Last gen nVidia cards faster than ATI's 5xxx series?

I guess if you can limit AA, DX models, change the names of the same card 4 times while upping the price, you can make these claims as well
"Without dispute, AMD will be the graphics leader in the world," said Rick Bergman, who heads AMD's products group.
Nvidia officials disputed the claim. Drew Henry, the general manager of its graphics chip operations, said the company's current chips -- because they have special circuitry that accelerates physical actions in games -- are still faster than AMD's. He said Nvidia is also planning a next generation of chips with even greater performance, but didn't say when they will be released.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125260941273300503.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

So there you have it folks, physx is just plain ol better heheh [:jaydeejohn:4]
 

jennyh

Splendid
From the screens and the crysis bench we've seen, the 5870 is 20-30% faster than the gtx295 at the very least.

The 5870 X2 must be truly mind boggling and the G300 will be nowhere near it.

AMD are a mile ahead and they know it.
 

Dekasav

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2008
1,243
0
19,310
I think he's talking about CUDA physx. If you ran those physx on the same thread as you did everything else, it would bog a processor down so far that the Nvidia GPU would obviously go faster.

That's the only straw I could dream of.
 

jennyh

Splendid
You have to be trolling.

How do you figure that out? Have you been hiding under a rock the past few days?

6 screens on ONE 5870. The overclocked 5870 scored 30%+ more fps compared to the gtx295 in the only bench we've seen so far.

What makes you believe that it's not a far more powerful card exactly?
 

jennyh

Splendid
Your comments are usually so over the top and unnecessary that I see no need for them.

As opposed to yours, which has been all doom and gloom and downplaying from the start. What was it last time stranger, nobody cared about dx11 so nobody would buy these cards anyway?

What are you saying now? That AMD have faked the 6 screen stuff, that Cryengine 3 isn't running at ~50fps on 3 screens?
 

jennyh

Splendid
Before last week started I had no intention, no inclination to be using multiple screens for anything.

There is a good reason to be excited about this. It's game changing stuff stranger and we can see with our own eyes how great it's gonna be. I'd hardly say it is going overboard for no reason.
 

angry_ducky

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2006
3,056
0
20,790


I'm also very excited about the new ATI cards. Personally, I think multiple monitors are great. The extra screen space is nice for browsing the web and office applications, and it's a godsend for things such as video and photo editing, where you want as much resolution as possible.

Portal is simply unbelievable on two monitors, and even my computer with a lowly Athlon 64 and Radeon HD2600 can run it on high at 2560 x 1024 (two 19" monitors, when set as one screen). I haven't had time for any other games at that resolution, as I need to [strike]steal[/strike] borrow the second 19" screen from our family computer, but I'm guessing that other Source engine games would run just as well. I've been wanting a second monitor for my computer, but I don't have enough space on my desk.
 
Its true stranger. Miles ahead of Nvidia in die size. Miles ahead of Nvidia in DX11. Miles ahead of Nvidia in power consumption. Soon to be miles ahead in performance too and G300 is gonna need its own power supply. lol.
If you look at the reviews, the 285 beats the 4890 in idle power consumption, and it isn't far off on load power IIRC. I agree that they win the others, but in power consumption, it's surprisingly close.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I simply just cant wait, I love the back and forth fight between ATI and Nvidia, the only winners are us the consumer :)

It seems to me that we could be standing at the edge of a massive jump in power of the GPU's in our PC's, one that to me, will be the greatest jump ahead we have seen yet, especially if Nvidias 3xx follow the suit and are 20-30% faster than ATI( Although I will stick to ATI if they continue on the price/performance )

Good times ahead for sure :)
 

darkvine

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2009
363
0
18,810


Yes, it did very well, well more then I think anyone thought it would. But the fact remains that we have no idea, whatsoever the specs or power of the GTX300s will be. As it stands ATi looks like the clear winner, but that is simply because the only thing you have to compare it to is the 295, which beat the 4870x2. So if Nvidia makes the same leap, or even close to it, they will still come out more powerful.


I am a huge fan of both companies, though I lean to ATi as of late, but all your comments just come off as pure fanboy-ish "there's not way".
 


i am a huge fan of the competition, great for consumers
 

If true, that would be excellent news, as the ATI high end 4000 series cards are absolutely destroyed by the GTX 200 series in idle power. My one complaint about my 4870x2s is that my system now idles at >300W, which is rather insane IMHO.
 
When the 4770s first came out, there were tons of discrepency on power usage on the reviews, most showed a high number, while a few showed low numbers, like TPU for one.
W1zzard at TPU redid everything, as well a few other testers, like HWCanucks, and they were differing alot, and it was found that the 40nm process wasnt mature enough, but TPUs numbers were incredible, so they got a good one.
It seems the process is even more mature now, and these power numbers are looking good.
Theyve also learned alot from the 4890 process as well, and how to lower the clocks on the GDDR5, and the MC itself is said to have lower power draw itself