Is the 512MB 4870 insufficient for 19x12 ?

[KikassAssassin]

Originally posted by: BroadbandGamer
I'm having some problems with World of Warcraft. Every couple seconds or so I'll notice a short pause. I'm running the game maxed out at 1920x1200. I didn't notice this with my old 8800 GTX.

The Wrath of the Lich King beta is the first and only game so far that I've noticed this issue in, specifically when I enable the new real-time shadows. I had figured maybe it was a bug in the new shadows that was causing the game to stutter, since their implementation is unfinished and still pretty buggy, but it's possible that the higher resolution shadows are overloading the framebuffer and causing the stuttering.

I need to do more testing on this.

 

[apoppin]

I need to do more testing on this.

me too; i am done with 4870 and 4870x2 and nearly done with GTX280 .. then 8800GTX and 2900xt [i don't need to show the pro]. The i will look at X3 and O/C my e8600; and then change out my MB to x48 .. so less than halfway .. i even went back and reviewed *all* my benches [even on my other partition; and they are damn close!] - because of what i was experiencing with my 4870. i have to be sure it is not something else. And i have a few preliminary conclusions

Well, i guess it is something all GPUs will show when pushed near their limit. For example, GTX280 still struggles with Call Of Juarez .. FPS will dip to about 16 at 19x12, 4xAA/16xAF with everything completely maxed in the demo. And it exhibits hitching associated with low FPS and loses fluidity in some sections of the demo.

However, when the FPS are above 20-something, GTX280 gets fluid in most games. otoh, my 4870 is still not smooth - in certain situations, in certain games - with the FPS above 30FPS. So, i am figuring it is somewhat limited by it's limited vRAM and 256-bit bus.

So far, i know which GPU i will keep in my case for running my own games, after the reviews
- and this is a bit tough for me to say for a former ATi fan

GTX280
:Q

the X2 IS very nice and generally is faster than the GTX280 and the fluidity is very similar .. when it scales. otoh i am not so crazy about my 4870/512M for 19x12; i would probably recommend it for 16x10, however - or if you are not expecting to play at 19x12 with everything completely maxed out. i am curious how the GT260[gold] would fare.

 

[nRollo]

Interesting conclusions Apoppin.

I've been saying the GTX260> HD4870, partially due to having almost twice the RAM, but you may be the first end user I've seen saying the 512MB is not enough.

It would be nice to see the games and settings you got the hitching at. It's one thing to say it hitched at 4X, another altogether to say it hitched at 16X.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nRollo
Interesting conclusions Apoppin.

I've been saying the GTX260> HD4870, partially due to having almost twice the RAM, but you may be the first end user I've seen saying the 512MB is not enough.

It would be nice to see the games and settings you got the hitching at. It's one thing to say it hitched at 4X, another altogether to say it hitched at 16X.

it's been awhile .. and you need to remember that i am only halfway done [or less] with my benchmarking.

the games that i most noticed the hitching was in Crysis [of course =P] and ET-QW - especially "outskirts" and "salvage" benches. They are played with the most maxed maxed out highest quality settings and at 4xAA/16xAF and at 19x12 [and 16x10] resolutions.

i all cases, the minimum FPS is above 40 with 4870 - 4870x2 and GTX280 .. the GTX and the X2 are noticeably smoother imo.
- again "noticeably" smoother .. not a "night and day" difference

i think if you did not have other GPUs to compare with 4870, you probably wouldn't notice in casual play .. expect perhaps to think FPS was getting a little low.

 

[sonnygdude]

I had an interesting experience with hitching on the HD4870 in an oldie but goodie flight sim, IL2. After i installed CCC 8.8 and drivers, I saw the hitching you're describing at 1920x1200. I was getting ticked, i figured there's no way my prized brand new card should stutter on a 5 year old game, so i played around with it. I finally solved it by changing the "adaptive anti-aliasing" from "quality" to "performance" in CCC. Still running 8x AA and 16x AF, but everything is as smooth as silk now and still looks great (that game with the "perfect" landscape settings is amazing).

What exactly does the adaptive AA do? The info box mentioned it has something to do with AA on transparent features? I'm not a computer guy so it's all Greek to me!

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: nRollo
Interesting conclusions Apoppin.

I've been saying the GTX260> HD4870, partially due to having almost twice the RAM, but you may be the first end user I've seen saying the 512MB is not enough.

You can't automatically come to the same conclusion with the 260 vs 4870...especially since it isn't for sure that it's the vram affecting the game (except maybe in Crysis). Apoppin didn't tested the 260 (although I wish he had). Wadda ya say Apoppin, wanna splurge a bit more and test the 260 too?

 

[Qbah]

I started Prince of Persia: Warrior Within and the game exhibits similar behavior, running Catalysts 8.8. The FPS is 60 constant but I can feel slowdowns. every now and then Obviously a game that is 5 years old can't possibly be too hard to handle for my HD4870. So I'm saying it's either some of the engines that just plainly suck, run better on nVidia or there's something wrong with Vista or Catalyst 8.8. Or even perhaps Catalyst 8.7, as I've been running those before 8.8s and had the same issue.

Also, a GTX280 is what? 20% faster, so the issue might be more apparent when the game's running at 45 FPS on the HD4870 compared to 60FPS with GTX280. Saying a GTX280 is better is like saying: "Hey, my BMW 325 Coupe is falling behind that Audi RS4! Clearly it's not capable of running on par with an Audi". Well DUH! The Audi in this comparison is faster

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: nRollo
Interesting conclusions Apoppin.

I've been saying the GTX260> HD4870, partially due to having almost twice the RAM, but you may be the first end user I've seen saying the 512MB is not enough.

You can't automatically come to the same conclusion with the 260 vs 4870...especially since it isn't for sure that it's the vram affecting the game (except maybe in Crysis). Apoppin didn't tested the 260 (although I wish he had). Wadda ya say Apoppin, wanna splurge a bit more and test the 260 too?

I wasn't automatically coming to any conclusion, that's why I asked about his settings. I know with my 9800GX2 (512X2) I could max out the memory at 25X16 and get hitching, so I was curious what settings Apoppin was running.

Would be nice if FRAPs could include a memory use recorder as well so you could see when you exceeded the framebuffer.

 

[deerhunter716]

You state: "the games that i most noticed the hitching was in Crysis [of course =P] and ET-QW - especially "outskirts" and "salvage" benches. They are played with the most maxed maxed out highest quality settings and at 4xAA/16xAF and at 19x12 [and 16x10] resolutions. "......

Sure more VRAM might be needed with those maxed out settings. But for those deciding on 512MB vs. 1 GB card and worried about VRAM; let's face it there is no real need to have 4xAA and 16xAF on at all while gaming. You will NOT notice any graphical difference at all while playing the game. Sure you MIGHT notice the ever so slightest difference in a screenshot side by side; BUT not while gaming. Without all of the AA and AF at 1920x1200 the 512MB card will handle 1920x1200 with absolute easiness.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: nRollo
Interesting conclusions Apoppin.

I've been saying the GTX260> HD4870, partially due to having almost twice the RAM, but you may be the first end user I've seen saying the 512MB is not enough.

You can't automatically come to the same conclusion with the 260 vs 4870...especially since it isn't for sure that it's the vram affecting the game (except maybe in Crysis). Apoppin didn't tested the 260 (although I wish he had). Wadda ya say Apoppin, wanna splurge a bit more and test the 260 too?

Sure .. someone want to *loan* me one?
- i DO have a 4870 to "trade" for a week or two

i am guessing it is possible with a later version of RT, to disable some TMUs and underclock the 280 to approximate 260's performance

I wasn't automatically coming to any conclusion, that's why I asked about his settings. I know with my 9800GX2 (512X2) I could max out the memory at 25X16 and get hitching, so I was curious what settings Apoppin was running.

Would be nice if FRAPs could include a memory use recorder as well so you could see when you exceeded the framebuffer.

*agreed* .. actually i'd love ANY tool for Vista that has a memory use recorder.

it appears to me that ANY GPU can be forced to stutter if you load it down enough

My "issue" is with the tech reviewers who did not mention that 4870 ran outta gas at 19x12 even thought the FPS is otherwise adequate

Sure more VRAM might be needed with those maxed out settings. But for those deciding on 512MB vs. 1 GB card and worried about VRAM; let's face it there is no real need to have 4xAA and 16xAF on at all while gaming. You will NOT notice any graphical difference at all while playing the game. Sure you MIGHT notice the ever so slightest difference in a screenshot side by side; BUT not while gaming. Without all of the AA and AF at 1920x1200 the 512MB card will handle 1920x1200 with absolute easiness.

i can tell the difference - *easily* - but maybe that is because i run hours and hours of benches and gaming

if you never use AA/AF at 19x12, you won't miss it; but once you run with it, it is hard to turn it off

i know i *won't* use my 4870 for 19x12 .. i much prefer GTX280 or 4870x2; otoh, 4870 appears OK [generally] for 16x10

i'd probably also recommend 4870 for XP/DX9

i think we should know the *details*
.. the devil is in the details, you know

By Monday, i should have a LOT more info .. and figures for you to look at .. i RE-did a lot - most - of my 4870 benches on my other [identical] partition - just to be sure of the stuttering i was experiencing and to make sure it was not "something else"

- and i will also look for it with my O/C'd e8600 [i am still benching at stock 3.33Ghz] and new ASUS x48 Rampage MB to see if there are other variables.

this is turning out to be a hell of an interesting investigation
[to me, at least]

 

[deerhunter716]

Sounds good and definitely a lot of testing. Though I have tried COD4 with all the AA and AF on and other games and I do not notice the difference at all. If I did take the time in COD4 or Warhammer Online, etc. to try and see the difference I would be dead and respawning.

Now if you simply staring at the screen while benchmarking then yes you can notice it; BUT not if you are gaming and playing the game which is my point

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
Sounds good and definitely a lot of testing. Though I have tried COD4 with all the AA and AF on and other games and I do not notice the difference at all. If I did take the time in COD4 or Warhammer Online, etc. to try and see the difference I would be dead and respawning.

Now if you simply staring at the screen while benchmarking then yes you can notice it; BUT not if you are gaming and playing the game which is my point

i get your point

i recently went to 19x12 and i am used to AA/AF at 16x10. Frankly, i think i need it more, as my 16x10 was a 20.1" display

IF you are a competitive gamer, you NEVER play at 19x12; nor with maxed details nor AA/AF - FPS is king!!

However, IF you are buying a new GPU and deciding on 4870/512 - wouldn't you want to know it's limitations?


i wonder why the other tech sites never mentioned it

EDIT:

i have AoC demo from Nvision .. does it have a built in benchmark?
- it needs 36GB HD space and i do not care to install it "for fun" as i got to play with it a little at Nvision.

 

[deerhunter716]

Oh I am totally for your testing and look forward to reading it all. But I also do not someone who only games, etc. and does run at 1920x1200 to look at it and say man I NEED to get the 512MB as I will run out of VRAM either. I competitively game on COD4 at 1920x1200 with FPS 50-80's easily with the 512MB.

So I completely understand the testing you are doing indeed; but also do not want people to think they cannot game at that resolution at 1920x1200 as they can and would not notice the difference. But from a tech standpoint and benchmarking I look forward to reading it all when it is done.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
Oh I am totally for your testing and look forward to reading it all. But I also do not someone who only games, etc. and does run at 1920x1200 to look at it and say man I NEED to get the 512MB as I will run out of VRAM either. I competitively game on COD4 at 1920x1200 with FPS 50-80's easily with the 512MB.

So I completely understand the testing you are doing indeed; but also do not want people to think they cannot game at that resolution at 1920x1200 as they can and would not notice the difference. But from a tech standpoint and benchmarking I look forward to reading it all when it is done.

Again .. do not misunderstand me. i did not say 4870/512M was a dog at 19x12

i just noted what i thought was a 'shortcoming' .. something to bear in mind when buying one - that it may be somewhat "limited" in certain situations at 19x12 with maxed out settings. The way i read all the tech reviews, i would not get that impression at all - especially from the FPS comparisons - they do not show "relative smoothness" and they mostly more-or-less proclaimed 512 awesome for 19x12. It is not "awesome" - mostly adequate, is what i call it.

i just discovered those 'certain situations' where 4870 falls short and am letting my cyber-friends here know about it first [and the rest of the planet, if they care to look, next week]

heck, i am not even sure it is the 512MB that limits it; it could be any combination of compromises AMD made with 256-bit, vRAM and core speeds - i am just saying it warrants further investigation

 

[deerhunter716]

Yup, understood.

 

[Raventon]

lol i would agree that once you have tried benching at 19x12 with max details and max AA AF and if you do see the difference...you will make the extra effort to notice the difference even when you are playing or enjoying the game...
at least i do that with my x2..after benching the x2 at 19x12 and seeing the difference between 8xAA and 4xAA, i tend to make the extra effort to see the graphical difference even when i am playing games now..although we all know that playing at this kind of graphic settings offen comes with a heavy price tag.For those who have the x2 or GTX280 or whatever monster cards,pushing the graphics setting to the max in every game is just a way to convince ourselves that its worth spending all the money on the card.After all not every card out there can do what my card does

 

[Zillatech]

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
Sure more VRAM might be needed with those maxed out settings. But for those deciding on 512MB vs. 1 GB card and worried about VRAM; let's face it there is no real need to have 4xAA and 16xAF on at all while gaming. You will NOT notice any graphical difference at all while playing the game. Sure you MIGHT notice the ever so slightest difference in a screenshot side by side; BUT not while gaming. Without all of the AA and AF at 1920x1200 the 512MB card will handle 1920x1200 with absolute easiness.

I disagree, I notice the visual quality a lot when I don't use AA or AF. I expect that in this day and age, AA and AF should be expected to be run and new Vids should be able to do this without compromising. Hell, I would run 8xAA and 32xAF if it were possible

I do think that games are nearing or slightly crossing the 512MB limit thou. The line probably starts blurring @ 1900x1200 depending on the game and amount of AA or AF applied. I think the fact that Nvidia has moved to higher VRAM on the GTX260/280 is more proof of that. ATI chose GDDR5 for their new product which was more expensive and in shorter supply, so 512MB was used for a successful launch. I'm still playing the waiting game on the 4870's and see that the 1GB Models are starting to hit retail with no good reviews as of yet. The picture should become much clearer over the next few months.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: taltamir
make fraps save a frame by frame to render time. And then process the info and look for unusual spikes in ms to render.
check out this thread for an example of how to do it: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=31&threadid=2205375

so... you read this yes? You still talk about noticing the drops with your eyes, trust me, if you notice them, they WILL show up on a frame by frame list in fraps...
You take 1000/ms to render one frame, and you know the instantaneous FPS for that frame.

 

[Aberforth]

There are only 2 games that use > 500 MB vram @ low resolutions, World in Conflict and Crysis. Also the AA implementation is totally dependent on drivers, some games are better optimized for it. I'd love to see how Crysis warhead performs with AA.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
There are only 2 games that use > 500 MB vram @ low resolutions, World in Conflict and Crysis. Also the AA implementation is totally dependent on drivers, some games are better optimized for it. I'd love to see how Crysis warhead performs with AA.

Thursday, right?
-i will be in line for it; i played it at Nvision and it is more Crysis; i hope there is a built-in bench.

OK, i have a few more observations:

It appears that the 4870 does not stutter unusually at 19x12 .. just a bit at extreme situations in Crysis where it slows down .. and it is pretty subtle compared to the other cards; but i DO have to be critical. FRAPS graphs do not appear to show unusual weirdness, but i am making a final check tomorrow am.

Finally, a few of the Demo runs in ET-QW seem to be done with a shaky camera; much more so than in Ut3, for example - which exaggerate the hitching.

The 4870x2 is clearly more solid - when it scales; but when it does not, it is slightly slower [generally] than 4870/512. i also disabled a core and it shows the same trend; the 1GB X2 with a disabled core does not help FPS over my 512MB version; but there may be other reasons it is slower. i will give details also later.

Also, from watching for hours and hours - and hours! [i redid all the 4870-512/4870x2 and GTX280 benches on the other partition just to be "surer" ], i am beginning to be annoyed by Micro stutter; it is subtle, to be sure but the slight distortion is beginning to stand out for me. That still leaves the GTX280 as my favorite video card by default .. so far; but it has a few minor annoyances also.

More later

 

[deerhunter716]

Originally posted by: Zillatech

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
Sure more VRAM might be needed with those maxed out settings. But for those deciding on 512MB vs. 1 GB card and worried about VRAM; let's face it there is no real need to have 4xAA and 16xAF on at all while gaming. You will NOT notice any graphical difference at all while playing the game. Sure you MIGHT notice the ever so slightest difference in a screenshot side by side; BUT not while gaming. Without all of the AA and AF at 1920x1200 the 512MB card will handle 1920x1200 with absolute easiness.

I disagree, I notice the visual quality a lot when I don't use AA or AF. I expect that in this day and age, AA and AF should be expected to be run and new Vids should be able to do this without compromising. Hell, I would run 8xAA and 32xAF if it were possible

Guess it depends on the game, I am playing COD4 and Warhammer Online. If I sit back and TRY to notice the difference I am shot dead or almost dead, lol So to me I absolutely cannot notice the difference when deeply involved in the game, questing, shooting people, etc.

Now if you are playing a much slower-paced game then sure maybe you do. But a majority of FPS or MMOG's you will hardly notice a differnece and the 512 will do ya just fine.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: deerhunter716

Originally posted by: Zillatech

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
Sure more VRAM might be needed with those maxed out settings. But for those deciding on 512MB vs. 1 GB card and worried about VRAM; let's face it there is no real need to have 4xAA and 16xAF on at all while gaming. You will NOT notice any graphical difference at all while playing the game. Sure you MIGHT notice the ever so slightest difference in a screenshot side by side; BUT not while gaming. Without all of the AA and AF at 1920x1200 the 512MB card will handle 1920x1200 with absolute easiness.

I disagree, I notice the visual quality a lot when I don't use AA or AF. I expect that in this day and age, AA and AF should be expected to be run and new Vids should be able to do this without compromising. Hell, I would run 8xAA and 32xAF if it were possible

Guess it depends on the game, I am playing COD4 and Warhammer Online. If I sit back and TRY to notice the difference I am shot dead or almost dead, lol So to me I absolutely cannot notice the difference when deeply involved in the game, questing, shooting people, etc.

Now if you are playing a much slower-paced game then sure maybe you do. But a majority of FPS or MMOG's you will hardly notice a differnece and the 512 will do ya just fine.

i am sorry but that is just silly to me

if you are ONLY competitively gaming, you might as well play with and older GPU with DX8 or DX9, and at 16x12 or lower. And not all parts of a FPS are action all of the time; you DO have time in BioShock, Crysis, ET-QW, UT3 - and most games to "admire the scenery" - briefly. Online shooters are a different story as is *competition*.

All my preliminary tests are done with my 5GPUs and 2 CPUs [except for a couple of hours with finishing 2900xt benches] and i would have to say stuttering is mostly not a problem with HD4870. It is slightly less smooth than 280GTX and 4870x2, when X2 scales; when it does not, X2 is [generally] slower than the 4870-512MB version.

The differences are subtle and FRAPS video will not show it as FRAPS videos slow down the frame rate, anyway. i am looking to try and demonstrate it by capturing video with my DVC.
--Maybe you can see it.

 

[fpsdean]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Looks like you are going to have to buy the 1GB version and do some more testing.

lol I know I am a bit late here but the game only detects 256mb video RAM with a 4870 so 1gb would be a waste with WAR too.

Card isn't ready for 1gb. It's only marginally faster when running 2560x1600+ res with at least 8xAA. Not worth the extra ~$100

I have Crossfire 4870 512s. AA/AF comes free with most games up to 1920x1200.

In War, cranking up AA isn't an issue as it only puts a single 4870 at 15-30% load.

Regardless, you the difference between 4xAA and 8xAA is noticable on a still image sure but it might take you some time to tell the difference. When playing the game with moving images, no human alive will be able to tell the difference between 4xAA and 8xAA -- at larger resolutions.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: fpsdean

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Looks like you are going to have to buy the 1GB version and do some more testing.

lol I know I am a bit late here but the game only detects 256mb video RAM with a 4870 so 1gb would be a waste with WAR too.

Card isn't ready for 1gb. It's only marginally faster when running 2560x1600+ res with at least 8xAA. Not worth the extra ~$100

I have Crossfire 4870 512s. AA/AF comes free with most games up to 1920x1200.

In War, cranking up AA isn't an issue as it only puts a single 4870 at 15-30% load.

Regardless, you the difference between 4xAA and 8xAA is noticable on a still image sure but it might take you some time to tell the difference. When playing the game with moving images, no human alive will be able to tell the difference between 4xAA and 8xAA -- at larger resolutions.

Here is a benchmark for you to try for yourself on your 512MB Crossfire
- it runs awesome on my *single* 1GB GTX280 or my 4870/1GB and it flies on an X2 or my CF-x3 configuration

try max settings and lets us know what you average and perhaps if you think 512MB vRAM is sufficient for this upcoming video game.

http://forum.i3d.net/full-game...boats-knights-sea.html

http://www.gamershell.com/download_21133.shtml

Akella presents the DX10 tech demo-benchmark of the upcoming naval action sim PT Boats: Knights of the Sea. The final game will support both DX10 and DX9, but this demo is a demonstration of what the final game will look like in DirectX 10. The demo features all the visual effects and some of the highly detailed models that will be available in the game.

The main DX10 graphics features of PT Boats: Knights of the Sea tech demo-benchmark:

* Advanced ocean rendering
* Soft particles
* Reflections, light beams and advanced transparency
* Advanced HDR for gunfire and sun reflection

DOWNLOAD BENCHMARK
The benchmark supports all the latest DirectX 10 graphics cards

i think, if you have a few minutes and a fast connection for D/L, it is worth running this DX10 bench
- check out the screen shots from the first link

 

[cusideabelincoln]

At 1280x1024, I notice stuttering in Far Cry 2. I've also heard complaints from money people, with both Radeon and Geforce cards, about stuttering in Far Cry 2 even though they are getting over 30 fps.

The problem you're getting, as my best guess, is not with limited VRAM, but with memory bandwidth. The HD4870X2 and GTX280 both have the same amount of VRAM, but the 280 does have more bandwidth. So in those intense sequences in Crysis, data is being transferred faster along the 280's memory bus than the 4870's bus.