Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

How many raster pipe(rop) is needed for gpu

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share

how many raster pipe(rop) is needed for gpu

Total: 15 votes (1 blank vote)

  • 8 rops 128bit
  • 12 %
  • 12 rops 192bit
  • 0 %
  • 16 rops 128bit
  • 0 %
  • 16 rops 256bit
  • 0 %
  • 24 rops 192bit
  • 0 %
  • 24 rops 384bit
  • 0 %
  • 32 rops 256bit
  • 17 %
  • 32 rops 512bit
  • 12 %
  • 48 rops 384bit
  • 17 %
  • 64 rops 512bit
  • 45 %
December 14, 2010 12:47:15 PM

how many raster pipe(rop) is needed for gpu, from 6970's defeated by gtx 580 which poorly competitive with highly clocked the core frequency that makes me realize how important is rop operate inside the gpu. is 32 rops/ 256bit bus really enough?

what do you prefer? more shader or more rops? please discuss!
a c 189 U Graphics card
December 14, 2010 1:55:42 PM

I Choose 64rops/512bit. Generally higher is better, but that's not the only factor that determined whether the card is "good" or "bad"...
a c 125 U Graphics card
December 14, 2010 2:09:39 PM

You must mean the 6870 was defeated by the 580, because the 6970 isn't released and hasn't been reviewed yet so we don't know what it will do. And the 6870 isn't even as powerful as a 5870. It's more like a slightly beefed up 5850. So no real surprises that the 580 is best right now.

Anyway to answer the question at hand... well there's a lot of variables. Of course more ROPS is better. So is more speed, so is a higher bit rate, and so is more CUDA/Stream cores. It's pretty obvious. Now since you're focusing on rops, well again, 64 is going to be the best unquestionably, but 32 is totally fine as well. Having a higher bit rate along with it is very imporant too, to be able to quickly address the VRAM. And with that, more VRAM is at times going to be of the most benefit, depending on the game and resolution/settings used (AA, AF, DOF etc) because there's a lot of nice options that will eat VRAM up. My 1GB cards feel lacking at times.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
December 14, 2010 2:23:43 PM

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18217...

Quote:
Thats just 6970's and only 1/3rd of what we have in stock for launch.


For those thinking 6950, well I have nearly 1000pc of those in stock ready for launch as well.


Needless to say this is a true *HARD* launch!


Further down...

Quote:
We have sold over 300 cards (gtx 580's) which have shipped out the door. With orders still outstanding.


Now, what really makes the best gpu? ROP's or actual working cards in volume?
December 14, 2010 3:10:01 PM

wolfram23 said:
You must mean the 6870 was defeated by the 580, because the 6970 isn't released and hasn't been reviewed yet so we don't know what it will do. And the 6870 isn't even as powerful as a 5870. It's more like a slightly beefed up 5850. So no real surprises that the 580 is best right now.

Anyway to answer the question at hand... well there's a lot of variables. Of course more ROPS is better. So is more speed, so is a higher bit rate, and so is more CUDA/Stream cores. It's pretty obvious. Now since you're focusing on rops, well again, 64 is going to be the best unquestionably, but 32 is totally fine as well. Having a higher bit rate along with it is very imporant too, to be able to quickly address the VRAM. And with that, more VRAM is at times going to be of the most benefit, depending on the game and resolution/settings used (AA, AF, DOF etc) because there's a lot of nice options that will eat VRAM up. My 1GB cards feel lacking at times.


6970/6950's bench is already out,generally 5% below gtx 570 and 2% below gtx 480 due to the lower 256 bit width and narrow 32 raster pipe compare to gtx 570's 40 rops/320bit bus while clock up to 900mhz. i understand amd is still risk for bankruptcy but this simply just make them look more worse by just adding more shader and keep the die size down without consider the efficiency. just like old day 2900xt with just 16 rops.

i won't be surprise if amd file for bankruptcy this time, i would totally support them file chapter 11 because it is about time for some competitive runner join the market. like ibm or oracle or even samsung to run the business.

eyefinity said:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18217...

Quote:
Thats just 6970's and only 1/3rd of what we have in stock for launch.


For those thinking 6950, well I have nearly 1000pc of those in stock ready for launch as well.


Needless to say this is a true *HARD* launch!


Further down...

Quote:
We have sold over 300 cards (gtx 580's) which have shipped out the door. With orders still outstanding.


Now, what really makes the best gpu? ROP's or actual working cards in volume?


first off amd card only take little advantage over same lvl nv card in console ported game but in pc native game amd generally have about 10~20% disadvantage in benchmark. as we all know these console parted north america were originally design for xbox 360 and wii(dx9c) and both graphic chip were made by amd/ati which they are well optimize the performance with their exclusively 5D VLIW shader. game like modern warfare(black op) and bad company take advantage on amd architecture which many amd fanboi always have to bring their junkie 5670 to compare 9800gt. but rops does take advantage on pure pc platform when massive texture/pixel/polygon loading. for example crysis/metro2033 take more polygon/texture counter than shader and bad company/modern warfare tend to have very low texture quality and polygon count plus limit frame rate too(highest you can get is 80 from both nv and amd card) these game were dessign to take advantage on physical limit spec console where it has to put ridiculous of shader surface as possible to avoid texture size/polygon-pixel on model. also these game using aged graphic engine as well. don't tell me about gaming son because you have not idea the pc game is way different than crappy console ported.
a b U Graphics card
December 14, 2010 3:48:33 PM

where are you guys getting the 6950/6970 info? i keep looking and all i get are possibilites and leaks btu nothign concrete that i'd really call evidence to suggest a win for nvidia or amd yet... i suspect a status quo 6950 < 570< 6970< 580 but am not even confident this will happen until there is some proof... just a suspition at this point
December 14, 2010 3:57:04 PM

g00fysmiley said:
where are you guys getting the 6950/6970 info? i keep looking and all i get are possibilites and leaks btu nothign concrete that i'd really call evidence to suggest a win for nvidia or amd yet... i suspect a status quo 6950 < 570< 6970< 580 but am not even confident this will happen until there is some proof... just a suspition at this point



vontage benchmark
6970: >8000
gtx 580: <8900
gtx 570: >8200
6950: >7500
gtx 480: >8000
gtx 470: 7500
a b U Graphics card
December 14, 2010 3:59:54 PM

can a guy get a link please :D  it'd make me ever so happy to see/read :D 
a b U Graphics card
December 14, 2010 4:04:37 PM

*ehug* off to read :D 
December 14, 2010 4:11:12 PM

g00fysmiley said:
*ehug* off to read :D 



gtx580>=5970>gtx570>gtx480>6970>gtx295>gtx560>gtx470>=6950>4870x2>5870>5850>6870>gtx285>gtx460-1gb>gtx460se>6850>gtx460-768>5830>4890>4870>5770>gts250>gts450>4850>5750>8800/9800gt>9600gt>5670>4670

now you understand?
a b U Graphics card
December 14, 2010 4:19:09 PM

in some benchmarks yes that does appear to be the case. others show a little better showing for amd than you show, however it appears one thing assumign that data is correct is for sure and that would be nvidia retaining the performance crown (which i suspected woudl be the case) but if the price points i see listed there turn out to be accurate then the 6900 series is at least somewhat priced right
a c 125 U Graphics card
December 14, 2010 6:18:38 PM

If you're going to post "results", provide links to the sources...

I followed cheesesubs link, it's a forum with images off image shack, followed by a link to another forum with an image from Heaven bench. These aren't reliable sources and I don't put any stock into those results. Might be accurate, but might not.

Regardless, you're trying to compare AMD to Nvidia now, which isn't the same question as in the OP. Both companies use very different architectures. While we try to spit out numbers to compare, that's not the whole story behind the speed.
December 14, 2010 9:21:32 PM

wolfram23 said:
If you're going to post "results", provide links to the sources...

I followed cheesesubs link, it's a forum with images off image shack, followed by a link to another forum with an image from Heaven bench. These aren't reliable sources and I don't put any stock into those results. Might be accurate, but might not.

Regardless, you're trying to compare AMD to Nvidia now, which isn't the same question as in the OP. Both companies use very different architectures. While we try to spit out numbers to compare, that's not the whole story behind the speed.


they only have different design in shader architecture while rops/cache are same. especially raster pipeline in amd gpu are completely bottleneck by the number because the l2 cache is built in there. while nvidia can choose to go less or more rops because the l2 cache is bridge between shader and rop. however gtx 580's larger rop did give enormous real time performance gain even rop has little associate to l2 cache. 6970 needs more rops because it's l2 cache is built in the raster processor itself which less rops=worse performance in 3d rendering and polygon count.


to me 6970 is just a card for hpc market that mostly focus on "floating point flops" like larrabee. amd is following exact roadmap they were made in 2006. HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTER/server market while consumer market will be flood by igp as people tend to not demand on pc gaming and rather focus on consoles. which it became conspiracy to me that both amd/intel trying to go soc embered like ipad and home gaming console to kill discrete card market. like JHH mentioned that console makes people had less desire to buy a mid-high range card when console can just plug and play. and seem likely amd's plan of transmigrate home user to igp and xbox is seem to be work fine. but bad for enthusiast.

December 14, 2010 11:49:43 PM

Sounds to me like you're trying to incite a flame war.

You should never fully trust such early benchmarks for an unreleased card due to beta drivers. I mean, AMD just released drivers that support the 6850/6870 and they've been out for a couple of months now. I also hardly think that this will cause AMD to "file for bankruptcy." AMD is the best performer in the mid-range category, where most people will spend their money. I also suggest you get back to your original post about the ROP's.
December 15, 2010 12:25:10 AM

bdcrlsn said:
Sounds to me like you're trying to incite a flame war.

You should never fully trust such early benchmarks for an unreleased card due to beta drivers. I mean, AMD just released drivers that support the 6850/6870 and they've been out for a couple of months now. I also hardly think that this will cause AMD to "file for bankruptcy." AMD is the best performer in the mid-range category, where most people will spend their money. I also suggest you get back to your original post about the ROP's.



the nda is still up until 10:30pm in central which most of source had been lock up until 10:30pm. however it is clarified that 6970 is no match to gtx 570 while the tdp rate is near due to high 1ghz clock speed. go back to topic? i was in the topic all the time and address up how gtx 580/570 beat 6970/6950 in bench because of rop and other hardware specification in total advantage. 48 rop vs 32 rop and 384bit bus vs 256bit bus and clearly gtx 580 strump cayman no matter how high it clock core speed and driver well optimize. 6870 beated gtx 460 is because of same rop and same bus width while 6870 "clocked" higher than gtx 460. best performer in mid range? how so? because of crappy 5770/5670 are sell like hot cake because most people tend to play console ported game and having junk 200~300w power supply from their oem pre-built pc which that benefit amd? amd focus on casual market and that is totally wrong for discrete gpu business.
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 12:34:37 AM

cheesesubs said:
however it is clarified that 6970 is no match to gtx 570

That's a pretty bold statement. I tend to disagree with your assessment given the lack of evidence to support it. The cards will probably be pretty close but it's going to depend on the game.
December 15, 2010 1:02:53 AM

randomizer said:
That's a pretty bold statement. I tend to disagree with your assessment given the lack of evidence to support it. The cards will probably be pretty close but it's going to depend on the game.


source from asian website:

http://www.techbang.com.tw/posts/4374-amd-radeon-6900-f...

6950 is 15% and 6970 is 5% behind gtx 570. overall cayman is only 10% performance increase over cypress.
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 1:42:10 AM

Like I said, it's going to depend on the game. The 6970 wins in some titles there as well. Lost Planet really affects the overall performance difference because it heavily favours NVIDIA's architecture. I don't need to see obscure Asian websites though, I have another source ;) 
December 15, 2010 4:43:33 AM

randomizer said:
Like I said, it's going to depend on the game. The 6970 wins in some titles there as well. Lost Planet really affects the overall performance difference because it heavily favours NVIDIA's architecture. I don't need to see obscure Asian websites though, I have another source ;) 


bench is up, it proves that cayman is a pathetic card after all

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-rade...


like i had mention it before it was all due to lack of rop count and narrow buss width because amd was simply been cheap ass create such failure chip to save pathetic die space and pcb layout because they're financial situation doesn't allow to. they were honestly believe they can milk it out just like they were with cypress but they are completely wrong. making same mistake like they were in k8's day prove amd can always to be a small-secondary company.

