New arma2 benchmark scores 5870 vs 480 with OC

[Bush 0]

You don't even know where you are copying and pasting from. That really instills confidence in your claims :rolleyes:

• techpowerup.com
  
• anandtech.com
  
• techreport.com
  
• hardocp.com
  

I can’t see any "tpucdn.com" there, do you?

And what do you trust more in Guru3d? They don’t even have a power consumption comparison with other cards in their review.

If your average fps is 40 and your max fps is 60 but your minimum fps is 18, guess which one is going to affect your viewing experience.

I'll give you a hint, it's not average or max.

Obviously if your average or max fps are below the accepted norm (24-30), then you have a point but I don't/won't play games where my max fps is 25.

I never said minimum fps was the only number to take into consideration. I said it was the most important number and it is AFAIAC.

Of course the minimum fps is important but one number may not reflect the whole benchmark or the playability at all. It could just be one drop in the beginning of the game or benchmark where stuff is loaded in to the memory and not when you actually are playing or whatever.

You have to look at a diagram over the whole benchmark to see how the minimum fps actually matter.

[galzohar 31]

Bangtail, like I said, minimum FPS can be affected by the way it is measured, and is not really a measurable quantity without also defining the method of measurement.

If 1 card rendered no more than 10 frames in a whole second one time during the entire test, it is probably better than a card that rendered no more than 13 frames in a whole second 10 times during the entire test.

[bangtail 0]

Bangtail, like I said, minimum FPS can be affected by the way it is measured, and is not really a measurable quantity without also defining the method of measurement.

If 1 card rendered no more than 10 frames in a whole second one time during the entire test, it is probably better than a card that rendered no more than 13 frames in a whole second 10 times during the entire test.

I'm not talking about charts and graphs mate, I'm talking about the FPS counter going below 24 or the game not feeling fluid/smooth.

I don't need graphs, charts, you or Bush to tell me how that affects my experience.

Yes, you are right that as it stands, there is some controversy over the measurement process for minimum fps, but again, I am speaking from my own extensive experience.

Good read here.

http://www.digital-daily.com/video/what_is_a_minimal_fps/

---------- Post added at 08:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 AM ----------

It could just be one drop in the beginning of the game or benchmark where stuff is loaded in to the memory and not when you actually are playing or whatever.

You have to look at a diagram over the whole benchmark to see how the minimum fps actually matter.

Duh :rolleyes:

You're not telling me anything I don't know here guy, I spend my days playing with this stuff. Did you actually think I would even dream of using the first second after the game loaded as an accurate measure of the whole test? Obviously you measure minimum fps over the length of the benchmark, otherwise your results would be highly misleading ;)

ROFLMAO, funny stuff :D

Edited April 14, 2010 by BangTail

[Bush 0]

Duh :rolleyes:

You're not telling me anything I don't know here guy, I spend my days playing with this stuff. Did you actually think I would even dream of using the first second after the game loaded as an accurate measure of the whole test? Obviously you measure minimum fps over the length of the benchmark, otherwise your results would be highly misleading ;)

ROFLMAO, funny stuff :D

You did use this:

And then you said that "the minimum fps is what counts". But this is only one number, the lowest framerate in the whole benchmark, you don’t know what effected it or how many other drops there are. So you can’t really judge the playability by that.

[bangtail 0]

There are several tests on that page and they all have the 480 SLI routing anything ATI. I guess they are all flawed by your nonsensical 'logic' right?

Obviously, you know so much more about benching than Anand right?

For whatever reason AMD can’t seem to keep up with NVIDIA when it comes to the minimum framerate, even at lower resolutions. Certainly it’s obvious when the 1GB cards are video RAM limited at 2560, but if we didn’t have this data we would have never guessed the minimum framerates were this different at lower resolutions.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2977/nvidia-s-geforce-gtx-480-and-gtx-470-6-months-late-was-it-worth-the-wait-/9

I've got an idea, why don't you e-mail Anand and ask if he checked to make sure that the minimum FPS didn't only occur at the first second of each benchmark and similarly to make sure that if it did, it only affected the ATI cards.

Can you stop trying to find irrelevant reasons to argue already, thanks.

Edited April 14, 2010 by BangTail

[Bush 0]

There are several tests on that page and they all have the 480 SLI routing anything ATI. I guess they are all flawed by your nonsensical 'logic' right?

Im not talking about nvidia vs ati here.

Obviously, you know so much more about benching than Anand right?

Nope. But I know that a minimum framerate number may not reflect the whole benchmark. It's not an average low it's the lowest possible drop in the test and you can’t draw any conclusion by just one single number.

I've got an idea, why don't you e-mail Anand and ask if he checked to make sure that the minimum FPS didn't only occur at the first second of each benchmark and similarly to make sure that if it did, it only affected the ATI cards.

Why don't you do it? It's you who draw the conclusion what the minimum framerate is and how it have affected the benchmark without knowing anything about it.

Can you stop trying to find irrelevant reasons to argue already, thanks.

What irrelevant reasons?

[bangtail 0]

Im not talking about nvidia vs ati here.

Nope. But I know that a minimum framerate number may not reflect the whole benchmark. It's not an average low it's the lowest possible drop in the test and you can’t draw any conclusion by just one single number.

Why don't you do it? It's you who draw the conclusion what the minimum framerate is and how it have affected the benchmark without knowing anything about it.

What irrelevant reasons?

Ugh :rolleyes:

/ignore

[Bush 0]

Ugh :rolleyes:

/ignore

All I can say is that you are one arrogant person. You can’t even handle a simple discussion in a civil manner.

[RogueBlade 0]

average fps > minimum fps

/thread

[Avneet 10]

You have to count ATI already has it's drivers matured. Remember how much FPS gain there was when ATI had it's new drivers. Now imagine the fact that Nvidias drivers are still the first ones. I see the 480 going much further.

I'd also like to repoint out this quote to those who keep fighting that the 480 isn't great compared to the 5870. None of you decided to read it before posting again.

[MavericK96 0]

Some interesting results here regarding SLI/Crossfire scaling of the GTX 480 and the 5970.

http://www.maingearforums.com/entry.php?23-So-You-Want-To-Buy-A-GeForce

Interestingly, 2 GTX 480s in SLI are faster than 2 5970s (dual-GPU cards, mind you) in Crossfire.

[bangtail 0]

Some interesting results here regarding SLI/Crossfire scaling of the GTX 480 and the 5970.

http://www.maingearforums.com/entry.php?23-So-You-Want-To-Buy-A-GeForce

Interestingly, 2 GTX 480s in SLI are faster than 2 5970s (dual-GPU cards, mind you) in Crossfire.

SLI scaling tends to be better than CF. CF has come a long way in recent years but from what I've seen of the 4x0 series, the scaling is excellent. I can't wait get to get my 480s and run some tests :)

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

SLI scaling tends to be better than CF. CF has come a long way in recent years but from what I've seen of the 4x0 series, the scaling is excellent. I can't wait get to get my 480s and run some tests :)

You even jumped on my opinion early within this thread. (Putting words in my mouth)

Now that you've replied several times, and we know now you have 2 of the 480's in route, I see where your coming from, just like me back in 06' and the GTX8800, yeah, I bought 2, SLI'ed them and thought damn...wish I had that $1200 back in my wallet.

Yes, they were nice and powerful, but a true waste of money, and now look at them, dirt cheap and out dated.

[bangtail 0]

You even jumped on my opinion early within this thread. (Putting words in my mouth)

Now that you've replied several times, and we know now you have 2 of the 480's in route, I see where your coming from, just like me back in 06' and the GTX8800, yeah, I bought 2, SLI'ed them and thought damn...wish I had that $1200 back in my wallet.

Yes, they were nice and powerful, but a true waste of money, and now look at them, dirt cheap and out dated.

I like new tech and just because you think it's a waste of money doesn't mean that it is.

To each their own :D

Don't get me wrong bud, if you are happy with your rig then that's great. No argument here.

~4 year old cards cheap and out dated - whoulda thunk it :rolleyes:

Edited April 14, 2010 by BangTail

[MavericK96 0]

You even jumped on my opinion early within this thread. (Putting words in my mouth)

Now that you've replied several times, and we know now you have 2 of the 480's in route, I see where your coming from, just like me back in 06' and the GTX8800, yeah, I bought 2, SLI'ed them and thought damn...wish I had that $1200 back in my wallet.

Yes, they were nice and powerful, but a true waste of money, and now look at them, dirt cheap and out dated.

The 8800GTX is actually still pretty decent. It's say it's aged well over the years. Of course they're going to be super expensive when they first come out, but that's how it is with all technology.

[bangtail 0]

The 8800GTX is actually still pretty decent. It's say it's aged well over the years. Of course they're going to be super expensive when they first come out, but that's how it is with all technology.

I agree, it's still a decent card but it is showing it's age at this point.

[Leon86 13]

The 8800GTX is actually still pretty decent. It's say it's aged well over the years. Of course they're going to be super expensive when they first come out, but that's how it is with all technology.

When I bought my 8800gtx it was more expensive then an 5870 is now but all the other dx10 cards were a lot slower, the 8800gtx was actually the best bang/buck. The best thing about that card was you could put everything on max on every game, until crysis came out of course.

[Nielsneo 10]

I defenitly got my money's worth with my 8800GTX. Altough it is indeed a bit dated i still can run new games maxed out with it. :D

[Leon86 13]

I defenitly got my money's worth with my 8800GTX. Altough it is indeed a bit dated i still can run new games maxed out with it. :D

I installed the starcraft 2 beta recently, on my 8800gtx the default settings were already set to "ultra". Runs fine on 1920x1200, if you have a 5870 it wont even warm up unless you kill vsync I think.

Arma 2 is another story though, there's always a use for a faster cpu/gpu

[jonneymendoza 10]

How well does the 5870 run this game? im thinking of buying one if it can max out this game with 40-50fps

[SgtMjr 10]

How well does the 5870 run this game? im thinking of buying one if it can max out this game with 40-50fps

I run a XFX 5870 XXX version on a P6T MoBo with a i7920 at 3.0 and I average 39 FPS (fraps) Max FPS is up around the 60's

Runs like buttah:yay: I got a SSD drive for my OS (Win 7 64) and I might move Steam and Arma2 over from my Raptor drive to see how that runs.

( easy there BangTail, easy now...)

Edited April 24, 2010 by SgtMjr

[lettuceman44 10]

Ati still has the better value no matter which way you look at it.

Fermi was pretty much a letdown. Reading all the benchmarks and reviews, such as from Anandtech, the gains from Fermi isn't really anything special at all considering ATi came out with the cards like 6 months earlier.

[bangtail 0]

I run a XFX 5870 XXX version on a P6T MoBo with a i7920 at 3.0 and I average 39 FPS (fraps) Max FPS is up around the 60's

Runs like buttah:yay: I got a SSD drive for my OS (Win 7 64) and I might move Steam and Arma2 over from my Raptor drive to see how that runs.

( easy there BangTail, easy now...)

SSDs rock dude. The disagreement you are referring to had nothing to do with whether they are good or bad.

Anyhoo, this is not the place for that discussion.

/on topic

---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------

Ati still has the better value no matter which way you look at it.

Fermi was pretty much a letdown. Reading all the benchmarks and reviews, such as from Anandtech, the gains from Fermi isn't really anything special at all considering ATi came out with the cards like 6 months earlier.

Actually, the 470/480 is not a letdown at all.

The initial reviews were very deceiving. I almost didn't buy them based on some of those reviews. Luckily, when they got into the hands of end users, a more accurate evaluation emerged.

For min FPS, DX11 etc the 480 is clearly superior to the 5870. The 480 is a far more complex GPU than the 5xxx series and is really in it's infancy at the moment. ATI's 6xxx series is really the one to watch in terms of comparisons to Fermi. The 5870 can keep up in some situations but there are others where the 480 will run away from it.

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2010/bericht_nvidia_geforce_gtx_400/#abschnitt_einleitung

Edited April 25, 2010 by BangTail

[jpinard 10]

For ArmA2 - would two GeForce GTX 295 cards in SLI be better than one GTX 480?

[Leon86 13]

For ArmA2 - would two GeForce GTX 295 cards in SLI be better than one GTX 480?

Probably, but unless you can get the 295's really cheap I woudn't go for it.