One thing i'm certain about performance is that the 6750 will be about the same perf. as the 5850, the 6770=5870, 6650=5750, 6670=5770. And so on.
Its the 6970 performance that is unpredictable
I somehow doubt 6750 will equal the 5850. The only time in recent generations that a jump that large has happened is from the 4k to the 5k series. That's not a normal jump.
That makes the 6870 barely faster than the 5870....
Since the 5830 is actually no better than a 4890.
Whats the point in releasing a new high-end if it is only around GTX 480 speeds?
They have done worse before. 2900 -> 3870 is a prime example. The 3870 wasn't any faster. But that was the other extreme, and dead opposite of the 4k -> 5k jump I mentioned above.
I think it will be somewhere in between.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HQV/HQV_2.0/
If ATI is selling millions of these cards, and only a few thousand have issues. I would call that a success on their part. Of course if you have issues you will always feel like they are doing a poor job.
I use mine for more than playing games. It also runs my 46" TV with netflix, DVD's, home movies, etc....
Nvidia has had extra plugins to make this work in the past, now at least tehy have integrated audio, but they are still lacking in image quality for content.
As far as games go I believe they are tit for tat.
The driver issues aren't small. I understand that less have issues than don't, but that still doesn't make it acceptable. I've had some sort of bug or another since 8.11, thru about 10 different ATI combimations in single, double and triple setups. I am (was) a strong ATI supporter, but the driver quality keeps going down, whereas the driver quality of my nVidia setups has actually increased. ATI has some seriously kick ass hardware out there right now, and if I came across a really killer deal, I'd still get one. (Anybody wanna trade a 4870x2 with a DD full cover for a reference 5850? lol.)
Does that mean I think ATI is a terrible company? No, it doesn't. I just feel that they have shifted too much attention to hardware, and not enough to the software to control it. I haven't written them off forever. It's all cyclical. They'll come back around to suit my needs again. But if I'm gonna pay near retail prices, I'm going nVidia the next time around until ATI gets the Catalyst team back in gear.
I actually thought you were referring to gaming quality, but I'll comment on the video quality aspect anyway. For playback, I don't use any driver enhancements for my media with either nV or ATI. I use cpu decoding and filters. I even disable all the MS decoders. Thank you ffdshow. All of my screens are calibrated, and the quality is the same.
I do see your point tho. Better for the standard user in video playback. It does make ATI a good choice for that.
Although I would still likely choose nVidia for a low powered HTPC type of rig, only because CUDA decoding via CoreAVC is capable of accelerating more advanced h.264 features that DXVA can't.
I wouldn't mind seeing that, along with 2GB per GPU standard. The wider bus would allow the use of lower powered and slower GDDR5, yet maintain high performance.