Diamond offers 800MHz-core HD 4870 XOC Unlocked Black Edition!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
110
106
Originally posted by: n7
Wrong. But also right.

...

Now obviously, there are many many games than will still run extremely well on 512 MB, i agree.
I would go ahead & say basically anyone who runs 1600x1200/1680x1050 should absolutely not worry about things & get themself a 512 MB 4870/4870.

But if you want to run high levels of AA on certain newer games, or run up @ my resolution, buying a 512 MB card is not plenty, or even adequate at all in some cases.

That all sounds good in theory, but where are the benchmarks to back this up? Why does the 512MB 4870 so easily beat the 896MB GTX260? Why does the 512MB 4870 even beat the 1GB GTX280 at 2560x1600 in some games?



http://www.firingsquad.com/har...performance/page15.asp
 

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: n7
Wrong. But also right.

...

Now obviously, there are many many games than will still run extremely well on 512 MB, i agree.
I would go ahead & say basically anyone who runs 1600x1200/1680x1050 should absolutely not worry about things & get themself a 512 MB 4870/4870.

But if you want to run high levels of AA on certain newer games, or run up @ my resolution, buying a 512 MB card is not plenty, or even adequate at all in some cases.

That all sounds good in theory, but where are the benchmarks to back this up? Why does the 512MB 4870 so easily beat the 896MB GTX260? Why does the 512MB 4870 even beat the 1GB GTX280 at 2560x1600 in some games?



http://www.firingsquad.com/har...performance/page15.asp

Yep, I agree... Can you link an example of the 512MB being a limitation, N7?
 

unr3al

Senior member
Jun 10, 2008
214
1
81
www.link-up.co.za
This isn't the first rumour I've heard from "Smooth Creations". Not to be overly cautious here but I would do some thorough research on them before deciding to buy there.

On aftermarket coolers, I am looking at the PowerColor HD3850 with the ZeroTherm HSF. Now, if I am correct, then you should be able to rip that cooler off the card (once you decide to upgrade) and stick it right onto an HD4850. The PowerColor has no memory heatsinks but that can be had for pennies. Should make for a decent aftermarket cooler on an HD4850 considering that it keeps the HD3850 (720MHz overclocked) at around 50'C load. I'm guessing around 60-70'C load on an HD4850 then?

That was a bit off-topic, sorry, but back to the original subject: I would imagine somebody will unlock the HD4870 at some stage. But an unlocked HD4850 would interest me even more, considering the price range and excellent performance. What if GTX280 performance could be had from an HD4850 with a decent aftermarket HSF? Not that I mean it would be possible, just a thought. I have no idea whatsoever concerning the overclockability of an HD4850 with a decent cooler.

An unlocked X2 with a heavily modified cooler could pose a serious threat to the GTX280 as well, if some partner comes around to that. And considering the dual-GPU HD3850 ASUS released, I am looking forward to some great products this time around.
 

djnsmith7

Platinum Member
Apr 13, 2004
2,612
1
0
A 1 GB version of this card would be worth looking at since I'm now gaming on a 58" Plasma. The 512 cards just aren't cutting it for me anymore. I can't believe it's already time for me to upgrade again. I just built these systems in January.
 

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
Originally posted by: djnsmith7
A 1 GB version of this card would be worth looking at since I'm now gaming on a 58" Plasma. The 512 cards just aren't cutting it for me anymore. I can't believe it's already time for me to upgrade again. I just built these systems in January.
Size of the display doesn't mean anything. A 58" Plasma at best can be 1920x1080, which is about halfway between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. In other words, a 24" Display requires more GPU power than any maintream TV currently out there. Size doesn't play a role in this at all.

I doubt the 1GB will offer much above the 512MB version at 1920x1080, especially since the 512MB doesn't appear to be a hindrance to even 2560x1600 users at this point.
 

djnsmith7

Platinum Member
Apr 13, 2004
2,612
1
0
I actually game on both systems & on both, the 24" monitor & 58" plasma. Neither of my systems can play Crysis at max settings, although my 3870 system runs better at the High setting than the GTs. The GTs are rather disappointing with Crysis, actually.

Hence the reason for an upgrade to a 1 GB card. I'm not saying that 1 GB cards would be absolutely mandatory, but it seems to make more sense that the higher end cards would move in that direction (GTX 280 already has).
 

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
110
106
Originally posted by: djnsmith7
I actually game on both systems & on both, the 24" monitor & 58" plasma. Neither of my systems can play Crysis at max settings, although my 3870 system runs better at the High setting than the GTs. The GTs are rather disappointing with Crysis, actually.
The point is, your hypothetical 1GB card isn't going to get you the performance you want either. You have problems running crysis art full settings because crysis requires a video card that doesn't exist yet for solid 60fps at high settings. That is simply the way things are. If memory was really the bottleneck you think it is, the 280GTX should totally blow away the 4870. It doesn't- it performance a little better. The 4850 in CF, with it's 512MB RAM, beats the 1GB 280GTX.

More RAM doesn't help.

I would be very surprised if 1GB cards show more than a 1-2% performance increase over equally clocked 512MB cards.

 

shangshang

Senior member
May 17, 2008
830
0
0
Most current games don't seem to push beyond 512mb, but they don't push beyond 512mb not because the developers can't, but because developers were targeting the 512mb segment as this is what most people have. But I'll bet the next wave of games hitting the market in December will start to demand 1gb now that 1gb is getting cheaper.
 

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
Originally posted by: shangshang
But I'll bet the next wave of games hitting the market in December will start to demand 1gb now that 1gb is getting cheaper.

The next wave of games will definitely not 'demand' it. You won't see minimum system requirements like that for several years to come. However, I do agree that it is possible that some of the next generation titles will have a few options, such as "user super duper uber textures" which will translate into really high resolution textures that eat up a ton of memory. Will you be able to the see the difference in these 'super high', versus 'very high' texture settings? Ehh... Maybe on a 2560x1600 and only then, probably very slightly.

I certainly am not opposed to a 4870 1GB card. In fact, before I really delved into the benchmark data, I was holding out for one. But I wouldn't let a 512MB card stop be from a purchase if I wanted to upgrade today. Of course, many of us on this video forum also upgrade our graphics cards frequently. So the whole "next years games *might* use more Vram" is somewhat moot anyway. Buy now if you need now.
 

deerhunter716

Member
Jul 17, 2007
163
0
0
Say a game did use the full 512 VRAM; what then kicks in to take care of the rest? If you have 4 GB RAM does that then kick in to take care of the rest if the VRAM is maxed; thus no performance drop?
 

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2003
9,811
110
106
Originally posted by: deerhunter716
If you have 4 GB RAM does that then kick in to take care of the rest if the VRAM is maxed;
Yes.

thus no performance drop?
No, there is a performance drop. System memory is access much slower than the memory on the card. For one thing the base memory speed is slower, and for another the fact that each access has to go across PCIe and the chipset adds latency and in some cases limits bandwidth further.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,143
32
91
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Originally posted by: djnsmith7
A 1 GB version of this card would be worth looking at since I'm now gaming on a 58" Plasma. The 512 cards just aren't cutting it for me anymore. I can't believe it's already time for me to upgrade again. I just built these systems in January.
Size of the display doesn't mean anything. A 58" Plasma at best can be 1920x1080, which is about halfway between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. In other words, a 24" Display requires more GPU power than any maintream TV currently out there. Size doesn't play a role in this at all.

I doubt the 1GB will offer much above the 512MB version at 1920x1080, especially since the 512MB doesn't appear to be a hindrance to even 2560x1600 users at this point.
are you saying that SIZE DOESN'T MATTER??? whew...I've been telling my wife that for years! (running to go tell wife)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
I Graphics Cards 13

ASK THE COMMUNITY