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

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

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.

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.

This is what they did according to one of the links I read. Can't remember which link it was though.

 

[bryanW1995]

looks like I'm going to be very happy that I didn't spring for the $285 2900 pro...

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: apoppin

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.

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

I meant that the performance drop the 2900-series cards take from enabling AA, relative to not having AA, is bigger than that of other cards like the 8800gts or even a 1900xt. Obviously, the 2900xt is still faster than a 1900xt, but when compared to the 8800gts, it doesn't look so good.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: apoppin

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.

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

I meant that the performance drop the 2900-series cards take from enabling AA, relative to not having AA, is bigger than that of other cards like the 8800gts or even a 1900xt. Obviously, the 2900xt is still faster than a 1900xt, but when compared to the 8800gts, it doesn't look so good.

that is where you are wrong ... compared to an 8800GTS it is fine ...
-at resolutions either card is useful ... at 19x12, the GTS is ALSO unplayable in most new games with 4XAA enabled. At 16x10 the 2900xt and GTS perform equally with 4xAA [more-or-less]

---unless you can find a situation where the 2900xt is *suddenly crippled* by 4xAA and the 8800GTS is not
-and don't be showing me brand new games where AMD's drivers currently suck

 

[SniperDaws]

Sorry wrong thread

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

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.

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.

The last part i quite agree. If they do this, RV670 would be quite the card in its market segment, if not heavily influencing the higher end cards like the 2900XT/8800GTS.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: apoppin

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.

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

I meant that the performance drop the 2900-series cards take from enabling AA, relative to not having AA, is bigger than that of other cards like the 8800gts or even a 1900xt. Obviously, the 2900xt is still faster than a 1900xt, but when compared to the 8800gts, it doesn't look so good.

that is where you are wrong ... compared to an 8800GTS it is fine ...
-at resolutions either card is useful ... at 19x12, the GTS is ALSO unplayable in most new games with 4XAA enabled. At 16x10 the 2900xt and GTS perform equally with 4xAA [more-or-less]

---unless you can find a situation where the 2900xt is *suddenly crippled* by 4xAA and the 8800GTS is not
-and don't be showing me brand new games where AMD's drivers currently suck

Here you go:
8800gts
2900xt

Compare the AA/AF performance hit taken by each card in games like FEAR, Prey, and Oblivion - games that have been around for at a year or more. If you do the math, you can see that even with new drivers, the Ati card takes a bigger hit with high quality settings. After looking at those graphs, it seems like AF is also more stressful for the 2900xt, not just AA. Moreover, the fact alone that Ati apparently needs to update their drivers for every new game released is enough reason to put me off from buying their cards. Sort of reminds me of Nvidia's FX cards, and I'd hate to be in the shoes of the people who bought those

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: apoppin
---unless you can find a situation where the 2900xt is *suddenly crippled* by 4xAA and the 8800GTS is not
-and don't be showing me brand new games where AMD's drivers currently suck

Here you go:
8800gts
2900xt

Moreover, the fact alone that Ati apparently needs to update their drivers for every new game released is enough reason to put me off from buying their cards. Sort of reminds me of Nvidia's FX cards, and I'd hate to be in the shoes of the people who bought those

Huh? Your "proof" that the X2900 is crippled by 4x AA shows it still outperforming the 640MB 8800 GTS. The rest of your post (that I quoted), I agree with, though.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: apoppin
---unless you can find a situation where the 2900xt is *suddenly crippled* by 4xAA and the 8800GTS is not
-and don't be showing me brand new games where AMD's drivers currently suck

Here you go:
8800gts
2900xt

Moreover, the fact alone that Ati apparently needs to update their drivers for every new game released is enough reason to put me off from buying their cards. Sort of reminds me of Nvidia's FX cards, and I'd hate to be in the shoes of the people who bought those

Huh? Your "proof" that the X2900 is crippled by 4x AA shows it still outperforming the 640MB 8800 GTS. The rest of your post (that I quoted), I agree with, though.

In some games it wins, in some it loses. Also, that review used a reference-spec gts, not the factory OC'd ones. I am not one to favor Nvidia cards... but I call it how I see it, and if I had to chose between the two, I'd pick the gts.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: apoppin
---unless you can find a situation where the 2900xt is *suddenly crippled* by 4xAA and the 8800GTS is not
-and don't be showing me brand new games where AMD's drivers currently suck

Here you go:
8800gts
2900xt

Moreover, the fact alone that Ati apparently needs to update their drivers for every new game released is enough reason to put me off from buying their cards. Sort of reminds me of Nvidia's FX cards, and I'd hate to be in the shoes of the people who bought those

Huh? Your "proof" that the X2900 is crippled by 4x AA shows it still outperforming the 640MB 8800 GTS. The rest of your post (that I quoted), I agree with, though.

