ATi 4870 & 4850 Price cuts

[dguy6789]

I don't see the point of the argument. Of course a card won't be as fast when it runs out of vram. Comparing the 4870 512 to any 8800 or 9800 card is kind of a joke at best. Those cards are far too slow to be very playable in a situation where the 4870 512 would run out of vram. In every other situation, that is to say when vram is not the limiting factor(which is the case almost all of the time) the 4870 decimates the 8800s and 9800s. For $150(less after rebates and street price) one could buy a card that is equal to or greater than the GTX260 for 1680x1050 gaming. Sounds like a good deal to me.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I don't see the point of the argument. Of course a card won't be as fast when it runs out of vram. Comparing the 4870 512 to any 8800 or 9800 card is kind of a joke at best. Those cards are far too slow to be very playable in a situation where the 4870 512 would run out of vram. In every other situation, that is to say when vram is not the limiting factor(which is the case almost all of the time) the 4870 decimates the 8800s and 9800s. For $150(less after rebates and street price) one could buy a card that is equal to or greater than the GTX260 for 1680x1050 gaming. Sounds like a good deal to me.

well for the most part yes but with Far Cry 2 even at 1680 with AA the 512mb 4870 starts tanking compared to the 1gb model. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...adeon-hd-4850-x2-2gb/4 the 512mb 4870 may be a good deal but honestly if there is already 1 current game it runs out of vram with at just 1680 with AA then its not likely to be a good long term purchase.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Azn
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...ics-performance-test/6

It is a little off. 4850 should tie 9800gt at worse. 4870 is barely slower than GTX260 in this game. Chizow loves to only point out these kind of benches that show Nvidia cards in light. With later revisions ATI said they have fixed performance issues with this game. I don't know exactly how much.

Or maybe because its the only benchmark with results showing a 1GB 9800GTX+, which happens to have the same expected specs as the GTS 250? And I see Guru3D's results are good enough for you now, funny how not too long ago you were linking search engines claiming Guru3D results were bunk.

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I don't see the point of the argument. Of course a card won't be as fast when it runs out of vram. Comparing the 4870 512 to any 8800 or 9800 card is kind of a joke at best. Those cards are far too slow to be very playable in a situation where the 4870 512 would run out of vram. In every other situation, that is to say when vram is not the limiting factor(which is the case almost all of the time) the 4870 decimates the 8800s and 9800s. For $150(less after rebates and street price) one could buy a card that is equal to or greater than the GTX260 for 1680x1050 gaming. Sounds like a good deal to me.

A few simple questions here. How much faster would you say the 4870 512MB is than the 4850? How badly does the 9800GTX+ "decimate" the 4850? How much slower is the 512MB compared to the 1GB 4870 in VRAM limited situations? But anyways, we'll see soon enough with those GTS 250 reviews tomorrow.

 

[dguy6789]

Going by this article http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=1 The 4870 is anywhere from 20-40% faster than the 4850.

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: wjgollatz

Originally posted by: Qbah

Originally posted by: wjgollatz


What is this RV740? Been looking through all the cards at newegg, and I settled to buy a 4830 after I build a new system sometime next week. Better performance? Same power requirements?

It's a new mid-range Radeon that's rumored to hit retail in April. 40nm process, 640 shaders, 128-bit bus with GDDR5 memory (the same as a 256bit one with GDDR3). There's a preview somewhere showing that it sits between a HD4830 and HD4850 in terms of performance and is expected to be a sub-100$ card. Instant winner in my eyes.

There's still no name for it, but the code name is RV740.

I'm guessing ATi is going to EOL HD4830 and HD4850 cards. Maybe there will be an entry level card too. And it will be like:

- ?? - entry level
- RV740
- HD4870

Will this card be the same power requirement about as the 4830? I imagine it would be, but do not want to make assumptions waiting for a card I can not use. I am building a budget system and as long as the power requirements are not a large jump, I should be ok.

I'd say it will be lower than HD4830. I think the card had one 6-pin plug. But that's pure speculation on my part - the preview didn't include power draw as it was an early sample with beta drivers. Just google for RV740 preview. I think it was on Guru3D...

