5850, 5870, and 5870 crossfire early results!
- Thread starter CdnAudiophile
- Start date
Leopold Butters
New Member
I hope this isn't true, I was hoping for a huge upgrade. I wanted a single GPU that is at least 1.5 times stronger than the GTX 295
Fatback
VIP Member
So you won't them to basically double the power of a GTX 295 plus another 50%. That's asking to much a GTX 295 can already play anything out I don't think much more is needed right now. I also don't think that they will be able to make cards that powerful yet with out them being huge probably almost double the size they are now.
I keep reading the same thing over and over that they are just going to shrink the dies. Who knows the only reason I want nvidia to come out on top is so ATI cards will remain to be cheap.
Gooberman
Active Member
Lol I think he means 50% better not 150% 1.5 times better i never heard someone say 1 times better
Fatback
VIP Member
Lol I think he means 50% better not 150% 1.5 times better i never heard someone say 1 times better
Yea but the way it reads seems like he is saying 1.5 times better plus what the GTX 295 already is. This is why a use % instead because if he means 50% then why not put 50%. 50% is still a little much to ask for but we will have to wait and see right now there are only rumors.
Whats the big deal about comparing the 5850 and 5870 against any gtx200 series? The 200 series was meant to combat the 4000 series of ATI not the 5000. Thats what the 300 series is for.
I'm not taking anything away from ATI here, those are some good results. But it's not a correct comparison.
I'm not taking anything away from ATI here, those are some good results. But it's not a correct comparison.
CardboardSword
New Member
I think one of the most important things to look at is the price to performance levels, yet again, which is where ATI seems to shine. The 5870 results I've seen, which, while far from concrete, show the 5870 beating the GTX295 in pretty much every benchmark test, while maintaining a price tag significantly lower. When you've got a card more powerful than the most powerful (current) opposition card for less cash, why would you go with the more expensive alternative? Not to mention, nVidia's top end card is pretty much guaranteed to cost at least $500 when it releases, if not more, and if the rumours are to be held even remotely accurate, then they won't even be a significant upgrade from the 200 series.
If thats true then you're right, ATI will be better bang for the buck. Even now, a 4870 beats out a gtx260 is almost every test, and is $40 or so cheaper typically.
El DJ
New Member
1.5 better is 50% better than a GTX295, not 150% better.
Fatback
VIP Member
BigSteve702
New Member
wrong, my good sir. if you were to say it will be 1.5x the power, then yes it would be 50% better. but when you say it will be 1.5x BETTER, thats adding. so saying 1.5 times better is 150%. see what i mean?
Haha, I just find this particularly funny because my dad and I argued this exact thing maybe a year or so ago. Can't believe I remember that LOL.
He brought up exactly your point, it's adding 1.5 times. To me, it's multiplication and thats the answer. But I do totally understand your point. My point is it's multiplication FIRST, thats why you say 1.5 TIMES better. Better is being used as an adjective here, it's just there to describe it's relationship to what you are comparing. It's not meant to be an adverb, you are saying better means ''on top of'', 1.5 times on top of the original figure. Does this make sense? I hate english so I hope I'm correct here.
Last edited:
Leopold Butters
New Member
It's not adding because I said it would be 1.5 times better.
The argument is it's first multiplication, but than WITH addition because of the use of the word ''better''. This all boils down to the part of speech the word ''better'' is being used as, as I explained earlier. I understand the point he is making though, and honestly it's a valid one. The English language is very retarded sometimes.