AMD Radeon HD 5870 Adds DX11, Multi-Monitor Gaming

Vigile writes "Few people will doubt that PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in the arm with the consistent encroachment of consoles and their dominating hold on developers. Today AMD is releasing the Radeon HD 5870 graphics card based on the Evergreen-series of GPUs first demonstrated in June. Besides offering best-in-class performance for a single-GPU graphics board, the new card is easily the most power efficient in terms of idle power consumption and performance per watt. Not only that, but AMD has introduced new features that could help keep PC gaming in the spotlight, including the first DirectX 11 implementation and a very impressive multi-monitor gaming technology, Eyefinity, which we discussed earlier this month. The review at PC Perspective includes the full gamut of gaming benchmarks in both single- and dual-GPU configurations as well as videos of Eyefinity running on three 30" displays."

Comments

Eyefinity videos

[Vigile]

There are some videos of Eyefinity at work in this article, here is a direct link as well:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=783&type=expert&pid=6

Apps that ignore the system DPI setting

[tepples]

Time to move up from 1280x1024 displays finally? My hardrive size and processor speeds have gone up 10x in the last 10 years. My screen resolution is unchanged.

As are your eyes. Beyond a certain point, FSAA will increase perceived quality as much as higher DPI.

I think for games, doubling pixel density would be more than noticeable.

Supporting ClearType style subpixel rendering in your FSAA might help too. But the big problem with doubling pixel density is that so many Windows applications other than games are hardcoded for 96 dpi, ignoring Display Properties > Settings > Advanced > General > DPI setting.

15~21inch standard over 15 years is a pretty sad change for the computer industry.

For one thing, desks haven't gotten much bigger. For another, after a certain point, the amount of glass and other materials in a display outweighs the number of pixels in determining price. I went to Walmart* and saw a 32" 720p class Vizio TV for $399 and an otherwise identical 1080p TV for $499. Compare that to the price difference between 32" vs. 42" TVs.

Missing the point

[sxltrex]

The summary misses the point of why consoles are gaining so much ground in the gaming world. The main reason consoles are so popular is because the hardware never changes. Most people (like myself) don't want to have to go out and buy the latest and greatest graphics card to run a new game. With an XBOX 360 or PS3 I know that if I buy a title for that platform, it will work. Yes, there are certain exceptions like hard drive requirements, etc., but for the most part it is true. The stability also allows developers to get the most out of the hardware, and generally by the end of a consoles life expectancy, the games are getting very, very good.

There will probably always be a market for the hardcore gamers, but the average, casual gamer would rather play an XBOX 360 at 720P on their big screen than play at double the resolution on a screen a quarter the size.

Re:Missing the point

[Sir_Sri]

It's cyclical. When the consoles first come out they look good. But for how long? At some point PC tools and PC hardware make consoles look antiquated. This new hardware is 4 generations later than console hardware, but some of those generations were more die shrinks than anything consumers care about. For the moment we're fluttering around equal quality between PC and consoles, the race to the bottom in PC prices and hardware has meant that trying to make a decent PC only game which both takes advantage of really good hardware, and runs on the walmart trash people actually have is nearly impossible. So you pick your market. If you're developing all your art assets to be fully cross platform you aren't going to invest a whole lot in the PC model. Until someone else does. Once someone (think farcry, Doom, etc) starts doing spectacular things on the PC which simply cannot be done on consoles the two groups diverge again for a while. And then a new generation of consoles comes out and they converge again. I would think the console makers will want either this gen or next gen hardware in their consoles (Xbox 3 and PS4), but time will tell.

Though the big difference between PC's and consoles is probably more about memory than GPU architecture. 3-4GiGs of ram on PC is becoming common, compared to 512 on the consoles, there's too much you can do with that much memory that you just can't do on a console, and that will probably drive divergence more than hardware tesselation or directx computing.

Re:Missing the point

[Deosyne]

Yes, $380 for a video card that provides graphical performance that well supersedes the capabilities of the PS3, and possibly even the PS3's successor. Or you can actually compare a video card with very similar capabilities to the card in the PS3, the NVIDIA RSX "Reality Synthesizer" with a 550MHz CPU and 256 MB of DDR2, which would be an NVIDIA GeForce 9400 that you can pick up for about $50.

Re:Missing the point

[Reservoir Penguin]

He's just saying that if you want to experience games as they are on a ps3 or xbox360, in all their low-resolution, non-AA, 30fps glory you can just buy a $50 card and stick it in your $200 pc. I have quad-sli gtx295 because I want my games to look the best and run at 60fps.

Re:Missing the point

[Quantumstate]

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First you say that you were not talking about image quality then you go and try and refute his argument that a PC card can cost just $50 by saying that then he will not be getting a good piture quality.

So with a PC you have a choice between spending a little like a console (the $50 card) and getting a low quality option and you have the choice of a $380 card and all the other costs for a really good machine which is much better than the console. So in summary with the PC oy get a choice between low and high quality with a console you are stuck with low quality.

