ATI 4870x2 - New KING of Crysis!

[n3xu5]

Check this out ... and just when everyone was saying Crysis is always going to be better on a nvidia card ...

DX10 Page: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/08/13/amd-ati-radeon-hd-4870-x2/6

DX9 Page: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/08/13/amd-ati-radeon-hd-4870-x2/7

I'm not a Crysis fan or a FPS fan for that matter, but everyone knows people use Crysis as a comparison for hardcore gaming testing. I'm just glad Nvidia is getting knocked off their throne for the first time in 7 years, this is like the 9800 Pro days all over again!

:attn:

[chrome-187]

just totally demolishes nvidia's offerings in dx9....im sure it will do even better with newer drivers...cudos

[frankkesel]

I am glad too
very good for us
my 9700pro can retired now

[ChinStrap]

hmmmm...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-4870-x2-review-crossfire/12

*looking at the crysis marks from the review i trust*

i'll wait till someone here posts their own results.

[ziggo0]

^right.

I hate review sites...they always conflict...I trust reviews/benches done by members of forums, such as OCF & XS

[vixro]

hmmmm...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-4870-x2-review-crossfire/12

*looking at the crysis marks from the review i trust*

i'll wait till someone here posts their own results.

Guru3D used 16xAF (like any normal person would) and the OP's review used 8xAF

Guru3d used outdated drivers though... so either way both review sites blew it.

[reznik]

tomshardware and anandtech are the best IMO

[necrokiller]

nvidia is still somewhat better. in many benchmarks their lowest framerates are still better than ATI, even on single GPU cards. its a matter of time. nvidia still isn't out of the game yet. ATI is dropping cards like flies, so they have the spotlight...just like the G92 crushed the HD3000 series.

[Angry]

Bah Humbug, I went with ATi because of the performance per buck...
Ati seems, IMO, to do much better in AA and higher resolutions.
But I went from an AGP 6800nu to the Ati 4870 in my sig,so ANYTHING was faster lol...

[sandyduff]

Angry... what car is that in ur avatar? those are mini copper wheels on a...? (apologies for being completely off topic)

But yeh... review sites always conflict, i would much rather trust benchies from people on here or try it myself...

[Angry]

LOL....A honda CRX, they have the perfect offset. Its been lowered since that pic and has much better paint, I just havent been able to replicate that pic yet.

[hajalie24]

Awesome. But to me buying a 500 dollar card just to max one game is a total waste of cash.

[sandyduff]

well i suppose the mini cooper and honda crx arnt worlds apart...

[sandyduff]

im pretty sure it would be able to max pretty much every game out at the moment... except crysis... which might be conquered within the next 10 years... by then everyone would have forgotten about it and what a waste of time making a game like it!!

[necrokiller]

I still think its stupid to compare dual-gpu cards to a single-gpu card. 4870x2 is no doubt wayyyy better than the 9800gx2, like in that review the performance of the gx2 gets close to 8800GT sometimes, but keep in mind the gx2 are ALOT cheaper now. Imagine what, if there ever is, a GTX2 280 or GTX 280x2 (?) could do against it.

Ati has impressed me with with AA abilites...theres just no comparsion to it.

Does ATI have an answer for the GTX 280? NO! nvidia is still the winner here. (ofcourse the price could be better...)

[dealmaster]

I still think its stupid to compare dual-gpu cards to a single-gpu card. 4870x2 is no doubt wayyyy better than the 9800gx2, like in that review the performance of the gx2 gets close to 8800GT sometimes, but keep in mind the gx2 are ALOT cheaper now. Imagine what, if there ever is, a GTX2 280 or GTX 280x2 (?) could do against it.

Ati has impressed me with with AA abilites...theres just no comparsion to it.

Does ATI have an answer for the GTX 280? NO! nvidia is still the winner here. (ofcourse the price could be better...)

A graphics card is a graphics card is a graphics card. Single or dual GPU doesn't matter. ATI/AMD chose as part of their design with the R770 GPUs to make them smaller and more scalable as opposed to NVidia's larger monolithic design. Sure, GPU for GPU it isn't as powerful, but keep in mind you're not buying a GPU, you're buying a graphics card. If the 4870X2 outperforms the GTX280 (which it does), then it outperforms it. No ifs, ands, or buts.

And I wouldn't expect a dual GPU GTX280 anytime soon. I'd be surprised if NVidia could pull it off after their die shrink. The power dissipation is pretty high for that GPU, plus the 512-bit bus is very complicated compared to ATI's 256-bit.

Does ATI have an answer to the GTX280 (the high-end graphics card offering from NVidia)? Yes. It's called the 4870X2. You can hand-wave it away by claiming that since it has 2 GPUs it doesn't count to compare it but in the end that's a bunch of crap. The 4870X2 beats it in almost every test and is ATI's highest end card, as is the GTX280.

[necrokiller]

A graphics card is a graphics card is a graphics card. Single or dual GPU doesn't matter. ATI/AMD chose as part of their design with the R770 GPUs to make them smaller and more scalable as opposed to NVidia's larger monolithic design. Sure, GPU for GPU it isn't as powerful, but keep in mind you're not buying a GPU, you're buying a graphics card. If the 4870X2 outperforms the GTX280 (which it does), then it outperforms it. No ifs, ands, or buts.

And I wouldn't expect a dual GPU GTX280 anytime soon. I'd be surprised if NVidia could pull it off after their die shrink. The power dissipation is pretty high for that GPU, plus the 512-bit bus is very complicated compared to ATI's 256-bit.

Does ATI have an answer to the GTX280 (the high-end graphics card offering from NVidia)? Yes. It's called the 4870X2. You can hand-wave it away by claiming that since it has 2 GPUs it doesn't count to compare it but in the end that's a bunch of crap. The 4870X2 beats it in almost every test and is ATI's highest end card, as is the GTX280.
Nonsense. Whats the difference if you run CF or SLI on seperate cards or cards like the x2's and gx2's? The idea is the same...it may or may not increase scalability.. but its a DUAL GPU CARD! Thats all non-sense...the price you pay is still competitive to an equivalent CF setup, and theres a reason for that don't you think? When you buy graphics card, you pay for what it is...be it single GPU or dual. Its better, because you say it increases scalability, even better that you dont need a specific supported motherboard for it...but in the end, there are TWO GPUs..and placing them on a single card doesn't change that.

[vixro]

Nonsense. Whats the difference if you run CF or SLI on seperate cards or cards like the x2's and gx2's? The idea is the same...it may or may not increase scalability.. but its a DUAL GPU CARD! Thats all non-sense...the price you pay is still competitive to an equivalent CF setup, and theres a reason for that don't you think? When you buy graphics card, you pay for what it is...be it single GPU or dual. Its better, because you say it increases scalability, even better that you dont need a specific supported motherboard for it...but in the end, there are TWO GPUs..and placing them on a single card doesn't change that.

4870x2 > GTX 280. Similar pricing, same tier of cards. Whether or not it's 2 cores does not matter, because it is one card.

That's like saying when the core 2 duo's came out they couldn't be compared to AMD's single core. They can, and they will be because of Price, performance, and single card.

Placing them on a single card makes all the difference. You eliminate the need for a crossfire motherboard, you eliminate the bandwidth hindrance of a board that doesn't have 16 x 16 pci-e slots, the communication is done directly on the card instead of through the motherboard, the scalability on this card is absolutely phenominal so it is like having one amazing card, not just 2 cards in crossfire.

Don't even forget the fact that all of the stuttering in this generation is gone. Something Nvidia (and even ATI previously) failed to accomplish. Further distancing itself from "2 GPUs are different".

Keep telling yourself they can't be compared, but the fact is they can, they will, and Nvidia lost. :screwy:

[satandole666]

Nonsense. Whats the difference if you run CF or SLI on seperate cards or cards like the x2's and gx2's? The idea is the same...it may or may not increase scalability.. but its a DUAL GPU CARD! Thats all non-sense...the price you pay is still competitive to an equivalent CF setup, and theres a reason for that don't you think? When you buy graphics card, you pay for what it is...be it single GPU or dual. Its better, because you say it increases scalability, even better that you dont need a specific supported motherboard for it...but in the end, there are TWO GPUs..and placing them on a single card doesn't change that.

I'm pretty sure it does change that. I don't care if a card has 8 gpus or 1, it is still a single graphics card. All I care about is how much I pay and how well it performs.

ATI's top graphics card is the 4870x2. nVidias is the 9800gx2 or 280gtx depending on the benchmark. So...ATIs best card is better than nVidias best card...for the moment.

That's the apples to apples comparison.

[UnrealAlex]

What's irritating is in some games Nvidia is top, in others ATI is winning. Makes it very difficult to decide which card to get :(

[satandole666]

Something I read mentioned 4850x2s. I'm probably going to hold out for one of those if they ever come available for $300-350.

I still think the performance of the 4850 at its price point is amazing.

[rainless]

tomshardware and anandtech are the best IMO

Tomshardware=Joke.

A BAD Joke. The kind of joke that has you write and then rewrite an article, doesn't pay you, and then goes on vacation.

THAT kind of joke.

[necrokiller]

I'm pretty sure it does change that. I don't care if a card has 8 gpus or 1, it is still a single graphics card. All I care about is how much I pay and how well it performs.


You think they will ever cost the same or less than a single gpu card? NEVER! reason? the put **** loads of effort to make TWO OF THEIR GPUS run on a single CARD...running in what we know as Crossfire (two or more gpus or gfx cards whatever running together) mode..

[vixro]

You think they will ever cost the same or less than a single gpu card? NEVER! reason? the put **** loads of effort to make TWO OF THEIR GPUS run on a single CARD...running in what we know as Crossfire (two or more gpus or gfx cards whatever running together) mode..

