ATi 4xxx Series Review

[doggyfromplanetwoof]

ASUS Launches World's First 1GB EAH4870 Series

http://www.hardwarezone.com/news/view.php?id=10973&cid=

Taipei, Taiwan -- Catering to users who require top notch graphics cards, ASUS, world-leading producer of quality graphic solutions has today unveiled the world?s first 1GB onboard memory version of the latest ATI Radeon HD 4850 GPU with the ASUS EAH4850/HTDI/1G. The unparalleled large onboard memory size is specially designed for feature-rich DirectX 10 gaming, and the best multimedia playback at ultra-high resolutions and maximum quality settings.

Additionally, the ASUS EAH4870 TOP and EAH4850 TOP will be released soon with impressive performance results to provide superb gaming performances. Every ASUS EAH4800 Series graphics card will also soon be equipped with the Glaciator Fansink ? a uniquely designed cooling solution that will keep GPU temperatures up to 7ºC cooler than reference designed boards. On top of all this, the ASUS EAH4870/G/HTDI/512M will also come bundled with the latest survival video game ? Alone in the Dark.

Unprecedented 1GB Onboard Memory for Ultimate Graphics
Memory size is very important for performance, as even a powerful GPU can suffer from bottlenecks due to slow and insufficient video memory. The more memory installed on a video card, the more data it can store ? thus eliminating the need to access PC RAM and providing faster graphical performance. With most current and upcoming games requiring increasingly high video memory requirements, the ASUS EAH4850/HTDI/1G, with its unprecedented 1GB of built-in memory, will provide greatly enhanced performances, and allow users to fully enjoy games or movies without lag or stuttering even at very high resolutions and maximum quality settings.

Up to 7ºC Cooler with Exclusive Glaciator Fansink
The ASUS EAH4800 Series utilizes the specially designed Glaciator Fansink that effectively dissipates heat away from the graphics card. Much like a glacial storm, the Glaciator Fansink quickly transfers heat away from the GPU to lower temperatures by a whopping 7ºC on the EAH4850 in comparison to reference design boards. Besides this extreme cooling capacity, it operates very quietly with noise levels of only 25dB ? almost imperceptible in a quiet room; and caters to users who require maximum cooling without excessive fan rotation noise.

World Exclusive Hottest Game Bundle ? Alone in the Dark
The original Alone in the Dark video game was the first game to launch survival gaming as a genre; and this latest version once again sets the standard with a heart-stopping survival experience realized through state-of-the-art real-time physics and unprecedented environmental interaction. Incorporating Twilight technology and a full fledged rendering engine, the game creates a lavishly detailed world filled with highly realistic and advanced cinematographic effects. With the powerful performance of the ASUS EAH4870/G/HTDI/512M, gamers will be able to enjoy exhilarating action-orientated gaming experiences within a highly detailed, open environment.

HD Gaming/Video with Break-through Efficiency
The ASUS EAH4800 Series brings the power of graphical ?supercomputing? to gamers ? setting a new standard for visual computing. With the new TeraScale graphics engine, immersive, cinematic gaming experiences will redefine the way to play games and take HD gaming to a brand new level. With the ASUS EAH4800 Series, users will also be able to watch Blu-ray movies and play HD content with incredible visual fidelity and breakthrough efficiency ? all without compromising performance.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: ddarko

Originally posted by: chizow
As for the fanboyism, I just like calling out the BS from certain folks that only show up and run their mouths around launch time. Then when whatever product they're backing falls flat on its face, they poof for another 6-8 months.

And opposed to someone like you, who spouts BS continuously and endlessly.

Some of your own words from a thread at the end of 2007 discussing Nvidia's statement that it didn't plan on releasing a higher performing part than the 8800 Ultra anytime soon and suggesting that people who wanted higher performance should use SLI:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

Originally posted by: chizow
Makes sense from a business/economic standpoint as the old business model of creating a high-end part only to artificially neuter it for lower product segments made no sense for NV/AMD or the end-user. Hopefully, if they go the SLI/CF route, that means they'll actually focus on improving performance in multi-GPU configurations to the point its a viable upgrade path/alternative. Personally I'd like to see multi-GPU solutions on the same die or package with hardware bridges/controllers rather than reliance on software SLI/CF.

And your response to someone complaining about Nvidia's stated plans:

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: SniperDaws
Its a scam, basically Nvidia are going to stop making high end cards so the only way we will be able to play our games will be to buy more than 1 card, what a rip off.

No, that's not what NV/AMD said. Instead of making a revolutionary new transistor monster every year or two, they'd go with incremental upgrades that could then be used in multi-GPU configurations to reach the high-end performance a new transistor monster would offer.

This offers a better alternative for the mainstream end-user who could expect to get the fastest single-card solution for a reasonable price ($200-300), with those wanting high-end performance going with multiple GPUs to reach the high-end.

Isn't it amazing that when it seemed like Nvidia would go the multi GPU route, chizow was all for it but now, several months later, he's crapping all over it? Tough to read such BS hypocrisy but there it is in his own words.

Hypocrisy? Even in those out-of-context quotes its clear that I'm not advocating it as a desirable solution as I mention many of the problems associated with CF/SLI. I simply state it is a viable business decision and I have no problem with that although I clearly favor NV's approach of tick-tock rather than ATI's tick, tick+1, tick+2 etc.

I don't blindly recommend SLI/CF to people seeking advice as a viable solution without first qualifying it with a few caveats and I certainly have *never* said it was the best solution for me. That's not to say I haven't contemplated going SLI/CF on numerous occasions, but considering it would've cost me as much to simply double-up at any time for a fraction of the price of a GTX 280 I would've simply gone SLI if I thought it was a worthwhile upgrade.

I just haven't been able to reconcile all the problems associated with it, many of which have been confirmed in just these few threads on 4850/GTX 280/9800GTX from various forum members. Anyways, I highly doubt you even have any experience with CF/SLI judging from your responses to be advocating it. If you want to discuss it further you're welcome to pick back up the questions you never answered in the GT200 thread.

Out of respect to ViRGE I won't post anymore in this thread about this, but ViRGE if some launch pedestrian is going to call me out and bother to dig up 9 month old posts, I'm certainly going to respond to it.

 

[YANIV]

question.. ive jumped from ati to nvidia to ati to nvidia to ati to nvidia to ati.. all these years.. whatever gray hair im gonna get on ma head is most likely to be because of these two companies.. i just had a silly question. from what ive seen so far.. the image quality of ati has always been better than amd.. in games.. videos everything.. is it just my eyesight or thres some technical explanation to that. ?

 

[qliveur]

@Yaniv
You mean better image quality than Nvidia's? You're not alone. It's honestly been so long since I owned an ATI card that I couldn't tell you about today's products, but that was the impression I got about three years ago when I had the chance to compare the two.

 

[YANIV]

ooops typo... yes i meant better than nvidia.. lol.. good same here... this was when i was running a 9600 XT... lol... good old days. never got to the 9800 pros though and then i switched to 7800s then went back to 1950 pro and, then 8600 gt and then 2600XT.. lol.. i must say.. i wasnt very please with the nvidia image quality though fps was def better.. hmm.. atleast i dont have to go get my eyesight tested thanks..

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Sylvanas


LOL. The 4850 was released early because retailers started selling the thing already and results were popping up all over the place so reviews got the opportunity to provide some substantial benchmarks. The GTX+ was introduced ( although we could hardly say introduced...one benchmark on one site conveniently at the 11hr and no availability) after the 4850, they can't panic about something that didn't exist at the time.

OK. So it's panic if NVIDIA releases a card early, but it's heroic if ATI does it?

Got it. :thumbsup:

I probably shouldn't reply to you since you seem to just be trolling, but I can't help myself. One thing you continue to gloss over in all of your posts is the fact that the 9800GTX+ is more money then the 4850. Oh yea, it's not even expected for weeks yet either. AMD released the 4850 early because some places were already selling them. Some people that are on forums like this already had them and were benchmarking them. There was no point in keeping them under NDA any longer as the numbers were already out and they were for sale here and there. Keeping them under NDA would do nothing except possibly lose a few sales to people who wanted a card NOW.

Nvidia's response to the 4850 had 'oh shit!' written all over it. They have focus group members all over forums, Nvidia obviously saw the very, very positive buzz about this card. So in response they paper launched a new card and dropped the price of a card that has similar (slightly less overall) performance $70 to be near the price of the 4850.