More reviews

[IYagami]

Anandtech
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3643
"At the end of the day, with its impressive performance and next-generation feature set, the Radeon HD 5870 kicks off the DirectX 11 generation with a bang and manages to take home the single-GPU performance crown in the process. It's without a doubt the high-end card to get"

Techreport
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17618
"Well, Sherlock, what do you expect me to say? AMD has succeeded in delivering the first DirectX 11 GPU by some number of months, perhaps more than just a few, depending on how quickly Nvidia can get its DX11 part to market. AMD has also managed to double its graphics and compute performance outright from one generation to the next, while ratcheting up image quality at the same time. The Radeon HD 5870 is the fastest GPU on the planet, with the best visual output, and the most compelling set of features. Yet it's still a mid-sized chip by GPU standards. As a result, the 5870's power draw, noise levels, and GPU temperatures are all admirably low. My one gripe: I wish the board wasn't quite so long, because it may face clearance issues in some enclosures. "

A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips?

[wonkavader]

"Few people will doubt that PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in the arm with the consistent encroachment of consoles..."

I know I don't count, but I resent the assumption that everyone cares. I don't care. I'd never buy a console to play games other than Wii sports.

I assume GPUs will get better and better, as will CPUs, and I'll benefit But I'm still playing StarCraft 1, and I just want a higher resolution interface for the same screen -- I know people think it affects the balance, but I'd like to see the zerglings when they're a little further away.

I don't think PC gaming needs a shot in the arm. I think it needs well designed games that stand the test of time.

But it would be nice if we could get the kind of power we can get for a reasonable price (sub $1000 PC including graphics) today to run cool without fans.

Re:PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in a

[tepples]

The kind of shot in the arm that PC gaming needs isn't at the high end but at the low end. If something better than Intel graphics became common on slimline PCs (as opposed to bulky towers), that would open up the market for gaming on home theater PCs.

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips?

[Shimdaddy]

So, to be clear, you just want:

• Games that are as good as StarCraft, which is a very solid contender for best game of all time
• Computers to be as cheap as netbooks but as powerful as top-of-the-line desktops
• Desktops that are ridiculously powerful but don't produce heat

Reasonable.

Re:Bologna

[tepples]

The reason consoles are gaining so much ground is no one wants to waste money on the PC. Why spend millions of dollars on developing a title when 25% of the user base is going to pirate it anyways?

Not every developer is interested in "spend[ing] millions of dollars on developing a title". If you don't have millions of dollars, the PC can prove more profitable because there's a lot less overhead in obtaining a PC devkit than a console devkit.

Re:A shot in the arm? How about cooler chips?

[Kjella]

And you can't? Seriously, look at the graphs on the review sites, they're cranking it all up to 2560x1600 with max AA/AF with Ultra High quality. It's not like you can't play with anything less...

Re:PC gaming is in need of a significant shot in a

[RiotingPacifist]

I must be few people, as i doubt PC gaming needs a shot in the arm. The way i see it PC gaming has its market and consoles have theirs. For single seat games it is still (and always will be) the shit, except for a short period around the release of new consoles it is not lacking in the hardware department. The same way that the Wii didn't eat into "real" console sales, i doubt the console are eating into pc game sale, what they are doing is being played by a huge market of people who regularly enjoy playing with friends in the same room. It could be argued that PCs lack the software to play multiplayer in the same place (because the HW is there to do it with emulators), but tbh if your going to do that you need to plug it into a TV so either its expensive (laptop) or pointless (if you have a dedicated gaming box connected to you TV why not just call it a console).
If you don't play with local mates -> PC gaming
If you play with local mates --------> Console gaming
If you only play with local mates --> Casual Gaming

Despite these categories overlapping in terms of both games and players, they do not directly compete much.

No Core2 Tests

[kenp2002]

All those reveiws and not 1 of them tested a Lynnfield chip that I could find to see if the dual 8x pci-e slots get pinned when running a DX11 card in SLI. Not one review used a typical median computer that someone would currently own.

So after all those 'reviews' *cough advertisements* we still don't know if someone with a Core2 Duo at 3 Ghz can even feed that card effectively. No DDR2 systems, no Quad Core Core2 running DDR3... just the usual i7 Etremes that tell typical consumers anything. We don't know, after all those review if it's even worth buying based on a typical machine. ZZZzzzz....

If anyone can find a Core2 system tested with this new card let te rest of us know if any of us who don't own $1000 processors get a benefit...

Re:No Core2 Tests

[pwfffff]

This card costs more than the low-end i7s. Just buy one.

You can't buy the latest bleeding-edge
  graphics card and be a cheap bastard at the same time. It doesn't work that way.

Re:No Core2 Tests

[KCWaldo]

They use the high end i7's to try and isolate the GPU. They aren't testing the CPU but the GPU. If you look at most benchmarks when they have low settings even with a i7 the GPU's all look the same. If you turn on AA and such the GPU gets to shine and the CPU backs off. Simply put if you CPU limit your benchmark then you have not benchmarks your GPU's.

Re:No Core2 Tests

[Creepy]

Personally, DDR2 vs DDR3 has WAY too many variables like RAS, CAS, and RAS-to-CAS delay, burst memory sends, etc. When I had my brother do this analysis for me (he designs RAM...) he found that in many cases DDR2 was smoking early DDR3 in random access and was only slightly slower in burst. That was until I found a CAS20 DDR3 chip running at 1600MHz in my price range (which sealed the deal for me going with DDR3). Just letting you know, though - if you have fast DDR2, it may be faster than early DDR3.

Memory bandwidth and transfers rates are generally quick enough now that they really don't have a huge impact on game performance (especially with 1+GB of cache memory to work with).

Ok, now on to CPUs, and interesting that you mentioned it - really one core generally runs most games, so there is little need of a quad HOWEVER, I believe one feature of DX11 (actually, confirmed via google: http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/50217/ATI-On-DirectX-11-Gaming ) is thread safe access from multiple CPUs to the GPU. What that means is if CPU1 is trying to push pixels to GPU and CPU2 is trying to do the same at the same time, it is allowed and won't blow up, so it may be possible to distribute the load more evenly. You could, therefore and for instance, assign a core for each display and let the API send it to the correct GPU (which may or may not be on a separate card) and everything is peachy.

And really, they are trying to test the GPU, so having parts that will not restrict the GPU is best for a review. I really doubt there will be much of a speed degradation due to CPU hardware or memory, but you may lose 1-2 FPS. Since that 1-2FPS will be lost for all GPUs across the board, does it really matter?

Temperatures, power requirements, noise

[Anonymous Coward]

The review/source contains no information that's even remotely useful to those of us who look for video cards that are quiet, do not reach absurd temperatures (anything above 60C under load is considered absurd; do people realise just how hot 60C is?), and do not have excessive power requirements.

All I've seen after reading the review is a bunch of snapshots stolen from a PowerPoint presentation with said "technological improvements", and some graphs indicating the card draws less watts than competing cards.

Given the size of the HSF (it's full-length -- look at that sucker!), I'm inclined to believe it runs hot. Given the size of the HSF, I'm also inclined to believe the card sounds like a mack truck barrelling down the highway when under load. Finally, given that the card has two -- count 'em, two -- PCIe 6-pin power connectors, this indicates the card requires at least 24V (e.g. two dedicated 12V rails), and God only knows what its amperage requirements are. Then take a look at it's price.

I feel like the only one on this planet who cares about the amount of heat hardware emits, the amount of power it draws, and the amount of noise it makes. Instead, it appears that the "i gota haf 50829fps in WoW!!!!1!! fag!!!11" gamers have taken over technological evolution and turned it into what Intel during the days of the original Pentium 4. Are there others here who have the same reservations about this kind of hardware as I do?

Re:Tough times ahead for Nvidia?

[default luser]

A middle-tier ARM SoC provider competing against TI, Freescale, Qualcomm and Samsung for the media player market, with a sideline in high-end compute and graphics boards that exist as a technology testbed for said SoC products?

Yeah, I have to agree: I don't see Nvidia dying anytime soon, but I have to say that (barring some impressive new market), their days of growth are over.

Intel has locked Nvidia completely out of the Intel chipset business, destroying one of Nvidia's major market segments (who buys Nvidia to run AMD processors anyway?) Clarksdale will close the door permanantly on LGA775, and simultaneously close the market for Nvidia's IGP chipsets. Yeah, there's still some money from selling SLI licenses and that silly PCIe bridge chip, but it's a pittance compared to the sales Nvidia used to see.

The only loophole remaining is Atom, and once that becomes a SoC offering, Nvidia will have nowhere to turn except Tegra.

And boy, is that going to be a competitive market! The ARM SoC field will be tough-going, and Tegra is not the only chipset out in the wild with high-end media capabilities. Oh, and if Intel delivers on it's promises with Atom SoC, Tegra will also have to compete with Atom. Sorry Nvidia, you just can't seem to get away from Intel :)

Re:Bologna

[tepples]

do you really think the dev kit cost is significant, alogside code/ressources/marketing ?

Console makers want to see a "secure facility" and "industry experience" before they'll even talk to a developer. A "secure facility" is at least a leased office, not your basement, attic, or garage. "Industry experience" is either a previous commercial PC title or an internship at a major video game developer in another state. A team of part-time developers with day jobs outside the video game industry is unlikely to have those.

Re:Time to move up

[bemymonkey]

Check out Dell Precisions, Thinkpads, HP EliteBooks... just a few that offer WUXGA @ 15.4".

Personally, I'm not sure if WUXGA might not be cutting it a little too closely. I'm on WSXGA+ (1680x1050) @ 15.4" right now, and I couldn't be happier.