RV870 is 1.6 times faster than RV770

[josiahsuarez]

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15287/1/
RV870 is 1.6 times faster than RV770
Written by Fuad Abazovic
Monday, 31 August 2009 11:59


DirectX 11 40nm leap

We've heard that ATI's soon to lunch DirectX 11 performance card, something that we know as RV870 and something that AMD calls Evergreen, should be roughly 1.6 times faster than the RV770 chip.

RV770 is the chip behind ATI's Radeon HD 4870 card and it showed quite good performance, so this 1.6 times performance increase can give you a general idea that the new chip should be quite fast.

Of course 1.6 times is the best case scenario and it should be less than that in some cases, but overall this 40nm chip should be a good step forward for ATI.

The big issue is that by late November Nvidia might launch its Geforce GT300 chip, that might end up even faster, but at the same time Nvidia's DirectX 11, 40nm chip will also be bigger and probably hotter as well.

[Bman212121]

RV870 is 1.6 times faster than RV770
Written by Fuad Abazovic
Monday, 31 August 2009 11:59


DirectX 11 40nm leap

We've heard that ATI's soon to lunch DirectX 11 performance card, something that we know as RV870 and something that AMD calls Evergreen, should be roughly 1.6 times faster than the RV770 chip.

RV770 is the chip behind ATI's Radeon HD 4870 card and it showed quite good performance, so this 1.6 times performance increase can give you a general idea that the new chip should be quite fast.

Of course 1.6 times is the best case scenario and it should be less than that in some cases, but overall this 40nm chip should be a good step forward for ATI.

The big issue is that by late November Nvidia might launch its Geforce GT300 chip, that might end up even faster, but at the same time Nvidia's DirectX 11, 40nm chip will also be bigger and probably hotter as well.
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15287/1/

:naughty:

[CaptNKILL]

So is it 1.6 times performance increase or 1.6 times the performance? There's a big difference between a 160% improvement and just being 160% of something. :bleh:

[abtomat74]

Wouldn't a 60% increase itself be almost unheard of? From what I have seen over the years, it takes 2-3 gens or refreshes before 100% is fully achieved.

[josiahsuarez]

he must be saying it's a 60% improvement. 160% improvement would be magical o_0

[Heinz68]

I think he did mean 60% faster. There are no benchmarks and he did not explain how he calculated such increase. Most likely he pulled the numbers out of his sleeve same as the GT300 available in late November.

[doom3ed_player]

60% increase is not super. R300 => R500 more than that.

[Ninja Prime]

8800GTX ---> GTX 280 was about 60%, and all the NV fanbois had a giant boner at "omg its so much, revolutionary, zomg!!!111"

[Heinz68]

If the 60% performance increase is true it would make it faster than any single GPU card today on the market. It would also make it little faster than the HD 4870 X2 and probably as fast as the NVIDIA dual GPU GTX 295 still selling at about $500.-

It the rumored price for the HD 5870 is $299.-, than I think it's more than super, plus the additional benefit is DX11.

Anyway I will mostly likely wait for the dual GPU card models.

[CaptNKILL]

8800GTX ---> GTX 280 was about 60%, and all the NV fanbois had a giant boner at "omg its so much, revolutionary, zomg!!!111"

Compared to the 7900GTX to 8800GTX upgrade, the GTX 280 was hardly amazing.

I hope to see a GPU this year that offers more than 60% improvement over current single-GPU setups. Its looking like ATI will do what worked last time and focus on leading with a dual-GPU card, while nvidia will probably lead with a more powerful single card. I'll be going single-GPU again unless there are some major changes.

Also, I definitely want full Physx support, so I doubt I'll be going ATI, even if their cards are priced extremely well.

[Muppet]

Also, I definitely want full Physx support, so I doubt I'll be going ATI, even if their cards are priced extremely well.

I feel the same way. But that has more to do with 3D Vision. After gaming in 3D, there is no way i want to go back.

[Armed_Baboon]

this is good news for those of us who recently became GTX295 owners :)

[Toss3]

this is good news for those of us who recently became GTX295 owners :)

How so? 1.6 times faster means 260% of the performance of the R770.

[Armed_Baboon]

How so? 1.6 times faster means 260% of the performance of the R770.

I doubt that your interpretation of the "1.6 times faster" statement is the one intended by the author.

[Siskods9]

How so? 1.6 times faster means 260% of the performance of the R770.

Isn't a 1.6 times improvement actually 60% better and not 260%? as 1.6 times is less than twice (2 times) as fast...

[Toss3]

I doubt that your interpretation of the "1.6 times faster" statement is the one intended by the author.

1.6 Times faster equals a 260% improvement, so either he is full of **** or he needs to take an English class.

[hell_of_doom227]

1.6 times means only 60% improvement.

[Thunderbolt56]

1.6 Times faster equals a 260% improvement, so either he is full of **** or he needs to take an English class.

??? I never understood that newfangled math, but 1.6 times faster always meant 60% in my book. :skeleton2

[noko]

If you where at 10fps and saw an improvement of 160%, it would be 10fps x 1.6 = 16fps. Plus what is 160% improved upon is not said so this could mean anything.

[Star_Hunter]

If you where at 10fps and saw an improvement of 160%, it would be 10fps x 1.6 = 16fps. Plus what is 160% improved upon is not said so this could mean anything.

Wrong

According to your math I could have a 100% improvement (double) and it would be 10fps * 1 =10

16FPS would only be a 60% improvement

a 160% improvement would be more than double so 10 * 2.6= 26FPS

The rumor clearly meant 60% improvement as 160% is too large of a gain for a new generation to attain now.

[CaptNKILL]

Wrong

According to your math I could have a 100% improvement (double) and it would be 10fps * 1 =10

16FPS would only be a 60% improvement

a 160% improvement would be more than double so 10 * 2.6= 26FPS

The rumor clearly meant 60% improvement as 160% is too large of a gain for a new generation to attain now.

Exactly.

If a 160% improvement is only 1.6x what is a 100% improvement? How about a 50% improvement? :p

Think about it.

[kaptkarl]

This is funny. All of you smart IT guys can't even do basic math.......hehehe.

1.6 times faster means 60%.

Example: 10fps x 60% or .6 = 6fps. Now add 10 + 6 = 16fps...........duh.

Just like 2 times faster would be 10fps x 100% or 1 = 10. Again adding 10 + 10 = 20fps.

Come on guys. A little common sense here.:D

Kapt

[Toss3]

This is funny. All of you smart IT guys can't even do basic math.......hehehe.

1.6 times faster means 60%.

Example: 10fps x 60% or .6 = 6fps. Now add 10 + 6 = 16fps...........duh.

Just like 2 times faster would be 10fps x 100% or 1 = 10. Again adding 10 + 10 = 20fps.

Come on guys. A little common sense here.:D

Kapt

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/128347587844687500fail.jpg¨

The wording here is the key as "faster" already implies that it is better than the original so 1.6 times faster means that it's 260% the speed(1+1.6) of the r770 while 1.6 times as fast would mean that it's 60% faster(1*1.6).

Take a course in probability and you'll see what we mean. There's really no argument here - either it's 1.6 times faster(=260% of the r770) or the author of that article screwed up.

[Star_Hunter]

1.6 times faster means it is 260% of the original speed which means that it is 160% faster than the original. Therefore it is not 260% faster.

[Blacklash]

+60% sounds more believable to me. That will be nice for people that like single GPU and are currently dipping to 20-25FPS in some games. The rumors I've heard go-

* 900 MHz core clock speed
* 1GB of GDDR5 running at 1100 MHz (effectively 4400 MHz)
* 1200 shader processors (compared with 800 on the current HD 4870)
* 32 ROPS (compared with 16 on the HD 4870)
* 48 TMUs (compared with 40 on the HD 4870)