R520 Faster Than G70 and 6800U SLI

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: Kensai
What about a G70 SLI?

Sounds good.... but, if one 520 beats a G70 two 520's (crossfire) would probably beat two G70's???? Just speculation until it happens but Inquirer has been amazingly accurate lately.

 

[ddogg]

Originally posted by: hans030390
Oh boy....ATI is better than Nvidia once again...and this proves that??? Hasn't ATI usually had a slight shader performance over Nvidia? It's just that SM3 sounded so good, that's why i got a 6600gt (plus its the best card for the price)...

woot ATI...it's still just a rumor.

RUMORS DUDE!! its the inquirer for God's sake. lets wait and see how powerful either the R520 or G70 is. maybe it might be more powerful but it might be a phantom card like the XT/PE rendering it useless. like insomniak said "Let me know when Anand tests them head to head. Until then, I call shens on all numbers for either card."

 

[ddogg]

Originally posted by: jrphoenix

Originally posted by: Kensai
What about a G70 SLI?

Sounds good.... but, if one 520 beats a G70 two 520's (crossfire) would probably beat two G70's???? Just speculation until it happens but Inquirer has been amazingly accurate lately.

what are you talking about?? just recently they said the G70 would be a 90nm....then they contradicted it later saying they were wrong and it would be a 110nm. just because one or two articles were true doesnt make them accurate.

 

[ddogg]

Originally posted by: Ged

Originally posted by: paadness
You say my english is poor, the article writes "mach with the G70". Now WTF is mach. Seems inquirer is fooling us all

Mach

EDIT: In case that's missleading, the quote from the Inq was: "For what we know Nvidia can not mach this with G70."

This would be a reference to mach as in "the F-15 can reach speeds over Mach 2" with Mach being a reference to the speed of sound (Mach 2 = 2x speed of sound for instance).

So, either they left the T out of "match" or they were using "mach" with a deeper meaning.

lol its a typo..theres no deeper meaning to it

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Everything is fine and dandy except:

1) what matters is availability;
2) pricing -- (probably not reasonable for at least 2 months after introduction);
3) gaming benchmarks -- (not 3dmark because it often has no correlation with real world games);
4) games that help to push new cards to the limit -- (not likely for another year).

:thumbsup:

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Let me know when Anand tests them head to head. Until then, I call shens on all numbers for either card.

You may want to read multiple articles. Derek is pretty prone to making large mistakes.

 

[trinibwoy]

Originally posted by: Son of a N00b

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Everything is fine and dandy except:

1) what matters is availability;
2) pricing -- (probably not reasonable for at least 2 months after introduction);
3) gaming benchmarks -- (not 3dmark because it often has no correlation with real world games);
4) games that help to push new cards to the limit -- (not likely for another year).

:thumbsup:

I don't doubt that ATi's top R520 beats the GTX since the GTX most likely is not Nvidia's flagship card. In addition to the rumours on several websites of an Ultra SKU in hiding, it is somewhat telling that the only cards we've seen from Nvidia so far have single-slot cooling. Given the whispers of R520 being dual-slot I would bet on a dual-slot Ultra showing up after ATi plays its hand.

 

[Maluno]

*DROOOL*

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Let me know when Anand tests them head to head. Until then, I call shens on all numbers for either card.

You may want to read multiple articles. Derek is pretty prone to making large mistakes.

I usually do, but you get my point - until the review sites have posted the showdowns and we've had time to digest and analyze them, I'm not crowning anyone a winner.

 

[imported_Kensai]

I'll take four R520s please.

 

[ryanv12]

Bah, my 6800GT should be good for COD 2 at 1680x1050. Wake me up when COD 3 comes out and they have the G1600's around the corner.

Edit - I think at this point I'd rather see more physical interaction in games than graphics. Here's to hoping the PHYSX processor gets widely adopted! I'll spend my money on one of those rather than a GPU this Xmas.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Killrose
Now all we need are games that will tax these video cards. And I'm not talking about only one or two games. Myself, I think i'll wait for the Ageia physics eng., before I get too excited.

Play a decently high res. with some AA and AF and you will see cards suffer quite a bit..

I can't wait for the new releases..

 

[RussianSensation]

...What I wanna know is why Island2 demo - v1.1 for Radeon 8500, using DX8.1, still looks better than any game out there right now 4 years after the demo was released. I just ran it in real time, and the water looks better than far cry in DX9, textures are sharper than in HL2 or Doom 3, and the creature that gets out of the water is shiny as if it has HDR on it (like what the demos were showing of HL2 enemies prior to its release on the rooftop). This runs perfectly smooth on my card. We have cards much much faster, but games dont even touch the quality of the demo.......why? Also how can some games be so poorly programmed -- ie. Halo for PC looks like crap and runs choppy even on new hardware. LIke how hard is it to program a game? Painkiller looks better than Halo and I can run it at 100frames at same resolution that gives me 25 frames in Halo.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
...What I wanna know is why Island2 demo - v1.1 for Radeon 8500, using DX8.1, still looks better than any game out there right now 4 years after the demo was released. I just ran it in real time, and the water looks better than far cry in DX9, textures are sharper than in HL2 or Doom 3, and the creature that gets out of the water is shiny as if it has HDR on it (like what the demos were showing of HL2 enemies prior to its release on the rooftop). This runs perfectly smooth on my card. We have cards much much faster, but games dont even touch the quality of the demo.......why? Also how can some games be so poorly programmed -- ie. Halo for PC looks like crap and runs choppy even on new hardware. LIke how hard is it to program a game? Painkiller looks better than Halo and I can run it at 100frames at same resolution that gives me 25 frames in Halo.

Yeah that demo does look impressive. Part of the reason is ATI made it...they know all the tricks to get it to run good on their (anyone's?) hardware. Yup...the PAIN engine is very well coded, along with HL2. Engines like Doom3 are no-holds-barred and just lag your hardware as much as possible...and the splinter cell engine is pretty bad too. If they had 10 years to make a game, they could make it run pretty fast. Limit the use of shaders...etc... there's probably a few tricks and alternative, faster methods that take longer to implement. The easier games are to make, the slower they will be, generally. So since new graphics cards are so (too?) powerful, you might see new start-up companies that can slap together an unoptimized engine and still have it run well because the hardware is so fast. That's so inefficient though. Sort of like people make programs in Visual Basic instead of assembler. It's easier, but slower. I wish ATI and NVIDIA would make their own engines and people would make games off of them, fully optimized and all.

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Sick of people saying 'calling BS on this until its released'. Thanks for stating the obvious, but if you don't care/don't want to discuss it why bother replying? It's as annoying as 'first post'. It's not news that this is just speculation. Everybody and their mother already knows how credible The Inquirer is. We can't confirm if it's true or not. We know we can't until it's officially released. But thats not what we're discussing. We're commenting about this should it be true. This isn't just directed to Insomniak but everyone who does this obviously. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/opinion1.gif

That is kinda getting annoying I agree. It's freakin obvious that we won't know until it's officially out, but give the objectiveness a rest once in a while and give in to your fanboyism... a little.

I know these numbers don't mean sht... but ATI is so gonna hand Nvidia ass to this... dude... - ATI is just gonna rock Nv's world while Nv still tries to get it's Purevideo crap to work.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: X
From the Inquirer:

DESPITE WHAT people were claiming, the G70 will score better than the 7800. The card never got the 7800 suffix based on its 3Dmark05 score and if it was number would end up significantly bigger. It's actually going to be quite better but still not as good as the "Fudo" R520.

We got some numbers from this card and it turns out that R520 scores more than 10000 in 3Dmark05. We still don't know its clock speeds but we know the score. For what we know Nvidia can not mach this with G70.

This is actually even better or equal to two 6800 Ultra cards in SLI which kinds of makes it looks ridiculously fast. Imagine R520 in Crossfire, what ATI "cool chap" described as "Coolest technology ever" could do? Just double the number please.

No question that R520, Fudo will be fast the only questions remains are when is it going to be out and when it will actually be available. We will hopefully found out more soon.

If two 6800 Ultras in SLI is the benchmark why not spend the $850 now for two 6800 Ultras than wait until October (when you can actually get your hands on it) to pay $800 (since there will be supply shortages) for an R520?

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Ged

Originally posted by: paadness
You say my english is poor, the article writes "mach with the G70". Now WTF is mach. Seems inquirer is fooling us all

Mach

EDIT: In case that's missleading, the quote from the Inq was: "For what we know Nvidia can not mach this with G70."

This would be a reference to mach as in "the F-15 can reach speeds over Mach 2" with Mach being a reference to the speed of sound (Mach 2 = 2x speed of sound for instance).

So, either they left the T out of "match" or they were using "mach" with a deeper meaning.

I think you still have a while before you earn your GED. Where did you pull that usage of the word "mach" out of? It's obvious that they forgot the "t" in "match." Now stop confusing the ESL kid.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: hans030390
Oh boy....ATI is better than Nvidia once again...and this proves that??? Hasn't ATI usually had a slight shader performance over Nvidia? It's just that SM3 sounded so good, that's why i got a 6600gt (plus its the best card for the price)...

woot ATI...it's still just a rumor.

I have a 6600GT now and whoever has the better $200-250 card has my money.

 

[Avalon]

And there are the expected claims of BS seen from the Nvidia camp, as I expected. I could believe it, as anything now is entirely possible. Don't be so quick to discredit claims that ATI may not be a one card wonder. I think there's a good chance they may surprise us all again. Naturally, Nvidia gets my kudos for making the launch so soon.

 

[imported_X]

Originally posted by: sxr7171
If two 6800 Ultras in SLI is the benchmark why not spend the $850 now for two 6800 Ultras than wait until October (when you can actually get your hands on it) to pay $800 (since there will be supply shortages) for an R520?

1) I don't think the R520 will be that expensive, but regardless if you want top performance and longevity, 2 R520s will kill 2 6800 Ultras

2) It has been reported that the G70 is already in the hands of major manufacturers and should not suffer from shortages, so it would be a lot smarter to get that than 2 6800 Ultras. The same might prove to be true for the R520

3) When the G70 and R520 come out in the next few weeks, the price on 6800 Ultras will drop. Is it really worth it to spend $850 now given that fact?

 

[Sylvanas]

Originally posted by: X
From the Inquirer:

DESPITE WHAT people were claiming, the G70 will score better than the 7800. The card never got the 7800 suffix based on its 3Dmark05 score and if it was number would end up significantly bigger. It's actually going to be quite better but still not as good as the "Fudo" R520.

We got some numbers from this card and it turns out that R520 scores more than 10000 in 3Dmark05. We still don't know its clock speeds but we know the score. For what we know Nvidia can not mach this with G70.

This is actually even better or equal to two 6800 Ultra cards in SLI which kinds of makes it looks ridiculously fast. Imagine R520 in Crossfire, what ATI "cool chap" described as "Coolest technology ever" could do? Just double the number please.

No question that R520, Fudo will be fast the only questions remains are when is it going to be out and when it will actually be available. We will hopefully found out more soon.

All I can say is told you so.

 

[paadness]

The cost cannot be less than what u already have today, $ 500+ XT PE's and $ 800 6800 Ultras.

From Doom III i was amazed the extreme option recommends 512 MB of VGA RAM but 256 MB is quite enough for a few more years.

All i can say is...

256 MB 24-pipe G70 = $ 500 MRSP (will be sold for $ 600 initially)
512 // // // = $ 650 MRSP ( same here add $ 100 )

256 MB R520 24-pipe (moddable into 32) = $ 500 MRSP
512 MB R520 XT PE 32 pipe = $ 700

R520 mainstream 16 pipe = $ 400

 

[McArra]

Bah, no reviews this means nothing, I'm really sick of rumours, why can't people just sit down and wait to see final results?? This is silly:|

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: X

Originally posted by: sxr7171
If two 6800 Ultras in SLI is the benchmark why not spend the $850 now for two 6800 Ultras than wait until October (when you can actually get your hands on it) to pay $800 (since there will be supply shortages) for an R520?

1) I don't think the R520 will be that expensive, but regardless if you want top performance and longevity, 2 R520s will kill 2 6800 Ultras

2) It has been reported that the G70 is already in the hands of major manufacturers and should not suffer from shortages, so it would be a lot smarter to get that than 2 6800 Ultras. The same might prove to be true for the R520

3) When the G70 and R520 come out in the next few weeks, the price on 6800 Ultras will drop. Is it really worth it to spend $850 now given that fact?

And one videocard will most likely require less power than 2, and even though SLI and Crossfire seems to work in most cases, a single card would probably give less driver problems.

 

[AndyD2k]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
...What I wanna know is why Island2 demo - v1.1 for Radeon 8500, using DX8.1, still looks better than any game out there right now 4 years after the demo was released. I just ran it in real time, and the water looks better than far cry in DX9, textures are sharper than in HL2 or Doom 3, and the creature that gets out of the water is shiny as if it has HDR on it (like what the demos were showing of HL2 enemies prior to its release on the rooftop). This runs perfectly smooth on my card. We have cards much much faster, but games dont even touch the quality of the demo.......why? Also how can some games be so poorly programmed -- ie. Halo for PC looks like crap and runs choppy even on new hardware. LIke how hard is it to program a game? Painkiller looks better than Halo and I can run it at 100frames at same resolution that gives me 25 frames in Halo.

because there is a lot more going on in those games than just a pretty scene? that demo was made for one thing...to show off graphics capability.