5850 just as fast as a 5870?

[toyota]

So, I just read about 3 pages and gave up. Aside from all of this bitterness, can somebody just give me an opinion (with current market prices and future CFX upgrades) about whether the 5850 would be a better buy over the 5870? Simple yes/no, why. I don't need to know the story behind the creating of the first 5850.

just get the 5850. the 5870 is not worth the extra cost and when both cards are overclocked to their max the 5850 is within 5% of the 5870.

 

[MisterDonut]

Thanks. I figured they had minimal differences but wanted to make sure I wasn't missing out on anything now or in the future.

 

[jaggerwild]

So, I just read about 3 pages and gave up. Aside from all of this bitterness, can somebody just give me an opinion (with current market prices and future CFX upgrades) about whether the 5850 would be a better buy over the 5870? Simple yes/no, why. I don't need to know the story behind the creating of the first 5850.

Yes, it can be clocked up to the same speeds of the 5870 and for the price savings its kinda a no brainier. That's not to say they will out perform them cause they won't but the prof is out there just google "5850 as fast as a 5870".

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#h...oq=5850+as+fast+as+a+5870&fp=e8d6ef47431c6a4a

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5850_PCS_Plus/

 

[Schmide]

Proof of this is the Dirt2 benchmark in which if you play it in DX11 the 5870 performance drops astoundingly by 50% !!!
In the other mode the results are in accordance with other results goten from other games.

and the visual quality goes up tremendously. Check your logic before you use statistics to make your point?

 

[SRoode]

I have two 5850s. I bought the 1st one (XFX) when it just came out for $259. Max stable clocks at 1.2V are 900/1150.

I bought the 2nd one for $314 (HIS). Max stable clocks are most likely higher than what I run it at - 1000/1250. I never tried any higher because I was very happy with those settings. The temperature on this one is less than my first at slower clocks.

So, an average of 950/1200 for my two 5850s. The 5870 could be 5%-10% faster at this speed, but to me it was not worth the 33% price premium. I'd go with the 5850.

 

[MisterDonut]

I have two 5850s. I bought the 1st one (XFX) when it just came out for $259. Max stable clocks at 1.2V are 900/1150.

I bought the 2nd one for $314 (HIS). Max stable clocks are most likely higher than what I run it at - 1000/1250. I never tried any higher because I was very happy with those settings. The temperature on this one is less than my first at slower clocks.

So, an average of 950/1200 for my two 5850s. The 5870 could be 5%-10% faster at this speed, but to me it was not worth the 33% price premium. I'd go with the 5850.

May seem like a dumb question, but most of the people I've asked with experience in the ATi vendors told me that XFX would be the best buy (Lifetime warranty, and I'm still young ). Would you say that the higher OC margin on the HIS/PCS/whatever-other-company is worth that lifetime warranty ?

 

[SRoode]

I bought the XFX when it 1st came out, so there may have been more "binning" then when I bought the 2nd card and they were hard to find, so they may have binned less just to get the cards out there. It's a crapshoot. In the end, the extra 5%-10% of overclock is only a couple of FPS, and you won't notice that. If you are interested in re-sell, then the XFX may be the way to go. To me it wasn't, because by the time I get rid of the card, it's not worth too much anyway.

PS - XFX has a DOUBLE lifetime warranty. The person you sell it to has a lifetime warranty as well as long as you register your card.

 

[MisterDonut]

I bought the XFX when it 1st came out, so there may have been more "binning" then when I bought the 2nd card and they were hard to find, so they may have binned less just to get the cards out there. It's a crapshoot. In the end, the extra 5%-10% of overclock is only a couple of FPS, and you won't notice that. If you are interested in re-sell, then the XFX may be the way to go. To me it wasn't, because by the time I get rid of the card, it's not worth too much anyway.

PS - XFX has a DOUBLE lifetime warranty. The person you sell it to has a lifetime warranty as well as long as you register your card.

Yeah, the warranty is super nice on the XFX. I was wondering because the PCS+ had a 25% overclock and pushed out about 20% more frames ? Seemed like a lot, but I've never bothered to really do any testing, so it would probably be naked to my eye. I don't pick up cards too often, so I think the XFX would be the way to go, but maybe somebody has another opinion on the brand ?

