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
erple2 - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link
What the heck are you talking about? Are you saying that electricity consumed by a device divided by the "volume" of the device is the only way to measure the heat output of the device? Every single Engineering class I took tells me that's wrong, and I'm right. I think you need to take some basic courses in Electrical Engineering and/or Thermodynamics.(simplified)
power consumed = work + waste
You're looking for the waste heat generated by the device. If something can completely covert every watt of electricity that passes through it to do some type of work (light a light bulb, turn a motor, make some calculation on a GPU etc), then it's not going to heat up. As a result, you HAVE to take into consideration how inefficient the particular device is before you can make any claim about how much the device heats up.
I'll bet that if you put a Liquid Nitrogen cooler on every ATI card, and used the standard air coolers on every NVidia card, that the ATI cards are going to run crazy cooler than the NVidia cards.
Ultimately the temperature of the GPU's depends a significant amount on the efficiency of the cooler, and how much heat the GPU is generating as waste. My point is that we don't have enough data to determine whether the ATI die runs hot because the coolers are less than ideal, Nvidia ones are closer to ideal, the die is smaller, or whatever you have. You have to look at a combination of the efficiency of the die (how well it converts input power to "work done"), the efficiency of the cooler (how well it removes heat from it's heat source), and the combination of the two.
I'd posit that the ATI card is more efficient than the NVidia card (at least in WoW, the only thing we have actual numbers of the "work done" and "input power consumed").
Now, if you look at the measured temperature of the core as a means of comparing the worthiness of one GPU over another, I think you're making just as meaningful a comparison as comparing the worthiness of the GPU based on the size of the retail box that it comes in.
SiliconDoc - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link
You simply repeated my claim about watts, and replaced core size, with fps, and created a framerate per watt chart, that has near nothing to do with actual heat inside the die, since the SIZE of the die, vs the power traversing through it is the determining factor, affected by fan quality (ram size as well).Your argument is "framerate power efficiency", as in watts per framerate, and has nothing to do with core temperature (modified by fan cooling of course to some degree), that the article indeed posts except for the two failed ati cards.
The problem with your flawwed "science" that turns it into hokum, is that no matter what outputs on the screen, the HEAT generated by the power consumption of the card itself, remains in the card, and is not "pumped through the videoport to the screen".
If you'd like to claim "wattage vs framerate" efficency for 5870, fine I've got no problem, but claiming that proves core temps are not dependent on power consumption vs die size ( modified by the rest of the card *mem size/power useage/ and the fan heatsink* ) is RIDICULOUS.
---
The cards are generally equivalent manufacturing and component additions, so you take the wattage consumed (by the core) and divide by core size, for heat density.
Hence, ATI cards, smaller cores and similar power consumption, wind up hotter.
That's what the charts show, that's what should be stated, that is the rule, and that's the way it plays in the real world, too.
---
The only modification to that is heatsink fan efficiency, and I don't find you fellas claiming stock NVIDIA fans and heatsinks are way better than the ATI versions, hence 66C for NVIDIA, 75C, 85C, etc, and only higher for ATI, in all their cards listed.
Would you like to try that one on for size ? Should I just make it known that NVIDIA fans and heatsinks are superior to ATI ?
What is true is a lager surface area (die side squared) dissipates the same amount of heat easier, and that of course is what is going on.
ATI dies are smaller ( by a marked surface area as has so foten been pointed out), and have similar power consumption, and a higher DENSITY of heat generation, and therefore run hotter.
erple2 - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link
Oops, "milliwatt" should be "kilowatt". I got the decimal place mixed up - I used kilowatt since I thought it was easier to see than 0.247, 0.140, 0.137, 0.181...SiliconDoc - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Let's take that LOAD TEMP chart and the article's comments. Right above it, it is stated a good cooler includes the 4850 that ILDE TEMPs in at around 40C (it's actually 42C the highest of those mentioned)."The floor for a good cooler looks to be about 40C, with the GTS 250(39C), 3870(41C), and 4850 all turning in temperatures around here"
OK, so the 4850 has a good cooler, as well as the 3870... then right below is the LOAD TEMP.. and the 4850 is @ 90C -OBVIOUSLY that good cooler isn't up to keeping that tiny hammered core cool...
3870 is at 89C, 4870 is at 88C, 5870 is at 89C ALL ati....
but then, nvidia...
250, 216, 285, 275 all come in much lower at 66C to 85C.... but "temps are all over the place".
NOT only that crap, BUT the 4890 and 4870x2 are LISTED but with no temps - and take the "coolest position" on the chart!
Well we KNOW they are in the 90C range or higher...
So, you NEVER MENTION why 4870x2 and 4980 are "no load temp shown in the chart" - you give them the WINNING SPOTS anyway, you fail to mention the 260's 65C lowest LOAD WIN and instead mention GTX275 at 75C...LOL
The bias is SO THICK it's difficult to imagine how anyone came up with that CRAP, frankly.
So the superhot 4980 and 4870x2 are given #1 and #2 spots repsectively, a free ride, the other Nvidia cards KICK BUTT in lower load temps EXCEPT the 295, but it makes sure to mention the 8800GT while leaving the 4980 and 4870x2 LOAD TEMP spots blank ?
roflmao
---
What were you saying about "why" ? If why the 8800GT was included is TRUE, then comment on the gigantic LOAD TEMP bias... tell me WHY.
SiliconDoc - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
AND, you don't take temps from WOW to use for those two, which no doubt even though it is NOT gpu stressing much, will yeild the 90C for those two cards 4870x2 and 4980, anyway.So they FAIL the OCCT, but you have NOTHING on them, which would if listed put EVERY SINGLE ATI CARD @ near 90C LOAD, PERIOD...
---
And we just CANNOT have that stark FACT revelaed, can we ? I mean I've seen this for well over a year here now.
LET's FINALLY SAY IT.
---
LOAD TEMPS ON THE ATI CARDS ARE ALL, EVERY SINGLE ONE NEAR 90c, much higher than almost ALL of the Nvidia cards.
pksta - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link
I just want to know...With this much zeal about videocards and more specifically the bias that you see, doesn't it make you sound biased too? Can you say that you have owned the cards you are bashing and seen the differences firsthand? I can say I did. I had an 8800 GT and it was running in the upper 80s under load. I switched to my 4850 with the worst cooler I think I've ever seen mind you, and it stays in the mid to upper 60s under load. The cooler on the 8800 gt was the dual-slot design that was the original reference design. The 4850 had the most pathetic fan I've ever seen. It was similar to the fan and heatsink Intel used on the first Core2 stuff. It was the really cheap aluminum with a tiny copper circle that made contact with the die itself. Now, don't get me wrong I love ATI...But I also love nVidia...Anything that keeps games getting better and prices getting better. I honestly don't think, though, that the article is too biased. I think maybe a little for ATI but nothing to rage on and on about. Besides...Calm down. You know nVidia will have a response for this.SiliconDoc - Sunday, September 27, 2009 - link
1. Who cares what you think about how you percieve me ? Unless you have a fact to refute, who cares ? What is biased ? There has been quite a DISSSS on PhysX for quite some time here, but the haters have no equal alternative - NOTHING that even comes close. Just ASK THEM. DEAD SILENCE. So, strangely, the very best there is, is BAD.Now ask yourself again who is biased, won't you? Ask yourself who is spewing out the endless strings... Do yourself a favor and figure it out. Most of them have NEVER tried PhysX ! They slip up and let it be known, when they are slamming away. Then out comes their PC hate the greedy green rage, and more, because they have to, to fit in the web PC code, instead of thinking for themselves.
2. Yes, I own more cards currently than you will in your entire life. I started retail computer well over a decade ago.
3. And now, the standard red rooster tale. It sounds like you were running in 2d clocks 100% of the time, probably on a brand board like a DELL. Happens a lot with red cards. Users have no idea.
4850 with The worst fan in the World ! ( quick call Keith Olbermann) and it was ice cold, a degree colder than anything else in the review. ROFLMAO
Once again, the red shorts pinnocchio tale. Forgive me while I laugh, again !
ROFLMAO
Did you ever put your finger on the HS under load ? You should have. Did you check your 3D mhz..
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...">http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...
Not like 90C is offbase, not like I made up that forum thread.
4. I could care less if nvidia has a response or not. Point is, STOP LYING. Or don't. I certainly have noticed many of the lies I've complained about over a year or so have gone dead silent, they won't pull it anymore, and in at least one case, used in reverse for more red bias, unfortunately, before it became the accepted idea.
So, I do a service, at the very least people are going to think, and be helped, even if they hate me.
SiliconDoc - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Well of course that's the excuse, but I'll keep my conclusion considering how the last 15 reviews on the top videocards were done, along with the TEXT that is pathetically biased for ati, that I pointed out. (Even though Derek was often the author).--
You want ot tell me how it is that ONLY the GTX295 is near or at 90C, but ALL the ati cards ARE, and we're told "temperatures are all over the place" ?
Can you really explain that, sir ?
529th - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
holy shit, a full review is up already!bill3 - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Does the article keep referring to Cypress as "too big"? If Cypress is too big, what the hell is GT200 at 480mm^2 or whatever it was? Are you guys serious with that crap?I've heard that the "sweet spot" talk from AMD was a bit of a misdirection from the start anyway. IMO if AMD is going to compete for the performance crown or come reasonably close (and frankly, performance is all video card buyers really care about, as we see with all the forum posts only mentioning that GT300 will supposedly be faster than 58XX and not anything else about it) then they're going to need slightly bigger dies. So Cypress being bigger is a great thing. If anything it's too small. Imagine the performance a 480mm^2 Cypress would have! Yes, Cypress is far too small, period.
Personally it's wonderful to see AMD engineer two chips this time, a bigger performance one and smaller lower end one. This works out far better all around.
The price is also great. People expecting 299 are on crack.