HD 4850 Shootout! 512mb vs. 1gb

[EmAn]

Just got done testing with Tropics 3D benchmark, and the 1gb slaughtered the 512mb card.


I'll load up some games right after I run a few more benches guys.

but how many games run like tropics? really... It looks like the 512mb is the better buy to me...

Great testing so far!

 

[Badbonji]

What's this? In (H)ardOCP, they said the 1gb was smoother. Can you confirm this by playing games please?

The resolution maybe the factor of that benchmark, although seems like it is a waste to have 1gb. Maybe if you have two in CF it will use the memory more efficiently and pull away from 512mb CF...

 

[Blazing fire]

Let me make myself clearer in what I've said to prevent confusion (not directed at anyone).

From (H)ardOCP: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU2MiwxMCwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

We know there are really two games here you are most interested in, the new ones of course, Crysis: Warhead and Stalker: Clear Sky. In that regard we really wanted to know if the 1GB Radeon HD 4870 would provide us a better gameplay experience, especially in a game like Clear Sky. Well, yes and no. We need to be careful here how we explain this, because while it didn’t offer us better framerates allowing higher visual settings, it certainly did give us a tangible smoother gameplay experience that can certainly be felt when playing.



Our testing revealed that Clear Sky is very shader intensive rather than memory capacity sensitive. The game demands so much of the GPU as it is that we cannot set high resolutions and high AA levels in order to exploit the benefits of added memory capacity. In fact, in order to achieve real MSAA at all you have to run in the highest level DX10 mode in the game, which is a very demanding setting. The only way we could run at this setting was to lower Sun Quality, Sun Rays and SSAO to “Low.” We just weren’t able to run the game at settings high enough to reflect any difference in the video cards. The game is simply GPU limited with the hardware we used here today.



Now, while all that is true, the 1GB video card did actually help us in another way, a way which we cannot exactly show you here, only try to explain to you. We are gamers and so are you; when you play a game part of the immersion is the fact that it runs smoothly and consistently without pausing, stopping, or getting choppy. This is where the 1GB 4870 video card actually helped us. With the 512MB Radeon HD 4870 we encountered some lag or pausing when you complete one task and have the next task loading. We also noticed some lag and pausing when moving into new areas, new buildings, new scenes that were loading into view. However, with the 1GB 4870 these pauses didn’t occur at all, there were smoother transitions through the Stalker world as we would walk or run through it. When we entered new areas, new buildings, or new tasks loaded it was seamless, just the way we’d expect it to be, and thus in that way it helps the gameplay experience positively. It should also be noted the GTX 260 was also smoother in this way, because it too has a large memory capacity.



The same was true for Crysis as well. If you saw the apples-to-apples result you saw higher and smoother performance at 1680 with 4X AA on “Gamer” settings. So if you have to sum up 1GB 4870 gameplay compared to the 512MB card, (other than Race Driver: GRID which was the only game where we could achieve higher quality settings) the main advantage we enjoyed in games was a smoother more seamless immersive quality of play

 

[sno.lcn]

Okay, so playing games seems to feel smoother and all that (and now that I've played a couple on both cards, I agree). But my issue with that is it's all perceptual. While it's cool to feel like your games are playing better, I like the numbers to back it up. It must be because I don't game on my PC unless it's something I really want to play, and there's no 360 release.

So from a benching standpoint, not worth the extra money. From a gaming standpoint? If you're a PC gamer, I would say it's a good possibility

 

[Blazing fire]

Okay, so playing games seems to feel smoother and all that (and now that I've played a couple on both cards, I agree). But my issue with that is it's all perceptual. While it's cool to feel like your games are playing better, I like the numbers to back it up. It must be because I don't game on my PC unless it's something I really want to play, and there's no 360 release.

So from a benching standpoint, not worth the extra money. From a gaming standpoint? If you're a PC gamer, I would say it's a good possibility

Ok, so 1gb is worth it.

 

[Amtrak]

Just as I thought, the 4850 doesn't make great use of the extra memory from a number standpoint (that is, excluding the "smoothness" factor). Great job testing, and I'm not alone when I say that this thread was very enlightening.

 

[MadMan007]

Hey thanks for the review. I was eyeing that Gigabyte card because of the large passive cooler but the same cooler gets bad reviews on the 9600GT which is a cooler chip but gets ok reviews on the 4850. Are the temps from your first post on an open bench? Any idea how that card might run in a closed case with decent but standard airflow (no side fan blowing straight on the card.) I just wish they made a 512MB version with the same heatsink that didn't cost as much It kind of sucks that finding good coolers on 4850s is limited to only a few models and those models can cost nearly as much as a GTX260 original.

Okay, so playing games seems to feel smoother and all that (and now that I've played a couple on both cards, I agree). But my issue with that is it's all perceptual. While it's cool to feel like your games are playing better, I like the numbers to back it up. It must be because I don't game on my PC unless it's something I really want to play, and there's no 360 release.

So from a benching standpoint, not worth the extra money. From a gaming standpoint? If you're a PC gamer, I would say it's a good possibility

The way to show smoothness should be min framerates.

Another test I'd suggest is Far Cry 2. [H] found that the 4870 1GB was able to run 4x AA versus no AA on the 512MB version.

 

[g0dM@n]

Wow, this thread is definitely very useful!! Thanks!!

 

[unrlmth]

I would like to see FC2, I heard it really needs a ton of memory. It makes me feel better about choosing the 512mb 4870 over the 1gb version.

 

[g0dM@n]

I would like to see FC2, I heard it really needs a ton of memory. It makes me feel better about choosing the 512mb 4870 over the 1gb version.

It might be a whole different ballgame with the 4870. The 4870 has more power and bandwidth and might have more of a need for more RAM than the 4850. I was just googling around for that info myself.

If only my rig was up, I could have done a comparison, but I just sold the 4870 512mb that I never got to use. I have a Powercolor 4870 1gb waiting for me to finally build my PC that's been down for over 6 months!

 

[unrlmth]

It might be a whole different ballgame with the 4870. The 4870 has more power and bandwidth and might have more of a need for more RAM than the 4850. I was just googling around for that info myself.

If only my rig was up, I could have done a comparison, but I just sold the 4870 512mb that I never got to use. I never would have known. I have a Powercolor 4870 1gb waiting for me to finally build my PC that's been down for over 6 months!

I'm hoping for pretty good gains over my 4850. And I'm using it on a 22in screen.

I also have a 1gb 4850 (and used to have a 512mb one before 4 or 5 days ago.)

I still think some FC2 benchs would be interesting.