AMD DX11 Cypress is Radeon HD 5870 & HD 5850

[crisium]

The prices for the 3850 and 3870 were quite in line with where they should be. I remember when I ordered my 3850 in late 2007 that they were around $180-$200 when the pitiful 8600GTS was $160-$180. The 3870 was a little too close to the 8800GT price for my liking, but it was indeed cheaper and thus was not completely unreasonable to buy. Nvidia was much faster at the highest end, but the Radeon 3850 was a real winner for it's price range.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Crisium
The prices for the 3850 and 3870 were quite in line with where they should be. I remember when I ordered my 3850 in late 2007 that they were around $180-$200 when the pitiful 8600GTS was $160-$180. The 3870 was a little too close to the 8800GT price for my liking, but it was indeed cheaper and thus was not completely unreasonable to buy. Nvidia was much faster at the highest end, but the Radeon 3850 was a real winner for it's price range.

And what dictated where the prices should be at that time? Perhaps the competition? You can bet your last dollar, had the HD3xxx series outperformed G92, their prices wouldn't have been as low.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Crisium
The prices for the 3850 and 3870 were quite in line with where they should be. I remember when I ordered my 3850 in late 2007 that they were around $180-$200 when the pitiful 8600GTS was $160-$180. The 3870 was a little too close to the 8800GT price for my liking, but it was indeed cheaper and thus was not completely unreasonable to buy. Nvidia was much faster at the highest end, but the Radeon 3850 was a real winner for it's price range.

And what dictated where the prices should be at that time? Perhaps the competition? You can bet your last dollar, had the HD3xxx series outperformed G92, their prices wouldn't have been as low.

So you agree the hd 3xxx series were priced fairly and did not "suck wind"?

This is not a situation where customers paid big bucks for a laptop or whatever and found that after the warranty ended - so did performance. Most customers of the hd 3xxx likely felt they got what they paid for.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: akugami

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
you know this how? because he claimed credit for it? don't get me wrong, we all know that charlie is full of shit, but I've heard it thrown around as if it were fact by many others here at AT as well.

Regardless, theo's article at BSN shows that nvidia is doing exactly what I predicted that they would do in this situation: use every available source to rain on amd's parade in late sept. They would be incredibly foolish (and incredibly behind) not to do this. Unfortunately, this doesn't really tell us when they'll be able to launch, and whether when the do launch it will be a paper or hard launch. I do agree that we'll start getting more buzz as we get closer to launch day, however, and you can bet that if gt300 stomps 5xxx in performance that benchmarks will be released at or before 5xxx's launch.

Not really aimed at you but let's all quit the "paper launch" accusations. I've always found it merely an argument to bolster the "your company sucks compared to mine" claims of the fanboys. I mean, does it really matter if a launch event is held up to a month ahead of actual availability? So long as you're not launching a product three months from your launch event it doesn't really matter. It just gives us a little more info when making informed purchases.

In other industries such as games consoles, their products are announced about a year ahead of actual launch. It was, and to a degree remains, an industry standard practice in the video card market to announce product launches before actual availability.

so because it's industry standard practice to announce product launches before actual availability (aka, paper launch), we should just sit back and enjoy it??? How many of us were pissed at amd for paper launching phenom about a year before it was ready?? Admittedly, that was a horribly egregious example, but between nvidia and amd one of them usually does it. Last round I think that they both did ok, the round before seemed suspicious with 8800gt but was probably caused more by the great price/performance causing the card to sell out constantly. The round before there was no paper launch because nvidia was so far ahead of amd... How does this lead us to it being "industry standard practice"?

