AT review of 4870 1GB

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: 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.

I saw the 512mb version go down to $240CAD but the deal is gone now.

 

[ronnn]

free shipping


Does require a rebate though.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: 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.

how does a 4850 not cut it ta 16x10, esp without AA/AF taken into account? An 8800gt is fine for at that res with no AA.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: 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.

not really

Nvidia has done some pretty good work in getting the power consumption of Tesla way down at idle compared to their previous architecture - for most of the time a consumer has their PC on.

Again ,, die size Depends on your goals

i am guessint Nvidia intends to be leading this kind of PC graphic market for 15 more years. That is what Jensen stated in his recent interview. Nvidia is concluding evidently that the market for PC gaming graphics is limited. i guess by then they expect the pro market and CUDA to largely replace the PC graphics gaming market for them. i think they can see the writing on the wall. They are getting solidly behind CUDA and have a new expanded vision to lead the new 3D market into many other consumer and pro applications besides gaming.

The GPU that most excels in performance per nm^2 is 4850. The 4850 is harder for Nvidia to counter because it also has such excellent performance/watt. If performance/mm^2 largely determines a company's gross margins and profits, then performance/watt determines a company's ability to put out a competitive product.

Nvidia does have the single best performing CPU, the GTX280 - i have one also. And i expect to try SLi with it eventually - after i explore PhysX.
However, a lot of that die size is reserved for *other* than gaming.

Nvidia's future

 

[bryanW1995]

apoppin, that is almost definitely true, but nvidia should have spent more time on kicking ass NOW instead of playing with future crap. my business is like that, too: I can spend tons of time developing young "green" salespeople, but they have to produce results or they I free up their future. Nvidia needs to focus this next round on their core competency and kick the crap out of 5xxx and larrabee or they risk not making it to a time when cuda is relevant enough to keep their company afloat.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
apoppin, that is almost definitely true, but nvidia should have spent more time on kicking ass NOW instead of playing with future crap. my business is like that, too: I can spend tons of time developing young "green" salespeople, but they have to produce results or they I free up their future. Nvidia needs to focus this next round on their core competency and kick the crap out of 5xxx and larrabee or they risk not making it to a time when cuda is relevant enough to keep their company afloat.

i believe i told them just that

- or at the very least they should have made their new vision clearer before the tesla launch.
- it appeared that they abandoned us, their tech fans - especially with a Gx2 costing $650 .. down to $400 very quickly followed by the much misunderstood 280GTX at the unrealistic $650 [in a recession, mind you] which also plummeted in price to $400 pretty quickly. And clearly they did not see 48x0 coming in so strongly with their own strategy they used in the past against ATi. The made a few misjudgments and also had some bad luck; yet it appears they are attempting to correct it.

At the Tesla launch, they had failure of their marketing to communicate; or worse, their company not communicating their vision to their marketing - it was confused and i remember being very disappointed myself. Just a few weeks before, i remember Nvidia hyping the crap out of Tesla as being an awesome gaming GPU with promises of playing Crysis on Very High at 19x12
- well none of that appeared to happen . . .

i wonder where the 360 job cuts are coming from

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: apoppin
clearly they did not see 48x0 coming in so strongly with their own strategy they used in the past against ATi.

I think it's more this than anything. Given the past year and half it was pretty hard to imagine ATI being really competitive so quickly, but it was nice to see the graphics wars heat up again and especially nice to see the price of performance plummet.

 

[shangshang]

Originally posted by: apoppin
........

i am guessint Nvidia intends to be leading this kind of PC graphic market for 15 more years. That is what Jensen stated in his recent interview. Nvidia is concluding evidently that the market for PC gaming graphics is limited. i guess by then they expect the pro market and CUDA to largely replace the PC graphics gaming market for them. i think they can see the writing on the wall. They are getting solidly behind CUDA and have a new expanded vision to lead the new 3D market into many other consumer and pro applications besides gaming.

Your guess is not wrong and in fact it's not a guess anymore, it's a strategy for NV that is already being executed as we debate. So I don't think it's even a guess anymore.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080925/aqth010.html?.v=75

NV does intend to move into other video markets aside from gaming. Frankly, if NV were to say right now that they would drop CUDA and ONLY focuses in making 3D gaming chip, their stock price would drop IMO. NV as a "gaming" company has reached its full value, they need to expand into other visual computing fields to survive, or else they'll just be the next 3Dfx, be gobbled up or go extinct. I don't understand why NV's evolving position is so hard for many "knowledgeable enthusiasts" understand.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: apoppin
........

i am guessint Nvidia intends to be leading this kind of PC graphic market for 15 more years. That is what Jensen stated in his recent interview. Nvidia is concluding evidently that the market for PC gaming graphics is limited. i guess by then they expect the pro market and CUDA to largely replace the PC graphics gaming market for them. i think they can see the writing on the wall. They are getting solidly behind CUDA and have a new expanded vision to lead the new 3D market into many other consumer and pro applications besides gaming.

Your guess is not wrong and in fact it's not a guess anymore, it's a strategy for NV that is already being executed as we debate. So I don't think it's even a guess anymore.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080925/aqth010.html?.v=75

NV does intend to move into other video markets aside from gaming. Frankly, if NV were to say right now that they would drop CUDA and ONLY focuses in making 3D gaming chip, their stock price would drop IMO. NV as a "gaming" company has reached its full value, they need to expand into other visual computing fields to survive, or else they'll just be the next 3Dfx, be gobbled up or go extinct. I don't understand why NV's evolving position is so hard for many "knowledgeable enthusiasts" understand.

well, i actualy knew it wasn't a guess

i attended Nvision08 and finally got the point of what Nvidia is doing with their new partners. i am quite impressed and it is exactly along the lines of my own long-held vision for a interactive 3-D web site/world.

i just wish the hell they would have let their tech fans know before their launch of Tesla. I believe they had an internal failure to communicate; marketing is partly to blame.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: 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.

Umm, yeah, it definitely does.

 

[TestSpecimen]

Originally posted by: ronnn
free shipping


Does require a rebate though.

How does Palit compare to the other ATI board manufacturers like Diamond, Visiontek, etc?

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: 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.

Exactly what I did. I was seriously looking at a 4870 and decided to go with the 4850 instead, because the single-slot form factor attracted me, as did the $100 price difference. Given I'm really not much of a gamer, I think I made the right decision.

 

[Sylvanas]

Originally posted by: TestSpecimen

Originally posted by: ronnn
free shipping


Does require a rebate though.

How does Palit compare to the other ATI board manufacturers like Diamond, Visiontek, etc?

Palit are one of the largest manufacturers in the world, and I think I remember they are in fact Nvidia's largest customer. They have not really hit the North American market as much but they are a solid brand. I do not know their terms in regard to warranty, and we all know Visiontek has the Lifetime warranty so if that means anything to you Visiontek might be the best bet. But I have never had a problem with any of the major vendors, so idc about the warranty- it's up to you.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: 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.

Exactly what I did. I was seriously looking at a 4870 and decided to go with the 4850 instead, because the single-slot form factor attracted me, as did the $100 price difference. Given I'm really not much of a gamer, I think I made the right decision.

if you're not much of a gamer, 4850 is probably even overkill for you. as it is for me

edit: that still won't stop me from looking to upgrade next time a great deal like this comes around, however. if I can get 50% more performance out of gtx 360 or hd 5850 for $40 net then I'll probably get that, too

 

[n7]

I've been internetless for the last while, so while i missed the big reviews, it was good to finally read it.

This is the card that needed to come out when the 4870 launched...

But eh, i guess better nate than lever...i mean late than never

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: Zaitsev

Originally posted by: KingstonU
I just bought the 512Mb version yesterday and found that the 1Gb is only like $25 more :frown:

It hasn't shipped yet, think it's worth me trying and see if I can replace it? I will be gaming on a 22" btw

10-15% performance increase for 25 bucks? Hell yes I'd cancel.

