Is 4870 worth $100 more than 4850?

[thilanliyan]

Is 4870 worth $100 more than 4850? Or is it better to get 2 4850 and xfire them?

 

[minmaster]

depends on your resolution i'd guess as well as the games you plan to run.

 

[Tempered81]

i vote for 4850 xfire

 

[geoffry]

Also, if you can get 2 4850s for the same price as a 4870 for CF, they would be better(if you have a good CF mobo that gives enough bandwidth to the cards)....but only useful if you play at 1920X1200 or higher, otherwise the 4870 would be a better choice due to the few cases where CF scales badly, and you don't need to deal with other CF issues.

 

[ajaidevsingh]

I vote for 4870.. I have the 4850 CF now and at 1080P you know your are surfing at the edge.. I mean sooner than later the 4850 CF will be a bottle neck for next gen hard games like CRYSIS 2, etc...

Just buy the 4870 and buy another 4870 later when you want more power. When i bought the CF setup 4870 was not available and was quite expensive. I dont regret my buy but a 4870 would have been a better card for the future.

ANOTHER THING- Also if you can wait for about 20 days get the new 4850X2 instead of the 4870!!!! You can CF that sucker 2x 4850x2 would be my dream rig...!!!

 

[thilanliyan]

I'm gonna be playing at 1920x1200. Yeah I think maybe the 4870 is the better bet now then xfire 4870 later on when it gets cheaper.

My motherboard is the one in the sig so it will be x8/x8 xfire if go that route.

 

[RussianSensation]

I'd get 4850s in CF instead. At $300 it's hard to beat that performance. A single 4870 isn't sufficient for 1920x1200 - just ask Apoppin and check any recent reviews.

 

[deerhunter716]

4870 runs flawlessly for me at 1920x1200. Sure if you max out AA and AF it might not. But no issues here while running some AA and AF. 4870 is just fine.

 

[Insomniator]

1x 4850 runs fine for me at 19x12. AA/AF isn't worth 100 bucks to me.

 

[firewolfsm]

Without AA a 4850 can handle 19x12 and max settings in every game but Crysis.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
I'd get 4850s in CF instead. At $300 it's hard to beat that performance. A single 4870 isn't sufficient for 1920x1200 - just ask Apoppin and check any recent reviews.

his playability criteria is 16AA 16FA

 

[thilanliyan]

4850 CF is definitely tempting...the cards are $180 each (with $20 rebate...I hate rebates though) here in Canada for the Palit reference versions. Only thing I'm worried about is microstuttering.

 

[deerhunter716]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
I'd get 4850s in CF instead. At $300 it's hard to beat that performance. A single 4870 isn't sufficient for 1920x1200 - just ask Apoppin and check any recent reviews.

his playability criteria is 16AA 16FA

Exactly and hardly anyone plays 16AA/16AF in FPS or most games period. As I posted in that thread if you are actually playing the game as intended you do not notice the difference or BAM headshot and you are dead if you are looking that close, lol

 

[BFG10K]

I'd definitely be picking a 4870 in your situation; it's about 20%-30% faster than a 4850.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
I'd get 4850s in CF instead. At $300 it's hard to beat that performance. A single 4870 isn't sufficient for 1920x1200 - just ask Apoppin and check any recent reviews.

his playability criteria is 16AA 16FA

All those sleepless nights benchmarking 4870X2 in Crysis have given apoppin supernatural eyesight .. He can spot aliasing 10 feet away on a 30 inch LCD

 

[thilanliyan]

I think I'll keep an eye out for a 4870. Hopefully the price comes down once the GTX 260 "+" is released. Otherwise...if there's a great deal on 4850s here in Canada, I'll just grab 2 of them.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
I'd get 4850s in CF instead. At $300 it's hard to beat that performance. A single 4870 isn't sufficient for 1920x1200 - just ask Apoppin and check any recent reviews.

his playability criteria is 16AA 16FA

All those sleepless nights benchmarking 4870X2 in Crysis have given apoppin supernatural eyesight .. He can spot aliasing 10 feet away on a 30 inch LCD

this is like when yoda taught luke the force...in this scenario apoppin is luke and bfg is yoda. bfg could spot microstuttering from 3 counties over.

edit: you might see how the 1gb 4870 does. iirc there are many games with absolute max AA/AF levels where the 512mb starts to really come into play at 19x12, you might get much better usage from the 1gb card.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
edit: you might see how the 1gb 4870 does. iirc there are many games with absolute max AA/AF levels where the 512mb starts to really come into play at 19x12, you might get much better usage from the 1gb card.

That's a good idea...I forgot about that card. Hopefully it doesn't stay too expensive compared to what it is now.

 

[QuixoticOne]

x8 + x8 = great for XF if you choose that route.

I'll say --

512MB 4870 = not worth it due to your 19x12 resolution and shortage of VRAM.

512MB 4850 XF = not worth it due to your 19x12 resolution and shortage of VRAM and poor XF scaling.

1GB 4870 = good for your needs for almost any game in 19x12 at either max settings or at least playable settings with some compromises (crysis)

1GB 4850 XF = an option but IDK if you can find the good cards for a good price vs. just one good 1GB 4870

Personally I'd avoid XF due to often poor scaling, high heat / bad airflow, increased driver & game bugs, et. al. It is your best theoretical bang for the buck if you're comparing 4850-512-XF vs 4870-512 but I don't think either one is a good choice for you so it is a moot point, and even if you did it the situation would be soured by the occasional bugs / headaches / bad scaling et. al.

Originally posted by: thilan29
I'm gonna be playing at 1920x1200. Yeah I think maybe the 4870 is the better bet now then xfire 4870 later on when it gets cheaper.

My motherboard is the one in the sig so it will be x8/x8 xfire if go that route.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: QuixoticOne
x8 + x8 = great for XF if you choose that route.

I'll say --

512MB 4870 = not worth it due to your 19x12 resolution and shortage of VRAM.

1GB 4870 = good for your needs for almost any game in 19x12 at either max settings or at least playable settings with some compromises (crysis)

I really don't see why is 4870 1gb so much more, at 19x12 resolution, over the 4870 512 mb. Tests show only a marginal speed bump, but nothing spectacular that can justify the big price difference.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/ar...php?id=2684&cid=3&pg=8

The 1gb version is simply not worth it.

 

[minmaster]

can the lack of VRAM of 512mb cards vs 1GB cards be somewhat countered by having a lot of system RAM? but seriously, how important is more VRAM for 1920x1200 because the GTX 260 with more VRAM doesn't necessarily perform better than 4870. i think the 1GB necessity idea is more bologna than anything else.

 

[QuixoticOne]

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

I wasn't speaking of the value of the 4870 1GB being the best deal, since 'best' depends on criteria.
I just was suggesting that for the long term of the lifetime of the card, paying top dollar for a high end or XF set of GPUs with 512MB each would probably be short sighted since we are running up to the limits of quality & AA & resolution @ 19x12 in various of today's most detailed high quality games. If he wasn't stating he was interested in 19x12 specifically I wouldn't think VRAM would be an issue. But at 19x12 it is a factor to consider, plus if he's at 19x12 today it isn't unlikely he might upgrade further later on within the life of the card. 512MB certainly doesn't always cut it for high IQ + AA games at more than 19x12.

If you're paying a $100+ premium for the 4870 you probably want maximum headroom & capabilities, so to spend a lot more on the faster card only to be RAM / resolution / AA limited is questionable since you've spent most of the high end money for some limitations that you may regret.
Whether it is worth top dollars for top end is a value judgement.

If he wanted to play in 16x12 or 19x12 without AA then obviously saving the money and getting a single 4850 would be a good choice, so one must assume that he not only wants 19x12 but also wants to do it without much IQ compromise if he's looking at something 2x the cost of a single 4850 as a desirable solution.

This thread has good info:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2226115&enterthread=y

Also this one although it is dated and mostly for low resolutions it already shows how easy it is to nearly exceed 512MB RAM in even many older games + lower resolutions.
http://www.yougamers.com/artic...ch_do_you_really_need/

I can only assume that shortly the price premium between 512 and 1GB on the higher end cards will be relatively small compared to the card's cost, e.g. 40$, 50$ in which case it seems like a valuable choice to enure no compromise IQ + AA & the best texture quality in the best "eye candy" games.

IMHO for 512MB @ 19x12 you might as well just run a single 4850 and turn down the AA / quality a bit rather than spending 2x or 3x the money and still having IQ limitations if you're doing 512 MB on much higher cost cards or an XF or X2 or whatever.

Personally I decided a single 4850-512 will be OK for gaming at 19x12 w/ some compromises or 16x12 if needed for further performance compromises and in another year then I can always get better performance and 1GB or 2GB VRAM with whatever is out then. It wasn't worth it to get a 4870 to me, but if I was going to lay out the cash for something much better than a 4850 it would be 1GB not due to speed so much as ensuring max IQ at high resolution and at a tolerable / playable speed.

Originally posted by: error8
I really don't see why is 4870 1gb so much more, at 19x12 resolution, over the 4870 512 mb. Tests show only a marginal speed bump, but nothing spectacular that can justify the big price difference.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/ar...php?id=2684&cid=3&pg=8

The 1gb version is simply not worth it.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
4870 runs flawlessly for me at 1920x1200. Sure if you max out AA and AF it might not. But no issues here while running some AA and AF. 4870 is just fine.

 

[QuixoticOne]

Vista with DX10 does try to use system RAM to virtualize graphics RAM.
You really don't want to have a lot of stuff that doesn't fit within the GPU VRAM though, because VRAM is 25x faster than system RAM PLUS it takes 'forever' to switch stuff from PC RAM to VRAM.
For CAD or some slow speed thing using system RAM as a boost / extension for VRAM is great. Not for FPS games, though.

I don't think 1GB is a "necessity" any more than I think a 24" or 30" monitor is a "necessity" for good gaming. My point is if you're going to spring for a 24", 30" LCD HD monitor, you pretty much have to have 1GB if you want to play the highest image & texture quality games with the full AA/AF/HDR/shader capabilities of a high end GPU like 4870x2/whatever.

If you want to play in 16x12 or turn down AA and some shader effects then 512MB isn't too bad of a compromise.

It isn't black & white, but it is a limit that you're starting to rub against at 19x12 and it'll only get worse as more really high IQ games are released.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2226115&enterthread=y
http://www.yougamers.com/artic...ch_do_you_really_need/

Originally posted by: minmaster
can the lack of VRAM of 512mb cards vs 1GB cards be somewhat countered by having a lot of system RAM? but seriously, how important is more VRAM for 1920x1200 because the GTX 260 with more VRAM doesn't necessarily perform better than 4870. i think the 1GB necessity idea is more bologna than anything else.

 

[Phew]

I went with the 4870, for two reasons that justified the $100 price premium (for me at least):

1. 2-slot cooling. Dumping ~200W directly into your case is going to heat up every component in your system (reducing life, overclockability, etc). You can buy aftermarket coolers for the 4850 that exhaust outside your case, but that starts to eat up that $100 price difference.

2. VSYNC. On an LCD with VSYNC enabled (a must to avoid tearing), you basically can only be operating at 60, 30, 20, 15 or fewer FPS. Your 'actual' FPS will round DOWN to the closest value above. The 4870 is only 20% faster than the 4850, so lets say the 4850 produces 25 fps in Crysis, and the 4870 produces 30 fps. Not a huge difference, except with VSYNC on, the 4870 will run at 30 fps and the 4850 will run at 20 fps. So in reality, the 4870 is now 50% faster (worth the extra $100). Since I usually see around 25-35 fps in Crysis, this is far from a hypothetical scenario.

Triple Buffering helps with this second problem, but enabling Triple Buffering in DX10 games is not always trivial (especially on Vista 64).

If these 2 issues aren't important for you, then by all means, go spend $150 on a 4850 and enjoy an amazing card for the price.