Geometric Performances, PowerPlay
AMD hasn’t only improved its architecture’s weaknesses; the engineers have also improved the cards’ existing strong points even more. The performance of the Geometry Shaders has been improved. That’s not surprising. This type of shader is still very recent, and the preceding architecture was the first version either AMD or Nvidia had implemented. Now they’ve had time to improve on their first versions. Like Nvidia, AMD has increased the size of the output buffer of the Geometry Shaders in order to conserve more data on the GPU. The number of Geometry Shader threads being processed at one time has been multiplied by four. Let’s look at the practical results of these improvements:

Though the RV770 wasn’t very impressive on the Galaxy benchmark (which, if you notice that the GT200 shows a very limited gain over the G92 and seems not to be influenced much by the size of the buffer in all cases), it really showed its capabilities with Hyperlight, where it placed second just behind the GTX 280.
Let’s continue our tests with the accent on geometry, this time with vertex shading:

Again not surprisingly, the AMD architecture still holds sway. But again there’s some disappointment, since you’d expect an architecture with 800 ALUs to scores much better. But in practice all current GPUs are limited by the power of the setup engine, which holds them to one triangle per cycle in the best cases. The Vertex Shader 3.0 test simply refused to run on the RV770.

Let’s move on with vertex shader performance, this time specifically targeting texture fetching, since it’s a useful technique, especially for displacement mapping. Nvidia kept the advantage by a nose on the Earth test, but on the Waves test AMD was far ahead, even leaving the hottest new series from Nvidia behind.
PowerPlay

AMD has also improved management of its GPU’s power consumption, in particular by introducing clock gating, which disables certain parts of the chip when they’re not being used. AMD has also corrected a bug in its power management that was revealed on the RV670s when running with midrange or low-end CPUs. With such CPUs, the RV670 was sometimes underused and so shifted to low-power mode, and when the CPU had finished processing the data and suddenly sent them in a burst, the GPU had to move back into high-performance mode, which took several cycles and could cause micro stuttering.
The GPU also has a microcontroller that takes readings:
- of the temperature at various different sensors disseminated around the GPU;
- of the activity of the different GPU areas. This microcontroller is what controls clock gating and the frequency of the GPU as a function of these readings, thus minimizing cost at the level of the driver.
Bottom line as i see it, this is a Smashing card!
Prices on the UK market put a HD4850 at £120 (ebuyer.com) where as the GTX260 is £300! considering the overal performance difference between the two, i'd get 2 HD4850's in Crossfire mode and still be cheaper than a GTX260.
Once again AMD/ATI have produced a card that isnt amazing on performance, but bang for your buck its probably the best card on the market at those prices
The very fact that, yet again, we have a whole page dedicated to noise is a sure sign that these manufacturers still don't have all of the priorities covered. How many years ago was it that THG posted that funny video showing an Nvidia card as a leaf blower & barbecue? - and still we have to put up with substandard cooling solutions. I haven't bought a graphics card for years now without getting an aftermarket heatsink to go with it - thank god for companies like Zalman & Thermalright who are sparing our ears!!
I have seen on the reg that the 4870 more than doubles the performance of a 3870. If this is true and they hit a ~$300 price tag than AMD/ATI are back baby.
Apparently they use 160W at load but beat the 3870 on performance/W by a long way.
Can't wait to see it. Even though I know that this site rakes in more from intel/nvidia.
http://www.pcper.com/images/review [...] 48-bar.jpg
Dual 4870s can take on a 280 no sweat and push for serious performance, and they're supposedly near similar price. By itself the 4870 takes on the $100USD more; 260. I smell price drops.
Thanks to Tom’s Hardware for including the FSX test in these results. It’s interesting to see how differently the cards line up with FSX. No other game produces similar results or shows up the new technology in a different light. To any serious simmer it is the AA/AF performance on big screens that is crucial and this shows the biggest differences and biggest insights. Also it was good to see that my card (an overclocked 8800 GTX) is still top of the pile!
lets just hope that this brings in enough profits to help the CPU market, because if you look at the info on the intel nahalem, it looks as though they have alot more potential, but they dont want to release that potential just yet, where as, if AMD release a competitor then we might just see the nahalems full potential!!