Published: Wednesday 29th April, 2009 | Author: Parm Mann
Companies: AMD (All AMD content), ATi Technologies (All ATi Technologies content)
printer friendly layout 
discuss in the forums 
email to a friendNow that ATI has established a 40nm manufacturing process with its Radeon HD 4770, it was only a matter of time before the rumour mill began to churn out details of other upcoming 40nm parts.
Today, the attention's turning to potential RV870-based parts. According to German site hardware-infos.com, ATI's RV770 successor will arrive as soon as July '09 in the form of the Radeon HD 5870 and the dual-GPU Radeon HD 5870 X2.
It is, of course, entirely speculation at this moment in time. However, should the report be believed, the products will line up with the following specifications:
| Graphics cards | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 1,792MB | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 1,024MB | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 1,024MB | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 896MB | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 896MB | ATI Radeon HD 5870 X2 2,048MB* | ATI Radeon HD 5870 1,024MB* | AMD Radeon HD 4870 X2 2,048MB | AMD Radeon HD 4850 X2 2,048MB | AMD Radeon HD 4890 1,024MB | AMD Radeon HD 4870 512MB | AMD Radeon HD 4850 512MB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCIe | PCIe 2.0 | |||||||||||
| GPU(s) clock | 576MHz | 648MHz | 602MHz | 633MHz | 576MHz | 950MHz | 900MHz | 750MHz | 625MHz | 850MHz | 750MHz | 625MHz |
| Shader clock | 1,242MHz | 1,476MHz | 1,296MHz | 1,404MHz | 1,242MHz | 950MHz | 900MHz | 750MHz | 625MHz | 850MHz | 750MHz | 625MHz |
| Memory clock (effective) | 1,998MHz | 2,484MHz | 2,214MHz | 2,322MHz | 1,998MHz | 4,600MHz | 4,400MHz | 3,600MHz | 1,986MHz | 3,900MHz | 3,600MHz | 1,986MHz |
| Memory interface and size | 448-bit (per GPU), 1,792MB, GDDR3 | 512-bit, 1,024MB, GDDR3 | 512-bit, 1,024MB, GDDR3 | 448-bit, 896MB, GDDR3 | 448-bit, 896MB, GDDR3 | 512-bit (2x 256-bit), 2,048MB, GDDR5 | 256-bit, 1,024MB, GDDR5 | 512-bit (2x 256-bit), 2,048MB, GDDR5 | 512-bit (2x 256-bit), 2,048MB, GDDR3 | 256-bit, 1,024MB, GDDR5 | 256-bit, 512MB, GDDR5 | 256-bit, 512MB, GDDR3 |
| Manufacturing process | TSMC, 55nm | TSMC, 55nm | TSMC, 65nm | TSMC, 55nm | TSMC, 65nm | TSMC, 40nm | TSMC, 40nm | TSMC, 55nm | TSMC, 55nm | TSMC, 55nm | TSMC, 55nm | TSMC, 55nm |
| DirectX/ Shader Model | DX10, 4.0 | DX10, 4.0 | DX10, 4.0 | DX10, 4.0 | DX10, 4.0 | DX11, 5.0 | DX11, 5.0 | DX10.1, 4.1 | DX10.1, 4.1 | DX10.1, 4.1 | DX10.1, 4.1 | DX10.1, 4.1 |
| Vertex, fragment, geometry shading (shared) | 480 FP32 scalar ALUs, MADD dual-issue + MUL (unified) | 240 FP32 scalar ALUs, MADD dual-issue + MUL (unified) | 240 FP32 scalar ALUs, MADD dual-issue + MUL (unified) | 240 FP32 scalar ALUs, MADD dual-issue + MUL (unified) | 216 FP32 scalar ALUs, MADD dual-issue + MUL (unified) | 2,400 FP32 scalar ALUs, MADD dual-issue (unified) | 1,200 FP32 scalar ALUs, MADD dual-issue (unified) | 1,600 FP32 scalar ALUs, MADD dual-issue (unified) | 1,600 FP32 scalar ALUs, MADD dual-issue (unified) | 800 FP32 scalar ALUs, MADD dual-issue (unified) | 800 FP32 scalar ALUs, MADD dual-issue (unified) | 800 FP32 scalar ALUs, MADD dual-issue (unified) |
| Data sampling and filtering | 160ppc address and 160ppc bilinear INT8/80ppc FP16 filtering, max 16xAF | 80ppc address and 80ppc bilinear INT8/40ppc FP16 filtering, max 16xAF | 80ppc address and 80ppc bilinear INT8/40ppc FP16 filtering, max 16xAF | 72ppc address and 72ppc bilinear INT8/36ppc FP16 filtering, max 16xAF | 72ppc address and 72ppc bilinear INT8/36ppc FP16 filtering, max 16xAF | 192ppc address and 192ppc bilinear INT8/96ppc FP16 filtering, max 16xAF | 96ppc address and 96ppc bilinear INT8/48ppc FP16 filtering, max 16xAF | 80ppc address and 80ppc bilinear INT8/40ppc FP16 filtering, max 16xAF | 80ppc address and 80ppc bilinear INT8/40ppc FP16 filtering, max 16xAF | 40ppc address and 40ppc bilinear INT8/20ppc FP16 filtering, max 16xAF | 40ppc address and 40ppc bilinear INT8/20ppc FP16 filtering, max 16xAF | 40ppc address and 40ppc bilinear INT8/ 20ppc FP16 filtering, max 16xAF |
| ROPs | 56 | 32 | 32 | 28 | 28 | 64 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| Peak GFLOPS | 1,788 | 1,063 | 933 | 1,011 | 805 | 4,560 | 2,160 | 2,400 | 2,000 | 1,360 | 1,200 | 1,000 |
| Peak fillrate Gpixels/s | 32.256 | 20.736 | 19.264 | 17.724 | 16.128 | 60.8 | 28.8 | 24 | 20 | 13.6 | 12 | 10 |
| Peak Gtexel/s (bilinear) | 92.2 | 51.84 | 48.16 | 45.576 | 41.472 | 91.2 | 86.4 | 60 | 50 | 34 | 30 | 25 |
| Peak Gtexel/s (FP16, bilinear) | 46.1 | 25.92 | 24.09 | 22.788 | 20.736 | 45.6 | 43.2 | 30 | 25 | 17 | 15 | 12.5 |
| *rumoured product and specification | ||||||||||||
The numbers are anything but confirmed, but we could be looking at 4,560 GFLOPS from the Radeon HD 5870 X2 - almost double that of the Radeon HD 4870 X2.
Copyright © 1998 - 2009, HEXUS.net. All rights reserved. Terms, conditions and privacy information.
HEXUS® is a registered trademark of HEXUS Limited.
Which OS launch are you more excited by?
IE7 Search
Firefox 2 Search
HEXUS.community :: your right2reply
no Nvidia has better idle consumption than ATI but when under full load ATI is better performance per watt
Horse manure....
http://archive.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=2&c=7&t=9354&p=0
Although this doesnt have the VERY latest cards from both sides it does cover 4670-4850 for example (ie mainstream) and Nvidia is POOR on power consumption.
There was just so long I could go letting this inaccuracy slide... :O_o1:Quote
is better performance per watt
I admit overall the ATI cards seem to have overall better idle power consumption than the Nvidia 'equivalents' but that chart doesnt take in the above quote at all and the main cards which are compared (as they have extremely similar performance) are 4870 and GTX260 where my statement holds true.Quote
Horse manure....
http://archive.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=2&c=7&t=9354&p=0
Although this doesnt have the VERY latest cards from both sides it does cover 4670-4850 for example (ie mainstream) and Nvidia is POOR on power consumption.
There was just so long I could go letting this inaccuracy slide... :O_o1:
You're not talking about the performance sector here, but that's what we're interested in, and it's a very different story purely because of the DDR5 in the 4870 upwards which can't be put in a low voltage idle state. Therefore ATI cards have high idle power compared to the nVidia's, but a lower 100% load draw.Quote
Reply