iMac: ATI 4850 vs ATI 5850

[Hellhammer]

I have plenty of proof, I review remember?
BTW, I'm not posting just to annoy you, I'm posting because everything you're saying is confusing people, your not stating facts, just hear say, in my opinion.

So, look at the pics and look at the maximum temperatures. x6 in the 30-40's, i5 in the mid to high 60's, and i7 in the mid to high 70's. Even though the Phenom heat sensors are off 10c (thats the current agreement from what ive seen), then lets say my x6 is really in the 40's to 50's. Even if that were 100% true, it still runs 10-15c cooler than an i5 750. So again, I'm right bout that.

Now, the i7 is in the 70's, same exact clock speed as the i5 750, and its still over 10C hotter. Now, I know the i5 was water cooled, but my water cooling loop cools the MOSFET's/VRM's, 5850 GPU, SouthBridge, and the CPU. So really, it only about 2-3c better than the i7 on air. So again, I'm right, and there's your proof.

I forgot to mention that once overclocking is put into the picture, wattage ratings mean diddly squat. Once you push the CPU passed its native clock speed, voltages are increased and the TDP rating becomes null. This is why I know the i5's run an average of 8-10C cooler at similar clock speeds.

I never said you're wrong, it just fought against what I've read and seen Maybe HT really adds ~8c more but that's only when it's under full load and I at least am okay with it if it provides noticeable better performance.

One thing you are still forgetting is that you have 920 which is 130W when @2.66GHz. It's already a whole different chip when compared to i7 860. You have also overclocked them all with different cooling systems so I wouldn't use them as so "water-proof" evidence. Someone with both iMac should do the testing, that's the only way to get very accurate results. In my link above, there is 750 vs 860, both running at pretty similar temps.

I think your 1090Ts and 920s are confusing even more because they aren't and cannot be used in iMacs (yet). They have nothing to do with 750 vs 860. You have overclocked etc so I wouldn't count them as good proofs.

I think this is pretty offtopic now. If HT adds few Celsius, so what? It's worth the performance gain. When idling, there shouldn't be any difference in temperature. If you're worried, you can always boost the fans a little bit

Side note: We really should get this back to the original topic, we pissed all over the OP's question, sorry OP!

You realize that this thread is over 3 months old?

If we get back to the original topic, how is 5850 significantly faster? Take a look at some of my post in first page, there are explanations why 5850 isn't much better, if at all. It's only worth it if you care about new techs such as OpenGL 4 and DirectX 11

 

[lpolarityl]

I never said you're wrong, it just fought against what I've read and seen Maybe HT really adds ~8c more but that's only when it's under full load and I at least am okay with it if it provides noticeable better performance.

One thing you are still forgetting is that you have 920 which is 130W when @2.66GHz. It's already a whole different chip when compared to i7 860. You have also overclocked them all with different cooling systems so I wouldn't use them as so "water-proof" evidence. Someone with both iMac should do the testing, that's the only way to get very accurate results. In my link above, there is 750 vs 860, both running at pretty similar temps.

I think your 1090Ts and 920s are confusing even more because they aren't and cannot be used in iMacs (yet). They have nothing to do with 750 vs 860. You have overclocked etc so I wouldn't count them as good proofs.

I think this is pretty offtopic now. If HT adds few Celsius, so what? It's worth the performance gain. When idling, there shouldn't be any difference in temperature. If you're worried, you can always boost the fans a little bit



You realize that this thread is over 3 months old?

If we get back to the original topic, how is 5850 significantly faster? Take a look at some of my post in first page, there are explanations why 5850 isn't much better, if at all. It's only worth it if you care about new techs such as OpenGL 4 and DirectX 11

Yeah, a lot of what we are both talking about is moot because the only way to get real proof is to have a person with both system configurations do tests for us. My test alone only confirm temp differences in my particular setups, so its moot to be blunt. We need real iMac temps, not PC overclocked crazed temps like I provided.

5850 though, for anyone interested in gaming in a Windows environment (BootCamp) would benefit greatly. I saw that Valve, Nvidia, and ATI are working together to make games run faster within OSX, I hope that means driver improvements for current cards and future possibilities for 58xx ATi implementation cause then I'd probably get an iMac for myself.

 

[Hellhammer]

5850 though, for anyone interested in gaming in a Windows environment (BootCamp) would benefit greatly. I saw that Valve, Nvidia, and ATI are working together to make games run faster within OSX, I hope that means driver improvements for current cards and future possibilities for 58xx ATi implementation.

In games that support DirectX 11, yes. Take a look at the links in in first page. Mobility 58xx is based on desktop 57xx (Juniper) and I think you already know that desktop 57xx is pretty similar to 48xx in terms of performance. Mobility 4850 is based on desktop 4850 though so the difference is unfortunately fairly small See the game benches in notebookcheck links, they give you an idea. I wouldn't talk about great benefit, it's pretty small. If GDDR5 is used, especially if there is more than 512MB, there will be more noticeable difference because iMacs enormous resolution needs a lot VRAM. 5850 runs a lot cooler though so it's again a good benefit and 5870 fits fine too, and it provides ~15% better performance than 4850.

Of course this is just speculation because the drivers Apple provides play a huge role, at least when under OS X. In PC side, there isn't much difference, other than 5850 fits fine in laptops while 4850 needs massive brick and cooling system that sounds like an airplane

In the end, we don't know before the iMac is actually out with good benchmarks. If Apple made it thicker and added dedicated cooler for GPU, they could fit desktop 5770 there, even 5830. And don't get me wrong, I'd love to see big improvements in iMacs' GPUs but mobility 5850 doesn't provide the more or less much needed and wanted increase in performance.

 

[iMacmatician]

But still barley beating 4850, it is rather underwhelming. So when is the 6xxx series coming out? I have high hopes for that one in the iMac.

j/k

According to this there will be some future GPUs coming in H2 2010 and others coming in early 2011.

Southern Islands will focus on power efficiency but it doesn't guarantee better mobile GPUs. SI will unlikely introduce new cores thus unless ATI releases mobile Cypress, we won't see big increases in performance.

Rumors some time ago pointed to slightly lower SP counts, increased tessellation performance, and a slightly bigger die size. Another change with the upcoming GPUs is (from the link) increased bus width for higher end GPUs, desktop and mobile.

 

[DesmoPilot]

It makes no sense! Only difference is 130MHz i.e. a bigger multiplier plus Hyper-Threading. The chip is the same. With your logic, the i5 can also be a lot hotter, depending on your luck.

Hyperthreading has been known for a long time to add ~10C to temps. Ask any PC hardware enthusiast with a decent knowledge of Intel CPUs.

 

[TMRaven]

I found another comparison between the nehalem chips at their default clocks, an their power ratings under idle and loads. It shows an i7 870 consuming 20more points than i5 750 while under load. It also shows i7 920 consuming 60 more points than i5 750 while under load. I'll say the i7 860 would consume a tad less power than the i7 870 while under load, so I'll give it 15more points rather than 20. Since you said i7 920 got 10c hotter than i5 750 under load, and 15 points is a 4th of 60 points, we can only assume that the i7 860 would get 2-3c hotter than i5 750 in the iMac while under load.

I really hope apple doesn't choose the mobility 5850 for their iMac revision. Even with 1gb of GDDR5 ram and the best drivers it could get, I seriously doubt its upgrade over mobility 4850. As was already said, less heat and DX11 are about the biggest advantages it gets. Mobility 5870 needs to come into play-- at least as a high-end bto option.

 

[DesmoPilot]

I found Mobility 5870 needs to come into play-- at least as a high-end bto option.

High end graphics option in an iMac? Not gonna happen, this is Apple we're talking about.

 

[lpolarityl]

In games that support DirectX 11, yes. Take a look at the links in in first page. Mobility 58xx is based on desktop 57xx (Juniper) and I think you already know that desktop 57xx is pretty similar to 48xx in terms of performance. Mobility 4850 is based on desktop 4850 though so the difference is unfortunately fairly small See the game benches in notebookcheck links, they give you an idea. I wouldn't talk about great benefit, it's pretty small. If GDDR5 is used, especially if there is more than 512MB, there will be more noticeable difference because iMacs enormous resolution needs a lot VRAM. 5850 runs a lot cooler though so it's again a good benefit and 5870 fits fine too, and it provides ~15% better performance than 4850.

Of course this is just speculation because the drivers Apple provides play a huge role, at least when under OS X. In PC side, there isn't much difference, other than 5850 fits fine in laptops while 4850 needs massive brick and cooling system that sounds like an airplane

In the end, we don't know before the iMac is actually out with good benchmarks. If Apple made it thicker and added dedicated cooler for GPU, they could fit desktop 5770 there, even 5830. And don't get me wrong, I'd love to see big improvements in iMacs' GPUs but mobility 5850 doesn't provide the more or less much needed and wanted increase in performance.

hellhammer, the 4850 is no where near the 5850 in performance. Bring it to the PC side, where drivers are written properly for gaming, and you see what I mean.

If you look at any recent review, look at where a 5850 performs its considered to be an enthusiast card, where the 5870 is tiered toward the hardcore enthusiast. The 5770 is mainstream, which means its affordable to the majority of consumers, which means its no where near the caliber of Cypress 58xx based cards. I really hope Valve, Apple, and ATi can make some awesome drivers for the current GPU line up and eventually bring 5800's to the iMac's and Mac Pro. The 5850 nearly doubles the 4850's results in every benchmark.

http://techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5770_PCS_Plus_Plus/10.html
http://techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5770_PCS_Plus_Plus/7.html
http://techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5770_PCS_Plus_Plus/22.html

Cypress brought a smaller die, more performance, less heat, less noise, DX11, tessellation, and pure awesomeness. Juniper is based off Cypress, not the other way around. Juniper is just a neutered Cypress configuration, which is why its so much cheaper. 5770's perform on par with 4870 which is what 5770's were aimed at replacing. 4800 series is no longer and why Apple is still using them in their high level products boggles my mind. The 5800's are SOOOO much better. I love my 5850, especially when its clocked at 1000MHz core /1300MHz memory. Gotta love water cooling.

5850 mobility is real and available now. Apple needs to adopt it into their iMac's and MacBook Pro's and get rid of that poor excuse of a laptop GPU which is the GTS 320M. For the price Apple is charging for the latest MacBooks (15"+), they need to add a much better GPU.

 

[Hellhammer]

According to this there will be some future GPUs coming in H2 2010 and others coming in early 2011.

Rumors some time ago pointed to slightly lower SP counts, increased tessellation performance, and a slightly bigger die size. Another change with the upcoming GPUs is (from the link) increased bus width for higher end GPUs, desktop and mobile.

Memory bus width increase from 128bit to 256bit would already provide better performance. I doubt we'll see SI in next gen iMacs though, maybe along with Sandy Bridge

Hyperthreading has been known for a long time to add ~10C to temps. Ask any PC hardware enthusiast with a decent knowledge of Intel CPUs.

Well, people who have said that were not able to provide acceptable evidence. TMraven's post provides again more evidence that it does not increase temps by much.

High end graphics option in an iMac? Not gonna happen, this is Apple we're talking about.

ATI 5850 is high-end card as well...

 

[Hellhammer]

hellhammer, the 4850 is no where near the 5850 in performance. Bring it to the PC side, where drivers are written properly for gaming, and you see what I mean.

If you look at any recent review, look at where a 5850 performs its considered to be an enthusiast card, where the 5870 is tiered toward the hardcore enthusiast. The 5770 is mainstream, which means its affordable to the majority of consumers, which means its no where near the caliber of Cypress 58xx based cards. I really hope Valve, Apple, and ATi can make some awesome drivers for the current GPU line up and eventually bring 5800's to the iMac's and Mac Pro. The 5850 nearly doubles the 4850's results in every benchmark.

http://techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5770_PCS_Plus_Plus/10.html
http://techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5770_PCS_Plus_Plus/7.html
http://techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5770_PCS_Plus_Plus/22.html

Cypress brought a smaller die, more performance, less heat, less noise, DX11, tessellation, and pure awesomeness. Juniper is based off Cypress, not the other way around. Juniper is just a neutered Cypress configuration, which is why its so much cheaper. 5770's perform on par with 4870 which is what 5770's were aimed at replacing. 4800 series is no longer and why Apple is still using them in their high level products boggles my mind. The 5800's are SOOOO much better. I love my 5850, especially when its clocked at 1000MHz core /1300MHz memory. Gotta love water cooling.

That's for DESKTOPS! Yeah, that is the case in desktops but we are talking about mobile GPUs what iMacs use. That's why I said take a look at my links because they are for mobile GPUs. I know in desktop side the 58xx series is amazing, runs circles around 48xx but unfortunately, that's not the case for mobility versions. Best mobility chip is based on Juniper, not Cypress

 

[lpolarityl]

That's for DESKTOPS! Yeah, that is the case in desktops but we are talking about mobile GPUs what iMacs use. That's why I said take a look at my links because they are for mobile GPUs. I know in desktop side the 58xx series is amazing, runs circles around 48xx but unfortunately, that's not the case for mobility versions. Best mobility chip is based on Juniper, not Cypress

ATi needs to bring Cypress to the iMac naooooooooo!

 

[Hellhammer]

****, it is based on Juniper (WHY?!?!?!??!!? ATi WHY!!?!?!?!?!)

Maybe Cypress is too expensive (or was) and needs too much power. It really is sad E.g. mobility 5850 has bus width of 128bit while mobility 4850 has 256bit

Please see these two links to do the comparing yourself

ATI Mobility 4850
ATI Mobility 5850

 

[DesmoPilot]

Well, people who have said that were not able to provide acceptable evidence. TMraven's post provides again more evidence that it does not increase temps by much.

Well ~10C isn't much; the amount of heat added increases with OCing though. Hop over to any enthusiast forum and look for big i7 overclocking threads (which may buried now, but the 930/875K threads should still be viewable) the biggest dilemma for quite a few people is weather or not to keep HT on due to the heat increase.

 

[lpolarityl]

Here ya go guys, found something relevant to the temperature debat.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...e-i5-750-core-i7-870-processor-review-20.html

Scroll down and look at the temps on the right (load temps with the MUX cooler). That shows the 8-10C difference I'm talking about. The stock Intel cooler has poor cooling which is why temps are similar, in other words, it lets the i5 750 get to the same temps as the 870 which means it sucks in simple terms.

 

[lpolarityl]

All I know is, my i5 750 couldn't do this.

I need to hackintosh this X6...

 

[TMRaven]

Here ya go guys, found something relevant to the temperature debat.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...e-i5-750-core-i7-870-processor-review-20.html

Scroll down and look at the temps on the right (load temps with the MUX cooler). That shows the 8-10C difference I'm talking about. The stock Intel cooler has poor cooling which is why temps are similar, in other words, it lets the i5 750 get to the same temps as the 870 which means it sucks in simple terms.

Ok, those numbers further back up my other post, where I said the i7 870 showed a power consumption increase over i5 750, but was only a marginal increase in comparison to the i7 920. With the ultra cooler, the temp differences between the i5 750 and i7 870 in those tests are 5-8c. Given i7 860 will run slightly cooler, and the presumably inferior cooler in the iMacs will make less of a difference, you're still left with around 2-6c in difference at most. Either way it's not that big of a dealbreaker for users who want to get the i7 860 over i5 750 in the current iMacs.

 

[Hellhammer]

Ok, those numbers further back up my other post, where I said the i7 870 showed a power consumption increase over i5 750, but was only a marginal increase in comparison to the i7 920. With the ultra cooler, the temp differences between the i5 750 and i7 870 in those tests are 5-8c. Given i7 860 will run slightly cooler, and the presumably inferior cooler in the iMacs will make less of a difference, you're still left with around 2-6c in difference at most. Either way it's not that big of a dealbreaker for users who want to get the i7 860 over i5 750 in the current iMacs.

Mmm. I think we just turned a mouse into a dinosaur If there is few Celsius difference when under load, so what? It's worth the performance gain. When HT is not in use, the temps should be fairly similar and most of the time HT is not used, unless you do video encoding day after day.

P.S. Sorry if some of my posts have been little unfriendly, I didn't mean it. Sometimes when I have to explain the same thing over and over again, it heats me up. I try to do my homework as best as I can and always include as many sources as possible. I feel I'm right until proven otherwise, just like everyone else Also, please correct me if you think I'm wrong in something, I don't know everything. Just remember to show some backup for your statement. I admit that it seems to be that HT adds few Celsius depending on cooling system but the extra 130MHz also adds some heat.

 

[lpolarityl]

Mmm. I think we just turned a mouse into a dinosaur If there is few Celsius difference when under load, so what? It's worth the performance gain. When HT is not in use, the temps should be fairly similar and most of the time HT is not used, unless you do video encoding day after day.

P.S. Sorry if some of my posts have been little unfriendly, I didn't mean it. Sometimes when I have to explain the same thing over and over again, it heats me up. I try to do my homework as best as I can and always include as many sources as possible. I feel I'm right until proven otherwise, just like everyone else Also, please correct me if you think I'm wrong in something, I don't know everything. Just remember to show some backup for your statement. I admit that it seems to be that HT adds few Celsius depending on cooling system but the extra 130MHz also adds some heat.

No biggie hellhammer, debating is fun, learning is fun, its Friday and iPhone 4 is coming next week. It's all good.