Is the 5870 the new 8800GTX?

[Dan_D]

It's been some time since I had both at my disposal and I didn't do a ton of checking with FRAPS or anything but the gaming experience was very similar between one Geforce GTX 280 and two 8800GTX's in SLI.

 

[crusher]

Hmmm... I don´t think so. As far as i remember the 8800GTX delivered by far more performance comparing to the previous generation.

I got a mixed feeling about this new 5870. It seems somewhat bandwidth limited in many situations. Its theoretical computational power almost double comparing to the previous generation, but there is not an increase of memory bandwidth in the same degree. It seems they are using the fastest memory out there, but they wanted to keep the costs down when using the same 256 bits interface.

The DX11 features are always the big bonus anyway.

 

[cannondale06]

Hmmm... I don´t think so. As far as i remember the 8800GTX delivered by far more performance comparing to the previous generation.

I got a mixed feeling about this new 5870. It seems somewhat bandwidth limited in many situations. Its theoretical computational power almost double comparing to the previous generation, but there is not an increase of memory bandwidth in the same degree. It seems they are using the fastest memory out there, but they wanted to keep the costs down when using the same 256 bits interface.

The DX11 features are always the big bonus anyway.

I agree with you that memory bandwidth could be a limitation. they currently have faster gddr5 available up to 6000 but it probably wasnt cost effective and likely there wasnt enough volume either.

 

[Dan_D]

When the 8800GTX came out it was NOT twice as fast as the 7950GX2. Not even close. It was however twice as fast as the 7900GTX. When the Geforce GTX 280 came out the top card was the 9800GX2. That was more of a linear upgrade. Basically you got the same performance with a lower thermal / power envelope and no microstuttering which the 9800GX2 has a tendency to suffer from. Also the Geforce GTX 280 doesn't have a gimpy memory bus which allowed it to handle higher levels of AA and AF than the Geforce 9800GX2 could. (Depsite having generally similar performance frame rate wise.)

So yeah, the Geforce GTX 280 wasn't quite twice as fast as the 8800GTX but it was close to it. It was probably 80% faster. However the Geforce 8800GTX was no where near being twice as fast as the 7950GX2. So while both of these cards are generally remembered as being huge jumps from their predecessors they really weren't. The 5870 is in much the same position as the Geforce 8800GTX or the Geforce GTX 280 were compared to their most direct predecessors. Still with the appearance of a 5870 X2 being a "more than likely" scenario I think that the 5870 lacks the "staying power" the Geforce 8800GTX had. With dual GPU cards hitting just about every generation now I don't know that a single GPU will ever be likely to reign supreme as long as the 8800GTX did.

 

[Jeffredo]

Nope. The HD 5000 series are going to be great cards and the performance boost is very impressive over the previous gen, but there is currently a card (GTX 295) that can come close or beat its performance. That wasn't the case when the 8800 GTX was released. Plus ATI had no competitor for the 8800 GTX for a long time after its release. That won't be the case here.

Still, I think the HD 5870 is going to be a game changer like the 8800 GTX - its just that it will have company from Nvidia pretty soon.

 

[Cyrilix]

You really need to check your sources. A GTX 280 was (on release):

CoD 4 54% faster than 8800 GTX

HL3 Ep 2 72% faster than 8800 GTX

Quake Wars 58% faster than 8800 GTX

Crysis 43% faster than 8800 GTX

Assassins Creed 68% faster than 8800 GTX

GRID 41% faster than 8800 GTX

All numbers taken from the highest resolutions and settings graphs: http://techreport.com/articles.x/14934/1

Now the HD 5870:

Far Cry 2: 51% faster than the HD 4890

Wolfensetin: 50% faster than the HD 4890

Left 4 Dead: 52% faster than the HD 4890

HAWX: 21% faster than the HD 4890

Sacred 2 Fallen Angel: 53% faster than the HD 4890

Crysis Warhed: 35% faster than the HD 4890

All numbers taken from the highest resolutions and settings graphs: http://techreport.com/articles.x/17618

First, and across the board in the games at the time, the performance increase from a 8800 GTX to a GTX 280 was higher than the performance increase from a HD 4890 to a HD 5870. And second, the HD 5870 is not even close to double the performance of the previous generation. And if you compare it to the GTX 285 instead of the HD 4890, the performance increase is even less.

I've been relooking at the benchmarks myself, and it does seem like my claim of double isn't substantially evidenced. I'll have to correct my estimates and get a better number.

 

[ebilcake]

Until nvidia release we don't know, I doubt it though.

 

[SpeedyVV]

Thanks to all that participated in this poll and also the discussion.

Very interesting perspectives on current and past state of the GPU landscape.

So it seems that it is unanimous that the 5870 is an awsome GPU.

Some think game changing, some think landmard, so think just another natural evolution in the landscape.

Well, those of you getting this card are lucky.

 

[Kowan]

I think the 5870X2 will be the next 8800GTX, will most likely sell at a similar price point as the GTX did back in the day, and the X2 will really destroy everything in sight.

Question is will the 5870X2 be two 5870's or two 5850's that most people expect ? But still even if the 5870X2 is 2-5850's that is still pretty dang powerful, so take the 5850 benchmarks and add approx 80% and that will be the 5870X2 performance.

The HD5870x2 and HD5850x2 are two products coming.

 

[eric66]

You really need to check your sources. A GTX 280 was (on release):

CoD 4 54% faster than 8800 GTX

HL3 Ep 2 72% faster than 8800 GTX

Quake Wars 58% faster than 8800 GTX

Crysis 43% faster than 8800 GTX

Assassins Creed 68% faster than 8800 GTX

GRID 41% faster than 8800 GTX

All numbers taken from the highest resolutions and settings graphs: http://techreport.com/articles.x/14934/1

Now the HD 5870:

Far Cry 2: 51% faster than the HD 4890

Wolfensetin: 50% faster than the HD 4890

Left 4 Dead: 52% faster than the HD 4890

HAWX: 21% faster than the HD 4890

Sacred 2 Fallen Angel: 53% faster than the HD 4890

Crysis Warhed: 35% faster than the HD 4890

All numbers taken from the highest resolutions and settings graphs: http://techreport.com/articles.x/17618

First, and across the board in the games at the time, the performance increase from a 8800 GTX to a GTX 280 was higher than the performance increase from a HD 4890 to a HD 5870. And second, the HD 5870 is not even close to double the performance of the previous generation. And if you compare it to the GTX 285 instead of the HD 4890, the performance increase is even less.

why u compared 4890 to 5870 and then went gtx 280 to gtx how about bringing ultra which was the fastest one lol and what makes techreports benchs so credible ?

ps : and in somegames 9800gtx was faster than 8800gtx cause of its higher clocks i remember that one too

 

[Itchyeyes]

Er 9800 GX2 ? Then we should compare the HD 5870 to the HD 4870 X2 and then that guy's comment about the HD 5870 being almost double of the past generation makes even less sense. Even less if we use the GTX 295...

And no, we should compare single chip from one generation to a single chip of the next. And yes, I could use the 9800 GTXs numbers, but as we all know, the 9800 GTX brought almost zero performance increase over the 8800 GTX. If I did use the 9800 GTX in those numbers, the performance increase across the board from a 9800 GTX to a GTX 280 would be actually higher than it is from a 8800 GTX to a GTX 280, at those resolutions and settings.

The problem here is that Nividia completely bungled their branding and price points of the 8800 and 9800 series cards. As powerful as the 8800 GTX was, it also launched at $600, a price point that has become almost solely the domain of dual GPU cards today. And obviously the 9800 series had no real flagship card which we can compare the 8800GTX and GTX280 to. But that's not because the G92 was inferior to the G80. It's because Nvidia, for whatever reason, decided to target a completely different market with the 9800 series than they did with the 8800s. So it's still pretty disingenuous to compare a 2 generation jump between the G80 and the G200 to a single generation jump between the R700 and R800 cards.

 

[anime4u]

The 5870 is an impressive card but I think it will not stay on top as long as the GTX8800 did. The good news is though, I want to buy this card!

 

[RamonGTP]

Personally, I dont think that the 8800gtx was that monumental at all. The 8800 series was good for the industry but this thread is making it sound like the best thing since sliced bread.

Maybe some of you weren't around for the 9700pro? Did some of you forget how great of a card the 6800gt was and how it co-dominated the mainstream alongside the x800/x850 series? What about the 7600gt/6600gt, which still hold a HUGE place in the marketshare of computer gamers (see the steam surveys). Hell, I think that even the 4870/4850 has a bigger place in the history of GPUs than the 8800gtx with AMD's bang for the buck marketing.