It's significantly cheaper than buying 2 separate cards when comparing MSRP's not rebates or deals.

[satandole666]

You think they will ever cost the same or less than a single gpu card? NEVER! reason? the put **** loads of effort to make TWO OF THEIR GPUS run on a single CARD...running in what we know as Crossfire (two or more gpus or gfx cards whatever running together) mode..

I don't understand the relevance of this. I claimed my only two criteria were cost and performance.

[vixro]

I don't understand the relevance of this. I claimed my only two criteria were cost and performance.

He's like my mom, he wants to win the conversation, even if it's wrong or doesn't make any sense. :bang head

I still can't even talk on the phone to her!

[necrokiller]

I don't understand the relevance of this. I claimed my only two criteria were cost and performance.

I was just talking in regards to dual gpu cards, where a similiar CF setup gives you the same performance, if not better, and costs just about the same too. (much cheaper in my experience)

[necrokiller]

He's like my mom, he wants to win the conversation, even if it's wrong or doesn't make any sense. :bang head

I still can't even talk on the phone to her!

Its not about winning, its about perspective here..and unless proven wrong by facts, ill stick to what I think is right. And im pretty sure im better when it comes to talking to people on the phone :p

Edit: Sorry about the double post..I thought I was editing the first one.

[TeaBoy]

You think they will ever cost the same or less than a single gpu card? NEVER! reason? the put **** loads of effort to make TWO OF THEIR GPUS run on a single CARD...running in what we know as Crossfire (two or more gpus or gfx cards whatever running together) mode..

You're correct. Nvidia does have the fastest single GPU out there but to do that they had to make it so big that they now can't fit more than 1 GPU on a card. That's not very innovative in my eyes. ATI have kept their GPU's small enough to have dual GPU cards and this has advantages for their budget ranges that run only 1 GPU and ensures Crossfire is well supported across the range, (at least on the software side). IMO Nvidia sacrificed too much to create the fastest single GPU probably so they could push SLI and their motherboard chipsets.

[Shiggity]

The best thing about the 4870x2 is the dramatic improvement in the way crossfire works and shares information between GPUs. That improvement is the start of something great in the future, the road to perfect scaling :D

[jamtart]

ive just got a HIS 4870x2 a few days ago but carn,t get the 8.7 drivers to install keeps coming up with sumat like carnt find a driver compatible with youre hardware or os anyone any idears?
can only get the drivers that are on the disc to work 8.5
anyway it still works done a few tests idle temp 61 c full power 83 c and can hardly hear it on idle
3dmark 2006 , 18809 and 2001 , 64871 with a Q6600@3.4GHZ abit ip35 pro mb

[theELVISCERATOR]

Those number are suspicious, brolloks couldnt match them...

[Semjonov]

Here is another review for you guys:
http://www.sweclockers.com/articles_show.php?id=6089&page=8
It is Swedish so just look at the pretty pictures...;o)

[Mr.Guvernment]

I still think its stupid to compare dual-gpu cards to a single-gpu card. 4870x2 is no doubt wayyyy better than the 9800gx2, like in that review the performance of the gx2 gets close to 8800GT sometimes, but keep in mind the gx2 are ALOT cheaper now. Imagine what, if there ever is, a GTX2 280 or GTX 280x2 (?) could do against it.

Ati has impressed me with with AA abilites...theres just no comparsion to it.

Does ATI have an answer for the GTX 280? NO! nvidia is still the winner here. (ofcourse the price could be better...)

what matters is the price - this is where the comparison matters - PERIOD!

$500 for a dual gpu or single gpu - i dont care i want what is best for my $500... heck if it had 50 GPu's... doesnt matter

it is a fair comparison.

comparing X2 to Xfire is not a comparison because you now have 1 PHYSICAL cards taking up 2 PHYSICAL slots on your mother board

a single card vs single "CARD" is apples to apples - what each company puts on that SINGLE PCB / CARD is irrelevant....

might as well complain then that say NVIDIA has more transistors then ATi it's not fair!!!! NVIDIA card is larger, thus they have more traces so signals may be slower its not a fair comparison!


jamtart - try the 8.8 betas.

[Angry]

Maybe with the improvement in crossfire inside the 4870x2, we can see an improvement in scaling with normal crossfire setups! Would be nice as I plan to get another 4870 when I get a faster CPU and board that supports it.....

[jamtart]

what do you mean suspicious which numbers

[necrokiller]

what matters is the price - this is where the comparison matters - PERIOD!

$500 for a dual gpu or single gpu - i dont care i want what is best for my $500... heck if it had 50 GPu's... doesnt matter

it is a fair comparison.

Like I said its a just a matter of perspective..

[jokers_greg]

I still think its stupid to compare dual-gpu cards to a single-gpu card. 4870x2 is no doubt wayyyy better than the 9800gx2, like in that review the performance of the gx2 gets close to 8800GT sometimes, but keep in mind the gx2 are ALOT cheaper now. Imagine what, if there ever is, a GTX2 280 or GTX 280x2 (?) could do against it.

Ati has impressed me with with AA abilites...theres just no comparsion to it.

Does ATI have an answer for the GTX 280? NO! nvidia is still the winner here. (ofcourse the price could be better...)

I don't get this statement at all. Yeah a 2xGTX280 might be released, but guess it's price? $1000 sound about right? The point is to compare with price ranges. The 9800GX2 gets close the the 8800GT sometimes? lol what?

What answer do you want to the GTX 280? a better single slot solution? the 4870X2. A better dual GPU solution? 4850CF.

[jokers_greg]

Like I said its a just a matter of perspective..

rather a matter of Bias in your case. The argument simply makes no sense. Who cares what they do to be better, aslong as they're better. (nothing immoral either lol, no killing of animals to make the 4870X2 lol).

One more thing... if I were to spend in the $300-$600 range on video cards... They better run with all the bells and whistles. I was on nvidia's half during the 8 and 9 series agains the HD2xxx HD3xxx series because once AA was turned on, it was GG for those cards. Now the 4xxx series from ATi has figured AA out, and I now recognize ATi as being the leaders, in just about every catergory.

[ScottinIndy]

Wow, This Nvidia/Ati stuff has really made my head spin, I have watched the battle between fans of each go full circle in the past several weeks. Early on Nvidia appeared to have the performance crown at the top, However you paid dearly for it, The Ati folks argued about the value and bang for buck factor, Now it has come full circle, Ati seems to have the best card, Again you pay dearly for it. Just checking Newegg the 4870x2 is $579, A 280 can be had for $429, Throw in $30 rebate and it's $399. So, Who is really the winner in the bang for buck category now? Just like earlier, One may be at the top, However the individual really must decide if the price is worth it to have the top dog. I just find the debating quite interesting/amusing to be honest with you. I see folks that argued one point a month or so ago arguing the opposite point now.

[Essenar]

Its not about winning, its about perspective here..and unless proven wrong by facts, ill stick to what I think is right. And im pretty sure im better when it comes to talking to people on the phone :p

Edit: Sorry about the double post..I thought I was editing the first one.

You're wrong. And the only fact you need aside from what I'm about to post, is the fact that everyone here disagrees with you.

Multi-GPU versus Single-GPU : Doesn't matter. You only need one PCI-Express X16 slot to run a 4870x2, just like you only need one PCI-Express x16 slot to run a GTX280 or 9800GX2. You get a single PCI-Express x16 motherboard, throw a 4870x2 on it, then a GTX280 and then a 9800GX2. What happens? The 4870x2 wins the majority of the tests, even in games that Nvidia had previous dominance in. Of course, this is at higher resolutions aka 1920x1200 and up. But if you're buying a GTX280 or any other high end card to game at 1680x1050, then you already gave up reason and you have no capability of debating with rational people.

Multi-GPU single card versus Single GPU in multi-card (SLI/Crossfire): Hate to break your territorial world of acceptance bubble, but ATI wins here too. Two 4850's in crossfire obliterate anything in the market for the cost. They even beat their own 4870 for the same price. In any possible price configuration you put together, the ATI cards dominate. Two GTX280's = $900. For that price, you can get two 4870's, and you win. In games where it scales, Crossfire scales better than SLI. (100% or more versus 80% at the most) So where a GTX280 beats a 4870 ($450 versus $280 card), in a pair, two 4870's work together better than two GTX280's. (Think Undertaker/Kane tag team versus Hardy Boys or something. No contest)

The only range where Nvidia clearly wins is anything below $160. 9600GSO, 8800GT 256, 9600GT and 8800GT (If you can get it less than $150) beat anything ATI has to offer. The 3850 is a worthy contender at less than $100 but $10 gets you so much better if you jump to the 9600GSO.

$160: 4850, beats the $200 9800GTX and goes blow for blow with the $240 GTX+.

$280: 4870, goes blow for blow with GTX260 which is $320.

$320: 2x 4850's, beats the GTX280 and GTX260 handily.

$560: 2x 4870's or 4870x2. Goes blow for blow with GTX280 SLI ($900).

The only real exception is... If you play Enemy Territory Quake Wars and care about having 170fps with an Nvidia card versus 130fps with an ATI card and don't care about all the other games where you're losing.

[jokers_greg]

Wow, This Nvidia/Ati stuff has really made my head spin, I have watched the battle between fans of each go full circle in the past several weeks. Early on Nvidia appeared to have the performance crown at the top, However you paid dearly for it, The Ati folks argued about the value and bang for buck factor, Now it has come full circle, Ati seems to have the best card, Again you pay dearly for it. Just checking Newegg the 4870x2 is $579, A 280 can be had for $429, Throw in $30 rebate and it's $399. So, Who is really the winner in the bang for buck category now? Just like earlier, One may be at the top, However the individual really must decide if the price is worth it to have the top dog. I just find the debating quite interesting/amusing to be honest with you. I see folks that argued one point a month or so ago arguing the opposite point now.

edit: just read what the guy wrote above me...

