ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
New toy! GPU and Geek content!
- Thread starter Griff
- Start date
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
Nice one Griff!
How much did that set you back, if you don't mind me asking?
D.
How much did that set you back, if you don't mind me asking?
D.
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
No worries m8 - I understand! 
To give you a comparison of how much of a step-up it is over the ATi 4890.....
D.
To give you a comparison of how much of a step-up it is over the ATi 4890.....
D.
SharkyUK
ClioSport Club Member
Unless we're talking multiple 480GTX's I'm not interested... LOL!
Nice upgrade.
Nice upgrade.
A red missile
I wouldn't bother mate, the missus is running a 5970 and it doesn't exactly set the world on fire, don't get me wrong it's fast just not as fast as i'd have expected based on the headline figures.
What spec is the rest of the machine your missus got with the 5970?
As they are very CPU limited. Still CPU limited with an i7 965. They need some serious CPU power to really show what they can do.
Otherwise you won't find the frame rates great however they will be consistent right up to daft resolutions.
At the moment unless you are running highly overclocked systems the current crop of GPU's when you have 2 or more together just isn't great. You don't see what they are really capable of. As the CPU just can't keep up with the GPU's demands.
I mean with a decent CPU the 5970 is quite capable of pushing 50-60FPS in crysis at 1920x1200.
As they are very CPU limited. Still CPU limited with an i7 965. They need some serious CPU power to really show what they can do.
Otherwise you won't find the frame rates great however they will be consistent right up to daft resolutions.
At the moment unless you are running highly overclocked systems the current crop of GPU's when you have 2 or more together just isn't great. You don't see what they are really capable of. As the CPU just can't keep up with the GPU's demands.
I mean with a decent CPU the 5970 is quite capable of pushing 50-60FPS in crysis at 1920x1200.
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
Have you seen the pixel fill rate between the two cards above? Lol - the 480GTX is easily two-and-a-half times better.
First card shown in stats (for me) that goes above the 256-bit memory bus.
Clearly has in-built Physx support as well, eh Sharky!
D.
First card shown in stats (for me) that goes above the 256-bit memory bus.
Clearly has in-built Physx support as well, eh Sharky!
D.
SharkyUK
ClioSport Club Member
LOL! Indeed, mate - indeed!Clearly has in-built Physx support as well, eh Sharky!
I've been dabbling a bit on some CUDA-driven apps utilising nVidia Tesla tech utilising Fermi. Flip me - the processing power of these things is phenomenal! If one of these were taken back 5-6 years ago it would be knocking on the door of the top 500 most powerful supercomputers in the world. The continued rate at which CPU/GPU is evolving is scary - more so with the GPU's. Love it.
172 Cup
It makes pretty colours and patterns on your screen and we get all excited about it basically lol
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
it's kind of funny how even to this day we're using all the latest hardware to try and push a game released in 2007 to the max. good upgrade mind you
Lol - good point!
Isn't Flight Simulator X still another benchmark of how to cripple your system as well?
D.
172 Cup
Just ran the Heaven benchmark to compare it to my old 5870 - http://unigine.com/download/
Ati HD5870 @ stock clocks -
Ati HD5870 OC'd -
Nvidia GTX480 @ stock clocks -
Ati HD5870 @ stock clocks -
Ati HD5870 OC'd -
Nvidia GTX480 @ stock clocks -
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
Very impressive m8 - nigh on 50% hike in score over the default 5870.
I'm a little dismissive of DX11 though. Just how many developers took up the reins for DX10? Hardly any on the grand scheme of things.
Sharky's input would be good here. Are there any performance benefits of DX10 & DX11 over the veteran DX9 - or is it purely feature/tool-set benefits over the older DirectX?
D.
I'm a little dismissive of DX11 though. Just how many developers took up the reins for DX10? Hardly any on the grand scheme of things.
Sharky's input would be good here. Are there any performance benefits of DX10 & DX11 over the veteran DX9 - or is it purely feature/tool-set benefits over the older DirectX?
D.
172 Cup
Performance aside playing Bad Company 2 in DX9 and then playing it in DX11 the difference in terms of aesthetics is massive.
I think the reason very few developers took any interest in DX10 was due to it being little, if any, different to DX9. (Obviously it offered benefits but not the "leap" forward that DX11 offered)
I think the reason very few developers took any interest in DX10 was due to it being little, if any, different to DX9. (Obviously it offered benefits but not the "leap" forward that DX11 offered)
Last edited:
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
Leave your digital bookends under the TVs and come jump in and join us. The water's lovely....
D.
The hole where I plug my iPhone and camera into. I have 2 usbs.
Evo 5 RS
show off, needs an i7 965 too
172 Cup
Evo 5 RS
reminds me I need to dig up the invoice for you..and actually pay for this LOL
172 Cup
SharkyUK
ClioSport Club Member
Yes... ... ... and no.
DX10 and DX11 obviously both build on the functionality provided by DX9, as well as introducing new capability and support for the ever-evolving hardware. However, performance difference between the three doesn't necessarily increase as the version number increases. Unfortunately, there is no one particular reason as to why this is the case either. It simply "depends" (talk about sitting on the fence!)
DX9 games were often found to run a little quicker than their DX10 counterparts in *some* instances. The reasons for this were many - for example, developers wanted to take advantage of the new features in DX10, wanted to pump extra geometry and textures to the card, etc. and inevitably traded some performance simply to have the "DX10" support box ticked. The same rings true with DX11 vs. DX9 (and DX10) - although DX11 seems to fair a little better when compared to DX9 than perhaps DX10 did. Again, there is no hard and true reason as to why - it depends so much on the underlying hardware and driver revisions to name a couple.
Why didn't DX10 and DX11 blow folks' socks off? I don't know... perhaps we are (as 'hardcore' gamers) are expecting too much! From a developer point-of-view, I don't think that DX10 perhaps got the support it necessarily warranted... why? Well, it kind of came out at a time when developers were generally going through a change in the way they typically worked. That is, with the mass production and uptake of multicore/multiprocessor systems, developers had to refactor code bases, update engines, parallelise their code, etc. Coders out there know that this is no easy task at the best of times. The single/serial processing 'thread' era was abruptly coming to an end and multicore/processor was the way to go; hence a period of change for many.
Interestingly (more so with DX11 and future versions that are on the way) Microsoft have embraced the multiprocessor/core technology that is commonplace these days by introducing intelligent methods whereby DX can now render on separate thread(s) - something that was *very* tricky to do on earlier versions and something even trickier to do if you wanted half-decent performance!
I'm getting boring now so will stop there. To summarise, there is no real definitive answer. LOL!
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
Yes... ... ... and no.
DX10 and DX11 obviously both build on the functionality provided by DX9, as well as introducing new capability and support for the ever-evolving hardware. However, performance difference between the three doesn't necessarily increase as the version number increases. Unfortunately, there is no one particular reason as to why this is the case either. It simply "depends" (talk about sitting on the fence!)
DX9 games were often found to run a little quicker than their DX10 counterparts in *some* instances. The reasons for this were many - for example, developers wanted to take advantage of the new features in DX10, wanted to pump extra geometry and textures to the card, etc. and inevitably traded some performance simply to have the "DX10" support box ticked. The same rings true with DX11 vs. DX9 (and DX10) - although DX11 seems to fair a little better when compared to DX9 than perhaps DX10 did. Again, there is no hard and true reason as to why - it depends so much on the underlying hardware and driver revisions to name a couple.
Why didn't DX10 and DX11 blow folks' socks off? I don't know... perhaps we are (as 'hardcore' gamers) are expecting too much! From a developer point-of-view, I don't think that DX10 perhaps got the support it necessarily warranted... why? Well, it kind of came out at a time when developers were generally going through a change in the way they typically worked. That is, with the mass production and uptake of multicore/multiprocessor systems, developers had to refactor code bases, update engines, parallelise their code, etc. Coders out there know that this is no easy task at the best of times. The single/serial processing 'thread' era was abruptly coming to an end and multicore/processor was the way to go; hence a period of change for many.
Interestingly (more so with DX11 and future versions that are on the way) Microsoft have embraced the multiprocessor/core technology that is commonplace these days by introducing intelligent methods whereby DX can now render on separate thread(s) - something that was *very* tricky to do on earlier versions and something even trickier to do if you wanted half-decent performance!
I'm getting boring now so will stop there. To summarise, there is no real definitive answer. LOL!
Lol - I know so little! We have so much to learn, Master Yoda!
D.
