Zombie James
Banned
How cool/quiet is it?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
June 2008: Battleground for PC Graphics - Geforce GTX 200 v Radeon HD 4800
- Thread starter artist
- Start date
brain_stew
Member
bill0527 said:
Hmm, sounds like its throttling the CPU, what temps were you running and what did you have the voltage set at (I'd recommend using Realtemp for temp monitoring and Orthos for stress testing)? Oh, and are you using stock cooling, picking up an Akasa 965 or Arctic Freezer pro would be a sound investment, even if you don't plan to overclock, having a cooler and quieter PC is always something to strive for. Always remember when overclocking, just go in small steps, don't bother trying for 3ghz if you can't get 2.4ghz stable first. Patience is key.
Seeing those temps, I can see the logic in going for the 4870, whilst the chip should be capable of higher clocks, the single slot cooler looks wholly inadequate in handling anything other than stock settings.
Beer Monkey
Member
brain_stew said:
I'm hoping somebody tests an Accelero S1 on the 4850 soon. Even with no fan, it dropped 3850 temps under load by like 40c. And of course it is silent to boot.
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/724-1/preview-ati-radeon-hd-4850.html
French Review. With 4850 and GTX280, GTX260 included.
French Review. With 4850 and GTX280, GTX260 included.
First 4850 (P)Review: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/724-1/preview-ati-radeon-hd-4850.html
Summary:
4850 is 88% of GTX260 at 1920x1200
4850 is 88% of GTX260 at 1920x1200 4xAA
4850 is 73% of GTX280 at 1920x1200
4850 is 72% of GTX280 at 1920x1200 4xAA
GTX280 is 3x, GTX260 is almost 2x the price of 4850
Summary:
4850 is 88% of GTX260 at 1920x1200
4850 is 88% of GTX260 at 1920x1200 4xAA
4850 is 73% of GTX280 at 1920x1200
4850 is 72% of GTX280 at 1920x1200 4xAA
GTX280 is 3x, GTX260 is almost 2x the price of 4850
brain_stew
Member
Rur0ni said:
Seems to edge out the 9800GTX, which is great considering the price, best part is the fact that AA seems to have very little cost. The fact it beats the GTX 260 (at half the cost) in Grid, Oblivion and Bioshock bodes very well for the 3870, which should be neck and neck with the GTX 260 at the very least, and at a lower price as well.
Beer Monkey
Member
brain_stew said:
Shit, the Nvidia cards are going to need a price cut of at least $150. :lol
(I have nothing against Nvidia, they've made some of the best cards I've ever owned. It just seems strange what is going on here. Maybe the current Nvidia drivers are out of whack with the new cards and we'll see huge gains for them.)
captmcblack
Member
Wow...so there is pretty much no way at all to have this card right now, right?
The Buy.com and Amazon links are both dead from following this thread all the way through
The Buy.com and Amazon links are both dead from following this thread all the way through
Zombie James
Banned
Proelite said:
They are? Are we looking at the same article? On this french one linked above, the 4850 seems to compete well with the GTX 260, but I don't see it slaughtering anything. Taking cost into consideration, it seems like it's the smarter buy, though.
I have an 8800gt and see no reason to upgrade. The NVIDIA and AMD cards that have recently come out only offer marginal speed improvements making it not worth the high price tags they come with. The new cards are losing to the cards that came out months ago and in some cases I have seen, have lost in some benchmarks against the 8800 Ultra.
I will wait and see how fast the AMD's 4870X2 is and maybe consider purchasing one of those. For those with an 8800GT, I would suggest holding off on these new expensive cards. For those looking for a budget card then you can either get an Geforce 8800gt or an AMD 4850 card. The expensive cards do not deliver enough of a performance leap to justify the price.
