1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Hardware AMD 880G Graphics Performance Review

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Sifter3000, 24 May 2010.

  1. Sifter3000

    Sifter3000 I used to be somebody

    Joined:
    11 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    26
  2. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    Nope, you spot a Christmas Edn Fenrir ;)
     
  3. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    A tad dissapointing, especially since they could've shoved a HD5xxx low end card for the IGP and have phenomal performance.
     
  4. SteveU

    SteveU New Member

    Joined:
    19 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    110
    Likes Received:
    2
    lol, I love the irony of this line:

    "If we were feeling mean, we might point out that AMD has been using a 55nm process since 2008 (first seen on the 780G) but it's a technology that works and we'd rather AMD concentrate on shrinking its CPU and GPU dies than its chipsets."
     
  5. Goty

    Goty New Member

    Joined:
    13 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    411
    Likes Received:
    4
    Your comment about AMD "fiddling with how the game is rendered" seems a little unfounded since it doesn't appear that you tested both IGPs with the same driver revision for the screenshot you give as an example. It is entirely possible (and likely) that this is simply a driver bug.
     
  6. rickysio

    rickysio N900 | HJE900

    Joined:
    6 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    964
    Likes Received:
    5
    Read again. AMD has to have had fiddled with the way the game worked, otherwise with both at the same driver edition the rendered scene should be the exact same. But since they're not at the same driver edition, and the output differs...

    If it looks like a horse, acts like a horse, call it a horse.
     
  7. sandys

    sandys Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Mar 2006
    Posts:
    2,919
    Likes Received:
    74
    Just a question on those chipsets when you say dual DVI, does that mean they support dual link dvi, I'm looking for a cheap ass low power integrated solution to drive my screen at 2560x1600 but am never sure if Dual DVI in these cases means two DVI ports or a dual link port.
     
  8. Goty

    Goty New Member

    Joined:
    13 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    411
    Likes Received:
    4
    Or, if it looks like a horse, and acts like a horse, it might still be a bug! I would like if they at least alluded to the possibility.
     
  9. Action_Parsnip

    Action_Parsnip New Member

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    720
    Likes Received:
    40
    Eeeeeerr ....no. That doesnt rule out the possibility of a driver bug, nor does it make it unlikey. The hardware has undergone changes, the igp bios and the mb chipset for one (two). It occurs in one game, a fairly low-profile title, using the current driver, which is required and (unless your in the tin foil hat gang) strongly alludes to hardware changes requiring a software alteration to support, rather than being a benchmark result stealing driver shenanigans swizz.

    The rendering errors are on this evidence a matter of good 'ol quality control not at work in the catalyst team. It could even be an issue with the mb's bios. Saying the figures are fudged for deliberate reasons is rather rash.
     
  10. fincrisp

    fincrisp New Member

    Joined:
    25 May 2010
    Posts:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0

    Wow I am really surprised no one picked up on this.....check out Anandtech on their "perfect HTPC card" review. Apparantly AMD does prequailifying of their drivers based on the shader count (I think starting with 10.0) and the task being required and will adjust detail levels accordingly. The driver can be forced to do the full rendering and sometimes it just "guesses" wrong. Call it a bug if you want, but it is a bug by design. I am not saying that I agree with AMD, but for most newbie types it is the simplist to get the best performance out of their hardware. I am just surpised the reviewer didn't pick up on this or at least tried to get it clairified with AMD before running the article. Shoot I even knew about, and what do I know...
     
  11. rickysio

    rickysio N900 | HJE900

    Joined:
    6 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    964
    Likes Received:
    5
    I keep forgetting that not all people read AnandTech. That, and I need to quote sources.

    I should also stop posting when sick - the replies tend to be very gruffy.
     
  12. Action_Parsnip

    Action_Parsnip New Member

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    720
    Likes Received:
    40
    Hey, you had man-flu, thats all you had to say :-D

    A dose of the sniffles feels like a dose of ebola for me, must be the 'y' chromosome at work.
     
  13. kj_bittech

    kj_bittech New Member

    Joined:
    26 May 2010
    Posts:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought the largest benefit of the 880G chip was the south bridge. The previous south bridge (SB710) had performance issues with ACHI (had to use windows drivers). The performance issues were obvious with sub $100 SSD configs. So, I would get the 880G, an inexpensive SSD (indilinx based sub $100) and a WD Caviar Green for storage. This would be an inexpensive HTPC config.

    I would RAID (RAID0) the SSD's also. If you tried this with 78XG you would get pokey performance at best, while using the 880, for some bench marks, the AMD chipset is faster than any Intel offering. The performance is noticeable user performance (i.e. throughput).

    I recently purchased the MSI 890GX mobo upgrade from the ASUS 780G (uATX). The 780G had UI performance issues in W7 Media Center when playing back HD content (e.g TV, Blu-RAY, etc). I wouldn't go back!
     
  14. kj_bittech

    kj_bittech New Member

    Joined:
    26 May 2010
    Posts:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would get the 880 over the 78X series anytime because the pokey performance of the 78X chipset with AHCI. An inexpensive SSD config will expose the 78X chipset issues. Better $$$ spent on the 880/890 offerings.
     
  15. TWeaK

    TWeaK New Member

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    521
    Likes Received:
    7
    This is pretty much what I've said throughout all the 8xx series reviews: unless a cheap board comes along with core unlocking, it's just not worth it over a 7xx series board. I doubt any manufacterer's will do this though, as it's a feature they've had to work hard at and they'll want to recover their investment by keeping it exclusive to their top of the range boards. That, and for all we know they may have been asked by AMD not to release it on the mainstream boards for the sake of their brand.

    Either way, my upgrade is done now and I'm very happy with my i3 530. Need to play around with the OC more (all I've done so far is whack in the values from BT's review and hey-presto), but I've got a solid CPU that was cheap enough for me to splash out on a good GPU. That, and when I retire this PC it'll be perfectly suited to becomming a media PC. Now, if only I could figure out a way to make a discrete case for my old 939 system to go in the living room... :dremel:
     
  16. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    I used 780G for two years as my HTPC. It worked perfectly with Vista, Win 7 and Ubuntu.

    The only issue with the 7xx southbridges was USB performance as far as I'm aware. I wouldnt use RAID on an AMD southbridge anyway - you're asking for trouble. You realise they just license it from Siliconimage?
     
  17. kj_bittech

    kj_bittech New Member

    Joined:
    26 May 2010
    Posts:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am am not saying my system didn't work, it just didn't perform as well as my intel system or as expected really. Also, this was a known issue. A performance issue really. Did you have sideport memory? Anyways, no problems now with my 890. SSD based 880 or 890 is still better in my opinion than 78X series with SSD.
     
  18. na5m

    na5m New Member

    Joined:
    18 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    The reason I chose this chipset is that it incorporates AHCI 1.2. A vast majority of MBs you see on newegg, tigerdirect, and the like are AHCI 1.1 based, which is fairly old by today's standards. AHCI 1.3 has been ratified for two years I think, and I cannot find a single MB with 1.3 support. Version 1.2, however, should (hopefully) end a lot of the headaches when installing an OS using the "AHCI" option in the BIOS for your SATA 2/3 or SSD drive.
     
  19. Kaotika

    Kaotika New Member

    Joined:
    25 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding this:
    "AMD has literally dialed the 785G up a notch and slapped on a new number."

    The only "problem" with the naming is that 785G is for unknown reason named as 7-series chipset, while it's in reality 8-series chipset.

    785G is RS880, while 880G is RS880P.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page