VR-Zone: RV770 Preliminary Performance Revealed

D

defiant007

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
3,497
http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/RV770_Preliminary_Performance_Revealed/5782.html

We have received some preliminary performance numbers from CJ for Radeon HD 4870 and 4850 vs the current GeForce 9800 series lineup. Apparently, RV770XT with GDDR5 (160W) will run 1.3X faster than RV770PRO with GDDR3 (110W). Two key factors that contribute to the difference in performance between the 2 cards: a 100MHz core clock difference and a faster GDDR5 at 1.96GHz vs GDDR3 at 1GHz. Interesting, RV770PRO will run 1.25X faster than GeForce 8800 GT/9800 GT while RV770XT will run 1.25X faster than GeForce 9800 GTX.
Click to expand...

Hmmm doesnt sound very impressive, especially if the rumored specs of the GTX 280 are true :(
 
It doesn't sound bad. If the rumored release dates are true, we should start seeing real performance number in a couple of weeks.
 
pxc said:
It doesn't sound bad. If the rumored release dates are true, we should start seeing real performance number in a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

I guess ATI intend to compete on price to performance anyway. Anything that allows GPU's to be available at more competitive prices is a good thing for PC gaming. Getting sick of the argument that X consoles are better than PC's because video cards are too expensive.
 
This is what vr-zone says:
4870 is 30% faster than a 4850
The 4850 is 25% faster than a 9800 GT
The 4870 is 25% faster than a 9800 GTX

Their math doesn't add up.

Coming from the 8800 GT with 112 SPs with the 9800 GTX having 128 SPs, there at least a 15% gap in performance. From what I have seen the 9800 GT will have about the same performance as a 8800 GT too. So with that you can say that the 4850 will be about 10% faster then a 9800 GTX. Putting a 4870 at least 40% faster then a 9800 GTX (Adding the 30% on to the 10%). This is the main reason I don't believe it.
 
Rumoured specs for GTX 280 and specially GTX 260 isn't that promising.

For example GTX 260 will have 56 TMUs and is rumoured to have smaller texture mapping performance than 8800 GT. Also GTX 280 will have 80 TMUs and should have smaller texture mapping performance than 9800 GTX

When 8800 GTS 512 had over 55% better texture mapping performance than for example HD3870 X2 now GTX 280 should have slightly smaller texture mapping performance than HD4870 X2. Also difference in shader performance has moved more in favor of AMD..
 
We'll see when the cards come out. It's all speculation until the cards actually hits. Don't be fooled by specs you see on paper. You guys should know that by now.
 
xBanzai89 said:
This is what vr-zone says:
4870 is 30% faster than a 4850
The 4850 is 25% faster than a 9800 GT
The 4870 is 25% faster than a 9800 GTX

Their math doesn't add up.

Coming from the 8800 GT with 112 SPs with the 9800 GTX having 128 SPs, there at least a 15% gap in performance. From what I have seen the 9800 GT will have about the same performance as a 8800 GT too. So with that you can say that the 4850 will be about 10% faster then a 9800 GTX. Putting a 4870 at least 40% faster then a 9800 GTX (Adding the 30% on to the 10%). This is the main reason I don't believe it.
Click to expand...
Your math doesn't add up

Let's say that HD4870 would have performance of "100":
HD4870 - 100
9800 GTX - 80 [HD4870 / 1.25]
HD4850 - 77 [HD4870 / 1.3]
9800 GT - 62 [(HD4870 / 1.3)/1.25]
 
DarkLegacy said:
We'll see when the cards come out. It's all speculation until the cards actually hits. Don't be fooled by specs you see on paper. You guys should know that by now.
Click to expand...
Well so far specs on paper have told us pretty much everything about performance. It did it with 8800 GTS/GTX and it did with HD2900XT
 
Niceone said:
Your math doesn't add up

Let's say that HD4870 would have performance of "100":
HD4870 - 100
9800 GTX - 80 [HD4870 / 1.25]
HD4850 - 77 [HD4870 / 1.3]
9800 GT - 62 [(HD4870 / 1.3)/1.25]
Click to expand...

According to that scenario it does work, but it doesn't add up in the end.

9800 GT has 112 SPs
9800 GTX has 128 SPs
128/112=1.15
Giving the GTX a 1.15X more performance

4850 to what this says is 1.25X more powerful then a 9800 GT
1.25-1.15=1.10
4850 has 1.10X better performance then a 9800 GTX

4870 is 1.30X more powerful then a 4850
1.30+1.10=1.40
Which leaves the 9800 GTX 1.40X slower then a 4870
 
xBanzai89 said:
According to that scenario it does work, but it doesn't add up in the end.