I agree that the 9700/9800 series were similar to the 8800 era, but none of your other examples are even close IMO.

6800, like you said, CO-dominated, it was not the undisputed king of the hill like hte 9700/9800 and the 8800 series were in their time. 7600/6600 is even further off, they were great values, but they were never even close to being high end cards nor were they marketed as such. In fact, my 7600GT and x800xl cards were the shortest lived cards I ever owned.

 

[singe_101]

The 5870 will not be as ridiculous of a GPU but they aren't trying to, it's $380. It’s launch and mostly on stock so far. 5890 2 GB 1 GHz? We’ve seen more than November 2006 for the 8800.

The 8800 GTX is like the Babe Ruth of GPUs, a new category basically. Not everything was made obsolete but not top level for some time. But those guys Speaker, Hornsby and Gehrig were pretty good as well. And Mays might have been better than Ruth would have been 30 years later.

 

[stateofjermaine]

5870 isn't the new 8800GTX. More like the new 4870! It doesn't completely destroy all the competition, but it delivers KICK ASS performance, very close to Nvidia's best, at a much better price.

If they release the 5870x2 at $600, that will be more like the 8800GTX. Ridiculously powerful and ridiculously expensive.

QFT.

 

[Mr. K6]

So how come nobody's made a Kanye West picture yet? "Yo AMD 5870, I'm really happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but the 8800GTX was one of the best releases of all time!"

 

[Kowan]

Now that you mentioned it, I'm sure someone will.

 

[SpeedyVV]

So how come nobody's made a Kanye West picture yet? "Yo AMD 5870, I'm really happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but the 8800GTX was one of the best releases of all time!"

Actually, I think your joke sums up the whole 5 pages of posts here in 1 line.

 

[FragMagnet]

snip

When the 8800GTX came out it was NOT twice as fast as the 7950GX2. .

Most people don't remember that card, but the parallels between it and the 8800 series is about the same as the 5870/x2 combos of today. The biggest downfall of the 7950GX2 was the very limited driver support, and the huge power requirements at a time when the only psu choice above 550 watts was a ridiculously priced PC&P top of the line unit, especially with SLI.

Both camps have stepped up to the plate with there support in the driver dept for dual solutions, and high power psu's are in abundance now, so those points for the most part are moot, but the cost these days is around 50-60% of what it was in 2005/2006. At the time 7800/7900GTX cards were in the $700 range here in Canada, yet the 5870 is just over $400, don't forget to add in the 4 years of inflation to those costs.

 

[ikarinokami]

no. The 8800GTX was on the level of the Vodoo 2/9700- . game changing, monumental, legendary.

 

[Dan_D]

Nope. The HD 5000 series are going to be great cards and the performance boost is very impressive over the previous gen, but there is currently a card (GTX 295) that can come close or beat its performance. That wasn't the case when the 8800 GTX was released.

Yes it was. The 8800GTX was in the same position as the 5870 is against the Geforce GTX 295 and the Geforce GTX 280 was against the 9800GX2. You seem to forget the 7950GX2. Now don't get me wrong it was a piece of shit but it was a fast peice of shit under ideal conditions. The 8800GTX was the 7950GX2's immediate successor and it damn sure wasn't twice the performance of the 7950GX2. Again the performance boost was impressive as the 8800GTX was able to beat the performance of the 7950GX2 with only one GPU and it was double the speed of the 7900GTX that preceeded the 7950GX2.

Plus ATI had no competitor for the 8800 GTX for a long time after its release. That won't be the case here.

This is one of the main reasons why the 8800GTX had so much staying power. The 2900XT was lackluster at best and NVIDIA only further distanced themselves from it by revising the 8800GTX silicon and calling it the "880Ultra". Companies continued to sell 8800GTX's as they were much cheaper than the 8800 Ultra, and overclocked similarly once the new silicon went into wide spread use in those newer 8800GTX's. So those cards enjoyed both their time as the ultimate / flagship performance part and then a cheaper alternative to the new flagship card that offered 93% of the same performance for a couple hundred dollars less. ATI was just left pulling their collective puds.

Unless NVIDIA's GT300 is a complete flop, the 5870 won't have a chance at having near the staying power of the 8800GTX.

Still, I think the HD 5870 is going to be a game changer like the 8800 GTX - its just that it will have company from Nvidia pretty soon.

