Support NeoGAF

[Chiggs]

I'm excited, but those benchmarks should be taken with a salt lick.

 

[gofreak]

Right now it all points to the 4870X2 being more powerful than the GTX280, but I would assume that after price reductions and drivers everything will be even. Only if Nvidia doesn't lower its prices then is when the problems could arise.

I agree. But that's a rather different situation to the FX5xxx series.

Is the 4870x2 a single card solution?

 

[Beer Monkey]

Is the 4870x2 a single card solution?

Yes.

 

[Cheeto]

I agree. But that's a rather different situation to the FX5xxx series.

Is the 4870x2 a single card solution?

Doesn't x2 indicate dual chip? I may be wrong.

 

[Vic]

Doesn't x2 indicate dual chip? I may be wrong.

You are right

 

[Beer Monkey]

x2 = two chips on one card.

Will take up an extra slot for cooling (vents to the outside) like most enthusiast-level cards.

 

[godhandiscen]

Doesn't x2 indicate dual chip? I may be wrong.

Its still a single card solution. Is just 2 cores in one board. Its much akin to a multi core processor.

 

[artist]

Its still a single card solution. Is just 2 cores in one board. Its much akin to a multi core processor.

Sorta, but not there yet.

Also just to make it clear:

Nvidia's approach - GX2 - 2 GPUs on 2 PCBs
AMD's approach - X2 - 2 GPUs on 1 PCB

 

[godhandiscen]

Sorta, but not there yet.
Also just to make it clear:

Nvidia's approach - GX2 - 2 GPUs on 2 PCBs
AMD's approach - X2 - 2 GPUs on 1 PCB

Right now there is no bridge chip apparently, is being handled in memory. This is the closest GPUs have come.

 

[artist]

Right now there is no bridge chip apparently, is being handled in memory. This is the closest GPUs have come.

Not confirmed yet, so I'm not counting on it. The earlier leaked pictures of the heatsink suggested that the bridge chip was still there .. but then again, AMD is getting pretty good at spreading misinformation targeting Nvidia :lol

 

[godhandiscen]

Not confirmed yet, so I'm not counting on it. The earlier leaked pictures of the heatsink suggested that the bridge chip was still there .. but then again, AMD is getting pretty good at spreading misinformation targeting Nvidia :lol

They said that they were going to rework the connectivity between the cards. I dont know how they could rework the bridge chip. Also ATI was really dissatisfied wih the bridge chip last gen. My money is on the chip being gone or vastly improved. Also, I dont think I am selling my card. I will just work my ass off during summer and save enough for the 4870X2. I will sell my 3870X2 once I get enough the new card or maybe build a PC for my little brother and play Mythos with him.

 

[Cheeto]

Hmm... I received my free monies from the government today...Coincidence? Or a sign?

 

[derder]

Hmm... I received my free monies from the government today...Coincidence? Or a sign?

When did you file?

 

[Epsilon-delta]

When did you file?

I think he's talking about his stimulus check.

 

[bill0527]

People in this thread seem to be only talking about the 4850. Any reason for that? Are there not any benchmarks for the 4870 yet?

Most of us that are talking about it are poor bastards looking for the best sub-$200 card we can get. It appears as if we have a winner.

 

[zoku88]

I think he's talking about his stimulus check.

I actually just got my tax refund, tho.. Altthough, that's not really free monies (more like monies I paid that I shouldn't have..)

Most of us that are talking about it are poor bastards looking for the best sub-$200 card we can get. It appears as if we have a winner.

Makes sense. By the time I build my new system, I'm sure the 4870 will be at a pretty good price (Winter -- Spring 2009 )

 

[Chiggs]

Most of us that are talking about it are poor bastards...

Hardly. I make a very comfortable living; there's just no way in hell I'll ever spend over $300.00 for a video card. The older I get, the more in tune with proper financial decision-making I become.

 

[bill0527]

Hardly. I make a very comfortable living; there's just no way in hell I'll ever spend over $300.00 for a video card. The older I get, the more in tune with proper financial decision-making I become.

It was a figure of speech. Poor in the sense that I won't spend more than $200 for a graphics card, even though I easily could.

 

[GaryD]

Copying from another site I am on. Apparently this is an unamed AMD/ATI card being benchmarked, speculation is that it is 4850. Original link is here with more info and benchmarks:
http://bbs.chiphell.com/viewthread.php?tid=24251&extra=page=1&page=1

CPU: Intel® Core™2 Extreme Processor QX9650 3.00G 333*9
Motherboard: ASUS Maximus Formula X38
Memory: Corsair DOMINATOR™ TWIN2X2048-8500C5D DDR2 1066 5-5-5-18
Hard Disk Drive: WD Raptor® WD1500ADFD
PSU: PC Power & CoolingSilencer 750 Quad (Red)
Display: DELL 2407WFP-HC
OS: Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate (32 bit) SP1
Drivers:
DirectX End-User Runtimes (June 2008)
Catalyst™ 8.5 Display Driver for Windows Vista
GeForce Release 175.16 WHQL for Windows Vista 32-bit
Software:
Futuremark 3DMark Vantage V1.0.1
Crysis v1.2

 

[godhandiscen]

Copying from another site I am on. Apparently this is an unamed AMD/ATI card being benchmarked, speculation is that it is 4850. Original link is here with more info and benchmarks:

Not as impressive as ATI suggested, but it will at least help to lower the cost of the 9800GTX. Also, whats the point of a benchmark at unplayable framerates?

Edit: Actually in accordance to ATI benchmarks since they were comparing to the 8800GT in their benchmarks. This is good but sucks at the same time. The 4870 could still deliver 15fps on Crysis at those settings, and the 4870X2 could theoretically get 23fps. It seems no card this gen will get Crysis playable at those settings.

 

[bee]

hey look theres the 1.4x faster performance ati claimed in crysis, 8fps to 11fps haha

 

[godhandiscen]

hey look theres the 1.4x faster performance ati claimed in crysis, 8fps to 11fps haha

Over a 9800GTX, which is about 20% faster than a 8800GT (The Nvidia card in the 4850 ATI benchmarks). So it seems the ATI benchmarks were a little bit conservative. Still, no card this gen will give you playable framerates with Crysis at those settings.

 

[zoku88]

Not as impressive as ATI suggested, but it will at least help to lower the cost of the 9800GTX. Also, whats the point of a benchmark at unplayable framerates?

Edit: Actually in accordance to ATI benchmarks since they were comparing to the 8800GT in their benchmarks. This is good but sucks at the same time. The 4870 could still deliver 15fps on Crysis at those settings, and the 4870 could theoretically get 23fps. It seems no card this gen will get Crysis playable at those settings.

I was about to reply to you and didn't see your edit until I hit the reply buttton :lol

 

[godhandiscen]

The Nvidia benches:

edit: Fuck it, interpret what you want from those numbers. I see the 4850 beating the GTX260 in CoD4 but thats the only clear thing, that type of statistical bars are to hard to compare to the numbers released by Nvidia, but seem in accordance to what ATI released at least for Crysis and CoD4.

 

[godhandiscen]

Ok, the rumor in this thread is that the GTX280 will deliver 36fps on Crysis at 1900x1200 on MAX. If so, I will eat my words and build a new system based around the GTX280. I hope its true. Such performance applied to other games could mean that this card could actually be on top for years to come.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=185628&page=60

 

[GaryD]

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/4378/officialamdslideahd4800eg3.jpg

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/9827/officialamdslidebhd4800mz1.jpg

Apparently these "AMD" benchmarks are fake

 

[zoku88]

I think that 'years to come' bit is a bit of an exaggeration. I doubt that that will be true...

 

[Chiggs]

Okay, I'm no longer interested in the 4850; bring on the 4870 benches!

 

[godhandiscen]

Apparently these "AMD" benchmarks are fake

They were confirmed to be real by a poster "w0mbat" who supposedly works at AMD/ATI

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=182304&page=86

Okay, I'm no longer interested in the 4850; bring on the 4870 benches!

If you were ever interested in it then your budget is $200 and for that then the 4850 is offering a performance thats unprecedent. Srsly, Crysis halves its fps everytime AA is applied. Those benches seem to indicate that Crysis could actually be playable @30fps or more at MAX but at 1600x1050 and maybe only 2xAA, which is still a looker.

 

[derder]

I'm not counting Nvidia out this gen, but their 260 is out of my pricerange atm. I'm not going to buy anything until I see benchmarks from tomshardware, hardocp, AND anandtech.

 

[MrPing1000]

Ah the wonderful topsy turvy world of graphics cards.

 

[Vic]

Ah the wonderful topsy turvy world of graphics cards.

These days, the CPU world don't even have half the drama of the GPU's.

 

[artist]

hey look theres the 1.4x faster performance ati claimed in crysis, 8fps to 11fps haha

Thats such an ignorant statement .. there is a limit that applies to how much each company (Nvidia/AMD) can cram into their gpus. I mean gpus have already overtaken processors and they are the ones that keep pushing the limits and yet we have people like you who dont realise that this is the absolute best each company can do at the moment.

Apparently these "AMD" benchmarks are fake

Ok .. :lol

The Nvidia benches:

edit: Fuck it, interpret what you want from those numbers. I see the 4850 beating the GTX260 in CoD4 but thats the only clear thing, that type of statistical bars are to hard to compare to the numbers released by Nvidia, but seem in accordance to what ATI released at least for Crysis and CoD4.

Note that the Nvidia benches used really old Catalyst drivers ..

Ok, the rumor in this thread is that the GTX280 will deliver 36fps on Crysis at 1900x1200 on MAX. If so, I will eat my words and build a new system based around the GTX280. I hope its true. Such performance applied to other games could mean that this card could actually be on top for years to come.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=185628&page=60

If the 4870X2 or 4850 CF provides higher fps, would you go for it considering it would be cheaper?

 

[godhandiscen]

If the 4870X2 or 4850 CF provides higher fps, would you go for it considering it would be cheaper?

Of course. Even in the case that the situation is only "even" in the performance/price ratio I would always choose ATI first because of my excellent experience with them accross the years. Only if the GTX280 offers a ridiculous performance difference over the 4870X2 (I am talking double the fps here) I would feel like switching to Nvidia. Even then most likely I would still find a reason to buy a 4870X2 because of my confidence in the spider platform.

 

[artist]

Personally speaking I've never spent more than $300 on a videocard more than once. The max I spent was $400 when I bought the 8500 All-in-wonder around 7-8 years back. :lol Since then my video card purchases were following
4200 - $280
9800 Pro - $300
7600GT - $140
8800GT - $225

I'll get whatever gives me the most bang for my buck under $300.

 

[godhandiscen]

Personally speaking I've never spent more than $300 on a videocard more than once. The max I spent was $400 when I bought the 8500 All-in-wonder around 7-8 years back. :lol Since then my video card purchases were following
4200 - $280
9800 Pro - $300
7600GT - $140
8800GT - $225

I'll get whatever gives me the most bang for my buck under $300.

Thats reasonable. I was playing on a 7800 until before my 3870X2. I've had my share of Nvidia cards, but I always get happier with ATI cards, though maybe its the games.

 

[Luthair]

Personally speaking I've never spent more than $300 on a videocard more than once. The max I spent was $400 when I bought the 8500 All-in-wonder around 7-8 years back. :lol Since then my video card purchases were following
4200 - $280
9800 Pro - $300
7600GT - $140
8800GT - $225

I'll get whatever gives me the most bang for my buck under $300.

I'm pretty much the same way, tho now I face a problem... the 9800GTX's are under 300 on amazon I dunno if its worth booting my 8800GT and upgrade to an 9800GTX. I hear the next gen cards are going to be nearly 500 bucks... If that ATI card hits 200-300 like rumors have it, I will no doubt be changing to ATI... something I havent done since the 9800pro was new.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I had a 9800 Pro. Got it real cheap as an upgrade to a Dell P4 system (hey, I know) that I bought back then. Thing was a monster for the time.

(I've built most of my PCs in the last 20 years, but sometimes I buy off the shelf if the price is right and the system isn't too proprietary)

I've had a few 3DFX cards, a few ATI cards, and a few NVidia cards. I've had mostly Intel systems but also AMD systems. I pretty much have no loyalty, and don't really regret any of my purchases. I buy whatever makes the most sense at the time.

 

[godhandiscen]

I'm pretty much the same way, tho now I face a problem... the 9800GTX's are under 300 on amazon I dunno if its worth booting my 8800GT and upgrade to an 9800GTX. I hear the next gen cards are going to be nearly 500 bucks... If that ATI card hits 200-300 like rumors have it, I will no doubt be changing to ATI... something I havent done since the 9800pro was new.

The 4850 offers better performance and it will target the $200 crowd. Just wait man.

 

[tenchir]

I have a balanced system right now. Pretty much a Spider-Lite platform.

Phenom 9600
4 GB DDR2 800mhz
Radeon 3870 512MB
780G motherboard
75GB Raptor 10k rpm HDD

Will eventually pick up a 4870 once the price hit below $150. I never paid over $200 on videocards. I also tend to buy refresh videocards. Here's my videocard history:

S3 Virge 4MB > S3 Savage3D 8MB > Diamond Savage4 32 MB >
Hercules Kyro II 64 MB > ATI Radeon 9000 64MB > ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB >
Powercolor x800 GTO 128MB > ATI Radeon x1950 Pro 256MB >
Visiontek Radeon 3870 512MB.

 

[zoku88]

Jw, why'd you go with a Phenom cpu?

 

[godhandiscen]

Jw, why'd you go with a Phenom cpu?

Because it gave a small performance boost to my videocard. Its about 3 to 4 fps, and I only did the test with UT3, but it was enough to convince.

Spoiler

Also AMD fanboyism.

I have a balanced system right now. Pretty much a Spider-Lite platform.

Phenom 9600
4 GB DDR2 800mhz
Radeon 3870 512MB
780G motherboard
75GB Raptor 10k rpm HDD

Will eventually pick up a 4870 once the price hit below $150. I never paid over $200 on videocards. I also tend to buy refresh videocards. Here's my videocard history:

S3 Virge 4MB > S3 Savage3D 8MB > Diamond Savage4 32 MB >
Hercules Kyro II 64 MB > ATI Radeon 9000 64MB > ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB >
Powercolor x800 GTO 128MB > ATI Radeon x1950 Pro 256MB >
Visiontek Radeon 3870 512MB.

No fucking way, thats ATI fanboyism right there. I salute you sir. If I had only had a system in my house they all would be ATI.

 

[wormstrangler]

Man, these numbers are getting fucking confusing. So Geforce is starting it's 3rd lap of heading towards 10000? I used to be able to keep up with this stuff...now I have no idea what's good or what's bad.

You and me both.

I wish all of them (ATI, NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, etc) stuck to using single digits, maybe with a letter added on to tell us if it's the budget version or extreme version.

Example Nvidia-8A and ATI-7A.


Ah, so much easier. Too bad they thing the average consumer likes big fucking numbers and hey, maybe they do?

 

[zoku88]

That kinda sucks if you introduce a card later that fits between an 'A' card and a 'B' card.

 

[wormstrangler]

Space your letters out. They were just examples.

Basically, anything would be better then all these fucking numbers and 3 letter extensions they use.

 

[Luthair]

I think they should just force all the 3rd party card makers into a system of naming the cards. IE:

8600
8700-for overclocked 8600 cards
8800
8900-for overclocked 8800 cards

Dont let them make up there own crazy numbers or sub names like alpha dog... Any a card in the 8900 level shouldnt be slower than a card on the 8800. I remember the Geforce 4's had a good naming system from what I remember.... TI-4200 and TI-4600. Then again there wasnt very many verisons of those cards.

 

[bee]

Thats such an ignorant statement .. there is a limit that applies to how much each company (Nvidia/AMD) can cram into their gpus. I mean gpus have already overtaken processors and they are the ones that keep pushing the limits and yet we have people like you who dont realise that this is the absolute best each company can do at the moment.

not ignorant at all, im just very cynical when it comes down to these cherry picked benchmarks either company wheels out everytime they launch something new

besides, comparing a 4850 and a 9800gtx is hardly the best either company can do at the moment

 

[isamu]

First of all, I want to thank everyone participating and making contributions to this thread. You guys are giving us a lot of great information.

OK now here's the deal.... I will be building a new PC next month, and there are two things I will NOT have:

1)Resolution higher than 1280x720. I only game on my projector and its got a native maximum res of 720P.

2)I will NOT upgrade to Vista. I HAVE to use XP because there is a steering wheel I'm getting that will not have drivers for Vista anytime soon, and there are emulators that I still use that do not support Vista.

Now, that being said, is there ANY way whatsoever to run direct X 10 in XP? If not, I will have to be stuck at DX9.

If I'm stuck as DX9, which of these new cards coming out will be worth buying in your opinion? Money isn't really an object for me with these new cards, but I certainly do not wish to waste it if I don't have to. I will want to play GRID and Crysis. While a high resolution is not that important to me, a silky smooth framerate is VERY important! But as stated above, the MAXIMUM resolution I will be able to run games at is 1280x720P.

So what should I get?

 

[Pachael]

If money's no object, just go for the most powerful card (GTX 280). It should run DX9 games really well, even more so given you only play at 720p.

There are hacks to put DX10 on XP, but I don't think it's worth the effort (haven't tried, obviously).

 

[godhandiscen]

If money's no object, just go for the most powerful card (GTX 280). It should run DX9 games really well, even more so given you only play at 720p.

There are hacks to put DX10 on XP, but I don't think it's worth the effort (haven't tried, obviously).

I dont get it, everybody and his mother has been passing around the rumor that 2 4850s will work better than a GTX280, how can you recommend that card? I would say WAIT for real benchmarks.