AMD beliefs: DirectX 11 Radeons pleasantly fast

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

But aren't the shaders/stream processors layout identical? I acknowledge the changes of the caches, the ROP, the new TMU which are much smaller and much more efficient, but didn't see a significant change in the shader layout.

Yeah, pretty much. Some DP functionality was added but they're still Vec5 and fundamentally work the same. That's my point.

Originally posted by: Werckage

The 4xxx series was mostly competition for the older G92 not so much with the newer GTX2xx series.

I don't agree there. The 4890 offers about 80-90% of the GTX285?s performance (factoring in 8xAA performance), but at a lower price. So it doesn't take the performance crown, but it's still competitive. We know this because nVidia dramatically lowered the prices of the 2xx line when the 4xxx series hit.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: alyarb

the shaders themselves and the "SIMD cores" that encapsulate them are largely unchanged, but the sheer number of them has been significantly increased and with the special case of RV790, a spatially altered layout as well.

I don?t consider an altered layout to be a new architecture. A physical rearrangement by itself is not a new architecture.

back in the day of pipelining GPUs, doubling the number of your functional units and altering the compute:texture ratio was more than enough to call it a "new" architecture. why? because it sure as hell wasn't the old architecture.

No, not really. The original GeForce was new because it offered new hardware features such as T&L, AF, texture compression, and similar. The GF2 and GF4 MX OTOH were pretty much all based on the GF, so simply increasing their execution units didn?t class them as a new architecture.

The GF3 was new of course, because again it offered new hardware features such as MSAA, increased AF, and DX8 shaders.

A new architecture has to add significant features at the hardware level and/or make significant changes to how execution units operate, not simply adding more of the same and laying them out differently.

I'm not sure BFG10K could recognize a new architecture unless we were to get away from stream processing altogether, certainly if AMD were to not alter its shaders for this next generation.

Not true - see above. Adding DX11 at the hardware level would certainly constitute a new architecture, but the point of contention is whether ATi could still keep the same Vec5 design and simply beef up everything else, or whether they?ll overhaul their shader configuration entirely.

My point is that if they can slap on DX11 while beefing up everything else, they could still remain competitive and don?t necessarily require an architectural overhaul like the 2900 XT.

One could argue that the HD2400 and HD4890 are on the same architecture because their shaders are identical and they both support dx 10.1,

Yes, I agree, they are the same architecture. I?d argue the 2xxx/3xxx/4xxx are the same because there are no significant hardware differences between them.

They all have the same DX level, the same Vec5 shaders, and the same AF and AA algorithms at the hardware level. Changing the memory/caches and employing die shrinks are simply tweaks to the existing architecture.

But when someone says a new architecture is not necessary for competition,

Not at all. I?m saying the 2900 XT was a failure despite being a new architecture, so a new architecture does not imply you?ll be competitive. I?m also saying that ATi got in the game after revising it twice, proving an old architecture can be competitive.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I don?t consider an altered layout to be a new architecture. A physical rearrangement by itself is not a new architecture.

Yeah that's what is called layout, and is what changes (to a minor magnitude) between masksets (steppings, respins, etc).

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Oh come on, let's not get silly. Radeon 4890 is $195 on newegg. GTX 275 is $205 and many of them come in COD 5. So basically it's $10 apart.
Ironically you an still buy a Radeon 4850 for $190 and GTX 260 for $285. When comparing the prices I usually just look at the cheapest one and say that's the price of the card. They might cost a little more if you have a certain brand preference.

Well, I provided a link to a current thread in the Hot Deals section where a 4890 OC could be had for an end price of $125. I haven't seen any GTX275 deals that get close to that. What's so silly about it? Just because the GTX275 and HD4890 are close in price on Newegg doesn't mean there aren't other e-tailers out there that have better deals.

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Also, doesn't it seem weird that in a debate about performance, Anandtech is not referenced? In Anand's tests, 4890 and 275 seem fairly equal. Fallout 3 and GRID are the only ones that consistently work better on the 4890. Neither is "crushed" by the other.

That's pretty much sums up my feelings on the two cards. One is faster in a few games, the other is faster in a few different games. But on the whole, they're roughly equal.

Shopbot ftw.
http://www.shopbot.ca/

Or for Americans:
http://www.pricegrabber.com/


And wow, 4890's are pretty much $100 cheaper in the USA than Canada .

 

[Warren21]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii
And wow, 4890's are pretty much $100 cheaper in the USA than Canada .

Yeah, tell me about it... *cries*

I've got a 4850 512 and I've always wanted more juice for 1920 x 1200. 1GB 4870s are about 160 and up, 4890s about 225 and up, GTX 275s about 250 and up. I could also get another 4850 512 for under 100 but I'm hesitant.

Thinking I'll try and sell my 4850 for 100 or so to a friend, wait until these (RV8X0/GT300) hit in a couple months and pick up a beefier GT200/RV770/RV790 card like a 4890/280 or higher off ebay for cheap.

***On topic***

I don't expect ATI to lead NV at all in the coming months, but rather more of the same good 'price/performance' that this generation saw. I would think RV8X0 to be a tweak of RV7X0 for DX11 and a performance increase at the same time. Over all, tweaked shaders (but still Vec5), handful more of them, more ROPs, more TMUs... Nothing revolutionary.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: nitromullet
I'm not really seeing this... In both the CPU and GPU markets we're enjoying unprecedented performance at a lower price than even a year ago.

Sure, you have CPUs like the i7 965, but you also have the i7 920 which is less than $300 for a top of the line CPU. ...Intel hasn't even launched the value i5/P55 segment yet.

Top end CPUs have always been around $300 except for a few oddballs.
Anandtech E6600 - $316 in 2006 (best dual core at the time)
Anandtech Q6600 - $266 in 2007 (best quad core at the time)
Anandtech P4 640 - $273 in 2005 (Intel's top single cores at the time)
i7 920 now carries the flag for something like $300

GPUs are about the same as well.
Anandtech GeForce 6800 Ultra - $540 in 2004 (nv's top card)
Anandtech GeForce 7800 GTX - $500 in 2005 (nv's top card)
Anandtech GeForce 8800 GTX - $650 in 2006 (nv's top card)
Anandtech GeForce 8800 Ultra - $830 in 2007 (I actually know someone who bought this card)

I can't get newegg to respond but I'm pretty sure the GTX 295 is some retarded price like the above cards. There really hasn't been much change in the past 10 years. Top cards are still $500 and as usual the bulk of the market is in a very predicable price range around $200.

Last year a 4870 512 was what ~$300ish? Today, ~$350 gets you an XFX 4870 X2 http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814150349

Last year a GTX 280 was $650 (briefly, but still ~$500 after the rpice drops)... Today a GTX 295 is $520... http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814130504

I'm not saying that there aren't still expensive parts out there, but you can build one hell of a rig these days for not that much money. Look at the prices of the 4890s and GTX 260s... It used to be that if you weren't spending top dollar on hardware, you weren't going to be able to play a lot of games smoothly.

We've gotten used to just moving all the sliders to the right and playing - even people with $150-200 cards. A few years ago, every game used to be like Crysis. FEAR brought the NV 7-series to their knees, Oblivion did too. What about HL2, Doom3, and Far Cry when they came out? If you weren't running a higher end card when these games came out, you were going to have to make sacrifices (sometimes even if you were running a high end card). I don't think there is anyone these days with a current generation card over $200 that is worried one bit that their card won't play CoD MW2, New Vegas, Bioshock 2, or any of the other anticipated games coming out.

Given the current global economy; the competition between Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA; and threat of consoles on PC gaming (whether real or perceived), I'm not seeing 2010 as the year that hardware prices shoot up. That was my point.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
We've gotten used to just moving all the sliders to the right and playing - even people with $150-200 cards. A few years ago, every game used to be like Crysis. FEAR brought the NV 7-series to their knees, Oblivion did too. What about HL2, Doom3, and Far Cry when they came out? If you weren't running a higher end card when these games came out, you were going to have to make sacrifices (sometimes even if you were running a high end card). I don't think there is anyone these days with a current generation card over $200 that is worried one bit that their card won't play CoD MW2, New Vegas, Bioshock 2, or any of the other anticipated games coming out.

Given the current global economy; the competition between Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA; and threat of consoles on PC gaming (whether real or perceived), I'm not seeing 2010 as the year that hardware prices shoot up. That was my point.

Makes one wonder though... as the gap between consoles and PCs grows ever larger, perhaps developers will be less likely to just do straight ports from console to PC, and start using the extra PC features again.
This way they may get a headstart with a 'next-generation' engine, which they can later apply to the next generation of consoles aswell. They'll hit the ground running, so to say.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Scali
Makes one wonder though... as the gap between consoles and PCs grows ever larger, perhaps developers will be less likely to just do straight ports from console to PC, and start using the extra PC features again.
This way they may get a headstart with a 'next-generation' engine, which they can later apply to the next generation of consoles aswell. They'll hit the ground running, so to say.

That seems very logical and probable. The more dated the hardware in PS3/XB360/Wii becomes in comparison to that available in the PC markets the more of a competitive/marketing disadvantage it should become to restrict development/release of games that don't take advantage of the latest and greatest capabilities in the PC markets.

(I think I said that correctly, may be two many double negatives in there though...grammar police plz be gentle )