9800 GT has 112 SPs
9800 GTX has 128 SPs
128/112=1.15
Giving the GTX a 1.15X more performance

4850 to what this says is 1.25X more powerful then a 9800 GT
1.25-1.15=1.10
4850 has 1.10X better performance then a 9800 GTX

4870 is 1.30X more powerful then a 4850
1.30+1.10=1.40
Which leaves the 9800 GTX 1.40X slower then a 4870
Click to expand...
1) Number of SP units doesn't tell everything: 9800 GTX also has 12.5% higher clock frequencies and if you add things up you'll get..suprise suprise..30% higher shader performance for 9800GTX. [1.125*(128/112)=1.286]

2) You don't calculate those percentage things with "minus" or "plus"-calculations.

For example if we assume that 4850 would be 10% faster than 9800 GTX and that 4870 would be 30% faster than 4850 then 4870 would be actually 43% faster. Why if 9800 GTX would have 100 for performance number:
9800 GTX=100 ----> HD4850=110 (because 100*1,1=110)
HD4850=110 ---> HD4870=143 (because 110*1,3=143)

..but your calculations got wrong already in that first step. So according to real life scores and logical calculations 9800 GTX should indeed be that around 30% faster than 9800 GT and thus slightly faster than HD4850 ..just as they claim..
 
that's not true either, a 9600GT has half the shader power of an 8800gts 512, yet it still preforms alot better then 50% ^^ it's not so easy, shader power difference doesn't equal performance in the G80/G92 line up
 
xBanzai89 said:
This is what vr-zone says:
4870 is 30% faster than a 4850
The 4850 is 25% faster than a 9800 GT
The 4870 is 25% faster than a 9800 GTX

Their math doesn't add up.

Coming from the 8800 GT with 112 SPs with the 9800 GTX having 128 SPs, there at least a 15% gap in performance. From what I have seen the 9800 GT will have about the same performance as a 8800 GT too. So with that you can say that the 4850 will be about 10% faster then a 9800 GTX. Putting a 4870 at least 40% faster then a 9800 GTX (Adding the 30% on to the 10%). This is the main reason I don't believe it.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious. Those are estimates and the differences will be different in different games and at different resolutions. It's like you've never seen any comparison benchmarks before.
 
I think it looks like a tasty card for $199. Remember, 8600GTS and 2600XT's used to be released for $199. These new "mid range" cards are fantastic!
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
that's not true either, a 9600GT has half the shader power of an 8800gts 512, yet it still preforms alot better then 50% ^^ it's not so easy, shader power difference doesn't equal performance in the G80/G92 line up
Click to expand...
Well yea.. SP power also mirrors TMU performance inside those Nvidia series, but there's also memory bandwidht issues.

Reason why 9600 GT performs that well against 8800 GTS 512 is that latter one is more bottlenecked from memory bandwidht issues.
 
I ll get whatever single (dual core or single core) is faster than the 9800gx2 : / and is released first
 
Remember this: RV770 is meant for the *mainstream* market. The high-end enthusiast cards released first will be the GTX 280 and GTX 260, but those look to be priced at $500+. The RV770 looks like it will hit the $200-300 range, where Nvidia has nothing. If those numbers are indeed true, then for $300 having 25% more performance than a 9800GTX is quite amazing. Its no wonder that Nvidia is pushing hard for the 55nm G92b to compete against RV770. GT200's competition should be the R700 aka 4870X2 anyways.
 
Niceone said:
Well so far specs on paper have told us pretty much everything about performance. It did it with 8800 GTS/GTX and it did with HD2900XT
Click to expand...

The 8800 GTS/GTX performed better than anyone expected out of the box. The HD2900XT had really high 3D marks & that was it. The performance wasn't all that great & the AA/AF was broken like hell. Don't know what sources you were looking at but they were wrong.
 
DarkLegacy said:
The 8800 GTS/GTX performed better than anyone expected out of the box. The HD2900XT had really high 3D marks & that was it. The performance wasn't all that great & the AA/AF was broken like hell. Don't know what sources you were looking at but they were wrong.
Click to expand...
WHAT? 8800 GTX were expected to be monster. Geforce 7900 and 7950 series had serious shader bottleneck. For example 7950 GX2 had 2x32 shaders (8xVertex, 24xPixel) working at 500MHz. Now 8800 GTX had 128 shaders working at 1350MHz. So this shader issue were fixed.

It also didn't have the mem bandwidht problem that 7950 GX2 had.. 7950 GX2 had 2x38.4GB/s mem bandwidht which basically was, due to nature of SLI configuration, 38.4GB/s..pitting this against 86.4GB/s of 8800 GTX. 7950 GX2 had 2x24 TMU's against 8800 GTX's 32..and had theoretically higher texture mapping performance.