I know this response is late and all but I haven't been on in a bit so...

Uhm that depends doesn't it? I'm assuming 22" implies a 22" LCD monitor, which has a max refresh rate of 60hz, so anything above 60 fps (assuming the transitions are smooth) isn't really that big a deal right? If it went from 70 to 80 fps, he wouldn't see the difference and he paid an extra $25. Depending on his games, I wouldn't know which way to go on this.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: 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.

Exactly what I did. I was seriously looking at a 4870 and decided to go with the 4850 instead, because the single-slot form factor attracted me, as did the $100 price difference. Given I'm really not much of a gamer, I think I made the right decision.

if you're not much of a gamer, 4850 is probably even overkill for you. as it is for me

edit: that still won't stop me from looking to upgrade next time a great deal like this comes around, however. if I can get 50% more performance out of gtx 360 or hd 5850 for $40 net then I'll probably get that, too

Yes, I try to stay around the $150 price point, so what we get for that now is way more than I need. Based on reviews around here, the 4850 is the equivalent of an 8800 Ultra; not too bad for that kind of cash.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: 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.

Exactly what I did. I was seriously looking at a 4870 and decided to go with the 4850 instead, because the single-slot form factor attracted me, as did the $100 price difference. Given I'm really not much of a gamer, I think I made the right decision.

if you're not much of a gamer, 4850 is probably even overkill for you. as it is for me

edit: that still won't stop me from looking to upgrade next time a great deal like this comes around, however. if I can get 50% more performance out of gtx 360 or hd 5850 for $40 net then I'll probably get that, too

Indeed, I think I will be getting a 4850 at this stage.

Between $130 and $150 Australian bananas cheaper is just hard to ignore.

 

[Ackmed]

Grid is not for everyone, not even close. Its silly to hold on to it, thinking it makes all the difference.

 

[zod96]

How much performance difference is their between a 9800GT and a 4870 1gb at 1680x1050

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Grid is not for everyone, not even close. Its silly to hold on to it, thinking it makes all the difference.

huh?


The 4870/512 plays Grid very well at 19x12 with Cat 8.9.
- i am no fan of racing games, but Grid is really cool

it also plays smoothly on a 280GTX with ultra settings, 4xAA

 

[evolucion8]

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.

A smaller die means better yields and lower manufacturing costs which means cheaper prices overall, nVidia may have the fastest single GPU on the market, but the performance differece against the HD 4870 1GB is quite small, plus it's huge die size, high manufacturing costs and lower yields compared to ATi means that if nVidia's keep using that kind of tactic, it wouldn't last long. If that's the sacrifice that nVidia did to barely outperform the ATi's card, I don't see how much profit nVidia could get of it.

Also that other die space that's used for CUDA and Tesla doesn't appear on the GT200 diagram. AFAIK those programs runs on the GT200 stream processors, some improvements like the double sized registers, bigger buffers, etc, all those settings which make the GPU more efficient takes much less die space than the stream processor itself. Thinking that nVidia did it for the future of CUDA and Tesla is like an excuse of futureproofing, in the future when CUDA and Tesla is widely used, GT200 will be old and too slow for it.

 

[apoppin]

i find it kinda weird ev8, that you would pick one one of my old posts - that i already explained in this thread - to setup as a straw man argument

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i find it kinda weird ev8, that you would pick one one of my old posts - that i already explained in this thread - to setup as a straw man argument

Don''t know what straw means, didn't saw your explaination around, and yes, it's weird.

 

[apoppin]

a "strawman" argument is one that is largely manufactured expressly for the purpose of knocking it down

my comments about a large die size just shows Nvidia has a different way of future thinking than AMD
- not necessarily better nor worse .. just different

AMD got Nvidia on Perf/watt this time
- for sure!