ATi 4xxx Series Review

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Grinja

Member
Jul 31, 2007
168
0
0
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: error8
9800GTX+. That is a very smart name for another card from Nvidia. Who is running the marketing department, 10 years old kids?

Well maybe ATI fired their marketing team and they were picked up by Nvidia?

What were the model numbers they have had in the past?

X2900XTXTXTXTXTXT super fast edition?

Actually it was only X2900XT. After that it was the X2900 PRO and GT. Not so crappy names.
Of course that in the past ATI had stupid names, like the x800 for example, that had some 6 variants with just as much of weird names.
This time however, Nvidia has the upper hand in the bad naming of its products.

Im sure there was an x800XTPE (platinum edition) ...

 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,144
32
91
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
across all those games tested, it was BETTER than 9800gtx and, in fact, was better than an ultra! I'd like to see more reviews before rushing to judgement, but that is some pretty impressive stuff. If the AA numbers were correct then I think that we're safe in saying "AA bug? WHAT AA bug?"

better across all those games? that is not what I read.
4850 vs 9800GTX
across all those games it was better with AA
On some games it was better without AA. (usually by a fair margin)
On most games it was worse without AA. (usually by a small margin)

Either way it's performance is very close to the 9800GTX... but it does take less power, and it has a lower MSRP.
So overall a better choice. (unless nvidia lowers their price)

I meant across all games as an average. Their roles are reversed vs last gen: ati is still competitive without AA, but now they have the advantage with AA. I think that it would be fair to say that an average of games with AA and without at 1920x1200 the 4850 was 5-10% faster than the 9800gtx. That is quite a bit better than "8800gt" performance. I was particularly impressed with the performance vs the 8800 ultra, however. I'll be interested to see if that performance is confirmed by other sites.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
Originally posted by: error8
9800GTX+. That is a very smart name for another card from Nvidia. Who is running the marketing department, 10 years old kids?

I think that's a bit insulting. 10 year olds kids would do a better job.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,144
32
91
Originally posted by: Kuzi
Excellent performance. It held it's own against the 8800/9800GTX.

Did you guys notice how efficient the card is, the minimum frame rates are high, even equaling the GTX260 in a couple of games.

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
http://www.hardware.fr/article...ti-radeon-hd-4850.html

Well i will end up getting 4870 for $299 next month unless nvidia drops the price of GT280 to $500.

...

If you plan to run at very high resolutions (higher than 1680x1050), get the GDDR5 version of the 4870, which might cost a little more than $300.

all 4870's are gddr5. the difference is that some are 512mb and some 1gb memory.
 

mhouck

Senior member
Dec 31, 2007
401
0
0
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Apparently there are miracle drivers coming from nVidia that increase performance substantially. My question is where the hell have these drivers been since Nov 06 and why is it they just happen to be finished the minute the 4850 is released?

If true these are the sorts of stunts from nVidia that really piss me off as a consumer.

I buy it as far as the drivers are concerned. Wasn't the gt200 supposed to be release later in the year? I might be misremembering but if the launch was moved up then the drivers would suffer as they wouldn't be fully mature. I expected the 280 and 260 to do more than they have compared to the GX2 and that could be why.

As far back as 06? That's everything from 8800's and forward would benefit?
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,144
32
91
Originally posted by: chizow
Not bad for the price, looks like ATI finally caught up to G80/G92 after two refreshes. This part would've been a win when G92 launched instead of RV670 but as it is it just makes ATI competitive again in the mid-range.

I think its safe to say now that RV770 isn't going to be 2x as fast as RV670, although it does see nice gains with AA. I'd ask if anyone were able to simulate 4870 clock speeds and performance but it doesn't seem as if anyone can overlock these more than 50MHz even with CCC's limitations due to heat. Still with 4850@$200 and 4870 @$300 it doesn't exactly stand out against G92 at $200 and GTX 260 at $400, they're just lost somewhere in the middle (again).

wow. sounds like somebody is auditioning for a job with the green team.
 

Denithor

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
6,298
23
81
Originally posted by: Foxery
My wallet itches.

:laugh:

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Your wallet maybe happy if you wait , I know nvidia will come at ATI real hard when some major price war.

I tend to agree, seeing as how nV has already announced the 9800GTX will drop to $200 and the new faster 9800GTX+ will enter priced at $230 (thread).

I think I'll wait to see how the 4870 fares and/or if someone releases a dual-slot 4850 (I don't want all that heat in my case).
 

tuteja1986

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2005
3,676
0
0
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
across all those games tested, it was BETTER than 9800gtx and, in fact, was better than an ultra! I'd like to see more reviews before rushing to judgement, but that is some pretty impressive stuff. If the AA numbers were correct then I think that we're safe in saying "AA bug? WHAT AA bug?"

better across all those games? that is not what I read.
4850 vs 9800GTX
across all those games it was better with AA
On some games it was better without AA. (usually by a fair margin)
On most games it was worse without AA. (usually by a small margin)

Either way it's performance is very close to the 9800GTX... but it does take less power, and it has a lower MSRP.
So overall a better choice. (unless nvidia lowers their price)

I meant across all games as an average. Their roles are reversed vs last gen: ati is still competitive without AA, but now they have the advantage with AA. I think that it would be fair to say that an average of games with AA and without at 1920x1200 the 4850 was 5-10% faster than the 9800gtx. That is quite a bit better than "8800gt" performance. I was particularly impressed with the performance vs the 8800 ultra, however. I'll be interested to see if that performance is confirmed by other sites.

Actually 9800GTX gets destroyed when you use 8xAA with 4850.
http://translate.google.com/tr...e&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Unreal Tournament 3 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF:
GT 280 : 72
HD4850 : 63
9800GTX : 34

FEAR 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF:
GT 280 : 93
HD4850 : 60
9800GTX : 49

Company of heroes 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF
GT 280 : 66
HD4850 : 42
9800GTX : 35

Call of Juarez 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF
GT 280 : 24
HD4850 : 17
9800GTX : 6

Clive Barker's Jericho 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF:
GT 280 : 26
HD4850 : 28
9800GTX : 7


Lost planet 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF:
GT 280 : 45
HD4850 : 29
9800GTX : 24

 

tuteja1986

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2005
3,676
0
0
Originally posted by: Grinja
This has got my attention ....
"shows two ATI Radeon HD 4850 cards paired up with a Radeon HD 3870 DDR4 card in CrossFireX."

http://www.fudzilla.com/index....=view&id=7993&Itemid=1

Would be really cool to 're-use' old hardware or better yet, buy a 4850 now and slap it together with a 4870 or even 4829x2 later.

You could have done that with 3850 paired with 3870.

You can also pair a 38XX with 48XX.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,144
32
91
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Originally posted by: munky
German review article:
http://www.computerbase.de/art..._radeon_hd_4850_rv770/

err Google language translated link :

http://translate.google.com/tr...e&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Reading the review , i don't think they had enough time to test in higher resolution.

as you crank up the aa/af and resolution, the 4850 does better and better against 9800gtx. I can see that, but what amazes me is that it also happens against the 8800 ultra! If this thing didn't have such a crappy stock cooler I'd get one to do the "apoppin-fire". Maybe I'll hold out until somebody comes out with a decent dual-slot cooler.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
Hmm, the guru3d article doesn't mention anything about the transition to 55nm for NV. I'm thinking the 9800gtx+ is just a cherry-picked g92 with higher clocks, similar to what NV did with the 8800U. I'm also surprised at the sudden price drop to $199... I wonder how the people who paid almost $300 for a 9800gtx a month ago feel about that.
 

tuteja1986

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2005
3,676
0
0
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Originally posted by: munky
German review article:
http://www.computerbase.de/art..._radeon_hd_4850_rv770/

err Google language translated link :

http://translate.google.com/tr...e&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Reading the review , i don't think they had enough time to test in higher resolution.

as you crank up the aa/af and resolution, the 4850 does better and better against 9800gtx. I can see that, but what amazes me is that it also happens against the 8800 ultra! If this thing didn't have such a crappy stock cooler I'd get one to do the "apoppin-fire". Maybe I'll hold out until somebody comes out with a decent dual-slot cooler.

interesting :! apoppin-fire , also apoppin is my good friend and i surprised you would bring his name up. Tell your Nvidia boss that he is surrounded by ignorant blind personal. Also i think you should change your sig so that it shows your connection with Nvidia. Mr car salesman from texas.

