Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The review is useless.
What are the settings for each card.
Why are the radeon 5870s not overclocked ?
Is catalyst A.I enabled and what level is it at. What quality are u using on the geforce set up.
Why did you not test other drivers. You took the time to email Amd about the drivers knowing that your forum users are having problems with them. Why did you not use the older drivers as a control .
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/08/02/asus_ares_dual_5870_gpu_video_card_review/4
Here you guys are. We have the radeon 5870 1 gig in crossfirex at 2560x1600 with 12x CFAA/16x AF getting 38/92/64. Now in battlefield the same set up with 2560x1600 4x AA 16x af gets you 12/68/43 ? ????? I rather play at the higher fsaa then whatever is going on in your second review.
Metro 2033 gets you 24/70/48.9 with AAA and 16x AF with 24/70/48.9 and we see a reduction again with 24/67/44.6
I wouldn't mind if these are simple mistakes but you already knew there were problems with the drivers and you tested them anyway and you didn't give another refrence point. Ati puts out drivers every month. Are you going to update next month with the new drivers or will we not see another comparison for months at a time.
Real gaming benchmarks don't mean anything if they aren't using working drivers and don't tell a proper story.
Take the two 5870s and over clock them to 950-1ghz like your able to and use the 10.6 drivers and then compare them to the gtx 460 super OC set up and mabye we will have an idea of what the value of these cards are.
The review is useless.
What are the settings for each card.
Why are the radeon 5870s not overclocked ?
Is catalyst A.I enabled and what level is it at. What quality are u using on the geforce set up.
Why did you not test other drivers. You took the time to email Amd about the drivers knowing that your forum users are having problems with them. Why did you not use the older drivers as a control .
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/08/02/asus_ares_dual_5870_gpu_video_card_review/4
Here you guys are. We have the radeon 5870 1 gig in crossfirex at 2560x1600 with 12x CFAA/16x AF getting 38/92/64. Now in battlefield the same set up with 2560x1600 4x AA 16x af gets you 12/68/43 ? ????? I rather play at the higher fsaa then whatever is going on in your second review.
Metro 2033 gets you 24/70/48.9 with AAA and 16x AF with 24/70/48.9 and we see a reduction again with 24/67/44.6
I wouldn't mind if these are simple mistakes but you already knew there were problems with the drivers and you tested them anyway and you didn't give another refrence point. Ati puts out drivers every month. Are you going to update next month with the new drivers or will we not see another comparison for months at a time.
Real gaming benchmarks don't mean anything if they aren't using working drivers and don't tell a proper story.
Take the two 5870s and over clock them to 950-1ghz like your able to and use the 10.6 drivers and then compare them to the gtx 460 super OC set up and mabye we will have an idea of what the value of these cards are.
Well, that is Eyefinity+CF, which has always been broken and crap.
Just to quote a previous review: http://hardocp.com/article/2010/07/26/geforce_gtx_460_sli_performance_vs_amd_gpus/1
So first you tell us that 5850/5870 CF will smoke GTX 460 SLI, and then when you test it you find that 460 SLI is faster, and then you claim that that was expected? Well, no, according to you guys that was NOT expected. That's why I'm puzzled that you aren't investigating it, because it directly contradicts what you've previously claimed. And of course there is the whole issue of 5970 laying the smack down on GTX 460 SLI according to that eval as well - 5870 CF should easily best it. I get that benchmarks != gaming, and that's what I love about [H], but the difference here is simply staggering.
The review is useless.
What are the settings for each card.
Why are the radeon 5870s not overclocked ?
Is catalyst A.I enabled and what level is it at. What quality are u using on the geforce set up.
Why did you not test other drivers. You took the time to email Amd about the drivers knowing that your forum users are having problems with them. Why did you not use the older drivers as a control .
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/08/02/asus_ares_dual_5870_gpu_video_card_review/4
Here you guys are. We have the radeon 5870 1 gig in crossfirex at 2560x1600 with 12x CFAA/16x AF getting 38/92/64. Now in battlefield the same set up with 2560x1600 4x AA 16x af gets you 12/68/43 ? ????? I rather play at the higher fsaa then whatever is going on in your second review.
Metro 2033 gets you 24/70/48.9 with AAA and 16x AF with 24/70/48.9 and we see a reduction again with 24/67/44.6
I wouldn't mind if these are simple mistakes but you already knew there were problems with the drivers and you tested them anyway and you didn't give another refrence point. Ati puts out drivers every month. Are you going to update next month with the new drivers or will we not see another comparison for months at a time.
Real gaming benchmarks don't mean anything if they aren't using working drivers and don't tell a proper story.
Take the two 5870s and over clock them to 950-1ghz like your able to and use the 10.6 drivers and then compare them to the gtx 460 super OC set up and mabye we will have an idea of what the value of these cards are.
That's a different map, the map I'm using now, Refinery, is more graphically demanding, heavier texture/bandwidth, more aliens and tessellation, than the Ruin map. NV drivers have also come a long way fast since Fermi launch.
I have done a quick look and installed MSI Afterburner, turned on the OSD, and ran through my map in BC2, I am seeing between 55%-80% GPU usage on both GPUs as I play through, so CFX is working. What I notice is that it fluctuates, and often times there may be only 55%-60% usage on each GPU, meaning efficiency and CFX scaling is low, but both GPUs are very much being tapped for performance, just not anywhere as one would want, idealy you'd want at least 80% GPU usage each GPU and even better would be 100% usage across both GPUs, I think SLI comes to the closest to this. I can tell you guys that AMD is looking at both maps in AvP and BC2 that we test in. That's the best I can do for now, I have other evaluations to work on at the moment.
Something is off with those results, at least on the 5870 CF in BF:BC2. Hell, those framerates are what I get on my single 5850, nevermind the 5850 CF that I used to have.
Which is odd, because I never had any issues like this when I had 5850 CF going about 3 months ago. I have no idea why they release drivers that actually break more than they fix, what a bunch of fuck ups.I would assume that since the AMD drivers are only using 55%-60% of both GPUs at a time, that may be what's wrong with the driver. I mean if it fell to 50% of each GPU then that's the equivalent of just having 1 GPU in the first place.
AMD needs to fix it.
Which is odd, because I never had any issues like this when I had 5850 CF going about 3 months ago. I have no idea why they release drivers that actually break more than they fix, what a bunch of fuck ups.
Both sides have had some pretty crappy drivers the last few years. I miss the days when they both worked their asses off on the driver side.
there is an edit button so no need for a double post.Oh, and just because it is late I will go ahead and point out the stuff of nightmares for ATI. The 460's are the cheap entry level card in the 4XX GTX series.
What happens when the hardware upgrades and improved drivers get applied to the new high end Nvidia cards you know are in the works?
This ^As for drivers, they specifically stated that AMD is aware of their numbers and did not mention ANYTHING about CF scaling being messed up in the drivers. So if the drivers are fucked its entirely AMD's fault, not the person writing the review. If the drivers suck AMD needs to get its shit straight its not up to reviewers to test every single bloody driver that comes out.
Something still seems off about the two reviews. We've seen SLI vs. CF before, even by [H], and the gap was never this big.
I mean, look at 5850 CF vs. GTX 470 SLI: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/05/10/galaxy_geforce_gtx_470_gc_sli_review/3
GTX 470 SLI is across the board faster, but not by all that much. Yet suddenly GTX 460 SLI is mopping the floor with 5870 CF?
5850 CF vs. GTX 470 SLI in BFBC2 are neck and neck: http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI3MzQ0MDEwMWh0SGNIbnFhTEdfNV83X2wuZ2lm
Yet 5870 CF is losing bad to GTX 460 SLI in BFBC? http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI4MTAzMjM1MmFlWk5qclJDU2JfMV80X2wuZ2lm
Something is seriously wrong, and I'm shocked that [H] doesn't seem to have really investigated wtf is going on. It saddens me to see little more than a small paragraph talking about the *huge* discrepancy going on when previously there were entire articles devoted to such things. If it turns out that for whatever reason 460 SLI really is just that good compared to even 470 SLI, then that's great, but to just take it at face value with little apparent questioning of the results doesn't sit right with me.
Xfire is an chat program
CF and SLI are there names (and CF is shorter)
Something still seems off about the two reviews. We've seen SLI vs. CF before, even by [H], and the gap was never this big.
I mean, look at 5850 CF vs. GTX 470 SLI: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/05/10/galaxy_geforce_gtx_470_gc_sli_review/3
GTX 470 SLI is across the board faster, but not by all that much. Yet suddenly GTX 460 SLI is mopping the floor with 5870 CF?
5850 CF vs. GTX 470 SLI in BFBC2 are neck and neck: http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI3MzQ0MDEwMWh0SGNIbnFhTEdfNV83X2wuZ2lm
Yet 5870 CF is losing bad to GTX 460 SLI in BFBC? http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI4MTAzMjM1MmFlWk5qclJDU2JfMV80X2wuZ2lm
Something is seriously wrong, and I'm shocked that [H] doesn't seem to have really investigated wtf is going on. It saddens me to see little more than a small paragraph talking about the *huge* discrepancy going on when previously there were entire articles devoted to such things. If it turns out that for whatever reason 460 SLI really is just that good compared to even 470 SLI, then that's great, but to just take it at face value with little apparent questioning of the results doesn't sit right with me.
5850 CF vs. GTX 470 SLI: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/05/10/galaxy_geforce_gtx_470_gc_sli_review/3
5850 CF vs. GTX 470 SLI in BFBC2 are neck and neck: http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI3MzQ0MDEwMWh0SGNIbnFhTEdfNV83X2wuZ2lm
Yet 5870 CF is losing bad to GTX 460 SLI in BFBC? http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI4MTAzMjM1MmFlWk5qclJDU2JfMV80X2wuZ2lm
did you install the crossfire profile? its separate from the entire driver install.
