HD 5870 vs GTX 295

cybereality said:
Why is it that ATI-heads are perpetually claiming that performance will increase once updated drivers come out? I have been hearing this line for years, it never ends. On the flip-side, you don't hear that regarding Nvidia cards. Out-of-box the performance is just as advertised.
Click to expand...

Well I can tell you from experience that newer drivers increase performance. Just from upgrading my 9.7 drivers to my 9.8 I got a 2-4 frame per second increase in a few of my games that I tested. This is not with just an ATI card either, there have been many times in recent years that I have seen performance increases due to newer drivers both in my Nvidia cards and my friends.

Tell me something though. Why would a company come out with drivers if there wasn't anything to be gained?
 
Krenum said:
Well I can tell you from experience that newer drivers increase performance.
Click to expand...
Yes, clearly that is true. I wasn't arguing that. My point was just that whenever performance comparisons come up it seems the ATI-fans are always quick to claim that a new driver will fix it.
 
well, I would say that the driver is not necessarily bad, it is just that in few games I saw it beat hd 4870x2 by like 25 to 30% and in some case is losses almost by the same amount, so I am just thinking that as the time goes on you would see it eventually beat the hd 4870 x2 and gtx 295 in almost all the games or the newer titles atleast, just like the gtx 280 did to 9850gx2, it lost to it in the beginning sometimes but now it is faster in almost every game.
 
TalonMan said:
It should.... Yes.

But some feel there MIGHT be an internal bottleneck of some type.

More data is required.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=235181
Click to expand...

Grats you just linked a thread from a guy that doesn't have the card even? Speculation, desperation, reaching ftw. Operation soft launch err, operation 256 bit memory errr, operation downplay DX11 oh wait scratch that, operation find a negative thread from random poster has begun men.
 
kadozer said:
Grats you just linked a thread from a guy that doesn't have the card even? Speculation, desperation, reaching ftw. Operation soft launch err, operation 256 bit memory errr, operation downplay DX11 oh wait scratch that, operation find a negative thread from random poster has begun men.
Click to expand...

I think he does have a point though. I always figured this card would have double the performance of a 4870. It seems to be something like 60-70% better, but you'd think it has the potential to be 100% better. There might be a bottleneck somewhere.
 
Cyrilix said:
I think he does have a point though. I always figured this card would have double the performance of a 4870. It seems to be something like 60-70% better, but you'd think it has the potential to be 100% better. There might be a bottleneck somewhere.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me more like a repeat of the 4870 512mb version. If that's the case there should be a nice increase with the revisions of the 5 series. AMD always starts off slow with launch cards then they somehow tweak it to optimum after about few drivers. The guy in the thread linked has a great point, but the guy on this forum has a different agenda obviously.
 
kadozer said:
Sounds to me more like a repeat of the 4870 512mb version. If that's the case there should be a nice increase with the revisions of the 5 series. AMD always starts off slow with launch cards then they somehow tweak it to optimum after about few drivers. The guy in the thread linked has a great point, but the guy on this forum has a different agenda obviously.
Click to expand...

By the way, I found this overclocking portion of a review.

http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7080&pageid=5899

They show an 850/1200 Radeon 5870 vs. a 900/1300 Radeon 5870. That's 5.5% increase on the core, 8.5% increase on the memory. Now, look at which benchmarks gain the most.

One is Crysis, and the performance increases by 14% from 22.2 to 25.1 This must be (my speculation) due to memory bandwidth limitations, since the core clock and the memory bandwidth clock are mutually dependent (you have to scale both to see an appreciable benefit). On the other hand, there are other games that don't gain quite as much such as Wolfenstein (by only almost 5%). This is closer to the 5.5% increase in core clock, which would indicate to me that Wolfenstein, at least at those settings, is not bandwidth limited.