I don't know that this will be true. Only time will tell on this. If DX11 becomes a big deal then yes, the 5870 might just be a game changer. Short of that, I don't think so.

 

[atrance5]

When the 8800GTX came out it was NOT twice as fast as the 7950GX2. Not even close. It was however twice as fast as the 7900GTX. When the Geforce GTX 280 came out the top card was the 9800GX2. That was more of a linear upgrade. Basically you got the same performance with a lower thermal / power envelope and no microstuttering which the 9800GX2 has a tendency to suffer from. Also the Geforce GTX 280 doesn't have a gimpy memory bus which allowed it to handle higher levels of AA and AF than the Geforce 9800GX2 could. (Depsite having generally similar performance frame rate wise.)

So yeah, the Geforce GTX 280 wasn't quite twice as fast as the 8800GTX but it was close to it. It was probably 80% faster. However the Geforce 8800GTX was no where near being twice as fast as the 7950GX2. So while both of these cards are generally remembered as being huge jumps from their predecessors they really weren't. The 5870 is in much the same position as the Geforce 8800GTX or the Geforce GTX 280 were compared to their most direct predecessors. Still with the appearance of a 5870 X2 being a "more than likely" scenario I think that the 5870 lacks the "staying power" the Geforce 8800GTX had. With dual GPU cards hitting just about every generation now I don't know that a single GPU will ever be likely to reign supreme as long as the 8800GTX did.

Ye but still the 8800gtx was faster than the 7950gx2, while the 5870 is 10% slower than the gtx295

 

[Dan_D]

no. The 8800GTX was on the level of the Vodoo 2/9700- . game changing, monumental, legendary.

It really wasn't. It was closer to simply being at the right place at the right time. It was a good card for sure but it's staying power had little to do with the card's merrits and more to do with the lack of competition from ATI. Dual GPU cards were also still somewhat in their infancy as the early cards like the 7900GX2 and 7950GX2 just had too many issues for even many enthusuasts to get past.

Ye but still the 8800gtx was faster than the 7950gx2, while the 5870 is 10% slower than the gtx295

I don't think that makes any difference. Only time will really tell. It might never happen. Everyone was looking for the next Intel 440BX chipset and we never got one.

 

[Silus]

The problem here is that Nividia completely bungled their branding and price points of the 8800 and 9800 series cards. As powerful as the 8800 GTX was, it also launched at $600, a price point that has become almost solely the domain of dual GPU cards today. And obviously the 9800 series had no real flagship card which we can compare the 8800GTX and GTX280 to. But that's not because the G92 was inferior to the G80. It's because Nvidia, for whatever reason, decided to target a completely different market with the 9800 series than they did with the 8800s. So it's still pretty disingenuous to compare a 2 generation jump between the G80 and the G200 to a single generation jump between the R700 and R800 cards.

No it isn't. @ 2560x1600 the 8800 GTX is actually faster more often than not, than a 9800 GTX. And that can be seen on the benchmarks. Ignoring them and say what you did, is a pretty weak argument...

If you want to use the 9800 GTX results, go ahead. You'll see that the GTX 280's performance lead over the 9800 GTX, was bigger than it is over the 8800 GTX, at those resolutions and settings. Actually here they are:

GTX80 vs 8800 GTX @ 2560x1600 (except Crysis @ 19201200):

CoD 4 54% faster than 8800 GTX

HL3 Ep 2 72% faster than 8800 GTX

Quake Wars 58% faster than 8800 GTX

Crysis 43% faster than 8800 GTX

Assassins Creed 68% faster than 8800 GTX

GRID 41% faster than 8800 GTX

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GTX 280 vs 9800 GTX @ 2560x1600 (except Crysis @ 19201200):

CoD 4 54% faster than 9800 GTX

HL3 Ep 2 73% faster than 9800 GTX

Quake Wars 180% faster than 9800 GTX

Crysis 37% faster than 9800 GTX

Assassins Creed 125% faster than 9800 GTX

GRID 30% faster than 9800 GTX

So as you can see the difference in most games is minimal between the 8800 GTX and 9800 GTX, yet in others the 8800 GTX beats up the 9800 GTX quite nicely. And that's why the performance lead the GTX 280 has over the 9800 GTX is higher than it is over the 8800 GTX. So it's not disingenuous at all. I was actually making the GTX 280's performance lead seem smaller, by using the 8800 GTX. But there you go. You wanted the results with the 9800 GTX and the performance lead of the GTX 280 at release, over the "last generation", was much higher than the performance lead of the HD 5870 over the "last generation", which was precisely the point I was making, after Cyrilix's post of the HD 5870 being a bigger increase in performance.

 

[Silus]

why u compared 4890 to 5870 and then went gtx 280 to gtx how about bringing ultra which was the fastest one lol and what makes techreports benchs so credible ?

Sure. Just put 5-10% fps on the 8800 GTX results and you have the Ultras results. It won't change the numbers much.

Tech-report IS credible. And I chose them, not just because they are credible, but because it's easier to extrapolate average fps from their graphs.

ps : and in somegames 9800gtx was faster than 8800gtx cause of its higher clocks i remember that one too

Sure and in others the 8800 GTX is faster too, which is precisely why the performance increase from a 8800 GTX to 9800 GTX is minimal at best, since it's "win some lose some". Although as you can see in those results (and from other sites too), the 8800 GTX performance numbers at higher resolutions are better, more often than not, than the results of the 9800 GTX.

 

[Cyrilix]

after Cyrilix's post of the HD 5870 being a bigger increase in performance.

I must admit part of that came from unconscious bias with the doubling of 800 stream processors to 1600, however, I think ATi should be able to eventually get the 5870 to nearly double the performance of the 4870 (if not double), given the disparity in hardware specs. We'll see.

Interesting poll results: 2 out of 5 believe no. 2 out of 5 are unsure. 1 out of 5 say yes. I voted unsure, but I might be leaning more towards no...

 

[sirmonkey1985]

What a bunch of nonsense. First the GTX 275 is not a "GTX 260 hybrid". And second, a GTX 275 is not missing any of the "shader count" from a GT200b chip. It has all 24 TPCs enabled. What's disabled is one of the 64 bit memory paths, that make it a 448 bit memory interface chip.

you obviously didnt read my first post did you.. i clearly stated the one difference between the GTX 260 and the GTX 275/GTX 295 is that they do not have the same shader count.. because the GTX 260 has 192/216 and the GTX 275 has 240.. the GTX 275/285/295(per core) all have 240 shaders..

which is why the GTX 295 used 2 GTX 260 hybrid cards basically.. until they created the GTX 275..


so explain to me where the nonsense is?



and yes i agree that there was little difference between the 9800GTX and 8800GTX.. the 8800GTX was a freak of nature with its 384bit 768mb ddr3 ram when it first came out.. though im sure nvidia regretted it afterward when they realized it was still kickin the 9 series asses in games..

and who the hell even started this 200% or twice as fast as the 4870 crap anyways because they need to be shot for starting all this crap..

 

[Silus]

To put things in perspective, someone gathered the data from dozens of reviews and came up with this chart:

http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/amd-radeon-hd-5870-hd-5850-performance-chart-66465/

With the HD 5870 performance as base line (100%):

- The HD 5850 has 88% of that performance
- The GTX 285 has 81.6% of that performance
- The HD 4890 has 74.1% of that performance

As for dual-GPU cards:

- The GTX 295 has 110.8% of that performance
- The HD 4870 X2 has 104.1% of that performance

 

[Silus]

you obviously didnt read my first post did you.. i clearly stated the one difference between the GTX 260 and the GTX 275/GTX 295 is that they do not have the same shader count.. because the GTX 260 has 192/216 and the GTX 275 has 240.. the GTX 275/285/295(per core) all have 240 shaders..

which is why the GTX 295 used 2 GTX 260 hybrid cards basically.. until they created the GTX 275..

so explain to me where the nonsense is?

Sure. The explanation is here:

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1034662360&postcount=67

There is no "hybrid". Just a GT200b with one 64 bit memory path disabled. The GTX 275 was not created from the chip used in GTX 260 cards, as I explained above.

and yes i agree that there was little difference between the 9800GTX and 8800GTX.. the 8800GTX was a freak of nature with its 384bit 768mb ddr3 ram when it first came out.. though im sure nvidia regretted it afterward when they realized it was still kickin the 9 series asses in games..

You agree ? So why refute the data I posted, in this post ?