Also going from dual GPU to single GPU..everyone knew that SLI didn't have that great efficiency.
----

8800 GTX looked so sweet on paper..It had very balanced specs unlike HD2900 XT. HD2900 XT were brilliant on shader performance (though Nvidia's shaders were more capable), but you could see from specs that it lacked texture mapping performance which were going to be huge bottleneck, specially with AA&AF

Are you saying that nobody noticed that HD2900 XT had the same amount of TMUs as X800 XL already had three years before?
 
My question is very simple :)

Will the new 4870 single chip be much faster than the classic 8800GTX or just a little bit ? A lot faster to me would be like 50+%, a little faster is only like 25-30% at most, which will it be ?


Also is the AA issue finally fixed, meaning you can crank up the AA with little performance hits ?
 
Just a little bit from the looks of it. But should be priced competitively.
 
Double the SP and TMU performance and remove memory bandwidht bottleneck. Should be over two times faster than HD3870 should easily go ahead of 8800 GTX
----

GTX 280's rumoured specs..well it should have 85% of 9800 GX2's shader power and 55% of it's texture mapping performance. It will have better mem bandwidht and it's not SLI..Should beat 9800 GX2, but will lose badly against HD4870 X2.

Well.. Nvidia would need new architecture to remain top player in enthusiast level. GT200 is still G80 architecture.
 
Zorachus said:
My question is very simple :)

Will the new 4870 single chip be much faster than the classic 8800GTX or just a little bit ? A lot faster to me would be like 50+%, a little faster is only like 25-30% at most, which will it be ?


Also is the AA issue finally fixed, meaning you can crank up the AA with little performance hits ?
Click to expand...

If 8800GTX is ~9800GTX or a little slower, then 4870 should be 25-40% faster than 8800GTX supposedly, but no one has numbers yet.

As far as AA goes, its supposed to be fixed, as is AF. 2x the TMU's, double the operations of ROPS, and more shaders should help.
 
ZerazaX said:
If 8800GTX is ~9800GTX or a little slower, then 4870 should be 25-40% faster than 8800GTX supposedly, but no one has numbers yet.

As far as AA goes, its supposed to be fixed, as is AF. 2x the TMU's, double the operations of ROPS, and more shaders should help.
Click to expand...
8800 GTX is faster than 9800 GTX, at least with best playable settings. For example at 1600x1200 8xAA 16xAF 8800 GTX is like 30% faster on average.
 
Zorachus said:
My question is very simple :)

Will the new 4870 single chip be much faster than the classic 8800GTX or just a little bit ? A lot faster to me would be like 50+%, a little faster is only like 25-30% at most, which will it be ?


Also is the AA issue finally fixed, meaning you can crank up the AA with little performance hits ?
Click to expand...

Not substantially faster than an 8800GTX, particularly at very high resolutions, assuming these preliminary numbers hold at all. Then again, the 8800 GTX is still faster than (or at least as fast as, despite lower clocked shaders) the 9800 GTX in many cases at very high resolutions due to better memory bandwidth. Considering the 8800 GTX is down to ~$250 AR from time to time, I wouldn't count it as very competitive. Especially if you're running below 1920x1200, where the 8800 GTS 512MB is just as fast as the 8800 GTX in most cases, and can be had for ~$220 AR. Power draw would be better on the ATI card, though, so if that's a big thing for you...

As for the AA/AF thing, no one knows yet. Hopefully? It'd be especially pathetic for ATI to release 3 generations of cards with broken AA hardware, all the while more or less telling the rest of the world "geeze you're doin' it wrong." Time for them to wise up.
 
if its $300, runs cool, and is quiet its faster than G92 then its good

nuff said
 
silent-circuit said:
Not substantially faster than an 8800GTX, particularly at very high resolutions, assuming these preliminary numbers hold at all. Then again, the 8800 GTX is still faster than (or at least as fast as, despite lower clocked shaders) the 9800 GTX in many cases at very high resolutions due to better memory bandwidth. Considering the 8800 GTX is down to ~$250 AR from time to time, I wouldn't count it as very competitive. Especially if you're running below 1920x1200, where the 8800 GTS 512MB is just as fast as the 8800 GTX in most cases, and can be had for ~$220 AR. Power draw would be better on the ATI card, though, so if that's a big thing for you...

As for the AA/AF thing, no one knows yet. Hopefully? It'd be especially pathetic for ATI to release 3 generations of cards with broken AA hardware, all the while more or less telling the rest of the world "geeze you're doin' it wrong." Time for them to wise up.
Click to expand...