 

[AzN]

Awesome, awesome post. I've been reading this thread up to this point, and I just have to throw my hat into the ring on this one. I found this thread by googling '5850 and 5870 at same clocks', because I own both cards (two 5850's, in fact) and wanted to see if others were seeing what I am seeing with the performance of them (i.e. they are very close when at the same clocks).

When it's clocked same bandwidth is becoming a factor when you do things like AA and high resolutions. The fact that that 5850 with 160SP less and 8 less TMU is very close to 5870 at same clocks is proof itself.

Daedalus is dead-on right with this post, in terms of what I've been thinking about your *opinions* AzN.

What you are doing *continually* in this thread is erroneous from the standpoint of the scientific method.

You cannot rightfully determine 'a reason' why the 4870x2 is faster than the 5870. It's IMPOSSIBLE to do so, because they are two different cards, and I don't care WHAT you say, they have a TON of differences. Just because you *think* that the only important difference lies in memory bandwidth (which, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, is not actually true), you DO NOT KNOW THAT. You are GUESSING. Period.

Sure I can determine how the card will perform. I've determined how the 5870 would perform even before it was released when the specs were leaked. How? It's the numbers that dictate computer performance. Not Scientific method. They aren't 2 different as you think it is. They are based on the same architecture with minor improvements. Look it up. It's not that hard to find what ATI have done to 5870 over 4870. I'm not guessing. I've done extensive testing between fillrate and bandwidth and SP. How these units relate to games.

You are violating so many fundamental scientific premises with your entire line of reasoning on this thread, I just felt compelled to chime in. In comparing the 4870x2 with the 5870, you are changing WAY MORE VARIABLES than just the memory bandwidth. Therefore, you CANNOT positively conclude that bandwidth accounts for the difference. Even if it were to 'turn out' that you are actually 'correct', you are still WRONG to claim that you are.

What scientific premises are you talking about? If you are going to mention scientific methods of testing at least come up with evidence showing this. Not just words out of your mouth that doesn't mean squat. The fact that 4870x2 with lower fillrate and SP is beating 5870 with better SP and more tweaks is just that! Bandwidth!!

What is going here with regards to the 5850 vs 5870 issue, to me, seems very simple. This is the exact same phenomenon that one can see when comparing the GTX260 192 vs the GTX275 (at 240sp).

If you were to put these cards at the same clocks (they have 100% identical architectures other than SP's), you would find that the 275 would *only* beat the 260 192sp by 25% (based on the extra shaders it has (240-192/192) = 25%) if you specially devised a test where the shaders were the 100% limiting factor to performance.

Correct.

Much like your pixel fillrate test you continually post here AzN ... it's a test DESIGNED to show a SPECIFIC type of bottleneck.

Quite simply bandwidth and theoretical pixel fill.

Out there in the real world, however, testing games and whatnot, you'd quickly discover that DIFFERENT TESTS (indeed even within the same test, it varies from frame to frame sometimes) can cause bottlenecks in DIFFERENT subsystems of the card!

It's one or the other.

In the real world, you'd likely discover that your 25% shader count advantage would actually give you somewhere between 5% and 22% improvement in frames, and probably the average would be around 10% improvement (off the top of my head).

Is this scientific? What is so different about how you come up your numbers as I come with mine?

And that is because, obviously, shader count is only PART of the card. There's many other links in the chain (tmus, rops, threading engine, compression and AA/AF algorithms, caching bandwidth, memory bandwidth etc), all of which are equally capable of acting as bottlenecks, depending on the demands being made on the card at the time.

Correct. You make a valid point but your idea can be applied into 4870x2 vs 5870. 4870x2 has lower fillrate, less texture fillrate, weaker SP, less cache, same everything else except for BANDWIDTH!

As far as I'm concerned AzN, you've proven nothing with what you've posted on this thread. So, here's another voice adding to the chorus ... I agree with 'everyone else'. You are exercising 'confirmation bias' in an extreme way, picking and choosing data points that seem to bear out (mostly tangentially, at best) what you have decided you already believe.

I suppose these guys pointing drivers is scientific. :/ Seriously you came here to agree and that is all. Even your post only strengthen what I've said. You just don't want to believe it. That's all..

And no matter what, anytime on declares that a certain subsystem on a card is 'the bottleneck' on that card ... they are wrong. Because which part acts as the bottleneck depends on the test you run in order to look for that bottleneck.