Also, I appreciate your not accusing me of being a fanboy. I've had plenty of good (and bad) experiences with both camps. My last 5 cards in my main rig have been 7600gt, x1900xt, 3870, 4850, and gtx 260. My 2nd rig has a 9600gso, and my mom is using my old spare 7300gt fanless. I think that I'm pretty representative of most of us on the forums, I don't like bullshit from either camp, and if intel wants to get serious with larrabee then I won't want it from them, either. Paper launches are annoying to consumers, but in some cases they are certainly justified. For example, if 5xxx steals a lot of market share but gt300 will be quite a bit faster, nvidia would be completely justified in doing a launch with a few thousand carefully cherry-picked cards to staunch the bleeding during the xmas season. However, if they can't follow that up in a reasonable (2-4 weeks) time period then they could very possibly hurt themselves in the long run.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Elfear
There is some validity to your arguement but couldn't the same be said at the launch of GT300? If the next gen Nvidia part is really 2-3 months behind that of the 5800 series, then wouldn't ATI's next iteration be coming out ~3 months after GT300? Why would you want to plunk down some money on the GT300 when ATI's latest and greatest is right around the corner?

Im not aware of 6 month product cycles. Maybe they will over-volt and OC a card (4890) and do some rehashes or cut-downs to fill price points (GTX275), but I dont see "new" cards coming out for a while. GT200/4XXX lasted well over a year.

That's what I'm referring too, the mid-cycle rehash if that's what you want to call it. It just seems to me that your arguement doesn't make much sense because if you think people should wait until GT300 launches to buy a card, why not wait another 3 months until ATI's mid-cycle refresh comes along? Then at that point it's only 3 months from Nvidia's refresh and on and on.

If you're one that only upgrades every year or two than I think your arguement makes sense but for everyone else I think 2-3 months is a long time to wait. I personally think AMD's prices will speak for themselves. If the 5870 is really $399 than it better perform REALLY well in the reviews that come out at launch. At that price, if it's not close to 2x4870 performance, then consumers might not get all excited over it and sales will suffer. At $299, consumers would probably be happy with 1.6x4870 performance. We'll just have to see what happens come the unveiling.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: ronnn

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Crisium
The prices for the 3850 and 3870 were quite in line with where they should be. I remember when I ordered my 3850 in late 2007 that they were around $180-$200 when the pitiful 8600GTS was $160-$180. The 3870 was a little too close to the 8800GT price for my liking, but it was indeed cheaper and thus was not completely unreasonable to buy. Nvidia was much faster at the highest end, but the Radeon 3850 was a real winner for it's price range.

And what dictated where the prices should be at that time? Perhaps the competition? You can bet your last dollar, had the HD3xxx series outperformed G92, their prices wouldn't have been as low.

So you agree the hd 3xxx series were priced fairly and did not "suck wind"?

Clarify the context you are using. My context was purely from a performance standpoint. You suddenly elect to adopt a price/performance stance. So........ I'd say, only because you wish to drag it out of me, that the HD3xxx was an improvement in only the items I mentioned above. Any improvement is a good improvement. But from a performance standpoint, equal performance to the 2900XT when so many expected much more, and the very same AA woes, says yes, it sucked wind.

This is not a situation where customers paid big bucks for a laptop or whatever and found that after the warranty ended - so did performance. Most customers of the hd 3xxx likely felt they got what they paid for.
So? Who said it was? What is the relationship to our current discussion of the HD3xxx series cards? Were they offered in laptops or whatever? Would you care to bring in the FX5800 into the discussion? How about the X1800? Please, by all means.

And yes, most customers of the hd 3xxx certainly did get what they paid for.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: ronnn

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
AMD had to do what they did. They sucked wind with the 2900XT and the 3xxx series. So they absolutely needed something really good and undercut the competitions pricing to regain the faith of its customers. And they did a great job with that. If anything, it prevented them from bleeding any additional market share, or at least kept it at a minimum.

This is pr spin. The 3xxx came as advertised and worked well for the price.

We know ronnn. It's pr spin because it's keysplayr. Old.

In reality, the HD3870 was generally no faster than the 2900XT. Trade blows type of thing. The only things the 3870 offered in ways of improvement over the 2900XT, were:

Power consumption (There was a die shrink?)
Heat output (same)
Price (Went from 512bit bus back to 256). Less costly to make.