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Azn
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...ics-performance-test/6

It is a little off. 4850 should tie 9800gt at worse. 4870 is barely slower than GTX260 in this game. Chizow loves to only point out these kind of benches that show Nvidia cards in light. With later revisions ATI said they have fixed performance issues with this game. I don't know exactly how much.

Or maybe because its the only benchmark with results showing a 1GB 9800GTX+, which happens to have the same expected specs as the GTS 250? And I see Guru3D's results are good enough for you now, funny how not too long ago you were linking search engines claiming Guru3D results were bunk.

That's not exactly what I claimed but if it makes you feel better about yourself. :laugh: You should use multiple sources for comparing benches on the internet. Any article writer can make a mistake or biased like you are. Nvidia 4 life.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Qbah

Originally posted by: wjgollatz

Originally posted by: Qbah

Originally posted by: wjgollatz


What is this RV740? Been looking through all the cards at newegg, and I settled to buy a 4830 after I build a new system sometime next week. Better performance? Same power requirements?

It's a new mid-range Radeon that's rumored to hit retail in April. 40nm process, 640 shaders, 128-bit bus with GDDR5 memory (the same as a 256bit one with GDDR3). There's a preview somewhere showing that it sits between a HD4830 and HD4850 in terms of performance and is expected to be a sub-100$ card. Instant winner in my eyes.

There's still no name for it, but the code name is RV740.

I'm guessing ATi is going to EOL HD4830 and HD4850 cards. Maybe there will be an entry level card too. And it will be like:

- ?? - entry level
- RV740
- HD4870

Will this card be the same power requirement about as the 4830? I imagine it would be, but do not want to make assumptions waiting for a card I can not use. I am building a budget system and as long as the power requirements are not a large jump, I should be ok.

I'd say it will be lower than HD4830. I think the card had one 6-pin plug. But that's pure speculation on my part - the preview didn't include power draw as it was an early sample with beta drivers. Just google for RV740 preview. I think it was on Guru3D...

If you saw a the RV740 preview it actually beats the 4830. Not much though.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Just using Anandtech's latest review lets put up some numbers.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3520&p=1

19x12 4xAA - 9800GTX+ 512MB / 4870 512MB
Age of Conan - 27 / 36 - 33% faster
Call of Duty WaW - 48.9 / 50.4 - 3% faster
Crysis Warhead - 21.9 / 26.2 - 20% faster
Fallout 3 - 35.6 / 49.3 - 39% faster
FarCry 2 - 15.5 / 29.2 - 88% faster
Left 4 Dead - 52.4 / 73.2 - 40% faster

19x12 4xAA - 4870 512MB / 4870 1GB
Age of Conan - 36 / 35.9 - 0% faster
Call of Duty WaW - 50.4 / 50.2 - 0% faster
Crysis Warhead - 26.2 / 27.9 - 7% faster
Fallout 3 - 49.3 / 52.1 - 6% faster
FarCry 2 - 29.2 / 35.5 - 22% faster
Left 4 Dead - 73.2 / 74 - 1% faster

The 4870 also has a higher bandwidth than the 9800GTX+ so the increase in FPS going from 512MB to 1GB isn't going help 9800GTX+ as much. In most cases I expect the 4870 512MB to beat the GTS250 1GB, unless the lack of vram causes the card to completely tank. Lets see how Nvidia curves the review tonight to favor the GTS250 1GB.

 

[ronnn]

Hope amd can continue to exist on these prices.

 

[Ackmed]

Ugh. I just bought a 4850 for $123. My first new card in 2.5 years or so... looking forward to it. Wish I had waited a week or two more though.

 

[VirtualLarry]

That's OK. I've owned four HD4850s since they first came out, and I only took one out of the package the other day.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: chizow
I'm only going off VRAM amounts when strictly comparing between the same architecture, obviously once you expand the scope to encompass other features the results will vary.

Let me backup and say that I think we're in an agreement here.

However, I think you and I are applying the same concept differently.

Again, if the benchmark you linked is "VRAM limited" and only the amount of VRAM will increase performance, why do you see the GTX 260 out performing the 9800 GTX+ 1GB?

Answer: Because factors outside VRAM amounts influence performance. (i.e., shaders, TMUs, ROPs, clocks, and bandwidth all contribute)

The reason why the GTX 260 can outperform the 9800 GTX+ 1GB in your benchmark is because it has more "GPU power" and more bandwidth.

Therefore, I don't see it as being enough to discredit the power of the 4870 512MB solely on its VRAM amount, especially when its GPU power and bandwidth - like the GTX 260 - is greater.

Originally posted by: chizow
Its clear bandwidth, shaders, rops, tmus, fillrate and anything else aren't enough to compensate in some instances, which is why I brought up the 1GB 9800GTX+ to 512MB 4870 comparison to begin with.

Again, by that account the GTX 260 should have lost to the 9800 GTX+ 1GB, but that didn't happen in the bench you linked.

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: josh6079
I'm not saying it won't, but it would be surprising since even at high resolutions with AA in VRAM-demanding games differences in performance are based on factors outside of VRAM amounts like memory bandwidth and GPU architecture.

How would it be surprising? We've seen it makes enough difference in the past with like architectures when comparing 8800GTX to 9800GTX and 4870 512 to the 1GB version.

Correct, but unlike those examples, the 4870 is a different architecture than the 9800 GTX+, which was the comparison you were making.

The differences outside of VRAM between the 4870 512MB and the 9800 GTX+ 1GB factor into the overall performance of the product, even in VRAM-intensive situations like you and I have linked.

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: josh6079
"My" 4870 to 4850 comparison? I never claimed it to be a 4870 to 4850 comparison. I claimed it to be a 4870 512MB to 9800 GTX+ 512MB comparison at a VRAM-stressing situation.

Oh right, I was just a step ahead of you.

A step ahead of me? Put your epee away dude and be less offensive. You began comparing a different card that wasn't in the conversation just because it has the identical but lower clocked GPU core. Considering the topic at had was about memory and only between the 4870 and 9800 GTX+, I didn't think it was "a step ahead". Saying it was is simply egotistical.

Originally posted by: chizow
Again, you're comparing between different architectures in that case where the 4800s don't require additional VRAM as much as the G92.

You're discrediting the Anandtech benchmark on account of the G92 needing VRAM more than the 4800s?

:roll:

This is completely absurd beings how there's a 63% difference between the 4870 512MB and the 4870 1GB.

Originally posted by: chizow
But even in the case of your 4870 to 9800GTX+, I wouldn't say bandwidth is the greatest limiting factor again using the 4850 and 1GB 9800GTX+ as examples.

What are you going on about here? I never brought up the 4850, you did. Furthermore, I never suggested the 4850 would even beat a 9800 GTX+ 1GB, especially in the context we're discussing (i.e., VRAM-intensive) I also never claimed bandwidth was "the greatest limiting factor".

Quit trailing off on tangents.

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: chizow
...it'd be inaccurate to say that difference is result soley because of VRAM...

When comparing the two products you're wanting to (i.e., the 4850 and the 4870 512), yes it would be inaccurate to say the difference is soley because of VRAM.

Yep, meant to read bandwidth, which was the inaccurate assumption you made.

Rofl. Right, the blame is on me. Calling my "assumption" inaccurate because you didn't say the right word.

:roll:

Originally posted by: chizow
Which just confirms VRAM is still the greatest limiting factor at that particular resolution and setting.

The bench I showed suggests that VRAM is a limiting factor. I don't know if it is *drumroll* "the greatest limiting factor" because the 4870 doesn't come in a 1.5 or 2GB model. If it did we could without a doubt see what, if any, improvement would be had over the 4870 1GB at those settings since all of the other factors would then be the same.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Why are people suddenly comparing the 9800GTX+ oh i mean the GTS250 to the HD4870 512mb??

The HD4870 destroys anything G92 has to offer, and is overall faster than the normal GTX260. The only exception to the first statement would be in VRAM limited situations (high res situations with AA) which would mostly result in unplayable framerates for both cards, but either than that the former kills the latter, especially when you up the AA. Its also a known fact that nVIDIA's memory management and AA performance is less efficient than AMDs. (Not really surprising when ROP design used on the G92/GT200 are almost 3 years old now)

Its surprising that somehow a card gets faster by putting on a new name..

Back to topic, the revised mid-low end lineup from AMD can be looked like this
HD4870 512MB $149
HD4850 $129
HD4770 (RV740XT) $99
HD4750 (RV740PRO) <$99

Looks pretty good for AMD from a business point of view, since these cards when compared to the competition will be far more competitive when it comes to production/manufacturing costs and in supply (i.e margins). RV740 itself is estimated to have a die size of 100~125mm^2, which is twice smaller than G92B! that would result in ~twice the number of RV740 chips per wafer for AMD compared to G92B.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Why are people suddenly comparing the 9800GTX+ oh i mean the GTS250 to the HD4870 512mb??

The HD4870 destroys anything G92 has to offer, and is overall faster than the normal GTX260. The only exception to the first statement would be in VRAM limited situations (high res situations with AA) which would mostly result in unplayable framerates for both cards, but either than that the former kills the latter, especially when you up the AA. Its also a known fact that nVIDIA's memory management and AA performance is less efficient than AMDs. (Not really surprising when ROP design used on the G92/GT200 are almost 3 years old now)

Its surprising that somehow a card gets faster by putting on a new name..

Back to topic, the revised mid-low end lineup from AMD can be looked like this
HD4870 512MB $149
HD4850 $129
HD4770 (RV740XT) $99
HD4750 (RV740PRO) <$99

Looks pretty good for AMD from a business point of view, since these cards when compared to the competition will be far more competitive when it comes to production/manufacturing costs and in supply (i.e margins). RV740 itself is estimated to have a die size of 100~125mm^2, which is twice smaller than G92B! that would result in ~twice the number of RV740 chips per wafer for AMD compared to G92B.

How far they've come since the R600. Pretty impressive that the 4870 core is roughly the same size (a tad smaller I think actually) than the 9800GTX+/GTX250 core and outperforms it by such a good amount. I don't think anyone thought that the 80nm R600 was worth building off of back when it launched...

 

[nyker96]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Why are people suddenly comparing the 9800GTX+ oh i mean the GTS250 to the HD4870 512mb??

The HD4870 destroys anything G92 has to offer, and is overall faster than the normal GTX260. The only exception to the first statement would be in VRAM limited situations (high res situations with AA) which would mostly result in unplayable framerates for both cards, but either than that the former kills the latter, especially when you up the AA. Its also a known fact that nVIDIA's memory management and AA performance is less efficient than AMDs. (Not really surprising when ROP design used on the G92/GT200 are almost 3 years old now)

Its surprising that somehow a card gets faster by putting on a new name..

Back to topic, the revised mid-low end lineup from AMD can be looked like this
HD4870 512MB $149
HD4850 $129
HD4770 (RV740XT) $99
HD4750 (RV740PRO) <$99

Looks pretty good for AMD from a business point of view, since these cards when compared to the competition will be far more competitive when it comes to production/manufacturing costs and in supply (i.e margins). RV740 itself is estimated to have a die size of 100~125mm^2, which is twice smaller than G92B! that would result in ~twice the number of RV740 chips per wafer for AMD compared to G92B.

thanks for the info. i like it that amd is doing 40nm chips from bottom up this time. so we get a nice $99 part that can beat out 4830. they will probably move the process up to 4850s 70s etc. do you have any time table for that to happen?

 

[octopus41092]

Wow, these prices have dropped so quickly, I remember just a couple months ago picking up the HD4850 for nearly $200. If the HD4870 drops down to $150 MSRP I can definitely see it hitting sub $100 prices on Newegg. This means great performance for cheap. I might just have to go out and buy one... or two

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Just using Anandtech's latest review lets put up some numbers.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3520&p=1

19x12 4xAA - 9800GTX+ 512MB / 4870 512MB
Age of Conan - 27 / 36 - 33% faster
Call of Duty WaW - 48.9 / 50.4 - 3% faster
Crysis Warhead - 21.9 / 26.2 - 20% faster
Fallout 3 - 35.6 / 49.3 - 39% faster
FarCry 2 - 15.5 / 29.2 - 88% faster
Left 4 Dead - 52.4 / 73.2 - 40% faster
<snip>
The 4870 also has a higher bandwidth than the 9800GTX+ so the increase in FPS going from 512MB to 1GB isn't going help 9800GTX+ as much. In most cases I expect the 4870 512MB to beat the GTS250 1GB, unless the lack of vram causes the card to completely tank. Lets see how Nvidia curves the review tonight to favor the GTS250 1GB.

