ATI Radeon HD 5970 2GB: The World's Fastest Graphics Card

[shubham1401]

^
The Chart should be arranged in decreasing order of performance.

 

[cknobman]

[citation][nom]shubham1401[/nom]^The Chart should be arranged in decreasing order of performance.[/citation]

Agreed. This way we would at least get to see where in hierarchy of performance each card lies without having to rearrange them because they are separated by brand.

 

[macelo]

Tomshardware: Please start showing Min fps as a rating in your reviews. While I love average fps charts, Min fps has always been something that bothers gamers.

 

[baracubra]

HOLY SHIT!!!
Thats nearly as big as my....well, lets just say that its BIG!

 

[Pei-chen]

I am amazed at the double standard applied to ATI/AMD vs. Intel and Nvidia.

ATI/AMD is clearly price gouging yet the fanboys are egging on. AMD/ATI is using Nvidia's 600/400/300 price model from last gen. I hope Nvidia get their GT300 series out ASAP so AMD/ATI can return to 450/240/170 price model and we have some competition.

 

[cnox]

[citation]That last part is a bit ironic; anyone willing to spend $600 on graphics should be looking to an overclocked Core i7 to help balance it out.[/citation]

Speaking of balancing it out, where the hell is the Part 2 article?

 

[noob2222]

[citation][nom]anamaniac[/nom]).Why'd I get a -1?[/citation]
because one of the new members who hates amd gives everyone a -1 across the board.

 

[1898]

http://i.imgur.com/jTGEm.png

 

[1898]

Damn, can't edit and the link ain't working.
http://i.imgur.com/jTGEm.png

 

[shubham1401]

Damn, can't edit and the link ain't working.
http://i.imgur.com/jTGEm.png

Why so?

 

[noob2222]

[citation][nom]Pei-chen[/nom]I am amazed at the double standard applied to ATI/AMD vs. Intel and Nvidia.ATI/AMD is clearly price gouging yet the fanboys are egging on. AMD/ATI is using Nvidia's 600/400/300 price model from last gen. I hope Nvidia get their GT300 series out ASAP so AMD/ATI can return to 450/240/170 price model and we have some competition.[/citation]
How do you figure this is price gouging? its 2 - 5870s wich cost 399 each, or $800. The price is only $600, the limitation however is the ATX standard that maxes the video cards to 300 Watts, hence the lower "stock" clocks.

When Nvidia released the 295, its 2x 260s was priced at 460, the 295 was 499. If the gt300 is as fast as they boast, it will consume a $800+ price tag because thier cost to make is through the roof.

AMD is hardly price gouging, they are pricing thier cards where they perform in the current price market if you don't overclock it. If you do, its very cheap.

 

[noob2222]

Hey cleeve, just caught a typo, your comparison chart on page 2 shows the 5850 having 1600 shaders when its 1440

 

[masterasia]

If I was a hardcore gamer, which I'm not, I'd camp out for one of these.
I'm a little disappointed that the 5970 did win in the benchmarks by a lot.

The card is just too big. I thought the 5870 was big? The 5970 is just way too big. I just got a new case, and I'm not going to get a new case just for a stupid graphics card. 5850 in CFX is what I'd would do, but I don't even need it. I have 2 GTX 260s and I don't even need that.

I would wait for nVidia's next beast to make a decision on what video card to get. I like PhysX, but I like eyefinity too. It's hard to decide so that's why I have 2 monster gaming machines. One with nVidia cards to play PhysX games and one with ATI cards to play other games. It's kinda like have an Xbox 360 and PS3 and Wii all at once.

 

[masterasia]

I meant to say "Didn't" win in the benchmarks by a lot.

 

[Pei-chen]

[citation][nom]noob2222[/nom]How do you figure this is price gouging? its 2 - 5870s wich cost 399 each, or $800. The price is only $600, the limitation however is the ATX standard that maxes the video cards to 300 Watts, hence the lower "stock" clocks. When Nvidia released the 295, its 2x 260s was priced at 460, the 295 was 499. If the gt300 is as fast as they boast, it will consume a $800+ price tag because thier cost to make is through the roof.AMD is hardly price gouging, they are pricing thier cards where they perform in the current price market if you don't overclock it. If you do, its very cheap.[/citation]
The fact that AMD/ATI can charge $600/400/300 for card that will sell at $450/240/170 pretty much sums up the effect of no competition. Had Nvidia released GT300 at the same time and at the same relative performance as GT200 vs. HD4000, do you think AMD/ATI will charge this much for HD5000?

It is your money that's going out the door so if you don’t care, it is not my problem.

 

[scrumworks]

Nice review. And no nvidia bias. Stay on this path thank you.

 

[jednx01]

I really want to see games that actually use this amount of gfx power. Imagine if developers optimized games for PC as much as they do for consoles. If it was geared towards this high end spectrum, I'm sure the visuals would be astounding. If developers can get cod6 class visuals to run at 60 frames per second on a xbox 360, imagine what would be possible on these beasts!

 

[dark_lord69]

*rubbs his crystal ball*
I am seeing a price drop in the future for nVidia's 295 GTX.

 

[Guest]

Ahh, let me have that monster inside my... case.

 

[falchard]

The game benchmarks are pretty centric around nVidia right now.
STALKER (X-Ray 1.0) Neutral
Crysis (Crytek Engine) nVidia biased
FarCry 2 (Crytek Engine) nVidia biased
Left for Dead (Source Engine) nVidia biased
World in Conflict (Mass-Tech Engine) CPU limted
H.A.W.X. (In-house Engine) Nuetral
GTA IV (RAGE Euphoria Engine) CPU limited
Resident Evil 5 (MT Frameworks) Nuetral
3D Mark Vantage (PhysX Accelerated) nVidia biased

 

[noob2222]

[citation][nom]Pei-chen[/nom]The fact that AMD/ATI can charge $600/400/300 for card that will sell at $450/240/170 pretty much sums up the effect of no competition. Had Nvidia released GT300 at the same time and at the same relative performance as GT200 vs. HD4000, do you think AMD/ATI will charge this much for HD5000?It is your money that's going out the door so if you don’t care, it is not my problem.[/citation]
Listed by performance from top to bottom

5970 OC - $600
5870 CF - $800
5850 CF - $600
5970 STD -$600
285 SLI - $740
275 SLI - $560
295 ----- $499
5870 ---- $399
4870X2 -- $385
5850 ---- $300

ATI's cf and 5970 solidly outperform Nvidia's 285 SLI coming in $150 cheaper. ATI way underbid Nvidia's current pricing scheme, how is that price gouging?

Sure, AMD can sell thier card cheaper, but lets face it why would they?They can't even keep it on the shelf at their current price and on EBAY its selling for up to $100 more than in the store and its still cheaper than Nvidia.

Get a clue or go overpay on some more Nvidia products.

 

[enzo matrix]

[citation][nom]Honis[/nom]Good article!I'll wait for a price drop since there are 0 DX 11 games out currently. Hope this forces further drops in the 4870s.[/citation]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support

 

[bildo123]

Again it appears cooling is an issue. Nothing more annoying than having a damned hair dryer in your case when playing sound intense games (or any game really for that matter). What they need to do is include a GOOD silent solution.

 

[duckmanx88]

[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]I love that AMD/ATI is on top and love my 5870! But in these reviews I wish they would stop using a CPU that maybe .2 percent of people actually own. Use more mainstream CPUs like the i7 or the Phenom IIs. [/citation]

lmao. go view steams stats on hardware for october. high end quad cores are not mainstream.

 

[cscott_it]

[citation][nom]duckmanx88[/nom]lmao. go view steams stats on hardware for october. high end quad cores are not mainstream.[/citation]

True, but how many people own super-high end video cards and not a high end proc?

Although you are correct sir.