and the million dollar question is....... how does it perform in crysis??

Can all you idiots please learn to use the Reply button? It helps tremendously with skipping over inane arguments.

even if the RV770 was the exact same thing as the RV670 with more cores, it would still be a 50% performance boost... not too shabby... but also not enough to dominate anything. The G92 GTS is approx 40% faster than the HD3870, so if the HD 4870 was just 50% faster .. it would barely beat the G92 GTS.

still good though.. especially if the price is right.
If ATI can continue to improve the drivers for the X2 versions.. they might be on to something.

ugh why i even bother trying to correct blatant fanboys is a wonder... but here goes:

current newegg prices.

the G92 GTS = $290
the HD 3870 = $220

this gives the following price/performance:
G92 GTS 4.90
HD 3870 4.58

So, no matter how you argue it.. the G92 GTS is still a better performer for the price.
--------------
As for the arguement about non-released items.. we're all just guessing. What I was point out was EVEN IF the HD 4870 were only the exact same core except for more SPs.. it would be roughly 50% faster. I dont care what some website says about what they think performance would be. 480 is 50% more than 320... not 100% more.

Now, perhaps the core is significantly improved.. or the clockspeed goes up.. that could change things.. but thats not what i said in my first post..

did a longer check on all games at the link.. and used only the 1920x1200 scores. % diffs below (g92 gts over 3870)

+60% ....battlefield 2142
+37%....bioshock
-91% ....call of juarez (score one for ATI! .. the only one)
+74% ....call of duty
+13% .....crysis
+42% .....et quake wars
+52% ... HL2
+102% .. STalker
+5%...... UT3
+23%.....lost planet
+68%.... tomb raider
+21%.....hellgate
+80%..... gothic 3
+13%.... oblivion
+60% ... company of heroes
+113% .. world in conflict
-----------------------------------------
AVERAGE = +42%

did not include command & conquer since its capped at 30.

hmmm seems i remember a number around 40% being mentioned before

Better check your math there dannyboy...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-radeon-hd3870-x2...

quoth Figurpileit:
Better check your math there dannyboy...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-radeon-hd3870-x2...


wow.. i'm impressed that you care so little about your reputation that you'd link to a site that makes you look even more crazy.
perhaps you linked to that particular game so we'd think you were smart? no.. no.. it just made you look like even more of the blinded fanboy.

so, just becuase its fun publically humiliating you..
Xbits scores .. all 1920 x1200 except crysis @ 1280x1024 to more closely match TRs.
---------------------------
Battlefield 2142: +60%
Bioshock:............ +37%
COD ....................+74%
Crysis ...................+73% (yikes) .. the 1920x1200 is better
ET QW.................+42%
HL2 ......................+52%
Stalker..................+102%
UT 3......................+ 5%

hmmm.. so you wanted us to see the 5% diff on UT3 according to that website and not look at any other games?
you do realize that when i said "average of 40%" .. that actually means an average performance gain?

well.. in that little short list of games we have an average of 56% .. thats even WORSE than the TR games showed.

unbelievable. the saddest part about this is that i'm actually a fan of ATI .. have only ever owned one NVidia card.. and currently only own ATI. I guess being a true fanboy is really a whole different mess.

Geez, another generation already? The 3000 series isn't even mainstream yet.

What's with the huge leap between the low-end and mid-range? 40 SPs to 240 to 480? Six times the SPs from low to mid, then just twice as many for the high?

If they keep going like this, pretty soon they'll be at Radeon 7000 or 9000. This is a clear violation of the space-time continuum. I demand they change the naming scheme.

for the blind folks that are bad at math. looking at the 1920x1200 scores.. with the exception of crysis where i look at 1280x800..

G92 GTS % > HD 3870
COD: +72%
HL2: + 60%
ET Q: +28%
UT 3: +34%
Crysis: +25%

wait.. now what is that averaged? 43% .. . and the thing that helped ATI was their very much improved crysis scores.
----------------
for those of you who dont know how these things work...
COD scores:
G92 GTS = 47.2
HD 3870 = 27.4

difference = 19.8 fps

19.8 fps is 72% of 27.4. .... so, alas.. in COD the GTS is 72% faster than the HD 3870.

just trying to clear up things for the slower folk.
----------------
also of note.. i did this very rapidly..
the scores i posted in the thread i linked to early are done more carefully... and scores reported more precisely.

4200ti?

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7356.html

and you welcome. :)

I highly doubt next generation of cards are going GDDR5. I'm guessing those specs are nothing but speculation.

Hmm, 256 bit bus, same as the 3870 .... I assume this bus width would allow for higher memory clock frequency while decreasing performance very little (as you can see by looking at the 3870 vs 2900). Does 2200 Mhz memory speed mean DDR5-4400?

nVidia was rumored to be prepping a card 1TFLOP capacity too and it should be released a few months earlier than June. nVidia should use a ring bus memory architecture so they can move on from DDR3. Even if they don't, they should still have the most powerfull card if it has 1TFLOP, over twice the amount of TMU's, and almost twice the amount of ROP's. To get to 1 TFLOP, they'd need about 192 stream processors at 2600 Mhz. Or 256 at 1950 Mhz.

Another thing I am not sure about is how AMD can get the core to run at 1050 Mhz. They must have separated the stream processors from the core somewhat like the 8800 series. This thing should be over 1 billion transistors if it scales from the 3870's 666 million.

The nVidia card would be over 1.1 billion with 192 stream processors and 1.5 billion with 256 SP's... cant see 256 happening though!

Um, what's the codename behind the GPU? Would it be another r6 ?

G92 GTS is roughly $100 more expensive than the 3870 cards and consequently is in a different class.
Presuming similar price differences in the next gen series it is a spurious argument to claim"it would barely beat the GTS"
As the article speculates..."over 1 TFlop of floating point processing for the 4870"...that would give it roughly double(100%) the horsepower of the 3870...not a 50% increase...

GDDR5? damn, already!?