Let me remind you again. 4870x2 has weaker core and less of everything except for bandwidth. You implying architectural differences sure. cache and more numbers added on to the RV770 of the same architecture except for bandwidth.

And lastly, RAID 1 does serve as a reasonably accurate analogy with how the memory subsystem of xfire works. Just as nobody in their right mind would claim that you double the bandwidth when you hook up two drives in RAID 1, one should also not claim that running xfire doubles your memory bandwidth. And this because you will get the SAME (or worse) write performance, it's only on reads that you theoretically could get up to a 100% performance increase.

I suppose all this review sites are guilty for putting up double the bandwidth numbers with Xfire or SLI reviews. You might want to email and stop their bolics. :?

 

[AzN]

No, I've read the thread, and it seems you've conveniently forgotten what your wrote (hey, I'd be embarrassed too). Now, are you going to retract any of those claims or prove them? Because right now you've done neither, and you look ridiculous sulking in the corner. At least five other people in this thread have told you you have no idea what you're talking about. The problem is you, not everyone else, and it's too funny watching you get hot behind the ears.

I understand you don't know how to read. So you need other people to tell you don't know how to read to determine if you don't know how to read or not? I know I don't. Just like those 5 guys don't know what they are talking about. I don't get hot behind the years with debates, arguments and talking like you. I'm too cool for that.

The fact that you didn't understand me is your fault. Even in your quotes is where I'm implying compared to cards before it. You can keep on trying to blame shit on me about what I said but I'm just smirking over here bud.

 

[MrK6]

I understand you don't know how to read. So you need other people to tell you don't know how to read to determine if you don't know how to read or not? I know I don't. Just like those 5 guys don't know what they are talking about. I don't get hot behind the years with debates, arguments and talking like you. I'm too cool for that.

The fact that you didn't understand me is your fault. Even in your quotes is where I'm implying compared to cards before it. You can keep on trying to blame shit on me about what I said but I'm just smirking over here bud.

We're all speaking English, what are you trying to communicate in? Like I said, when at least five other people tell you "you have no idea what you're talking about" you either A) failed at communicating or B) have no idea what you're talking about. You still have yet to respond to any of the defeats of your claims and sit in the corner sulking like a child. You can add that to the list of things you've said or done in this thread that have made you look foolish. You can keep stay in denial and say "no YOU'RE the problem" all you want, everyone else who's read this thread is still laughing at you. It'll be great to hotlink to if you fail in another discussion as well. How much do you value your credibility?

 

[hans030390]

...I'm not guessing. I've done extensive testing between fillrate and bandwidth and SP. How these units relate to games.

Ok...and we have someone else who has also done testing. Probably more than you. He's the only one who's said "I've done testing" and then shows all of his tests. You say the same thing without listing what testing you've done (other than generally vague ideas), and you certainly don't have anything to prove your claim.

That aside, you've made it well known that you haven't actually gotten your hands on a few 5000 series cards for testing (which, if you didn't know, are the cards we're discussing).

"Extensive testing". Right.

 

[AzN]

Ok...and we have someone else who has also done testing. Probably more than you. He's the only one who's said "I've done testing" and then shows all of his tests. You say the same thing without listing what testing you've done (other than generally vague ideas), and you certainly don't have anything to prove your claim.

That aside, you've made it well known that you haven't actually gotten your hands on a few 5000 series cards for testing (which, if you didn't know, are the cards we're discussing).

"Extensive testing". Right.

I love how you stick and point but what about xbit and hardwarecanucks? These hardware sites are lying I suppose.

I don't need 5000 cards to tell you bandwidth is the culprit in minimum fps and even average frame rates when you compare to cards before it. Obviously you do because you've never understood how cards based on rasterizer operate in game.

 

[AzN]

We're all speaking English, what are you trying to communicate in? Like I said, when at least five other people tell you "you have no idea what you're talking about" you either A) failed at communicating or B) have no idea what you're talking about. You still have yet to respond to any of the defeats of your claims and sit in the corner sulking like a child. You can add that to the list of things you've said or done in this thread that have made you look foolish. You can keep stay in denial and say "no YOU'RE the problem" all you want, everyone else who's read this thread is still laughing at you. It'll be great to hotlink to if you fail in another discussion as well. How much do you value your credibility?

Like I said. You don't know how to read. The only one crying is you to point. "you said this and said that" mehhhh *cry*

In your eyes I must be the fool for pointing out evidence with benchmark numbers from 2 reputable hardware sites showing you exact same thing with minimum fps then agree with mindless drivel from people saying it's drivers. pfff.

 

[Daedalus685]

If the ignorance of the general public, or even minorities in it, got to us at every moment we would certainly live rather miserable lives.

Just let him be in his delusions, he is well within his right to continue to be wrong. It is not my, nor anyone else's, problem that he doesn't want to learn. There is only so many ways one can repeat logical arguments before it is depressing.

When AzN understands how a GPU is manufactured, what scaling means, and how crossfire works (your repeated refusal to even basically understand that crossfire is not a straight doubling is beyond me.. yet you still use the 4870x2 as proof...) then we can have a discussion. As it stands we may as well go argue with creationists about evolution. They are just as stubborn in their refusal to accept reality.. but at least it is hilarious.

"I'm right because your wrong, anything you say is wrong because you are wrong, so I've proven that I am right." Seems to be the way this sort of thing works with fundies.. not much different here.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with extrapolating performance based on specs. But you are extrapolating reasons for this performance based on specs that you are misunderstanding, and you choose to ignore aspects of the specs that make you seem even slightly less right. That is the issue, there is obviously nothing wrong with honest theoretical discourse.. It is perfectly scientific if done correctly.

 

[MrK6]

If the ignorance of the general public, or even minorities in it, got to us at every moment we would certainly live rather miserable lives.

Just let him be in his delusions, he is well within his right to continue to be wrong. It is not my, nor anyone else's, problem that he doesn't want to learn. There is only so many ways one can repeat logical arguments before it is depressing.

When AzN understands how a GPU is manufactured, what scaling means, and how crossfire works (your repeated refusal to even basically understand that crossfire is not a straight doubling is beyond me.. yet you still use the 4870x2 as proof...) then we can have a discussion. As it stands we may as well go argue with creationists about evolution. They are just as stubborn in their refusal to accept reality.. but at least it is hilarious.

"I'm right because your wrong, anything you say is wrong because you are wrong, so I've proven that I am right." Seems to be the way this sort of thing works with fundies.. not much different here.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with extrapolating performance based on specs. But you are extrapolating reasons for this performance based on specs that you are misunderstanding, and you choose to ignore aspects of the specs that make you seem even slightly less right. That is the issue, there is obviously nothing wrong with honest theoretical discourse.. It is perfectly scientific if done correctly.

Well said. But please keep posting. You'll notice that his posts are getting shorter because he's misrepresented and screwed up so many basic concepts in this thread there is literally nothing he can reply to with any substance without showing his foolishness and ignorance. If he was smart he'd leave, but he's still here . I'm bored on rounds and still have more time to go, so I look at this as a game of chess. We're almost at checkmate though .

Like I said. You don't know how to read. The only one crying is you to point. "you said this and said that" mehhhh *cry*

In your eyes I must be the fool for pointing out evidence with benchmark numbers from 2 reputable hardware sites showing you exact same thing with minimum fps then agree with mindless drivel from people saying it's drivers. pfff.

Like I said, shorter and shorter. I tell you what, I'll let you have a gimme (call it taking a piece back): write out any one of your original disputed statements or claims (with a citation to it in this thread), and we can go through it together and pick out why you were wrong. Unless you lack the maturity and fortitude. Then you can go on continuing making lame attempts at insulting everyone while dodging any material of substance and well, I will have already won.

 

[AzN]

If the ignorance of the general public, or even minorities in it, got to us at every moment we would certainly live rather miserable lives.

Just let him be in his delusions, he is well within his right to continue to be wrong. It is not my, nor anyone else's, problem that he doesn't want to learn. There is only so many ways one can repeat logical arguments before it is depressing.

When AzN understands how a GPU is manufactured, what scaling means, and how crossfire works (your repeated refusal to even basically understand that crossfire is not a straight doubling is beyond me.. yet you still use the 4870x2 as proof...) then we can have a discussion. As it stands we may as well go argue with creationists about evolution. They are just as stubborn in their refusal to accept reality.. but at least it is hilarious.

