AMD 6900 reviews thread (UPDATED)

[WelshBloke]

It doesnt, but that isnt what we are talking about. We are talking about what is "amds" answer to the 460. The 5850 isnt their answer.

The 5850 is an AMD card, its available therefore its an alternative to the 460.

 

[Genx87]

Throwing out Wreckages point (which is valid but is complicating the point I'm trying to make), any card available is a valid answer to another if its priced the same and performs the same.

What AMD says is an answer to the 460 is irrelevant, unless you make your purchasing decisions purely on what AMD marketing tell you.

What you responded to explicitly said "I fail to see AMD's "answer" to the 460".

 

[WelshBloke]

What you responded to explicitly said "I fail to see AMD's "answer" to the 460".

In what way is the 5850 not an AMD card?
In what way does it not compete with the 460?

How is it not an AMD answer to the Nvidia GTX460?

Anyway this is irrelevant now, as wreakage has pointed out the difference in price.

Lets get back on the subject of the thread, which is helping me decide what card to buy. :ninja:

 

[Wreckage]

The 6850/6870 were the answer to the 460. However, price drops have changed the answer.

 

[WelshBloke]

The 6850/6870 were the answer to the 460. However, price drops have changed the answer.

The 6850 splits the 460 768mb and 1012mb in price over here.

 

[Zargon]

Ignorance is a bad foundation.

You find me a CPU destructable architechture game where the debris dosn't dissapear after 10-15 seconds...and have more than 5000 interactive objects.

If you can't no need to post again...like I said, ignorace will only make you look like someone without a clue...

🙄

the only destuctible environment games I've played lately are both havok games, RFG and BC2. I try to spend more time playing games than I do reading phyics engine specs. I guess its my fault I didnt get into any of the physx titles, but I certainly dont let what physics engine a game uses on name alone determine my spending.

 

[exar333]

The 6850 splits the 460 768mb and 1012mb in price over here.

That probably makes the 6850 a better option then. Truth be told, at the same price point, the 6850 is better option if you plan to leave your card at stock and the 460 has s slight edge if you plan to OC. If the 6850 is cheaper, then it gets the nod IMHO. In the US, usually the 6850 is a little more than the 460 when it comes to the best deals available. Close though...

 

[happy medium]

That probably makes the 6850 a better option then. Truth be told, at the same price point, the 6850 is better option if you plan to leave your card at stock and the 460 has s slight edge if you plan to OC. If the 6850 is cheaper, then it gets the nod IMHO. In the US, usually the 6850 is a little more than the 460 when it comes to the best deals available. Close though...

Its a 25$ difference, thats not close for a cards in the 155$ bracket.

 

[WelshBloke]

That probably makes the 6850 a better option then. Truth be told, at the same price point, the 6850 is better option if you plan to leave your card at stock and the 460 has s slight edge if you plan to OC. If the 6850 is cheaper, then it gets the nod IMHO. In the US, usually the 6850 is a little more than the 460 when it comes to the best deals available. Close though...

I've not hunted around for good deals on the 460/6850 so YMMV.

 

[Smartazz]

🙄

the only destuctible environment games I've played lately are both havok games, RFG and BC2. I try to spend more time playing games than I do reading phyics engine specs. I guess its my fault I didnt get into any of the physx titles, but I certainly dont let what physics engine a game uses on name alone determine my spending.

I don't really care for extreme physics effects, but I want enough to enhance the game experience. I was playing Crysis the other day and drove a flaming car into a house and watched it explode, along with a bunch of enemies inside. While the physics in that game aren't cutting edge, it definitely adds to the immersive aspect of the game. Point being, that I think some physics are important, but taking away graphics horsepower to get better physics is a mistake, which is my problem with physx.

 

[SickBeast]

The 6850 is interesting; they went on sale for $150 recently. The problem is, you can get a 768mb GTX 460 for $120 right now. Overclocked the two cards will perform pretty much the same. I guess it comes down to your preferences. You get 256mb of extra memory with the AMD card, but you get PhysX and CUDA with the NV card, plus you save $30.

 

[happy medium]

The 6850 is interesting; they went on sale for $150 recently. The problem is, you can get a 768mb GTX 460 for $120 right now. Overclocked the two cards will perform pretty much the same. I guess it comes down to your preferences. You get 256mb of extra memory with the AMD card, but you get PhysX and CUDA with the NV card, plus you save $30.

You can get a gtx460 1gb Palit card for 136$ shipped last I checked Microcenter.

Cheapest 6850 is 155$ on the net.

