4870 2GB reviewed

[thilanliyan]

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=737

 

[ExcaliburMM]

Not much improvement from what I saw.

The only way I could justify getting the 2GB instead of the 1GB was if the price difference was minimal or if I planned to OC it quite a bit, assuming it has the room. This is also assuming possession of a monitor that plays @ very high resolutions to take advantage of all that memory.

Wonder if they'll do something like this with the 4890...

 

[Leyawiin]

If you're going to play at a resolution that would make a tiny bit of difference between the two you might as well get an HD 4870 X2 and blow the 2GB into the weeds.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Leyawiin
If you're going to play at a resolution that would make a tiny bit of difference between the two you might as well get an HD 4870 X2 and blow the 2GB into the weeds.

It's a tiny bit of difference in frames in GTAIV, but a 64% difference in the view distance. Being able to go to the maximum amount on every setting and maintaining the same performance is a solid improvement.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: Leyawiin
If you're going to play at a resolution that would make a tiny bit of difference between the two you might as well get an HD 4870 X2 and blow the 2GB into the weeds.

It's a tiny bit of difference in frames in GTAIV, but a 64% difference in the view distance. Being able to go to the maximum amount on every setting and maintaining the same performance is a solid improvement.

Agreed, increasing the view distance is very nice.

 

[pcslookout]

Wow it uses 1500 MB of ram with all setting on maximum :Q

I guess 4 GB video ram here we come soon! lol

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Wow it uses 1500 MB of ram with all setting on maximum :Q

I guess 4 GB video ram here we come soon! lol

Rockstar builds their engines to last like 5 years, so they make them able to use more resources than are available.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Wow it uses 1500 MB of ram with all setting on maximum :Q

I guess 4 GB video ram here we come soon! lol

Rockstar builds their engines to last like 5 years, so they make them able to use more resources than are available.

That excuse was used for Crysis too and it still runs like doodoo.

Plus, At least crysis looks good, GTA um...it would have looked good 3 years ago maybe.

 

[vj8usa]

Hm, too bad they didn't use the availablevidmem command (or whatever it's called) in GTA4 that lets you increase how much VRAM the game thinks you have. I would've liked to see them max the view distance on the 1GB card, so we could really see the usefulness of the 2GB card.

 

[palladium]

This card might be more useful when paired together in a CF config.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Wow it uses 1500 MB of ram with all setting on maximum :Q

I guess 4 GB video ram here we come soon! lol

Rockstar builds their engines to last like 5 years, so they make them able to use more resources than are available.

That excuse was used for Crysis too and it still runs like doodoo.

Plus, At least crysis looks good, GTA um...it would have looked good 3 years ago maybe.

GTA4 on PC looks fantastic when you crank everything up.

Honestly i cant even crank the settings up that far with the rig in sig and it still looks fantastic.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Wow it uses 1500 MB of ram with all setting on maximum :Q

I guess 4 GB video ram here we come soon! lol

Rockstar builds their engines to last like 5 years, so they make them able to use more resources than are available.

That excuse was used for Crysis too and it still runs like doodoo.

Plus, At least crysis looks good, GTA um...it would have looked good 3 years ago maybe.

GTA4 on PC looks fantastic when you crank everything up.

Honestly i cant even crank the settings up that far with the rig in sig and it still looks fantastic.

No it doesn't look fantastic. There is no AA, the shadows are like from 2003 and here and there the textures are horrible. This game is ported like crap from the consoles and they're saying it's made for "future hardware" just to cover up their silly coding.

In a time where most games are using 512 mb of Vram to run maxed out, GTA 4 comes in sucking 2 or more Gb of Vram. Forgive me, but that is a very stupid made game.

 

[AzN]

GTA 4 PC still looks whole lot better than the console version regardless. Sure it needs AA but that's programming limitation.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Wow it uses 1500 MB of ram with all setting on maximum :Q

I guess 4 GB video ram here we come soon! lol

Rockstar builds their engines to last like 5 years, so they make them able to use more resources than are available.

That excuse was used for Crysis too and it still runs like doodoo.

Plus, At least crysis looks good, GTA um...it would have looked good 3 years ago maybe.

GTA4 on PC looks fantastic when you crank everything up.

Honestly i cant even crank the settings up that far with the rig in sig and it still looks fantastic.

No it doesn't look fantastic. There is no AA, the shadows are like from 2003 and here and there the textures are horrible. This game is ported like crap from the consoles and they're saying it's made for "future hardware" just to cover up their silly coding.