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1034662354&postcount=65

At one point you agree with someone that disagrees with me, but then you agree with me...it's quite confusing...

and who the hell even started this 200% or twice as fast as the 4870 crap anyways because they need to be shot for starting all this crap..

Read the thread. It's painfully obvious who it was...

 

[Mr. Bluntman]

Unless GT300 is another NV30, I think it's safe to say that ATi's lead won't hold for long.

 

[Dan_D]

Unless GT300 is another NV30, I think it's safe to say that ATi's lead won't hold for long.

Agreed.

 

[DeadSkull]

And second, the HD 5870 is not even close to double the performance of the previous generation. And if you compare it to the GTX 285 instead of the HD 4890, the performance increase is even less.

Actually 5870 is double the performance of last gen rv770 and I suspect with a few driver updates a few more fps will make it double the performance of 4890 or close to the theoretical performance of 4890 cf.

Also HD 4890 = GTX 285 crysis

Imho I hope you are getting paid per post or something

 

[Silus]

Actually 5870 is double the performance of last gen rv770 and I suspect with a few driver updates a few more fps will make it double the performance of 4890 or close to the theoretical performance of 4890 cf.

Sure, but that isn't the case now, which is the point. We all know that drivers improve, but there are no miracles.

Imho I hope you are getting paid per post or something

Anyway, getting to the facts, which you are apparently having trouble following...the numbers I showed are quite simple. They represent more than ONE game and they show, on average, the performance increase over previous generations. Yes the HD 5870 comes close to doubling the performance of a HD 4890 in some instances, but on average it's more like 50% faster than a HD 4890. And a bit less for the GTX 285.

I also hope that whoever is paying you to post, notices that you should read the posts you are replying to first, so that you actually make sense in the context of the discussion.

 

[DeadSkull]

Sure, but that isn't the case now, which is the point.

Umm...You stated the following.

And second, the HD 5870 is not even close to double the performance of the previous generation. And if you compare it to the GTX 285 instead of the HD 4890, the performance increase is even less.

I countered with solid facts in my post http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1034669877&postcount=113 proved both that "5870 is not even close the performance of the previous gen." and "if you compare it to 285 instead of 4890 performance increase is even less" wrong.

Now I'm trying to understaind what you meant by the following

Sure, but that isn't the case now, which is the point.

You stated x, y and z. I used [H] review numbers to prove you wrong. Your response is?

Actually please explain what your response means?

 

[rincewind]

Actually 5870 is double the performance of last gen rv770 and I suspect with a few driver updates a few more fps will make it double the performance of 4890 or close to the theoretical performance of 4890 cf.

No, it really isn't. It should rightly be compared to 4890, because that was the fastest single-GPU ATi card and also shares the same core clocks. On average it is around 50% faster, and the worrying thing is that the % increase over older cards generally decreases at 25x16 (when it should really be pulling further ahead) - that is rather indicative of bandwidth limitations (as per 8800GTX vs 9800GTX). It does perform well, but I can understand why people could be disappointed that it does not live up to the specs. Drivers will no doubt improve things, but I really think it is hampered by that 256-bit bus.

 

[Silus]

Actually please explain what your response means?

I wonder why do you insist on not understanding such a baisc premise. You showed ONE game, where indeed the HD 5870 nearly doubles the performance of a HD 4890. Now look at the other games in [H]'s review. In Shift, it's almost the same case as in Crysis. The performance increase is almost double.
However, the other two games, show increases of 20-50% (Arma II is especially low, on average). Also, you should be looking at Apples to Apples, not the Highest Playable Settings, otherwise you can't make any direct comparisons (within [H]'s review).
Now use the data from other reviews, that have ONLY apples to apples comparisons and contain far more games than the [H] review, to extrapolate the remainder of the data, which compiled, shows that on average, the HD 5870 is about 50% faster than a HD 4890. That's as simple as that.

No one is saying that the HD 5870 is bad card, far from it. The increase in minimum framerates is extremely important for a great gameplay experience. However, on average the HD 5870 is not really doubling the performance of the HD 4890, even if it has double the specs and even if you don't like to hear it.

 

[Silus]

Right, forgot about replying to what I meant with

"Sure, but that isn't the case now, which is the point."

The point, ever since my original post with numbers showing that the performance increase of the HD 5870 over last generation, wasn't really double (as some claimed), was to show that AT RELEASE, the performance increase from 8800/9800GTX to GTX 280 was higher than HD 4890 to HD 5870.

