[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]
[QUOTE="spank_thru101"] Here - REREAD what I posted: it score 38% better than the 5870 @ 2560x1600 that a huge goddamn leap and nearly twice what you just said. Have you guys even read the tech news? The 5K series is nothing more than the older 4k architechure doubled up, the R&D costs for ATI on that card were nothing. The 4k series was ATI's G80 and the 5K is their G92. Fermi is a complete redesign add to that the yeild issues TSMC, the die manufacturer for ATI and Nvida and a delay is reasonable. Better to have a few months wait than have Nvidia release their version of the 3K series with terrible yeilds. As for the cards performance, this link http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/27892-nvidia-s-geforce-gf100-under-microscope-13.html shows that Fermi is 120% faster than the 285 @ 2560X1600 with 4xAA, is say again 120% faster than the 285 @ 2560x1600 with 4xAA. That is fantastic. Its also 38% faster than the 5780 at the same res with the same filtering. OK people, if you dont find that acceptable look at these http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,695689/Radeon-HD-5870-Review-of-the-first-DirectX-11-graphics-card/Reviews/?page=10 . Granted that those aren't the same exact cards in the same exact system, but the 5870 only musters a 50% increase over the 4890 at the same rez with the same filtering. Again if you count in the price vs performance...then yes the 5k is currently unbeatable, but for a purely performance conclusion Nvidia seems to have hit a homerun if the real card performs like the one in the above link.spank_thru101
"The 4k series was ATI's G80 and the 5K is their G92"
Just that line makes me laugh... The 5k series not only has way better performance, but it also has Dx11... which can't even be compared with what you just said.
You completely misunderstood what I was saying - The G80 was the Nvidias big hit (8800 series), they later shrunk the die up the transistor count and clock/mem speeds and it was called the G92 (8800gt, early 9800's). It was later revised and renamed G96 (the 9800 series again). They were all based on the G80 archeecture. ATI's 5000 series is the same in that effect, they shrunk the die up the transistors and clock/speeds and implemented DX11. Other than that it is NOTHING more than a revision on the older archetecture. That is not meant as a slam. This way ATI could rush the card out to the market, sell it for less, and still have a solid product that beat Nvidia to the table - afterall the 4000 series was great, phenominal when in comparison to the 3000 and even more still when you throw in the price.EDIT: Where ever I go, PCGH, HARDOCP, OCFourms, Here, etc... these topics always become like silly city sport(s) team rivalries. ATI has a nice product, Nvidia will to. My on real complaints with either of then is Nvidia pricing policies and ATI's lack of driver/developer relations. We need competition otherwise we would have what...Intel Extreme Graphics for out gaming needs?!
Yes, but your missing the whole point, Nvidia only renaimed the cards... they didn't really change anything (hardware wise and performance wise), vs ATI 4k to 5k, it's not just about renaming but also making it way better and adding.
Log in to comment