The way I am seeing it here, for those who have any of the higher end 8800 cards, you can spend $650 for a slightly faster card. The 8800 cards runs every game I have tried on max settings except for Crysis. Is it worth paying $650 for a card that gets a few more frames in Crysis but still chokes on max settings? That is one single game. I'll wait for better cards. I still remember getting my first ATi card, the Rage Fury 128 for less then $150 and I had that card playing games four years later with stuff like Unreal Tournament 2003 and nearly playing it on max settings. Now cards cost $650 and choke on the games available 6 months in the past. :lol
I will wait and see how fast the AMD's 4870X2 is and maybe consider purchasing one of those. For those with an 8800GT, I would suggest holding off on these new expensive cards. For those looking for a budget card then you can either get an Geforce 8800gt or an AMD 4850 card. The expensive cards do not deliver enough of a performance leap to justify the price.
The way I am seeing it here, for those who have any of the higher end 8800 cards, you can spend $650 for a slightly faster card. The 8800 cards runs every game I have tried on max settings except for Crysis. Is it worth paying $650 for a card that gets a few more frames in Crysis but still chokes on max settings? That is one single game. I'll wait for better cards. I still remember getting my first ATi card, the Rage Fury 128 for less then $150 and I had that card playing games four years later with stuff like Unreal Tournament 2003 and nearly playing it on max settings. Now cards cost $650 and choke on the games available 6 months in the past. :lol
Zombie James
Banned
zoku88 said:
Most likely, yeah.
Chiggs said:
My point is every other game can be played with a budget price card like the 8800gt. So why spend $650 to buy this new card if it only plays Crysis a little bit better? If a company is going to charge a whopping $650 for a card, it should be at least twice the speed of all previous cards. At least! Like I said, if you guys remember the gaming of old, you will remember that older cheaper cards like the ATi Rage Fury 128 cost only $150 (or less) and played new games for several years after the card was purchased (mostly on high graphics to).
Chiggs said:
Considering that the new $650 NVIDIA cards are barely any faster then the two year old 8800 cards, it may be a good three years before any card can play Crysis at 60FPS on max graphics. Maybe longer!
I don't see a single benchmark in which they are beaten, let alone slaughtered. Which ones are you looking at?Proelite said:
As a person who bases their purchase on price-to-performance, I will be buying a 4850 with my next paycheck. But, you guys are going crazy. I know ATI has been against the ropes for 2 generations, but come on.
From what those benchmarks show, a 4850 is equal to a 9800 GTX. We have no idea how much better the 4870 or 4870X2 will perform, but from the information available to us: The 280GTX is the performance king right now.
edit: How much will the 4870 cost?
Should I be concerned about the temps on this card?
Mine has been running about 74C idle, 80C under load. The guy over at Xtremesystems.org forums who has the exact Visiontek 4850 card is getting 67C idle. Not sure what kind of fans he's got in his system, but I've only got stock fans in mine.
I did a small overclock in the ATI catalyst panel. I used the auto-tune utility and it set the core clock to 680mhz and memory clock to 1005mhz, idel temp is 79C, under load 85C. The temp gauge shows it solidly in the orange.
Mine has been running about 74C idle, 80C under load. The guy over at Xtremesystems.org forums who has the exact Visiontek 4850 card is getting 67C idle. Not sure what kind of fans he's got in his system, but I've only got stock fans in mine.
I did a small overclock in the ATI catalyst panel. I used the auto-tune utility and it set the core clock to 680mhz and memory clock to 1005mhz, idel temp is 79C, under load 85C. The temp gauge shows it solidly in the orange.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
According to the xtreme system guys, thats the temperature you should be getting. Thats why a couple pages ago I said that there was little room for overclocking at those temps with the stock cooler, but according to one review in the xtreme system forums, the chip can stand more heat that current chips and it was overclocked with the stock cooler. I still believe you shouldn't though. I have my 38702 overclocked and it reaches those temps and its fine.bill0527 said:
edit: Test your system until you reach a max of 85 degrees, thats the max you should get.
He is talking performance cost index. Also the 4870 costs $350, still way less than the GTX280.derder said:
That right there is my next card.camineet said:
Tenacious-V
Thinks his PR is better than yours.
derder said:
That is exactly why everyone is excited for ATi's offerings, because they offer such a huge bang for buck compared to everything else. Nobody here is trying to take away the fact that GTX280 is the single card performance king, we're just saying that for the amount ATi is charging, they are butchering everything out there.
