4870/4850 "official" benchies....they're here....

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=287373


.....but from AMD...and with no details....

Average 25-45% faster then 9800GTX... Damn i hope these are real stats.

At least the y axis starts at 0.

The secrecy surrounding these cards amazes me considering how much we know about Nvidia's new cards.

Oh sweet jesus.

Please be true.

The last "power" card I had was a Ti4200 (currently x1550) - it's time for a new powerhouse card.


If the HD4850 can beat the 8800GT, and the 9800GTX is not that much faster (~20%) - then looking at that graph, the HD4850 should be on par or quicker than a 9800GTX...

My thoughts exactly!

I think those are legit enough, at this point anyways...
And if they OC as advertised...

sciggy ati with driver problems....... you obviously never owned a 6600 gt or a 7800 gtx

after those two cards im a firm believer that every new product launch WILL have its problems

I hope these are legit. I plan to pick up a 4870 at launch.

Yeah that's been my belief since like the Matrox Millenium era.
Almost every new card needs a bit of time for user feedback to tell the driver team "oh yeah you didn't think we'd play this, or do this with the card, but voila, bug/error".

Anywhoo, hopefully with the architectures being more similar to the previous generation and the maturity of Vista, that it'll be much quicker this time around for both.

Those results look reasonable and I think it is fair to compare the HD 4870 with the 9800GTX. That is the card it will be competing against- similar price tag (or so we're told!). ATI never said that the HD 4870 would compete with the GTX 280-hell, it's gonna be half the price! As for the GTX 260, maybe the 4870 won't be far off... (and for a much better price too!)

ASCII and I shall appear...

My 2 issues with these benchies are;

A) from a presentation point of view I'm a little skeptical due to the positioning of the benchmarks overtop of the page numbers, however anyone can be sloppy in presentation software so they could be legit.

B) Even if legit, these are definitely the best case scenario so need a good dose of NaCl ...... however that the benchies show high resolution, with 4X AA, and with the DX10 version of some benchies to me either shows someone's fantasy of improvement, or if legit that AMD is doing something different with their AA.

Unlike thes first round of benchies with no AA, this would focus on the area that ATi used to be good at, but totally surrendered in their HD2/3K products performance (while maintaining and improving their AA quality that they were also known for).

So IMO promising, but still, can't take them at face value because of the two major issue that I doubt their autheticity, and that they're overly glowing whith not only nary a negative benchmark result in the group , but none that are like 'hey we improved enough this round to get a slight lead', everything is over 25% improvement on immature drivers. Which, even if true, leaves me with the question: So what's the bad news? Everything has a weakeness, I wonder what it is, is it major or insignificant?

I wonder what the inverse slide looks like, something that ATi might pass around (internal only) as 'things to look at immediately and see if we can improve with drivers or something', I think I'll be most interested in the GTX2xx and HD4Ks weaknesses at first, because that will give alot of insight into their design too.

why need AA when you can just crank up the resolution settings? >

How much are these cards supposed to cost? With the 9800GTX being a relatively reasonable $300, these cards should be not TOO much more.

I doubt these are real... anyway as TGGA said its best case scenario... and there were already nvidia charts like this (most definitely fake) that showed like a 100 % increase... i have a feeling the cards actual performance increase over the 9800 gtx is around 15 - 20 %... maybe that will increase with drivers but for such a massive step up in a generation... they literally doubled their top end offering in one generation... that seems a little steep to me

15 - 20 % would be nice increase in performance... considering i have a 8800 GTS 640 that is oced... I'm thinking i'd get a performance increase of around 30% and maybe more with the X2...

But I just wanna see real benches comparing the 4870 x2 to the gtx 280

cause i'll get the better of the two... unless the performance difference is negligible then i'll get the cheaper of the two... I recently got a 24 inch monitor so i need the horsepower to drive it

That was my sarcastic point exactly. It is a biased set of data if it comes from AMD so even if they are 100% legit, they are almost meaningless. In addition, the Y scale is pretty meaningless without any label...1.4 what? FPS? %? Apples? Watts? It is a graph left wide open for the intention of people to draw their own conclusions. It is nice to see some "official" performance leaks though, truthful or not. Who knows though...this could be another photoshop job.

1.4 times the performance

Hahahaha, exactly

A very wise prof that I once had always used to say, "keep your eye on the doughnut, not the hole" when it was exam time. Don't fall into the hole my friend.

Yeah, DX10 Crysis shows higher Y axis (or insert label here) than DX9 Fear? I am thinking...no ,but I am not familiar with how taxing Fear is.

That doesn't seem logical to me....but like I said...I am not familiar with Fear

Edit: Do NV cards do really well in Fear?

Are you stupid or you all play stupid. Enough with the stupid questions I am getting nervous.

1.4 on the scale means ATI gets 1.4x fps in that particular game compared to the 9800GTX

So to say it simple as to a 9 year old if 9800GTX gets 30fps on Crysis then ATI 4870 gets 30x1.4=42fps

I thought simple math is mandatory in school

^ i know thats not accurate at all... but it makes my point

i'm going with easiness to pwn noobs in the games vs 9800 gtx

1.4 times easier to pwn noobs with a 4870 then a 9800 gtx =D

TGGA, some people are saying that you can tell the shader count by the perlin noise tests in both 3DMark06 and Vantage. Using this, and doing the math, theyve come up with 800 shaders. Now this is all above my head, but is there any credence to it, or could there be also other influences not seen/accounted for?

RawSteel, you are making a fool of yourself calling people stupid when this guy has a point. The sly presentation of this graph makes it pretty uninformative and Spinacheater's criticisms are completely valid. A rudimentary understanding of graphs, and their manipulability, would lead you to the same conclusion.

there out

http://translate.google.com/transl [...] 1601.shtml

I am just saying that either these graphs are fud or they are real , there is not much to think about it. I also think the consistent performance accross all games is suspicious.

The thing is if the charts are true then why would you presume its everything else but not clear performance comparison.

"The most obvious thing is often the truth" some wise guy said long time ago