1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

GDDR5 Review!

Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by MrMilli, Jul 18, 2008.

  1. MrMilli

    MrMilli

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    216 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Location:
    Antwerp, Belgium
  2. [I.R.A]_FBi

    [I.R.A]_FBi New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,664 (2.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    540
    Location:
    c:\programs\kitteh.exe
  3. KainXS

    KainXS

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,601 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    502
    it looks like ati might have been better off with going with a 512bit bus on these cards
     
  4. Xazax

    Xazax

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,425 (1.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    401
    well then according this nvidia has it right going High speed GDDR3 with a 512bit bus
     
  5. candle_86 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,916 (1.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    233
    i knew there was a catch to this, i said all along that the latancy kills the high speed, i said it first back when we where all discussing this and i got called a fanboy, now everyone apologize
     
  6. yogurt_21

    yogurt_21

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    575
    Location:
    AZ

    NEVER!
     
  7. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,505
    Actually some are not reading the charts correctly. The latency is designed for the higher speed @ 1800MHz not at GDDR3 speeds @ 993MHz. There is no surprise that at GDDR3 speeds show better latency and performance at 993MHz while GDDR5 @ 993MHz does not (it's not design to perform at that speed). The benefit of GDDR5 @ 1800MHz (remember you can go higher then 1800MHz) offsets the latency. Thus, showing better performance when compared to GDDR3 @ 993MHz.

    For example, read here for an overall picture:
    4870 625/1800
    4850 625/993
    GDDR5 at it's native speed will out perform GDDR3 when 4xAA/8xAA and 16xAF are used. Besides, you should not get a 4870 and down clock the memory to GDDR3 speeds. I may not recall a particular review but I don't remember GDDR4 performing anywhere as good when compared to GDDR3.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2008
  8. candle_86 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,916 (1.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    233
    your calling an 8% worth it?

    DDR3 can be overclocked higher than that anyway, also you see bigger gains from a higher mem bus than on DDR5 from this article. GDDR5 is so high lat high speed DDR3 is still faster.

    I would not spend 100 bucks extra for 23% extra for the 4870 over the 4850 seeing this as the GDDR5 has less effect than memory speed meaning a 4850 can easily be OC'd to the 4870 thanks to the lat issues
     
  9. Scrizz

    Scrizz

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,950 (1.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    408
    Location:
    Florida, US
    one article, I still want more :p
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2008
  10. twicksisted

    twicksisted

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,436 (0.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    350
  11. EastCoasthandle

    EastCoasthandle New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,889 (1.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,505
    Yes, it is worth it when we are talking native speeds between the 2 when both are clocked at 625MHz (GPU). And just as much you can oc GDDR3 you can OC GDDR5. The only thing missing in this review is if they OC the 4850 to 700MHz (I believe that's the max CCC allows) and the 4870 at 700 just to see what the performance results are.
     
  12. largon

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780 (0.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    432
    Location:
    Tre, Suomi Finland
    Hmm...
    I wonder how a hypothetical HD4850 with 1.4GHz (DDR-2800) GDDR4 would compare to HD4870...
    It would atleast be cheaper than a HD4870.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page