The fact the mainstream 4850 is keeping up decently for a lot less money is the big deal and that you can crossfire two of them and beat the GTX280 by a decent amount for $250 LESS than the GTX is reason for excitement.
* 4870 1GB is $329.99
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
http://guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-280-sli-triple-review-test/13
3D Mark Vantage PERFORMANCE:
GTX280 in 3-way SLI:23323 ~23K
rumor:
3D Mark vantage XTREME:
2x4870X2 in CrossFireX: 12K
Normally scores reduce to 40% in from Performance to Xtreme with the same card. Applying this logic (which could be a fallacy btw) and believing this rumored score, 2x4870X2 is vastly superior to 3xGTX280. I don't know what to believe now. There is no way ATI got such a huge advantage over Nvidia from one generation to another.
3D Mark Vantage PERFORMANCE:
GTX280 in 3-way SLI:23323 ~23K
rumor:
3D Mark vantage XTREME:
2x4870X2 in CrossFireX: 12K
Normally scores reduce to 40% in from Performance to Xtreme with the same card. Applying this logic (which could be a fallacy btw) and believing this rumored score, 2x4870X2 is vastly superior to 3xGTX280. I don't know what to believe now. There is no way ATI got such a huge advantage over Nvidia from one generation to another.
mr stroke
Member
Kevin said:
+1
Even though ATI's 4850 looks like a huge steal and the new winner for the "midrange". I am really let down here
anyone that jumped in last cycle with a 8800gt/3870 or higher isn't really seeing any massive improvement, it was rumored that the R700 was supposed to be a huge leap forward, and yet we still can't play Crysis maxed(doubt the 4870x2 gets there). I be waiting until the 5870x2 or GTX380, hopefully by then we will see some huge breakthroughs in tech.
Tenacious-V
Thinks his PR is better than yours.
godhandiscen said:
I don't see why not. The 38X0 was the big refinement of the 2900, giving the exact same performance in a tiny package and wattage in comparison. The 48X0 is basically refining that again and adding a ton of power to boot. It's not really one generation. This was basically perfecting the architecture and they are reaping the rewards now with an extremely powerful, efficient, and tiny chip.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Ok, I still don't understand how ATI could totally turn the tables against Nvidia. I mean, I am happy being an ATI fanboy, but I hope Nvidia lowers its prices and puts pressure on ATI because I do not want to pay so much for the 4870X2.Tenacious-V said:
Well, TBH if you have a 3870X2 there is no reason to upgrade. The only reason why I want to upgrade is because I know I will get a bonus around that time.mr stroke said:+1
Even though ATI's 4850 looks like a huge steal and the new winner for the "midrange". I am really let down here
anyone that jumped in last cycle with a 8800gt/3870 or higher isn't really seeing any massive improvement, it was rumored that the R700 was supposed to be a huge leap forward, and yet we still can't play Crysis maxed(doubt the 4870x2 gets there). I be waiting until the 5870x2 or GTX380, hopefully by then we will see some huge breakthroughs in tech.
Beer Monkey
Member
If anybody gets 5.1/6.1/7.1 audio working, let me know. I installed the driver, under XP I get 5.1 as an option in a dropdown in the control panel, but all I'm getting out is stereo.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Yes, and this is what I have been saying before when 10 pages ago, a couple posters were calling me an idiot for believing these benchmarks. What I am talking about is the "rumor" benchmark for the 4870X2, I call "fake" or "on hold" on that one because the difference is too much.avaya said:
nVidia didn't fail with the GTX series at all...it's just priced a bit too high compared to it's competitor.
I REALLY want to get back into PC gaming.
:/
If I could just somehow come up with around $1100-$1200 for a decent rig, and just upgrade from there...that would be a start.
I REALLY want to get back into PC gaming.
:/
If I could just somehow come up with around $1100-$1200 for a decent rig, and just upgrade from there...that would be a start.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Too high as in $200 over its direct competition? Thats fail imo. I mean you can always price everything cheaper, but to the performance/price ratio is all that matters. Even in the high end the 4870X2 is rumored to smoke the GTX280 out of the water, and at a lesser cost, so thats also a reason why I assume they fail this gen. However nothing is definitive. The GTX200b series will hit in early 2009 and that could turn things around. ATI will have the absolute lead for 6 months at least.Smokey Bones said:
godhandiscen said:http://guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-280-sli-triple-review-test/13
3D Mark Vantage PERFORMANCE:
GTX280 in 3-way SLI:23323 ~23K
rumor:
3D Mark vantage XTREME:
2x4870X2 in CrossFireX: 12K
Normally scores reduce to 40% in from Performance to Xtreme with the same card. Applying this logic (which could be a fallacy btw) and believing this rumored score, 2x4870X2 is vastly superior to 3xGTX280. I don't know what to believe now. There is no way ATI got such a huge advantage over Nvidia from one generation to another.
It happened with R300 / Radeon 9700 vs NV30 / GeForce 5800 Ultra
and R350 / Radeon 9800 vs NV35 / GeForce 5900.
R300,R350 were 107, 110 million transistors
NV30,NV35 were 125,130 million transistors.
GT200/GTX 280 is 1400 million
RV770 is 900 something million
R300,R350 were much faster for that generation, DX9/SM2
GTX 280 missed the target clockspeeds that Nvidia had in mind by a wide margin
ATI got much better performance per W, and performance per mm2 than Nvidia did.
I'm sure Nvidia will rework GT200 into a much more efficient GPU on 45nm like ATI did with R6xx to R7xx and turn the tables once again, before they both head into the DX11 gen.
Spiderjericho
Member
derder said:
I looked at the two benchmarks on this page, and the 4850 seems to be about on par or slightly better than a 9800 GTX. The drivers are still a bit immature for the 4850 so the performance may go up. I think the best aspect of AMD's latest video card product are the price. Nvidia has obviously come out with a product with similar performance, just not priced realistically except for die-hard gamers. I think when they come out with the GT200b, things maybe a little different.
They really need to aim for a product along the lines of the 8800GT.
I just stepped up to a 9800 GTX, so I'm going to wait for the refresh of both lines (maybe early next year or spring). But definitely those in the market for a decently priced performer should definitely invest in the 4850 or 4870 (if you want a little more oomph).
Broken Arrow
Member
Tenacious-V said:
That's what I was waiting for. This will be my next card.
Will need to get a new rig for this baby.
EDIT:
What is your opinion on this rig GAF, will it last me for the next 3 / 4 years with the 4870?
Total ~$1,300
Acteck Zenux 600W, ATX
AMD Phenom 9850 Black Edition, 2.5GHz, Cache L2 4x512KB, L3 2MB, Socket AM2+
Foxconn A7VMX-K, ChipSet AMD 780V+SB700 1xPCI-E X16, 1xPCI-E X1, 2xPCI
2 Kingston ValueRAM 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 SDRAM (800Mhz - PC2-6400) Dual Channel
Western Digital 500 GB, 7200 RPM, 16MB Buffer, SATA II
Windows Vista Home Premium
Beer Monkey
Member
I'm not much of a benchmarker but here are some Crysis flyby numbers that I'm getting on the 4850 plus my older cards.
The format is: <minfps>/<avgfps>. Max FPS isn't really meaningful to me.
The PC runs an E8400 at 3ghz with 2GB of PC2-6400 RAM. OS is XP SP3, Catalyst version is 8.6.
EDIT: resolution is 1280x720.
EDIT 2: vsync enabled, AA disabled.
The format is: <minfps>/<avgfps>. Max FPS isn't really meaningful to me.
The PC runs an E8400 at 3ghz with 2GB of PC2-6400 RAM. OS is XP SP3, Catalyst version is 8.6.
Code:
LOW MED HIGH
4850 53/82 46/73 30/52
3650 52/67 31/38
7600GT 36/48 15/20EDIT: resolution is 1280x720.
EDIT 2: vsync enabled, AA disabled.
Beer Monkey
Member
Vic said:
720p.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
If you are getting a Phenom just get a 790FX mobo. Also, no build with last 3/4 years.Broken Arrow said:
What settings?beermonkey@tehbias said: