Why are Most People Still Recommending the 4870?

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

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,068
1,240
126
Originally posted by: airhendrix13

The 4870 does have basically "free" 8X edge AA, support for the unproven DX10.1, overall puts out more FPS, kind of unknown OCing potential, and the mysterious Havok support on the way.
You forgot 24xAA, AAA in OpenGL and monthly WHQL drivers.

For the negative you forgot 512 MB VRAM which doesn't make me comfortable since my last two video cards had more than this.
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
Originally posted by: Wreckage
I think the new PhysX drivers will be making people think twice for sure.
I think we're going to need games before there's any second thoughts - the same holds true for AMD's supposed DX10.1 advantage...
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Originally posted by: Wreckage
I think the new PhysX drivers will be making people think twice for sure.
I think we're going to need games before there's any second thoughts - the same holds true for AMD's supposed DX10.1 advantage...

Looks like they have that covered
Along with the drivers will come a downloadable PhysX software pack containing free Unreal Tournament 3 maps, the full version of NetDevil's Warmonger, a couple of Nvidia demos, and sneak peeks at Object Software's Metal Knight Zero and Nurien Software's Nurien social-networking service....

.....Speaking of new games, Nvidia told us about two upcoming titles that will feature PhysX hardware acceleration. One of them is DICE's Mirror's Edge, which will feature awesome-looking first-person free running in a futuristic dystopia. Another is Natural Motion's Backbreaker, a third-person football sim. Nvidia claims studios have signed on to implement PhysX in another 10 games?and that's just in the month following the Ageia acquisition.
 

Piuc2020

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,716
0
0
I've decided to go with the HD 4870, it just fits my needs better right now, when either Havok or PhysX becomes the dominant format, it will be made available on ALL GPUs (heck some guys at NGOHQ, with the support of NVIDIA even, are porting Physx to ATI cards), otherwise physics will never take off (no developer is going to alienate half the user base just for physics).

I'm still worried about fan noise (I've gone greath lengths to make my PC almost as silent as my Mac Pro) but if it stays silent enough while idle I'll be happy, noise while gaming is irrelevant since the speakers/headphones drown out the noise.

I'm going to wait a while for a manufacturer to release a card with a custom cooler, MSI and Sapphire already have custom HD 4850s so it shouldn't take long I think.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Originally posted by: deerhunter716
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15261/3

So drop from 66 to 11 is not huge, huh ROFL Lot of benchmarks contradicting others - so I do not think you can honestly say it is worth a hoot or if it is.
learn to read your own links.

The link you posted said:
Physics (software): 11fps
Physics (with GPU acceleration): 40fps
no physics effects at all: 66fps.

So no... the GPU does not lower your FPS from 66 to 11. it would be like saying that the 4870 lower your AA score because if you disable AA you get more FPS then on a 3870 running 8x AA. (which is obviously bull, the 4870 can do AA with only a fraction of the slowdown in % performance of AMD's older components).


As for the heat... the 4870 has a weaker cooler then the GTX, granted you can upgrade to a 3rd party cooler, but that is an additional cost that you incur.

The power consumption lets you know how much heat you need to dissipate. And the GTX260 takes a lot less power then the 4870, which takes a lot less then the GTX280.
 

evolucion8

Platinum Member
Jun 17, 2005
2,867
3
61
The Physix on GPU's is a nice feature, but yet far from being ideal with current GPU's, the performance drop is just too great. We all know that the UE3 engine performs quite fast and is very efficient, I would be hard to see GPU PhysX running smooth in more demanding tittles when is not even that smooth on the UE3 Engine. Physix on GPU is nice, but not until we have more powerful GPU's. HD 4870 is overall better than the GTX 260. I would pick the HD card.
 

ronnn

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
3,918
0
71
Originally posted by: BFG10K

For the negative you forgot 512 MB VRAM which doesn't make me comfortable since my last two video cards had more than this.
I am confused with this, as I thought 512mb of ddr5 is better than 768 of ddr3? Not that I don't think more is better.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,143
32
91
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: airhendrix13
Originally posted by: tvdang7
the 4870 does benifit from overclocking. the problem is all the sites have CCC cap and cant reach the full potential but most people are hiting like 825+ on the core using the amd overclock tool.
Do you have any benchmarks for that? I'd like to see how OCing affects the cards performance.
the CCC O/C only allows my 4870 to get to the "safe" 790/1100 :p

it is about a +3% FPS improvement over stock [generally/roughly in a few games; maybe less - not impressive, but the core needs a higher OC to make a bigger difference]

i have RivaTuner that can OC further, but i haven't pushed the core yet; my temps - admittedly high to start with; only went up +2C at max CCC o/c.

So i have hope for more and i will let you know tonight how far she goes.


The reason i picked HD4870 was because i got it at launch and i want to play with Crossfire X3 [by adding a 4870x2]

BTW, the Sapphire box actually ENCOURAGES "max O/C'ing"
:Q
is rivatuner 2.09 working with 4870 or did you find a newer version? I'm still using custom profiles for my 4850 and it's pissing me off :|

 

Ryl3x

Banned
Nov 28, 2007
34
0
0
Lets all your ATI Fans pray for nvidia to shut down so that ATI will go back to charging $600 for a $200 card.

Some of you ATI fans are incredible.
 

evolucion8

Platinum Member
Jun 17, 2005
2,867
3
61
That would be bad, we need competition to drive prices down, really a very inmature comment of yours.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,143
32
91
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
PhysX and DX 10.1 are both vaporware in terms of game support that anyone should care about, so count both out for now.

Hot Deals prices for both have been in the low 200s so calling one cheaper isn't always accurate either.

Both ATI and nvidia have had driver issues, and the better nvidia vendors must be balanced against alleged manufacturing quality problems with the GTX cards.

At stock, the 4870 is faster. Setting a Catalyst profile is very easy then the card runs cool.

So: unless you plan to overclock and aren't able to watch for deals, the 4870 is still the better choice in my opinion.

At $2xx instead of $4xx the GTX 260 is now a decent choice though.
um, setting a catalyst profile is easy if you know to search for hidden files...don't ask me how I know...I have this "friend" who spent several frustrating hours on his catalys profile...

anyway, the 4870 and gtx 260 are priced correctly relative to performance, you get 5-10% better performance out of 4870 and it is 5-10% faster. I haven't heard any quality complaints about 260 like I have about 280, but I haven't really looked, either.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,143
32
91
Originally posted by: ronnn
Originally posted by: BFG10K

For the negative you forgot 512 MB VRAM which doesn't make me comfortable since my last two video cards had more than this.
I am confused with this, as I thought 512mb of ddr5 is better than 768 of ddr3? Not that I don't think more is better.
ddr 5 simply means that it runs at a quad data rate. yes, I know that it's stupid, but it's true. ddr 3 runs at a double data rate, hence 900 mhz gddr5 runs at an effective 3600mhz, while 900 mhz gddr runs at, yep, you guessed it, 1800 mhz effective. amd chose to use gddr 5 so that they could keep the much cheaper-to-build 256bit bus but have similar bandwidth to the gt 200 series. the 512mb/768mb/etc only comes into play when you run out of memory, though amd seems to have done some nice things with their memory management to minimize the times that games chew up all the memory.
 

airhendrix13

Senior member
Oct 15, 2006
427
0
0
I would really like to see a one on one GTX 260 vs. 4870 OCing benchmark that shows performance, heat, power numbers and such. If anyone can link me to one, that would be appreciated. The 4870 will definitely get my attention when a third party cooler is released.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: airhendrix13
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: airhendrix13
Originally posted by: tvdang7
the 4870 does benifit from overclocking. the problem is all the sites have CCC cap and cant reach the full potential but most people are hiting like 825+ on the core using the amd overclock tool.
Do you have any benchmarks for that? I'd like to see how OCing affects the cards performance.
the CCC O/C only allows my 4870 to get to the "safe" 790/1100 :p

it is about a +3% FPS improvement over stock [generally/roughly in a few games; maybe less - not impressive, but the core needs a higher OC to make a bigger difference]

i have RivaTuner that can OC further, but i haven't pushed the core yet; my temps - admittedly high to start with; only went up +2C at max CCC o/c.

So i have hope for more and i will let you know tonight how far she goes.


The reason i picked HD4870 was because i got it at launch and i want to play with Crossfire X3 [by adding a 4870x2]

BTW, the Sapphire box actually ENCOURAGES "max O/C'ing"
:Q

This helps confirm the rather small performance impact of OCing on the 4870, but like you said, perhaps you can push it further with RivaTuner. I'm surprised by the small temperature increase when OCing, what speed is your fan running at?

I look forward to seeing your OC results!
Well, i did not get so much of an OC without hitting 85-C and getting a VPU recover message in 3DMark06. The problem appears to be the low fan speed. It never really cranks way up like my 2900xt does. i will look for utilities to force it to 90% or so and try again ,,, later

However, stock is 750/900 and CCC pushes it to 790/1100. With AMD GPU Clock Tool, i could stably get 810/1150 and then i ran into heating issues and a too quiet VGA fan. :p
[EDIT] i get 12656 at stock 4870 speeds [or a bit below my 2900 crossfire pair at 13090]. At 790/1100 i got 13193 and at 810/1150 i got 13222 [the highest ever for my system, so far]

actually that isn't too bad for "free"

Of course, my CPU might also be holding me back a little bit; and i will remedy this shortly, but that is no reason to keep the higher GPU OC for now.

 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Originally posted by: evolucion8
The Physix on GPU's is a nice feature, but yet far from being ideal with current GPU's, the performance drop is just too great. We all know that the UE3 engine performs quite fast and is very efficient, I would be hard to see GPU PhysX running smooth in more demanding tittles when is not even that smooth on the UE3 Engine. Physix on GPU is nice, but not until we have more powerful GPU's. HD 4870 is overall better than the GTX 260. I would pick the HD card.
that is not what I am seeing:
Physics (software): 11fps
Physics (with GPU acceleration): 40fps
no physics effects at all: 66fps.

The game is nice and smooth without any physX effects, with physX effect the game play itself jumps ahead by years, cloth, water, destructible environment, hail, secondary destruction. everything is just increased to futuristic levels. with the CPU only it makes you drop down to unplayable 11fps, with GPU acceleration you only drop down to 40fps.

This isn't an unacceptable drop, people take bigger drops for AA which brigs you a slightly sharper image, which is nothing compared to all those things physX brings.
It is also hard to quantify exactly how much performance you are giving up, because there are differing amounts of graphical features add, how many destructible items are on the screen? how much water? what about fabric?

The way I read the above figures is that GPU physX accelerate give you 3.64x the performance. The drop to 1/6th speed when doing CPU render only is just an indication of how much new physics effects were added. Games could add more, or less, depending on their target hardware. But for a given card, it can almost quadruple its FPS by accelerating physX.

The cool thing is, that NGO said they ported physX to AMD cards, and both nvidia and AMD engineers are now aiding them in developing it further. So I am sure it is only a matter of time before we see physX on AMD cards.
 

dadach

Senior member
Nov 27, 2005
204
0
76
Originally posted by: taltamir
people took "there is no reason to get the GTX260 at this price" which was said by every reviewer out there as "there is no reason to get the GTX260". The GTX260 is actually cheaper now. I would recommend it over the 4870.

Also AFAIK most countries simply looked at nvidia's price slashing, laughed, and kept on selling the GTX260 for 700$ and the GTX280 for 1000$ (current prices in india for example).
how can you claim that you know what other people thought?

 

Sylvanas

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2004
3,752
0
0
The game is nice and smooth without any physX effects, with physX effect the game play itself jumps ahead by years, cloth, water, destructible environment, hail, secondary destruction. everything is just increased to futuristic levels. with the CPU only it makes you drop down to unplayable 11fps, with GPU acceleration you only drop down to 40fps.
I can certainly notice a big difference between 40fps and 66 fps. PhysX is still a gimick, it only works properly in ONE game which shows performance degradation at 1680x1050...at higher resolution (which many of us would play at considering these cards are high end cards) this would be even more pronounced. Besides, the map has to actually be produced to support these new effects so it doesn't just magically make everything look prettier when you click the box. The 4870 is still and will remain a better buy atm.
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Originally posted by: ronnn
Originally posted by: BFG10K

For the negative you forgot 512 MB VRAM which doesn't make me comfortable since my last two video cards had more than this.
I am confused with this, as I thought 512mb of ddr5 is better than 768 of ddr3? Not that I don't think more is better.
I think its down to the very high res and AA/AF that some gamers like to use where the extra ram will come into play,moot point anyway since 1GB 4870 cards are available at an extra cost if you need 1GB,yes it puts the price up but still gives those that need it an extra choice /option..
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,068
1,240
126
Originally posted by: ronnn

I am confused with this, as I thought 512mb of ddr5 is better than 768 of ddr3? Not that I don't think more is better.
Better at transferring data on a narrower width, but not better at storage space.
 

Ares202

Senior member
Jun 3, 2007
331
0
71
The GTX 260 is huge, and wouldnt fit in my case without modifying the HDD bays that and the price was what made me buy a 4870

Also i dont really trust Nvidia build quality ive had two cards die on me (fx 5200, 7900gs) in the last three years alone and not yet had a single ATI card die on me
 

Creig

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,171
13
81
Originally posted by: airhendrix13
Anybody know when the 1GB version of the 4870 is going to be released? Cost?
1GB 4870's have already appeared for pre-order on a German site:

http://geizhals.at/?cat=gra16_...el&xf=653_ATI~132_1024

The price for a standard 512MB 4870 on their site is 221 EUR which is $340 US. Their pre-order price for a retail 1GB 4870 is 244 EUR which is $375 US. They also have a bulk/lite version available for 235 EUR which converts to $361 US.

So it appears that a 1GB 4870 is going to ask a $30-$35 premium over the 512MB version. Not a bad price for those who use very high resolutions with AA.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY