No context needed
7 Likes
All context desired 
14 Likes
happy birthdayā¦also no
4 Likes
7 Likes
4/10 No reference to Father Ted or brake calipers 
5 Likes
Iām not entirely sure which was worse here - the reference to Sex in the City, or the direct reference to a spec of convertible Peugeot 205.
14 Likes
10 Likes
The time @koolkei made @pyrlix start dropping mad knawledge on us
Heās still not done.
EDIT: Heās started again 
12 Likes
SORRY! I felt like i HAD to do it.
5 Likes
That was ā¦ really interesting, as a computer nerd that isnāt in the ābusinessā for so long ā¦ my first real gaming pc was from 2011, had a GTX560 and the legendary i7-2600 (sadly not the K variant).
Jump into the #pcshittalk channel on the discord, itās still going 
1 Like
Well NOW is just a rant about prices m8
@frankNStein I had several gaming machines, but none were so long living like the one i had with my HD4850 - that GPU lasted for a couple of years until i replaced it. Was a great machine.
I think i coulkd make a video out of my blah blah i wrote
2 Likes
so. this was the full text, cleaned up for roland if he ends up using it to make a video
AMD/ATi had the great X10 series - some really fast cards
then in 2005 AMD bought ATi - which OBV caused massive money issues
all that while the HD2xxx series (the RV600 chip) was developed
The HD2900 was one of the first GPUs on the world to offer GDDR4 memory
And the card wasā¦ wellā¦ fast, but not fast enough
the HD2900XT beat the 8800GTS easily, but was beaten by the GTX and Ultra - but the issue here is. The 8800 Ultra was released at the same time, and price-wise the HD2900XT was horrible
Price/Performance Ratio was out of whack
the 2900XT costs 400ā¬ at release, the 8800GTX 470ā¬. Latter one was up to 15% faster though
And power consumption was out of control
the 2900XT consumed almost 60W more than a 8800GTX, was louder, and more hot (shitty cooler)
BUT the Mid-ra ge segment was still dominated by AMD - like it is now.
The HD2600XT beat the 8600GTS in a ton of applications, especially in the more important D3D10 Games - the GDDR4 variant did not offer much performance bonus, but was mostly priced similiarly + the 512MB Variant was ONLY available has DDR4 - and priceā¦ wellā¦ guess what. 140ā¬. For the 2006/2007s equivalent of a RX470
in 2008 Nvidia brought the 9000 Series on the Market, which all in all was a big disappointmentā¦ The 9800GTX was pretty much just a refreshed 8800GTS 512 (which was faster than a 8800GTX for some reason - no wait. the 8800GTS 512 used the G92 chipset which basically is used by the whole 9000 Series! )
We saw cards that costs more and performed the same - but the 9000 series was fairly short lived. The only good 9-series cards were the midrange - as in 9600GT etc.
Late 2007 and 2008 was also the year AMD slowly rose from the Ashes with the HD3000-Series (which laid the path for the famous HD4000). The HD3000 was in most ways just an improved R600-Chip - thus the RV670-Codename for the Top model HD3870
The HD3870 and HD3850 were almost the same GPU, same everything apart Memory-Capacity, Memory-Type and GPU-Frequency: Otherwise same PCB and same Chip
And you could see the improvement - the HD3870 utilised a smaller chip than the HD2900XT, and while not faster in most applications, it ran ahead of the HD2900XT when you turned on AA and AF. And the HD3870 was just a overworked HD2900XT with a 30MHz overclock. The RV670 has been shrunken from 80nm to 55nm, the 512bit Memory Interface has been reduced to 256 and we got support for D3D10.1
Power consumption was down by a whopping 100W, Overclocking yielded an easy 10 to 15% performance potential and priceā¦ OMG. 210ā¬ Starting. And it beat Nvidiaās 250ā¬+ GPUs and beat the old HD2900XT that costs 400ā¬+.
And mind you - the HD3870 was not seen as High-End by AMD - the 3870 is the Performance Segment - so like the RX480 today.
