD did not release the 6850/6870 or waited even a month before releasing them, 470 prices would have stayed the same.
In other words Nvidia's hand was forced by AMD.
To add further when the Fermi's came out the "todays hi end is tomorrows mid/end" didn't quite apply to the 5870. How come? There was hope that it would bring alot to the table and would force AMD to lower prices on 5850 and 5870 just like what we're seeing with the 460/470 - .that didn't happen. 5870 prices barely budged because it didn't need to. What does that say about Fermi's impact on the hi end marketplace?
5870 crossfire on a 3.8 dual core and at 1680x1050? there will be many games where you would not even notice that other 5870 with your cpu. heck at that res you could even lose performance in some cases just due to your cpu having to handle the overhead. crossfiring cards of that level need a quad preferably an i5/i7 if you actually want to push them fully especially in more cpu intensive games. even now you are not fully pushing a single 5870 in very cpu intensive games at just 1680.This is killin me. I have a 5870 now. Was hoping that after xmas the price would come down, and I could get another for xfire. It looks like it will be like my 280gtx in another rig. It just morphed into a 285, and now you can hardly find them, AND they still cost over $200.
5870 crossfire on a 3.8 dual core and at 1680x1050? there will be many games where you would not even notice that other 5870 with your cpu. heck at that res you could even lose performance in some cases just due to your cpu having to handle the overhead. crossfiring cards of that level need a quad preferably an i5/i7 if you actually want to push them fully especially in more cpu intensive games. even now you are not fully pushing a single 5870 in very cpu intensive games at just 1680.
its not a a wild claim at all. if you know anything about sli/crossfire then you know this is true and can happen. the weaker the cpu and the lower the res the more likely it will happen. there have been reviews that have shown this in the past. I cant easily find some so for now have a look at this. even with a Core i7 980x at 4.0 and using fairly large resolutions 4 way and 3 way sli can be slower than 2 way sli due to cpu overhead. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/quad-sli-nvidia-surround-geforce-gtx-480,2745-7.htmlI do not think that crossfire overhead on a dual cpu clocked to 3.8 will exceed the benefit of a second video card (a 5870). If you have any data or links to prove this, please provide them. The wildest claim of all is a loss of performance (lower fps's) going from a single card to cross fire.
.
my first link was because you said it was a wild claim that adding another card could actually ever lower performance. it can.cannondale06, your first link contains no cpu dual vs quad testing, and the second link has to do w/ performance increase realative to clock speed.............that is exactly my point. Right now, speed, getting things >3.0, is more important than dual vs quad "in gaming" (not benchmark tests), both for single and dual gpu.
And, the 3.8 is definitely high even by today's standards. So, and differences we are talking about are on the order, of what 5%, 15%, or 25%. Certainly not "NO" gains, and certainly not Negative gains (losses).
Please give me a link that shows that a dual-core C2D, clocked at 3.8, would not see benefits of 25% - 45% in FPS's using a 5850 or a 5870 in crossfire.
.
so is that going to be 1920x1200, 1920x1080 or 2560x1400? either way even at 1920 its not as bad as I was saying for 1680. I would still sell the 5870 and go with the fastest single card I could get though.sorry, meant to mention that I was going to move to a 27" monitor.