Leaked ATI S.I. 6870 benchmark

[Grooveriding]

That, or as has been suggested ad nauseam, they are selling everything they produce at current prices. If that's the case, they'd be nuts to drop the price, that would just result in a minute number of happy geeks on AT Video forum and a direct ASP hit

Yeah, why would they drop prices.

There is a chance they are not even having very many or any 5XXX series chips made anymore. Perhaps they are just letting everything clear out at its current price and TSMC is mainly producing 6XXX series chips for them.

This could explain a lot of nvidia firesaling their 460 cards. If TSMC has been cranking out Radeon 6XXX series chips, nvidia surely knows about it and is trying to clear their inventory while they still can.

 

[MrK6]

Yeah, why would they drop prices.

There is a chance they are not even having very many or any 5XXX series chips made anymore. Perhaps they are just letting everything clear out at its current price and TSMC is mainly producing 6XXX series chips for them.

This could explain a lot of nvidia firesaling their 460 cards. If TSMC has been cranking out Radeon 6XXX series chips, nvidia surely knows about it and is trying to clear their inventory while they still can.

This is what's interesting to me. Nothing has been said about production ramp up yet, and usually Charlie or some other source typically indicates that things are coming. That said, we're either still months away (and before that point) or AMD is being extra quiet on this one, both of which are curious.

The other thing that I didn't think to mention, but looking at that chart, is the fact that a 6850 could outperform both a 5870 and GTX 480. If the current benchmarks, which show the 6870 being anywhere from 30-40% faster than the GTX 480, are true, then it's no small stretch to figure that the 6850 will also be faster. Generally, the #2 high-end card is about 20% slower than the flagship single GPU product, so this will still put it ahead of any single chip solution we have today.

Finally, I thought it was interesting that a dual Fermi was included on that chart. I haven't seen anything on it since the initial speculation, but I'm guessing it's still a possibility.

 

[HurleyBird]

If the current benchmarks, which show the 6870 being anywhere from 30-40% faster than the GTX 480, are true, then it's no small stretch to figure that the 6850 will also be faster.

well, as much as I'd love for it to be true, 40% faster than GTX480 sounds like a pipe dream, and none of the benchmarks we have yet look legitimate. With that being said, I can definitely see HD6850 being faster than GTX480, since AMD knows that would effectively kill of desktop Fermi (like HD5850 did with GTX285), I think they know the value of not cutting HD6850 down too much.

 

[bryanW1995]

yeah, but remember that their 5870 sales weren't as high as expected b/c 5850 could oc to within a few % of the performance of an oc'd 5870. I expect them to cripple 6850 more and have it perform somewhere btwn 5870 and gtx 470.

6870 is looking more like ~ 35% total improvement over 5870, so closer to ~20% faster than gtx 480. and that's with leaked benches that likely highlight the best parts of the card, so it could end up being closer to 10% when all is said and done.

 

[Grooveriding]

yeah, but remember that their 5870 sales weren't as high as expected b/c 5850 could oc to within a few % of the performance of an oc'd 5870. I expect them to cripple 6850 more and have it perform somewhere btwn 5870 and gtx 470.

6870 is looking more like ~ 35% total improvement over 5870, so closer to ~20% faster than gtx 480. and that's with leaked benches that likely highlight the best parts of the card, so it could end up being closer to 10% when all is said and done.

That seems like a very small niche to try and stick the 6850 into in a way. The disparity between 5870 and 470 is so tiny, usually 5fps or so, that slotting a card into that space would almost be tedious.

I'm expecting 6850 to be GTX 480 performance and the 6870 to be about 125-135% of what a GTX 480 is. The rest of the lineup, who knows. 6830/6770 will probably slot in where the 5850 and GTX 460 are currently.

 

[golem]

@cusideabelincoln.

Maybe my sentence structure is really bad but how is:

but if you are a gamer and aren't severely limited by funds or have unlimited funds,

really different than (besides dollar amounts):

1) you are a gamer
2) are not limited in funding ( over 100 to spend)
3) don't have unlimited funds (less than 300 to spend)

Maybe point 3 wasn't easy to understand in the original post, I should have said "and don't have unlimited funding." I thought the aren't would have put a negative to both limited in funds and unlimited funds. But asking for clarification would have cleared that.

When I did provide clarification, you accuse me of changing my meaning.. well how could I be changing my meaning if you didn't understand my original post in the first place??? And IF I did change my post, how can your arguments cover both the original (according to your guess) and clarified meaning?

added edit:

Russian mentioned this or alluded to it I believe, but when you think about it, price/peformance may not be the only metric, but it's probably the only one that can encompass all other metrics besides performance/watt. You can't really change how much power a chip/card draws, or how much performance it gives. But almost any other criteria can be altered if you pay for it. Too loud, buy an aftermarket fan, too big? buy a case. When you choose a general performance level you want you can alter the price to meet the other criteria and compare cards that way.

 

[RussianSensation]

Russian you almost don't even need to say what you said. It's obvious by your posts on this board that performance per price is the most important factor for you. You're always posting deals and giving prices - sometimes I feel like it just clutters up your posts. It's quite obvious what you value.

My bad if I come off as too 'absolute' in my recommendations. I often forget that to someone else power consumption and heat exhausted into their room means a great deal (since they might be living in Texas or Brazil and not cold north). Great post btw. :thumbsup:

I think it's fair to say that most people look at a lot of factors when they purchase a graphics card. I just often get caught up and make the mistake of assuming that they'll be like me, thinking that value is the most important consideration for them as well.

 

[Daedalus685]

I'll just stop you right there. Your claim was for die utilization, not performance. Performance is irrelevant because memory subsystem performance is limited by bus width which is limited by die size. Compute increasing faster than bandwidth is due to design constraints, not design decisions. You can make the argument that it's a design choice, but besides getting some electrical engineers from Nvidia or ATI to come post in this thread, you have no evidence.

I hate to have to ask this, but you do understand that memory controller width is constrained by die size, right? (actually, die perimeter, but the two are usually closely related and die size is easier to get across to people)

That is an odd way to approach data I looked up in order to concede that you are correct and memory subsystems have in fact gotten far less powerful (relatively) over the years... Obviously I don't have the means to check the die size utilization of it but I'd reckon that the ratios would not be too far out of whack. Within the same architecture (3870 through 5870) minus the tweaks woudl surely improve the performance above and beyond the die size utilization and inflate the ratios some.. but there is a pretty clear indication that you are quite correct that the memory system is holding still while the rest is not... My point was to show you that even without bus width (which has gone up over time too, albeit slower) and memory advances the memory subsystem has been largely ignored over the years... for whatever reason. Perhaps it is just that more bus just doesn't fit on what has remained a very similar die size, and even with MUCH vaster memory the bandwidth speed up has be pittance compared to the shaders (the cards have become farm ore memory starved over the years).

I realize that the controller is largely 1 dimensional around the perimeter... but given the widths we have seen on chips like the 2900Xt, the 285 and so on I have to assume if they wanted more they could have more, not even the entire perimeter of the 4870 was i/o, I'd assume the 5870 isn't as well. Is your point that the pin configuration requires this one dimensional configuration (no folding over) and that there are hard cutoffs in die size for the bus to be expanded? There is more room to play with though, there was on the 4870 anyway (perhaps the extra DP I/O takes up more space than I'd guess).

If that is your point perhaps you are correct as the only die with a larger memory bus was the 2900xt (from ati) at 100mm^2 larger.. which is some 40mm more perimeter to work with. But the 4870 was 100mm smaller still and didn't need the entire perimeter.. the 5870 could have gone with 3xxbit bus if they so desired... but chose not to in order to use some of that area for other things. Thus they did choose more shader cores over more memory bandwidth.

So was this because of cost or because they didn't think it was worth it (obviously they use that space for something and there is area to consider too as it is not perfectly 1D, and it would as such have to go... maybe it relates to the extra display outputs)?


My intention is/was not to argue with you.. my apologies for bringing out your defences. I merely believe that they could have had a larger memory bus if they wanted (even on the same die size). That they didn't leads me to believe (under the assumption they have the slightest idea how to simulate designs) that it woudl have resulted in a poorer performance part (or that I am vastly under estimating the cost of implementing a larger memory bus). The data I showed in the last post was to show that they have not felt the need to expand on the memory bus in many years. I'm a bit curious why this is if, as you say, it woudl make such a huge difference to current performance.

It is looking like the 6870 will continue to move towards even larger core/memory ratios... this is entirely due to die size?

Edit:

Given the rumours that the 6770 may have a 256 bus.. does this indicate that the 6870 must be much larger, that there are silly things going on with how useful AMD sees memory systems, or that teh 6870 wil ship with far faster GDDR5?

 

[railven]

@cusideabelincoln.

Maybe my sentence structure is really bad but how is:

but if you are a gamer and aren't severely limited by funds or have unlimited funds,

really different than (besides dollar amounts):

1) you are a gamer
2) are not limited in funding ( over 100 to spend)
3) don't have unlimited funds (less than 300 to spend)

Maybe point 3 wasn't easy to understand in the original post, I should have said "and don't have unlimited funding." I thought the aren't would have put a negative to both limited in funds and unlimited funds. But asking for clarification would have cleared that.

When I did provide clarification, you accuse me of changing my meaning.. well how could I be changing my meaning if you didn't understand my original post in the first place??? And IF I did change my post, how can your arguments cover both the original (according to your guess) and clarified meaning?

Re-read his response to you. He was preemptive on your mistake, even stating in his reponse he isn't sure what you meant, and provided you with two answers. One answer under the guidelines of having unlimited funds and one under the guidelines of having restricted funds.

When debating someone, your arguements will be used against you - including any errors or miscommunications on your part. He was kind enough to address both sides of your coin, but even I wouldn't heckle him for claiming you moved the goal posts - "or have unlimited funds" and "or don't have unlimited funds" are two opposite extremes. You can't fault someone for not knowing which of the two you meant.

 

[golem]

Re-read his response to you. He was preemptive on your mistake, even stating in his reponse he isn't sure what you meant, and provided you with two answers. One answer under the guidelines of having unlimited funds and one under the guidelines of having restricted funds.

When debating someone, your arguements will be used against you - including any errors or miscommunications on your part. He was kind enough to address both sides of your coin, but even I wouldn't heckle him for claiming you moved the goal posts - "or have unlimited funds" and "or don't have unlimited funds" are two opposite extremes. You can't fault someone for not knowing which of the two you meant.

It depends. You could say I made a mistake in my wording or that he made a mistake in his interpretation of my wording. Communication involves 2 sides and if I made a mistake in my wording, clarification should have been requested.

What I don't like about him claiming I moved the goal post is that he didn't know what I meant, stated as much and then when I clarified, accused me of changing the goal posts. If your going going to say I'm not making sense and then put words in my mouth on what you think I mean, don't blame me if what you assumed and what I meant are different.

 

[HurleyBird]

That is an odd way to approach data I looked up in order to concede that you are correct and memory subsystems have in fact gotten far less powerful (relatively) over the years.

Sorry, my bad. Thought you were trying to say that the increasing compute:bandwidth ratio was a good thing, done by design rather than necessity (although I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit of both).

I realize that the controller is largely 1 dimensional around the perimeter... but given the widths we have seen on chips like the 2900Xt, the 285 and so on I have to assume if they wanted more they could have more, not even the entire perimeter of the 4870 was i/o, I'd assume the 5870 isn't as well.

If that is your point perhaps you are correct as the only die with a larger memory bus was the 2900xt (from ati) at 100mm^2 larger.. which is some 40mm more perimeter to work with. But the 4870 was 100mm smaller still and didn't need the entire perimeter.. the 5870 could have gone with 3xxbit bus if they so desired... but chose not to in order to use some of that area for other things. Thus they did choose more shader cores over more memory bandwidth. So was this because of cost or because they didn't think it was worth it (obviously they use that space for something and there is area to consider too as it is not perfectly 1D, and it would as such have to go... maybe it relates to the extra display outputs)?

I'm not sure if the entire perimeter of 4870 was used for IO or not. Been looking at die shots, but I forget where the sideport goes. However, 4870 was pretty much saturated with the 256-bit bus already and didn't really need more. Yes, 5870 could have went with a 3xx bus, but they didn't. I don't think it was a choice of core over shader, rather that eyefinity took up a large amount of the perimeter. Remember that these things can drive 6 30" monitors... that has to be expensive. Also, since you seem to be looking back in time to earlier parts like the 2900xt and GT200 series, remember that different memory types need different amounts of pins per chip. So even though the width is the same, IIRC GDDR5 needs more pins and therefore more perimeter vs. GDDR3.

I'm a bit curious why this is if, as you say, it woudl make such a huge difference to current performance.

I don't think it's necessarily a *huge* increase in performance, just an easy one (and important considering how close Nvidia and ATI usually are in performance) -- assuming of course that you have the die size/perimeter to support it.

 

[railven]

It depends. You could say I made a mistake in my wording or that he made a mistake in his interpretation of my wording. Communication involves 2 sides and if I made a mistake in my wording, clarification should have been requested.

What I don't like about him claiming I moved the goal post is that he didn't know what I meant, stated as much and then when I clarified, accused me of changing the goal posts. If your going going to say I'm not making sense and then put words in my mouth on what you think I mean, don't blame me if what you assumed and what I meant are different.

No one wants to be at fault. It is hard to admit when one is at fault, but I'd promise you if people review your original post in your wording:

but if you are a gamer and aren't severely limited by funds or have unlimited funds

I'm sure many would assume you presented two parameters 1) being restricted and 2) having no restriction.

The error is on you. He clearly stated in his response that he wasn't sure what you were asking so he anwered the question(s) both ways (one of which was the question you were asking.) In your follow up to that you basically repeated yourself and didn't clarify that you made a mistake. It was your third respond where you acknlowedged you may have made a mistake, by then he had already covered both your questions, and accused you moving the posts.

I wouldn't fault him for that. But that's just me and I have nothing to prove from your two interactions.

Communications does go both ways. One side was communicating and the other was just trying to prove his point. I'm sure you two would disagree on which one was which.

 

[golem]

No one wants to be at fault. It is hard to admit when one is at fault, but I'd promise you if people review your original post in your wording:

but if you are a gamer and aren't severely limited by funds or have unlimited funds

I'm sure many would assume you presented two parameters 1) being restricted and 2) having no restriction.

The error is on you. He clearly stated in his response that he wasn't sure what you were asking so he anwered the question(s) both ways (one of which was the question you were asking.) In your follow up to that you basically repeated yourself and didn't clarify that you made a mistake. It was your third respond where you acknlowedged you may have made a mistake, by then he had already covered both your questions, and accused you moving the posts.

I wouldn't fault him for that. But that's just me and I have nothing to prove from your two interactions.

Communications does go both ways. One side was communicating and the other was just trying to prove his point. I'm sure you two would disagree on which one was which.

Wait a second... when does "aren't" severely restricted by funds become 1)being restricted?

My understanding of English can't be that bad and there were 3 parameters which I broke out in my follow up post.

1) you are a gamer
2) are not limited in funding ( over 100 to spend)
3) don't have unlimited funds (less than 300 to spend)

The 1st two are the same between my original post and follow up. The 3rd is open to interpretation if you apply the negative aren't to unlimited funds or not.

 

[bryanW1995]

My bad if I come off as too 'absolute' in my recommendations. I often forget that to someone else power consumption and heat exhausted into their room means a great deal (since they might be living in Texas or Brazil and not cold north). Great post btw. :thumbsup:

I think it's fair to say that most people look at a lot of factors when they purchase a graphics card. I just often get caught up and make the mistake of assuming that they'll be like me, thinking that value is the most important consideration for them as well.

I think that you're backing down too easily. price/performance is the overwhelmingly #1 reason for video card purchases in most cases once a user figures out a baseline level of desired performance. this gen is messed up b/c nvidia dropped the ball, that's all.

it's all relative. In fact, I live in south tx and wouldn't have balked at a gtx 470 if the price had been aggressive enough when I bought. nvidia just did a poor job with 470 and 480 of keeping the warts to a minimum and thus suffered in comparison to amd's current offerings. NI will bring the thermals back up to more typical levels for high end gpus, it will be up to nvidia to attempt to go for the top performance again or steal a page from amd's book and go for great heat/power/noise and perf/watt.

 

[railven]

Wait a second... when does "aren't" severely restricted by funds become 1)being restricted?

My understanding of English can't be that bad.

If "aren't restricted by funds" means what I think it means.. then my parameters were just one. Unlimited funds. Asking for clarification at this point would have been really helpful. Which I think I did in my post where I break it out into 3 parameters.

English is a bastard of a language (ESL myself.) The use of "aren't severely" implies they are restricted - just not severely. The variable value for which "severely" represents is left for open discussion.

"We aren't going now." Isn't the same conclusion as "We aren't going."
What is explicit to not going at all the other leaves the door open to going, just not at this immediate moment.
Not being severly restricted isn't the same as unlimited (otherwise no restriction) so they are two separate arguements.

And now in this post you are back tracking some more. You are now saying you were impling you originally set the parameter as no restriction, which he answered, but your following response specified the restriction (more than $100 but less than $300.) Which is directly moving the goal post if your first was truly no restriction (unlimited). You are now just running in circles and are only miscommunicating further what your original arguement was.

So I'll ask for clarification:
Is there a fund limitation? If yes, is it $100 to $300.

And note, he answered both questions I just asked in my clarification.

EDIT:
To add to your edit. You didn't give a monetary value when you set your paremeters so

It is a big whoopid whatever. It may not be the most important metric to everyone, but if you are a gamer and aren't severely limited by funds or have unlimited funds, then it should be either the 1st OR 2nd most important thing you look at. Given those parameters what else is there? Remember the title of this topic refers to 6870... not a budget card.

I feel honored that out of all the post in this 18 page topic full of speculation, exaggerations etc. etc. that you choose my post to label as absurd.

So the revision isn't a direct clarification of the original - it is changing the parameters. Let's apply it to your original statement.

1) you are a gamer
2) are not limited in funding ( over 100 to spend)
3) don't have unlimited funds (less than 300 to spend)

2) wasn't conveyed as more than $100. It is implied as you have unlimited money.
3) wasn't converyed as less than $300. It is implied as a direct contradiction to #3.

Since you gave no specifics you'll see in his response he chose arbituary numbers and applied said numbers to his answer.

Again, he pre-emptively answered your question(s) to the best of his knowledge with the information you originally presented. (even chose $300 as one of the limited factors.)

 

[golem]

English is a bastard of a language (ESL myself.) The use of "aren't severely" implies they are restricted - just not severely. The variable value for which "severely" represents is left for open discussion.

"We aren't going now." Isn't the same conclusion as "We aren't going."
What is explicit to not going at all the other leaves the door open to going, just not at this immediate moment.
Not being severly restricted isn't the same as unlimited (otherwise no restriction) so they are two separate arguements.

And now in this post you are back tracking some more. You are now saying you were impling you originally set the parameter as no restriction, which he answered, but your following response specified the restriction (more than $100 but less than $300.) Which is directly moving the goal post if your first was truly no restriction (unlimited). You are now just running in circles and are only miscommunicating further what your original arguement was.

So I'll ask for clarification:
Is there a fund limitation? If yes, is it $100 to $300.

And note, he answered both questions I just asked in my clarification.

EDIT:
To add to your edit. You didn't give a monetary value when you set your paremeters so



So the revision isn't a direct clarification of the original - it is changing the parameters. Let's apply it to your original statement.



2) wasn't conveyed as more than $100. It is implied as you have unlimited money.
3) wasn't converyed as less than $300. It is implied as a direct contradiction to #3.

Since you gave no specifics you'll see in his response he chose arbituary numbers and applied said numbers to his answer.

Again, he pre-emptively answered your question(s) to the best of his knowledge with the information you originally presented. (even chose $300 as one of the limited factors.)

Woah, I'm getting a headache. I see what I meant wasn't clearly conveyed at all...

But you know, if what I said has so many possible meanings that you could split it off into 3 or even 4 possible interpretations, wouldn't it have been better to just ask for clarification instead of just guessing what I meant.

If you are going to that, is replying to my post necessary at all? Since he has said my post are absurd, hilarious etc etc. He could just write whatever he wants and leave me out of it.

 

[bryanW1995]

am I really necessary at all?

<--not answering above post, as tempting as it may be.

 

[golem]

<--not answering above post, as tempting as it may be.

LOL... ouch. Caught it before I edited it.

 

[railven]

Woah, I'm getting a headache. I see what I meant wasn't clearly conveyed at all...

But you know, if what I said has so many possible meanings that you could split it off into 3 or even 4 possible interpretations, wouldn't it have been better to just ask for clarification instead of just guessing what I meant.

If you are going to that, is replying to my post necessary at all? Since he has said my post are absurd, hilarious etc etc. He could just write whatever he wants and leave me out of it.

Haha, of course he could have just not responded. But, it goes both ways. It takes two to tango (cliches FTW) and you could have easily dismissed his response as a misunderstanding to yours, but you persisted. And he peristed. And you persisted. And he hasn't responded.

See what I mean by some people don't want to be at fault (ie lose) in a conversation? Hell, I'm very guilty of it. Haha.

He could have left it at a "WTF are you blabbering about?" but instead tried to answer what he thought you were asking (and based on your later clarifications - he did.)

You took offense to his "moving the goal posts" comment, which I wouldn't fault anyone for making after following the conversation you two had.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

But you know, if what I said has so many possible meanings that you could split it off into 3 or even 4 possible interpretations, wouldn't it have been better to just ask for clarification instead of just guessing what I meant.

When I did provide clarification, you accuse me of changing my meaning.. well how could I be changing my meaning if you didn't understand my original post in the first place???

It depends. You could say I made a mistake in my wording or that he made a mistake in his interpretation of my wording. Communication involves 2 sides and if I made a mistake in my wording, clarification should have been requested.

I clearly stated the interpretation of your post was subject to confusion as you posted the same thing in a contradictory manner. Now I didn't explicitly ask for clarification, but it was certainly implied. When a person reads that another person doesn't understand what is being said, that typically raises a flag calling for action to clarify the situation. So I didn't feel the need to explicitly ask.

What I don't like about him claiming I moved the goal post is that he didn't know what I meant, stated as much and then when I clarified, accused me of changing the goal posts. If your going going to say I'm not making sense and then put words in my mouth on what you think I mean, don't blame me if what you assumed and what I meant are different.

I already covered your abstract clarification in my argument. My reference to you "changing the goalposts" was because you used hard limitations using actual numbers ($100 and $300), which changes the nature of your post compared to the words "are not limited in funding" and "don't have unlimited funds".

Russian mentioned this or alluded to it I believe, but when you think about it, price/peformance may not be the only metric, but it's probably the only one that can encompass all other metrics besides performance/watt. You can't really change how much power a chip/card draws, or how much performance it gives. But almost any other criteria can be altered if you pay for it. Too loud, buy an aftermarket fan, too big? buy a case. When you choose a general performance level you want you can alter the price to meet the other criteria and compare cards that way.

This was not what you were alluding to you the original post I quoted and not the issue I was attacking. Altering other attributes of the system to fit the needs of a card is a different ballgame than you claiming a video card, in and of itself, has the price/performance lead or crown, as I called it. Because now you aren't considering the card in and of itself, you are considering other attributes, and like I said these other attributes are also important considerations. So like I originally said and was the intent of my post, this "price/performance lead or crown" is just fodder. Like you have just admitted there is more to pricing than just the initial cost of the card, and that pricing can be influenced by other desirable attributes. So that makes those attributes important, doesn't it?

And I never said price wasn't important, yet you argue as if I have? I'm pretty sure I already explained my stance very clearly.

But you know, if what I said has so many possible meanings that you could split it off into 3 or even 4 possible interpretations, wouldn't it have been better to just ask for clarification instead of just guessing what I meant.

If you are going to that, is replying to my post necessary at all? Since he has said my post are absurd, hilarious etc etc. He could just write whatever he wants and leave me out of it.

Well, this is perfect. There are only different interpretations because you FAILED to say what you meant to say originally. I pointed it out and implied an inquiry for clarification.

Even still that doesn't matter. If I was going to make a statement and it was directly spawned from something you said, why wouldn't I quote it? Especially considering the large nature of this thread and how conversations are broken.

 

[bryanW1995]

LOL... ouch. Caught it before I edited it.

yes, don't mess with the :ninja:

 

[golem]

yes, don't mess with the :ninja:

Noted - LOL.

 

[golem]

@railven

Thanks for pointing out my wording was that bad. I wasn't aware it was that unclear.

 

[happy medium]

Latest rumour is the 6770 will be released Oct 13, followed by the dual card in December, and the 6800 series in 2011.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/-rumour...-2011-mainstream-hd-6000-in-q4-2010/9744.html

I said this a month ago, but nobody listened.

 

[Will Robinson]

That's because everyone else who surfs the tech Internet saw what you saw ....but just didn't post about it.