At that time the only āhigh-endā-solution was the HD3870X2 - but thatās dual-cpu single-card. We donāt talk about these. They suck anus
But the biggest enemy was yet to comeā¦ in form of the GTX280
Released in June 2008, a couple of months after the weird 9000 Series - it boasted the new GT200 GPU, the biggest and most complex Chip ever made. The first versions were on a 65nm silicon, and it boasted 240 CUDA-Cores and 64TAU/TMUs that were clocked at 602MHz. A real beast - in most games it was easily 40-50% fastest than the fast as fuck 8800 Ultra, and almost 60% faster than the HD3870. Even power consumption was not too bad - but the priceā¦ hoho. 550ā¬ recommended by Nvidia
AMD was in a pickle - they had nothing against it. The HD3870 was just fighting the performance segment of the 9800GTX and the GTX260 - and that card was already a ton faster.
But mid 2008 it happened - the HD4850 and HD4870 came onto the market. Again those were Performance Cards not for the High-End. The RV770 was a new chip that based on the VLIW Architecture from the 3000 and 2000 series. AMDs biggest benefit here was that the chip was tons smaller than Nvidiaās GT200, thus tons cheaper. It was not enough to beat the GTX280s obviously, but the HD4870 had a great fight with the GTX260, and the HD4850 was the cheap background supporter that fought with the 9600GTs and later the GTS250. The HD4870 was a really fast card for its time, it showed the same performance jump Nvidia had. 60% performance boost going from a HD3870 to a HD4870. It showed big potential, big improvement. And pricewise it was a great card - it was equally fast to the GTX260, but costs only 200ā¬. And the HD4850 was the king of price and performance - you could buy it for a mere 140ā¬. Imagine those were the RX470 and a hypothetical 475
But the Hype train of the HD4000 was not done yet - They brought the HD4670 AND the HD4830 onto the market. The HD4670 was there to fight off the slower 9600GS and 9500GTs off (as well as the later released GTS240) and did quite well doing it. Pricewise you could buy one of these for 60ā¬ - todays equivalent again would be the RX550?
Now lets talk about the weird bastard-child
the HD4830
That was pretty much a cut-down HD4850 , less shaders, less frequency. It was just damaged RV770 chips ā performance wise it was there to beat Nvidiaās upper-midrange - namely the 9600GT - but was 20% slower than the 4850
only issue was
the HD4830 costs 120ā¬
and at the time of the release the price of the HD4850ā¦ fell to 125ā¬ - so the card really made no sense to buy - unless you really lacked those 5ā¬s
In the End the price difference was a mere 25ā¬
but bleh.
anyways
back to text
The Enemy was not sleeping
and there was another competitor who wanted to troll AMD and Nvidia
namely
S3
(i forgot the maximum low-end - not catering to the HD4550 and GT9500 sorry)
In late 2008 they released something that was weird. The S3 Chrome 440GTX. A 40ā¬ GPU that beat a 26ā¬ GPU. Nothing worth to talk about.
you know how much work that would be?
i need to save this text though
and make this true maybe
lend the work to me - i am someone who should do that
AMD history HD2000 to HD5000
Rise of the ashes
but back to text
The Enemy was not sleeping and in early 2009 Nvidia released the updated GTX285
a refined GT200 chip - smaller process - 55nm , higher clock rates, faster memory
By those small changes the 2850 gained another 10% performance bonus - which mean that AMD was not only 20% but 30% behind them. And there were a couple of games, were the 285 was 40-50% faster than the 4870 with 1GB VRam
Pricewise there was no competition though
The GTX285 costs 330ā¬ at release, 150ā¬ more than a HD4870, and 50ā¬ more than a GTX280. They were not even close of playing in the same playfield
And the enemy was truly not sleeping
2 months later Nvidia brought the GTS250 - which was the 9800GTX redone. Why the did it? No clue.
The G92b at that time was 3 years old already - a refresh of a refresh pretty much.
Also performance wise it was not any faster - it was fighting with the HD4850 like mad and beat the HD4830 regularly
Nvidia did a big mistake here and they realised - the card costs at release 160ā¬, while the same card - the GTX9800+ costs 130ā¬.
