AMD's Radeon HD 5870: Bringing About the Next Generation Of GPUs
by Ryan Smith on September 23, 2009 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
AA Image Quality & Performance
With HL2 unsuitable for use in assessing image quality, we will be using Crysis: Warhead for the task. Warhead has a great deal of foliage in parts of the game which creates an immense amount of aliasing, and along with the geometry of local objects forms a good test for anti-aliasing quality. Look in particular at the leaves both to the left and through the windshield, along with aliasing along the frame, windows, and mirror of the vehicle. We’d also like to note that since AMD’s SSAA modes do not work in DX10, this is done in DX9 mode instead.
|
AMD Radeon HD 5870
|
AMD Radeon HD 4870
|
NVIDIA GTX 280
|
| No AA | ||
| 2X MSAA | ||
| 4X MSAA | ||
| 8X MSAA | ||
| 2X MSAA +AAA | 2X MSAA +AAA | 2X MSAA + SSTr |
| 4X MSAA +AAA | 4X MSAA +AAA | 4X MSAA + SSTr |
| 8X MSAA +AAA | 8X MSAA +AAA | 8X MSAA + SSTr |
| 2X SSAA | ||
| 4X SSAA | ||
| 8X SSAA |
From an image quality perspective, very little has changed for AMD compared to the 4890. With MSAA and AAA modes enabled the quality is virtually identical. And while things are not identical when flipping between vendors (for whatever reason the sky brightness differs), the resulting image quality is still basically the same.
For AMD, the downside to this IQ test is that SSAA fails to break away from MSAA + AAA. We’ve previously established that SSAA is a superior (albeit brute force) method of anti-aliasing, but we have been unable to find any scene in any game that succinctly proves it. Shader aliasing should be the biggest difference, but in practice we can’t find any such aliasing in a DX9 game that would be obvious. Nor is Crysis Warhead benefitting from the extra texture sampling here.
From our testing, we’re left with the impression that for a MSAA + AAA (or MSAA + SSTr for NVIDIA) is just as good as SSAA for all practical purposes. Much as with the anisotropic filtering situation we know through technological proof that there is better method, but it just isn’t making a noticeable difference here. If nothing else this is good from a performance standpoint, as MSAA + AAA is not nearly as hard on performance as outright SSAA is. Perhaps SSAA is better suited for older games, particularly those locked at lower resolutions?
For our performance data, we have two cases. We will first look at HL2 on only the 5870, which we ran before realizing the quality problem with Source-engine games. We believe that the performance data is still correct in spite of the visual bug, and while we’re not going to use it as our only data, we will use it as an example of AA performance in an older title.
As a testament to the rendering power of the 5870, even at 2560x1600 and 8x SSAA, we still get a just-playable framerate on HL2. To put things in perspective, with 8x SSAA the game is being rendered at approximately 32MP, well over the size of even the largest possible single-card Eyefinity display.
Our second, larger performance test is Crysis: Warhead. Here we are testing the game on DX9 mode again at a resolution of 1920x1200. Since this is a look at the impact of AA on various architectures, we will limit this test to the 5870, the GTX 280, and the Radeon HD 4890. Our interest here is in performance relative to no anti-aliasing, and whether different architectures lose the same amount of performance or not.
Starting with the 5870, moving from 0x AA to 4x MSAA only incurs a 20% drop in performance, while 8x MSAA increases that drop to 35%, or 80% of the 4x MSAA performance. Interestingly, in spite of the heavy foliage in the scene, Adaptive AA has virtually no performance hit over regular MSAA, coming in at virtually the same results. SSAA is of course the big loser here, quickly dropping to unplayable levels. As we discussed earlier, the quality of SSAA is no better than MSAA + AAA here.
Moving on, we have the 4890. While the overall performance is lower, interestingly enough the drop in performance from MSAA is not quite as much, at only 17% for 4x MSAA and 25% for 8x MSAA. This makes the performance of 8x MSAA relative to 4x MSAA 92%. Once again the performance hit from enabling AAA is miniscule, at roughly 1 FPS.
Finally we have the GTX 280. The drop in performance here is in line with that of the 5870; 20% for 4x MSAA, 36% for 8x MSAA, with 8x MSAA offering 80% of the performance. Even enabling supersample transparency AA only knocks off 1 FPS, just like AAA under the 5870.
What this leaves us with are very curious results. On a percentage basis the 5870 is no better than the GTX 280, which isn’t an irrational thing to see, but it does worse than the 4890. At this point we don’t have a good explanation for the difference; perhaps it’s a product of early drivers or the early BIOS? It’s something that we’ll need to investigate at a later date.
Wrapping things up, as we discussed earlier AMD has been pitching the idea of better 8x MSAA performance in the 5870 compared to the 4800 series due to the extra cache. Although from a practical perspective we’re not sold on the idea that 8x MSAA is a big enough improvement to justify any performance hit, we can put to rest the idea that the 5870 is any better at 8x MSAA than prior cards. At least in Crysis: Warhead, we’re not seeing it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
327 Comments
View All Comments
Wreckage - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Hot, loud, huge power draw and it barely beats a 285.A disappointment for sure.
SiliconDoc - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link
Thank you Wreckage, now, I was going to say draw up your shields, but it's too late, the attackers have already had at it.--
Thanks for saying what everyone was thinking. You are now "a hated fanboy", "a paid shill" for the "corporate greedy monster rip off machine", according to the real fanboy club, the ones who can't tell the truth, no matter what, and prefer their fantasiacal spins and lies.
Zstream - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
They still allow you to post?yacoub - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
He's right in the first sentence but went all fanboy in the second.Griswold - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Not really, he's a throughbred fanboy with everything he said. Even on the "loud" claim compared to what previous reference designs vom ATI were like...SiliconDoc - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
So if YOU compare one loud design of ati's fan to another fan and as loud ati card( they're all quieter than 5870* but we'll make believe for you for now),
and they're both loud, anyone complaining about one of them being loud is "an nvidia fanboy" because he isn't aware of the other loud as heck ati cards, which of course, make another loud one "just great" and "not loud". LOL
It's just amazing, and if it was NV:
" This bleepity bleep fan and card are like a leaf blower again, just like the last brute force monster core power hog but this **tard is a hurricane with no eye."
But since it's the red cards that are loud, as YOU pointed out in the plural, not singular like the commenter, according to you HE's the FANBOY, because he doesn't like it. lol
ULTIMATE CONCLUSION: The commenter just told the truth, he was hoping for more, but was disappointed. YOU, the raging red, jumped his case, and pointed out the ati cards are loud "vom" prior.. and so he has no right to be a big green whining fanboy...
ROFLMAO
I bet he's a "racist against reds" every time he validly criticizes their cards, too.
---
the 5870 is THE LOUDEST ATI CARD ON THE CHART,AND THE LOUDEST SINGLE CORE CARD.
--
Next, the clucking rooster will whiplash around and flap the stubby wings at me, claiming at idle it only draws 27 watts and is therefore quiet.
As usual, the sane would them mention it will be nice not playing any 3d games with a 3d gaming card, and enjoying the whispery hush.
--
In any case:
Congratulations, you've just won the simpleton's red rooster raving rager thread contest medal and sarcastic unity award.(It's as real as any points you've made)
Anyhow thanks, you made me notice THE 5870 IS THE LOUDEST CARD ON THE CHARTS. I was too busy pointing out the dozen plus other major fibboes to notice.
It's the loudest ati card, ever.
GourdFreeMan - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
I thought the technical portion of your review was well written. It is clear, concise and written to the level of understanding of your target audience. However, I am less than impressed with your choice of benchmarks. Why is everything run at 4xAA, 16xAF? Speaking for most PC gamers, I would have maxed the settings in Crysis Warhead before adding AA and AF. Also, why so many console ports? Neither I, nor anyone else I personally know have much interest in console ports (excluding RPGs from Bethesda). Where is Stalker: Clear Sky? As you note its sequel will be out soon. Given the short amount of time they had to work with DX11, I imagine it will run similarly to Stalker: Call of Pripyat. Also, where is ArmA II? Other than Crysis and Stalker it is the game most likely to be constrained by the GPU.I don't want to sound conspiratorial, but your choice of games and AA/AF settings closely mirror AMD's leaked marketing material. It is good that you put their claims to the test, as I trust Anandtech as an unbiased review site, but I don't think the games you covered properly cover the interests of PC gamers.
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
For the settings we use, we generally try to use the highest settings possible. That's why everything except Crysis is at max quality and 4xAA 16xAF (bear in mind that AF is practically free these days). Crysis is the exception because of its terrible performance; Enthusiast level shaders aren't too expensive and improve the quality more than anything else, without driving performance right off a cliff. As far as playing the game goes, we would rather have AA than the rest of the Enthusiast features.As for our choice of games, I will note that due to IDF and chasing down these crazy AA bugs, we didn't get to run everything we wanted to. GRID and Wolfenstein (our OpenGL title) didn't make the cut. As for Stalker, we've had issues in the past getting repeatable results, so it's not a very reliable benchmark. It also takes quite a bit of time to run, and I would have had to drop (at least) 2 games to run it.
Overall our game selection is based upon several factors. We want to use good games, we want to use popular games so that the results are relevant for the most people, we want to use games that give reliable results, and ideally we want to use games that we can benchmark in a reasonable period of time (which means usually having playback/benchmark tools). We can't cover every last game, so we try to get what we can using the criteria above.
GourdFreeMan - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link
Popularity and quality are strong arguments for World of Warcraft, Left 4 Dead, Crysis, Far Cry, the newly released Batman game... and *maybe* Resident Evil (though it is has far greater popularity among console gamers). However, HAWX? Battleforge? I would never have even heard of these games had I not looked them up on Wikipedia. In retrospect I can see you using Battleforge due to it being the only DirectX 11 title, but I still don't find your list of games compelling or comprehensive.To me *PC* gaming needs to offer something more than simple action to justify its cost of entry. In the past this included open worlds, multiplayer, greater graphical realism and attempts at balancing realistic simulation with entertaining game play. Console gaming has since offered the first two, but the latter are still lacking.
It's games like Crysis, Stalker and ArmA II along with the potential of modding that attract people to PC gaming in the first place...
dvijaydev46 - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Good review but it would be good if you could also add Steam and Cuda benchmarks. Now you have a common software Mediashow Espresso right?