funny is, i was telling people from techpowerup that 6970 will either get more rop count/larger bus width or prepare get rape. and it seems my prediction was righ all along even though i was banned due to having conflict with their retarded administratorship and these stupid stanford university student believe graphic card should putting on folding@home to save pathetic man kind but actuall they are benefit them selves by using people's computing power for their research. that is the reason they support fermi and cayman architecture until i expose they true purpose and got banned.
a c 189 U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 5:08:34 AM

wow...
a c 216 U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 5:26:12 AM

One thing I do not like about Tom's Hardware review. It only benchmarks DX11 games. There are a lot of DX10 still, and based on the Heaven benchmark, it appears tessellation is still a weakness. I'd like to see benchmarks in the most common situation, without DX11.
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 12:15:15 PM

well by the tom's bench's and other benchmarks i'd say the new 69xx series is priced right and whiel the 6970 and the 570 trad blows it looks like the 6970 wins more than it loses. 6950 is definatly not up to snuff with the 570 but for the price it is good. overall I'm impressed with em, and it causes more competition which is good for us all in the market :D  now i can't wait for nvidia to release thier 560 so we can see where it falls in the mix. probably between the 6950 and 6870 but only time will tell :D 

happy gaming it s a good market for graphics
December 15, 2010 3:33:23 PM

g00fysmiley said:
well by the tom's bench's and other benchmarks i'd say the new 69xx series is priced right and whiel the 6970 and the 570 trad blows it looks like the 6970 wins more than it loses. 6950 is definatly not up to snuff with the 570 but for the price it is good. overall I'm impressed with em, and it causes more competition which is good for us all in the market :D  now i can't wait for nvidia to release thier 560 so we can see where it falls in the mix. probably between the 6950 and 6870 but only time will tell :D 

happy gaming it s a good market for graphics


if you thin 69xx at that price range with such poor performance that would take it as win then you're suddenly mistaken. like everyone said, amd need cash from graphic division to save their pathetic x86 processor department and they were honestly believe they can just milk it out from old cypress architecture with minor change of 4 VLIW shader and get the same price tag is just a mistake. a card that merely had 32 rops/256bit bus/384sp can charge people up to 370 euro? remember gtx 570 is just $340 which equal to 300 euro that means there's not price advantage for amd and as they desperate needed getting cash from gpu to save their cpu department a price ware with push amd to bankruptcy soon enough. as i'd to see a competitive corporation taking over amd's mess and amd really have to gtfo from this world!

amd need to go bankruptcy for being such a failure and let somebody else take care the business....
a c 216 U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 5:13:38 PM

cheesesubs said:
if you thin 69xx at that price range with such poor performance that would take it as win then you're suddenly mistaken. like everyone said, amd need cash from graphic division to save their pathetic x86 processor department and they were honestly believe they can just milk it out from old cypress architecture with minor change of 4 VLIW shader and get the same price tag is just a mistake. a card that merely had 32 rops/256bit bus/384sp can charge people up to 370 euro? remember gtx 570 is just $340 which equal to 300 euro that means there's not price advantage for amd and as they desperate needed getting cash from gpu to save their cpu department a price ware with push amd to bankruptcy soon enough. as i'd to see a competitive corporation taking over amd's mess and amd really have to gtfo from this world!

amd need to go bankruptcy for being such a failure and let somebody else take care the business....


You should realize that the vast majority of their profits come from the mainstream market, not the high end. If they have good performance for budget cards, that will do just fine. However, they still will want to do better next time.
December 15, 2010 5:35:51 PM

bystander said:
You should realize that the vast majority of their profits come from the mainstream market, not the high end. If they have good performance for budget cards, that will do just fine. However, they still will want to do better next time.


sorry, but term of "mainstream" does not exist. only between "casual user(oem lover or average people that don't computer)" and "enthusiast(or DIY group)" and since "casual user" are mostly dominant by intel's hd seires even they are "vast majority" amd would get any from them as they don't need discrete card. the people that knows how to install graphic card are mostly in category of "enthusiast(DIY group)"


for "enthusiast " that builds computer them selves and runs application/driver they are mostly determine by performance or cost/value and only some little mergin would care pricing when their are short of budget. most of them will not buying on something that is too crappy(like 5670 or gt240). for pure performance gtx 580 is currently unbeatable and cost/value are occupied by g104 and low end are mostly still handy g92 while amd is fail everywhere except 6870 but the price just make it look bad compare to gtx 460, r5770 look bad when compete g106/g92 in price/performance. this is epic loss for amd.
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 5:46:06 PM

i don't think sales agree with ya, several models of 6950's and 6970's are now out of stock

i'd agree nvidia has the performance crown but the new video cards are selling well due to falling in well at thier price points.

as for amd as a whole i don't see them going anywhere. now that intel can't black ball them with oem's with unfair and illegal buisness practices amd is starting to sell mroe chips and we'll see where the cards fall when bulldozer gets here... i'm not predicting amd to win over intel but i am expecting them to close the gap. and once gpu's start getting thier way onto the processor i think amd definatly has the lead on intel for now but who knows if that'll be the case in another 6 months

honestly i think the company we need to be going down or steppign up is VIA ... they seem to be wasting thier x86 licence and it'd be awsome to have 3 major competitors
a c 216 U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 6:16:21 PM

cheesesubs said:
sorry, but term of "mainstream" does not exist. only between "casual user(oem lover or average people that don't computer)" and "enthusiast(or DIY group)" and since "casual user" are mostly dominant by intel's hd seires even they are "vast majority" amd would get any from them as they don't need discrete card. the people that knows how to install graphic card are mostly in category of "enthusiast(DIY group)"


for "enthusiast " that builds computer them selves and runs application/driver they are mostly determine by performance or cost/value and only some little mergin would care pricing when their are short of budget. most of them will not buying on something that is too crappy(like 5670 or gt240). for pure performance gtx 580 is currently unbeatable and cost/value are occupied by g104 and low end are mostly still handy g92 while amd is fail everywhere except 6870 but the price just make it look bad compare to gtx 460, r5770 look bad when compete g106/g92 in price/performance. this is epic loss for amd.


The extensive user base of the steam system allow valve company to periodically update statistical data about the configuration of exploited by computers game amateur .

During January 2010 valve steam report was updated. One of the most important questions concerns the arrangement of forces in the segment of discrete video card: here convincing preponderance on NVIDIA side (65%), In AMD portion, there is only 30% discrete video card.

Almost half of gaming systems supports directX 10 this it is achieved using operating systems Windows vista or Windows 7 with video card, which support the appropriate directX version. In such systems most frequently are encountered video card radeon HD 4800. However, if we reject the support Of directX 10 from the side of the operating system, the most popular cards are series GeForce 8800.

The most popular processor in the gaming systems - Intel 69,06%. AMD Company is satisfied by modest 30,94%. Almost 57% of processors have two cores, about 24% have four cores, in the portion of single core processors it is 18%. Intel processors , in the majority , work at frequencies from 2.3 to 2.69 GHz. For AMD processors the range begins with 2.0 GHz and concludes with 2.29 GHz.


http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-11432-view-Steam-gami...

I don't have the time to find the original report by Steam, but this should give you a clue. Notice that Intel can only have as much as 5% of the GPU's.
December 15, 2010 6:47:06 PM

bystander said:
The extensive user base of the steam system allow valve company to periodically update statistical data about the configuration of exploited by computers game amateur .

During January 2010 valve steam report was updated. One of the most important questions concerns the arrangement of forces in the segment of discrete video card: here convincing preponderance on NVIDIA side (65%), In AMD portion, there is only 30% discrete video card.

Almost half of gaming systems supports directX 10 this it is achieved using operating systems Windows vista or Windows 7 with video card, which support the appropriate directX version. In such systems most frequently are encountered video card radeon HD 4800. However, if we reject the support Of directX 10 from the side of the operating system, the most popular cards are series GeForce 8800.


nvidia dominate the discrete market , and some people still prefer amd still making profit in mid range market?

bystander said:
The most popular processor in the gaming systems - Intel 69,06%. AMD Company is satisfied by modest 30,94%. Almost 57% of processors have two cores, about 24% have four cores, in the portion of single core processors it is 18%. Intel processors , in the majority , work at frequencies from 2.3 to 2.69 GHz. For AMD processors the range begins with 2.0 GHz and concludes with 2.29 GHz.


amd processor is known to be good when only compare to netburst processor like pentium 4, prescott and pentium d. now they have nothing left when core based pentium/celeron flooding everywhere and even phenom II x2 can't beat these sub $50 processor.

bystander said:

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-11432-view-Steam-gami...

I don't have the time to find the original report by Steam, but this should give you a clue. Notice that Intel can only have as much as 5% of the GPU's.


over 80% of "casual user" don't play video game(which benefit to intel's igp) and that is where you can't find it on steam...
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 7:23:13 PM

cheesesubs said:
bench is up, it proves that cayman is a pathetic card after all

Interesting, you must have been reading a different Tom's Hardware because that's not what it proves at all.
a c 125 U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 9:16:38 PM

This thread should get locked, cheesedubs is just trolling at this point.

The review shows what we pretty much would expect. 580>6970>570.

580 = $600
480 = $500 (not as good as 6970)
6970 = $375
570 = $350
6950 = $300
470 = $275

Which is a better deal?? The grossly expensive 580 (or 480) or the rest of them, priced according to their performance ranking?


Doesn't really matter who has the "best card" out there. Bullshit to think it does, such a small percentage of people are willing to spend $600-700 on a video card. On Tom's we see post after post after post of people asking for a good card in the $150-200 range. That is the mainstream which AMD dominated until the GTX460 came out.
December 15, 2010 9:50:11 PM

wolfram23 said:
This thread should get locked, cheesedubs is just trolling at this point.

The review shows what we pretty much would expect. 580>6970>570.

580 = $600
480 = $500 (not as good as 6970)
6970 = $375
570 = $350
6950 = $300
470 = $275

Which is a better deal?? The grossly expensive 580 (or 480) or the rest of them, priced according to their performance ranking?
http://media.bestofmicro.com/R/Q/273158/original/Metro%202033%202560.png

Doesn't really matter who has the "best card" out there. Bullshit to think it does, such a small percentage of people are willing to spend $600-700 on a video card. On Tom's we see post after post after post of people asking for a good card in the $150-200 range. That is the mainstream which AMD dominated until the GTX460 came out.



troll again!

pny gtx 580 $529~539

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

msi gtx 480 $ 399

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

5870 eyefinity $549

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


since when it cost 600 dollars? amd fanboi never back their own false statement is just make you look more immature. also why didn't you mention that 6970 has 2gb ram size advantage compare to gtx 580's 1536mb? that bench is basically on super high resolution 2560 x 1200 where ram size take advantage and gtx 580 beats 6970 and force 6970 to bloody sell as cheap price. do you think amd are idiot that really want selling 6970 at cheap price? based on early this year how amd sold their 5870 the price were like solid rock around $469~500 while having weaker performance over gtx 480. haven't you remember back in these day?

amd try to manufacture cheaper gpu while selling at higher price. well gpu ain't work like cpu that you can just simply die shrink & increase clock speed and take 4 or 5 years for brand new architecture(intel had change to tick tock 2 year cycle since 2006 but amd still using the same architecture since ev6 in 1998). gpu take 8~10 month to increase spec and architecture life span never last longer then 2 years. amd take same mistake like they did at k8's day that they can just milk every coin they could with same architecture while never spend any investment on future roadmap.

yes! many people may tend to find sub $200 card but back before gtx 460 release was there any of card that has reasonable performance? NO! 5770/5750 were joke back at the time and sold for $199~229 with poor spec of 16 rops/40tmu/160sp/128bit bus!? that was the spec that you can only seem on g92! much much g92 cost back in 2009 to early 2010? $69~89. (not mention the price now because g92 is eol). how much 5670 cost when it came out? $169! with pathetic 8 rops/20 tmu/80sp/128bit bus it was sold for 169 dollar(yet i still remember because i had fought against these amd fanboi for the price point!) you really thought there was any real mid range card back in day? 5770? 5670? they were all garbage card while been overpriced until g104 knock them off the stock!

i got more knowledge then you do son!
a b U Graphics card
December 15, 2010 10:10:23 PM

Well since this thread stopped being on topic pretty much from the first post it's well past its use-by date.
!