AT review of 4870 1GB

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sgrinavi

Originally posted by: apoppin
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415&p=7

unless Cat 8.9 completely fixed Grid's stuttering and lagging, 4870/512 has playability issues at 19x12
.. nevermind 25x16 - i'd LOVE to see AT's minimums in their reviews

i think i will pick up Grid today

i don't seen any minimum FPS given .. that is crucial to any "playability" review, imo

Grid is funny.... you have to reinstall the damn thing every time you change your hardware, or so it seems....

I'd like to know why Grid has such a difference between the two architectures.

It's not memory.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Insomniator
All that article did is make me want to get a 280 1gb....

Fixed

Best FPS for the buck

I guess I just don't see that. A new GTX280 costs over $400. A Radeon 4870 costs under $300, even for the 1GB model. Looking through Anandtech's review, the 4870 is faster in a few benches, and within a few percentage points of the GTX280 in the other benches, with the exception of Oblivion. In Oblivion the GTX280 really pulls away and justifies it's price premium, but in just that single game. In the other games tested it didn't appear near fast enough to justify it's $100+/33%+ premium over the 4870.

 

[Janooo]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Insomniator
All that article did is make me want to get a 280 1gb....

Fixed

Best FPS for the buck

I guess I just don't see that. A new GTX280 costs over $400. A Radeon 4870 costs under $300, even for the 1GB model. Looking through Anandtech's review, the 4870 is faster in a few benches, and within a few percentage points of the GTX280 in the other benches, with the exception of Oblivion. In Oblivion the GTX280 really pulls away and justifies it's price premium, but in just that single game. In the other games tested it didn't appear near fast enough to justify it's $100+/33%+ premium over the 4870.

Does anybody remember such a difference in performance per square mm? AMD is about 2x better in this area. Unbelievable.

 

[sourthings]

More sweet and surprising performance from ATI. Very nice.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Janooo

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Insomniator
All that article did is make me want to get a 280 1gb....

Fixed

Best FPS for the buck

I guess I just don't see that. A new GTX280 costs over $400. A Radeon 4870 costs under $300, even for the 1GB model. Looking through Anandtech's review, the 4870 is faster in a few benches, and within a few percentage points of the GTX280 in the other benches, with the exception of Oblivion. In Oblivion the GTX280 really pulls away and justifies it's price premium, but in just that single game. In the other games tested it didn't appear near fast enough to justify it's $100+/33%+ premium over the 4870.

Does anybody remember such a difference in performance per square mm? AMD is about 2x better in this area. Unbelievable.

Who gives a damn about the die size - other than its manufacturer? It is the final performance that counts; and Nvidia does have the fastest single GPU atm. Nvidia has a big percentage of it's tesla die devoted to CUDA and non gaming tasks. i also got my 280GTX for $380 and i play way more the 7 games than Derek reviewed - Most of which are "real world" benches - with no repeatability and no minimum or maximum FPS specified.


It looks like a larger die size even might be a potential advantage if Nvidia decides to stack their RAM chips on the tesla die; by my count they could stack all 16 modules with room to spare

At any rate, i just bought and installed Grid and i will be taking my 280, 4870 and x2 for a test drive. i don't care about "average" anymore - i am looking for *playability*

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: apoppin
At any rate, i just bought and installed Grid and i will be taking my 280, 4870 and x2 for a test drive. i don't care about "average" anymore - i am looking for *playability*

Well put. Averages mean very little to me. It is interesting to me that this became very apparent to me after conducting only a handful of benchmarks between a 4870 X2 and a GTX 280, yet review sites keep on serving up the same average based benchmarks year after year...

Originally posted by: sgrinavi
Grid is funny.... you have to reinstall the damn thing every time you change your hardware, or so it seems....

Weird, I didn't have any GRID issues swapping between a GTX 280 and 4870 X2 repeatedly.

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Wow, as far as average frame rates go this card pretty much trades blows with the GTX280. Seems like a winner for under $300 to me.

This is true, the 4870 1GB has placed itself well as a great bang for the buck high end card. On the flip side though, the GTX 260 is still a serious contender for $250 or less.

Both companies, while they have some really good options for consumers, have ended up with a kind of wonky product line. ATI has cannibalized the 4870 512MB with the 4870 1GB - there is almost zero reason to buy a 512MB given the small price difference between them. Likewise, NV has made it really hard to justify the purchase of a GTX 280 with the introduction of the GTX 260/216 and the severe price drops of the original GTX 260.

 

[Makaveli]

i'm pretty sure we will see a price drop on the 512mb 4870 before long.

 

[bryanW1995]

there should be a $50-$75 price delta from 4870 512 to 1gb. Problem is, 4870 512 has a very strong reputation and won't go down quietly. In fact, I'd wager that 2/3 or more of 4870 purchasers could easily get away with a 4850 right now but they're planning "for the future". I prefer to buy a good card now and then upgrade in a year or so when the next big thing comes out.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: apoppin
At any rate, i just bought and installed Grid and i will be taking my 280, 4870 and x2 for a test drive. i don't care about "average" anymore - i am looking for *playability*

Well put. Averages mean very little to me. It is interesting to me that this became very apparent to me after conducting only a handful of benchmarks between a 4870 X2 and a GTX 280, yet review sites keep on serving up the same average based benchmarks year after year...

Originally posted by: sgrinavi
Grid is funny.... you have to reinstall the damn thing every time you change your hardware, or so it seems....

Weird, I didn't have any GRID issues swapping between a GTX 280 and 4870 X2 repeatedly.

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Wow, as far as average frame rates go this card pretty much trades blows with the GTX280. Seems like a winner for under $300 to me.

This is true, the 4870 1GB has placed itself well as a great bang for the buck high end card. On the flip side though, the GTX 260 is still a serious contender for $250 or less.

Both companies, while they have some really good options for consumers, have ended up with a kind of wonky product line. ATI has cannibalized the 4870 512MB with the 4870 1GB - there is almost zero reason to buy a 512MB given the small price difference between them. Likewise, NV has made it really hard to justify the purchase of a GTX 280 with the introduction of the GTX 260/216 and the severe price drops of the original GTX 260.

First of all, FPS in Grid generally run over 70 as a minimum on my HD4870x2/e8600@3.99Ghz at 19x12 with everything maxed in-game ... i think that was the lowest i found in looking over the FRAPS graph. Those are the same figures that Wilson gets at 25x16!!

HOWEVER, i am uncertain exactly how to "benchmark" it repeatably. i get variations over 3%. It does replay the race, but it appears to be more of a cutscene; so that is pretty useless. And at the start, there are the other cars to contend with so the AI is always changing with each race and yours vs. their position in the race according to the way it starts - sometimes you even get bumped or contact another car.

i found this in one of AT's articles:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3370&p=5

. . . used FRAPS to test performance over the first 20 seconds into one of the races. The section used for the benchmark is at the beginning of the race, so there are lots of vehicles on screen which may cause frame rates to be be slightly lower than what you will see in other areas of the game

OK, i ran the introductory race and then the 2nd one, completely with FRAPS running - starting with my car alone on the track. With 4870x2, i got 70 FPS as a minimum. According to this review we are discussing by Derek, the x2 scales really [really] well over the 512MB 4870 - from 43.9 to 82.6 FPS - at 25x16; which i guess is 'average' since they bench while they are racing against other cars - otoh, i waited till they passed me before starting FRAPS and got averages a lot higher.

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415&p=7

So, i did them all over starting with the other cars and FRAPS with the green light; i restarted "san francisco" - over and over and just ran FRAPS with the other cars, for probably 20 seconds also; i can pretty much confirm about 69 FPS as a minimum and 79-83 as the average .. 100-110 FPS as the top - all details maxed in-game including 4xAA at 19x12. My HD4870x2 is stock and my e8600 is 10mhz shy of 4.0Ghz


Next up is 4870/512 .. and then as soon as i get my Nvidia clean install partition fully up, the 280GTX goes for a test drive. But the X2 could be considered Overkill for Grid at 19x12. You will want to consider the Grid Mods, for sure

btw, the visuals and ai and the "feel" of the cars are great .. the 911 turbo is a b!tch to corner unless you are hard on the accelerator coming out of the turn .. just like a Porsche.

