Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RV870 is 1.6 times faster than RV770

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 5:15:17 PM

Nice find. ATI's soon to "lunch" GPU? Is there some hidden meaning there, like that it will "lunch" on NVidia's offering? :lol: 
August 31, 2009 5:22:12 PM

60% faster than a 4870 isn't that great... It won't even be as fast as a 4870X2 in some cases. I hope this is wrong.
Related resources
August 31, 2009 5:25:59 PM

1.6 times=160%
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 5:30:10 PM

Yes, but there will probably a 5870X2 as well.
August 31, 2009 5:32:07 PM

topper743 said:
1.6 times=160%


If its 160% of the performance of a 4870, its still only 60% faster.
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 5:38:04 PM

Who knows, this has most likely been translated from Cantonese using simple Chinese translator, rewritten by a Bosnian in Bosnian, then converted to english.
Or, it could mean the 5850, as it too has the same family class, and the card isnt known as evergreen, thats the whole family name.
So, what do we know after reading this? Itll be at least as big a jump as going from 3xxx series to the 4xxx series
August 31, 2009 5:52:07 PM

I don't know, 60% faster seems pretty good to me. I figured that's about as high as the HD 4870x2 until someone said it wasn't. I didn't know crossfire got 60% scaling.

Even so, if it releases at only $350, it's cheaper than the HD 4870X2, anyway.
August 31, 2009 6:11:16 PM

The 4850 is equal, if not faster than the 3870X2. The 3870X2 is about 1.5-1.7 times faster than a single 3870, so the 3870->4850 was about 1.6 times. The 4870 is faster yet than the 4850, so the 3870->4870 jump was greater than 1.6 times, more like 1.8-2.0 times as fast.

This article is comparing RV870 to RV770 as well, not RV790. If a 4890 is about 1.2 times as fast as RV770, and overclocked it is about 1.3-1.4 times as fast, the RV870 will only be 20-40% faster than a 4890.

If RV870 truly has twice as many shaders as RV770/790, this doesn't sound right at all, unless the clock speeds are a lot lower or something. So I hope something got lost in translation, or that this article is plain wrong.
August 31, 2009 6:20:10 PM

Well having twice the amount of shaders does not mean that the card is twice faster. So 1.6 is guite ok. The difference is bigger in shader heavy games and less in other tittles. The best part in anyway is that both ATI and Nvidia are in the same boat with DX11, so we may actually see some advancement in that sector!
If the price is right, I am just happy! And if the Nvidia version is fast allso, the better. Still no monopoly in this area!
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 6:22:41 PM

Well, this is the lowest rumor Ive heard. Actually thats good, but umm, leave it to L1qu1d to post the worst rumor on ATIs new launch
Why not Charlie over at Semi? Heres what he has to say
First definitions:
1) There is no RV870, nor has there ever been, the parts are called Evergreen, and the one he is referring too is called Cypress.
2) If AMD had used the numbers for this generation, the part would be R870, not RV870. The V connotes derivative parts, the first is R.
3) R770 was the basis for both the 4850 and 4870, the former using GDDR3 and the latter GDDR5.

You can easily make a Cypress part that is 1.6x slower than an R770 based part, how fast is the 4830 again?

-Charlie
http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3433&...
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 6:24:41 PM

Dont forget, double the shaders, double the ROPs and more than likely a 15% clock increase as well, at least, plus a better schedular, and almost using half as much power at idle
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 6:53:46 PM

Heres what happened last gen
ATI radeon HD 3800 ATI radeon HD 4800 Difference
Process 55nm / 55nm no
Die size 190 mm2 / 256 mm2 1.35x
Tranzistors 666M / 956M 1.4x
4x AA Fillrate 8 / 16 2x
Z/Stencil 32 / 64 2x
Texture 16 / 40 2.5x
Shader 320 / 800 2.5x
Bandwidth 72 GB/sec / 115.2 GB/sec 1.6x


August 31, 2009 7:06:46 PM

oh shi7, sux to be nvidia..

once these babies come out, byebye 3870s =]]
MUST...MAX...OUT....STALKER/CRYSIS!!
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 7:28:05 PM

Yep, and hopefully NVidia's product will be competitive too (which I'm sure it will) so we should have nice low prices for this generation as well.
August 31, 2009 7:37:01 PM

I simply posted the article i didn't create the article, its on a reputable site from what I see.

Thus its a rumour, so I think taken with a grain of salt should be a great expression to use atm and am surprised that u of all people found the words to use my name as a source for whats wrong with the post.

I never knew I influenced ppl so much to have that type of rep. ;) 

kill the message creator not the messanger
August 31, 2009 7:38:37 PM

ur a bit late with this one l1quid, posted it early on
August 31, 2009 7:39:58 PM

so if its 160% then they'r in the right track but if its only 60 then thats dissapointing ,and this was compared to 4870 which is incorrect few ppl have 4870 whilst 4890 is selling like hotcakes for now
August 31, 2009 7:40:44 PM

my apologies I didn't see it;) I guess the excitement got to me.

I've already got my new CF motherboard chosen out. Now its the cash thats gonna be the prob.

August 31, 2009 7:42:29 PM

160% seems kinda big don't u think? I mean it would pwn as a card, but I think what they might mean is 1 4870 + 60%.

Which is decent for a single CPU it would put it above the 285 and the 4890 at a very good price/temp for OC.

Plus the 40 nm design will be smaller than Nvidias 40 nm design.
August 31, 2009 7:53:06 PM

well whatever bring on the 5870x2 then ? and please dont let it bottleneck in a pcie 1.x slot
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 7:57:33 PM

Yes, people are forgetting that there will probably be (unless there are manufacturing probs) a 5890 as well, so we should be getting a good performance jump in the end.
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 8:26:39 PM

honestly i am not going to care until actual reviews are out
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 8:26:51 PM

From ati 3xxx series to ati 4xxx series the performance was doubled. I think there will be a higher jump then just 60%. Nvidia doubled in performance as well 9800x2=gtx280. This is the next gen of cards, much like the huge performance gains when dx10 was introduced. Wouldnt be surprised if next gen cards double todays cards performance.
August 31, 2009 8:26:57 PM

60% better than a 4870 in BEST CASE SCENARIOS...


i think it will be like 20% faster than a gtx 285... and will overclock for even more...

i see it performing a little over a FTW gtx 285 or any other OC 285... at stock (the ati card)...
August 31, 2009 8:34:14 PM

I find it misleading .How about compared to 4890 which in performance wise is highly unlikely to be more than 30-40%. 4870 is past history .
August 31, 2009 8:34:57 PM

maybe 20% faster than a gtx 285 its too much actually... who knows...
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 8:38:20 PM

I see people saying 60% isn't that huge. That is a very very nice jump in performance and with double the shaders and ROPs it isn't just about pure clock speeds that gets you the performance. Also you act like their won't clearly be a 5870x2 to compare to the 4870X2.

Lets not also forget these things are 40nm so overclocking headroom could through the roof.
August 31, 2009 8:57:13 PM

i think 60% is fine... as long as the prices are not ridiculous...
if its 60% faster and the price is $250 - $270 it is fine by me...
a c 107 U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 9:06:01 PM

60% faster than the RV770 is pretty good actually. Considering that the 4870X2 isn't always 100% faster than a single 4870 the RV870 should come close enough in performance and perhaps surpass it in some of the cases where crossfire does not scale well. Still, at 60% faster it should prove to be the fastest GPU and thus make the fastest single GPU card (taking the GTX285s current title as such). That will leave the GTX295 at the top until an X2 version of the 870 is launched.
August 31, 2009 9:06:49 PM

Nica Guy said:
i think 60% is fine... as long as the prices are not ridiculous...
if its 60% faster and the price is $250 - $270 it is fine by me...

:non: 
I was just about to write a price range of $220- $250 :)  <-------------Thats a HOT price.
August 31, 2009 9:20:19 PM

lorik said:
:non: 
I was just about to write a price range of $220- $250 :)  <-------------Thats a HOT price.


yeah but some rumor came a while ago, cant remember from where that the 5870 was gonna cost $300 and the inferior one, lets say "5850"
was gonna cost ~$260

again, it is just a rumor...
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 10:15:58 PM

The 5870 should be about as fast as a gtx295. However, that is in dx9 games. In dx11 games the 5870 will of course blow the gtx295 away.

You have to remember it's not *all* about pure speed. If it were, we could still be arguing about how fast the old 8800gts's are in Unreal Tournament.

Think of it more like, the 5870 is faster and looks better too. For too long has quality been playing second fiddle to speed, but that is changing for the better with dx11.
August 31, 2009 10:30:46 PM

i really don't see the 5870 outperforming the gtx 295 in old directx games...

maybe if rumors or the article said the 5870 was as fast as the 4870x2 but
they didn't even go that far, let alone being as fast as a gtx 295...
August 31, 2009 10:32:15 PM

but whatever, let's be optimistic...
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 10:56:26 PM

There really isn't that much of a gap between the 4870x2 and gtx295 already Nica. You're talking about 5% gap on fps totals in the 100's already.

This is why quality is much more important now. This is why dx11 is so much more important. If you can play games at 60fps then why bother with 'faster' when what you really want is better quality?

If we were playing Half life 1 at 400 fps or 410 fps, would we really care?

Quality is what the 5870 really brings. I personally think it will be as fast as a gtx295, but I know for a fact it will make games look much better.
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 11:00:04 PM

I just want to say...

If you ever played far cry 1, or even well before that half life 1, or even Deus Ex etc...or hell even gran turismo 1 on the first playstation...you were happy. You thought you were gaming at amazing graphical levels.

All of those games would run on less than 1% of a 5870's power now, but would you be happy?
August 31, 2009 11:04:50 PM

If the 5870 doesn't make a 4870 X2 tap out, even a bit, then it isn't worth $300. My 4890s get extremely close when heavily overclocked.

That said, I don't see this performance being true as I have seen NOTHING to support anything less than 4870 X2 performance, even with "only" 1200 SP.
August 31, 2009 11:05:15 PM

No, i agree about the quality thing, its great I love better and better graphics.

I just think in directx11 the 5870 might be faster, but not in previous versions of
dx. Also, the 4870x2 and gtx 295 are not 5% away from each other... not even close to that, its more like 15%...
check reviews...
I agree it's pointless when over 60 fps i just wanted to add that...
August 31, 2009 11:07:28 PM

i hope that article is false and the 5870 is at least as fast as a 4870x2...
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 11:07:35 PM

Last week was the ripe time to buy AMD stock, it has already been upgraded by quite a few folks just in regards to current market changes with minimal consideration for the upcoming GPU race. DX11 is going to be big business for them.
August 31, 2009 11:13:01 PM

Nica Guy said:
No, i agree about the quality thing, its great I love better and better graphics.

I just think in directx11 the 5870 might be faster, but not in previous versions of
dx. Also, the 4870x2 and gtx 295 are not 5% away from each other... not even close to that, its more like 15%...
check reviews...
I agree it's pointless when over 60 fps i just wanted to add that...


When you average the score together the GTX 295 comes out 5-10% faster than the 4870 X2.

Just a quick thought, since the new 9.8 drivers are supposed to give the 4870 X2 a 5-80% increase in performance, wouldn't it be about tying or even beating the GTX 295 by now or has there been any major increases in performance for nVidia too?
August 31, 2009 11:16:27 PM

The_Blood_Raven said:
When you average the score together the GTX 295 comes out 5-10% faster than the 4870 X2.

Just a quick thought, since the new 9.8 drivers are supposed to give the 4870 X2 a 5-80% increase in performance, wouldn't it be about tying or even beating the GTX 295 by now or has there been any major increases in performance for nVidia too?



http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-card...


thats not a 5% average...
August 31, 2009 11:18:23 PM

13.3% difference...
August 31, 2009 11:19:44 PM

that gap is probably reduced with the new drivers... don't remember the number but they got some really good drivers for xfire setups...
a c 365 U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 11:22:50 PM

illyan said:
60% faster than a 4870 isn't that great... It won't even be as fast as a 4870X2 in some cases. I hope this is wrong.



Here's a violin for you.

August 31, 2009 11:28:04 PM

Notice how poor the ATI drivers for The Last Remnant were at that time?

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-card...

Notice that the 4870 x2 still maxes it at an average of 60 FPS, but that benchmark nets the GTX 295 a 53% lead over the 4870 X2 (both totally maxing out the game).

Take out that screwed result and you will see what I mean:

GTX 295 total: 833.50
GTX 295 Last Remnant: 130.30

4870 X2 total: 723.70
4870 X2 Last Remnant: 60.80

GTX 295 fair total: 833.50 - 130.30 = 703.2
4870 X2 fair total: 723.70 - 60.80 = 662.9

Fair performance difference: 5.8%
August 31, 2009 11:32:33 PM

fair enough :) 

don't know why I always thought the gtx 295 is much faster... maybe because of the price and the few benchmarks i had seen....
a b U Graphics card
August 31, 2009 11:42:39 PM

The gtx295 looked to be a lot faster at one point, but it was 1 or 2 games letting the 4870x2 down as Raven pointed out.

Right now, there is no way you'd buy a gtx295 at the price. It is 5% faster or so, but that is a drop in a very large ocean of fps.

I also agree with Raven on the 5870 vs 4870x2 point. If the 5870 isn't faster it will be a bit disappointing. I think and hope it will be. I've said all along that the 5870 will be on par with the gtx295 and the 5850 will be as good as a gtx285. If it turns out to be a lot worse then yes it will be disappointing in some ways, but being best at dx11 and average at dx9 is more important to ATI I think, for the future.
August 31, 2009 11:46:56 PM

I agree jenny, but without anyway to gauge DX11 performance it definitely is a "pass", until we can, if it doesn't deliver in the DX9/10 arena.
!