 

[SlowSpyder]

And here comes the fallacies.

I care about the amount and type of physics that can run.
GPU > CPU for that....by a MAJOR factor.

You want to run your graphics on the CPU?
Same deal.

The CPU is jack of all trades, master of none.

Drop the fallacies and stop telling me what I think/feel/want.

I honestly don't know how many of these games use GPU Physx, you tell me:

http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/game-of-the-year/index.html

You say you care more about what GPU Physx can add to a game then if the physics engine is run on the CPU or GPU. We are coming up on three years since Nvidia purchased Ageia. By now don't you think that CPU physics games should be so far outclassed that they are practically obsolete compared to GPU based Physx games if GPU based physics effects are everything you say they are? I honestly don't know how many games on that list use GPU Physx (zero? ten? I really don't know), what I do know is that at least a few use Havok on the CPU. How can that be when the CPU is so inferior according to you?

I have no doubts that hardware based physics engines are not the future. I do have doubts that GPU based Physx does anything other than drop frame rates for near identical effects than compared to what have with CPU based physic engines. How is it that AMD still sells so many GPU's without a hardware based physics component if it is so clearly outclassed? Physx is a gimmick. The 69xx cards will be successful or fail despite GPU Physx either way.

 

[Smartazz]

I honestly don't know how many of these games use GPU Physx, you tell me:

http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/game-of-the-year/index.html

You say you care more about what GPU Physx can add to a game then if the physics engine is run on the CPU or GPU. We are coming up on three years since Nvidia purchased Ageia. By now don't you think that CPU physics games should be so far outclassed that they are practically obsolete compared to GPU based Physx games if GPU based physics effects are everything you say they are? I honestly don't know how many games on that list use GPU Physx (zero? ten? I really don't know), what I do know is that at least a few use Havok on the CPU. How can that be when the CPU is so inferior according to you?

I have no doubts that hardware based physics engines are not the future. I do have doubts that GPU based Physx does anything other than drop frame rates for near identical effects than compared to what have with CPU based physic engines. How is it that AMD still sells so many GPU's without a hardware based physics component if it is so clearly outclassed? Physx is a gimmick. The 69xx cards will be successful or fail despite GPU Physx either way.

Yup. I'm confused as to why GPU accelerated physics isn't built into direct x.

 

[Dark Shroud]

In games?
Right...all PR :thumbsdown:

That's real funny considering Nvidia is mostly PR talk as a company. Neither does that change the fact that you asked if anything else existed. And it does because Bullet does have working builds. If you don't want the answers don't ask the question.

Nice try...shifting the goalposts.
But I guess that is what happens when you can't find me a single game using GPU physcis...on anything else but PhysX :thumbsdown:

Oh so now it has to be in a game which I said nothing about. I simply pointed out to your ranting & raving to everyone else that this tech does exist outside of PhysX. This is all you asked about while saying nothing about being in a game. Which makes sense considering GPU PhysX doesn’t work very well in games.

The best part about these features being from Bullet or Havok is that they will simply work on all cards. No hacks or mods needed, no splintering of the gaming community. They’ll just simply work and we’ll be able to discuss if they actually add anything to the game instead of these stupid fanboy arguments.

And still the GPU beats the CPU with a factor +10
So much for your "real serious" issue. :thumbsdown:

You call dropping frame rates by a noticeable margin beating? Pretending the latency & FPS issues do not exist won't make them go away. Physics in general work just find on modern CPUs today. You saying otherwise won’t make the rest of us forget this.

If, when, might...like I said...you got nothing to show.
And you might wan't to look past the hyp and look at the performance of the upcomming APU's...it's not like GPU's are stading still.

Got nothing to show? You really are full of garbage, you are not the only one allowed to be excited about future tech. There are plenty of demos from AMD & Intel showing these things off. How about you try showing me a game that has a visible gameplay experience that is only capable with GPU Physics; oh right you can’t because they don’t exist.

No one has said anything about GPUs standing still especially since it's the same tech used in APUs. It's not like the APU GPU core is suddenly going to be magically different. Or are they not cool & won't be of any use because Nvidia is looked out?

APU will luster behind deducated GPU's just like IGP's do it today.

I don't believe anyone has ever said an APU will beat a high end graphics card. Weren't you the one talking about moving goal posts?

Let me try this again only more simple. APU cores have a real chance of taking advantage of GPU accelerated Physics. I’m talking only Physics when a full stand alone video card is present in the system. It would be very much the same as running a video card just for PhysX only better. The APU GPU core should not have any the lag or latency problems that plague normal GPUs.

A lot of words, some wishhfull thinking...but nothing concrete from your side....wake me up when you have more than empty words.

GPU Accelerated PhysX has not done anything that hasn't been already done on the CPU. In some cases years earlier or simply better, but I guess that’s because Havok & Crytek have been actively developing the engines instead of gimmicks. On top of that it seems Nvidia has to send their own programs out to code these features into the games for the few companies that use it.

You can stay here at the forums & proclaim GPU PhysX all you want. Myself & others will be off playing having fun playing games.

 

[SirPauly]

That's all fine and dandy but as many offer their strong "I play my games view!" It was good to see nVidia and ATI try with HavokFX 'till it was purchased by Intel. Good to see nVidia try with PhysX and AMD try with Bullet. I'm pleased to see the industry try to move forward and try to use the strengths of what the GPU and CPU may do to improve things, imho. And still can play and enjoy games, too!

 

[Dark Shroud]

AMD seems to still be working with Havok in some areas. AMD & Nvidia both support OpenCL on their cards as well as Direct Compute. So Havok & Bullet will be able to code hardware accelration just once & have it work on both. It just took AMD awhile to add OpenCL support to their CCC software instead of having to download the SDK to add the support.

I also want to say I'm not against Nvidia developing their own tech. I just don't think it's right the way they block software & features when AMD cards are present in the system.

 

[Lonbjerg]

AMD seems to still be working with Havok in some areas. AMD & Nvidia both support OpenCL on their cards as well as Direct Compute. So Havok & Bullet will be able to code hardware accelration just once & have it work on both. It just took AMD awhile to add OpenCL support to their CCC software instead of having to download the SDK to add the support.

I also want to say I'm not against Nvidia developing their own tech. I just don't think it's right the way they block software & features when AMD cards are present in the system.

NVIDIA has paved the way, while AMD just talked.
Big difference in my book.

Hence why NVIDIA gets my money and AMD dosn't.

 

[SlowSpyder]

NVIDIA has paved the way, while AMD just talked.
Big difference in my book.

Hence why NVIDIA gets my money and AMD dosn't.

Much like how AMD/ATI has had a tessellator for almost a decade now? Tessellation is a pretty big topic (especially with Nvidia fans) these days. Since you tend to appreciate those who pave the way as opposed to just talk, you must be really impressed with Radeons.

 

[Smartazz]

Much like how AMD/ATI has had a tessellator for almost a decade now? Tessellation is a pretty big topic (especially with Nvidia fans) these days. Since you tend to appreciate those who pave the way as opposed to just talk, you must be really impressed with Radeons.

Don't forget that AMD also pioneered Eyefinity, something that Nvidia has yet to incorporate in their cards.

 

[Wreckage]

Don't forget that AMD also pioneered Eyefinity, something that Nvidia has yet to incorporate in their cards.

Actually Matrox and NVIDIA Quadro pioneered that. Even a pair of old GTX260's support it.

Much like how AMD/ATI has had a tessellator for almost a decade now? Tessellation is a pretty big topic (especially with Nvidia fans) these days. Since you tend to appreciate those who pave the way as opposed to just talk, you must be really impressed with Radeons.

NVIDIA has a patent on tessellation going back more than a decade.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6906716.PN.&OS=PN/6906716&RS=PN/6906716

"Integrated tessellator in a graphics processing unit "

 

[Gloomy]

Much like how AMD/ATI has had a tessellator for almost a decade now? Tessellation is a pretty big topic (especially with Nvidia fans) these days. Since you tend to appreciate those who pave the way as opposed to just talk, you must be really impressed with Radeons.

Here comes the deflection. Lonjberg, go ahead and change the topic before you're forced to respond to things directly. 🙄

 

[Phynaz]

NVIDIA has a patent on tessellation going back more than a decade.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6906716.PN.&OS=PN/6906716&RS=PN/6906716

"Integrated tessellator in a graphics processing unit "

That's nice. When did they implement in consumer cards?

 

[MrK6]

Actually Matrox and NVIDIA Quadro pioneered that. Even a pair of old GTX260's support it.

NVIDIA has a patent on tessellation going back more than a decade.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6906716.PN.&OS=PN/6906716&RS=PN/6906716

"Integrated tessellator in a graphics processing unit "

But they were all talk and did nothing with it. AMD brought it to the masses and with higher functionality :thumbsup:.

 

[Wreckage]

But they were all talk and did nothing with it. AMD brought it to the masses and with higher functionality :thumbsup:.

I marvel at AMD's ability to copy others. :whiste: