PowerColor Radeon 1GB HD 4870 PCS OC Emerges

[Mem]

Link.


More info here.

But the really impressive product is the PowerColor Radeon 4870 PCS 1GB. Based on "Super RV770" concept, PowerColor put 1GB of GDDR5 memory and overclocked the GPU to 800 MHz. The company is still fine tuning the memory, but we received word that targeted memory clocks could be higher than what we expect. PCS stands for "Professional Cooling System" or a fancy name for Zerotherm's VGA coolers. In any case, these coolers will no doubt work better than reference ones.

.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I really am starting to want a 4870, but I think if I got one I'd feel the need to upgrade to a 24" monitor as well (I'm on a 22" right now). I have a feeling the wife will not go for this.

 

[Qbah]

Sounds great! A-ctually... Once I plugged in my 4870 and saw the constant 60fps in all my games (except Crysis, but who cares?) I spend some cash for a 24" screen and now am playing the same games at FullHD res. And the best thing is... I'm still getting 60fps!

Though having that in mind, I wonder why would I need the 1GB anyway... However the higher core and mem clocks are welcome for those extra frames at AAx16, I guess

 

[taltamir]

the 4870 just doesnt handle 2560x1600 with AA resolution the way higher vram cards do. If you want that you need more then 512MB, also if you want specific games like oblivion with super high res texture mod (which casues vram use to be just under 800MB)

 

[natty1]

Originally posted by: taltamir
the 4870 just doesnt handle 2560x1600 with AA resolution the way higher vram cards do. If you want that you need more then 512MB, also if you want specific games like oblivion with super high res texture mod (which casues vram use to be just under 800MB)

Can't high res textures be stored on system memory? In quake 4 ultra quality mode it says you need 512 megs of video RAM. However I can run it just fine on my 7600 GT with only 256 megs of video RAM, and 2gb of system RAM.

 

[n7]

Heh, this is what i get for not being patient...

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: n7
Heh, this is what i get for not being patient...

Meh, you got a GTX280 to enjoy, don't have buyer's remorse!

 

[Cutthroat]

Originally posted by: n7
Heh, this is what i get for not being patient...

When you get your working GTX 280 back you'll be happy, trust me.

 

[Kadence]

Any guesses on the pricing of these?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: n7
Heh, this is what i get for not being patient...

meh, might not be so bad if these things are priced ~$399 and impossible to find

of course if they keep the price more reasonable and stock a decent supply...

 

[MichaelD]

Nice find; thanks for sharing it here. With 1GB of memory and a higher core clock, it's sure to be a fantastic card. It should also drop the price of the normal HD4870 a bit more.

I realize that the HSF is a better unit than the stocker, but it dumps all the heat right back in the case. Can't they make a better than stock HSF that pushes the air outside (where it belongs) like the stock HSF? A thermodynamics engineer I'm not, but it can't be THAT difficult. I really like 2-slot cards simply b/c of the fact that they push the air outside the case.

 

[Aberforth]

is 1 GB really worth? I play most of the games in Window mode @ 1920 or 1680 but my native res is 2560. And at what resolution can you max crysis with this card??

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I really am starting to want a 4870, but I think if I got one I'd feel the need to upgrade to a 24" monitor as well (I'm on a 22" right now). I have a feeling the wife will not go for this.

Been there, done that... Honestly, once you have been through the whole 'bigger is better' step ladder, you soon realize that screen size actually isn't as important as one might think. If you moved to a 24", you'd just have to sit back farther. Sure, the screen is 9% sharper, but I doubt you would notice it. Also, moving to a 30" is the same problem, you simple sit back further from the screen to get into comfortable viewing, and again, 10% sharper picture, but I doubt anyone would notice.

I have owned 22", 24", and 30" and I went back down to 22". In every situation, I just compensated by sitting back further from the screen. FWIW, when I first used a 30", it was 'awesome' and breathtaking... Then... then in a few weeks it was just like every other display, except this time, It was too large to really play games. I couldn't move my monitor any further back on my desk and I had the whole tennis court movement type thinig... back and forth, back and forth... In my experience, a larger display does not satisfy in the end...

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I really am starting to want a 4870, but I think if I got one I'd feel the need to upgrade to a 24" monitor as well (I'm on a 22" right now). I have a feeling the wife will not go for this.

Been there, done that... Honestly, once you have been through the whole 'bigger is better' step ladder, you soon realize that screen size actually isn't as important as one might think. If you moved to a 24", you'd just have to sit back farther. Sure, the screen is 9% sharper, but I doubt you would notice it. Also, moving to a 30" is the same problem, you simple sit back further from the screen to get into comfortable viewing, and again, 10% sharper picture, but I doubt anyone would notice.

I have owned 22", 24", and 30" and I went back down to 22". In every situation, I just compensated by sitting back further from the screen. FWIW, when I first used a 30", it was 'awesome' and breathtaking... Then... then in a few weeks it was just like every other display, except this time, It was too large to really play games. I couldn't move my monitor any further back on my desk and I had the whole tennis court movement type thinig... back and forth, back and forth... In my experience, a larger display does not satisfy in the end...

wtf?

Sorry, but you have to be an extreme exception to the rule.

2560x1600 is glorious.
Whether it's simply the real estate you have to work with on the desktop, or the detail in games...i don't think i've ever heard anyone say what you just did.

I personally will never be able to go back to a display lower than 1600p...love it far too much.

Originally posted by: Aberforth
is 1 GB really worth? I play most of the games in Window mode @ 1920 or 1680 but my native res is 2560. And at what resolution can you max crysis with this card??

You have 2560x1600...then this or the GTX 280 are the cards for you.
(unless you really prefer playing your games windowed or with black bars around the sides :Q)

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I really am starting to want a 4870, but I think if I got one I'd feel the need to upgrade to a 24" monitor as well (I'm on a 22" right now). I have a feeling the wife will not go for this.

Been there, done that... Honestly, once you have been through the whole 'bigger is better' step ladder, you soon realize that screen size actually isn't as important as one might think. If you moved to a 24", you'd just have to sit back farther. Sure, the screen is 9% sharper, but I doubt you would notice it. Also, moving to a 30" is the same problem, you simple sit back further from the screen to get into comfortable viewing, and again, 10% sharper picture, but I doubt anyone would notice.

I have owned 22", 24", and 30" and I went back down to 22". In every situation, I just compensated by sitting back further from the screen. FWIW, when I first used a 30", it was 'awesome' and breathtaking... Then... then in a few weeks it was just like every other display, except this time, It was too large to really play games. I couldn't move my monitor any further back on my desk and I had the whole tennis court movement type thinig... back and forth, back and forth... In my experience, a larger display does not satisfy in the end...

wtf?

Sorry, but you have to be an extreme exception to the rule.

2560x1600 is glorious.
Whether it's simply the real estate you have to work with on the desktop, or the detail in games...i don't think i've ever heard anyone say what you just did.

I personally will never be able to go back to a display lower than 1600p...love it far too much.

Everyone does have their opinion and perspective. IIRC, you are extremely anal. I think I have seen you 'drama queen' over TN panels in several threads. Most users couldn't tell the difference between the TN and an S-IPS. I can, you can... But most people can not. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[NinjaJedi]

Wont it be limited becuase of it still using 256-bit interface? Did they forget to put it is using 512? Also seems like it should be a 512-bit interface for the 4870x2s per GPU. Does the extra bandwidth of GDDR5 mean the 256-bit interface is not going to a bottleneck?

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: NinjaJedi
Wont it be limited becuase of it still using 256-bit interface? Did they forget to put it is using 512? Also seems like it should be a 512-bit interface for the 4870x2s per GPU. Does the extra bandwidth of GDDR5 mean the 256-bit interface is not going to a bottleneck?

The 256 bit bus isn't a limitation (yet, at least in this generation) because it is paired with GDDR5, which can perform 4 cycles per clock, whereas GDDR3 can only do 2 per clock. So 512 bit bus with GDDR3 @ 1000Mhz (x2 = 2000Mhz) would have the same memory bandwidth as a 256 bit bus with GDDR5 @ 1000Mhz (x4 = 4000Mhz). Hope this helps!


Edit * One more thing that nVidia and AMD/ATi considers when they make these decisions is cost. 512 bit bus creates a more expensive GPU and PCB, but allows them to use cheaper memory (GDDR3 in this case). 256 bit bus allows them to keep the costs down the GPU and PCB, but requires them to use more expensive memory (GDDR5 in this case). I think once they weigh the costs of each, they make their decision. AMD/ATi chose 256 this round, and nVidia chose 512. There is also more factors than this, but I think ultimately, it comes down to sales versus cost.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
is 1 GB really worth? I play most of the games in Window mode @ 1920 or 1680 but my native res is 2560. And at what resolution can you max crysis with this card??

With a 4ghz nehalem and this card you might be able to max crysis at 800x600 resolution.
Or do you mean "max settings with barely playable FPS" when you say max? in which case with a 4ghz intel quad and this card you should be able to get it on max settings but barely playable fps on 1280x768

This will definitely help the FPS a for your native res of 2560x1600 in almost all games.
It will only help a little and for a few games at 1920x1200.

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: NinjaJedi
Wont it be limited becuase of it still using 256-bit interface? Did they forget to put it is using 512? Also seems like it should be a 512-bit interface for the 4870x2s per GPU. Does the extra bandwidth of GDDR5 mean the 256-bit interface is not going to a bottleneck?

The 256 bit bus isn't a limitation (yet, at least in this generation) because it is paired with GDDR5, which can perform 4 cycles per clock, whereas GDDR3 can only do 2 per clock. So 512 bit bus with GDDR3 @ 1000Mhz (x2 = 2000Mhz) would have the same memory bandwidth as a 256 bit bus with GDDR5 @ 1000Mhz (x4 = 4000Mhz). Hope this helps!


Edit * One more thing that nVidia and AMD/ATi considers when they make these decisions is cost. 512 bit bus creates a more expensive GPU and PCB, but allows them to use cheaper memory (GDDR3 in this case). 256 bit bus allows them to keep the costs down the GPU and PCB, but requires them to use more expensive memory (GDDR5 in this case). I think once they weigh the costs of each, they make their decision. AMD/ATi chose 256 this round, and nVidia chose 512. There is also more factors than this, but I think ultimately, it comes down to sales versus cost.

That is about the crux of it. Engineering decisions are not features, they are the reasons the card performs and costs as much as it does. nothing less, nothing more.

 

[AdamK47]

I've seen Crysis, STALKER, Oblivion, and BioShock use over 512MB on my 8800GTX, so I know games are using more than 512MB. I think a 1GB card is very usable with games like Rage, Alan Wake, Crysis Warhead, and Fallout 3 coming closer to release.

 

[Kuzi]

Nice find. 800MHz GPU and 1GB Memory is great, it should also peform very closs to the GTX280 at that speed (but still a little slower).

 

[Kadence]

Any more recent info on when these might be available, and if anybody has benchmarked them yet?

 

[unr3al]

Looking at the PowerColor HD3850 PCX and its similar performance to the HD3870, I can't wait to see benchmarks on this thing. O_O I'm guessing it could just perhaps beat a GTX280...