ATi 4xxx Series Review

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: ajaidevsingh
AHahahaha My two 4850's came today i cant seem to make CF work!!!

My M/B Asus P35 does not see the other card "4x PCIE slot"!!!

Upgraded to 8.6 from the cd's 8.5 and the computer got a BSOD after installing???

Had to reinstall the old 8.5...!!

software :

http://www.cpuid.com/download/cpuz_145.zip
http://www.techpowerup.com/dow.../1104g/GPU-Z.0.2.4.exe = doesn't it display crossfire "disabled"

What is your motherboard model number also ?

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: hans007

Originally posted by: BassBomb
That is pretty sweet pricing.

I can't believe how cheap it is these days to set up a system

Midrange CPU ~200
Good Board ~150
2GB RAM ~35
Good Video Card ~200

I remember spending

low end cpu ~250
low end board ~100
1gb ddr ~150
midrange video card ~300

So much bang for your buck these days

i dont know what year that was, but i dont remember a mid range video card ever costing $300.

or a low end cpu costing $250 in the last i dunno decade or so.

It was when BFG 6600GT AGP was about 6 months old, in Canada we were being gouged by video card prices it costed 260$ + 15% tax

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Apparently there are miracle drivers coming from nVidia that increase performance substantially. My question is where the hell have these drivers been since Nov 06 and why is it they just happen to be finished the minute the 4850 is released?

If true these are the sorts of stunts from nVidia that really piss me off as a consumer.

This happens every time with Nvidia. They have some magical driver that jumps the performance of their hardware when ATi gets a whiff of their(NV) performance ass.

Anyone have a link or quote before we start flying off the handle and jumping to conspiracy theories? lol.

Good times just got better for mid-range with all the great sub-$200 choices out there.

 

[Aberforth]

techPowerUp reviews:

MSI R4850 Radeon HD 4850 512 MB

PowerColor Radeon HD 4850 512 MB

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: munky
German review article:
http://www.computerbase.de/art..._radeon_hd_4850_rv770/

err Google language translated link :

http://translate.google.com/tr...e&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: error8
9800GTX+. That is a very smart name for another card from Nvidia. Who is running the marketing department, 10 years old kids?

Well maybe ATI fired their marketing team and they were picked up by Nvidia?

What were the model numbers they have had in the past?

X2900XTXTXTXTXTXT super fast edition?

Actually it was only X2900XT. After that it was the X2900 PRO and GT. Not so crappy names.
Of course that in the past ATI had stupid names, like the x800 for example, that had some 6 variants with just as much of weird names.
This time however, Nvidia has the upper hand in the bad naming of its products.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

The AA numbers are downright amazing.. What the hell did they do? Also how does a card with only 65gb/s pull such good numbers with heavy AA? In computerbase's test it ranks right with the 8800 Ultra in AA tests!

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: error8
9800GTX+. That is a very smart name for another card from Nvidia. Who is running the marketing department, 10 years old kids?

ATI releases HD4850++ x infinity+1 in response.

Yeah, or 4850 GTR double turbo. :laugh:

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: error8
9800GTX+. That is a very smart name for another card from Nvidia. Who is running the marketing department, 10 years old kids?

Well maybe ATI fired their marketing team and they were picked up by Nvidia?

What were the model numbers they have had in the past?

X2900XTXTXTXTXTXT super fast edition?

Actually it was only X2900XT. After that it was the X2900 PRO and GT. Not so crappy names.
Of course that in the past ATI had stupid names, like the x800 for example, that had some 6 variants with just as much of weird names.
This time however, Nvidia has the upper hand in the bad naming of its products.

Well there was also the fabled X2900XTX code-named "Double-Dragon" or something. It got nixed even though some of the 1GB parts made it to channel.

 

[ViRGE]

Is there another link to corroborate this? There hasn't been a press release out of NVIDIA today discussing the matter.

 

[Peelback79]

Originally posted by: error8
9800GTX+. That is a very smart name for another card from Nvidia. Who is running the marketing department, 10 years old kids?

Who knows. Maybe they're jealous of AMD because they're hogging all the plus signs with their processor titles.

Originally posted by: Xed
I'm glad for once I wasn't an early adopter. Wonder how much the gtx260/280 will drop if the 4870 proves its equal or close enough. <3 to amd!

When companies compete, consumers win. GO ATi GO! Hopefully the launch will be failboat free.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: error8
9800GTX+. That is a very smart name for another card from Nvidia. Who is running the marketing department, 10 years old kids?

Well maybe ATI fired their marketing team and they were picked up by Nvidia?

What were the model numbers they have had in the past?

X2900XTXTXTXTXTXT super fast edition?

Actually it was only X2900XT. After that it was the X2900 PRO and GT. Not so crappy names.
Of course that in the past ATI had stupid names, like the x800 for example, that had some 6 variants with just as much of weird names.
This time however, Nvidia has the upper hand in the bad naming of its products.