[Essenar]

Wow, This Nvidia/Ati stuff has really made my head spin, I have watched the battle between fans of each go full circle in the past several weeks. Early on Nvidia appeared to have the performance crown at the top, However you paid dearly for it, The Ati folks argued about the value and bang for buck factor, Now it has come full circle, Ati seems to have the best card, Again you pay dearly for it. Just checking Newegg the 4870x2 is $579, A 280 can be had for $429, Throw in $30 rebate and it's $399. So, Who is really the winner in the bang for buck category now? Just like earlier, One may be at the top, However the individual really must decide if the price is worth it to have the top dog. I just find the debating quite interesting/amusing to be honest with you. I see folks that argued one point a month or so ago arguing the opposite point now.

The ATI 4870x2 can be had as low as $470 on Best Buy pre-order system. When the GTX280 launched, it was $650. $580 is a far cry short of $650 when you get much better performance.

The 4870x2 launched at $550, but don't expect it to stay there.

And the GTX280 is dropping because ATI pressured Nvidia, not because Nvidia gives a crap about us and how much we have to spend. If the 4870x2 didn't exist, you can bet your bottom dollar the GTX280 would still be $550-650.

[necrokiller]

To Essenar: All I mean to say is, the x2's are just two 'card' or 'gpus' to be exact, slapped on one PCB. If you are still have scaling issues like a crossfire setup does, then what good is it? How would you say your single card is any better than a crossfire setup? Just because it takes up a single slot? Most of the people here disagree with me...and really some of them are even more experienced than I am...so I take it that you guys are right. When it comes to the price, then you can compare the two...but my only problem is, with dual-gpu the scaling issues are still there, none so far though, and I would rather drop money on a single faster card than sit around hoping that the drivers would be better and more games would support it.

I don't wana come out as being stubborn... but I do agree to a great extent to what others have replied to my posts...it only helped me understand things better.

Edit: 4850 and 9800GTX are going for the same price here. So are the GTX260 and HD4870.

[ScottinIndy]

edit: just read what the guy wrote above me...

First, Some of the "beats" are pretty subjective, Also just quickly checking it seems a few of the prices are off as well.

""$160: 4850, beats the $200 9800GTX and goes blow for blow with the $240 GTX+.""

Lowest price 4850 on Newegg is $169, $154 AR, 98GTX, $186, $171AR, GTX+ $199, AR $169

"$280: 4870, goes blow for blow with GTX260 which is $320."

Actual price of 260= $269, $245AR.

[n3xu5]

Scaling issues? what? where have you been, under a rock? the 4870x2 scales best at resolutions above 1680x1050 and out performs just about everything out there at 8xAA 16AF ... hell, if you're using 1280x1024 and under, the GTX280 will be the best bet for you then. Seriously, who runs resolutions that low anymore?

Plus ... the "HIT" on performance on the 4800 series of cards when performing at higher resolutions than 1680x1050 when enabling higher AA barely presents itself ... the 4800 series nearly gets 4x free AA when you scale, it's insane.

To Essenar: All I mean to say is, the x2's are just two 'card' or 'gpus' to be exact, slapped on one PCB. If you are still have scaling issues like a crossfire setup does, then what good is it? How would you say your single card is any better than a crossfire setup? Just because it takes up a single slot? Most of the people here disagree with me...and really some of them are even more experienced than I am...so I take it that you guys are right. When it comes to the price, then you can compare the two...but my only problem is, with dual-gpu the scaling issues are still there, none so far though, and I would rather drop money on a single faster card than sit around hoping that the drivers would be better and more games would support it.

I don't wana come out as being stubborn... but I do agree to a great extent to what others have replied to my posts...it only helped me understand things better.

Edit: 4850 and 9800GTX are going for the same price here. So are the GTX260 and HD4870.

[Semjonov]

Just had to say one more thing, one thing they noticed in the Swedish review was that the card stayed in the 2d clocks in Crysis, so they had to lock the 2d to the 3d values to get the right speed.

[necrokiller]

Scaling issues? what? where have you been, under a rock? the 4870x2 scales best at resolutions above 1680x1050 and out performs just about everything out there at 8xAA 16AF ... hell, if you're using 1280x1024 and under, the GTX280 will be the best bet for you then. Seriously, who runs resolutions that low anymore?

Did you even read what I wrote? I clearly stated that 4870x2 doesnt have any scaling issues, so far, but dual-gpu cards have shown problems in the past. I dont want to take this debate any further... I agree with what others said to some extent.

[Essenar]

In all honesty, I don't think anyone needs a card beyond the 4850/9800GTX. They can play any game you throw at them up to 1920x1200 and the only game they can't is Crysis. But Crysis a CRAP game.

[ScottinIndy]

In all honesty, I don't think anyone needs a card beyond the 4850/9800GTX. They can play any game you throw at them up to 1920x1200 and the only game they can't is Crysis. But Crysis a CRAP game.

I pretty much agree, There may be about 5% or less that actually need the extra horsepower. I am simply amazed at how much graphics power you can get these days for between $150-$200.

[jokers_greg]

To Essenar: All I mean to say is, the x2's are just two 'card' or 'gpus' to be exact, slapped on one PCB. If you are still have scaling issues like a crossfire setup does, then what good is it? How would you say your single card is any better than a crossfire setup? Just because it takes up a single slot? Most of the people here disagree with me...and really some of them are even more experienced than I am...so I take it that you guys are right. When it comes to the price, then you can compare the two...but my only problem is, with dual-gpu the scaling issues are still there, none so far though, and I would rather drop money on a single faster card than sit around hoping that the drivers would be better and more games would support it.

I don't wana come out as being stubborn... but I do agree to a great extent to what others have replied to my posts...it only helped me understand things better.

Edit: 4850 and 9800GTX are going for the same price here. So are the GTX260 and HD4870.

but thats the thing. its already faster with the drivers that are currently out. Either way if even better drivers come out, then its win/win

[jobrien2001]

I never take sides on who I want to be the best chip maker.

Im glad ATI has come on top and its giving NVIDIA a hard time, that only gives us the users better prices and performance.

Clearly 4870x2 is the best card in the market and the price tag isn't bad considering what the 280GTX was at the time of launch.

Hopefully they both produce better cards and go back and forth so we get even cheaper/faster cards to make PC gaming more accessible.... consoles are killing us.

If only AMD could compete with Intel...

[Neuromancer]

Guru3D used 16xAF (like any normal person would) and the OP's review used 8xAF

Guru3d used outdated drivers though... so either way both review sites blew it.

Guru3d ran on medium image quality too while bitech ran maxed. hence the lower AF (its just not needed at high res and high image quality)

I agree, both sites blew it as you really need to compare more then just screen resolutions but also compare low high and max settings and low and high AA/AF settings

Its a lot more work, but its what makes the differnce IMHO

[Blazing fire]

A graphics card is a graphics card is a graphics card. Single or dual GPU doesn't matter. ATI/AMD chose as part of their design with the R770 GPUs to make them smaller and more scalable as opposed to NVidia's larger monolithic design. Sure, GPU for GPU it isn't as powerful, but keep in mind you're not buying a GPU, you're buying a graphics card. If the 4870X2 outperforms the GTX280 (which it does), then it outperforms it. No ifs, ands, or buts.

And I wouldn't expect a dual GPU GTX280 anytime soon. I'd be surprised if NVidia could pull it off after their die shrink. The power dissipation is pretty high for that GPU, plus the 512-bit bus is very complicated compared to ATI's 256-bit.

Does ATI have an answer to the GTX280 (the high-end graphics card offering from NVidia)? Yes. It's called the 4870X2. You can hand-wave it away by claiming that since it has 2 GPUs it doesn't count to compare it but in the end that's a bunch of crap. The 4870X2 beats it in almost every test and is ATI's highest end card, as is the GTX280.

Yes, 4870X2 is better than a gtx280. But, you can use 3 gtx280. Price aside, 3gtx280 will beat 2 4870X2.

[necrokiller]

I hate taking sides too. I wish I hadn't rushed into buying an nForce chipset...ATI cards are just so damn good at the moment for the price. Wish I could get a 4850 CF or 4870 CF..even 4870x2 for that matter...but both are too expensive for me and 4870x2 would be a waste for me since I game at 1680x1050..and its not even gonna fit in my case. How cheap do you think they can go in the coming months? maybe even 3-4 months...

Couldn't care less about Crysis... but at those crazy AA levels and resolutions, the experience definitely would be awesome.

[n3xu5]

Did you even read what I wrote? I clearly stated that 4870x2 doesnt have any scaling issues, so far, but dual-gpu cards have shown problems in the past. I dont want to take this debate any further... I agree with what others said to some extent.

Sorry, I guess you meant the opposite of how you came off in the first few opening sentences. Grammar aside, that's how it reads. I did not read it the way you just explained it.

[chrome-187]

hmmmm...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-4870-x2-review-crossfire/12

*looking at the crysis marks from the review i trust*

i'll wait till someone here posts their own results.

if you didnt notice...in those graphs it shows that a single 4870 beats the 4870x2 in about every test...they definately have a hardware issue or some sort of problem...that should be common sense IMO...

[vixro]

if you didnt notice...in those graphs it shows that a single 4870 beats the 4870x2 in about every test...they definately have a hardware issue or some sort of problem...that should be common sense IMO...

Whoooooosh, the sound of common sense going right over their heads. :burn:


"but the review site says it's true, it must be true!"

[Blkout]

These are my Crysis numbers for what it's worth, using the drivers that came with the video card, 8.52.6. These aren't screen shots, I just saved them as doc's and copy and pasted the results. You'll have to take my word for it that I didn't alter them. I have no reason to though. This card is very impressive, but Crysis on very high is still a tough nut.

My PC specs: Intel E8400 dual core @ 4.1GHz, 8GB of GSkill DDR2 @ 912MHz, Abit IP35 Pro MB, Sapphire 4870x2 @ default clock speed, Vista 64 Ultimate OS.

All tests were run with 16xASF and all settings to best quality in the ATI CCC. Please note that I didn't test any AA settings here.

__________________________________________________ ___________________________


8/16/2008 1:03:40 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1680x1050, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 36.70s, Average FPS: 54.49
Min FPS: 38.37 at frame 1964, Max FPS: 79.45 at frame 896
Average Tri/Sec: -39143504, Tri/Frame: -718350
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.28
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 32.24s, Average FPS: 62.04
Min FPS: 38.37 at frame 1964, Max FPS: 84.55 at frame 108
Average Tri/Sec: -44398156, Tri/Frame: -715612
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.28
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 32.15s, Average FPS: 62.21
Min FPS: 38.37 at frame 1964, Max FPS: 85.55 at frame 93
Average Tri/Sec: -44466660, Tri/Frame: -714829
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.28
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

8/16/2008 1:03:40 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX9 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS:62.125

__________________________________________________ ___________________________


8/16/2008 12:56:50 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1680x1050, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 88.59s, Average FPS: 22.58
Min FPS: 16.54 at frame 1964, Max FPS: 41.00 at frame 81
Average Tri/Sec: -10205270, Tri/Frame: -452037
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.03
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 81.77s, Average FPS: 24.46
Min FPS: 16.54 at frame 1964, Max FPS: 41.00 at frame 81
Average Tri/Sec: -10719221, Tri/Frame: -438277
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.09
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 79.39s, Average FPS: 25.19
Min FPS: 16.54 at frame 1964, Max FPS: 48.98 at frame 109
Average Tri/Sec: -11029197, Tri/Frame: -437787
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.09
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

8/16/2008 12:56:50 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 24.825

__________________________________________________ ___________________________


8/16/2008 1:12:17 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1900x1200, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 39.26s, Average FPS: 50.94
Min FPS: 38.90 at frame 1976, Max FPS: 65.92 at frame 879
Average Tri/Sec: -34492576, Tri/Frame: -677174
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.35
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 34.53s, Average FPS: 57.93
Min FPS: 38.12 at frame 1964, Max FPS: 70.52 at frame 887
Average Tri/Sec: -39058836, Tri/Frame: -674265
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.36
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 35.15s, Average FPS: 56.89
Min FPS: 38.12 at frame 1964, Max FPS: 70.52 at frame 887
Average Tri/Sec: -38435800, Tri/Frame: -675603
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.36
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

8/16/2008 1:12:17 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX9 1900x1200 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 57.41

__________________________________________________ ___________________________


8/16/2008 1:15:27 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1900x1200, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 89.14s, Average FPS: 22.44
Min FPS: 16.73 at frame 1024, Max FPS: 42.25 at frame 85
Average Tri/Sec: -10146947, Tri/Frame: -452243
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.03
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 82.46s, Average FPS: 24.25
Min FPS: 16.73 at frame 1024, Max FPS: 42.25 at frame 85
Average Tri/Sec: -10645250, Tri/Frame: -438920
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.09
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 79.53s, Average FPS: 25.15
Min FPS: 16.73 at frame 1024, Max FPS: 50.79 at frame 74
Average Tri/Sec: -11026461, Tri/Frame: -438484
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.09
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

8/16/2008 1:15:27 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1900x1200 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 24.7

[Blkout]

And now for the same set of benches with 4xAA enabled.



8/16/2008 1:49:04 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1680x1050, AA=4x, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 51.17s, Average FPS: 39.09
Min FPS: 31.10 at frame 1305, Max FPS: 57.87 at frame 898
Average Tri/Sec: -26895408, Tri/Frame: -688124
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.33
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 45.96s, Average FPS: 43.52
Min FPS: 31.10 at frame 1305, Max FPS: 61.07 at frame 1014
Average Tri/Sec: -29789720, Tri/Frame: -684528
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.34
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 45.93s, Average FPS: 43.55
Min FPS: 31.10 at frame 1305, Max FPS: 61.15 at frame 853
Average Tri/Sec: -29812990, Tri/Frame: -684599
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.34
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

8/16/2008 1:49:04 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX9 1680x1050 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 43.535

__________________________________________________ ___________________________


8/16/2008 1:53:01 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1680x1050, AA=4x, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 93.96s, Average FPS: 21.29
Min FPS: 15.78 at frame 1974, Max FPS: 38.12 at frame 73
Average Tri/Sec: -9227455, Tri/Frame: -433515
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.11
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 87.61s, Average FPS: 22.83
Min FPS: 15.78 at frame 1974, Max FPS: 38.12 at frame 73
Average Tri/Sec: -9598512, Tri/Frame: -420441
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.18
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 85.16s, Average FPS: 23.49
Min FPS: 15.78 at frame 1974, Max FPS: 42.16 at frame 99
Average Tri/Sec: -9863312, Tri/Frame: -419962
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.18
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

8/16/2008 1:53:01 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 23.16

__________________________________________________ ___________________________


8/16/2008 1:58:32 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1900x1200, AA=4x, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 60.91s, Average FPS: 32.84
Min FPS: 24.85 at frame 1968, Max FPS: 48.27 at frame 899
Average Tri/Sec: -21302478, Tri/Frame: -648755
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.41
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 55.35s, Average FPS: 36.13
Min FPS: 24.85 at frame 1968, Max FPS: 52.88 at frame 988
Average Tri/Sec: -23301332, Tri/Frame: -644896
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.42
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 55.44s, Average FPS: 36.08
Min FPS: 24.85 at frame 1968, Max FPS: 52.88 at frame 988
Average Tri/Sec: -23233310, Tri/Frame: -643981
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.42
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

8/16/2008 1:58:32 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX9 1900x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 36.105

__________________________________________________ ___________________________


8/16/2008 2:02:30 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1900x1200, AA=4x, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 94.81s, Average FPS: 21.10
Min FPS: 13.66 at frame 1032, Max FPS: 37.84 at frame 72
Average Tri/Sec: -9127398, Tri/Frame: -432663
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.12
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 88.04s, Average FPS: 22.72
Min FPS: 13.66 at frame 1032, Max FPS: 38.70 at frame 63
Average Tri/Sec: -9517491, Tri/Frame: -418979
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.19
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 85.30s, Average FPS: 23.45
Min FPS: 13.66 at frame 1032, Max FPS: 42.86 at frame 83
Average Tri/Sec: -9840465, Tri/Frame: -419691
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.18
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

8/16/2008 2:02:30 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1900x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 23.085

[vixro]

Sounds like you need to try 8.8

[Blkout]

Sounds like you need to try 8.8

When ATI releases an official driver, I'll certainly do so. In the meantime, I have no problem with the current driver.

[necrokiller]

No AA, the hit from High to Very High is huge at both resolutions...but visually they're pretty much the same.

With AA, the results are pretty consistent on Very High...thats impressive.

[Blkout]

No AA, the hit from High to Very High is huge at both resolutions...but visually they're pretty much the same.

With AA, the results are pretty consistent on Very High...thats impressive.

Agreed, DX10 is still a mess. There's no loss of framerate with AA with DX10 though which is impressive. Unfortuantely, the game is not really playable with DX10 in my opinion. DX9 looks fine though.

[ViperJohn]

Check this out ... and just when everyone was saying Crysis is always going to be better on a nvidia card ...

DX10 Page: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/08/13/amd-ati-radeon-hd-4870-x2/6

DX9 Page: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/08/13/amd-ati-radeon-hd-4870-x2/7

I'm not a Crysis fan or a FPS fan for that matter, but everyone knows people use Crysis as a comparison for hardcore gaming testing. I'm just glad Nvidia is getting knocked off their throne for the first time in 7 years, this is like the 9800 Pro days all over again!

:attn:

You have got to be kidding me. Of course ATI will win that compare. The 4780X2 is a CrossFire pair of cards on a common PCB that sells $570 versus all single card with the fastest selling for $400. ATI had better well win that stacked deck lol.

Now make that compare apples to apples and put the 4780X2 up against an GTX260 SLI pair that sells you can buy all day long at the Egg for $540 and the X2 gets chrushed. Hell even an SLI pair of 9800GTX selling for less that $400 will stay with the X2.

The 4870X2 is a darn good card but it is still a CF pair and it is now by far the most expensive card on the market.

Viper

[necrokiller]

You have got to be kidding me. Of course ATI will win that compare. The 4780X2 is a CrossFire pair of cards on a common PCB that sells $570 versus all single card with the fastest selling for $400. ATI had better well win that stacked deck lol.

Now make that compare apples to apples and put the 4780X2 up against an GTX260 SLI pair that sells you can buy all day long at the Egg for $540 and the X2 gets chrushed. Hell even an SLI pair of 9800GTX selling for less that $400 will stay with the X2.

The 4870X2 is a darn good card but it is still a CF pair and it is now by far the most expensive card on the market.

Viper

Finally someone who understands what I was trying to tell everyone the whole time... :beer:

[Blkout]

You have got to be kidding me. Of course ATI will win that compare. The 4780X2 is a CrossFire pair of cards on a common PCB that sells $570 versus all single card with the fastest selling for $400. ATI had better well win that stacked deck lol.

Now make that compare apples to apples and put the 4780X2 up against an GTX260 SLI pair that sells you can buy all day long at the Egg for $540 and the X2 gets chrushed. Hell even an SLI pair of 9800GTX selling for less that $400 will stay with the X2.

The 4870X2 is a darn good card but it is still a CF pair and it is now by far the most expensive card on the market.

Viper


VJ, with all due respect, the only problem with your comparison is that it requires a purchase of an Nvidia motherboard which are garbage. Until we get the X58 chipset from Intel, the X2 is by far the best solution for Intel users.

[ViperJohn]

it requires a purchase of an Nvidia motherboard which are garbage.

Now you you are just talking BS. I can't say I like the 790i much but my 780i has by far been
the best MB i've used from the currently available crop.

I found the 38 series Intel chipset MB to be "so so" myself. Mine ran out of FSB overhead long
before I was able to top out my old chilled E8500 CPU out.

As they say don't knock em until ya try em.

Viper

[Blkout]

Now you you are just talking BS. I can't say I like the 790i much but my 780i has by far been
the best MB i've used from the currently available crop.

I found the 38 series Intel chipset MB to be "so so" myself. Mine ran out of FSB overhead long
before I was able to top out my old chilled E8500 CPU out.

As they say don't knock em until ya try em.

Viper

I'll pass. Too many bad experiences going around with Nivida chipsets. Intel chipsets have always been good to me, I'll stay with them. And don't get me wrong, as much as love to play with FSB, it just doesn't do as much as it once did since the FSB isn't really all that restrictive anymore. It's good for a few extra points in benchmarks, but that's really about all. My P35 chipset will do about 520MHz before it's had enough, but I don't even need to go that high as I run about 470MHz

[vixro]

I'll pass on buggy ass SLI.

[>HyperlogiK<]

VJ

I'm not sure if the 4870x2 is priced too highly. I'm not really up to date with current gen SLI performance, but however good value it is I'm not sure how many people will go for GTX260 SLI.

As far as the upgrade market goes, pretty much everybody likely to buy an enthusiast card from this gen is either running an Intel board (965P through X48) or some kind of AMD setup. Of those only a few AMD machines will support SLI.

The GTX 2x0's did have a huge amount of bad PR surrounding their launch and the crazy initial pricing hurt their image further.

Add to this a lot of people's odd reluctance to get multicard setups (I knew I guy who absolutely refused to go with a really cheap 7900GT SLI setup but bought a single 7950GX2 shortly afterwards).

Because of these factors I could see a fair number of enthusiasts actually tolerating the price of the 4870x2.

[ViperJohn]

I'll pass on buggy ass SLI.

Buggy SLI...now that is laughable.

ATI had a hell of a lot harder time getting CF to actually work in more than a benchmark than NV ever did with SLI.

Viper

[necrokiller]

I was pretty satisfied with my SLI...got rid of it only because I plan to SLI a better card...but there were no bugs whatsoever other than the game not supporting the multi-gpu platform, which even ATI can't avoid.

I have had no problems with the 680i so far...and its one of the best motherboards ive owned.

[ViperJohn]

VJ

I'm not sure if the 4870x2 is priced too highly. I'm not really up to date with current gen SLI performance, but however good value it is I'm not sure how many people will go for GTX260 SLI.

As far as the upgrade market goes, pretty much everybody likely to buy an enthusiast card from this gen is either running an Intel board (965P through X48) or some kind of AMD setup. Of those only a few AMD machines will support SLI.

The GTX 2x0's did have a huge amount of bad PR surrounding their launch and the crazy initial pricing hurt their image further.

Add to this a lot of people's odd reluctance to get multicard setups (I knew I guy who absolutely refused to go with a really cheap 7900GT SLI setup but bought a single 7950GX2 shortly afterwards).

Because of these factors I could see a fair number of enthusiasts actually tolerating the price of the 4870x2.

Actually we are getting well off topic here. I think the HD4870X2 is priced rather well. After all it is the fastest way to go for those unfortunate enough to not have a SLI capable MB.

For those that do have SLI MB there are ways to go that are as fast or faster and cost less at the same time...especially in Crysis.

Viper

[bda1967]

I never take sides on who I want to be the best chip maker.

Im glad ATI has come on top and its giving NVIDIA a hard time, that only gives us the users better prices and performance.

Clearly 4870x2 is the best card in the market and the price tag isn't bad considering what the 280GTX was at the time of launch.

Hopefully they both produce better cards and go back and forth so we get even cheaper/faster cards to make PC gaming more accessible.... consoles are killing us.

If only AMD could compete with Intel...


I'm going to wait until the 4870X2's drop in price and then maybe splurge for one. Maybe by Christmas they'll be under $400:santa:

[n3xu5]

You have got to be kidding me. Of course ATI will win that compare. The 4780X2 is a CrossFire pair of cards on a common PCB that sells $570 versus all single card with the fastest selling for $400. ATI had better well win that stacked deck lol.

Now make that compare apples to apples and put the 4780X2 up against an GTX260 SLI pair that sells you can buy all day long at the Egg for $540 and the X2 gets chrushed. Hell even an SLI pair of 9800GTX selling for less that $400 will stay with the X2.

The 4870X2 is a darn good card but it is still a CF pair and it is now by far the most expensive card on the market.

Viper

O.o Publicity :beer: Thanks for dropping by Viper!

I agree with you 100% but if i stuck two 4870x2's in 2 physical slots and compared those to two GTX260's or even 280's for that matter in their respective 2 physical slots, hmm ... :)

However, we're talking apples to oranges as you put it, We would have to compare the 4870 to the GTX280 to talk single core lingo. Even though the 4870 is very comparable to the GTX280, the 280 still takes the lead in the end. Budget based decision, 4870 vs GTX280 no contest, hands down 4870 for bang for your buck performance.

However, this thread is not about comparing apples to oranges, or fruit-flies to horse-flies, it's all about the 4870x2 baby!

:attn:

[Essenar]

Buggy SLI...now that is laughable.

ATI had a hell of a lot harder time getting CF to actually work in more than a benchmark than NV ever did with SLI.

Viper

Let's not pull that trigger please.

I've been in the trenches with this industry through thick and clear and I can tell you, both companies have had their laughing stock.

We're talking about the same SLI technology that was invented by 3dfx, developed and optimized by 3dfx, only to be bought by Nvidia, adopted by Nvidia and reconstructed by Nvidia.

I've tested SLI back when the "only" reason to get SLI was if you had two 6800GT/Ultra's. In fact, as I recall it, two 6600GT's cost the same as a 6800GT/Ultra, but people recommended the 6800 because you didn't need SLI and sometimes SLI wouldn't scale.

So many people bought into the "get one card now, get another later" and suffered for it. Even TWO of my friends bought Asus SLI boards and a 6600GT hoping to get another later.

Here they are, a few years later with a new system.

Dual/More video-card solutions have evolved quite a bit, but Crossfire didn't suffer any more flack than SLI did. Nvidia just has the advantage of picking up another company's research.

You can bet your bottom dollar, Nvidia would harvest and use Crossfire had they beaten ATI to a pulp and bought them out.

Both technologies have their advantages and Crossfire's use of the memory controllers is far more advanced than SLI.

[ViperJohn]

Let's not pull that trigger please.

I've been in the trenches with this industry through thick and clear and I can tell you, both companies have had their laughing stock.

We're talking about the same SLI technology that was invented by 3dfx, developed and optimized by 3dfx, only to be bought by Nvidia, adopted by Nvidia and reconstructed by Nvidia.

I've tested SLI back when the "only" reason to get SLI was if you had two 6800GT/Ultra's. In fact, as I recall it, two 6600GT's cost the same as a 6800GT/Ultra, but people recommended the 6800 because you didn't need SLI and sometimes SLI wouldn't scale.

So many people bought into the "get one card now, get another later" and suffered for it. Even TWO of my friends bought Asus SLI boards and a 6600GT hoping to get another later.

Here they are, a few years later with a new system.

Dual/More video-card solutions have evolved quite a bit, but Crossfire didn't suffer any more flack than SLI did. Nvidia just has the advantage of picking up another company's research.

You can bet your bottom dollar, Nvidia would harvest and use Crossfire had they beaten ATI to a pulp and bought them out.

Both technologies have their advantages and Crossfire's use of the memory controllers is far more advanced than SLI.

Yes NV had issue back in the 6000 series days and CrossFire was still an ATI wet dream.
That is ANCIENT history. Heck the 6800GT/Ultra were complete crap and ATI's 800's
owned them at that time except in OpenGL.

Viper

[Blazing fire]

the 790i are good. Pit them against p45/x48. Unless the 4870X2 is $50 above the gtx280, then only will I buy it. If I could persuade my parents to fund me, I'll probably end up with 3 gtx380 anyway. For me, it's either mid-low or ultimate.

[necrokiller]

the 790i are good. Pit them against p45/x48. Unless the 4870X2 is $50 above the gtx280, then only will I buy it. If I could persuade my parents to fund me, I'll probably end up with 3 gtx380 anyway. For me, it's either mid-low or ultimate.

They will only go as cheap as (approx) twice the price of a single HD4870...just like the gx2 is ~$300 and 8800GTS is around $169 and maybe $150 after MIR.

Wonder how this thing will run Crysis Warhead... should max it out with crazy AA levels at high res if Crytek is able to stand up to their words that 8600GTS could max it out... even more exciting would be how this would run Far Cry 2..Ubisoft is better at optimizing games but they are just known to be buggy.

[Blkout]

They will only go as cheap as (approx) twice the price of a single HD4870...just like the gx2 is ~$300 and 8800GTS is around $169 and maybe $150 after MIR.

Wonder how this thing will run Crysis Warhead... should max it out with crazy AA levels at high res if Crytek is able to stand up to their words that 8600GTS could max it out... even more exciting would be how this would run Far Cry 2..Ubisoft is better at optimizing games but they are just known to be buggy.


Far Cry 2 isn't using the same engine as Crysis so it's safe to say it's going to run fine.

[theELVISCERATOR]

8/16/2008 12:56:50 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1680x1050, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 88.59s, Average FPS: 22.58
Min FPS: 16.54 at frame 1964, Max FPS: 41.00 at frame 81
Average Tri/Sec: -10205270, Tri/Frame: -452037
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.03
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 81.77s, Average FPS: 24.46
Min FPS: 16.54 at frame 1964, Max FPS: 41.00 at frame 81
Average Tri/Sec: -10719221, Tri/Frame: -438277
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.09
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 79.39s, Average FPS: 25.19
Min FPS: 16.54 at frame 1964, Max FPS: 48.98 at frame 109
Average Tri/Sec: -11029197, Tri/Frame: -437787
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.09
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

8/16/2008 12:56:50 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 24.825


Well I can match or beat those scores with a single card at 1680x1050 on a very similar setup....so the X2 is NOT the king of crysis..at 22 inchs and below at least...


He scored what 25 fps against my 35?

HUGE difference.

BTW notice the MINIMUM framerate vs a 280....

He beats me with max fps with 48 vs 44...however the 280 never dips below25 fps vs 16 fps for the 4970x2.....big diff in playability there...

[iamcanadian7]

the 790i are good. Pit them against p45/x48. Unless the 4870X2 is $50 above the gtx280, then only will I buy it. If I could persuade my parents to fund me, I'll probably end up with 3 gtx380 anyway. For me, it's either mid-low or ultimate.

The 790i chipset is absolute garbage, way too many DDR3 related issues. I owned one brielfy and had to send it back due to the retarded amount of lockups I had. Not to mention the stability issues I had with this chip. I couldn't hit 3.8 with as much a 1.45 volts where I'm 4.05 with 1.38volts on this X38 board. I know about 4 other people who have also had this memory/locking up issue. Maybe I'm biased but I can't see myself buying another Nvidia shipset again.


@Elvis, The 4870X2 is really ment for resolutions of 1920x1200, anything lower than that, yes some other cards may be better but crank the res up to 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 and the 4870x2 will really shine. If you game at 22" or lower you really only need a 4870/GTX 280.

[Blkout]

Well I can match or beat those scores with a single card at 1680x1050 on a very similar setup....so the X2 is NOT the king of crysis..at 22 inchs and below at least...


He scored what 25 fps against my 35?

HUGE difference.

BTW notice the MINIMUM framerate vs a 280....

He beats me with max fps with 48 vs 44...however the 280 never dips below25 fps vs 16 fps for the 4970x2.....big diff in playability there...

Congratulations...I guess. However, even 25fps minimum isn't that playable. Good for bragging rights, but not what I would call playable by my standards, but then again, some people will play a slideshow just to say they can.

It's been stated that the newer ATI 8.8 beta drivers improve Crysis considerably and there are results to back this up posted on a few forums, but I'm NOT using those drivers at this time so it appears there's more room for improvement with the 4870x2. I'm waiting for the official release before I upgrade again, I don't do beta drivers if I can help it.

Also, since I consider very high settings irrelevant since it's not playable with any video card setup short of (3) GTX 280's. I'm willing to bet my default clock 4870x2 benchmark scores at high settings are at least as good as your overclocked 280 if not better which is really all that matters since that's the most playable settings.

I understand you feel the need to correct the OP's statement about the 4870x2 being the king of Crysis, but it just depends on what set of numbers you choose to look at.

[ViperJohn]

Congratulations...I guess. However, even 25fps minimum isn't that playable.

Considering motion pictures are shot at 24FPS 25 is certainly playable and is no way a slide show.

Viper

[Blkout]

Considering motion pictures are shot at 24FPS 25 is certainly playable and is no way a slide show.

Viper


VJ, video games and film are two entirely different things. The human eye has been known to identify framerates of less than 60fps but yet 24fps film appears to be smooth. It's two entirely different things.

Read the entire article for a full understanding of the difference as perceived by the human eye.

http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html

[satandole666]

It is nice to see people arguing for both sides and being right to some extent. I was getting a little bored with nVidia's dominance.

Now if AMD could pull off a miracle in the CPU department as well...

[Blkout]

Truthfully, I'm not brand loyal. I simply buy what's best for me at the time of purchase. I've owned AMD and Intel CPU's at various times, different brands of memory and motherboards. I've also owned ATI and Nvidia GPU's at different times. I've been PC gaming for just over 12 years now and there's been lots of up's and down's for all companies so it doesn't bother me that one is better than the other at any given time. Competition is good for the consumer.

[theELVISCERATOR]

Considering motion pictures are shot at 24FPS 25 is certainly playable and is no way a slide show.

Viper


Actually I am playing in game with very high settings

I average 35 to 40 actually...

[Blkout]

Actually I am playing in game with very high settings

I average 35 to 40 actually...

But if your minimums are around 25, you're going to see some stuttering or slow-down. Some people can play that way, I can't. High settings are good enough for me, it's a small price to pay to have a superior card in every other game. If Crysis is your bag though, you got the right card, I play everything else though and the 4870x2 is certainly the best available at this time.

[Shell]

Hah, people going to such great lengths to play a mediocre game maxed out.

Crysis is very SLI biased so it's not a good ATi/nVidia comparison.

[ziggo0]

Hah, people going to such great lengths to play a mediocre game maxed out.

Crysis is very SLI biased so it's not a good ATi/nVidia comparison.

That's what I'm thinking...who cares about only Crysis...don't you guys play any other games :S

[Blkout]

That's what I'm thinking...who cares about only Crysis...don't you guys play any other games :S

I don't care about Crysis to be honest, but it's a quick and easy benchmark to run and everyone seems to think that the video card that finally makes this game run properly is the king of all video cards. To be honest, the Nvidia crowd seems more interested in throwing Crysis numbers around than anyone else since that's their last leg to stand on now that the 4870x2 is out. If you play ANY other game besides Crysis, the 4870x2 easily outperforms the current Nvidia line-up. That was all it took for me to buy the 4870x2. I was on the fence about buying a recently price-reduced GTX 280, but even when overclocked it trails behind a default clocked 4870x2 in every game except Crysis so I can live with that.

[ViperJohn]

I don't care about Crysis to be honest, but it's a quick and easy benchmark to run and everyone seems to think that the video card that finally makes this game run properly is the king of all video cards. To be honest, the Nvidia crowd seems more interested in throwing Crysis numbers around than anyone else since that's their last leg to stand on now that the 4870x2 is out. If you play ANY other game besides Crysis, the 4870x2 easily outperforms the current Nvidia line-up. That was all it took for me to buy the 4870x2. I was on the fence about buying a recently price-reduced GTX 280, but even when overclocked it trails behind a default clocked 4870x2 in every game except Crysis so I can live with that.

Only when you do an apple to orange compare of a 4780x2 Crossfire card against a single NV card. Do an apples to apples X2 against an SLI pair and it is a rather different story.

If you are unfortunate enough not to have an SLI MB then the X2 is the way to go fast. If you have an SLI MB then you can go faster, cheaper with an SLI pair GTX260's. Even an SLI pair of 9800GTX+ card will put on a hell of a good show a lot cheaper than an X2.

Viper

[Shiggity]

It's been such a slow year in the game department, when are the next gen games coming out anyways?

Not to mention the two games I"m most looking forward to will run fine on my 8800GT, Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2.

On a sidenote, anyone have a HD4780x2 on these forums yet?

[ViperJohn]

It's been such a slow year in the game department, when are the next gen games coming out anyways?

Not to mention the two games I"m most looking forward to will run fine on my 8800GT, Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2.

On a sidenote, anyone have a HD4780x2 on these forums yet?

Several including me...or should I say did.

Viper

[Blkout]

It's been such a slow year in the game department, when are the next gen games coming out anyways?

Not to mention the two games I"m most looking forward to will run fine on my 8800GT, Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2.

On a sidenote, anyone have a HD4780x2 on these forums yet?

Of course, I've been posting Crysis benchmarks in this thread with the 4870x2.

[Blkout]

Only when you do an apple to orange compare of a 4780x2 Crossfire card against a single NV card. Do an apples to apples X2 against an SLI pair and it is a rather different story.

If you are unfortunate enough not to have an SLI MB then the X2 is the way to go fast. If you have an SLI MB then you can go faster, cheaper with an SLI pair GTX260's. Even an SLI pair of 9800GTX+ card will put on a hell of a good show a lot cheaper than an X2.

Viper

VJ, every review I've read comparing the 4870x2 vs SLI GTX 260 is pretty close in performance. You may prefer the Nvidia chispets, but I'm certainly not alone in thinking they're very unreliable. Again, for those of us that prefer Intel chipsets, the 4870x2 is gold. I know I'm just repeating what you're saying here, but the key here is that most people don't want Nvidia motherboard chipsets and for the small performance increase they may offer with the G200 series in SLI, it's just not worth the risk for most people, myself included.

I'll leave you with this:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15293/5

[Shiggity]

Of course, I've been posting Crysis benchmarks in this thread with the 4870x2.

Wall of text :(

[Blkout]

Wall of text :(

Huh? I posted the final numbers in bold print for easier viewing. It's not my fault it doesn't show up well with the colors of this forum.