Tell me why would AMD be scared of the 9800GTX+? As I mentioned above you keep completely glancing over the fact that this card will be $230. The 4850 has an MSRP of $170. It can be found, right now, today for $149.99 - $200 depending on where you look. So, for anywhere between $30-$80 less then the 9800GTX+'s projected price that won't even be here for weeks yet.

Now, if the 9800GTX+ performed way better then the 4850 then that might mean something, but the truth of the matter is the 4850 and 9800GTX+ are very competitive with each other, they're neck and neck. It looks like the 9800GTX+ will ofer marginally better performance without AA, the 4850 should pull away once you use AA. The truth is they look to be very close to one another depending on the benchmark. But the simple fact of the matter is, they bench extremely close to one another, but the 9800GTX+ does not yet exist. The 4850 you can buy now. You can go to Best Buy and get it. You can order it from Newegg. Also, the 4850 is MUCH CHEAPER while still offering the same performance. I don't see how you can logically think that AMD launching the 4850 a few days early was a panic move.

 

[ddarko]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
SO what is the estimate margin for gt200??? Let me ask another way; How low can NVidia price their new gen cards (not 9 series) and still maintain acceptable profits? If they can't drop past a certain point then I don't think there's any point in waiting for an even more expansive price war.

Don't have a direct answer to your question but keep in mind that the 260 and 280 cost exactly the same to make; the 260 is the same chip as the 280 but with couple circuits disabled or not working. So assuming Nvidia isn't selling the 260 at a loss, you know that Nvidia has the option to drop the 280 to $400 and still make money. How much room the 260 and 280 have to drop below $400 is unknown but if the 4870 turns out to be competitive with the 260 and ATI sells it for $300, then it seems like $300 is the lowest possible price that Nvidia could take the 260. Whether or not Nvidia would be able to do so and still make money is unknown but it seems like $300 would be the floor in the best of all possible worlds for the 260 (again, if the 4870 is comparable and sells for $300). Of course, the 280 will always have to be more expensive than the 260 to maintain Nvidia's product segmentation.

 

[footballrunner800]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: footballrunner800
I just got a pair of 4850's and want to share some preliminary results. First of all, these cards run hot!. I live In A really hot and humid part of mexico and having these idle at 75 with AC and a fan on top of them is too much. I cant imagine how high they will get in load with 40c ambient temps

Performance is really good on these cards. My 9800gtx would struggle with stalker with everything on +AA(dont remember framerates but it felt choppy). With the 4850 cf i get over 100fps!

In cod4, the 9800gtx was getting around 75fps with all ingame settings on. With the 4850 cf, im getting around 100-140 fps

I havent installed crysis yet but i should get higher fps. Performance is really good but i might wait for the 4870 because of the heat.

do you live in a sauna in mexico? no offense, but if it's 104 f outside I'm saving money for an AC unit instead of expensive video cards that heat the place up even more!

I have central air in my house. We are lucky the government subsidises our electricity during the summer so we can have it on all day. The problem is that, as i said im my first post, The ac was on and the cards where still hitting 75-80c idle.

 

[Hauk]

I've had a chance to play with both PowerColor and VisionTek 4850's in Crossfire. Found something interesting.. all other variables the same, the VisionTek core temp remained cooler at idle. They don't sound louder, but I'm guessing VisionTek is running the fan a little higher in bios:

PowerColor CF core temp at idle = 67c

VisionTek CF core temp at idle = 60c

These things are nice...

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: doggyfromplanetwoof
ASUS Launches World's First 1GB EAH4870 Series

http://www.hardwarezone.com/news/view.php?id=10973&cid=

Now that is what I'm waiting for. HD 4870 w/ 1GB of DDR5.

Oh and it looks like the card isn't too long to stick out of mobo. It's a trend that I've disliked (10.5") so I hope the 4870 isn't longer than 9.6".

 

[lopri]

Does anyone have Company of Heroes? I'd like to see DX10 performance in that game.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: YANIV
ooops typo... yes i meant better than nvidia.. lol.. good same here... this was when i was running a 9600 XT... lol... good old days. never got to the 9800 pros though and then i switched to 7800s then went back to 1950 pro and, then 8600 gt and then 2600XT.. lol.. i must say.. i wasnt very please with the nvidia image quality though fps was def better.. hmm.. atleast i dont have to go get my eyesight tested thanks..

the x19xx cards had a reputation for higher IQ than their nvidia competition at the time, but 8800gtx fixed that problem. The general consensus today from impartial 3rd parties AND fanboys of both camps is that IQ is about the same today.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Looking at this 4850 vs. 9800 GTX+ review at FiringSquad, the AMD card doesn't fair too well in Crysis...

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...ce_9800_gtx+/page6.asp

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Sylvanas


LOL. The 4850 was released early because retailers started selling the thing already and results were popping up all over the place so reviews got the opportunity to provide some substantial benchmarks. The GTX+ was introduced ( although we could hardly say introduced...one benchmark on one site conveniently at the 11hr and no availability) after the 4850, they can't panic about something that didn't exist at the time.

OK. So it's panic if NVIDIA releases a card early, but it's heroic if ATI does it?

Got it. :thumbsup:

I probably shouldn't reply to you since you seem to just be trolling, but I can't help myself. One thing you continue to gloss over in all of your posts is the fact that the 9800GTX+ is more money then the 4850. Oh yea, it's not even expected for weeks yet either. AMD released the 4850 early because some places were already selling them. Some people that are on forums like this already had them and were benchmarking them. There was no point in keeping them under NDA any longer as the numbers were already out and they were for sale here and there. Keeping them under NDA would do nothing except possibly lose a few sales to people who wanted a card NOW.

Nvidia's response to the 4850 had 'oh shit!' written all over it. They have focus group members all over forums, Nvidia obviously saw the very, very positive buzz about this card. So in response they paper launched a new card and dropped the price of a card that has similar (slightly less overall) performance $70 to be near the price of the 4850.

Tell me why would AMD be scared of the 9800GTX+? As I mentioned above you keep completely glancing over the fact that this card will be $230. The 4850 has an MSRP of $170. It can be found, right now, today for $149.99 - $200 depending on where you look. So, for anywhere between $30-$80 less then the 9800GTX+'s projected price that won't even be here for weeks yet.

Now, if the 9800GTX+ performed way better then the 4850 then that might mean something, but the truth of the matter is the 4850 and 9800GTX+ are very competitive with each other, they're neck and neck. It looks like the 9800GTX+ will ofer marginally better performance without AA, the 4850 should pull away once you use AA. The truth is they look to be very close to one another depending on the benchmark. But the simple fact of the matter is, they bench extremely close to one another, but the 9800GTX+ does not yet exist. The 4850 you can buy now. You can go to Best Buy and get it. You can order it from Newegg. Also, the 4850 is MUCH CHEAPER while still offering the same performance. I don't see how you can logically think that AMD launching the 4850 a few days early was a panic move.

sorry, but the 9800gtx+ is almost definitely going to be faster than 4850. now, there's going to probably be ~ $50 price differential between them, and there will be oc editions of the 4850 that should be >= 9800gtx+, but if you compare the base model 4850 to the factory oc'd 9800gtx+ then which one do YOU expect to win? If I was going to get any of these I'd get a stock-clocked 4850 with kickass cooling or possibly just the crappy single slot unit with a $30-$40 budget for extreme cooling on it then oc the hell out of it. now THAT would probably stomp the crap out of the 9800gtx+.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Looking at this 4850 vs. 9800 GTX+ review at FiringSquad, the AMD card doesn't fair too well in Crysis...

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...ce_9800_gtx+/page6.asp

None of that looks playable to me. So basically means what we already know. Low aa is not the 4850 strong point, but at higher aa, tends to kick ass.

Makes for a nice choice as gamers can decide how important aa is to them.

 

[qliveur]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Sylvanas


LOL. The 4850 was released early because retailers started selling the thing already and results were popping up all over the place so reviews got the opportunity to provide some substantial benchmarks. The GTX+ was introduced ( although we could hardly say introduced...one benchmark on one site conveniently at the 11hr and no availability) after the 4850, they can't panic about something that didn't exist at the time.

OK. So it's panic if NVIDIA releases a card early, but it's heroic if ATI does it?

Got it. :thumbsup:

I probably shouldn't reply to you since you seem to just be trolling, but I can't help myself. One thing you continue to gloss over in all of your posts is the fact that the 9800GTX+ is more money then the 4850. Oh yea, it's not even expected for weeks yet either. AMD released the 4850 early because some places were already selling them. Some people that are on forums like this already had them and were benchmarking them. There was no point in keeping them under NDA any longer as the numbers were already out and they were for sale here and there. Keeping them under NDA would do nothing except possibly lose a few sales to people who wanted a card NOW.