"I'm right because your wrong, anything you say is wrong because you are wrong, so I've proven that I am right." Seems to be the way this sort of thing works with fundies.. not much different here.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with extrapolating performance based on specs. But you are extrapolating reasons for this performance based on specs that you are misunderstanding, and you choose to ignore aspects of the specs that make you seem even slightly less right. That is the issue, there is obviously nothing wrong with honest theoretical discourse.. It is perfectly scientific if done correctly.

Never mind the benches showing differences between 4890 and 5770 with dramatic differences in minimum fps with 2 hardware sites to back it up. Supposedly it's wrong wrong wrong by 5 people in internet forum without shroud of evidence.

You might be in luck to prove your ignorance once and for all.

5830 will be released. This card will released with gddr5 to perform similar as 4890. I'm guessing same specs as 4890 if it performs similar.

 

[AzN]

Well said. But please keep posting. You'll notice that his posts are getting shorter because he's misrepresented and screwed up so many basic concepts in this thread there is literally nothing he can reply to with any substance without showing his foolishness and ignorance. If he was smart he'd leave, but he's still here . I'm bored on rounds and still have more time to go, so I look at this as a game of chess. We're almost at checkmate though .

ROFL.. Without substance is you. You bring to the table no evidence no proof. He said this and that. *cry* wisp wisp. Where's my same ignorant backup.. YAY!!!! lol

Like I said, shorter and shorter. I tell you what, I'll let you have a gimme (call it taking a piece back): write out any one of your original disputed statements or claims (with a citation to it in this thread), and we can go through it together and pick out why you were wrong. Unless you lack the maturity and fortitude. Then you can go on continuing making lame attempts at insulting everyone while dodging any material of substance and well, I will have already won.

I can point to what BFG said in his post about bandwidth making no difference in minimum fps but drivers. Then only point to things that fits my agenda but I'm just not idiotic enough like you...

 

[Daedalus685]

Never mind the benches showing differences between 4890 and 5770 with dramatic differences in minimum fps with 2 hardware sites to back it up. Supposedly it's wrong wrong wrong by 5 people in internet forum without shroud of evidence.

You might be in luck to prove your ignorance once and for all.

5830 will be released. This card will released with gddr5 to perform similar as 4890. I'm guessing same specs as 4890 if it performs similar.

You are over simplifying the situation far too much. I'm not sure if it is because you do not understand what you are talking about or are trying to be evasive..

I keep telling you that you don't understand what minimum FPS represents in that context.. but go on, keep referring to it.. It is not 'wrong, wrong, wrong'.. it is just nonsense.

Memory bandwidth is important... just not as important as you think it is. All we have been trying to communicate is that the other changes to the core can also come into play, so you cannot know for certain memory is the issue. I also take issue with your failure to understand how crossfire is not a straight doubling.

If a card (call it a 5830) is released that has the exact specs as the 4890 comes out, and the performance is the same. It will be likely that the 5770 is only slower than the 4890 because of memory.. However, no one was ever saying that couldn't be.. just that it is no more likely than a slew of other considerations you refuse to grasp.

I still find it unlikely that the memory is responsible in the case of the 5870 (no the 4870x2 does not prove anything.. don't make us explain why that is ridiculous again), though it is much more likely in the 5770.. (this thread is not about the 5770 remember)..

sigh...

 

[MrK6]

ROFL.. Without substance is you. You bring to the table no evidence no proof. He said this and that. *cry* wisp wisp. Where's my same ignorant backup.. YAY!!!! lol

I can point to what BFG said in his post about bandwidth making no difference in minimum fps but drivers. Then only point to things that fits my agenda but I'm just not idiotic enough like you...

Like I said, you sit there sulking and calling names like a two year old, but haven't produced a single defense. The ball's in your court kid: BFG already tore your arguments apart and asked you to either recant or rebut several points, none of which you have addressed. Go point out "what BFG said" and prove him wrong. Otherwise you just look like a fool posting insults because you can't back up your stupidity.

 

[AzN]

You are over simplifying the situation far too much. I'm not sure if it is because you do not understand what you are talking about or are trying to be evasive..

I keep telling you that you don't understand what minimum FPS represents in that context.. but go on, keep referring to it.. It is not 'wrong, wrong, wrong'.. it is just nonsense.

You keep telling me without a shroud of evidence. While I gave you so many samples of minimum fps plummeting with bandwidth. You just don't want to believe it even with proof. Nothing I can do for your ignorance.