[ViperJohn]

You may prefer the Nvidia chispets, but I'm certainly not alone in thinking they're very unreliable.

You may be thinking it but that doesn't make it true. They are just as reliable as any Intel chipset MB. Intel MB's have/had there issues as do or did NV's. That doesn't make them unreliable.

If you go to any motherboard support forum you will find people that have problems be it NV or Intel but for every person that posts a problem in those forums there are 100's to 1000's that had no issues at all.

I do not like 790i's but the 680 (from the T1's/A1's on) and 780's have been very good and you can run either the 4870X2 or an SLI setup. Your not stuck with one choice liek with an Intel chipset.

Viper

[Neural Net]

You may be thinking it but that doesn't make it true. They are just as reliable as any Intel chipset MB. Intel MB's have/had there issues as do or did NV's. That doesn't make them unreliable.

If you go to any motherboard support forum you will find people that have problems be it NV or Intel but for every person that posts a problem in those forums there are 100's to 1000's that had no issues at all.

I do not like 790i's but the 680 (from the T1's/A1's on) and 780's have been very good and you can run either the 4870X2 or an SLI setup. Your not stuck with one choice liek with an Intel chipset.

Viper

The 780i boards had MASSIVE video playback bugs. It has been kept quiet, even though the problem has thought to be more widespread than the 790i data corruption bug.

[ViperJohn]

The 780i boards had MASSIVE video playback bugs. It has been kept quiet, even though the problem has thought to be more widespread than the 790i data corruption bug.

Did have...yes...Massive...no and it was corrected in TWO WEEKS with a bios update. Most people
didn't have the bug at all. I know I did not.

The same issue in an Intel chipset MB would have taken two months to correct as each maker would
have had to come up with a fix on their own.

A bug is does not make a chipset or MB unreliable be in with NV or Intel.

Viper

[Neural Net]

Did have...yes...Massive...no and it was corrected in TWO WEEKS with a bios update. Most people
didn't have the bug at all. I know I did not.

The same issue in an Intel chipset MB would have taken two months to correct as each maker would
have had to come up with a fix on their own.

A bug is does not make a chipset or MB unreliable be in with NV or Intel.

Viper

It was not corrected in two weeks, that is false information.

[ViperJohn]

It was not corrected in two weeks, that is false information.

And this is from your personal experience with the issue correct???

Viper

[Neural Net]

And this is from your personal experience with the issue correct???


Viper

This forum thread (http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=65855&st=80) explains the problem and links to other threads full of people with the same issue. It was widespread and BIOS releases were very slow (it has to be noted that EVGA responded the fastest). The problem took months to even be acknowledged, then longer to fix, not weeks.

[Badbonji]

My 780 is perfectly fine, even at overclocking. As with almost every product there are always ones that won't work sometimes or buggy drivers etc.

[ViperJohn]

This forum thread (http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=65855&st=80) explains the problem and links to other threads full of people with the same issue. It was widespread and BIOS releases were very slow (it has to be noted that EVGA responded the fastest). The problem took months to even be acknowledged, then longer to fix, not weeks.

Why do people insist on coming into a gun fight unarmed and unprepared lol.

If you go by the first date of that thread in was fixed in 31 days in the PO5 bios dated 5/29/08. In reading over that thread many of the issues talked about weren't even related to the "video bug" but it was a easy space goat...but that is common in any forum

The video issue affected about 5% of users. It took nVidia a while to separate the wheat from the chaff, actually reproduce the issue and come up with a fix. Call it four weeks then and that is iffy.

I, like 95% of other users, never had the issue at all with any bios. eVGA did not come up with the fix...nVidia did as they provide all bios for those MB's. EVGA was just the first to post it on the site for downloading but any OEM branded reference MB could use it except ASUS since they never seem to follow reference design on anything.

We are also WAY off topic!!!

Viper

[Neuromancer]

You have got to be kidding me. Of course ATI will win that compare. The 4780X2 is a CrossFire pair of cards on a common PCB that sells $570 versus all single card with the fastest selling for $400. ATI had better well win that stacked deck lol.

Now make that compare apples to apples and put the 4780X2 up against an GTX260 SLI pair that sells you can buy all day long at the Egg for $540 and the X2 gets chrushed. Hell even an SLI pair of 9800GTX selling for less that $400 will stay with the X2.

The 4870X2 is a darn good card but it is still a CF pair and it is now by far the most expensive card on the market.

Viper

I thought that SLI still had scaling problems. So you end up with 0% gain in performance in one game and maybe 50% performance boost in another game. Whereas ATI has weaker GPUs but runs better together in pairs.

Unfortunately I can not find a review comparing anything but 9800GTX SLI to the 4870x2

nVidia still got lots of game I am sure, the benchmarks all prove it. But spending as much time getting my machine to run as getting to play a game is not my idea of money well spent. (Only had 3 8800 cards though so it is possible that ALL were bad)


EDIT: Another bad thing about guru3d's write up. And bugs me to no end. I understood back when nVidia couldnt handle HDR and AA but that was years ago.

So seeing (for instance) the FEAR benchmarking. 4Xaa (okay thats reasonable) 16AF ok same there... All settigns on high... ok... soft shadows off... WTF?!? Now I do not devote much of my free time to video games or review writing. But why disable some thing that clearly everyone will enable before they even try AA/F? Something smells rotten in denmark :P

[ViperJohn]

I thought that SLI stil lhad scaling problems. So you end up with 0% gain in performance in one game and maybe 50% performance boost in another game. Whereas ATI has weaker GPUs but runs better together in pairs.

Unfortunately I can not find a review comparing anything but 9800GTX SLI to the 4870x2

nVidia still got lots of game I am sure, the benchmarks all prove it. But spending as much time getting my machine to run as getting to play a game is not my idea of money well spent. (Only had 3 8800 cards though so it is possible that ALL were bad)

SLI has no more scaling issues that CF does. Many older games just will not get any advantage of SLI or CF at all. 3DM01 is another. It is just the way the older game engines are coded.

I do not think there are any games out in the last 12-24 months, at least any popular ones, that won't take advantage of an SLI/CF setup.

The resolution you play at and system speed makes a big impact on the scaling of either SLI or CF. At lower resolutions like 1024x768 or 1280x800 many games and benchmarks are simply CPU/system speed limited and can't keep the cards data loaded which slashes the single to dual card scaling.

Viper

[Hazaro]

But if your minimums are around 25, you're going to see some stuttering or slow-down. Some people can play that way, I can't. High settings are good enough for me, it's a small price to pay to have a superior card in every other game. If Crysis is your bag though, you got the right card, I play everything else though and the 4870x2 is certainly the best available at this time.

I play Crysis past Very High with 25fps and that's good enough for me :beer:

[Blkout]

I play Crysis past Very High with 25fps and that's good enough for me :beer:

If it's good enough for you, that's all that matters. However, I cannot tolerate a game running at 25fps. Everyone has their limits.

[Neuromancer]

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15293/1

WOW

Appears at least on this review that the only game that ATI is toppled in now on uber highend ridiculousness. Is Crysis. LOL



It appears a single 4870x2 betas three 260s in every game reviewed at every resolution... except crysis.


I do not know what this means entirely as I did not delve into the fine points. Will look into it later. Do not have time to look into al lthe settings and compare.



Did find out something VERY interesting though..

nVidia boards use hypertransport not DMI and there for have like 4 or 5 times the communication link to the PCIE slots as a intel chipset mobo.



I really wish I had better luck with nVidia products. I just so badly want an All black PC lol

I will have to wait till the 4870X2 costs 200 bucks i guess :(

[vixro]

[...]
I really wish I had better luck with nVidia products. I just so badly want an All black PC lol
[...]




X2 is BLACK. DO IT :D :santa:

[Essenar]

Why do people insist on coming into a gun fight unarmed and unprepared lol.

If you go by the first date of that thread in was fixed in 31 days in the PO5 bios dated 5/29/08. In reading over that thread many of the issues talked about weren't even related to the "video bug" but it was a easy space goat...but that is common in any forum

The video issue affected about 5% of users. It took nVidia a while to separate the wheat from the chaff, actually reproduce the issue and come up with a fix. Call it four weeks then and that is iffy.

I, like 95% of other users, never had the issue at all with any bios. eVGA did not come up with the fix...nVidia did as they provide all bios for those MB's. EVGA was just the first to post it on the site for downloading but any OEM branded reference MB could use it except ASUS since they never seem to follow reference design on anything.

We are also WAY off topic!!!

Viper

31 days =/ 2 weeks. Unless you're counting them in dog weeks or something. You said, and it's literally quite quotable, "it was fixed in 2 weeks".

A month is a VERY long time to be stuck with video playback bugs.

I'm a tester. I used to do this for a LIVING and the only good SLI board I ever tested was the 680i and in benchmark comparisons, it achieved lower max front-side bus speeds than the P965, which cost HALF the price.

If you wanted solid capacitors, good luck. EVGA, XFX and ASUS models didn't come standard with solid capacitors. Whereas on the Intel side, a $120 P965-DS3 came standard with solid capacitors from Gigabyte. Versus a $250 motherboard from EVGA, ASUS or XFX not having them?

And don't sit there and tell me solid capacitors don't matter or you'll seriously lose a lot of credibility with me.

And the 780i was a disaster for the most part. I tested five of them, five, and I had nothing but problems with them. Unrepeatable max speeds, video playback, BIOS updates causing data corruption and even in one situation a dead board from BIOS updates. A board I was only updating the BIOS for, to FIX a problem from the factory.

Say what you want, but the bottom line is, a lot of people don't run around saying they prefer Intel chips because they're fan boys.

When a lot of people run around and say something has problems, there's a good reason to go around and research it.

