5870 (vs GTX 280) Results: Confusing

Omerta said:
This is why I'm skeptical of buying a 5870. I don't know who is benchmarking what on other sites, but real world, it doesn't seem like such a big step up. But, op, even if your 280 benchies look low.
Click to expand...
If you're playing at 1680x1050, it probably isn't. At 2560x1600, it's an insane difference. The 5870 is equivalent to a GTX295 in performance, and is much smoother (has much higher minimum framerates). The 5870 really is a high resolution geared card.

OP, try Driver Sweeper and a clean reinstall of the latest beta Catalyst drivers. Also, neither of those games is very stressful, so you probably wouldn't see much of a difference. Try some more taxing games (Crysis, STALKER: CS, Far Cry 2, etc.).
 
dont know if this has been mentioned

you can still get keys for both 32 and 64 bit rc 7

the download is whats not available - at least from microsoft

this is what p2p is for - torrent the iso and use a valid key ms

ive installed rc7 on countless systems for users to test / it will be valid until juneish of next near - starting in march its going to start shutting down every 2 hours

but for testing purposes... it takes maybe 30 minutes to slide a copy of rc7 on your system and load up a game or two...

why not give it a try?
 
Mr. K6 said:
If you're playing at 1680x1050, it probably isn't. At 2560x1600, it's an insane difference. The 5870 is equivalent to a GTX295 in performance, and is much smoother (has much higher minimum framerates). The 5870 really is a high resolution geared card.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I used to have a 30", but I dumped it because I prefer glossy screens and sold my rig. I finally have the 24" Apple led glossy display, and the new cards have displayport, so I should be good to go. I'll still only get a 5870x2 or nvidia's new offering for it.

But even then, I looked at benchmarks and it seemed the 295 actually had higher frames on the benchmarks I saw. Now, If you actually own both cards, I'd take your word over these dumb bullshit sites that crank benchmarks the second the cards are released.
 
Mr. K6 said:
If you're playing at 1680x1050, it probably isn't. At 2560x1600, it's an insane difference. The 5870 is equivalent to a GTX295 in performance, and is much smoother (has much higher minimum framerates). The 5870 really is a high resolution geared card.

OP, try Driver Sweeper and a clean reinstall of the latest beta Catalyst drivers. Also, neither of those games is very stressful, so you probably wouldn't see much of a difference. Try some more taxing games (Crysis, STALKER: CS, Far Cry 2, etc.).
Click to expand...

As I said, I always go through with DC Pro and/or Driver Sweeper, and remove anything left (if there is) manually. Also, I've already posted results for Crysis: Warhead, Fallout 3 (which can be demanding on "Ultra" settings)... go back a few pages and you'll see it all, first page even I think.

Already had a fresh install on another drive, tried it again, and while the card honestly runs good, it's nowhere near the GTX 295 range; i.e. the type of results from every review. It runs more akin to my GTX 280, sometimes a little less, so I think it's a 32-bit OS/2GB RAM combination that's the issue.

vjcsmoke said:
Slachtbeest have you tried the MSI 9.10beta XP driver that I linked for you?
Click to expand...

Shoot, no... did not get a chance. I work from home (graphic art & music related) and have been swamped, so I had to switch back to my main drives to get work done, heh.

I have the 9.9 driver, just downloaded the 9.10, so thank you.

Honestly, I've now seen two other individuals have bad results with the 5870 on XP, so I'm thinking it's not even worth the time (not that it takes me more then 10 minutes to clean out and reinstall drivers, heh, but I'm swamped with work). I guess maybe XP and the 5870, especially with 2GB of RAM, just don't play nice together.

Eh, if I can get the time tonight, I'll try it again with the 9.10 driver just to see.

I'm actually going to be moving to Win7 64-bit upon it's release. I have it pre-ordered.

I will then be able to upgrade the amount of RAM I'm using with 64-bit, to at least 4GB, maybe even 6GB, then try the newest driver and see what happens.

Unless I decide to just stick with nVidia, wait for their next release, in which case I'll return or sell the 5870, upgrade everything else and just wait for "green" to release their next offering, heh.
 
gravityparade said:
Consider the implications of what you're saying according to the OP's dilemma. If you use a system with inferior hardware, you're destined to get worse performance than if you used an older generation graphics card. To me, that excuse is not going to cut the mustard.

The hardware for the 5870 may be top of the line, but if CCC is not tuned for your hardware and the game profile optimizations for the particular game you're playing aren't ready in CCC for that hardware configuration, then the product is a lesser value any way you slice it. CCC has a historical pattern of sucking eggs. Is AMD's strategy to release this hardware before the software is ready, so they can get the jump on potential sales? If that's the case then I'm a little frightened by their marketing strategy trumping QA. Maybe I buy my hardware from the wrong company.
Click to expand...

consider the implications of what you're saying... Running a 2 week old card on an 8 year old OS and memory that even budget computers now exceed and expecting the same performance. I'd rather AMD spend less time on optimizing their latest drivers for an 8 year old OS and focus on the present and that's exactly what their doing. At what point do you feel it's ok for a company to put less optomizations for older platforms? Should AMD still spend the resources on win 98? It's been nearly a decade for XP where do you draw the line?

The good news is that the OP seems to understand this
 
Last edited:
Omerta said:
But even then, I looked at benchmarks and it seemed the 295 actually had higher frames on the benchmarks I saw. Now, If you actually own both cards, I'd take your word over these dumb bullshit sites that crank benchmarks the second the cards are released.
Click to expand...
That's the problem with benchmarks - they're only indicative of how well a card will perform in benchmarks. As games get more demanding and engines evolve, I think there's really no replacement for actual gaming numbers. I can say that without a single doubt my overclocked 5870 is equivalent to my overclocked GTX295 in terms of framerates, and the 5870 provides a much better gaming experience in terms of smoothness and higher minimum framerates. Take from it what you will.
Slachtbeest said:
As I said, I always go through with DC Pro and/or Driver Sweeper, and remove anything left (if there is) manually. Also, I've already posted results for Crysis: Warhead, Fallout 3 (which can be demanding on "Ultra" settings)... go back a few pages and you'll see it all, first page even I think.

Already had a fresh install on another drive, tried it again, and while the card honestly runs good, it's nowhere near the GTX 295 range; i.e. the type of results from every review. It runs more akin to my GTX 280, sometimes a little less, so I think it's a 32-bit OS/2GB RAM combination that's the issue.
Click to expand...
It very well could be your operating system/RAM combo, as well as the drivers for them (some kind of synergy). The MSI 9.10RC7's are working well for me, try them out, maybe they have better XP support.
 
I vote installing the beta drivers someone linked earlier. I remember reading or hearing somewhere that the beta drivers offer a large performance increase for the 5000 series... it might have been from Kyle's eyefinity review actually.

LOL at all the people saying that 2gig of RAM is "bottlenecking" the performance and suggesting an additional 2gig. You do realize this is a 32bit OS, right?
 
Mr. K6 said:
That's the problem with benchmarks - they're only indicative of how well a card will perform in benchmarks. As games get more demanding and engines evolve, I think there's really no replacement for actual gaming numbers.

It very well could be your operating system/RAM combo, as well as the drivers for them (some kind of synergy). The MSI 9.10RC7's are working well for me, try them out, maybe they have better XP support.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I never use benchies (except for "fun" or to test temps)... always real-world gameplay.

I have decide to to just keep the damn thing, as I'm determined to see if it will really crush my GTX 280, so...

...definitely, I will be trying the 9.10 drivers tonight, first-off.

Also because...
k1DBLITZ said:
I vote installing the beta drivers someone linked earlier. I remember reading or hearing somewhere that the beta drivers offer a large performance increase for the 5000 series... it might have been from Kyle's eyefinity review actually.
Click to expand...

Though...
k1DBLITZ said:
LOL at all the people saying that 2gig of RAM is "bottlenecking" the performance and suggesting an additional 2gig. You do realize this is a 32bit OS, right?
Click to expand...

...while I'm not sure if everyone here paid attention enough to the fact that I'm running XP 32 right now, but that is indeed with I cannot use more RAM yet, hence why...
RamonGTP said:
I believe moving to 64bit OS was also suggested.
Click to expand...
...I'm doing just that ;).

Ha.

The hell with it... decided to stick with the other plan, keep with my pre-order for Win7, go with 64-bit, move up to 4GB of RAM, and if the bastard still doesn't run as it should, then I'll either sell it to someone here, or take it out and empty a clip from one of my .45's into it, LOL.

P.S.
As stated above, I agree... rather have them working with new OS's and software than focusing on an 8 year old OS... however... they should have let people know, just out of good business practice and principal. I'd say AMD definitely screwed the pooch in that way, so I still hold them responsible for that. At least let people know, you know? Because... who knew? LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top