Anyways , I think the heat issue has been overblown :) the thing is quite. Anyways , the best thing about ATI design is that their fan blow the air out the case so the heat wouldn't be stuck as long as you have a decent 120mm back side fan.
 

ddarko

Senior member
Jun 18, 2006
264
3
81
Originally posted by: chizow
Not bad for the price, looks like ATI finally caught up to G80/G92 after two refreshes. This part would've been a win when G92 launched instead of RV670 but as it is it just makes ATI competitive again in the mid-range.

I think its safe to say now that RV770 isn't going to be 2x as fast as RV670, although it does see nice gains with AA. I'd ask if anyone were able to simulate 4870 clock speeds and performance but it doesn't seem as if anyone can overlock these more than 50MHz even with CCC's limitations due to heat. Still with 4850@$200 and 4870 @$300 it doesn't exactly stand out against G92 at $200 and GTX 260 at $400, they're just lost somewhere in the middle (again).

What a joke your posts are. You don't even have the grace to acknowledge an impressive turnout without bitter insults masquerading as backhanded compliments. "I'd ask if anyone were able to simulate 4870 clock speeds and performance but it doesn't seem as if anyone can overlock [sic] these...due to heat." Oh please. You're not interested in the 4870 performance; you're trying to slag the heat characteristics of the 4850 card. "looks like ATI finally caught up...after two refreshes"? Oh please. Only a partisan like you would try to denigrate the impressive performance of a company's new card by insulting its older cards. And really, since you're so concerned about past performance, why not answer why Nvidia sat on its ass for two generations and ended up producing a whopper-sized card that costs more and delivers less than its own last-gen products, let alone its competitor? Nvidia in graphics is turning into the AMD in processors: arrogant, lazy and underachieving.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,144
32
91
Originally posted by: Denithor
Originally posted by: Foxery
My wallet itches.

:laugh:

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Your wallet maybe happy if you wait , I know nvidia will come at ATI real hard when some major price war.

I tend to agree, seeing as how nV has already announced the 9800GTX will drop to $200 and the new faster 9800GTX+ will enter priced at $230 (thread).

I think I'll wait to see how the 4870 fares and/or if someone releases a dual-slot 4850 (I don't want all that heat in my case).

they should just call it the 9900gtx... unless they can't because they're really going to do the 55nm refresh in a few months... I assume that the 9800gtx+ will simply be a "factory overclocked" 9800gtx, but we all know that it really is just what the 9800gtx SHOULD HAVE BEEN if ati had been competitive all along. I think that all of us, whether nvidia fan, ati fan, or just best bang-for-buck fan, are going to win this time around. Good job for once, hector!
 

mhouck

Senior member
Dec 31, 2007
401
0
0
Originally posted by: munky
Hmm, the guru3d article doesn't mention anything about the transition to 55nm for NV. I'm thinking the 9800gtx+ is just a cherry-picked g92 with higher clocks, similar to what NV did with the 8800U. I'm also surprised at the sudden price drop to $199... I wonder how the people who paid almost $300 for a 9800gtx a month ago feel about that.

The 55 nm spec would be very important to anybody SLIing with the original 9800GTX I imagine. It's my understanding that it would not work because they would be different chips. Is that correct?

This is why naming schemes are important!!:disgust:
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Apparently there are miracle drivers coming from nVidia that increase performance substantially. My question is where the hell have these drivers been since Nov 06 and why is it they just happen to be finished the minute the 4850 is released?

If true these are the sorts of stunts from nVidia that really piss me off as a consumer.

Agreed, I'd be pretty annoyed if I had one of their cards and they were holding back performance by not releasing improved drivers just to have an ace up their sleeve incase AMD released a competitive card. I payed for the card, give me the performance.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Well, AMD's sub $200 part is in general as fast to a bit faster then the 9800GTX, which looks to be in the $270 range. That's spectacular. In some cases the 4850 even touches and rarely even surpasses the $400ish GTX260 in performance. I don't see what's not to be excited about if you are a gamer.
The 9800GTX was dropped to $199 today and was selling for $240-250 before that. I expected a price drop but not so much, so soon. Like I said its a fine part for $200 but realistically, there's G92 parts that have been selling for $130-150 (GT and GTS) for weeks now that offer similar performance for much less.

Assuming the 4870 is going to be 20%+ faster then the 4850 then it'll probably compete pretty well against the GTX260 and even in some cases with the GTX280 for a LOT less money. If you like to game with AA the difference seems even more pronounced. I think AMD is doing a quite a bit better then 'just lost somewhere in the middle (again)" this round. Also, when you get into crossfire, I think they're competitive on the high end as well, not just the mid-range as you say. So far it looks like 2 4850's > the GTX280, I'd say that makes them pretty competitive in the high end.

How isn't it just lost somewhere in the middle again? This is what happens when you don't shoot for being the best and once again ATI manages to be just mediocre. The reality of it is, these parts aren't anything special compared to G92 or even G80. Sure they improve with AA, and that's certainly a benefit but NV is going to have cheaper options that are a bit slower and more expensive options that are faster no matter how you slice it, leaving them squarely in the middle.
 

ChaosDivine

Senior member
May 23, 2008
370
0
0
Originally posted by: error8
Well the 4850 has something that the GTX doesn't: directX 10.1. It really doesn't matter now, but if they are on the same performance level, people could be more attracted by the extra "feature" and buy the ATI card. It's also shorter and has a single slot cooler, another two advantages to buy it.
It's gonna be a big and bloody fight between these two. ;)
And probably no danged YUV bug :|
 

Leon

Platinum Member
Nov 14, 1999
2,215
4
81
Actually 9800GTX gets destroyed when you use 8xAA with 4850

Not if 8xCFAA I used...hardly a performace hit over 4x. Comparing AA modes past 4x is a little complicated, ATI and Nvidia have their own mixed modes that makes comparison difficult.

Leon
 

ChaosDivine

Senior member
May 23, 2008
370
0
0
Originally posted by: BassBomb
That is pretty sweet pricing.

I can't believe how cheap it is these days to set up a system

Midrange CPU ~200
Good Board ~150
2GB RAM ~35
Good Video Card ~200

So much bang for your buck these days

You can get a little better if you're willing to buy some stuff used :

Used E6400 ~ $80 (easy 3.2GHz, maybe 3.3GHz)
Used Good P965 ~ $50 (P5B Plus, 965P DS3, etc)
New 4GB RAM ~ $40 (eg. that 2x1GB deal for $15 after rebate in Hot Deals)
New Vid Card ~ $200
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Wow, way to poop on ATI's parade. :laugh:

I think this will make the 4870 a tough sell, let alone the 4850 which already had competition at $70 cheaper.

Combine that with the rumored new drivers and it seems we have a spoiler a comin'.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
across all those games tested, it was BETTER than 9800gtx and, in fact, was better than an ultra! I'd like to see more reviews before rushing to judgement, but that is some pretty impressive stuff. If the AA numbers were correct then I think that we're safe in saying "AA bug? WHAT AA bug?"

better across all those games? that is not what I read.
4850 vs 9800GTX
across all those games it was better with AA
On some games it was better without AA. (usually by a fair margin)
On most games it was worse without AA. (usually by a small margin)

Either way it's performance is very close to the 9800GTX... but it does take less power, and it has a lower MSRP.
So overall a better choice. (unless nvidia lowers their price)

I meant across all games as an average. Their roles are reversed vs last gen: ati is still competitive without AA, but now they have the advantage with AA. I think that it would be fair to say that an average of games with AA and without at 1920x1200 the 4850 was 5-10% faster than the 9800gtx. That is quite a bit better than "8800gt" performance. I was particularly impressed with the performance vs the 8800 ultra, however. I'll be interested to see if that performance is confirmed by other sites.

Well.. neither matter all that much.. for this kind of performance you are better off buying a single 8800GT for 130$, or a 8800GTS 512 for 160$...

no, what REALLY matters is that 2x4850 in crossfire are equivalent to a single GTX 280 (except in crysis at 2560x1600 res where they get half the performance... sign of things to come?)
In most games they are either slightly ahead, or slightly behind a single GTX 280.with the 4870 and 4870x2 just around the corner, and them costing less, we can expect real healthy competition this round...

Now, eventually more games like crysis will arrive, and 2560x1600 would become standard resolution... That is where the GTX 280 will shine... but by then it would probably be 55nm and AMD would have something to counter it.