Name an Intel based enthusiast board that's been released in the last 5 years that has had a HUGE problem like 780i's video playback problem or the 790i's data corruption SATA controller problem. Name ONE, that had thousands of people complaining about it. And you better not pick some board that no one uses like a G35.

I'm talking about, pick from the following boards and find one with a huge problem like that:
P965
975x
P35
P45
X38
X48

[Neuromancer]

..snip.... Name ONE, that had thousands of people complaining about it. And you better not pick some board that no one uses like a G35.
..snip...

Just want to single this out. Intel is just a better chipset for intel/ATI products no doubt. You pay for it to.

But my question is... did the G3X series have some problems? Cuz I am running into some issues on a brand new g33 board.. once I went back to a ati card everything was solved... intel video FTL... was hoping it was a driver thing... its my htpc so im too lazy to reinstall on it.. but would be great to know :)

oh just want to point out


31 days =/ 2 weeks
1 year + after BSOD land on the nVidia camp. I purchased my first of 3. All caused rampant blue screens. :(

Switched back to ATI and not one has happened. Highest FPS should not count if its a blue screen with white text.

And dont get me started on CSAA. I will take the hit in FPS and whatever to have a better image, stability and the entire spectrum of color that a picture should be displayed in.

[Firey_chasm]

Its not about winning, its about perspective here..and unless proven wrong by facts, ill stick to what I think is right. And im pretty sure im better when it comes to talking to people on the phone :p


so your argument is that you are paying for 2cards when you get the X2. so NVIDIA win by only making you buy 1 card?

ok, price comparison time :P (in pounds since im english) (I have just chosen the most expensive from overclockers.co.uk assuming you are going for the 'best' stock 1 and I cant be bothered to compare products right now.
4870X2 = £411
4870 = £234 (2 in crossfire = £468)

GTX280 = £422 (2 in SLI £844 :O)
9800GX2 = £209

so, on its own the 4870X2 is cheaper than Xfireing 2 4870s, cheaper than the GTX280 and also in 1 card which means as said above, you dont have to worry about both SLI slots running at x16 AND if you are a real 'fan' you can xfire 2 4870X2s.

and dont expect a GTX2 280 from NVIDIA, they designed their card entirely wrong if they wanted to make a GX2 version, while ATI designed a far more efficient card which made it easier to make an X2. Its a simple design choice that has paid off for ATI.

id say for now ATI has NVIDIA beaten accross the board, because for budget systems the 4850 seems unrivaled and for extreme systems the 4870X2 holds the crown, while also not being anymore expensive


EDIT: those arguing you cannot compare the X2 vs 280 because its an XF card vs a single 1 is ONLY valid if NVIDIA are going to release a 280GX2 which as far as I am aware just isnt feasable. As it stands it is 1 card vs 1 card. If you want to start bringing xfire and SLI into the mix then you need to start compareing 2x4870X2 vs 2x280 or some such.

[e6600]

EDIT: those arguing you cannot compare the X2 vs 280 because its an XF card vs a single 1 is ONLY valid if NVIDIA are going to release a 280GX2 which as far as I am aware just isnt feasable. As it stands it is 1 card vs 1 card. If you want to start bringing xfire and SLI into the mix then you need to start compareing 2x4870X2 vs 2x280 or some such.
yeah totally, we should be comparing price:performance more than anything
and i think there is absolutely 0 difference between 2x4870x2's in real world gaming performance

[necrokiller]

so your argument is that you are paying for 2cards when you get the X2. so NVIDIA win by only making you buy 1 card?


No my argument is that HD4870 Crossfire is just as good as HD4870x2, so if its unreasonable to compare that to a single card, then it is just as unreasonable to compare the x2 to a single card. Coz on the x2, the TWO gpus are still running in Crossfire Mode!!!!! The difference is that its using a single slot, but doesn't mean that the issues of crossfire aren't there.

That argument is over and I don't really wana get into that again. I ignored the price comparison because its different for other people in different countries and you might be able to find good deals somewhere too.

Ill leave you with a guru3d quote from a HD4870x2 review, if that helps you understand my argument better:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-4870-x2-review-crossfire/21

But I will keep saying this, I like single GPU solutions better than dual-GPU solutions. Typically there are less complications, there is less power consumption, less heat .. all kinds of stuff I can think about. Multi-GPU gaming is not the next logical step in the almighty GPU evolution. See, typically you run into when I do something Crossfire/SLI related is ask myself the question: should you really be comparing a single GPU based product against a dual GPU based product and is that a fair thing to do ? And the answer is a flat no.

Here's where I land at my CrossFireX tale. See, my experiences with CrossFireX where a bit of a mixed bag really. At this very point I can not really recommend it as the price will not justify the benefits. Granted, where the four GPUs kick in, they kick in hard. But the fact was that a good number of games did not take advantage of the quad multi-GPU setup whatsoever.

4-way GPU Crossfire aside, make no mistake, a single X2 based card with 2 GPUs ran absolutely fine. Yet even so, I feel that I have more confidence in a single-GPU based graphics card mainly due to the fact you'll have much less to worry about. With multi-GPU gaming (it doesn't matter whether that is NVIDIA or ATI) you'll always run into slight irritations; sometimes a game is not yet supported or working at all in Crossfire/SLI. Also there's other stuff to consider, power consumption is doubled up but also .. your graphics solution will all of the sudden will create 2x more heat.

[Firey_chasm]

i understand your standpoint necro I just believe the complete opposite, but since you are clearly fed up arguing your side ill let it drop :)

SLI/Xfire is becoming supported by so much stuff now just in the same way dual core is, quad sli/Xfire is the same as quad core atm. Really atm games dont support it, but they most likely will.

[Blkout]

No my argument is that HD4870 Crossfire is just as good as HD4870x2, so if its unreasonable to compare that to a single card, then it is just as unreasonable to compare the x2 to a single card. Coz on the x2, the TWO gpus are still running in Crossfire Mode!!!!! The difference is that its using a single slot, but doesn't mean that the issues of crossfire aren't there.



I've seen no crossfire issues with my 4870x2, however I will mention that the 4870x2 is not exactly the same as two 4870's in crossfire mode, simply because of the PLX bridge chip. If you've read some of the reviews, you'll notice that ATI can double the effective communication rate between the two GPU's through software by activating the PLX chip which is currently not active. This should in theory make the 4870x2 faster than two 4870's in crossfire. I believe ATI is holding out until they see what Nvidia is going to release next month.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/HD_4870_X2/

[necrokiller]

i understand your standpoint necro I just believe the complete opposite, but since you are clearly fed up arguing your side ill let it drop :)


Yes like ive mentioned before its a matter of perspective...and both are equally acceptable ways to look at it so I respect what others believe. :beer:

[Neuromancer]

Yah the 4870x2 should be faster then the 4870s in CF since, its has an extra 5GB/s of communication between the gpus on top of the PCIE cross bridge

[Blkout]

Yah the 4870x2 should be faster then the 4870s in CF since, its has an extra 5GB/s of communication between the gpus on top of the PCIE cross bridge

If and when ATI activates it... :drool:

[Neuromancer]

If and when ATI activates it... :drool:


Did not realize it was the same thing lol

[necrokiller]

If and when ATI activates it... :drool:

HAH! So the so-called benefits of the new design have to be activated by ATi through drivers, which are not even confirmed? Great!

[Blkout]

HAH! So the so-called benefits of the new design have to be activated by ATi through drivers, which are not even confirmed? Great!

It's true, ATI has not activated the infamous sideport.

[diaz]

Crysis still hasnt been enabled for highest settings. Once the patch comes out for "ultra" settings the 4870x2 will be down to lower resolutions again for playable framerates. I'd wait another year or two for a graphic card that can max out crysis settings + res and get a constant 35fps +.

-D

[jason4207]

Congratulations...I guess. However, even 25fps minimum isn't that playable. Good for bragging rights, but not what I would call playable by my standards, but then again, some people will play a slideshow just to say they can.

It's been stated that the newer ATI 8.8 beta drivers improve Crysis considerably and there are results to back this up posted on a few forums, but I'm NOT using those drivers at this time so it appears there's more room for improvement with the 4870x2. I'm waiting for the official release before I upgrade again, I don't do beta drivers if I can help it.

Also, since I consider very high settings irrelevant since it's not playable with any video card setup short of (3) GTX 280's. I'm willing to bet my default clock 4870x2 benchmark scores at high settings are at least as good as your overclocked 280 if not better which is really all that matters since that's the most playable settings.

I understand you feel the need to correct the OP's statement about the 4870x2 being the king of Crysis, but it just depends on what set of numbers you choose to look at.

I play Crysis past Very High with 25fps and that's good enough for me :beer:

If it's good enough for you, that's all that matters. However, I cannot tolerate a game running at 25fps. Everyone has their limits.

Crysis is probably the only game IMO that has acceptable gameplay at 25-35 FPS. All other games I like to have locked at 60, but will settle for 45+ depending on the circumstances.

[vixro]

Crysis still hasnt been enabled for highest settings. Once the patch comes out for "ultra" settings the 4870x2 will be down to lower resolutions again for playable framerates. I'd wait another year or two for a graphic card that can max out crysis settings + res and get a constant 35fps +.

-D

Try 6 months, maybe less. That's how we do it in the graphics card world.

[n3xu5]

It's been such a slow year in the game department, when are the next gen games coming out anyways?

Not to mention the two games I"m most looking forward to will run fine on my 8800GT, Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2.

On a sidenote, anyone have a HD4780x2 on these forums yet?


I'm one of them :D

[sandyduff]

Mine has just been ordered!! just need to get a new mobo then il be sorted!! :D