• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

RV670 ---------Radeon HD 3870 card high res photo

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
no one cares about 3mark scores....Good God, can Futuremark change their benchmark so it defaults at 4x AA so it can expose the crappy graphics cards for what they are?

I like to run 1680x1050 res and I barely like to play without any AA...if people don't stop posting non-AA 3dmark benches I hope the program is just not used anymore and scrapped.
 
Originally posted by: votelibertarian35
no one cares about 3mark scores....Good God, can Futuremark change their benchmark so it defaults at 4x AA so it can expose the crappy graphics cards for what they are?

I like to run 1680x1050 res and I barely like to play without any AA...if people don't stop posting non-AA 3dmark benches I hope the program is just not used anymore and scrapped.
Click to expand...

For the next version of 3D Mark I say they make some AA by default. That would solve this issue.
 
Originally posted by: coldpower27
Originally posted by: votelibertarian35
no one cares about 3mark scores....Good God, can Futuremark change their benchmark so it defaults at 4x AA so it can expose the crappy graphics cards for what they are?

I like to run 1680x1050 res and I barely like to play without any AA...if people don't stop posting non-AA 3dmark benches I hope the program is just not used anymore and scrapped.
Click to expand...

For the next version of 3D Mark I say they make some AA by default. That would solve this issue.
Click to expand...

isn't it a part of the DX10.1 standard?
 
Originally posted by: coldpower27
Originally posted by: votelibertarian35
no one cares about 3mark scores....Good God, can Futuremark change their benchmark so it defaults at 4x AA so it can expose the crappy graphics cards for what they are?

I like to run 1680x1050 res and I barely like to play without any AA...if people don't stop posting non-AA 3dmark benches I hope the program is just not used anymore and scrapped.
Click to expand...

For the next version of 3D Mark I say they make some AA by default. That would solve this issue.
Click to expand...

And while they're at it, make them take the cpu score out of the equation, so at least I have a general idea that it takes a fast video card to score 10k, and not a lousy 8600gts with 8 cpu cores.
 
Originally posted by: coldpower27
Originally posted by: votelibertarian35
no one cares about 3mark scores....Good God, can Futuremark change their benchmark so it defaults at 4x AA so it can expose the crappy graphics cards for what they are?

I like to run 1680x1050 res and I barely like to play without any AA...if people don't stop posting non-AA 3dmark benches I hope the program is just not used anymore and scrapped.
Click to expand...

For the next version of 3D Mark I say they make some AA by default. That would solve this issue.
Click to expand...

3DMark08 is expected soon, isn't it?

3DMark06 finally went to 12x10 resolution and i believe there is some filtering used ... that is improvement over 3DMark05
 
I am really, really eager to how two of these in Xfire pan out with Phenom and the new chipset.

If they can get these out at $250 I would for the first time consider a dual GPU setup for my new rig. With close to 2900xt performance, two of these for $500 would murder a GTX.
 
Originally posted by: ayabe
I am really, really eager to how two of these in Xfire pan out with Phenom and the new chipset.

If they can get these out at $250 I would for the first time consider a dual GPU setup for my new rig. With close to 2900xt performance, two of these for $500 would murder a GTX.
Click to expand...

I am in the same boat. Unfortunately its a lot of contingencies: Phenom must perform, run cool and o/c; rd790 must perform, run cool, and o/c; and rv670 must perform, run cool, and o/c.

If all that happens, however, I will definately be going back to AMD for my whole rig.
 
Originally posted by: ayabe
I am really, really eager to how two of these in Xfire pan out with Phenom and the new chipset.

If they can get these out at $250 I would for the first time consider a dual GPU setup for my new rig. With close to 2900xt performance, two of these for $500 would murder a GTX.
Click to expand...

i would just try it with my current 2900xt ... for $250 ... if it is really almost 'just as fast' ... i still would consider it with an OC'd 2900pro but i can't find one for MSRP 😛

and i start to think .. if the 2950p will performs close to a 2900xt for $250, what can we expect from the new flagship 2950xtx?

XTC ... or another r600 debacle when nvidia releases their new GPU?
😕
 
what about 2950xt? are they just planning to skip that? I thought that the high-end was going to be 2950x2xt or something like that.
 
Originally posted by: babcom
Jeez, Fudzilla - first they say RV670/2950 is 55nm, then they say it's 65nm.
AFAIK it's 55nm. Would I be right?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I noticed that too. 55nm was the last I heard.
 
If by "improved AA performance", I wonder if they mean they added back dedicated AA hardware? One could hope. I'm almost completely sold on this card. When rebates start popping up for them, I can see a version of RV670 hitting the $200 price point, all while beating the 8800GT (or so it would look).
 
Looks promising! I might just be getting a new card or two for my b-day. Haven't seen this kind of midrange performance potential since the 6600gt, and it's about time after a year of disappointments...
 
Not sure how this card can be exciting from performance point of view? All signs indicate the performance equal to or less than 2900 XT. Power/Thermal is a different issue and I welcome it whole-heartedly, though.
 
If they fix the huge performance hit when using AA, then it will be an exciting midrange card IMO. But I'm also interested in other factors, such as overclocking potential of the 750mhz Pro model, and the cost of the 850mhz+ XT model, assuming these rumors are true.
 
AA performance cannot be fixed unless AMD decided to change their hardware to have AA resolve done on the ROPs, then its a different story. But i dont think the latter is the case.

I would like to be proved wrong though 😛
 
Originally posted by: munky
If they fix the huge performance hit when using AA, then it will be an exciting midrange card IMO. But I'm also interested in other factors, such as overclocking potential of the 750mhz Pro model, and the cost of the 850mhz+ XT model, assuming these rumors are true.
Click to expand...

You have to realize that there is no "huge performance hit" for enabling AA at the resolution this Card is aimed at ... the 16x10 LCD crowd and lower resolutions.

If you have 19x12 you are not even looking at it - except for X-Fire 😛
 
AA performance cannot be fixed unless AMD decided to change their hardware to have AA resolve done on the ROPs, then its a different story. But i dont think the latter is the case.
Click to expand...
With such big process shrinks I'd imagine they have plenty of space to add that back in. Maybe not ROPs per-se but they could beef up the AA resolve on the shaders so it'll still be programmable but run faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top