Come get your 4870 Review's =D

[WorshipMe]

If there was no 4850 at $190, I would think $300 was OK for the 4870. As is, I don't think 20% more performance for 50% more money than the 4850 is worth it.

I see where you're coming from now. That was a problem with the HD 3850/HD 3870 too, and you could say the same thing for the 8800GT/8800GTS, but lots of people bought the GTS over the GT.

 

[ratbuddy]

I see where you're coming from now. That was a problem with the HD 3850/HD 3870 too, and you could say the same thing for the 8800GT/8800GTS, but lots of people bought the GTS over the GT.

GTS has 128 SPs though versus 112 on the GT.. Not just higher clocks and better memory like the '70 has over the '50

 

[MadMan007]

I'm not sure how someone with a 9800GX2 can make a value argument. The fact that the 4870 at $300 competes well with the GTX 260 at $400 is what's important. These results make me anxious to see two things: 1) how far the 4850 can oc on the core with better cooling and 2) GDDR5 4850s If the 4850 oc'ing is held back by heat and there is a GDDR5 version in the next month or two, imagine the value proposition and outright performance potential of a <$250 GDDR5 4850

 

[White_Pawn]

I want to know if there is any pbc changes on the 4850 vs 4870.

me too. By the stats, it only sounds like the only difference is the GDDR 3 vs. GDDR 5. Which i can see means alot, as there is almost 2x the bandwidth, but anyone know if there is anything else that is different?

 

[MadMan007]

Need to look at the cards bare some more but I believe the PCBs are different and the power section is probably too, the 4870 does have 2 PCIe power plugs.

Here's some naked 4870 pics, didn't find any quickly for the 4850:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...deon-hd4870-512mb-graphics-card-review-8.html

 

[ratbuddy]

I'm not sure how someone with a 9800GX2 can make a value argument. The fact that the 4870 at $300 competes well with the GTX 260 at $400 is what's important. These results make me anxious to see two things: 1) how far the 4850 can oc on the core with better cooling and 2) GDDR5 4850s If the 4850 oc'ing is held back by heat and there is a GDDR5 version in the next month or two, imagine the value proposition and outright performance potential of a <$250 GDDR5 4850

Look at it like this. You have $400 to spend on a single card, is it going to be a GX2 or a GTX 260? No brainer, a 9800GX2. Better value. We already know the GTX 260 and 280 are dead in the water at current prices.

 

[anothermbdusted]

i can tell you this that ive read that the card will accept all coolers from the 3870 family np at all and make a huge differnece in temps. but no one has posted any OC results i also found a 1 gig version on another forum that was posted for sale over seas http://www.technodiscount.com/webmarchand/produit.php?p_id=12026&paid=4&nid=4
i wonder when these are going to start showing up around here or if were even going to get one here in the states and when is the 4870x2 to be released?

 

[MadMan007]

Look at it like this. You have $400 to spend on a single card, is it going to be a GX2 or a GTX 260? No brainer, a 9800GX2. Better value. We already know the GTX 260 and 280 are dead in the water at current prices.

Better off getting a 4870 for $100 less and buying some games that is, if you don't just look at NV cards. There are no other cards at the $400 price point so your $400 argument is limited to the two cards you mentioned. Since the 9800GX2 is SLI on a stick though you may as well include Crossfire in which case 2 4850s at $400 are a better purchase.

Or to use the price/performance percentage increase is the 9800GX2 33% better than a 4870? In best case scenarios it is, but not in all games and sometimes it's no better or even worse.

i can tell you this that ive read that the card will accept all coolers from the 3870 family np at all and make a huge differnece in temps. but no one has posted any OC results i also found a 1 gig version on another forum that was posted for sale over seas http://www.technodiscount.com/webmarchand/produit.php?p_id=12026&paid=4&nid=4
i wonder when these are going to start showing up around here or if were even going to get one here in the states and when is the 4870x2 to be released?

I found this: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=191944 which shows a massive temp reduction with an Accelero S1 rev 2. Oc'ing results are unclear, so far CCC is the only software and it's limited to 700MHz and the 4850 has no problem doing that with better cooling. The only other things I found were card BIOS mods but they are causing problems, including disabling Powerplay for 2D. Hopeully Rivatuner will be able to overcome the CCC limitation and keep Powerplay intact. The thought of a GDDR5 4850 is making me now.

 

[Brolloks]

All the aftermarket coolers that fit the 8800 G92 series and the 3800 series fits the 4850 and I preume for now the 4870 as well. I slapped an old Zerotherm cooler on my 4850 and the temps idle at 31C and max it 45 under FUR. At last we have the same core hole configuration for all ATI and NVIDIA cards

 

[MadMan007]

Hm actually I'm finding some semi-rumor articles that state the GDDR5 4850 is cancelled, possibly due to 'internal competition,' read: it probably performs too closely to the 4870.

 

[deathman20]

Hm actually I'm finding some semi-rumor articles that state the GDDR5 4850 is cancelled, possibly due to 'internal competition,' read: it probably performs too closely to the 4870.

Well memory has to take up some of the slack with just a core clock increase on that of the 4870's. Probably put the cards closer to a 10% gap if it had GDDR5. Doh I'd probably get the 4850 if it did have GDDR5 and OC the crap out of it.

 

[Brolloks]

Hm actually I'm finding some semi-rumor articles that state the GDDR5 4850 is cancelled, possibly due to 'internal competition,' read: it probably performs too closely to the 4870.

I will not be surprised as the core speed of the 4870 can be achieved by the 4850 I'm sure, so if they put GDDR5 on the 4850 there will be no value differential between the 4850 and 4870

 

[MadMan007]

Well, only to oc'ers although that's probably most of the buyers and the 4870 does have a better stock cooler plus a better power section so it may still oc higher on the core. More recent info tends to say no to GDDR5 4850, darn.