Nvidia's response to the 4850 had 'oh shit!' written all over it. They have focus group members all over forums, Nvidia obviously saw the very, very positive buzz about this card. So in response they paper launched a new card and dropped the price of a card that has similar (slightly less overall) performance $70 to be near the price of the 4850.

Tell me why would AMD be scared of the 9800GTX+? As I mentioned above you keep completely glancing over the fact that this card will be $230. The 4850 has an MSRP of $170. It can be found, right now, today for $149.99 - $200 depending on where you look. So, for anywhere between $30-$80 less then the 9800GTX+'s projected price that won't even be here for weeks yet.

Now, if the 9800GTX+ performed way better then the 4850 then that might mean something, but the truth of the matter is the 4850 and 9800GTX+ are very competitive with each other, they're neck and neck. It looks like the 9800GTX+ will ofer marginally better performance without AA, the 4850 should pull away once you use AA. The truth is they look to be very close to one another depending on the benchmark. But the simple fact of the matter is, they bench extremely close to one another, but the 9800GTX+ does not yet exist. The 4850 you can buy now. You can go to Best Buy and get it. You can order it from Newegg. Also, the 4850 is MUCH CHEAPER while still offering the same performance. I don't see how you can logically think that AMD launching the 4850 a few days early was a panic move.

sorry, but the 9800gtx+ is almost definitely going to be faster than 4850. now, there's going to probably be ~ $50 price differential between them, and there will be oc editions of the 4850 that should be >= 9800gtx+, but if you compare the base model 4850 to the factory oc'd 9800gtx+ then which one do YOU expect to win? If I was going to get any of these I'd get a stock-clocked 4850 with kickass cooling or possibly just the crappy single slot unit with a $30-$40 budget for extreme cooling on it then oc the hell out of it. now THAT would probably stomp the crap out of the 9800gtx+.

And it would still cost $200 or less, depending on the deal you find. I'm really curious to see how the 4850 would perform with an aftermarket cooler and overclocking applied. Something tells me that this card will scale well at higher clocks. I guess we'll find out soon.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Sylvanas


LOL. The 4850 was released early because retailers started selling the thing already and results were popping up all over the place so reviews got the opportunity to provide some substantial benchmarks. The GTX+ was introduced ( although we could hardly say introduced...one benchmark on one site conveniently at the 11hr and no availability) after the 4850, they can't panic about something that didn't exist at the time.

OK. So it's panic if NVIDIA releases a card early, but it's heroic if ATI does it?

Got it. :thumbsup:

I probably shouldn't reply to you since you seem to just be trolling, but I can't help myself. One thing you continue to gloss over in all of your posts is the fact that the 9800GTX+ is more money then the 4850. Oh yea, it's not even expected for weeks yet either. AMD released the 4850 early because some places were already selling them. Some people that are on forums like this already had them and were benchmarking them. There was no point in keeping them under NDA any longer as the numbers were already out and they were for sale here and there. Keeping them under NDA would do nothing except possibly lose a few sales to people who wanted a card NOW.

Nvidia's response to the 4850 had 'oh shit!' written all over it. They have focus group members all over forums, Nvidia obviously saw the very, very positive buzz about this card. So in response they paper launched a new card and dropped the price of a card that has similar (slightly less overall) performance $70 to be near the price of the 4850.

Tell me why would AMD be scared of the 9800GTX+? As I mentioned above you keep completely glancing over the fact that this card will be $230. The 4850 has an MSRP of $170. It can be found, right now, today for $149.99 - $200 depending on where you look. So, for anywhere between $30-$80 less then the 9800GTX+'s projected price that won't even be here for weeks yet.

Now, if the 9800GTX+ performed way better then the 4850 then that might mean something, but the truth of the matter is the 4850 and 9800GTX+ are very competitive with each other, they're neck and neck. It looks like the 9800GTX+ will ofer marginally better performance without AA, the 4850 should pull away once you use AA. The truth is they look to be very close to one another depending on the benchmark. But the simple fact of the matter is, they bench extremely close to one another, but the 9800GTX+ does not yet exist. The 4850 you can buy now. You can go to Best Buy and get it. You can order it from Newegg. Also, the 4850 is MUCH CHEAPER while still offering the same performance. I don't see how you can logically think that AMD launching the 4850 a few days early was a panic move.

sorry, but the 9800gtx+ is almost definitely going to be faster than 4850. now, there's going to probably be ~ $50 price differential between them, and there will be oc editions of the 4850 that should be >= 9800gtx+, but if you compare the base model 4850 to the factory oc'd 9800gtx+ then which one do YOU expect to win? If I was going to get any of these I'd get a stock-clocked 4850 with kickass cooling or possibly just the crappy single slot unit with a $30-$40 budget for extreme cooling on it then oc the hell out of it. now THAT would probably stomp the crap out of the 9800gtx+.

Looking at the Firingsquad numbers the 9800GTX+ is faster then the 4850 in current games without AA. In older games using 4xAA the cards are very, very close. As I said, depending on the benchmark the 4850 and the 9800GTX+ are very close to each other. You can even give a slight edge to the 9800GTX+. My point was, why would AMD panic over the 9800GTX+? Their card offers very, very close performance (and probably more performance when you increase the AA) and costs less. The 9800GTX+ will be a $230 part. The 4850 is a $170 part. They perfrom qutie close, I don't think AMD is too worried about it, hardly in a panic.

 

[mharr7]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Sylvanas


LOL. The 4850 was released early because retailers started selling the thing already and results were popping up all over the place so reviews got the opportunity to provide some substantial benchmarks. The GTX+ was introduced ( although we could hardly say introduced...one benchmark on one site conveniently at the 11hr and no availability) after the 4850, they can't panic about something that didn't exist at the time.

OK. So it's panic if NVIDIA releases a card early, but it's heroic if ATI does it?

Got it. :thumbsup:

I probably shouldn't reply to you since you seem to just be trolling, but I can't help myself. One thing you continue to gloss over in all of your posts is the fact that the 9800GTX+ is more money then the 4850. Oh yea, it's not even expected for weeks yet either. AMD released the 4850 early because some places were already selling them. Some people that are on forums like this already had them and were benchmarking them. There was no point in keeping them under NDA any longer as the numbers were already out and they were for sale here and there. Keeping them under NDA would do nothing except possibly lose a few sales to people who wanted a card NOW.

Nvidia's response to the 4850 had 'oh shit!' written all over it. They have focus group members all over forums, Nvidia obviously saw the very, very positive buzz about this card. So in response they paper launched a new card and dropped the price of a card that has similar (slightly less overall) performance $70 to be near the price of the 4850.

Tell me why would AMD be scared of the 9800GTX+? As I mentioned above you keep completely glancing over the fact that this card will be $230. The 4850 has an MSRP of $170. It can be found, right now, today for $149.99 - $200 depending on where you look. So, for anywhere between $30-$80 less then the 9800GTX+'s projected price that won't even be here for weeks yet.

Now, if the 9800GTX+ performed way better then the 4850 then that might mean something, but the truth of the matter is the 4850 and 9800GTX+ are very competitive with each other, they're neck and neck. It looks like the 9800GTX+ will ofer marginally better performance without AA, the 4850 should pull away once you use AA. The truth is they look to be very close to one another depending on the benchmark. But the simple fact of the matter is, they bench extremely close to one another, but the 9800GTX+ does not yet exist. The 4850 you can buy now. You can go to Best Buy and get it. You can order it from Newegg. Also, the 4850 is MUCH CHEAPER while still offering the same performance. I don't see how you can logically think that AMD launching the 4850 a few days early was a panic move.

Funny how you forget to mention how much hotter the 4850 runs..80C....no thanks, dont need a space heater....and how much more room there is to overclock the GTX+...making the GTX+ a better value card overclocked. Plus the PhysX drivers are actually starting to come about in more and more apps, and improving speed pretty well. Where are your HAVOK drivers?

 

[bryanW1995]

well, the more benchies I look at the more then seem to be about the same performance level. that french site that was linked over at the 9800gtx+ thread in fact showed a decided advantage to 4850 once you get to 1920x1200 with 4xAA. What we really need is for somebody (steel six maybe?) with a 4850 to run benchies on a bunch of titles, have keys run the same benchies, then have the trade video cards and run the same benchies again.

 

[ddarko]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Looking at this 4850 vs. 9800 GTX+ review at FiringSquad, the AMD card doesn't fair too well in Crysis...

http://www.firingsquad.com/har...ce_9800_gtx+/page6.asp

Examine Firing Squad's benchmark and it doesn't seem to square with other sites. Look at Bioshock: at 1920x1200, Firing Squad has the 4850 losing to the 8800GTX, let alone the 9800GTX and 9800GTX+. Look at Anand's results on the same game, same resolution: Anand has the 4850 absolutely crushing the 8800GTX (87.8 vs. 58.9); in Anand's benchmark, the 4850 even surpasses the GTX260 at that resolution.

The disparities between benchmark continues with Call of Duty 4. Anand, Firing Squad and Tech Report all tested this game. FS again has the 8800GTX beating out the 4850 at 2560x1600 resolution with 4xAA and 16xAF turned on. But TechReport tests at the exact same resolution and settings has the 4850 over the 8800GTX. In both cases, the difference was small, a couple of frame rates so maybe it's within the margin of error. Anand doesn't explicitly specify what settings it used at 2560x1600, although the chart says it used 4xAA at its 1920x1200 resolution so maybe we can assume 4xAA was also used at 2560x1600. In any case, Anand also has the 4850 getting higher results than the 8800GTX at 2560x1600 by a healthy margin.

So you're left with two sites - Anand and TechReport - converging on the relative performance of the 4850 versus other cards and Firing Squad presenting contrary benchmarks. I personally put more stock into Anand and TechReport than I do FS. Since I'm skeptical of Firing Squad's results in 4850 versus 8800GTX, I'm not going to rely on their benchmarks for 4850 versus 9800GTX and 9800GTX+ (FS also has the regular 9800GTX regularly outperforming the 4850). Anand and TechReport haven't tested the 98900GTX+ yet. I'm waiting to see them and other sites benchmark the 9800GTX+.

 

[footballrunner800]

Originally posted by: lopri
Does anyone have Company of Heroes? I'd like to see DX10 performance in that game.

Let me redownload it from my steqam account and I will post my results.

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: doggyfromplanetwoof
ASUS Launches World's First 1GB EAH4870 Series

http://www.hardwarezone.com/news/view.php?id=10973&cid=

Now we're talking!

 

[ChronoReverse]

Just got my 4850. It's an HIS model $199CAD (remember everything is more expensive in Canada). Came with the Black Box and Call of Jaurez.

My system:
Q6600 @ 3GHz
8GB RAM
Vista64
Catalyst 8.6 (I'll try the hotfix drivers afterwards)

Overclocked, right now the card is idling at 79 Celsius... rather warm. However, under load it's only about 89 Celsius. Something tells me Powerplay isn't quite working. The fan does spin up though when it's under load so at least that works. It's not horribly load but since I have a quiet system, the noise sticks out like a sore thumb.

Opened up the CCC and hit Auto-tune under Overdrive. Auto-tune gives me 690MHz core and 1153MHz memory. Not too bad considering how crappy the stock cooler is. I'm putting on a Coolink GFXChilla after this.

I'll be benchmarking WoC, Bioshock and HL2:Ep2 in a jiffy.

Okay, with the GFXChilla (a cooler designed to be compact and quiet rather than powerful), the new idle temperature is 42 Celsius. Quite an improvement if I say so myself. Load temperature is about 62 Celsius. Again overclocked.



Initial World of Conflict result (Cat8.6) using built-in bench. 1680x1050. Very High (which sets 4xAA/4xAF and DX10).
28 Avg
11 Min
50 Max

Catalyst Hotfix does not appear to change things.

