View Full Version : GTX470 vs. HD5870 benchmarks in Far Cry 2
josiahsuarez
03-06-10, 10:25 AM
supposedly, first results are GTX 470 second is 5870
http://i45.tinypic.com/j9c4d4.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/nwxawl.jpg
they came from here:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1403097&postcount=2816
second pic...loop 3....what happened to the min frame rate...
Ninja Prime
03-06-10, 11:07 AM
second pic...loop 3....what happened to the min frame rate...
It dropped into the toilet because of HDD swapping because at 2560x1600 with 8xAA the ATI card runs OOM with 1GB and the 1.28 GB GTX 470 just barely doesn't. Nice way to cheat a benchmark though!
-=DVS=-
03-06-10, 11:30 AM
Except Far Cry 2 is not benchmark but a real game and this is real life scores , what you would get while playing this particular game at these specific settings ;) now unless ATI release 2gb 5870 , this is what you get.
Nice way to cheat a benchmark though!
How is additional memory a cheat? If I design a GPU with more ROPs than a competitor and it is faster because of that, am I cheating?
Except Far Cry 2 is not benchmark but a real game and this is real life scores , what you would get while playing this particular game at these specific settings ;) now unless ATI release 2gb 5870 , this is what you get.
Well they are releasing the 5870 2GB Eyefinity at the end of March.:)
Blacklash
03-06-10, 02:50 PM
This shows a 480 running the Heaven benchmark in DX11. It was doing 45FPS @1920x around the Dragon. That scene drops my single overclocked HD 5870 down to 23FPS @1920x1200.
http://ve3d.ign.com/videos/63524/Other/General/Trailer/GeForce-GTX-480-Performance-Demo
nekrosoft13
03-06-10, 05:58 PM
How is additional memory a cheat? If I design a GPU with more ROPs than a competitor and it is faster because of that, am I cheating?
don't mind him
Ninja Prime
03-06-10, 08:45 PM
How is additional memory a cheat? If I design a GPU with more ROPs than a competitor and it is faster because of that, am I cheating?
Its not a cheat per se, just an underhanded tactic to cover up how crappy your product is. In the mind of a lawyer, douche bag, or fanboy its probably "not really cheating" but in my mind it might as well be.
Xion X2
03-06-10, 10:30 PM
I'd call it "misleading" and borderline "cheating."
There are enough sources putting out #s on Fermi at this point to see that it's not a big jump (if any) from 5870. It's easy to see that Nvidia's trying to hide that in any way they can.
Can't really blame them as I'd do the same thing. But smart folk will see right past it.
Its three weeks until launch and no real game leaked benchmarks...somethings up if you ask me.
Looks like I will be getting a new monitor instead.
Looks like I will be getting a new monitor instead.
...or maybe three for eyefinity?!!:cool:
jimmyjames123
03-07-10, 02:42 AM
Its not a cheat per se, just an underhanded tactic to cover up how crappy your product is. In the mind of a lawyer, douche bag, or fanboy its probably "not really cheating" but in my mind it might as well be.
This has got to be one of the dumbest and most non-sensical comments I have seen in a long time. I suppose that the announcement of a 4GB Radeon 5970 is also "an underhanded tactic to cover up how crappy [the] product is". Same thing goes with 2GB Radeon 5870 too. How dare one show any scenario such as high res, high AA, triple monitor, etc where the larger frame buffer can make a positive difference :rolleyes2
Its not a cheat per se, just an underhanded tactic to cover up how crappy your product is. In the mind of a lawyer, douche bag, or fanboy its probably "not really cheating" but in my mind it might as well be.
Wow and still you managed insert a lame personal insult into your response. I guess keeping the "conversation" rational was not really an option was it? Since these results are probably fake anyway, I don't see a reason to get that upset. If they are true then that OM situation skewed the average by only ~5%.
Vincentx77
03-07-10, 05:50 AM
Call me crazy, but initially, didn't the GTX 260 and 280's performance kind of suck compared to how they perform now, after nVidia continued to tweak their drivers? I'm also curious to know how these things will handle PhysX as a single card solution. If I should decide to upgrade, I'm not sure I could keep my 260 without upping my power supply. I know being able to run PhysX and CUDA aren't everything, but it is nice, and it's one thing that's made me hesitant about switching sides. It should be interesting to see how these how both cards fare not necessarily out of the gate but in a couple of months from now. Then, nVidia shouldn't be so focused on getting new silicon out the door and should be able to mature things from the software side a bit.
Johnny C
03-07-10, 09:14 AM
Call me crazy, but initially, didn't the GTX 260 and 280's performance kind of suck compared to how they perform now, after nVidia continued to tweak their drivers? I'm also curious to know how these things will handle PhysX as a single card solution. If I should decide to upgrade, I'm not sure I could keep my 260 without upping my power supply. I know being able to run PhysX and CUDA aren't everything, but it is nice, and it's one thing that's made me hesitant about switching sides. It should be interesting to see how these how both cards fare not necessarily out of the gate but in a couple of months from now. Then, nVidia shouldn't be so focused on getting new silicon out the door and should be able to mature things from the software side a bit.
Yeah anything is possible, keep in mind too that the original 260's only had 192 shaders and they revised it to 216 after launch to compete better with the 4870.
I think there's definitely validity in this given that the results are playable. As I said in another thread more than 1GB VRAM is looking beneficial for enthusiasts and NV are in a good spot here not having to pay for the full 2GB. I guess this is the one area they can save some money and have the better performance to go with it.
For me personally though, 2560x1600 results are meaningless, especially with 8xAA. People who run those types of settings aren't usually concerned with price/performance, so I must admit that such tests are fairly abstract to me. On the other hand, 1920x1200 4x SSAA results could produce the same sort of limitations, and I'm very interested in being able to use SSAA (currently use it in UE3 games and older games). Obviously the problem here is fair comparison.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.