It had no chance against the HD4850, which already fell to 115ā¬ - guys imagine. 115ā¬.
Its still the 2009s equivalent of the fucking RX470
But on the 2nd of April 2009 it happened
Tow cards appeared at the same time
The Geforce GTX275 and the Radeon HD4890
The GTX275 boasted the same GT200b that was featured in the GTX260 and 285, and was a in between-er. It had the same amount of Shaders as the GTX285, and the same amount of ROPs as the 260. Memory clock was similar to the 285, but it was just 896MB of it (WHYYYYYY).
GPU-Clock again was same as the 285
The HD4890 though was different.
it based on the RV790 - a slightly improved RV770 chip. This allowed the HD4890 to clock 100MHz faster than the HD4870, with the same amount of Shaders. Also the memory was clocked to almost 2GHz
Question is now - how will that lead up in the benchmarksā¦
[ADVERTISEMENT]
The HD4890 beat the GTX280, and fought hard with the GTX275. Both cards had the speed of the old GTX280 and were just a shy 10% behind the current ākingā - the 285.
The GTX275 sometimes was a mere 2-4% faster than the HD4890
That 100MHz clock increased allowed AMD to gain 11% more performance
and now the real shocker. Price. The 4890 was advertised for 200ā¬ - cue to the 275 costing 240ā¬, and the 285 costing 300ā¬
Prices later dropped to 160ā¬, 185ā¬ and 255ā¬
but you could still buy a card that was serious fast
and was tons cheaper
AMD gained market share and tons of money due to that - and that was not the end
in September 2009 it happened
AMD released the HD5870
The HD5000 series had several changes - one of these was the change of the Codenames
no longer the chips were called RV870 or so - but Cypress, Juniper, Cedar and Redwood - of course they still had their RV naming, but everyone was only talking about the Cypress now
The RV870 boasted the Terascale 2 Architecture and was the first D3D11 card on the market. It had two times more shaders than the HD4890 - 1600 of those, and every single one of these was clocked to a whooping 850MHz - coupled with 2GB of 2,4GHz GDDR5
The benchmarks were amazing
50% more performance, fastest single GPU Card on the market
25 to 35% ahead of the GTX285 and just a mere 10% behind the Dual GPU 295 (2x 285)
But now came the price
350ā¬ new at release - a really expensive card for its time
It was the current hypothetical VEGA.
But AMD was clever
They still were not finished with the HD5850 - the smaller brother
The HD5850 was based on the same Cypress-chip, but ad less clock and 2 shader clusters were deactivated or cut. It was probably damaged chips
But the HD5850 was still fast - still 10% ahead of the 285, and just 20% slower than a HD5870
and it was affordable
at a mere 220ā¬ you could get a card that was faster than Nvidias current GTX285 for 280ā¬
And more legends were yet to come
The HD5770 and HD5750 were released shortly after
both used the Juniper RV840 with 800 respectively 720 Shaders at 850 and 700Mhz
with 512 to 1GB of memory
The HD5770 barely beat the 4870 and GTX260, but featured 50W less power consumption and costs 130ā¬ at release. Sure more expensive, but bear in mind, the HD4870 started to rise in price due to shortage, and it was the only DX11 entry level card!
in the same time Nvidia refreshed the 200 series for OEM and laptops to the 300 series -but its not worth to talk about it. it was just refreshed cards
BRB lunch
i will continue in 20m
consider this as a break so you can read
Ah yes where were we stopped
AMD was MAD (an acronym see)
the HD5000 Series was selling well
Prices were rising due to the high demand
instead fof 220ā¬ you had to pay 270ā¬ for a HD5850
and the 5870 was close to 400ā¬!