EDIT: HOLD ON .. i am testing at 19x12 and i got the same FPS as Derek got at 25x16
:Q

this bears investigation

 

[SonicIce]

Originally posted by: sskk

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
I play at 1920x1200 and have absolutley NO issues with stuttering and lagging at all. I play Warhammer Online with AA and some AF on also. Sure it's only $25-$30 but is it really worth it for 2-4 FPS at 1920x1200? NOPE.

That statement is very illogical, you can always say this no matter what performance is, one can always keep go up or go down in the price, but you will have to pick a point. And if you think rationally, it makes sense to spend a little more to get more smooth frame rate.

Now if you are going to say 2-4 FPS is unnoticeable, that's NOT TRUE. First, in some game avg 30 to avg 34 can make a difference. Also, 2-4 maybe unnoticeable what about 4-8? 10-20? Like I said, you have to pick a point, and what makes the point you picked that much better than others?

Sorry if this sound a little charged, but I hate seeing irrational argument like xxx is so small of a change it's "unnoticeable" and not even worth $(also a very very small sum as well). Unless you can show its price/performance is worse, you cannot say it's not worth it just because a little away from the price/performance point you picked.

Well one thing is, you could overclock to get those 2-4fps easily.

 

[ronnn]

$340 Canadian at NCIX. $80 - $90 more than the cheapest 512mb variant. Not too great.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: apoppin
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415&p=7

unless Cat 8.9 completely fixed Grid's stuttering and lagging, 4870/512 has playability issues at 19x12
.. nevermind 25x16 - i'd LOVE to see AT's minimums in their reviews

i think i will pick up Grid today

i don't seen any minimum FPS given .. that is crucial to any "playability" review, imo

Pop, hope you have a wheel mate...I dont understand people who play racing games with a gamepad or heaven forbid, a keyboard...You need a controlled analogue input for turning and 1/2 throttle when cornering....Oh, by the way, I love this game!

 

[apoppin]

dp

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Originally posted by: apoppin
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415&p=7

unless Cat 8.9 completely fixed Grid's stuttering and lagging, 4870/512 has playability issues at 19x12
.. nevermind 25x16 - i'd LOVE to see AT's minimums in their reviews

i think i will pick up Grid today

i don't seen any minimum FPS given .. that is crucial to any "playability" review, imo

Pop, hope you have a wheel mate...I dont understand people who play racing games with a gamepad or heaven forbid, a keyboard...You need a controlled analogue input for turning and 1/2 throttle when cornering....Oh, by the way, I love this game!

no wheel, i make due with an x-box controller - i love Grid also .. at first sight
:heart:

However, there are strange inconsistencies with Derek's review

first of all, he is using July release Cat 8.7 when 8.9 has been out for a couple of weeks

secondly, i get the same results he gets at 19x12 - 83 FPS average in Grid - that he gets at 25x16 !!

i should get better frame rates with the newer drivers [especially considering i am at a much lower resolution] ... and with a MUCH faster CPU then his 3.2 QC - mine is e8600@3.99Ghz; Grid doesn't use 4 cores. i ran FRAPs benches over and over [and over ] and over .. and then over again a few more times including completing 2 races. How does he get his X2 to get 83 as an average at 25x16? Or is he using "high" figures; that makes no sense.


Anyone else have Grid and 4870x2 and care to run a fraps run at 19x12 with everything maxed out?

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: sourthings
More sweet and surprising performance from ATI. Very nice.

Couldn't agree more!

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
I'm surprised they saw so little improvement in Oblivion. As I posted in the comments. I wonder if their Oblivion test just uses vanilla textures.

Anyway, I already ordered one 4870 1GB a few days ago and it's currently on its way to Ottawa.

Probably more so then FP32/16 blending rates although it does do HDR. It's such an old game now that all the fancy features are getting diminishing gains.

 

[Tab]

I'm just hoping for a 4870 512MB price drop, I've got a 1680x1050 display and don't care about AA or AF and a 4850 doesn't cut it.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Price drop on 4870 1GB $260 after rebate.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Janooo

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Insomniator
All that article did is make me want to get a 280 1gb....

