I've a couple questions... and some comparison test results, and would love even responses from any on the [H] team regarding the following.
This is a little long, and not meant to "knock" the 5870, but instead to compare results that I personally find a little confusing with the supposed performance of the 5870.
Keep something in mind: I have never gotten the same results with any hardware as others either boast or complain about over the years; all the "hype" about what people can/cannot run on their set-ups. I could never understand why, but it's something to keep in mind when reading this.
First, the questions:
- How is the noise with the 5870?
I think it was [H]'s Steve I saw state that the last few gens of ATi's GPUs are almost intolerably loud.
- Regarding temps/heat... doesn't 88C under load seem a bit hot, which could affect the longevity of the GPU?
Under load, my GTX 280 never hits above 80C (generally around 60-65C), and that's on Crysis: Warhead maxed (VRM hits 80C), on Enthusiast with 4xAA.
Now, in terms of performance...
It would be assumed that the 5870 would pound the GTX 280 into dust, but there's some confusing numbers I've gotten in benching that are almost comparable to the 5870 that put me "on the fence" about moving from the GTX 280 to the 5870.
Keep in mind, these results are the types that I've heard countless people many times state they cannot get and/or are "impossible", but I've never gotten the same "problems"/results as others, so I'm not sure what the deal is.
I'm a graphics whore, so I run everything maxed, all settings on every game.
Rig: GTX 280, E8600, 2GB RAM, ASUS Rampage Formula
Crysis: Warhead (Train Level - start to finish)
Settings: Enthusiast, 4xAA, 16xAF, 1920x1200 res
Min: 8
Max: 23
Avg: 17.9
(5870 - [H] results)
Min: 12
Max: 37
Avg: 26.6
Only a 4 fps difference min, and 8 fps difference avg?
These results are close to the 5870, and that's with me running 4xAA... [H] tested @ 2xAA... does not make sense.
The min, max and average are, on average, only around 4-14 fps more with the 5870 over the GTX 280, at best. I'm not seeing a huge difference here, though I would have expected to.
Even the places where the fps drops really low in Crysis: Warhead, it's not unplayable; a bit choppy, which I'm sure would be a little better with the 5870, but not unplayable.
Sure, the 5870 is faster at the same high settings (except I run at 4xAA, which is higher than [H]'s testing), but not always by a margin that's enough to make a huge difference, comparing the numbers.
Here's an example of a couple other games (again, all in-game settings maxed):
L4D
Settings: 8xAA, 16xAF, 1920x1200 res
Min: 42
Max: 63
Avg: 57.350
TF2
Settings: 8xAA, 16xAF, 1920x1200 res
Min: 50
Max: 62
Avg: 59.343
Fallout 3
Settings: 8xAA, 16xAF, 1920x1200 res
Min: 50
Max: 61
Avg: 59.183
I mean, how much better can you really get than this, that would make any difference in gameplay or visuals? I avg almost 60 fps in every game, with everything maxed.
I'm really just trying to get a feel for the situation, because I've always found that there's a lot more "hype" behind people stating what they can/cannot run on their systems, which I've always found to be different for me. Somehow, I'm always just "magically" able to run faster? I don't know... maybe people exaggerate things too much, too often... but these are accurate and true results on my end.
So, the question is: looking at these results, is it really worth the move from the GTX 280 to the 5870, based on what performance I get with the GTX 280 and my rig?
Note: there is no "flaming" here. I'm not "for" or "against" either brand. I run what ever runs best on the market at any given time. I'm simply trying to figure out why my results show something that seems drastically different that what would be expected between the GTX 280 and the 5870.
This is a little long, and not meant to "knock" the 5870, but instead to compare results that I personally find a little confusing with the supposed performance of the 5870.
Keep something in mind: I have never gotten the same results with any hardware as others either boast or complain about over the years; all the "hype" about what people can/cannot run on their set-ups. I could never understand why, but it's something to keep in mind when reading this.
First, the questions:
- How is the noise with the 5870?
I think it was [H]'s Steve I saw state that the last few gens of ATi's GPUs are almost intolerably loud.
- Regarding temps/heat... doesn't 88C under load seem a bit hot, which could affect the longevity of the GPU?
Under load, my GTX 280 never hits above 80C (generally around 60-65C), and that's on Crysis: Warhead maxed (VRM hits 80C), on Enthusiast with 4xAA.
Now, in terms of performance...
It would be assumed that the 5870 would pound the GTX 280 into dust, but there's some confusing numbers I've gotten in benching that are almost comparable to the 5870 that put me "on the fence" about moving from the GTX 280 to the 5870.
Keep in mind, these results are the types that I've heard countless people many times state they cannot get and/or are "impossible", but I've never gotten the same "problems"/results as others, so I'm not sure what the deal is.
I'm a graphics whore, so I run everything maxed, all settings on every game.
Rig: GTX 280, E8600, 2GB RAM, ASUS Rampage Formula
Crysis: Warhead (Train Level - start to finish)
Settings: Enthusiast, 4xAA, 16xAF, 1920x1200 res
Min: 8
Max: 23
Avg: 17.9
(5870 - [H] results)
Min: 12
Max: 37
Avg: 26.6
Only a 4 fps difference min, and 8 fps difference avg?
These results are close to the 5870, and that's with me running 4xAA... [H] tested @ 2xAA... does not make sense.
The min, max and average are, on average, only around 4-14 fps more with the 5870 over the GTX 280, at best. I'm not seeing a huge difference here, though I would have expected to.
Even the places where the fps drops really low in Crysis: Warhead, it's not unplayable; a bit choppy, which I'm sure would be a little better with the 5870, but not unplayable.
Sure, the 5870 is faster at the same high settings (except I run at 4xAA, which is higher than [H]'s testing), but not always by a margin that's enough to make a huge difference, comparing the numbers.
Here's an example of a couple other games (again, all in-game settings maxed):
L4D
Settings: 8xAA, 16xAF, 1920x1200 res
Min: 42
Max: 63
Avg: 57.350
TF2
Settings: 8xAA, 16xAF, 1920x1200 res
Min: 50
Max: 62
Avg: 59.343
Fallout 3
Settings: 8xAA, 16xAF, 1920x1200 res
Min: 50
Max: 61
Avg: 59.183
I mean, how much better can you really get than this, that would make any difference in gameplay or visuals? I avg almost 60 fps in every game, with everything maxed.
I'm really just trying to get a feel for the situation, because I've always found that there's a lot more "hype" behind people stating what they can/cannot run on their systems, which I've always found to be different for me. Somehow, I'm always just "magically" able to run faster? I don't know... maybe people exaggerate things too much, too often... but these are accurate and true results on my end.
So, the question is: looking at these results, is it really worth the move from the GTX 280 to the 5870, based on what performance I get with the GTX 280 and my rig?
Note: there is no "flaming" here. I'm not "for" or "against" either brand. I run what ever runs best on the market at any given time. I'm simply trying to figure out why my results show something that seems drastically different that what would be expected between the GTX 280 and the 5870.