The Radeon HD 4850 & 4870: AMD Wins at $199 and $299
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on June 25, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
That Darn Compute:Texture Ratio
With its GT200 GPU, NVIDIA increased compute resources by nearly 90% but only increased texture processing by 25%, highlighting a continued trend in making GPUs even more powerful computationally. Here's another glance at the GT200's texture address and filter units:
Each TPC, of which there are 10, has eight address and eight filter units. Now let's look at RV770:
Four address and four filter units, while AMD maintains the same 1:1 address-to-filter ratio that NVIDIA does, the ratio of compute-to-texture in RV770 is significantly higher.
| AMD RV770 | AMD RV670 | NVIDIA GT200 | NVIDIA G92 | |
| # of SPs | 160 | 64 | 240 | 128 |
| Texture Address/Filter Units | 40 / 40 | 16 / 16 | 80 / 80 | 64 / 64 |
| Compute to Texture Ratio | 4:1 | 4:1 | 3:1 | 2:1 |
The table above illustrates NVIDIA's trend of increasing the compute to texture ratio from 2:1 in G92 to 3:1 in GT200. AMD arguably overshot with RV670 and its 4:1 ratio and thus didn't need to adjust it with RV770. Even while staying still at 4:1 with RV770, AMD's ratio is still more aggressively geared towards compute than NVIDIA's is. That does mean that more texture bound games will do better on NVIDIA hardware (at least proportionally), while more compute intensive games may do better on RV770.
AMD did also make some enhancements to their texture units as well. By doing some "stuff" that they won't tell us about, they improved the performance per mm^2 by 70%. Texture cache bandwidth has also been doubled to 480 GB/s while bandwidth between each L1 cache and L2 memory is 384 GB/s. L2 caches are aligned with memory channels of which there are four interleaved channels (resulting in 8 L2 caches).
Now that texture units are linked to both specific SIMD cores and individual L1 texture caches, we have an increase in total texturing ability due to the increase in SIMD cores with RV770. This gives us a 2.5x increase in the number of 8-bit per component textures we can fetch and bilinearly filter per clock, but only a 1.25x increase in the number of fp16 textures (as fp16 runs at half rate and fp32 runs at one quarter rate). It was our understanding that fp16 textures could run at full speed on R600, so the 1.25x increase in performance for half rate texturing of fp16 data makes sense.
Even though fp32 runs at quarter rate, with the types of texture fetches we would need to do, AMD says that we could end up being external memory bandwidth bound before we are texture filtering hardware bound. If this is the case, then the design decision to decrease rates for higher bit-depth textures makes sense.
| AMD RV770 | AMD RV670 | |
| L1 Texture Cache | 10 x 16KB (160KB total) | 32KB |
| L2 Texture Cache | I can has cache size? | 256KB |
| Vertex Cache | ? | 32KB |
| Local Data Share | 16KB | None |
| Global Data Share | 16KB | ? |
Even though AMD wouldn't tell us L1 cache sizes, we had enough info left over from the R600 time frame to combine with some hints and extract the data. We have determined that RV770 has 10 distinct 16k caches. This is as opposed to the single shared 32k L1 cache on R600 and gives us a total of 160k of L1 cache. We know R600's L2 cache was 256k, and AMD told us RV770 has a larger L2 cache, but they wouldn't give us any hints to help out.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
215 Comments
View All Comments
FITCamaro - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link
Yes I noticed it used quite a bit at idle as well. But its load numbers were lower. And as the other guy said, they probably just are still finalizing the drivers for the new cards. I'd expect both performance and idle power consumption to improve in the next month or two.derek85 - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link
I think ATI is still fixing/finalizing the Power Play, it should be much lower when new Catalyst comes out.shadowteam - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link
If a $200 card can play all your games @ 30+fps, does a $600 card even make sense knowing it'll do no better to your eyes? I see quite a few NV biased elements in your review this time around, and what's all that about the biggest die size TSMC's every produced? GTX's die may be huge, but compared to AMD's, it's only half as efficient. Your review title, I think, was a bit harsh toward AMD. By limiting AMD's victory only up to a price point of $299, you're essentially telling consumers that NV's GTX 2xx series is actually worth the money, which is a terribly biased consumer advice in my opinion. From a $600 GX2 to a $650 GTX 280, Nvidia's actually gone backwards. You know when we talk about AMD's financial struggle, and that the company might go bust in the next few years... part of the reason why that may happen is because media fanatics try to keep things on an even keel, and in doing so they completely forget about what the consumers actually want. No offence to AT, but I've been into media myself, and I can tell when even professionals sound biased.paydirt - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link
You're putting words into the reviewer(s) mouth(s) and you know it. I am pretty sure most readers know that bigger isn't better in the computing world; anandtech never said big was good, they are simply pointing out the difference, duh. YOU need to keep in mind that nVidia hasn't done a die shrink yet with the GTX 2XX...I also did not read anything in the review that said it was worth it (or "good") to pay $600 on a GPU, did you? Nope. Thought so. Quit trying to fight the world and life might be different for you.
I'm greatful that both companies make solid cards that are GPGPU-capable and affordable and we have sites like anandtech to break down the numbers for us.
shadowteam - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link
Are you speaking on behalf of the reviewers? You've obviously misunderstood the whole point I was trying to make. When you say in your other post that AT is a reviews site and not a product promoter, I feel terribly sorry you because reviews sites are THE best product promoters around, including AT, and Derek pointed this out earlier that AT's too influential to ignore by companies. Well if that is truly the case, why not type in block letters how NV's trying to rip us off, for consumers' sake, may be just for once do it, it'll definitely teach Nvidia a lesson.DaveninCali - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link
I completely agree. Anand, the GTX 260/280 are a complete waste of money. You are not providing adequate conclusions. Your data speaks for itself. I know you have to be "friendly" in your conclusions so that you don't arouse the ire of nVidia but the launch of the 260/280 is on the order of the FX series.I mean you can barely test the cards in SLI mode due to the huge power constraints and the price is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. $1300 for SLI GTX 280. $1300!!!! You can get FOUR 4870 cards for less than this. FOUR OF THEM!!!! You should be screaming how poorly the GTX 280/260 cards are at these performance numbers and price point.
The 4870 beats the GTX 260 in all but one benchmark at $100 less. Not to mention the 4870 consumes less power than the GTX 280. Hell, the 4870 even beats the GTX 280 in some benchmarks. For $350 more, there shouldn't even be ONE game that the 4870 is better at than the GTX 280. Not even more for more than 100% of the price.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to convey in this article but at least the readers at Anandtech are smart enough to read the graphs for themselves. Given what has been written in the conclusion page (3/4 of it about GPGPU jargon that is totally unnecessary) could you please leave the page blank instead.
I mean come on. Seriously! $1300 compared to $600 with much more performance coming from the 4870 SLI. COME ON!! Now I'm too angry to go to bed. :(
DaveninCali - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link
Oh and one other thing. I thought Anandtech was a review site for the consumer. How can you not warn consumers from spending $650 much less $1300 on a piece of hardware that isn't much faster and in some cases not faster at all than another piece of hardware priced at $300/$600 in SLI. It's borderline scam.When you can't show SLI numbers because you can't even find a power supply that can provide the power, at least an ounce of criticism should be noted to try and stop someone from wasting all that money.
Don't you think that consumers should be getting some better advise than this. $1300 for less performance. I feel so sad now. Time to go to sleep.
shadowteam - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link
It reminds of that NV scam from yesteryears... I'm forgetting a good part of it, but apparently NV and "some company" racked up some forum/blog gurus to promote their BS, including a guy on AT forums who eventually got rid off due to his extremely biased posts. If AT can do biased reviews, I can pretty much assure you the rest of the reviewers out there are nothing more than just misinformed, over-arrogant media puppets. To those who disagree w/ me or the poster above, let me ask you this... if you were sent out $600 hardware every other week, or in AT's case, every other day (GTX280's from NV board partners), would you rather delightfully, and rightfully, piss NV off, or shut your big mouth to keep the hardware, and cash flowing in?DerekWilson - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link
Wow ...I'm completely surprised that you reacted the way you did.
In our GT200 review we were very hard on NVIDIA for providing less performance than a cheaper high end part, and this time around we pointed out the fact that the 4870 actually leads the GTX 260 at 3/4 of the price.
We have no qualms about saying anything warranted about any part no matter who makes it. There's no need to pull punches, as what we really care about are the readers and the technology. NVIDIA really can't bring anything compelling to the table in terms of price / performance or value right now. I think we did a good job of pointing that out.
We have mixed feelings about CrossFire, as it doesn't always scale well and isn't as flexible as SLI -- hopefully this will change with R700 when it hits, but for now there are still limitations. When CrossFire does work, it does really well, and I hope AMD work this out.
NVIDIA absolutely need to readjust the pricing of most of their line up in order to compete. If they don't then AMD's hardware will continue to get our recommendation.
We are here because we love understanding hardware and we love talking about the hardware. Our interest is in reality and the truth of things. Sometimes we can get overly excited about some technology (just like any enthusiast can), but our recommendations always come down to value and what our readers can get from their hardware today.
I know I can speak for Anand when I say this (cause he actually did it before his site grew into what it is today) -- we would be doing this even if we weren't being paid for it. Understanding and teaching about hardware is our passion and we put our heart and soul into it.
there is no amount of money that could buy a review from us. no hardware vendor is off limits.
in the past companies have tried to stop sending us hardware because they didn't like what we said. we just go out and buy it ourselves. but that's not likely to be an issue at this point.
the size and reach of AnandTech today is such that no matter how much we piss off anyone, Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, or any of the OEMs, they can't afford to ignore us and they can't afford to not send us hardware -- they are the ones who want an need us to review their products whether we say great or horrible things about it.
beyond that, i'm 100% sure nvidia is pissed off with this review. it is glowingly in favor of the 4870 and ... like i said ... it really shocks me that anyone would think otherwise.
we don't favor level playing fields or being nice to companies for no reason. we'll recommend the parts that best fit a need at a price if it makes sense. Right now that's 4870 if you want to spend between $300 and $600 (for 2).
While it's really really not worth the money, GTX 280 SLI is the fastest thing out there and some people do want to light their money on fire. Whatever.
i'm sorry you guys feel the way you do. maybe after a good night sleep you'll come back refreshed and see the article in a new light ...
formulav8 - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link
Even in the review you claim 4870 is a $400 performer. So why don't you reflect that in the articles title by adding it after the $300 price?? Would be better to do so I think anyways. :)Maybe say 4870 wins up to the $400 price point and likewise with the 4850 version up to the $250 price that you claimed in the article...
This tweak could be helpful to some buyers out there with a specific budget and could help save them some money in the process. :)
Jason