Fixed

Best FPS for the buck

I guess I just don't see that. A new GTX280 costs over $400. A Radeon 4870 costs under $300, even for the 1GB model. Looking through Anandtech's review, the 4870 is faster in a few benches, and within a few percentage points of the GTX280 in the other benches, with the exception of Oblivion. In Oblivion the GTX280 really pulls away and justifies it's price premium, but in just that single game. In the other games tested it didn't appear near fast enough to justify it's $100+/33%+ premium over the 4870.

Does anybody remember such a difference in performance per square mm? AMD is about 2x better in this area. Unbelievable.

Who gives a damn about the die size - other than its manufacturer? It is the final performance that counts; and Nvidia does have the fastest single GPU atm. Nvidia has a big percentage of it's tesla die devoted to CUDA and non gaming tasks. i also got my 280GTX for $380 and i play way more the 7 games than Derek reviewed - Most of which are "real world" benches - with no repeatability and no minimum or maximum FPS specified.


It looks like a larger die size even might be a potential advantage if Nvidia decides to stack their RAM chips on the tesla die; by my count they could stack all 16 modules with room to spare

At any rate, i just bought and installed Grid and i will be taking my 280, 4870 and x2 for a test drive. i don't care about "average" anymore - i am looking for *playability*

I don't think he said that you have to care about it when making a purchasing decision, but it is interesting none the less. I don't think anyone here would buy a card based on the GPU's performance per mm, or suggest that anyone buy a card based on performance per mm. That doesn't mean it's still not a point of interest if nothing else just for seeing Nvidia and AMD's different approaches.

 

[apoppin]

My point was replying to

AMD is about 2x better in this area. Unbelievable.

there is no "better" .. just different .. it costs Nvidia a lot of die size for CUDA
- since Jensen mentioned "15 years", i expect Nvidia is looking way beyond 3D gaming for their future

interesting indeed

 

[phexac]

I was actually seriously considering that card, but ended up going with OCed original GTX260. It was a much better value with MIR, factory OC, and CoD4. Also I am was won over by dramatically lower power consumption on idle of NVIDIA cards and no issues with cards being too hot out of the box due to fan speed. The performance difference between these cards is not great enough to warrant paying extra for the 1GB variant of 4870. In most games at 1920x1200 it's a few frames, which never makes a difference between playable and not playable.

Not saying 4000 series aren't great cards, but power consumption and fan issues, combined with lower price and included game won me over to the NVIDIA side.

 

[libertarian420]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
All that article did is make me want to get a 260 SLI setup....

Would need a new psu though... and my x2 5000+ wouldn't keep up... bah....

Your CPU is fine; I have the same kind except clocked at 2.3 GHZ and not a black ed and it doesn't hold me back with anything.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: apoppin
My point was replying to

AMD is about 2x better in this area. Unbelievable.

there is no "better" .. just different .. it costs Nvidia a lot of die size for CUDA
- since Jensen mentioned "15 years", i expect Nvidia is looking way beyond 3D gaming for their future

interesting indeed

Well, die size is somewhat proportional to power consumption, so I would consider it relevant to consumers. It's also no secret that getting more performance per nm^2 is "better".

Obviously, based on my rig in sig, this wasn't a deal breaker for me, but I did invest in a new PSU prior to going SLI with two GTX 280s.

 

[TestSpecimen]

Originally posted by: ronnn
$340 Canadian at NCIX. $80 - $90 more than the cheapest 512mb variant. Not too great.

I see a Diamond 1GB going for $320; it's on sale at the moment. Otherwise prices for the 512MB cards from Diamond, HIS, Sapphire and Visiontek seem to hover around the $280 mark when they're on sale, so it's only a $40 difference between those and the Diamond 1GB. Otherwise, they're at pretty much the same price. Unless, of course, if you're talking about Palit or Gigabyte, they've got some great deals on right now.

 

[Janooo]

Originally posted by: apoppin
My point was replying to

AMD is about 2x better in this area. Unbelievable.

there is no "better" .. just different .. it costs Nvidia a lot of die size for CUDA
- since Jensen mentioned "15 years", i expect Nvidia is looking way beyond 3D gaming for their future

interesting indeed

Performance per square mm is related to the direct manufacturing cost and at the end it affects the price you pay for it.