AA still suffered. Performance was about the same. Everyone was expecting a "life-saver" from the 2900XT monster. I fell waaaay short. The true Stunner was the HD4xxx line. Excellent leap for AMD.

Where is the PR spin? Oh, right. There is none.

And what the hell does "came as advertised" mean? Don't they all come as advertised?

3870 was a bit faster, 5-10% iirc. its weakness was AA/AF, that was just embarrassing. 4xxx did a much better job and in fact surpasses the comparable nvidia card in most cases across price ranges. It is especially noticeable at higher level (8xAA +), as bfg has mentioned many times it's fun to go back and use all kinds of cool new AA modes on your 5 year old fps's.

 

[Idontcare]

I'm no expert at critiquing the failings of GPU reviews, that's what I rely on you guys to highlight for me, but just to interject some data regarding HD3xxx vs. 2900XT into the conversation:

Obsoleting Products: Radeon HD 3870 vs. 2900 XT

Whether these comparisons were done in a manner consistent with how we'd prefer to see these products evaluated today (right resolution, right AA/AF, etc) is something you'll have to determine before deciding the benches support conclusions one way or the other.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Either nV comes out with something much better, or ATi drops the prices once the competition hits the market, so maybe your 5870 is only $299?

Fair enough. You have a point to some degree. However, since NV is manufacturing larger die GPUs, it may very well be the case that they'll price them higher (if they perform faster too). I think the decision to upgrade largely rests on what demanding games are out there and what resolution a person uses. Wolfenstein just came out and it flys on GTX275/4890 hardware at 2560x1536...

In general my new 'strategy' is going to buy at the end of the current generation. For instance GTX280 debuted at $649 and then dropped to $499 in June of 2008. Slightly more than 12 months later you can get the same performance in a 4890 for just $180 and 80% of GTX 280 for $120 in 4870. After selling my card it only cost $130 for me. So in 12 months from today, I bet 5870 will only cost $150 or so (just like 4870 costs $120 now and came out at $299). I will just sell my 4890 for $70 and spend just $80 for the new 5870 or w/e other card. Buying a card upon release is never a 'value' proposition anyway. So those looking to buy at launch are less concerned about value imo, with more focus on performance.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr


So? Who said it was? What is the relationship to our current discussion of the HD3xxx series cards? Were they offered in laptops or whatever? Would you care to bring in the FX5800 into the discussion? How about the X1800? Please, by all means.

[/quote]


Sorry didn't realize this was the 2900/hd 3xxxx thread. My bad.

 

[zebrax2]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: ronnn

This is not a situation where customers paid big bucks for a laptop or whatever and found that after the warranty ended - so did performance. Most customers of the hd 3xxx likely felt they got what they paid for.
So? Who said it was? What is the relationship to our current discussion of the HD3xxx series cards? Were they offered in laptops or whatever? Would you care to bring in the FX5800 into the discussion? How about the X1800? Please, by all means.

And yes, most customers of the hd 3xxx certainly did get what they paid for.

This discussion would have ended if you didn't post this last part of your post. You viewed it at a different perspective than him and the same can be said for him. Both of you have points no need to freak out.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: ronnn

Originally posted by: Keysplayr


So? Who said it was? What is the relationship to our current discussion of the HD3xxx series cards? Were they offered in laptops or whatever? Would you care to bring in the FX5800 into the discussion? How about the X1800? Please, by all means.

Sorry didn't realize this was the 2900/hd 3xxxx thread. My bad.
[/quote]

:::Wipes sarcasm off screen:::

It's just that you introduced warrantied laptops out of left field after accusing me of pr marketing. See the irony?

 

[evolucion8]

"And yes, most customers of the hd 3xxx certainly did get what they paid for." << I agree, I was sattisfied with my HD 3850 512MB AGP

"And yes, most customers of the hd 2xxx certainly did NOT get what they paid for. <<That's very true, hence the HD 3x00 series.

But this isn't no HD 2x00/HD 3x00 series thread discussion. . .