 

[Super Nade]

You know, the HD4850 kicks my HD3870 to hell and back. Superb value for a GPU.

 

[ratbuddy]

Better off getting a 4870 for $100 less and buying some games that is, if you don't just look at NV cards. There are no other cards at the $400 price point so your $400 argument is limited to the two cards you mentioned. Since the 9800GX2 is SLI on a stick though you may as well include Crossfire in which case 2 4850s at $400 are a better purchase.

Or to use the price/performance percentage increase is the 9800GX2 33% better than a 4870? In best case scenarios it is, but not in all games and sometimes it's no better or even worse.

4870 has the same issue though It's not $100 better than a 4850. That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[Rinne]

Conversely, what would going from a 256 bus to a 512 bus do for the ATI cards?

GDDR5 is more expensive than GDDR3 so it would seem that making that change on nVidia's side would make the cards even more expensive.

Changing Bus width is a process change that can be done relatively cheap for ATI/AMD...

First, there's the memory controller. Gone is the "ring bus" architecture of the 600-series GPUs. In its place is a new distributed controller design, with the memory interface spread out around the edges of the chip, and memory controllers spread throughout the die near the blocks of render back-ends. Comparatively low-volume traffic like PCI Express, display controllers, and inter-chip communication are handled by a centralized hub. Each memory controller block has its own L2 cache block. The net result is, according to ATI, better bandwidth utilization in less die space

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2320865,00.asp

I don't know exactly, but I think it means that 256bit is enough.. Or even that it doesn't use a bus anymore?? I wouldn't be surprised if ATI uses similar technology to Hyper Transport.

What confused me when I looked up the 4870 at our local store was that 2 of 3 4870 were more expensive than the GTX 260 oO...

 

[deathman20]

4870 has the same issue though It's not $100 better than a 4850. That's the point I was trying to make.

There is always that between mid and high end though that typical $75-150 price margin typically. Guess its not shocking yet still well within I guess you can say Normal price practices.

Now nVidia and there $250 gap now thats definatly not in the norm per say unless they toss in a GTX270 that squeezes inbetween the 2 for some mild performance improvement but of course that would make it a OC'ed edition.

 

[MadMan007]

4870 has the same issue though It's not $100 better than a 4850. That's the point I was trying to make.

I'm not sure which 'same issue' you mean (maybe the price point? of course that's only becaue NV did a drastic price drop on 9800GTX) but again you limit the comparison to one other card as if the two exist in a vacuum, why? That comparison technique only works for fanboys who refuse to buy a card from the other company. Also setting up criteria such as '$400 to spend' (it seems more like you mean 'you HAVE TO spend $400 ) when there are only two choices at that approximate price (9800GX2 looks to be higher actually) just predetermines what the choice will be because there are only a few options. It's not necessary to spend as much as possible you know so saying that a less expensive item is another choice for 'up to $400' not only opens up options but saves money too.

The 9800GX2 is not worth $100-150 more than the 4870 by your own logic either and yet you seem to recommend it as a better buy than the 4870, which is just a natural conclusion saying 'if you have $400 to spend,' or rather 'you have to spend $400.' The inconsistency in the application of your logic is what does not make sense unless there's another motivation behind it.

 

[ratbuddy]

I'm not sure which 'same issue' you mean (maybe the price point? of course that's only becaue NV did a drastic price drop on 9800GTX) but again you limit the comparison to one other card as if the two exist in a vacuum, why? That comparison technique only works for fanboys who refuse to buy a card from the other company. Also setting up criteria such as '$400 to spend' (it seems more like you mean 'you HAVE TO spend $400 ) when there are only two choices at that approximate price (9800GX2 looks to be higher actually) just predetermines what the choice will be because there are only a few options. It's not necessary to spend as much as possible you know so saying that a less expensive item is another choice for 'up to $400' not only opens up options but saves money too.

The 9800GX2 is not worth $100-150 more than the 4870 by your own logic either and yet you seem to recommend it as a better buy than the 4870, which is just a natural conclusion saying 'if you have $400 to spend,' or rather 'you have to spend $400.' The inconsistency in the application of your logic is what does not make sense unless there's another motivation behind it.

What? Jesus. Why do people try to strawman me so much.

All I said is that the 4870 isn't worth $100 more than the 4850, and if you think it is, then why not another $100 for a GX2 which actually does perform 33% better for 33% more money, as opposed to 20% better for 50% more money like the 4870.

 

[MadMan007]

Are there lots of 9800GX2 for $400? Because the only one I could find quickly was from KFA So let's be real and call it $130-150 more. And if you read any of the 4870 reviews you'll see that the 9800GX2 is at best 33% better than the 4870, but sometimes it is 0% better depending upon the game and sometimes it's even worse. Looking at the most favorable benchmark doens't make it true across the board, I'd actually be interested to know where the 33% came from, Crysis looks to be the only game that consistently shows that much difference. If one must spend $400 Crossfired 4850s are clearly better, you can't deny that.

I'll be honest here because I was holding back from saying this but quite frankly I think you recommend the 9800GX2 because you have one, there I said it. Not in any devious way but maybe a subconscious way. I see it all the time where people believe that their purchase choice is the best and then form their reasoning around coming to the same conclusion again. Such reasoning was probably more relevant at the time the purchase was made but clearly the graphics card choices have changed a lot since then and it seems like you're selectively applying your reasoning to support 'your card.' I'm sorry to be so argumentative but honestly your logic is inconsistent, or inconsistenly applied, and it seems like you just want to come out with a certain conclusion and work backwards from there.