Its true that the 8800GTX/Ultra with the higher memory bandwidth and so on can outperform G92, but at the same time, that seems to be an Nvidia architecture / G80+derivatives issue.

Nvidia cards certainly seem to be affected by memory bandwidth a lot more than the R600/RV670 - after all, R600 had a 512-bit bus that was shrunk to 256-bit for RV670 and it didnt seem to affect it, whereas 384-bit to 256-bit on the 8800GTX to G92 seemed to hurt a lot more at 1920x1080+.

So we can't really tell how the 48xx's will scale at higher resolutions versus the 9800GTX/8800GTX.

Anyways, one month to go..
 
Rattle said:
if its $300, runs cool, and is quiet its faster than G92 then its good

nuff said
Click to expand...

Exactly. Although the MSRP is $250, so it's an even better value.

The 4870X2 is the high-end part intended to compete with the GTX 280, so I don't know why people are complaining this isn't 'good' enough.
 
So if I get 45fps with my 9800gtx in Crysis, then the RV770XT would put out 56fps ??
 
rocketr2 said:
So if I get 45fps with my 9800gtx in Crysis, then the RV770XT would put out 56fps ??
Click to expand...

No way to know until they hit. We have no idea how they came up with the "relative percentage" numbers, and percentage differences are /never/ the same across the board through different games. Have to wait.
 
Just got a 8800gt 512mb for 130$ I hope the 4850's come in almost doubling performance at 170$. then I'll upgrade to a pair of them in fall :)
 
http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=19907&catid=2

Just like its arch-rival from Santa Clara, AMD can't keep info regarding its future products from reaching the interweb. The latest thing that slipped was the real and final number of Stream Processors of the 55nm RV770 hip. As posted (but later modified) by Vijay Pande of the Pande Group, the RV770 will have no less than 480 SPs, the number being a significant increase over the RV670 and its 320 Stream Processors.

The 480 SPs will be the backbone for both the Radeon HD 4850 and 4870 while the 4870 X2 will of course, boast 960 SPs due to the use of two RV770 chips. All three cards will also feature PCI-Express 2.0 and DirectX 10.1 support, UVD and 256-bit memory interfaces. Now all we need is the final clocks and we'll be ready for another round of the fanboy (and fangirl) wars.
Click to expand...
 
Brownstone said:
I ll get whatever single (dual core or single core) is faster than the 9800gx2 : / and is released first
Click to expand...

Same...well...I will wait untill both are released and see what is faster. By the sounds of things the new batches of cards will be released a few days apart. But I'm itching to upgrade my 8800GTX to a similar equivelent from the generation above it, and the 9800GTX just wasn't a generation ahead, despite the name.
 
Zorachus said:
My question is very simple :)

Will the new 4870 single chip be much faster than the classic 8800GTX or just a little bit ? A lot faster to me would be like 50+%, a little faster is only like 25-30% at most, which will it be ?


Also is the AA issue finally fixed, meaning you can crank up the AA with little performance hits ?
Click to expand...

Using rumored specs alone, the HD 4870 should be about equal to or slightly better than the HD 3870 X2. 50% faster than the 8800 GTX is unlikely, but it may happen in some cases.

As for AA, rumors say it was fixed, but that, just like real performance numbers, will only be seen when the cards are released and tested.
 
rocketr2 said:
So if I get 45fps with my 9800gtx in Crysis, then the RV770XT would put out 56fps ??
Click to expand...

Look at HD 3870 X2 numbers and you should get a pretty good indication of how the HD 4870 (RV770 XT) will perform, in most cases.
 
Niceone said:
Double the SP and TMU performance and remove memory bandwidht bottleneck. Should be over two times faster than HD3870 should easily go ahead of 8800 GTX
----

GTX 280's rumoured specs..well it should have 85% of 9800 GX2's shader power and 55% of it's texture mapping performance. It will have better mem bandwidht and it's not SLI..Should beat 9800 GX2, but will lose badly against HD4870 X2.

Well.. Nvidia would need new architecture to remain top player in enthusiast level. GT200 is still G80 architecture.
Click to expand...

Actually, GTX 280 shouldn't lose badly to the HD 4870 X2. You seem to be assuming that the HD 4870 X2 is twice as fast as the HD 4870, which is highly unlikely, especially considering Crossfire woes.

Look at the 8800 GTX/Ultra vs HD 3870 X2 and you will have a pretty good idea of what will be the difference between the GTX 280 and HD 4870 X2 i.e. Ultra wins some the X2 wins some.
 
I am looking foreward to replacing me 1900xtx.. ATI drivers are good compared to nvidia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top