Well, that is Eyefinity+CF, which has always been broken and crap.
Just to quote a previous review: http://hardocp.com/article/2010/07/26/geforce_gtx_460_sli_performance_vs_amd_gpus/1
So first you tell us that 5850/5870 CF will smoke GTX 460 SLI, and then when you test it you find that 460 SLI is faster, and then you claim that that was expected? Well, no, according to you guys that was NOT expected. That's why I'm puzzled that you aren't investigating it, because it directly contradicts what you've previously claimed. And of course there is the whole issue of 5970 laying the smack down on GTX 460 SLI according to that eval as well - 5870 CF should easily best it. I get that benchmarks != gaming, and that's what I love about [H], but the difference here is simply staggering.
Looking at the link it is clear Nvidia is using a much more graphically intense setting then ATI, Nvidia is using 16xCSAA compared to ATI's 8xAA. Scroll down to the SLI setup and Nvidia has been able to leave the 16xCSAA and also enabled TRMSAA where as ATI has had to drop down to 4xAA with TRMSAA to stay playable. Clearly Nvidia surpasses ATI in this post regarding performance. This is why you see the difference, Nvidia is able to provide a much more rich gaming experience at the same performance as ATI at lower IQ level.
This is not actually Apples To Apples if I recall this article correctly. Durring this eval HardOCP uses Transparency AA on the Nvidia card and in BC2 DX11 there is no TRAA support from ATI. So again, Nvidia is providing a much more rich IQ then ATI at the same performance. I believe this is the article in question http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/05/10/galaxy_geforce_gtx_470_gc_sli_review/5 It would be nice to see HardOCP go back and test this to make sure TRAA was enabled or not.
I am not certain as to what form of TRAA was used in this as its not listed throughout the article, was the Nvidia CP set to TRAA, was anything forced on or off in the CP, we just don't know. The other thing we need to look at is comparing the two resolutions, in #2 its running 1920x1200, and in #3 its running 2560x1600. From what this says is that the Nvidia 460 cards scale much better at higher resolutions compared to ATI. Also it is a very well known fact that HBAO causes the 5xxx cards to falter and choke, again Nvidia providing a much more rich gaming experience then what ATI can offer at the same performance.
The fact of the matter is Nvidia provides a more rich gaming experinece then ATI, Nvidia has working Vsync, working AA, working Anisotropic Filtering, working TRAA in most DX10 and 11 software, excellent developer relations.
The point here is that the 460's are owning the 5870's. So what if it is the drivers? Hardware or software...it doesn't matter. ATI has had plenty of time to get either right and have not done it.
Since these results are so impressive, and contraversial, it would be worth including a few more cards for comparison
e.g. HD5850 CF & HD5970
- this would show if there was just a problem with HD5870 CF
- also, single HD5870
- maybe that's too many - could exclude the HD5850 CF
- but many people think the HD5970 is much better than the GTX460 SLI, so that would be worth including
Then also do the tests for a few more games, as these results could just be for a few games, and not the general case...
Anyway, interesting stuff ....
HD5850 CF test results were THE reason why this was brought out... as per the introducton of that article.
Jesus...well I'm just glad my 5970 seems to avoid the CF scaling issues. I figured it was the same as Crossfire but I guess not.
Things went startlingly wrong for the Ares in Bad Company 2, as its frame rate results were about 30 per cent below where we expected them to be. After a little investigation however we found that ATI accidentally left out a key optimization in its Catalyst 10.6 release, hobbling HD 5970 performance in Bad Company 2. We should clarify that this was a mistake by ATI, not Asus, and affects all HD 5970s running the 10.6 version of Catalyst.
We did eventually find a hotfix for the problem but it wasnt readily available on either ATI or Asuss site which is disappointing. The hotfix did the trick though and once we'd applied it we saw frame rates jump by around 50 per cent. At 1,920 x 1,200 with 4x AA enabled for example we saw average framerates rise from 65fps to 101fps and minimum framerates jump from 40fps to 61fps. The hotfix also extended the gap between the Ares and a stock card with the Ares pulling out a lead of 8fps at 2,560 x 1,600 with 4x AA.
Sounds like you aren't familiar with CSAA. 8xMSAA is arguably higher quality than 16xCSAA. Just like 8xMSAA is higher quality than ATI's 12xCFAA. Nvidia talks about it here: http://developer.nvidia.com/object/coverage-sampled-aa.html Note that even at 16xCSAA - the number of Color/Z/Stencil Samples is still just 4. Basically, 16xCSAA is closer to 4xMSAA than 8xMSAA. 16xCSAA is certainly less demanding than 8xMSAA, so Nvidia doesn't have nearly as much of a lead as you think.
In summary, CSAA produces antialiased images that rival the quality of 8x or 16x MSAA, while introducing only a minimal performance hit over standard (typically 4x) MSAA