Now obviously drivers will improve and performance will increase, making the HD 5870 faster than it is right now, when compared to the HD 4890. But since we don't have those drivers now, that is nothing more than an assumption and thus we can only talk about the facts we have now.

 

[PRIME1]

If the rumors are true I think the GT300 will be the next G80.

I expect the GTX380 to be faster than a GTX295 and around 80% faster than a GTX285.

So about 40% faster than a 5870.

 

[Dan_D]

Boy everyone keeps forgetting those dual GPU NVIDIA cards. The 9800GX2 was quite popular at the time and frankly the Geforce GTX 280 wasn't really faster. It was faster in some games and was a much better piece of hardware but one thing the 9800GX2 was not, was slow. (For the time.) So really the jump between the 9800GX2 to the Geforce GTX 280 was almost nill. It was the same as it is today. The 5870 is slightly better/faster than the Radeon 4870. Same as before.

Truthfully we've had tons of fairly big jumps and people don't seem to realize it. Each high end card either matches or exceeds the performance of the last generations dual GPU monsters. That's double the performance of the previous single GPU card. That's always impressive. We saw that with the 8800GTX, the 9800GX2, the 4870, and 4870 X2. Today we see a repeat of the same thing. The 5870 is slightly better than the 4870 X2. What made the 8800GTX have so much staying power was circumstance, not technology. The 7950GX2 was a huge piece of shit and everyone knew it. The 8800GTX wasn't a huge upgrade from it in terms of raw performance but it added some features and the major point was that it didn't suffer from such shitty drivers and virtually non-existent Windows Vista SLI support which crippled the card's performance. ATI's 2900XT was late as hell to market and was lackluster.

So really it's easy to see the parallels between today's 5870 and the 8800GTX.

Then:

7950GX2 sucked
Windows Vista Released (This brought the 7950GX2 to it's knees)
New Direct X (Direct X 10)
8800GTX was twice as fast as the 7900GTX (The single GPU king of it's day.)

Now:

4870 X2 / Geforce GTX 295 do not suck
Windows 7 Release
New Direct X (Direct X 11)
5870 is twice as fast as the 4870 (AMD's last single GPU card. Not counting the 4890 refresh.)

There are some key differences. When the 8800GTX came out dual GPU cards were shunned in the wake of the 7950GX2 fiasco. ATI was extremely late with their 2900XT. NVIDIA kept the pressure on with the 8800 Ultra which was only a minor upgrade, and the 8800GTX remained in production and even used the same silicon as the newer 8800 Ultra's later on. This only made them a better bang for your buck option. The 8800GTX remained popular as the 9800GTX wasn't any faster and was in some cases slower. The 9800GX2 wasn't a real upgrade either. Oh sure it was faster than the 8800GTX but it had some problems here and there as well. It's gimpy memory configuration really hurt it in terms of high resolution gaming. Also by then the 8800GTX had been out for so long that many people were running 2 and 3-Way SLI configurations. 8800GTX's were everywhere and they were relatively cheap. So the 9800GX2 and other cards actually provided no tangible benefit over such configurations. 8800GTX 3-Way SLI was a better deal than 9800GX2 quad-SLI. Any advantages the latter might have had were few and far between and weren't worth the cost of the "upgrade."

The gaming industry at the time also factored in. The most demanding thing was Crysis and even with that we all knew that it would be a few generations before Crysis would be playable at 2560x1600 maxed out and running 60FPS. Hell we still can't do that now.

Let's not forget, 5870 X2 is likely on the horizon. That right there will knock the 5870 out in terms of "staying power." So while things look similar to the 8800GTX's situation they really aren't. Or at least, things are different enough to ensure the 5870's life span is relatively short. Basically you'll only see the same kind of staying power if the 5870 X2 gets shelved and GT300 sucks as bad as NV30. Then if after a year NVIDIA still hasn't returned with something better, and AMD's refreshes are only minor, we may see a repeat of the same situation we saw with the 8800GTX. I seriously doubt things will turn out that way.

 

[bangmal]

The 8800 GTX is over-rated. It was not really much faster than the ATI X1950. And the X1950 CF kick its butt(even in the day when multi-gpu driver sucked much more).
memory refreshment:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce8800GTX/6.html

For the c/p ratio, i would say 5870 is better than 8800GTX crap.