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: ronnn

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
AMD had to do what they did. They sucked wind with the 2900XT and the 3xxx series. So they absolutely needed something really good and undercut the competitions pricing to regain the faith of its customers. And they did a great job with that. If anything, it prevented them from bleeding any additional market share, or at least kept it at a minimum.

This is pr spin. The 3xxx came as advertised and worked well for the price.

We know ronnn. It's pr spin because it's keysplayr. Old.

In reality, the HD3870 was generally no faster than the 2900XT. Trade blows type of thing. The only things the 3870 offered in ways of improvement over the 2900XT, were:

Power consumption (There was a die shrink?)
Heat output (same)
Price (Went from 512bit bus back to 256). Less costly to make.

AA still suffered. Performance was about the same. Everyone was expecting a "life-saver" from the 2900XT monster. I fell waaaay short. The true Stunner was the HD4xxx line. Excellent leap for AMD.

Where is the PR spin? Oh, right. There is none.

And what the hell does "came as advertised" mean? Don't they all come as advertised?

3870 was a bit faster, 5-10% iirc. its weakness was AA/AF, that was just embarrassing. 4xxx did a much better job and in fact surpasses the comparable nvidia card in most cases across price ranges. It is especially noticeable at higher level (8xAA +), as bfg has mentioned many times it's fun to go back and use all kinds of cool new AA modes on your 5 year old fps's.

Didn't realize it, but COD4 with a 3870 being about 30% faster at times than the 2900xt? Crazy stuff.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

$299 for the flagship isn't bad considering I paid $450 for my gtx 280 a little while after its release.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: OILFIELDTRASH
$299 for the flagship isn't bad considering I paid $450 for my gtx 280 a little while after its release.

High end card. Not flagship. Example using this gens high end:

4850
4870
4890

Flagship:

4870X2

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr


:::Wipes sarcasm off screen:::

It's just that you introduced warrantied laptops out of left field after accusing me of pr marketing. See the irony?

Sorry if the laptop thing was off base. Just in response to IDC discussing how buying a 58xx at launch would be a bad consumer decision. So gave an example from the last year of what would made me feel bad as a consumer, versus a $300 card losing some value after 3 months.

In my mind not near as boring as how threads about the 58xx turn into - the only reason amd sold the 4xxx series so cheap is, they mainly make crappy cards and are almost bankrupt - thread. Than this leads to a happy review of how bad the 29xx was 4 generations ago.

Less than a week to go. Should be fun!

 

[Idontcare]

I'm going to admit right up front that I can't hardly follow much of posts in this thread, they are too terse for someone with my limited GPU background to really follow and understand.

But I do sincerely apologize if my posts in this thread were in any way the progenitor or instigator of any angst that went on here. It wasn't my intent.

 

[ronnn]

? You are always a gentleman, unlike us 2. :beer:

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I'm going to admit right up front that I can't hardly follow much of posts in this thread, they are too terse for someone with my limited GPU background to really follow and understand.

But I do sincerely apologize if my posts in this thread were in any way the progenitor or instigator of any angst that went on here. It wasn't my intent.

Never fear, idc, you can try to stay above the fray as long as you like, somebody will come in slinging mud at you soon enough...

where's rollo when you need to start a good fight?

 

[BFG10K]

The 2900 XT was ATi?s 5800 Ultra: hot, slow, loud, and late.

The 3870 was a tad faster overall than the 2900XT, but nothing to write home about. The significance of it was the die shrink which made single cards have better thermals, and allowed the 3870 X2.

But compared to nVidia?s offerings, the 3xxx?s performance sucked chunks when AA was used, and just wasn?t competitive at all. It wasn?t until the 4xxx arrived that ATi truly started being competitive in GPU space again.

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
The 2900 XT was ATi?s 5800 Ultra: hot, slow, loud, and late.

The 3870 was a tad faster overall than the 2900XT, but nothing to write home about.

To continue that analogy, that would make the 3870 ATi's 5900 - better thermals (although IIRC the 5900 didn't have the benefit of a die shrink).