• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Just got my newegg RMA and can't decide

FerraraZ

Senior member
Feb 10, 2008
649
3
81
My Sapphire ATI 4870 X2 burnt out on me almost a month ago and Newegg has allowed me to replace it with the original purchase price of $349.99.

What video card from newegg should I get to replace the 4870 x2?

Just looking for suggestions and some benchmarks if you have them.
 

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
0
71
any card for that price would be slower, but you could be looking at a gtx470 or a 5850
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
I would go for a GTX470, since it's $350, and even if you would rather have an HD5850, the GTX470 is worth more.
You can either sell it and buy an HD5850 with the proceeds + have some cash.
Or just keep it and use it as the replacement.

If you get offered a replacement fr up to $350, why take a $300 one under any circumstance?
 

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
0
71
Well since you had 4870 x2, I don't think you would worry about heat and noise. so I think the GTX470 would serve you better.

But if noise and heat do bother you, get a custom 5850 like a vapor-X
 

blanketyblank

Golden Member
Jan 23, 2007
1,149
0
0
If you have a CF mobo, and want identical or a little better performance get 2 x 5770. Should be cheaper, and provide faster performance than a 5870.
 

Madcatatlas

Golden Member
Feb 22, 2010
1,155
0
0
I think Lonyo has some good points if you have the choice of 470 and 5850. Id take the 470.


But if you enter the 5870, thats the one to pick
 

T2k

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,664
4
0
That would be the fastest choice. Faster than a GTX470 and a HD5850. Just a tiny bit slower than a HD4870x2, quieter, uses less power and supports the newest technologies.
I have yet to see any game where a 5870 is actually slower than a 4870x2...

If that's not possible, I'd consider a GTX470 next.
Nononono. No OC, power monster and crazy hot - no future.

For $50-60 extra it's a no brainer to get a 5870, I'm telling you.
 

Qbah

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2005
3,754
10
81
I have yet to see any game where a 5870 is actually slower than a 4870x2...
Facts > T2k

AnandTech, just click on next in every other test.
TechPowerUp, summary.
FiringSquad, just hit the next button for other games.

Nononono. No OC, power monster and crazy hot - no future.
If there's something the new nVidia cards have, it's speed. Hot and power hungry - yes. But speed is definitely there - GTX470 OC - very good OC results here.
 

T2k

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,664
4
0
Facts > T2k

AnandTech, just click on next in every other test.
TechPowerUp, summary.
FiringSquad, just hit the next button for other games.
Yawn. Did you read what I wrote? I said I have yet to see them... translation: it's never been the case when I measured (sans the few cases where twice the framebuffer mattered.)

If there's something the new nVidia cards have, it's speed.
Except GTX470 is disappointingly slow, at least here, in my i7-based 8GB WS - maybe you're runnign something faster than i7...?
GTX470 costs the same as a 5870 yet it barely matches a 5850...

Hot and power hungry - yes. But speed is definitely there - GTX470 OC - very good OC results here.
...and on top of it every 5850 I've ever seen overclocks better than a GTX470.

Unless you need NV (CUDA) it's the worst possible choice IMO.
 

Qbah

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2005
3,754
10
81
Yawn. Did you read what I wrote? I said I have yet to see them... translation: it's never been the case when I measured (sans the few cases where twice the framebuffer mattered.)

Except GTX470 is disappointingly slow, at least here, in my i7-based 8GB WS - maybe you're runnign something faster than i7...?
GTX470 costs the same as a 5870 yet it barely matches a 5850...

...and on top of it every 5850 I've ever seen overclocks better than a GTX470.

Unless you need NV (CUDA) it's the worst possible choice IMO.
Ahh yes, T2k and his magical rig :-/

Every reviewer in the world tested the HD5870 in numerous games (old and new), using several resolutions and both AA on and off and all of them came to the same conclusion (backing it with pages of data) - in most cases the HD5870 is slower than a HD4870x2 - except for games where CrossFire scales bad (like Crysis). So unless you happen to play just those few games with bad scaling or you're playing some very "special" games nobody else knows of, your statement has no value.

I can show you a game where a GTX285 beats a HD5870 - it doesn't mean that's the case in general and that's something you should be using as an argument when recommending cards. I could write "in all the games I have played the GTX285 is actually faster than a HD5870" - I didn't lie (as the only game I played was the one where a GTX285 beats a HD5870), but that would be a worthless statement at the same time and wouldn't add any weight in a discussion or decision at all.

And just a small tip - 2GB on the HD4870x2 is actually 1GB per GPU, so the last gen red card has the same framebuffer size available as the HD5870 (so 1GB in total). Unless you had the 4GB model (if there ever was one?), you're wrong, again. 2GB is physically on the card, hence they advertise it as 2GB, but actual usable size is 1GB and that's just AMD's BS you're being fed (nVidia does the same, so who cares, right?). Don't believe me? Read up on how CrossFire works.

Now, read the next statement carefully: I told the OP to get a HD5870 and only if that's not possible get a GTX470. Meaning, I know the HD5870 is a better value card. And "barely matches a HD5850" is just flat out wrong. Again, I'll point you to every reviewer out there saying the GTX470 is indeed slower than a HD5870 but it's closer to it than it is to a HD5850. So how is that barely matching the HD5850? It must be your magical rig... red electricity flowing through it or something?

You wrote "no OC" for the GTX470 and I showed you that the card OC's nicely. You used that statement in your argument and I showed it's wrong. Hot and power hungry? The idle and load power numbers for a HD4870x2 are even worse. So it's not a big deal deal for the OP anyway.

Finally, he can select a card from Newegg to get as a replacement for his dead HD4870x2. If he gets a cheaper one, he won't get the money difference anyway. So why would he get a slower HD5850 if he could get a faster GTX470? It's not logical at all. Of course if he can get a HD5870, that's the best solution. But if that's not possible, a GTX470 is the next obvious, logical choice. You want to tell me, when presented with a "free" card, a HD5850 or a GTX470, you'd go with the Radeon? Really? You know what? Maybe don't answer...

EDIT: Okay, the GTX470 is right there in between the HD5850 and HD5870. Doesn't change the fact that choosing a HD5850 over it with no extra money required is a bad decision imo, as the nVidia card is faster and offers at least the same technologies (unless you want 3 monitors).
 
Last edited:

darunium

Member
Apr 12, 2010
48
0
0
If you have a CF mobo, and want identical or a little better performance get 2 x 5770. Should be cheaper, and provide faster performance than a 5870.
I second this, I just made the choice between an HD5850 ($240 OEM) and dual 5770 CF ($290). The 5770 CF generally breaks even with even the HD5870 (usually 10-15% fps improvement over the HD5850), with a notable exception. With some games when you crank up effects like AA, your average fps may compete with the HD5870 but the xbitlabs review shows that your bottom fps may suffer. Generally it's not that bad, and I think the viability of the 5870 and 5770 CF pair for games down the road is about equal.

I ended up going with the HD5850, since at $240 that's a hard price to beat, but it was a toss-up with the superior performance of a 5770 CF pair

Some Great reviews on the same question:

xbitlabs

anandtech

I'll also add that the best price I could find for the HD5870 was $380, $90 more than the 5770 CF. As much as I want the 5870, it's hard to justify that cost for very little performance gain, I could take that money and buy 'up' on my next GPU upgrade.
 
Last edited:

T2k

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,664
4
0
Ahh yes, T2k and his magical rig :-/

Every reviewer in the world tested the HD5870 in numerous games (old and new), using several resolutions and both AA on and off and all of them came to the same conclusion (backing it with pages of data) - in most cases the HD5870 is slower than a HD4870x2 - except for games where CrossFire scales bad (like Crysis). So unless you happen to play just those few games with bad scaling or you're playing some very "special" games nobody else knows of, your statement has no value.

I can show you a game where a GTX285 beats a HD5870 - it doesn't mean that's the case in general and that's something you should be using as an argument when recommending cards. I could write "in all the games I have played the GTX285 is actually faster than a HD5870" - I didn't lie (as the only game I played was the one where a GTX285 beats a HD5870), but that would be a worthless statement at the same time and wouldn't add any weight in a discussion or decision at all.

And just a small tip - 2GB on the HD4870x2 is actually 1GB per GPU, so the last gen red card has the same framebuffer size available as the HD5870 (so 1GB in total). Unless you had the 4GB model (if there ever was one?), you're wrong, again. 2GB is physically on the card, hence they advertise it as 2GB, but actual usable size is 1GB and that's just AMD's BS you're being fed (nVidia does the same, so who cares, right?). Don't believe me? Read up on how CrossFire works.
Obviously you have no clue what I'm talking about... do you know how SLI or Crossfire works, rendering modes, framebuffers, resultions etc?

Now, read the next statement carefully: I told the OP to get a HD5870 and only if that's not possible get a GTX470. Meaning, I know the HD5870 is a better value card. And "barely matches a HD5850" is just flat out wrong. Again, I'll point you to every reviewer out there saying the GTX470 is indeed slower than a HD5870 but it's closer to it than it is to a HD5850. So how is that barely matching the HD5850? It must be your magical rig... red electricity flowing through it or something?

You wrote "no OC" for the GTX470 and I showed you that the card OC's nicely. You used that statement in your argument and I showed it's wrong. Hot and power hungry? The idle and load power numbers for a HD4870x2 are even worse. So it's not a big deal deal for the OP anyway.

Finally, he can select a card from Newegg to get as a replacement for his dead HD4870x2. If he gets a cheaper one, he won't get the money difference anyway. So why would he get a slower HD5850 if he could get a faster GTX470? It's not logical at all. Of course if he can get a HD5870, that's the best solution. But if that's not possible, a GTX470 is the next obvious, logical choice. You want to tell me, when presented with a "free" card, a HD5850 or a GTX470, you'd go with the Radeon? Really? You know what? Maybe don't answer...

EDIT: Okay, the GTX470 is right there in between the HD5850 and HD5870. Doesn't change the fact that choosing a HD5850 over it with no extra money required is a bad decision imo, as the nVidia card is faster and offers at least the same technologies (unless you want 3 monitors).
As I said it's nonsense - you can type up long-winded speculations all day long but it's here in my primary WS and it performs pretty awfully for the price $39x we paid for it especially when compared to a $250 5850 which, as I also said, OC FAR BETTER than any of these new dustbusters from Nvidia and mops the floor with any OC'd GTX470.

As I said: GTX470, at its current price, is the worst possible choice unles you have to go Nvidia (ie you need CUDA.)

PS: let me guess: you don't own any of these cards...?
 
Last edited:

Qbah

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2005
3,754
10
81
Obviously you have no clue what I'm talking about... do you know how SLI or Crossfire works, rendering modes, framebuffers, resultions etc?
So you write... nothing to prove me otherwise? The framebuffer is not shared on a HD4870x2 card - those are facts. Just because the name says 2GB doesn't make it behave like a 2GB card. Each GPU has 1GB max available and that's the highest amount the card can handle before choking to death (at least in AFR mode - the mode the card works in). You obviously can't take facts and continue to not understand how crossfire works. Resolution has nothing to do with how a framebuffer works in a CrossFire setup.

As I said it's nonsense - you can type up long-winded speculations all day long but it's here in my primary WS and it performs pretty awfully for the price $39x we paid for it especially when compared to a $250 5850 which, as I also said, OC FAR BETTER than any of these new dustbusters from Nvidia and mops the floor with any OC'd GTX470.

As I said: GTX470, at its current price, is the worst possible choice unles you have to go Nvidia (ie you need CUDA.)
The GTX470 performing nicely for everyone else and performing poorly just for you suggests there's something wrong with your configuration. It's as simple as that.

If you buy new I fully agree. A GTX470 is a worse value card unless you need CUDA. HD5850 is a better choice. Just a bit slower and so much cheaper. However the OP does not buy anything. He can choose a replacement - why should he choose the slower HD5850? It makes no sense.

PS: let me guess: you don't own any of these cards...?
My XFX HD5850 should arrive next week, if you really need to know. GTX470/HD5870 cost 50% more than HD5850 here. A GTX470 is even worse value than in the US as it's priced the same as a HD5870 - and of course everything's out of stock (my order has been on hold since early last week - 'yay').
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,063
495
126
Ahh yes, T2k and his magical rig :-/

Every reviewer in the world tested the HD5870 in numerous games (old and new), using several resolutions and both AA on and off and all of them came to the same conclusion (backing it with pages of data) - in most cases the HD5870 is slower than a HD4870x2 - except for games where CrossFire scales bad (like Crysis). So unless you happen to play just those few games with bad scaling or you're playing some very "special" games nobody else knows of, your statement has no value.

I can show you a game where a GTX285 beats a HD5870 - it doesn't mean that's the case in general and that's something you should be using as an argument when recommending cards. I could write "in all the games I have played the GTX285 is actually faster than a HD5870" - I didn't lie (as the only game I played was the one where a GTX285 beats a HD5870), but that would be a worthless statement at the same time and wouldn't add any weight in a discussion or decision at all.

And just a small tip - 2GB on the HD4870x2 is actually 1GB per GPU, so the last gen red card has the same framebuffer size available as the HD5870 (so 1GB in total). Unless you had the 4GB model (if there ever was one?), you're wrong, again. 2GB is physically on the card, hence they advertise it as 2GB, but actual usable size is 1GB and that's just AMD's BS you're being fed (nVidia does the same, so who cares, right?). Don't believe me? Read up on how CrossFire works.

Now, read the next statement carefully: I told the OP to get a HD5870 and only if that's not possible get a GTX470. Meaning, I know the HD5870 is a better value card. And "barely matches a HD5850" is just flat out wrong. Again, I'll point you to every reviewer out there saying the GTX470 is indeed slower than a HD5870 but it's closer to it than it is to a HD5850. So how is that barely matching the HD5850? It must be your magical rig... red electricity flowing through it or something?

You wrote "no OC" for the GTX470 and I showed you that the card OC's nicely. You used that statement in your argument and I showed it's wrong. Hot and power hungry? The idle and load power numbers for a HD4870x2 are even worse. So it's not a big deal deal for the OP anyway.

Finally, he can select a card from Newegg to get as a replacement for his dead HD4870x2. If he gets a cheaper one, he won't get the money difference anyway. So why would he get a slower HD5850 if he could get a faster GTX470? It's not logical at all. Of course if he can get a HD5870, that's the best solution. But if that's not possible, a GTX470 is the next obvious, logical choice. You want to tell me, when presented with a "free" card, a HD5850 or a GTX470, you'd go with the Radeon? Really? You know what? Maybe don't answer...

EDIT: Okay, the GTX470 is right there in between the HD5850 and HD5870. Doesn't change the fact that choosing a HD5850 over it with no extra money required is a bad decision imo, as the nVidia card is faster and offers at least the same technologies (unless you want 3 monitors).
/smackdown
 

blanketyblank

Golden Member
Jan 23, 2007
1,149
0
0
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but newegg has given the OP an RMA worth $350.
My understanding is that's in the form of a gift card of some sort so any money the OP does not spend on his GPU purchase he can keep to spend on something else in the future i.e. SSD hard drive.

So why would people recommend the GTX 470 and in the same post tell the OP it's a worse value? Simply put if the OP does not lose the money left unspent a 5850 on sale (on sale meaning 280 or under) or as I said previously 2x 5770(on sale at 132 each would be under 270) would be the best value and performance.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY