Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: Fake Radeon HD 4870 benchmark...
In times where we want more facts, or just a clarifications whether it's Western or Eastern rumors that are closest to the trust, people have started to post obviously fake benchmarks. We're starting to get used to this by now, and sometimes the attention seekers put a lot of work into the forgeries, but not this time. At Chinese forum zol.com.cn, a user has posted a screenshot with GPU-Z where the name says "ATI Radeon HD 4870", cores says RV770 and node says 55nm. So far so good.
Then you look at the die-size; 153mm˛, and the ID; 1002-9589. These are for Radeon HD 2600XT (RV630). It doesn't stop there though. The next screen shows a finished run with 3DMark 06; 18,297 points, with an AMD Athlon 4400+ overclocked to 3,186MHz...
If we take the SM2.0, SM3.0 and CPU score and calculate the score we get 15,017. And then we have the fact that he used the wrong fonts for the stuff he pasted into the picture.
In any case, we just wanted to let you know that this is just a bunch of crap.
Uhhh....the combined scores add up just fine. I've ran 3dmark06 countless times and it's sm2/3 and cpu combined. also, i'm not seeing font discrepancies. Could you please point them out?
Joined: 11 Dec 2003 Posts: 4750 Location: Pennybridge, Sweden
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:38 pm Post subject:
Kundun wrote:
Uhhh....the combined scores add up just fine. I've ran 3dmark06 countless times and it's sm2/3 and cpu combined. also, i'm not seeing font discrepancies. Could you please point them out?
Well the things is, you don't just add the SM2.0, SM 3.0 and CPU score. There's a formula that calculates the final scores. And the final score will be less than the three combined.
Fonts: Look at the 4 in 4870 and compare it to the one in 4400+. Same with the numbers in the result window. They don't match those in the other text.
Most importantly is the GPU-Z screen, which is explained in the text.
//Andreas _________________ "I'm sort of a postmodern vegetarian, I eat meat ironically" "You are our Swedish superhero "
Forget everything, knowledge is your enemy, it's only going to make you second-guess yourself."
Sorry man...but there's no formula to 3dmark06. It's sm2.0, 3.0 and cpu combined. I've ran 3dmark06 this morning twice before making this post and it's the same for both runs...total exactly matches all three combined everytime. Also, these two screenies you've linked us to...there are no discrepancies at all. Are you high or what? Please point these out because I'm not seeing them. I hope your not comparing fonts from two different utilities either. Basically, you've made a premature post with no valid arguments whatsoever.
Besides, the score fonts don't match the normal font on the screenshot, or at least it looks that way. _________________ Man, or woman, or both? Grandis spiritus, sanctus diavolos
Joined: 11 Dec 2003 Posts: 4750 Location: Pennybridge, Sweden
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject:
Kundun wrote:
Sorry man...but there's no formula to 3dmark06. It's sm2.0, 3.0 and cpu combined. I've ran 3dmark06 this morning twice before making this post and it's the same for both runs...total exactly matches all three combined everytime.
I've been benchmarking 3DMark since the dawn of the century. No 3DMark just adds up the scores. They use formulas, it's a know fact, and you can easily find the formulas and calculators online.
Quote:
Also, these two screenies you've linked us to...there are no discrepancies at all. Are you high or what? Please point these out because I'm not seeing them. I hope your not comparing fonts from two different utilities either. Basically, you've made a premature post with no valid arguments whatsoever.
The GPU-Z screen is all wrong. I've marked the two most obvious mistakes with the red rectangles. The die size is for 2600XT and the ID is also for 2600XT. The pixel fillrate and texel fillrate isn't calculated right either. A core clock and 16 ROPs should land at 13.6 GPixel/s, not 11.3.
32 TMUs and 850MHz core clock should land us at 27.2GTexel/s. This could of course be errors in the application, but the story goes on.
If you look, you will also see that the font used in GPU-Z is the exact same that has been pasted into the 3DMark screenshot (underlined with blueish purple), which does not use the same default font. As you can see by reading the system specifications:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4400+, while right above it you see the font from the GPU-Z application pasted into 3DMark 06.
Sorry I wasn't any clearer to begin with.
//Andreas _________________ "I'm sort of a postmodern vegetarian, I eat meat ironically" "You are our Swedish superhero "
Forget everything, knowledge is your enemy, it's only going to make you second-guess yourself."
...you may enjoy this though. if this reigns true then nvidia better wake up. according to this, a single 4870 with 512 onboard wipes the floor clean with a 9800gx2 to the point of embarrassing. Even worse, it's predicted that this card will run for $349. Nvidia...you better hang on...this ride/transition into to summer months is about to get rough.
Joined: 11 Dec 2003 Posts: 4750 Location: Pennybridge, Sweden
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:39 am Post subject:
Well, the scores add up. So far so good. But I think that site posted the same kind of slides before the R600 launch, where the R600 performance was just sadly misrepresented. And I don't see much evidence of this being any better.
If they had compared 4870X2 to 9800GX2 and it had won, then maybe I had believed it, but the problem is still that media samples of 4870 are being produced as we speak. The only cards that do exist are lab samples, and testing samples sent out to selected partners.
That's just way too exaggerated, RV770 is going to be a good chip, and I have some really high hopes for the dual-chip card, but we still have to remember that this is a R600 derivate.
The price is probably right though.
//Andreas _________________ "I'm sort of a postmodern vegetarian, I eat meat ironically" "You are our Swedish superhero "
Forget everything, knowledge is your enemy, it's only going to make you second-guess yourself."
I agree...it does seem rather impressive and in this case maybe plausible. I think it's because the memory is clocked at 3400 here and the fact that the card has more tmu's and stream processors. Regardless, I'm certainly holding my breathe. I mean that performance at $349 at this point in time would be something.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
"