In some games it wins, in some it loses. Also, that review used a reference-spec gts, not the factory OC'd ones. I am not one to favor Nvidia cards... but I call it how I see it, and if I had to chose between the two, I'd pick the gts.

so you are showing me that the 2900xt is still faster then the GTS640?


nice


so what IS your point ?

your personal preference
:roll:

fine by me ... i would have the GTS also - if it was cheaper and had a game bundle

i get no *reminders* of the FX series ... the 2900xt is easily the EQUAL of the GTS640 OC

 

[bryanW1995]

it is also looking more and more like the 2950 xt will start to encroach on gtx territory, too!

 

[SniperDaws]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
it is also looking more and more like the 2950 xt will start to encroach on gtx territory, too!

Where you looking ?

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
it is also looking more and more like the 2950 xt will start to encroach on gtx territory, too!

Where you looking ?

Here for one.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Do we know whether the $200 Pro is a 256mb of 512mb model?

 

[AVP]

256 i think.

 

[SniperDaws]

Originally posted by: ronnn

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
it is also looking more and more like the 2950 xt will start to encroach on gtx territory, too!

Where you looking ?

Here for one.

Thank you

BUT thats one person speculating, also he mentions

"Now that word has leaked out on how potent the RV670 is,"

where is this leaked info?

Grrrr my post sounds patrionising but i am honestly just asking for a link because im intrested as i want a new card wether it be from ATI or Nvidia.

 

[ronnn]

His speculations tend to be accurate - at least concerning nvidia. If you want verified benchmarks, I suggest you wait until both cards are launched.

 

[bryanW1995]

yes, I am extremely anxious to see benchmarks from both camps in the coming weeks.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ronnn
His speculations tend to be accurate - at least concerning nvidia. If you want verified benchmarks, I suggest you wait until both cards are launched.

they are speculations ... but they are also pretty much in-line with mine and what i have been saying here as they seem to match-up with what 'pieces' of info is available

logical deductions as AMD is looking to get back in the game in a big way ... r600 evidently is as "sound" a design to build on as is G80 ...
--maybe even better
:Q

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: apoppin
---unless you can find a situation where the 2900xt is *suddenly crippled* by 4xAA and the 8800GTS is not
-and don't be showing me brand new games where AMD's drivers currently suck

Here you go:
8800gts
2900xt

Moreover, the fact alone that Ati apparently needs to update their drivers for every new game released is enough reason to put me off from buying their cards. Sort of reminds me of Nvidia's FX cards, and I'd hate to be in the shoes of the people who bought those

Huh? Your "proof" that the X2900 is crippled by 4x AA shows it still outperforming the 640MB 8800 GTS. The rest of your post (that I quoted), I agree with, though.

In some games it wins, in some it loses. Also, that review used a reference-spec gts, not the factory OC'd ones. I am not one to favor Nvidia cards... but I call it how I see it, and if I had to chose between the two, I'd pick the gts.

so you are showing me that the 2900xt is still faster then the GTS640?

No, I am showing you that the 2900xt takes a bigger hit from AA and AF. You must have ignored the all the games where it looses to come up with your conclusion.

nice


so what IS your point ?

I made my point and you didn't get it.

i get no *reminders* of the FX series ... the 2900xt is easily the EQUAL of the GTS640 OC

Seeing how the 2900xt tanks with AA+AF, or whenever there's a new game out that the drivers havan't been optimized for, I get plenty of reminders. And the fact that a 700M transistor 2900xt card has no chance of matching the performance of a 700M transistor 8800gtx sinks in that reminder even further.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: apoppin
---unless you can find a situation where the 2900xt is *suddenly crippled* by 4xAA and the 8800GTS is not
-and don't be showing me brand new games where AMD's drivers currently suck

Here you go:
8800gts
2900xt

Moreover, the fact alone that Ati apparently needs to update their drivers for every new game released is enough reason to put me off from buying their cards. Sort of reminds me of Nvidia's FX cards, and I'd hate to be in the shoes of the people who bought those

Huh? Your "proof" that the X2900 is crippled by 4x AA shows it still outperforming the 640MB 8800 GTS. The rest of your post (that I quoted), I agree with, though.

In some games it wins, in some it loses. Also, that review used a reference-spec gts, not the factory OC'd ones. I am not one to favor Nvidia cards... but I call it how I see it, and if I had to chose between the two, I'd pick the gts.

so you are showing me that the 2900xt is still faster then the GTS640?