Well there was also the fabled X2900XTX code-named "Double-Dragon" or something. It got nixed even though some of the 1GB parts made it to channel.

ATI never released the x2900XTX. Only the X2900XT, although the XTX was seen in some benchmarks in the beginning , but it never reached the consumers. Or am I wrong!?

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: munky
German review article:
http://www.computerbase.de/art..._radeon_hd_4850_rv770/

err Google language translated link :

http://translate.google.com/tr...e&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Reading the review , i don't think they had enough time to test in higher resolution.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Is there another link to corroborate this? There hasn't been a press release out of NVIDIA today discussing the matter.

TweakTown has some news on it link. .

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: error8
ATI never released the x2900XTX. Only the X2900XT, although the XTX was seen in some benchmarks in the beginning , but it never reached the consumers. Or am I wrong!?

Well I think it was sold as XT, but there were a few even on this board that got their hands on a 1GB version.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Is there another link to corroborate this? There hasn't been a press release out of NVIDIA today discussing the matter.

TweakTown has some news on it link. .

PC Perspective also had a blurb on the new 9800GTX+ priced at $229. They claim it is the 55nm refresh of G92, so G92b. If true it'd have some interesting overclocking potential as 65nm G92 were being sold at the same clock speeds (738MHz) and would most likely consume less power as well.

Edit:

Another at Guru3D

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: ajaidevsingh
AHahahaha My two 4850's came today i cant seem to make CF work!!!

My M/B Asus P35 does not see the other card "4x PCIE slot"!!!

Upgraded to 8.6 from the cd's 8.5 and the computer got a BSOD after installing???

Had to reinstall the old 8.5...!!

As I posted in the older thread, installing the 8.6's resulted in loss of signal for my 4850. I'm assuming they'll need to be modified before they will work with the 4800 series. Currently using the modified 8.5's that came with my driver CD.

 

[BFG10K]

The AA numbers are downright amazing.. What the hell did they do?

Moved AA resolve back onto the ROPs no doubt.

In computerbase's test it ranks right with the 8800 Ultra in AA tests!

If you look at the overall 8xAA scores it's well ahead of the 8800 Ultra with 8xAA:

http://www.computerbase.de/art...rmancerating_qualitaet

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

The AA numbers are downright amazing.. What the hell did they do?

Moved AA resolve back onto the ROPs no doubt.

In computerbase's test it ranks right with the 8800 Ultra in AA tests!

If you look at the overall 8xAA scores it's well ahead of the 8800 Ultra with 8xAA:

http://www.computerbase.de/art...rmancerating_qualitaet

Well the best way to analysis a card after reading the review, i just sort out the benchmark to analysis it to get better understanding. I am still hopping Nvidia drops the price of GTX 280 because i would really buy it for $500.

Computerbase sorted out DX 10 - Benchmark

Assassin's Creed 1680x1050 4xAA/16xAF:
GT 280 : 61
HD4850 : 56
9800GTX : 45

Bioshock 1600x1200 1xAA/16xAF
GT 280 : 82
HD4850 : 54
9800GTX : 53

Call of Juarez 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF
GT 280 : 24
HD4850 : 17
9800GTX : 6

Company of heroes 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF
GT 280 : 66
HD4850 : 42
9800GTX : 35

Crysis 1680x1050 4xAA/16xAF
GT 280 : 18
HD4850 : 11
9800GTX : 9

Lost planet 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF:
GT 280 : 45
HD4850 : 29
9800GTX : 24

World in Conflict 1600x1200 4xAA/16xAF:
GT 280 : 69.1
HD4850 : 56.2
9800GTX : 41.1




Is their a problem with Nvidia drivers when running call of duty 4 with 8xAA ?

http://translate.google.com/tr...e&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Computerbase DX 9 - Benchmark

Call of duty 4 4xAA/16xAF:
GT 280 : 62
HD4850 : 48
9800GTX : 46

Clive Barker's Jericho 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF:
GT 280 : 26
HD4850 : 28
9800GTX : 7

FEAR 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF:
GT 280 : 93
HD4850 : 60
9800GTX : 49

Gothic 3 1600x1200 1xAA/16xAF:
GT 280 : 76.3
HD4850 : 34.4
9800GTX : 46.7

Rainbow Six Vegas - 1600x1200
GT 280 : 65
HD4850 : 62
9800GTX : 49

Stalker 1600x1200 1xAA/16xAF:
GT 280 : 49
HD4850 : 35
9800GTX : 35

Unreal Tournament 3 1600x1200 8xAA/16xAF:
GT 280 : 72
HD4850 : 63
9800GTX : 34




Well ATI have done something to enable AA support with UT3. I think both the GT2XX and 38XX need some driver tweaking , some result are whacked up.

 

[BFG10K]

It looks like 800 shaders and 40 TMUs is official:

http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2161

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: chizow
Not bad for the price, looks like ATI finally caught up to G80/G92 after two refreshes. This part would've been a win when G92 launched instead of RV670 but as it is it just makes ATI competitive again in the mid-range.

I think its safe to say now that RV770 isn't going to be 2x as fast as RV670, although it does see nice gains with AA. I'd ask if anyone were able to simulate 4870 clock speeds and performance but it doesn't seem as if anyone can overlock these more than 50MHz even with CCC's limitations due to heat. Still with 4850@$200 and 4870 @$300 it doesn't exactly stand out against G92 at $200 and GTX 260 at $400, they're just lost somewhere in the middle (again).

Well, AMD's sub $200 part is in general as fast to a bit faster then the 9800GTX, which looks to be in the $270 range. That's spectacular. In some cases the 4850 even touches and rarely even surpasses the $400ish GTX260 in performance. I don't see what's not to be excited about if you are a gamer. Assuming the 4870 is going to be 20%+ faster then the 4850 then it'll probably compete pretty well against the GTX260 and even in some cases with the GTX280 for a LOT less money. If you like to game with AA the difference seems even more pronounced. I think AMD is doing a quite a bit better then 'just lost somewhere in the middle (again)" this round. Also, when you get into crossfire, I think they're competitive on the high end as well, not just the mid-range as you say. So far it looks like 2 4850's > the GTX280, I'd say that makes them pretty competitive in the high end.

 

[Foxery]

Whoops, I had one more question for the "speculation" thread. Do we know if the reference design for the 4870 calls for dual-slot cooling? That was a difference between the 3870/3850, and from the early reports of 4850 heat problems, it sounds like an awfully good idea. (And I personally prefer to vent hot air out of the case, rather than into it!)

Interesting that the 4870 hasn't leaked out yet...

My wallet itches.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
It looks like 800 shaders and 40 TMUs is official:

http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2161

Well that would make sense with the shader count :

320 shader / 16 TMU = 20

20x16 = 320
20x32 = 640
20x40 = 800

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: Foxery
Whoops, I had one more question for the "speculation" thread. Do we know if the reference design for the 4870 calls for dual-slot cooling? That was a difference between the 3870/3850, and from the early reports of 4850 heat problems, it sounds like an awfully good idea. (And I personally prefer to vent hot air out of the case, rather than into it!)

Interesting that the 4870 hasn't leaked out yet...

My wallet itches.

Your wallet maybe happy if you wait , I know nvidia will come at ATI real hard when some major price war.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: chizow
Not bad for the price, looks like ATI finally caught up to G80/G92 after two refreshes. This part would've been a win when G92 launched instead of RV670 but as it is it just makes ATI competitive again in the mid-range.

I think its safe to say now that RV770 isn't going to be 2x as fast as RV670, although it does see nice gains with AA. I'd ask if anyone were able to simulate 4870 clock speeds and performance but it doesn't seem as if anyone can overlock these more than 50MHz even with CCC's limitations due to heat. Still with 4850@$200 and 4870 @$300 it doesn't exactly stand out against G92 at $200 and GTX 260 at $400, they're just lost somewhere in the middle (again).

Well, AMD's sub $200 part is in general as fast to a bit faster then the 9800GTX, which looks to be in the $270 range. That's spectacular. In some cases the 4850 even touches and rarely even surpasses the $400ish GTX260 in performance. I don't see what's not to be excited about if you are a gamer. Assuming the 4870 is going to be 20%+ faster then the 4850 then it'll probably compete pretty well against the GTX260 and even in some cases with the GTX280 for a LOT less money. If you like to game with AA the difference seems even more pronounced. I think AMD is doing a quite a bit better then 'just lost somewhere in the middle (again)" this round. Also, when you get into crossfire, I think they're competitive on the high end as well, not just the mid-range as you say. So far it looks like 2 4850's > the GTX280, I'd say that makes them pretty competitive in the high end.

Well Chizow was one of the people defending the horrible value of the GTX 280 in the Nvidia thread, so...

I hope some of the big sites leak more benchs too! Who would have thought that AMD's decision "not to compete in the high end" would turn out so well for us consumers? Now Nvidia really doesnt have a choice but to offer their own cards at a bargain as well, and Im curious about the mysterious 9800 GTX+ with the performance driver...

I also find it amazing that Nvidia always has a trick up their sleeve for AMD launches... I mean, seriously, how can it not be planned? And thats downright disgusting, to think they hold back on the performance of a card, just because they can... They are basically laughing in the face of everyone that buys their cards, which makes them lose another point for me... I just hate their way of doing things

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/...8/06/1213877482046.PNG

Oh boy, where is Ocguy31 now? :laugh: