Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Zdnet] AMD Radeon 4800 vs. Nvidia GTX 200
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Zdnet] AMD Radeon 4800 vs. Nvidia GTX 200 - Page 4

post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickS View Post
Which is what I've been trying to tell people all along. The HD4870 aka R770XT core will have a 512bit bus with GDDR5. Theres no way that ATI/AMD would be dumb enough to give it a 256bit bus with GDDR5.

The use of DDR5's higher speed negates the need of the bit-width throughput of a 512-bit bus.

Both are independent solutions to the same problem: memory bandwidth.

You can get the same bandwidth by using a higher memory clock speed and a lower bit width OR you can use a slow clock speed with a higher bit width. You don't need both and its a waste of money to do both.

This is a fundamental manufacturing issue and right now its much cheaper to integrate ddr5 into boards than manufacture a 55nm chip with a 512-bit bus. You don't sound like you have any background in this issue and you don't sound like you understand the economics of electronics manufacturing. So before you go and spout every article on fud and inq, open an electrical engineering textbook ( ).
Edited by killnine - 5/16/08 at 7:56pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 @ 4Ghz Rampage II GENE PNY GTX 680 G.Skill Sniper (12GB) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Momentus XT SATA Optical Drive Kuhler 920 Windows 7 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2410 Logitech G11  Silverstone ST75 750W Antec Mini P180B 
MouseMouse PadOther
Logitech MX518 Steelpad G19 Gaming Headset 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 @ 4Ghz Rampage II GENE PNY GTX 680 G.Skill Sniper (12GB) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Momentus XT SATA Optical Drive Kuhler 920 Windows 7 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2410 Logitech G11  Silverstone ST75 750W Antec Mini P180B 
MouseMouse PadOther
Logitech MX518 Steelpad G19 Gaming Headset 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by killnine View Post
The use of DDR5's higher speed negates the need of the bit-width throughput of a 512-bit bus.

Both are independent solutions to the same problem: memory bandwidth.

You can get the same bandwidth by using a higher memory clock speed and a lower bit width OR you can use a slow clock speed with a higher bit width. You don't need both and its a waste of money to do both.

This is a fundamental manufacturing issue and right now its much cheaper to integrate ddr5 into boards than manufacture a 55nm chip with a 512-bit bus. You don't sound like you have any background in this issue and you don't sound like you understand the economics of electronics manufacturing. So before you go and spout every article on fud and inq, open an electrical engineering textbook (http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Organ...0992906&sr=8-7).
I am an electrical/computer engineer major actually. Nice try at trying to sound smart BUT I would put money on it that it cost AMD/ATI more money to get 512MB of flying fast GDDR5 than to have semi fast GDDR3 and a 512bit bus.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Opteron 170 @ 2.81 on stock volts ASUS A8N5X XFX G92 8800GTS 2X1GB kingston DDR333 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 250GB & Seagate 160GB Windows XP Pro SP3 P275 CRT Logitech Media Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Sparkle 550W CM 690 Intellimouse 3.0 Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Opteron 170 @ 2.81 on stock volts ASUS A8N5X XFX G92 8800GTS 2X1GB kingston DDR333 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 250GB & Seagate 160GB Windows XP Pro SP3 P275 CRT Logitech Media Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Sparkle 550W CM 690 Intellimouse 3.0 Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickS View Post
I am an electrical/computer engineer major actually. Nice try at trying to sound smart BUT I would put money on it that it cost AMD/ATI more money to get 512MB of flying fast GDDR5 than to have semi fast GDDR3 and a 512bit bus.
Actually, it is expensive. AMD said so when the HD3Ks came out (comparing them to the HD2900s). It probably is not that much, and at this point I bet it's more expensive to stick GDDR5 modules in there. Also, it's been said that it's rather difficult to fit such a big bus on a small die.
Edited by Melcar - 5/16/08 at 9:37pm
Magicbox
(17 items)
 
crapbox
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8320 Sabertooth 990FX Nitro+ RX480 Kingston HyperX Fury 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO  Kingston HyperX 3K Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 Noctua NH-D15 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Kubuntu  Windows 10 Pro Dell U2515H CM Quickfire TK (Cherry Blue) 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Cooler Master Silent Pro M 850W Enthoo Pro Logitech G502 Logitech G440 
Audio
Xonar DX 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Sempron 3300+ HP stock mobo (laptop) 200M (IGP) 2x1GB PC3200 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
100GB ATA133 DVD/CDRW Kubuntu 32 bit 14.1" (1280x768) 
Power
6 cell 
  hide details  
Reply
Magicbox
(17 items)
 
crapbox
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 8320 Sabertooth 990FX Nitro+ RX480 Kingston HyperX Fury 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO  Kingston HyperX 3K Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 Noctua NH-D15 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Kubuntu  Windows 10 Pro Dell U2515H CM Quickfire TK (Cherry Blue) 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Cooler Master Silent Pro M 850W Enthoo Pro Logitech G502 Logitech G440 
Audio
Xonar DX 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Sempron 3300+ HP stock mobo (laptop) 200M (IGP) 2x1GB PC3200 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
100GB ATA133 DVD/CDRW Kubuntu 32 bit 14.1" (1280x768) 
Power
6 cell 
  hide details  
Reply
post #34 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickS View Post
I am an electrical/computer engineer major actually. Nice try at trying to sound smart BUT I would put money on it that it cost AMD/ATI more money to get 512MB of flying fast GDDR5 than to have semi fast GDDR3 and a 512bit bus.
than put that major to good use, and go work for Intel, AMD, or Nvidia, or any other company that interests you.
post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickS View Post
I am an electrical/computer engineer major actually. Nice try at trying to sound smart BUT I would put money on it that it cost AMD/ATI more money to get 512MB of flying fast GDDR5 than to have semi fast GDDR3 and a 512bit bus.
Well, by the time you figure up the increased layers to the PCB and the increased bit width on the die and implement it the cost all around actually would be a bit more than just a 512MB GDDR5 ic.

Killnine is right, and it boils down to efficient econimics on what will cost the least and produce the most. If they went 512-bit then the 4870X2 would easily be a $600+ card and right now they want to be a bit more competitive so they are making the necessary cuts while maintaining the incredible bandwidth shown by the 2900.

I can't wait, gonna jump on the 4870 asap
D
(15 items)
 
The Sheep Skinner
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700 Gigabyte Z170N-Gaming5 Sapphire Radeon R9 Fury Tri-X 3840 G.Skill TridentZ  
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
960 EVO 500GB EK SE 240mm, Magicool slim 240mm EK Supreme HF CU Gold EKFC-Fury X WB 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Win 10 Pro Acer XG270HU EVGA 750W  Evolv ITX 
MouseMouse Pad
Naos7000 Corsair MM600 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
C2D E8400 DFI LT P35 Radeon HD4890 OCZ 2GB 800MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500GB Asus multi DVD W7 U Samsung 2232BW+ 
PowerCase
Corsair HX520W CM 690 
  hide details  
Reply
D
(15 items)
 
The Sheep Skinner
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700 Gigabyte Z170N-Gaming5 Sapphire Radeon R9 Fury Tri-X 3840 G.Skill TridentZ  
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
960 EVO 500GB EK SE 240mm, Magicool slim 240mm EK Supreme HF CU Gold EKFC-Fury X WB 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Win 10 Pro Acer XG270HU EVGA 750W  Evolv ITX 
MouseMouse Pad
Naos7000 Corsair MM600 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
C2D E8400 DFI LT P35 Radeon HD4890 OCZ 2GB 800MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500GB Asus multi DVD W7 U Samsung 2232BW+ 
PowerCase
Corsair HX520W CM 690 
  hide details  
Reply
post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickS View Post
I am an electrical/computer engineer major actually. Nice try at trying to sound smart BUT I would put money on it that it cost AMD/ATI more money to get 512MB of flying fast GDDR5 than to have semi fast GDDR3 and a 512bit bus.
You don't sound like one. At least I like to think people with any sort of reasonable background in engineering would sound...well, not like you at any rate.

Everything I've read leads me to believe that a card using a 512-bit memory interface is much more complex and difficult (and consequently more expensive) than getting a decent amount of a new type of memory on a card. New memory involves very little tweaking on the part of ATI to support different types, so they can put out GDDR3/4/5 versions of these cards with a minimum of fuss, while a more complex overall architecture around a 512-bit bus is going to be more of a pain not only to implement at the higher end, but also to cut back on for lower end versions of the card. Given the flexibility ATI is trying to lend Crossfire, cross-compatibility is essential to their strategy, so designing two different architectures based around the different interfaces might also cause more problems than it's worth. There's also heat/power consumption, with a more complex PCB, more traces, etc. the card is going to run quite hot, something ATI seems to have steered away from since the X1800/X1900 and HD2900 series.

Just my thoughts anyway. If you have something more intelligent than bragging about something neither you nor anyone on these forums can prove or disprove and typing stuff that has no actual substance to it, I'd be more than happy to read it.
The Replacement
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core I5 6600K Gigabyte GA-Z170X-UD3 Ultra  EVGA GTX 750 Ti Crucial Ballistix Sport 2x16GB DDR4 2400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Mushkin Reactor 1TB LG Blu-Ray Burner Cryorig H7 Window 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ XL2420T Code 87 Clears Rosewill Photon 650 Fractal Design Core 3500W 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
CM Storm Xornet II Steelseries QCK+ Creative Sound Blaster Zx Sennheiser PC-360 
  hide details  
Reply
The Replacement
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core I5 6600K Gigabyte GA-Z170X-UD3 Ultra  EVGA GTX 750 Ti Crucial Ballistix Sport 2x16GB DDR4 2400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Mushkin Reactor 1TB LG Blu-Ray Burner Cryorig H7 Window 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ XL2420T Code 87 Clears Rosewill Photon 650 Fractal Design Core 3500W 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
CM Storm Xornet II Steelseries QCK+ Creative Sound Blaster Zx Sennheiser PC-360 
  hide details  
Reply
post #37 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickS View Post
It wont be running at 4GHZ though, AMD stated that they weren't able to clock it up that high. Even if it was that fast why would they waste the money with the new GDDR5 tech on the old 256bit bus when they could have very fast GDDR4 on a 512bit bus?
Qimonda is currently producing GDDR5 memory chips from 3.8-4.5GHz.
Who knows about others.


144GB/s bandwidth is probably more then enough.
post #38 of 46
will those cards be super power hungry?
Will a Odin 550W GT handle a HD4870??
something
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790K MSI SLi Krait Z97 Sapphire R9 280X Vapor X  Kingston HyperX Fury 4 x 4GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB Windows 10 Asus VE228D 21.5'' CMStorm Octane 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
XFX XTR 550W NZXT s340 CMStorm Octane CMStorm Swift 
Audio
Line6 Pod GX 
  hide details  
Reply
something
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790K MSI SLi Krait Z97 Sapphire R9 280X Vapor X  Kingston HyperX Fury 4 x 4GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB Windows 10 Asus VE228D 21.5'' CMStorm Octane 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
XFX XTR 550W NZXT s340 CMStorm Octane CMStorm Swift 
Audio
Line6 Pod GX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1ty0 View Post
will those cards be super power hungry?
Will a Odin 550W GT handle a HD4870??
With 4x18a 12v+ rails, it should.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X4 965 ASUS M4A79 Deluxe 9800GTx2 2x2G OCZ Reapers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500G WD Black LiteOn CD/DVD R/W Win7 64 22'' ws Acer AL2223W 
KeyboardPowerMouse
MS KU462 Natural SS DA750 MS 5 button 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X4 965 ASUS M4A79 Deluxe 9800GTx2 2x2G OCZ Reapers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
500G WD Black LiteOn CD/DVD R/W Win7 64 22'' ws Acer AL2223W 
KeyboardPowerMouse
MS KU462 Natural SS DA750 MS 5 button 
  hide details  
Reply
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayvinAzn View Post
You don't sound like one. At least I like to think people with any sort of reasonable background in engineering would sound...well, not like you at any rate.

Everything I've read leads me to believe that a card using a 512-bit memory interface is much more complex and difficult (and consequently more expensive) than getting a decent amount of a new type of memory on a card. New memory involves very little tweaking on the part of ATI to support different types, so they can put out GDDR3/4/5 versions of these cards with a minimum of fuss, while a more complex overall architecture around a 512-bit bus is going to be more of a pain not only to implement at the higher end, but also to cut back on for lower end versions of the card. Given the flexibility ATI is trying to lend Crossfire, cross-compatibility is essential to their strategy, so designing two different architectures based around the different interfaces might also cause more problems than it's worth. There's also heat/power consumption, with a more complex PCB, more traces, etc. the card is going to run quite hot, something ATI seems to have steered away from since the X1800/X1900 and HD2900 series.

Just my thoughts anyway. If you have something more intelligent than bragging about something neither you nor anyone on these forums can prove or disprove and typing stuff that has no actual substance to it, I'd be more than happy to read it.
No offense but you don't sound too smart yourself.......
Please type in paragraph's, enough with the run on sentences. What I was trying to say is that the way that Nvidia is designing their GT200 card is the best way to go about it IMHO. A 512bit bus and fast GDDR3/4 would be much better than spending loads of money on new GDDR5 technology that hasnt even proven it's worth yet.

Also, who ever said anything about using a 512bit bus on their low end? That would be extremely foolish, they could always stick with the 256bit bus with their low end. Temperature's have never been a problem with the bigger 512 bit bus. The biggest contributer to high temperatures is the process that the core is built on and the heatsink/fan they choose to use. (duh!) Please do some reading before you go around flaming making yourself sound like an idiot.
Edited by QuickS - 5/17/08 at 11:55am
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Opteron 170 @ 2.81 on stock volts ASUS A8N5X XFX G92 8800GTS 2X1GB kingston DDR333 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 250GB & Seagate 160GB Windows XP Pro SP3 P275 CRT Logitech Media Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Sparkle 550W CM 690 Intellimouse 3.0 Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Opteron 170 @ 2.81 on stock volts ASUS A8N5X XFX G92 8800GTS 2X1GB kingston DDR333 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 250GB & Seagate 160GB Windows XP Pro SP3 P275 CRT Logitech Media Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Sparkle 550W CM 690 Intellimouse 3.0 Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Zdnet] AMD Radeon 4800 vs. Nvidia GTX 200