Update on 4890...

Meh gtx 285 is almost 30 percent faster then a 4870. I doubt the 4890 can beat the gtx 285 in raw performance but just like the 4870 gtx 280 battle the people might choose the 4890 over a gtx 285. I sense another price performance war.

Who cares if it does or not? ATI has an answer for the gtx295 right around the corner, I doubt they are concentrating on beating the gtx285.

Who cares? I would hope AMD does if they plan on staying in business. It dosent have to beat it to stay in business, but it needs to just be a legit improvement over the 4870, which it will be. Claiming it might beat a GTX 285 like that fud link does is stupidity.

GTX 285 - 349.99
Sapphire 4870 - 179.99

Kinda hard to compare them when there's THAT much difference in price.

How does the 4870 do in Xfire against a single 285?

i think it'll be approximately 15% faster than 4870 and gtx 260, i don't think it''ll outperform the 285, but it will come close to the 280... i hope, at least...
too early to know, but it'll surely be a sweet deal...

If the 4890 is 5 percent slower then the gtx280 and 50 percent cheaper I dont know bout you guys but thats a sweet deal to me.

4890 512 mb may be 5-10% quicker than normal 4870 1 gb or even its oc edition, but the 4890 1 gb oc edition, oced by ur self again will come close to GTX280 i believe

FFS, wtf is with the %, I cannot believe people still mention that, meaningless shite tbh.

what's 10% of 30fps running at 16 x 12 with medium settings and how does that affect most people?

There is a slight chance that the 1gb edition which comes later is maybe 40 nm because Ati always has last minute surprises and they said its gonna 300 dollars is a lot if it doesn't the die shrink for 1 gb edition.

Stranger, we might be talking about two different things here. Some people say "big deal, you got 30FPS and I got 20FPS, so I'm only 10FPS slower." The problem is this is absolute values, and totally ignores percentage. His "not bad" 20FPS is actually 33% slower, which sounds a lot worse, because at these low FPS it IS worse. Same is true if you are talking about 40FPS instead of 50FPS. Might be only 10 frames, but its also 20% slower.

If the 4970 is going to be 30% faster then the 4870, then we know it will come close to the GTX280. You can't just say it will add 10 FPS to your games, as that lacks any real detail. (what res is the first that comes to mind.) By saying 10% slower then the GTX280, but 30% cheaper, we have some idea about its performance.

@ 4745454b

Well to be fair no one said FPS was a better way of doing it either, it isnt. You get the same issue, ie what system ? what settings ?

People who know a little about computers will understand that these percentages and FPS being thrown about are just ball park. People who dont know so much and come for advice could get misslead and take some of these figures as gospel.
Everyone is of course entitled to thier own opinion and to express it how they like.
My opinion on the subject is that S/S has a point here.

Mactronix

So your saying "paper numbers" have no relation to actual performance? Who is "taking a piss" now? Sorry, but "paper numbers" mean things whether you choose to accept that or not. I didn't say context doesn't matter, but % does matter as well.

But only in synthetic benchies, which I hope we all remember I hate. In actual game play, it was many % behind.

I predict the 4890 512 Mb will be 10% of fps over the 4870 1gb oc.

Paper numbers are the numbers you'd see in a "normal" review. 25FPS at XXX by XXX resolution for example. Strange was talking about the way Hard reviews, where they talk about the experience. Sometimes they will mention that although X card was on paper faster, there is no real way to tell the difference between the two unless you could look in the case, or see the benchmark results.

My problem with synthetic benchies is that they don't model real world usage. Take the previously mentioned 2900XT. 3DMark said it should compete really well, but in actual games it could barely take on the 8800GS. Even the 8800GT was faster. Synthetic harddrive programs have the same issue. They model what the drive is theoretically capable of, but they fail to take into account real world usage. (not all clusters needing to be read are next to each other for example.) I've seen to many times where a synthetic benchmark says X should be faster, but real world programs say Y really is.

The only time when I use them is to stress test X device. If an overclocked video card can handle many loops of 3DMark (or a new to me used video card.) then I can say the overclock is stable.

Again, saying/guessing that X will be Y% faster then Z gives us an idea as to Xs relative performance. Reading Rescawen's post gives me an idea as to how fast s/he thinks it will be. I do not understand why Strange says its "shite"

I give up, however, please show me where this 30% comes from between the 4870 and 280.

Nope, 280, that 30% number kicked about the same as the SLI will only give you a 30% increase in frames did way back when. Doesn't hold up to scutiny.

I am also glad you missed my whole point and extrapolated generalised results to "prove" the argument using date from only 1 review site with games only tested at 1 group of settings using data i provided.

I still don't get it, this just seems like rambling to me.

Other than that, nothing. Clearly stated 30% when talking about the 285 GTX.

Then again I just don't care enough to read the post properly after % have no meaning.

This could completely change the p/p results then.

To me 10% isn't a epenis its basically insurance. For example that is

It would mean the the 20-30% the 4870 X2 has over the 280 GTX is meaningless which puts the 280 GTX ontop? And yes I mean 280 GTX not 285 GTX to clear that out.

Anyways I'm pretty finished with this particular thread since it did get off topic from what the 4890 will be, and apprerntly its going to be nothing since % don't matter.

GTX285 is about 20% faster than 4870 1GB on average (few exceptions on 2560x1600 4xAA, but also few exceptions where 4870 beats even the 285)

My prediction is that the 4890 will be at least 20% faster thus coming VERY close to 280/285 if not beat them. ATI might pull another bomb here.

P.S - GTX285 is exactly 8-10% faster than GTX280 as only diff is clock speed and the clock speed is about 10% faster (which doesnt always scale linearly with performance)

according to those benchmarks the stock clocked 285 is about 18% faster than the 1GB 4870... i thought it was much more... i actually think an 18% increase is possible... I think the 4890 will perform just the same as a stock 285, if not it'll be a little less... probably like 5%...

From what i think, the 4890 will outperform the 280, which according to those benchmarks is 7-15% (10% in average) faster than the 1 GB 4870...

My thoughts as well. How a small bump in clocks can be stretched to 15% , and 20% stretched to 30% is beyond me. A clock for clock increase isnt a guess, its accurate, and nothing scales 100% no matter what, and we dont have more than 10%. Im also not sure why some people are sooo confident about exactly what ATI is going to release here. I guess I need more links, as the best info Ive found has it bouncing anywheres from 30% better than the 4870 down to 12% better. If we take an average or in between those numbers, and there wont be a difference between the 285 and the 4890. All the 275 rumors etc, all the 295 unavailabilities, and only the 285 as a true common seller available, Im not so sure nVidia does have an answer to this one, and again, not sure why some people are insisting they know what ATI is releasing

yeah jaydee is right... we are all assuming we know for a fact all these new cards' specs. If those specs were like the ones mentioned, then that's what i think it would happen.

I think ati is just tricking us again the 4890 will have over 1000+ sps. xD
The card sit between the gtx280-gtx285 in my opinion.

The 4890 will be a great card no doubt. I think the price is more important than where it fits in line.

hmmm