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
Power, Temperature, & Noise
As we have mentioned previously, one of AMD’s big design goals for the 5800 series was to get the idle power load significantly lower than that of the 4800 series. Officially the 4870 does 90W, the 4890 60W, and the 5870 should do 27W.
On our test bench, the idle power load of the system comes in at 141W, a good 42W lower than either the 4870 or 4890. The difference is even more pronounced when compared to the multi-GPU cards that the 5870 competes with performance wise, with the gap opening up to as much as 63W when compared to the 4870X2. In fact the only cards that the 5870 can’t beat are some of the slowest cards we have: the GTS 250 and the Radeon HD 3870.
As for the 5870 CF, we see AMD’s CF-specific power savings in play here. They told us they can get the second card down to 20W, and on our rig the power consumption of adding a second card is 23.5W, which after taking power inefficiencies into account is right on the dot.
Moving on to load power, we are using the latest version of the OCCT stress testing tool, as we have found that it creates the largest load out of any of the games and programs we have. As we stated in our look at Cypress’ power capabilities, OCCT is being actively throttled by AMD’s drivers on the 4000 and 3000 series hardware. So while this is the largest load we can generate on those cards, it’s not quite the largest load they could ever experience. For the 5000 series, any throttling would be done by the GPU’s own sensors, and only if the VRMs start to overload.
In spite of AMD’s throttling of the 4000 series, right off the bat we have two failures. Our 4870X2 and 4890 both crash the moment OCCT starts. If you ever wanted proof as to why AMD needed to move to hardware based overcurrent protection, you will get no better example of that than here.
For the cards that don’t fail the test, the 5870 ends up being the most power-hungry single-GPU card, at 401W total system power. This puts it slightly ahead of the GTX 285, and well, well behind any of the dual-GPU cards or configurations we are testing. Meanwhile the 5870 CF takes the cake, beating every other configuration for a load power of 664W. If we haven’t mentioned this already we will now: if you want to run multiple 5870s, you’re going to need a good power supply.
Ultimately with the throttling of OCCT it’s difficult to make accurate predictions about all possible cases. But from our tests with it, it looks like it’s fair to say that the 5870 has the capability to be a slightly bigger power hog than any previous single-GPU card.
In light of our results with OCCT, we have also taken load power results for our suite of cards when running World of Warcraft. As it’s not a stress-tester it should produce results more in line with what power consumption will look like with a regular game.
Right off the bat, system power consumption is significantly lower. The biggest power hogs are the are the GTX 285 and GTX 285 SLI for single and dual-GPU configurations respectively. The bulk of the lineup is the same in terms of what cards consume more power, but the 5870 has moved down the ladder, coming in behind the GTX 275 and ahead of the 4870.
Next up we have card temperatures, measured using the on-board sensors of the card. With a good cooler, lower idle power consumption should lead to lower idle temperatures.
The floor for a good cooler looks to be about 40C, with the GTS 250, 3870, and 4850 all turning in temperatures around here. For the 5870, it comes in at 46C, which is enough to beat the 4870 and the NVIDIA GTX lineup.
Unlike power consumption, load temperatures are all over the place. All of the AMD cards approach 90C, while NVIDIA’s cards are between 92C for an old 8800GT, and a relatively chilly 75C for the GTX 260. As far as the 5870 is concerned, this is solid proof that the half-slot exhaust vent isn’t going to cause any issues with cooling.
Finally we have fan noise, as measured 6” from the card. The noise floor for our setup is 40.4 dB.
All of the cards, save the GTX 295, generate practically the same amount of noise when idling. Given the lower energy consumption of the 5870 when idling, we had been expecting it to end up a bit quieter, but this was not to be.
At load, the picture changes entirely. The more powerful the card the louder it tends to get, and the 5870 is no exception. At 64 dB it’s louder than everything other than the GTX 295 and a pair of 5870s. Hopefully this is something that the card manufacturers can improve on later on with custom coolers, as while 64 dB at 6" is not egregious it’s still an unwelcome increase in fan noise.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
327 Comments
View All Comments
poohbear - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
is it just me or is anyone else disappointed? next gen cards used to double the performance of previous gen cards, this card beats em by a measly 30-40%. *sigh* times change i guess.AznBoi36 - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
It's just you.The next generations never doubled in performance. Rather they offered a bump in framerates (15-40%) along with better texture filtering, AA, AF etc...
I'd rather my games look AMAZING at 60fps rather than crappy graphics at 100fps.
SiliconDoc - Monday, September 28, 2009 - link
Golly, another red rooster lie, they just NEVER stop.Let's take it right from this site, so your whining about it being nv zone or fudzilla or whatever shows ati is a failure in the very terms claimed is not your next, dishonest move.
---
NVIDIA w/ GT200 spanks their prior generation by 60.96% !
That's nearly 61% average increase at HIGHEST RESOLUTION and HIGHEST AA AF settings, and it right here @ AT - LOL -
- and they matched the clock settings JUST TO BE OVERTLY UNFAIR ! ROFLMAO AND NVIDIA'S NEXT GEN LEAP STILL BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF THIS LOUSY ati 5870 EPIC FAIL !
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334...
--
roflmao - that 426.70/7 = 60.96 % INCREASE FROM THE LAST GEN AT THE SAME SPEEDS, MATCHED FOR MAKING CERTAIN IT WOULD BE AS LOW AS POSSIBLE ! ROFLMAO NICE TRY BUT NVIDIA KICKED BUTT !
---
Sorry, the "usual" is not 15-30% - lol
---
NVIDIA's last usual was !!!!!!!!!!!! 60.69% INCREASE AT HIGHEST SETTINGS !
-
Now, once again, please, no lying.
piroroadkill - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
No, it's definitely just youGriswold - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Its just you. Go buy a clue.ET - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Should probably be removed...Nice article. The 5870 doesn't really impress. It's the price of two 4890 cards, so for rendering power that's probably the way to go. I'll be looking forward to the 5850 reviews.
Zingam - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Good but as seen it doesn't play Crysis once again... :DWe shall wait for 8Gb RAM DDR 7, 16 nm Graphics card to play this damned game!
BoFox - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Great article!Re: Shader Aliasing nowhere to be found in DX9 games--
Shader aliasing is present all over the Unreal3 engine games (UT3, Bioshock, Batman, R6:Vegas, Mass Effect, etc..). I can imagine where SSAA would be extremely useful in those games.
Also, I cannot help but wonder if SSAA would work in games that use deferred shading instead of allowing MSAA to work (examples: Dead Space, STALKER, Wanted, Bionic Commando, etc..), if ATI would implement brute-force SSAA support in the drivers for those games in particular.
I am amazed at the perfectly circular AF method, but would have liked to see 32x AF in addition. With 32x AF, we'd probably be seeing more of a difference. If we're awed by seeing 16x AA or 24x CFAA, then why not 32x AF also (given that the increase from 8 to 16x AF only costs like 1% performance hit)?
Why did ATI make the card so long? It's even longer than a GTX 295 or a 4870X2. I am completely baffled at this. It only has 8 memory chips, uses a 256-bit bus, unlike a more complex 512-bit bus and 16 chips found on a much, much shorter HD2900XT. There seems to be so much space wasted on the end of the PCB. Perhaps some of the vendors will develop non-reference PCB's that are a couple inches shorter real soon. It could be that ATI rushed out the design (hence the extremely long PCB draft design), or that ATI deliberately did this to allow 3rd-party vendors to make far more attractive designs that will keep us interested in the 5870 right around the time of GT300 release.
Regarding the memory bandwidth bottleneck, I completely agree with you that it certainly seems to be a severe bottleneck (although not too severe that it only performs 33% better than a HD4890). A 5870 has exactly 2x the specifications of a 4890, yet it generally performs slower than a 4870X2, let alone dual-4890 in Xfire. A 4870 is slower than a 4890 to begin with, and is dependent on Crossfire.
Overall, ATI is correct in saying that a 5870 is generally 60% faster than a 4870 in current games, but theoretically, a 5870 should be exactly 100% faster than a 4890. Only if ATI could have used 512-bit memory bandwidth with GDDR5 chips (even if it requires the use of a 1024-bit ringbus) would the total memory bandwidth be doubled. The performance would have been at least as good as two 4890's in crossfire, and also at least as good as a GTX295.
I am guessing that ATI wants to roll out the 5870X2 as soon as possible and realized that doing it with a 512-bit bus would take up too much time/resources/cost, etc.. and that it's better to just beat NV to the punch a few months in advance. Perhaps ATI will do a 5970 card with 512-bit memory a few months after a 5870X2 is released, to give GT300 cards a run for its money? Perhaps it is to "pacify" Nvidia's strategy with its upcoming next-gen that carry great promises with a completely revamped architecture and 512 shaders, so that NV does not see the need to make its GT300 exceed the 5870 by far too much? Then ATI would be able to counter right afterwards without having to resort to making a much bigger chip?
Speculation.. speculation...
Lakku - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
Read some of the other 5780 articles that cover SSAA image quality. It actually makes most modern games look worse, but that is through no fault of ATi, just the nature of the SS method that literally AA's everything, and in the process, can/does blur textures.strikeback03 - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
I don't know much about video games, but in photography it is known that reducing the size of an image reduces the appearance of sharpness as well, so final sharpening should be done at the output size.