Game, set and match. Especially since most people don't have 30-inch monitors (sales of which are presumably slowing to a crawl with the economy). I would never touch a GTX 250 OR a 9800GTX+. If I had $200 to toss around (which I don't anymore) I'd be looking at a 260 216 or a 4870 1 GB. GTS250? Please. Sounds like a scam on the consumer by NVidia.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: nyker96
thanks for the info. i like it that amd is doing 40nm chips from bottom up this time. so we get a nice $99 part that can beat out 4830. they will probably move the process up to 4850s 70s etc. do you have any time table for that to happen?

I think we will have to wait for the 40nm process for the mid/high end from AMD. Rumours seems to suggest April 6th is the launch date that both this "RV790" (RV770 on TSMCs 55GT nm process that supposedly allows them to clock up to ~1GHz) and RV740. The rumour on the latter is that with yields being excellent, they have rather pushed it for an eariler launch.

With cards being so cheap nowadays, maybe its good time for those to grab another HD4850 for some CF action.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
I would never touch a GTX 250 OR a 9800GTX+.

I would, and have.

But, to each their own. Performance only goes so far for me.

 

[MarcVenice]

I think the 9800gtx+ 1GB got pwned by the HD4870 512mb card, which now effectively have the same msrp. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=17411&page=1

But, the HD4850 is losing out to the 9800gtx+ 512mb, so if both cost $129, AMD has to bring out a magic driver, or lower it's price ...

 

[AzN]

I wouldn't say 4850 losing out to 9800gtx+. It's about same give or take.

http://www.hexus.net/content/i...php?item=17411&page=12


Actual aggregate marks at 1,920x1,200

250GTS-SC=263.46
9800gtx+=254.44
GTX260=326.5
HD4850=262.5
HD4870=310.72
HD4870 1gig=327.66


Aggregate marks, normalised*, at 1,920x1,200

250GTS-SC=245.19
9800gtx+=231.51
GTX260=301.27
HD4850=237.63
HD4870=280.56
HD4870 1gig=299.17

 

[MarcVenice]

I'm not sure what hexus did Azn, but I checked the benchmarks again, and the HD4850 consistently shows less fps, if only a little. Same thing in the guru3d review.

 

[arjunp2085]

WOOOOOO Where can we buy them online.. some online e-tailor in europe.. please suggest!!!

 

[Qbah]

Seriously, when did people go from putting the HD4870 against the GTX260 to the "new" GTS250... I mean WTF. This is not a new card, it's the same sh!t again, 9800GTX. Which is a competitor to HD4850.

Chizow, dude, I know you really want the GTS250 even with 4GB of memory to be a competitor to the HD4870, but it's not. It's a card a class below. Just look at the bloody numbers... The past 5 months it was HD4850 vs 9800GTX and HD4870 vs GTX260 and it's suddenly HD4870 vs GTS250??? Where do people pull stuff like that from. VRAM limited situation? What kind of crap is this? The extra RAM could be used at 2560x1600, but no sane person will run any of those cards at that resolution in gaming, no matter how much RAM it has.

There's only one side to the above mentioned cards being "competitors". The price:
- 129$ - GTS250 512MB and HD4850 - pretty competitive here for both camps like it was the last 5 months! it's just the price that's down
- 149$ - GTS250 1GB and HD4870 512MB - not even a contest! The Radeon obliterates the GeForce
- 169$ - GTS250 2GB - LOL - no comments besides those 3 letters

I mean, how can people try to be so not straight is beyond me.

EDIT: Spelling

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
I'm not sure what hexus did Azn, but I checked the benchmarks again, and the HD4850 consistently shows less fps, if only a little. Same thing in the guru3d review.

Look at the link at the end. There are 5 benchmarks and 4850 lose on 4 benches. Not sure how quake wars ended up being 9800gtx win when 4850 beats 9800gtx in almost all the reviews I've seen. I don't know how hexus came up with those numbers at the end but 4850 does beat 9800gtx @ 1920 in their summary.

When I add them up.

9800gtx+ =254.5
HD4850 =244.9

Here's techreport's review.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16504/4