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

RV770 benchmark results

Discussion in 'AMD / ATI' started by MrMilli, May 2, 2008.

  1. MrMilli

    MrMilli

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    216 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Location:
    Antwerp, Belgium
  2. MrMilli

    MrMilli

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    216 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Location:
    Antwerp, Belgium
    I thought it would be a bit faster than 3870x2 but it will (possibly) turn out much faster.
     
  3. jbunch07

    jbunch07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,261 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    614
    Location:
    Chattanooga,TN
    hmmm i dnt know about that...seems kind of sketchy...
     
  4. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,260 (2.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    967
    Anyone here on TPU got some SM2.0 and SM3.0 figures for a QX6600 @3.0, or QX9xxx @3.0, and a HD3870@800 core, (Memory at max).

    We can then compare if those SM2.0 and SM3.0 are realistic, based on 480/320 shaders and 32/16TMU and 800/800.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,807 (13.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,189
    Here, using identical CPU scores:

    [​IMG]
     
  6. jbunch07

    jbunch07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,261 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    614
    Location:
    Chattanooga,TN
    so they didnt have the same cpu?
     
  7. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,807 (13.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,189
    No, obviously a biased chart. Regardless, the RV770 is still going to stomp the snot out of the GX2. Soon, I'm sure we will see Nvidias next generation beating up on ATi cards. And the great circle of video card life goes on and on and on.....
     
  8. jbunch07

    jbunch07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,261 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    614
    Location:
    Chattanooga,TN
    haha good point...it definitely is a vicious cycle :banghead:
     
  9. TonyStark

    TonyStark New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    225 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Regardless of GPU speed, the 3DMark score should be roughly the same for both cards (unless the CPU is an Intel Quad Core overclocked off its tits). The GX2 is heavily bottlenecked at 1280x1024 in 3DMark06.

    Also, you can put any values in that 3DMark calculator and it will calculate a result based on a formula. However in real testing, the SM2.0 and SM3.0 are bottlenecked by CPU speed, and will scale with the CPU speed. (ie you cant have 20,000 points on SM3.0 with a CPU that would score 2,000 but you can put those numbers in the calculator).

    In other words, that benchmark is bullshit.
     
  10. Megasty New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,263 (0.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Location:
    The Kingdom of Au
    Not this again :shadedshu Everyone knows by now from the previous thread that this circle is 300 degrees of bull followed by 60 degrees of shit. Anyone can makeup nice charts. NO ONE has this card yet so there should be no real benchmarks. Its that simple :toast:
     
  11. magibeg

    magibeg

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,000 (0.65/day)
    Thanks Received:
    203
    I'm actually pretty sure these exact same charts have already made their rounds in an earlier thread. But yea, can't confirm any of the numbers so.... meh?
     
  12. TonyStark

    TonyStark New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    225 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    There are people who own the card. Ever heard of engineering samples?
     
  13. nflesher87

    nflesher87 Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,499 (1.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    487
    Location:
    Texas
    though your theory is good, the SM2.0 and SM3.0 tests aren't reliant enough on CPU speed to swing the overall score more than about 500 points (1K tops if you're talking the difference between CPU at like 2.0 and 4.0 GHz)

    I'm not disagreeing that the results are biased, they obviously are, just like most unproven preliminary leaked benchmarks...though I'd say with a completely fair match up the RV770 has at least a 15-20% performance gain on the GX2
     
  14. TonyStark

    TonyStark New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    225 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    :confused:

    My "Theory" is actually a fact. Where there is a CPU bottleneck, a more powerful card will still give you the same 3dMark score. Remove the bottleneck and the faster card will score higher.
     
  15. nflesher87

    nflesher87 Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,499 (1.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    487
    Location:
    Texas
    ok maybe theory wasn't the right word, but irregardless, it's not as big a factor as you made it
     
  16. Megasty New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,263 (0.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Location:
    The Kingdom of Au
    Of course. I'm not saying that the card don't exist yet. I'm just saying that the ppl that have it now only care about getting the final product out to us, not silly fake benchmarks.
     
  17. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,260 (2.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    967
    I have a 3850 that I clock to 800 core, and 1000 memory, on a Q6600 @ 2.7.

    So my CPU score is 10% down on their benchmark, clock for clock. My CPU score is 4040. You have to add 25% to get that CPU score they got. I think that's a bit high. That isnt accounted for in the relative clocks. I think the CPU score faked.

    Then my SM2.0 is 4500 and my SM3.0 is 5000. They get 8845 and 10612. Thats exactly DOUBLE the performance. But there are only 480 shaders compared to my 320. Thats 50%. The texture units are up from 16 to 32. Thats 100%.

    But this is a shader test not a texture fill test. Hence the SM2.0 scores and SM3.0 scores should be up somewhere BETWEEN 50% and 100%, but closer to the 50%. Yet higher than 50% due to faster memory and shader clock. My best guess is a rough average, ie 75%. I dont see how it can be the MAX, ie. 100%, but it should be better than 50%, given the extra RAM speed.

    But they are reporting exactly 100% speed increase. I dont think it can be over 75% due to the "upgrade" being averages of 50%-100% improvement. You just cant get the max, max.
    >> IMO, these results are BOGUS. F.A. K. E. Theyve taken 3870 figures in 3Dmark06, "doubled them", then used the 3Dmark06 calculator to come up with the scores.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2008
  18. nflesher87

    nflesher87 Staff

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    4,499 (1.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    487
    Location:
    Texas
    QX9650s get over 7000 CPU score above 4.0GHz
     
  19. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,260 (2.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    967
    Benchmark done at: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 @ 3.00GHz

    OK, if that is true, that the QX9650 can get 7000 CPU score @4.0, then 7000/4.0*3.0 = 5250, so the CPU score is possible.
     
  20. jbunch07

    jbunch07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,261 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    614
    Location:
    Chattanooga,TN
    fake or not im not going to believe anything until the card is for sell and someone here has it and/or even better until i have one!
     
    Kei says thanks.
  21. Megasty New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,263 (0.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Location:
    The Kingdom of Au
    I'm with you on that. I don't believe any benchmarks except for my own anyway :D
     
  22. jbunch07

    jbunch07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,261 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    614
    Location:
    Chattanooga,TN
    you can say that again :toast:
     
  23. xkm1948

    xkm1948

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    406 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Location:
    eugene
    fake
     
  24. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    tony is pretty much right.. both shader tests are so cpu limited in default 2006 a more powerfull card wouldnt boost the score like that.. its fake..

    trog
     
    TonyStark says thanks.
  25. Morgoth

    Morgoth

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,795 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Location:
    Netherlands
    not fake
    i really want to see how the hd4870x2 and crossfire perfomance in crysis with bloomfield at 3ghz :D
     

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

Share This Page