This was also the time Bitcoin Mining got viable on AMD Cards and was profitable too - this would play a big role in future
this led to extreme prices for AMD high-end due to mega high demand
the mid-range 5770 though stayed affordable at 120 to 130ā¬, now cheaper than the unavailable HD4870
There were many more lower-end cards, but its not worth to waste time on these, we talk about the HD5670, HD5570, 5450, 5550
there was a big range of cards back then
But at the beginning of 2010 there were rumours of a new Nvidia card called
Fermi
The only known thing was D3D11, more ram and a new architecture
A product later known as Thermi (or Burn-Me)
since then never.
but let me do things until the R9 plz
or RX
i intended to keep it to HD7000 though
In late March 2010 it was time for it to see the light of day. 512 CUDA-Cores, 700MHz GPU Clock, 1400MHz CUDA-Clock
1,5GB GDDR5 at 1,8GHz
40nm process and 3 BILLION transistors
This was enough to beat the King - the HD5870.
The GTX480 was 15% to 25% all across the parcours - in the stock variant it was also massively ahead in power consumption. 152W more than the HD5870 and 116W more than a GTX285.
AND IT WAS DAMN LOUD TOO
And the price was quite extreme as well
you could see prices as high as 500ā¬ for a stock 480
A week later Nvidia released the small brother
the GTX470
1,3GB of GDDR5 Vram, and one shader cluster less with 100MHz less Core clock (1200mhz Cuda)
This led to a card that was slower than a HD5870 (-5%)
but faster than a HD5850 (+10%)
but it suffered the same issues as the GTX480. Loud, Hungry and Hot. Still 70W more than a HD5870 - and slower
And it was outrageously priced too
Nvidia charged at least 350ā¬ for it - 70 more than a 5850, just 10 less than a HD5870
Nvidia saw this and tried to improve lil-thermi
which lead to the GTX460 in July
The GF104 chip reduced the count of shaders once again to 7 Clusters with total 336 ALUs ,but had a higher clock than the 470. It was a halfed 470 in fact - but nvidia raised the number of Stream processor per cluster - which lead to half the clusters, but not half the Shaders.
This lead to 1 billion less transistors
and that helped massively
Nvidia now hard a card that was beating the 5770 easily - 30% faster all across the board, just 10% slower than a HD5850. Power consumption was still high, but it gained efficiency
The only enemy was the HD5830. A cut HD5850 - 12% fastert than a 5770, 30% slower than a HD5850 - for 190ā¬. The GTX460 was still a good 15% faster
and costsā¦ just 9ā¬ more
But then again - by the time the 400 series came, the AMD cards were almost a year old - but pricewise they did not sink a little bit
in July 2010 the HD5870 STILL costs 360ā¬
It was time to make a new card for AMD - something that dethrones Nvidia from the high end
A series that was a bitā¦ disappointing to say the least
the HD6000
First released were the HD6870 and HD6850 in October 2010
These featured the new RV940 Barts - which still based on the āoldā Terascale 2 Architecture. This was also the first series with AMDs new Naming Scheme
The HD6870 was no longer the high-end like the 5870 was
it was there to replace the HD5830 or HD5770
The HD6870 had 1120 Shaders - same amount as the 5830 - but was clocked 100MHz higher and was paired with slightly faster memory. There was a bit of improvement in the background too - a better Tesselator for better Tesselation performance, no support for Double Precision (not needed for a mainstream card)and a improved Video Decoder
The HD6850 utilized the same Chip, but was cut down to 960 shaders and 775Mhz instead of 900
All that stacked up to these resultsā¦
12% faster than a HD5850 (the HD6870) and just 1% slower than a 470 GTX
The 6850 was just 2% slower than the 5850, and equally fast to the 460 GTX
Power consumption wise there were small improvements
the HD6870 ate 10W less power
and pricewise the HD6870 was not cheaper to - it started with 200ā¬, at this time the 5850 costs 210ā¬ on the market - the HD6850 was much cheaper though. With 150ā¬ it competed directly with the GTX460
Prices later dropped to 180ā¬ for the 6870 but never by much.
AMD still had no card to beat the 480 - and that was not the end
Nvidia released the GTX580 just one month after the HD6870
The GTX580 was still based on the Fermi-Chip, but the GF110 in it was heavily reworked. More Stream processors (42 more), same clock-speeds, better stepping, improved efficiency, better FP16 Filtering.
and this card was fast
It was on average 15% faster than a GTX480 and is now 40% faster than a HD5870! AMD was now further behind than every before the GTX580 was more power efficient! It ate 20Ws less energy
Only the price was hefty
Nvidia recommended a 480ā¬ - the HD5870 already dropped from its old 360 to 277, and the GTX480 only costs 340
And it was not done yet - in December Nvidia brought the GTX570 onto market
A cut 580 (480 Shaders - same number as 480 now) and again 1.3GB VRam
this led to a card that was equally fast as the GTX480, while consuming 70W less power (->Cooler)
meanwhile the GTX580 prices were officially at 500ā¬, the 570 was recommended to be a 349ā¬ by nvidia
And the prices of other cards dropped to
just a month later the HD5870 dropped another 30ā¬ - now down to 242ā¬
We now have a market where Nvidia holds the performance crown in the top-tier
and where AMD has the Mid-Tier in its hands
All hope was not lost
days after the 580
amd brought theā¦ HD6970 and 6950
based on the Cayman RV970 chip these featured the NEW Terascale 3 Architecture
the Top Model 6970 had 1536 Shaders clocked at 880MHz and a total 2GB of ram! 0,5 more than the GTX580ā¦ The terascale 3 had some changes. Instead of using the 5D-VLIW Shader Arrangement, it now used 4D Arrangement. This lead to improved performance in DP and 3D
But how much did it really help?
The result was
disappointing.
the HD6970 did not manage to beat the GTX580 at all, and barely beat the 570 in most cases.
The VRam advantage only showed at mega high resolutions too (which later turned out to be the best decision though)
In 1200p the HD6970 was a mere 2% faster than a 570 and lagged 15% behind a 580
it was only in 1600p and maxed out AA where the 6970 suddenly jumped 23% ahead of the 570 and just 2!% behind the 580
and the 6950 was not any better
it was consistently 5% slower than the 570 - it sure was 15% faster than the old 5870 - but that was not enough at all
the only saviour here was the price
the 6970 was advertised as a 329ā¬, whereas the 570 was at 340ā¬
and the 6950 was at a crazy cheap 260ā¬
And just to āwakeā you guys up here
HD6870 = RX480, HD6850 = RX470, HD6970 = Fury X
check prices now - try to get a RX480 for sub 200 - like you could get the 6870 for 190
AMD had clearly lost this battle though
and the battles was not done yet - there was no competitor for the HD6870 yet
Said competitor came in January 2011
in the form of a GTX560Ti
This card boasted a GF114 chip m, again a cut down GF110 we know from the 580
now with 8 instead of 16 clusters
and 384 Shaders instead of 512
1GB of GDDR5 at 2GHz
and a core clock of 822MHz GPU
this lead to a performance pretty much equal to a HD6870
the only enemy of the GTX560Ti was the price
priced at 229ā¬ it was not viable against a 190ā¬ 6870 yet
In February 2011 AMD brought a reworked 6950 onto the playfield
1GB less VRAM, same everything
This was not a massive thing though - it was not any slower at all - but meanwhile the GTX560Ti gained performance due to drivers
Bow the GTX560Ti was 5% faster than the 6870 and just 4% behind a 6950
but the memory reduction helped the HD6950
it was 30ā¬ cheaper than a HD6950 2GB
you now had a 210ā¬ GPU instead of 240ā¬ GPU
let me finish with price
The 7970 was recommended at 450ā¬ by AMD at that time - 30ā¬ cheaper than a 680
the non GHZ dropped to 370ā¬, the 7950 to 300
And thatās the end of the story
Early 2013 was Titan and 780 time as well as the Hawaii Card R9 290X - only to be beaten by Maxwell GTX980 in late 2014.
We know the rest of the story
i think history repeats ATM
Similar to the HD6000 series
Either Vega will be disappointing - like a 6970
OR Polaris IS the whole HD6000 series thing
and the HD7970 of today will be Vega
9 Likes
I read all of that, impressive
That could easily be a video
And as a side note, one of my friends has done light gaming on a 5770 until late last year when he finally decided to upgrade. He had to play games in 720p but even I was impressed by the performance for a 6 year old card.
4 Likes
12 Likes
Contextā¦well, there was none.
8 Likes
No context 
7 Likes