Memory bandwidth is important... just not as important as you think it is. All we have been trying to communicate is that the other changes to the core can also come into play, so you cannot know for certain memory is the issue. I also take issue with your failure to understand how crossfire is not a straight doubling.

If a card (call it a 5830) is released that has the exact specs as the 4890 comes out, and the performance is the same. It will be likely that the 5770 is only slower than the 4890 because of memory.. However, no one was ever saying that couldn't be.. just that it is no more likely than a slew of other considerations you refuse to grasp.

I still find it unlikely that the memory is responsible in the case of the 5870 (no the 4870x2 does not prove anything.. don't make us explain why that is ridiculous again), though it is much more likely in the 5770.. (this thread is not about the 5770 remember)..

sigh...

You can sit here cry all you want because you want to prove I was wrong wrong wrong but without a single shroud of evidence you look like the ignorant one from where I'm sitting.

Even if 5830 was released with same specs as 4890 you don't want to believe it. I figured as much. Slew of other considerations like what? Before it was architectural difference but what now? Oh that's right nothing you are just being hard headed. :/

Why don't you explain to me why 4890 performs much better in minimum fps over 5770. Oh that's right you don't know. You have no idea but you think I'm wrong wrong wrong. *roll eyes*

 

[AzN]

Like I said, you sit there sulking and calling names like a two year old, but haven't produced a single defense. The ball's in your court kid: BFG already tore your arguments apart and asked you to either recant or rebut several points, none of which you have addressed. Go point out "what BFG said" and prove him wrong. Otherwise you just look like a fool posting insults because you can't back up your stupidity.

Who's calling names? You the one yapping KID KID KID when I'm in my mid 30's. You seriously need your little boys to back you up because you can't stand up for your own. You are just mindless who needs to agree with majority. Go play the follow the leader.

 

[MrK6]

Who's calling names? You the one yapping KID KID KID when I'm in my mid 30's. You seriously need your little boys to back you up because you can't stand up for your own. You are just mindless who needs to agree with majority. Go play the follow the leader.

I don't know this - I do know you act like a child, hence you get called a child. And yet another post where you haven't addressed any of your claims. So you're admitting you're wrong and have no idea what you're talking about? Because this is about the fifth time I've asked for you to defend even one of them, and you still haven't. Therefore there's nothing else to assume - you have no idea what you're talking about, but lack the mettle to admit you were wrong and the maturity to discuss it. 30 or not, you're still 10 inside. Pathetic.

 

[evolucion8]

Or the drivers aren’t using the extra units properly, or aren’t using them at all. This could be intentional, or a genuine driver issue.

I’ve been saying almost right from the start that I believe the entire 5xxx series is underperforming and I expect future drivers to correct this, probably when Fermi arrives. Either that or there’s a severe hardware bottleneck that’s holding back performance.

It makes sense, considering that the HD 5x00 architecture is very wide, is very hard to keep all units busy without clever compiler optimizations. Considering that it shares lots of similarities with the RV770 and the fact that all its units like TMUs/ROP/Shader increased linearly, it should rule out that there's a bottleneck or issue at the hardware level, but I'm no engineer so is just speculation by my part.

 

[AzN]

I don't know this - I do know you act like a child, hence you get called a child. And yet another post where you haven't addressed any of your claims. So you're admitting you're wrong and have no idea what you're talking about? Because this is about the fifth time I've asked for you to defend even one of them, and you still haven't. Therefore there's nothing else to assume - you have no idea what you're talking about, but lack the mettle to admit you were wrong and the maturity to discuss it. 30 or not, you're still 10 inside. Pathetic.

Right I act like a child for for debating. More like I bring information to the mass and none wants to hear because BFG and his buddy said so and the mindless who need to agree. Let me tell you something about BFG that occurred 2 years ago, he also said SP made the biggest difference when I first joined the forum while I said fillrate and right combination of bandwidth. We had 20 page thread arguing back and forth. After BFG tested for himself in his 8800 ultra bottleneck investigation he found out that core makes biggest difference and than followed by bandwidth. So yeah BFG knows a lot of technical terms sure but I know a lot of math related problems and good at problem solving.

I don't need to defend myself with mindless drivel from you. You pick post that only applies to your agenda. In other words. Trolling.