 

[doggyfromplanetwoof]

http://www.jetway.com.tw/jw/vg...&proname=X4870-EN-512V

# Chipset : ATI Radeon HD 4870
# System Interface : PCI-Express2.0 x16
# CLK/MLK : 750MHz /900*4MHz
# Memory Size : DDR5 512MB / 256-bit
# RAMDAC : 400MHz
# Connector : HDTV, dual DVI-I DVI w/HDCP (HDMI adaptor)

Highlight
# RADEON HD 4870pro GPU
# PCI Express® 2.0 ¡V Support the most demanding graphics applications thanks to PCI Express® 2.0 support, which allows up to twice the throughput of current PCI Express® cards.
# 32-bit floating point texture filtering.
# Lossless Z Compression & Fast Z-Buffer Clear.
# Hierarchical Z-buffer with Early Z test.
# Support for Microsoft DirectX® 10.1 & Shader Model4.1.
# Complete feature set also supported in OpenGL® 2.1 .
# HDMI output support
Main Features
# 480 stream processors ¡V More than enough horsepower to support the most demanding graphics applications.
# Texture Fill Rate 27 Billion texels per second .
# ATI PowerPlay? Technolog .
# ATI Avivo? HD Video & Display Technology .
# ATI CrossFireX ¡V Upgrade to even greater 3D performance quickly and easily thanks to plug-and-play ATI CrossFireX multi-GPU technology .
# Accelerated MPEG-2, MPEG-4, DivX, WMV9, VC-1, and H.264 decoding and transcoding .
# Motion compensation, IDCT, DCT and color space conversion .
# Fully distributed design with 256-bit internal ring bus for memory reads and writes.
Driver & Support
# WindowsXP / Vista
# Linux Compatible
# Microsoft DirectX® 10.1 Compatible
# Support for OpenGL® 2.1

Merged in to thread

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: mharr7

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Sylvanas


LOL. The 4850 was released early because retailers started selling the thing already and results were popping up all over the place so reviews got the opportunity to provide some substantial benchmarks. The GTX+ was introduced ( although we could hardly say introduced...one benchmark on one site conveniently at the 11hr and no availability) after the 4850, they can't panic about something that didn't exist at the time.

OK. So it's panic if NVIDIA releases a card early, but it's heroic if ATI does it?

Got it. :thumbsup:

I probably shouldn't reply to you since you seem to just be trolling, but I can't help myself. One thing you continue to gloss over in all of your posts is the fact that the 9800GTX+ is more money then the 4850. Oh yea, it's not even expected for weeks yet either. AMD released the 4850 early because some places were already selling them. Some people that are on forums like this already had them and were benchmarking them. There was no point in keeping them under NDA any longer as the numbers were already out and they were for sale here and there. Keeping them under NDA would do nothing except possibly lose a few sales to people who wanted a card NOW.

Nvidia's response to the 4850 had 'oh shit!' written all over it. They have focus group members all over forums, Nvidia obviously saw the very, very positive buzz about this card. So in response they paper launched a new card and dropped the price of a card that has similar (slightly less overall) performance $70 to be near the price of the 4850.

Tell me why would AMD be scared of the 9800GTX+? As I mentioned above you keep completely glancing over the fact that this card will be $230. The 4850 has an MSRP of $170. It can be found, right now, today for $149.99 - $200 depending on where you look. So, for anywhere between $30-$80 less then the 9800GTX+'s projected price that won't even be here for weeks yet.

Now, if the 9800GTX+ performed way better then the 4850 then that might mean something, but the truth of the matter is the 4850 and 9800GTX+ are very competitive with each other, they're neck and neck. It looks like the 9800GTX+ will ofer marginally better performance without AA, the 4850 should pull away once you use AA. The truth is they look to be very close to one another depending on the benchmark. But the simple fact of the matter is, they bench extremely close to one another, but the 9800GTX+ does not yet exist. The 4850 you can buy now. You can go to Best Buy and get it. You can order it from Newegg. Also, the 4850 is MUCH CHEAPER while still offering the same performance. I don't see how you can logically think that AMD launching the 4850 a few days early was a panic move.

Funny how you forget to mention how much hotter the 4850 runs..80C....no thanks, dont need a space heater....and how much more room there is to overclock the GTX+...making the GTX+ a better value card overclocked. Plus the PhysX drivers are actually starting to come about in more and more apps, and improving speed pretty well. Where are your HAVOK drivers?

I don't understand how people care what temp the GPU core is so long as it's within spec. All the high GPU temp really illustrates is how well (or poorly) the cooler works on the 4850. If the 4850 puts out x amount of heat and the 8800GT puts out x + 10% (I'll assume it puts out more thermal energy since it's made on a larger process) but the 4850 cooler only removes y amount of heat but the 8800GT cooler removes y+25%, the 8800GT core may actually be cooler, but it is infact putting more heat into your case. The actual temp of the core doesn't mean a whole lot.