In a time where most games are using 512 mb of Vram to run maxed out, GTA 4 comes in sucking 2 or more Gb of Vram. Forgive me, but that is a very stupid made game.

You are suggesting that somehow poor coding is what leads to the large memory usage?

It cant possibly be the high resolution textures and the sheer volume of data from the massive clipping range?

The only thing you could possibly bitch about is the AA...

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: error8
In a time where most games are using 512 mb of Vram to run maxed out, GTA 4 comes in sucking 2 or more Gb of Vram. Forgive me, but that is a very stupid made game.

Huh?

I have yet to see evidence that it uses more than 2GB of VRAM.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Acanthus


The only thing you could possibly bitch about is the AA...

I can bitch about lots of things. The lack of AA is the only thing you see wrong in this game, huh? The shadows are fine, though, isn't it? Many big dots put together create the shadows in this game. Great!
The graphics are not amazing. At least for me they're not. Warhead had superb graphics, FarCry has wicked graphics, GTA 4 doesn't.

"Massive clipping range", give me a break. There are lots of games having big clipping ranges and they do not ask for 2 gb of vram to run fine. Textures do not look as they are at very high resolutions, at least not in every part of the game. Admit it, there just isn't any reason for this game to eat so much video memory. I understand it asks for quad cores to run fine, but that much vram is a stupid request. I would have probably understood that, if I was to game at 2560X1600 with 48X AA. But at 1680X1050, with no AA it's silly.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: error8
In a time where most games are using 512 mb of Vram to run maxed out, <GTA 4 comes in sucking 2 or more Gb of Vram. Forgive me, but that is a very stupid made game.

Huh?

I have yet to see evidence that it uses more than 2GB of VRAM.

I was overreacting a "bit" to state my point. :laugh:

 

[Ichigo]

GTA pretty much stresses the CPU as much as the GPU. Sure yours is overclocked to hell and back but that doesn't make up for the lack of a third/fourth core that GTA needs desperately.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Ichigo
GTA pretty much stresses the CPU as much as the GPU. Sure yours is overclocked to hell and back but that doesn't make up for the lack of a third/fourth core that GTA needs desperately.

Have you read anything I've said here? I'm only speaking about vram consumption. I'm not complaining about the overall performance I'm getting with my system.

 

[Acanthus]

To each their own i guess.

If it looked like crysis it would run substantially worse.

Inefficient coding doesnt even lead to high Vram usage, so just throw that argument out the window and i agree with the rest.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: error8
I can bitch about lots of things. The lack of AA is the only thing you see wrong in this game, huh? The shadows are fine, though, isn't it? Many big dots put together create the shadows in this game. Great!
The graphics are not amazing. At least for me they're not. Warhead had superb graphics, FarCry has wicked graphics, GTA 4 doesn't.

"Massive clipping range", give me a break. There are lots of games having big clipping ranges and they do not ask for 2 gb of vram to run fine. Textures do not look as they are at very high resolutions, at least not in every part of the game. Admit it, there just isn't any reason for this game to eat so much video memory. I understand it asks for quad cores to run fine, but that much vram is a stupid request. I would have probably understood that, if I was to game at 2560X1600 with 48X AA. But at 1680X1050, with no AA it's silly.

I'd disagree, I think the game's overall visuals are great, not on a micro level in a screenshot, but as a whole as it essentially lets you roam around Manhattan seamlessly without ever zoning or loading. I posted this link to PCGH GTA4 Graphical Tweaks in a GTA 4 thread but you can try it out if AA and shadows are bothering you.

I'd recommend Smooth Shadows On, Depth of Field Off, Motion Blur On. The 1.03 patch breaks these tweaks, so they'll most likely need to be reapplied. You can see the difference in the screenshots below extend beyond shadows and also provide some AA on edges as well as very distinct blending for alpha textures.

• Also, FSAA does not work for those wondering, maybe if there's ever a DX10 version released. The game uses deferred rendering and shading along with heavy alpha to coverage sampling for transparencies. The Smooth Shadows tweak I linked earlier actually looks like it increases the level of Alpha Blending, which essentially smooths edges and decreases aliasing on alpha textures, which isn't bad given traditional MSAA and TrAA methods don't work.
  
  Smooth Shadows Off
  Smooth Shadows On
  
  Notice the big difference in the trees, fences and shadows. There's also some light edge smoothing throughout the scene.

 

[error8]

Interesting tweaks, chizow. I should try them out. The shadows are the ones that annoys me most at this game. They look totally unreal and spoil much of the graphic quality of the game.