AMD Confirms GDDR5 for ATI Radeon 4 Series Video Cards

[ningen]

You don't play 3DMark so who cares. 9800gx2 vs 3870x2 tests (at least those I've seen) show that cards are pretty much on par, but... ATI experiences heavy fps drops with AA sometimes. Maybe drivers, maybe nvidia optimalizations... whatever. In the end, I'd rather play than indulge in conspiracy theories, just as I'd buy a card that works better for variety of games instead of clinging to those few that my gpu shines in.

GDDR5 doesn't seem like something to drool over at all, too. I mean, isn't it like with DDR3 RAM? Frequency increases and so do timings, and in the end performance increase is nothing much really.
Same with graphic cards, we're up to GDDR5 already but the cards will still develop at the usual, moderate pace. 4x series is supposed to be what, up to 50% faster then 3x series? Within the usual cycle, I'd say.

 

[Kirby123]

well my sli ultras didnt run crysis as good as my ati cards have.... thats what i find funny. the games that say way to be play invidia ? why do my ati cards run it better?

 

[Valdez]

and possibly that refinement is why ATI chose to be the only hardware manufacturer to support it . . .

s3 chrome 430gt supports dx10.1 too

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

You don't play 3DMark so who cares. 9800gx2 vs 3870x2 tests (at least those I've seen) show that cards are pretty much on par, but... ATI experiences heavy fps drops with AA sometimes. Maybe drivers, maybe nvidia optimalizations... whatever. In the end, I'd rather play than indulge in conspiracy theories, just as I'd buy a card that works better for variety of games instead of clinging to those few that my gpu shines in.

GDDR5 doesn't seem like something to drool over at all, too. I mean, isn't it like with DDR3 RAM? Frequency increases and so do timings, and in the end performance increase is nothing much really.
Same with graphic cards, we're up to GDDR5 already but the cards will still develop at the usual, moderate pace. 4x series is supposed to be what, up to 50% faster then 3x series? Within the usual cycle, I'd say.

I wouldnt say "nothing". It would be nothing without clockspeeds but the clockspeeds are there.

 

[kylew]

From the devs' point of view "nvidia, the way you're meant to be paid" . I wouldn't be supprised that without any special NV optimisations through "close working relationships" with devs, NV cards wouldn't be nearly as fast as they are now. I also wouldn't be surprised of they got slapped with an anti trust something, all this about Assassin's Creed and DX10.1 has to have caught some one's interest by now.

 

[ningen]

I wouldnt say "nothing". It would be nothing without clockspeeds but the clockspeeds are there.

I said "nothing much", not "nothing".
Without the clocks increased, we'd get a performance drop with slower timings, obviously.

 

[kylew]

s3 chrome 430gt supports dx10.1 too

I think NV is so against DX10.1 because they can't implement it them selves, that'd kinda tie in with rumors that NV complained to MS about the specs of DX10 before it was finialised, so they were changed. I think what DX10.1 is, is what DX10 was originally meant to be. It just seems too much of a coincidence, NV are appearing to be very against DX10.1 for reason unknown outside of rumors. All this crap about DX10.1 and what NV appears to have done has put me totally off giving NV any of my money, they can go away, to stay in the corner... ahem... anyway.

 

[Kirby123]

cards are built for specific games. thats how they work

 

[wolf2009]

well my sli ultras didnt run crysis as good as my ati cards have.... thats what i find funny. the games that say way to be play invidia ? why do my ati cards run it better?

saying it with words is one thing , but proving with a in-game benchmark is another.

to say ATI cards play crysis better than NVIDIA is a very subjective term. u got to explain further with screens, or a benchmark. its difficult to believe u when all the benchmarks prove otherwise.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

I think NV is so against DX10.1 because they can't implement it them selves, that'd kinda tie in with rumors that NV complained to MS about the specs of DX10 before it was finialised, so they were changed. I think what DX10.1 is, is what DX10 was originally meant to be. It just seems too much of a coincidence, NV are appearing to be very against DX10.1 for reason unknown outside of rumors. All this crap about DX10.1 and what NV appears to have done has put me totally off giving NV any of my money, they can go away, to stay in the corner... ahem... anyway.

From my understanding this is what was said to be the case. Read here


Also read this about DX11 being nix'd (take it with a grain of salt). But if true, see a pattern?

 

[Kirby123]

i say it is my ocing im using on my x2. since it is for both cores 918/1053 stable on air. with my 3.6ghz E8400 on air. once i get my new heatsink i can go up to 3.8 or 4.1ghz. i have to buy the mark 06 to get real pics of benchmark -.- im to poor to even get that. all money went to computers and bills XD

 

[flashstar]

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot get over 35 fps on UT3 at max settings at 1680x1050 with my 2900pro overclocked to 870/927. I've tried to figure out what's happening because my 2900pro is clearly much faster than a 8800gts 640 and slightly faster than an 8800gt at stock speeds. Even with my old 7800gtx, I could get 30 fps at similar settings and that card had 1/3 the raw power of my 2900pro. I too believe that Nvidia has had control of the market for too long and has been pulling some strings behind the scene. I'll give these new drivers a shot and let everyone know the results.

 

[ShadowFold]

Man, cool and all, but its getting hard to keep up. Specs are getting so dated sooo fast, what happened to the 6 months and your good rule.

Nothing You can still game with a 8800GTS G80/ULTRA. They are just updating cores cause they have the tech so there like "why not?"

 

[imperialreign]

TBH, I've never had anything against nVidia for their TWIMTBP campaign - truthfully, I thought it was a brilliant marketing maneuver . . .

but now, years later, it hasn't lead to an increase in competition . . . it's lead to an increase in one-sidedness.

But, the only thing, IMO, that TWIMTBP really accounts for - aside from the fact that a game is written to be optimized for green camp hardware - is the major performance lead nVidia cards have over ATI when a new title is released. It leaves ATI having to make up that ground with CAT releases, and IMO, they reclaim that ground quite respectfully after a few months. Sure, the game will continue to run better on nVidia hardware, but months after a major release, ATI cards are at least back on par, or slightly behind nVidia.



Somewhat back on topic: I'm really glad to hear that the new HDk4s will be utilizing GDDR5, and hopefully it will work out great to their advantage performance wise . . . but, I also find it somewhat disturbing how ATI tries to stay at the top of technology support, while nVidia seems to ignore any indusrty-wide technological advancements. ATI is the first to support GDDR3, GDDR4, GDDR5, HDMI, PCIE 2.0, DX10.1, etc, etc . . .

Curious . . . did nVidia ever release a GDDR4 video card?

 

[wolf2009]

TBH, I've never had anything against nVidia for their TWIMTBP campaign - truthfully, I thought it was a brilliant marketing maneuver . . .

but now, years later, it hasn't lead to an increase in competition . . . it's lead to an increase in one-sidedness.

But, the only thing, IMO, that TWIMTBP really accounts for - aside from the fact that a game is written to be optimized for green camp hardware - is the major performance lead nVidia cards have over ATI when a new title is released. It leaves ATI having to make up that ground with CAT releases, and IMO, they reclaim that ground quite respectfully after a few months. Sure, the game will continue to run better on nVidia hardware, but months after a major release, ATI cards are at least back on par, or slightly behind nVidia.



Somewhat back on topic: I'm really glad to hear that the new HDk4s will be utilizing GDDR5, and hopefully it will work out great to their advantage performance wise . . . but, I also find it somewhat disturbing how ATI tries to stay at the top of technology support, while nVidia seems to ignore any indusrty-wide technological advancements. ATI is the first to support GDDR3, GDDR4, GDDR5, HDMI, PCIE 2.0, DX10.1, etc, etc . . .

Curious . . . did nVidia ever release a GDDR4 video card?

ya never . thats an interesting point u make . ati has always taken the initiative with technology.

another interesting point u make is that games on ati hardware catch up with nvidia after few months , u have any link to a benchmark ? i'm interested in seeing this.

 

[Kirby123]

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot get over 35 fps on UT3 at max settings at 1680x1050 with my 2900pro overclocked to 870/927. I've tried to figure out what's happening because my 2900pro is clearly much faster than a 8800gts 640 and slightly faster than an 8800gt at stock speeds. Even with my old 7800gtx, I could get 30 fps at similar settings and that card had 1/3 the raw power of my 2900pro. I too believe that Nvidia has had control of the market for too long and has been pulling some strings behind the scene. I'll give these new drivers a shot and let everyone know the results.

i dont see why your getting so low with a 2900???? im confused myself, youve got atleast a 2.8 dual core? and your mem should be able to get faster tahn that

 

[Kirby123]

im confused it says in your computer specs you have 2900 xt and you say you have a pro

 

[Kursah]

This kind of reminds me of the touted GDDR4 introduction on the X1950XTX, which was cool and a "braggable" feature for a few. I hope the GDDR5 introduction is much improved over the GDDR4 introduction...also the hopes of better OC-ability also arise in my mind...the GDDR4 on my XTX struggled to get beyond 1080...where-as my GDDR3 on my current 9600GT hit 1100 w/o issue and has gone higher.

Of course it's totally cool that AMD/ATI is still pushing memory innovation in the graphics arena, they definately got something here, especially if the performance netted from GDDR5 proves to be a strong value and factor for the card series' performance. I will sit back with my 9600GT and watch for now, as-always I hope that AMD/ATI are successful, same with NV...if neither succeed, we lose.

 

[Dangle]

The prob with NVIDIA is they do crap like watering down graphics to give their cards higher framerates. Don't believe me? PM me and I'll find a link for you. ATI FTW!

 

[Kursah]

The prob with NVIDIA is they do crap like watering down graphics to give their cards higher framerates. Don't believe me? PM me and I'll find a link for you. ATI FTW!

That's strategy for ya...honest or not, in a cut-throat, bottom line, very fast paced industry...I've seen the good/bad/ugly of both sides...personally I care for what gets me the best performance for my budget and requiriments...in this last purchase, the 9600GT won, but a quite a few times before that...I had the ATI's.

For those of you that care about the politics in this industry, then you can support the company that makes you feel good...I support what makes my games play smoothly, look pretty and is easy on the wallet, to some that may seem wrong, but for me that's just how it is.

 

[btarunr]

While some believe a single HD4870 will be about 20~25% faster than 9800 GX2 suggest pre-release benches, others believe it's not going to be more than 25% faster than a 9800 GTX.

I'm not expecting much out of the HD4870.

 

[XooM]

Well think of it as this:
You have water cooling setup and want to decide on the size of the tubing. You can go 3/4" inner diameter tubing but you run the risk of a slower flow rate do to the size of the pump's barb only being 1/2" and it's power output (more/less). Or you can get a tube with an inner diameter 7/16" (which is slightly smaller then 1/2") which should maximize your flow rate.

This doesn't make sense. Water velocity through tubing is completely meaningless. Water volume through tubing is what really matters, and 3/4" has lower laminar resistance than 7/16". However, the difference in volumetric throughput between the two is minimal enough that 7/16" is preferred due to simplicity in tubing runs.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

This doesn't make sense. Water velocity through tubing is completely meaningless. Water volume through tubing is what really matters, and 3/4" has lower laminar resistance than 7/16". However, the difference in volumetric throughput between the two is minimal enough that 7/16" is preferred due to simplicity in tubing runs.

This is completely and utterly ridiculous.
#1 Work on how you reply to people.
#2 I suggest you check your folks water hose in the yard. Just turn the facet on a little bit and use the nozzle on the end to release the water. The water volume at the facet won't be the same at the nozzle
#3 If you want to continue this PM me, no need to derail the thread!

 

[erocker]

Lol, I am seriously laughing that I go to the end of this thread and find a discussion on tubing for water cooling! This thread has indeed gone way off topic! Let's try to at least keep it in the realm of video cards.

 

[jbunch07]

Lol, I am seriously laughing that I go to the end of this thread and find a discussion on tubing for water cooling! This thread has indeed gone way off topic! Let's try to at least keep it in the realm of video cards.

haha i was just wondering the same thing...

back on topic:
lets hope the price of gddr5 doesn't hurt Ati to much...
they need to be putting some money into marketing, ATi's marking is close to non existent at the moment.