No, I am showing you that the 2900xt takes a bigger hit from AA and AF. You must have ignored the all the games where it looses to come up with your conclusion.

nice


so what IS your point ?

I made my point and you didn't get it.

i get no *reminders* of the FX series ... the 2900xt is easily the EQUAL of the GTS640 OC

Seeing how the 2900xt tanks with AA+AF, or whenever there's a new game out that the drivers havan't been optimized for, I get plenty of reminders. And the fact that a 700M transistor 2900xt card has no chance of matching the performance of a 700M transistor 8800gtx sinks in that reminder even further.

You still don't get it ... show me a DX9 game at 16x10 where the 640GTS plays a maxed--out game with 4xAA/16xAF and the 2900xt cannot
- except for games where AA is unavailable to AMD yet or the game is so new there are no updates yet.

The 2900xt is not intended to match the GTX ... you still don't get it ... it is a *easily* a match for the GTS - the product at which it is aimed [$400 - not $650].


EDIT: let me put it to you another way ... i already asked everyone back in June ... but anyway ...

What practical disadvantage in gaming am i experiencing by having picked a 2900xt over a 8800GTS-640M-OC?
-name one ... a practical one ... don't mention the possible extra 20c a month electricity charges...
--and don't show me 19x12 where *neither* card does very well ... nor DX10 games where *no* single card performs well.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: apoppin
You still don't get it ... show me a DX9 game at 16x10 where the 640GTS plays a maxed--out game with 4xAA/16xAF and the 2900xt cannot
- except for games where AA is unavailable to AMD yet or the game is so new there are no updates yet

Why should I excuse Ati for their poor driver suport? You basically just confirmed that until Ati releases an updated driver for new and future games, there's a very good chance that the 2900xt will not run that game correctly or at all, while the 8800gts users can play the game.

The 2900xt is not intended to match the GTX ... you still don't get it ... it is a *easily* a match for the GTS - the product at which it is aimed [$400 - not $650].

You don't get it...
Do you think Ati originally intended to just give the performance crown to Nvidia? The 2900xt is forced to compete with the gts because it could not match the gtx performance in games with high quality settings. The fact that it takes a 320-shader 2900xt to compete with the 96-shader 8800gts is nothing impressive, and what do you think will happen if the 320-shader rv670 goes up against a 112 or 128-shader Nvidia card?

EDIT: let me put it to you another way ... i already asked everyone back in June ... but anyway ...

What practical disadvantage in gaming am i experiencing by having picked a 2900xt over a 8800GTS-640M-OC?
-name one ... a practical one ... don't mention the possible extra 20c a month electricity charges...

How about having to wait for updated drivers with every new game released?

--and don't show me 19x12 where *neither* card does very well ... nor DX10 games where *no* single card performs well.

That's a matter of opinion. Regardless of how well the games run, I'd rather have the card that gets 28fps over one that gets 24fps.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: apoppin
You still don't get it ... show me a DX9 game at 16x10 where the 640GTS plays a maxed--out game with 4xAA/16xAF and the 2900xt cannot
- except for games where AA is unavailable to AMD yet or the game is so new there are no updates yet

Why should I excuse Ati for their poor driver suport? You basically just confirmed that until Ati releases an updated driver for new and future games, there's a very good chance that the 2900xt will not run that game correctly or at all, while the 8800gts users can play the game.[/quote]
i have no problem waiting up to a month for a new driver for a brand new game to fine tune performance. BioShock ran fine for me with the hotfix the day it was released. AMD is very good about releasing drivers for twiimtbp games very quickly.

The 2900xt is not intended to match the GTX ... you still don't get it ... it is a *easily* a match for the GTS - the product at which it is aimed [$400 - not $650].

You don't get it...
Do you think Ati originally intended to just give the performance crown to Nvidia? The 2900xt is forced to compete with the gts because it could not match the gtx performance in games with high quality settings. The fact that it takes a 320-shader 2900xt to compete with the 96-shader 8800gts is nothing impressive, and what do you think will happen if the 320-shader rv670 goes up against a 112 or 128-shader Nvidia card?[/quote]

intentions? i don't know intentions and neither do you - other than that they intended to make money with 2900xt and perhaps that meant taking the mid-range. AMD acquired ATi while it was developing r600 and obviously reworked it. The entire point is that in the $400 price range the 2900xt is slotted against the GTS640M and there is no performance advantage whatsoever in picking the GeForce over the Radeon. What do i think will happen? ... well, i think 2950xtx is gonna kick G92 ultra-ass; at least for awhile.

EDIT: let me put it to you another way ... i already asked everyone back in June ... but anyway ...

What practical disadvantage in gaming am i experiencing by having picked a 2900xt over a 8800GTS-640M-OC?
-name one ... a practical one ... don't mention the possible extra 20c a month electricity charges...

How about having to wait for updated drivers with every new game released?[/quote]

Of course you still exaggerate. Stalker was the only game the 2900xt really performed "badly" and that was only for one month after release. 8800 owners put up with crap divers for months after release. Remember the "Vista Ready" BS claim by nvidia when there were NO drivers? twiimtbp BioShock was hot-fixed on Day1 - super service from AMD! Their driver support is stellar. They managed to do in 3 months what took nvidia more than 5 with brand new architecture and a brand new OS. They already fixed CrossFire in one month from crap last month to matching GTS' SLI performance - this month. Impressive. Thanks for reminding me.

--and don't show me 19x12 where *neither* card does very well ... nor DX10 games where *no* single card performs well.

That's a matter of opinion. Regardless of how well the games run, I'd rather have the card that gets 28fps over one that gets 24fps.[/quote]

Good for you - that is what i want too if you are talking absolute minimums .... and in many cases the 2900xt is getting 28 and the GTS is only managing 24. i am not disadvantaged in the slightest

 

[JPB]

Updated in OP !

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: apoppin
You still don't get it ... show me a DX9 game at 16x10 where the 640GTS plays a maxed--out game with 4xAA/16xAF and the 2900xt cannot
- except for games where AA is unavailable to AMD yet or the game is so new there are no updates yet

Why should I excuse Ati for their poor driver suport? You basically just confirmed that until Ati releases an updated driver for new and future games, there's a very good chance that the 2900xt will not run that game correctly or at all, while the 8800gts users can play the game.

i have no problem waiting up to a month for a new driver for a brand new game to fine tune performance. BioShock ran fine for me with the hotfix the day it was released. AMD is very good about releasing drivers for twiimtbp games very quickly.

The 2900xt is not intended to match the GTX ... you still don't get it ... it is a *easily* a match for the GTS - the product at which it is aimed [$400 - not $650].

You don't get it...
Do you think Ati originally intended to just give the performance crown to Nvidia? The 2900xt is forced to compete with the gts because it could not match the gtx performance in games with high quality settings. The fact that it takes a 320-shader 2900xt to compete with the 96-shader 8800gts is nothing impressive, and what do you think will happen if the 320-shader rv670 goes up against a 112 or 128-shader Nvidia card?[/quote]

intentions? i don't know intentions and neither do you - other than that they intended to make money with 2900xt and perhaps that meant taking the mid-range. AMD acquired ATi while it was developing r600 and obviously reworked it. The entire point is that in the $400 price range the 2900xt is slotted against the GTS640M and there is no performance advantage whatsoever in picking the GeForce over the Radeon. What do i think will happen? ... well, i think 2950xtx is gonna kick G92 ultra-ass; at least for awhile.

EDIT: let me put it to you another way ... i already asked everyone back in June ... but anyway ...

What practical disadvantage in gaming am i experiencing by having picked a 2900xt over a 8800GTS-640M-OC?
-name one ... a practical one ... don't mention the possible extra 20c a month electricity charges...

How about having to wait for updated drivers with every new game released?[/quote]

Of course you still exaggerate. Stalker was the only game the 2900xt really performed "badly" and that was only for one month after release. 8800 owners put up with crap divers for months after release. Remember the "Vista Ready" BS claim by nvidia when there were NO drivers? twiimtbp BioShock was hot-fixed on Day1 - super service from AMD! Their driver support is stellar. They managed to do in 3 months what took nvidia more than 5 with brand new architecture and a brand new OS. They already fixed CrossFire in one month from crap last month to matching GTS' SLI performance - this month. Impressive. Thanks for reminding me.

--and don't show me 19x12 where *neither* card does very well ... nor DX10 games where *no* single card performs well.

That's a matter of opinion. Regardless of how well the games run, I'd rather have the card that gets 28fps over one that gets 24fps.[/quote]

Good for you - that is what i want too if you are talking absolute minimums .... and in many cases the 2900xt is getting 28 and the GTS is only managing 24. i am not disadvantaged in the slightest

[/quote][/quote]
I also can't help but notice how in HL2:ep2 the 2900xt sinks to the same level as a 1950xtx as soon as AA is enabled, and drops below the level of a 8800gts. This is the kind of performance hit I am talking about, in a DX9 game based on a 3 year old engine, and that's why I'm saying hopefully Ati will make the appropriate changes in the rv670 so this doesn't happen again.