On the other hand, there's another review with overclocking results:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2009/09/HD5870-Crysis-Warhead-1920-OC.png
Instead, Crysis doesn't seem to improve very much. I have a feeling something is up with their numbers that needs to be explained, since they got less than a 5% performance increase from more than 5% overclock on both core and memory. Also, the GTX 295 did far worse in that benchmark, where it normally ends up higher on Crysis.

Anyway, I'm sitting on the theory that if you were to overclock the memory so that it hits... 1600 MHz (from 1200 MHz) if that's even possible, you'd get something more akin to 100% performance increase over 4870. Since that's not possible to test, however, I would speculate that if you were to take an intensive benchmark such as Crysis at 2560x1600, and drop the memory bandwidth down to 50%, and raise it by 5% increments up to 100%, you would see performance go up pretty linearly. Of course, someone would have to test this.
 
kadozer said:
Hahahahah

I love the 256bit rant. You guys really should put a lid on this guy he makes you all look bad, at least Silus knows wtf he's talking about when he does tech comparisons.
Click to expand...
kadozer said:
Sounds to me more like a repeat of the 4870 512mb version. If that's the case there should be a nice increase with the revisions of the 5 series. AMD always starts off slow with launch cards then they somehow tweak it to optimum after about few drivers. The guy in the thread linked has a great point, but the guy on this forum has a different agenda obviously.
Click to expand...

Sorry for trying to get to the truth... :rolleyes:
Just for the record, that is the ATI boys pursuing this theory, not nVidia fans with agendas. Don't read it if you don't want to know.

kadozer said:
Grats you just linked a thread from a guy that doesn't have the card even? Speculation, desperation, reaching ftw. Operation soft launch err, operation 256 bit memory errr, operation downplay DX11 oh wait scratch that, operation find a negative thread from random poster has begun men.
Click to expand...

Correct, I don't have a 5870. But I do have a 295, and did try to show that when you give the 295 more bandwidth, faster performance is the end result.
I have nVidia cards, and like to post in the nVidia section. You have an ATI GPU, and also like to post in the nVidia section attcking me...
One of us has an agenda.

Cyrilix said:
The bandwith has been increased by something like 35%, if my estimates are correct. 115.2 GB/s to 153.6 GB/s.
Click to expand...
Good info. :cool:

Cyrilix said:
Anyway, I'm sitting on the theory that if you were to overclock the memory so that it hits... 1600 MHz (from 1200 MHz) if that's even possible, you'd get something more akin to 100% performance increase over 4870. Since that's not possible to test, however, I would speculate that if you were to take an intensive benchmark such as Crysis at 2560x1600, and drop the memory bandwidth down to 50%, and raise it by 5% increments up to 100%, you would see performance go up pretty linearly. Of course, someone would have to test this.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post. ;)
 
Last edited:
My mistake Tal' carry on, you are 100% correct. You are the most entertaining guy on here don't take my posts as personal.


Edit: Sorry forgot to ask, whats a good EVGA model mobo to go sli when GT 300 hits in October? Thanks in advance!

edit 2: LOL! sorry again bro, I meant 1366 EVGA SLI board.
 
Last edited:
kadozer said:
My mistake Tal' carry on, you are 100% correct. You are the most entertaining guy on here don't take my posts as personal.
Click to expand...

No problem... ;)

I can't speak to the Mobo question. EVGA does have some fine mobo's, but I have not had the good fortune of owning one yet...
 
Last edited:
k so question -

I have 260 gtx in sli on a i7 OC'ed to 3.6 with HT and all that stuff.

Other than less power I would not really see that much of an increase then right?

(I run 1920x1080 and play champions online, left 4 dead and city of heroes).
 
groebuck said:
k so question -

I have 260 gtx in sli on a i7 OC'ed to 3.6 with HT and all that stuff.

Other than less power I would not really see that much of an increase then right?

(I run 1920x1080 and play champions online, left 4 dead and city of heroes).
Click to expand...

It would be minor at most. If you are playing CoH I wouldn't switch as that game is more Nvidia friendly iirc.
 
vengence said:
It would be minor at most. If you are playing CoH I wouldn't switch as that game is more Nvidia friendly iirc.
Click to expand...

kinda - the last nvidia driver update broke COH so it would not launch but ATI in 5 years has still not gotten the water right (you have to turn off mip mapping or textures or something to get it to work). I have two systems upstairs an i7 with 260 gtx in sli runs 1920x1080 and pretty much runs anything I play just fine - downstairs it's an i5 system with tow 4870 (512 mb) in CF...same deal. Hell with the price of 260's these days I dunno why people would pay for a 295 if they can do sli...
 
TalonMan said:
Heck, I was initially against putting an X2 card against a single too...

But the review sites don't see it that way...

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/08/12/4870x2-ati-claims-top-spot-in-performance-race-with-nvidia
"Today AMD/ATI has retaken the performance crown for the first time in over 2 years, not content with that they also likely to take second place too. With the release of the 4870X2 and in short order the 4850X2."


http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/253780-33-4870x2-trounces-280gtx
"ATI 4870x2 trounces the 280gtx"


http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...deon-hd-4870-x2-2gb-video-card-review-23.html
"Before I go on with this conclusion, let’s put one thing straight: the HD4870 X2 2GB is the absolute undisputed king of the single-card hill and probably will be for some time. It steamrolled over every single one of Nvidia’s offerings like a runaway freight train and made the GTX 280 look like nothing more than an also-ran in the grand scheme of things."


http://www.legitreviews.com/article/766/11/
" NVIDIA can no longer say they have the fastest graphics card and that has to hurt with the NVIDIA NVISION gathering just a couple weeks away."



http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-4870-x2-review-crossfire/
"The two products will be Radeon HD 4850 X2 and the Radeon HD 4870 X2. The new products will officially kick NVIDIA from their high-end crown, purely based on performance with a single board product."


Numerous others too...

It was fair game to put the 4870X2 againt the 280, and say that it took the 280's performance crown...

So now put the 295 against all single cards too. We should only be consistant. That was my point.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna have to agree with Talonman here. It's all about performance, so single gpu cards should be compared to dual gpu cards, because what we are looking at is the big picture, which is performance. When the 5850x2 and the 5870x2 is released then ati shall take back the performance crown. Right now I'd say the gtx295 still maintains the performance crown.
 
groebuck said:
kinda - the last nvidia driver update broke COH so it would not launch but ATI in 5 years has still not gotten the water right (you have to turn off mip mapping or textures or something to get it to work). I have two systems upstairs an i7 with 260 gtx in sli runs 1920x1080 and pretty much runs anything I play just fine - downstairs it's an i5 system with tow 4870 (512 mb) in CF...same deal. Hell with the price of 260's these days I dunno why people would pay for a 295 if they can do sli...
Click to expand...

I don't have an sli board which is why I went with the 295. Matter of fact I have a micro atx board. I wasn't going to get a 295 until I saw the $320 price tag though, then I was all in. :cool:
 
PS3 said:
I don't have an sli board which is why I went with the 295. Matter of fact I have a micro atx board. I wasn't going to get a 295 until I saw the $320 price tag though, then I was all in. :cool:
Click to expand...

It was $330 in the other thread a minute ago... you paid full price for it didn't you?
 
e-geek said:
It was $330 in the other thread a minute ago... you paid full price for it didn't you?
Click to expand...

Excuse the typo...it was $330...well...you want to get technical, it was $329.99. Sheesh are you ok dude? You really think I'm going to intentionally lie about what I paid for a vid card?
 
PS3 said:
Excuse the typo...it was $330...well...you want to get technical, it was $329.99. Sheesh are you ok dude? You really think I'm going to intentionally lie about what I paid for a vid card?
Click to expand...

Man, they got anymore? I'd go for some Quad SLI for that price :)

It's funny though...for some reason I want more power or nvidia's next gen of cards but then I realize that my 295 can play any game I want with all the details that I want, while using 3DVision...except for Crysis and Warhead but I beat those a long time ago anyway.
 
Get the 5870. Unless you plan to play Batman over and over again (I think the reply value is low once you've completed everything) I doubt you will care losing Physx. The 295 is still a SLI afterall, and all multi-gpu solutions are likely to bring extra issues to the table. Some people say micro stuttering is a myth but I tend to believe it is real due to the inherit nature of multiple GPUs. I'm quite hardcore on FPS's so I personally rather not take the chance messing with CF or SLI cards. Besides the 5870 is only a tad slower but since it is a solid single GPU card it is much more reliable. Less problems, no micro stuttering and will have room for improvement as drivers mature.
 
And as for people saying we shouldn't compare the 5870 to the 295, why not? These cards are among the highest ends of what you can buy today. The performance range is very close so naturally they are competitive enough to go against each other.

I'm surprised that there are still some who don't understand that even if you 10 gpus on one pcb, as long as there is more than one gpu present in any VGA system, you are already in SLI/CF territory. 10 gpus on 10 seperate pcb's (exaggerating for dramatic effect) , or 10 gpus on one pcb, the results (performance, problems, issues, etc) will generally be the same or at least very close. This is why a single gpu that comes close within 80% of what a dual gpu (single card or not) solution does seems like a more reasonable as you are avoiding any potential issues by keeping it simple.
 
christpunchers said:
Get the 5870. Unless you plan to play Batman over and over again (I think the reply value is low once you've completed everything) I doubt you will care losing Physx. The 295 is still a SLI afterall, and all multi-gpu solutions are likely to bring extra issues to the table. Some people say micro stuttering is a myth but I tend to believe it is real due to the inherit nature of multiple GPUs. I'm quite hardcore on FPS's so I personally rather not take the chance messing with CF or SLI cards. Besides the 5870 is only a tad slower but since it is a solid single GPU card it is much more reliable. Less problems, no micro stuttering and will have room for improvement as drivers mature.
Click to expand...

Most resolutions the 5870 is only a tad slower. Some cases the 5870 does indeed come out on top. Games I'm playing right now / Batman + cod5 should scale perfectly...not sure about mw2..... I don't know though, the 5870 is still $70 more than the 295 in my case, so I don't think it was a bad purchase.

5870 is by far the superior overrall solution as it uses less power and certainly runs cooler of course, I won't argue that. I think the GTX295 still has a bit of a performance edge though.
 
ThunderGod66 said:
Man, they got anymore? I'd go for some Quad SLI for that price :)

It's funny though...for some reason I want more power or nvidia's next gen of cards but then I realize that my 295 can play any game I want with all the details that I want, while using 3DVision...except for Crysis and Warhead but I beat those a long time ago anyway.
Click to expand...
I hear ya!
If you have not tried 3D Vision on a 60" DLP then better use the money to get that...it makes it even more amazing.
 
ThunderGod66 said:
Man, they got anymore? I'd go for some Quad SLI for that price :)

It's funny though...for some reason I want more power or nvidia's next gen of cards but then I realize that my 295 can play any game I want with all the details that I want, while using 3DVision...except for Crysis and Warhead but I beat those a long time ago anyway.
Click to expand...

No, I got it on amazon, and it wasn't exactly the best brand in the world(pny), but a little birdie told me the other day that the only difference is the sticker slapped on the heat sink cooler...so I think it was worth the savings so long as the card doesn't explode.
 
I have been fighting this battle in my head for days - my local MC has xfx 295's for 420 about the price of a 5870. I just found the CB deal for paypal on newegg so I bit the bullet and got a xgx 5870 for 409 + 10% cb so 360 ish. I plan on slapping it in my i7 4870 rig then I can bench mark against my 260 sli rig ( cpus are identical at 3.8 Ghz i7's)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top