Anandtech Radeon HD4870 Review!!!

Dan_D said:
Again, read my post above. No matter what anyone tells me the 9800GX2 is the inferior card when compared to the Geforce GTX 280. The frame rates of the 9800GX2 may look good on paper but in reality they are horribly inconsistent. The gameplay is no where near as smooth as it is on the Geforce GTX 280. The difference is huge. Time demos and benchmarks won't show that difference between the two but try actually playing games on them and the difference will be readily apparent. Another problem with the Geforce 9800GX2 is that its' AA performance is not the best. They also take a bit of a hit at 2560x1600. They just don't have the memory bandwidth nor the amount of memory you really need to get the job done. The 9800GX2 was in some ways a step back from the previous 8800GTX/Ultra cards as a result. I got far better results in CoD4 with AA and AF enabled at 2560x1600 on my dual 8800GTX SLI setup than I got on my 9800GX2 Quad-SLI setup. 256bit memory interface and only 512MB of RAM per GPU just didn't get the job done. Had NVIDIA created the 9800GX2 as a 768MB per GPU part and if they had given it a 384bit bus like the 8800GTX had it would have been a monster.
Click to expand...

i did read it, and i dont know your point is, because the hard OCP review says the GTX 280 has higher fps than the 9800GX2. So its basically agreeing with you...? and im asking people why they are saying the 9800GX2 is better than the GTX 280.
 
i found the benchmarks to be really interesting. While it is still behind the gtx 280...the 4870 is a clearly a better bargin because you pay about 350 dollars less for essentially the same performance.
 
DeadSkull said:
Then what about this

Don't know why you guys didn't graph 280 vs 9800gtx sli vs 9800gx2 in crysis test. Just looking at the graph of the 280 vs 9800 sli seems like they follow the same pattern and have fps drops at the same time, except on average 9800gtx sli has higher fps.
Click to expand...

I don't know what was going on with the [H] review. I didn't write it nor participate in the review. I'm just relaying my personal experiences. I haven't played Crysis on the Geforce GTX 280's yet. Crysis actually worked very well on the Geforce 9800GX2 and there was some improvement to running in Quad-SLI when it came to Crysis. In CoD4, and in other games though the Geforce 9800GX2 was quite inconsistent in its' performance. This was especially true of Age of Conan. The 9800GX2 flat out sucks for that game.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
You know, I really love reading Anand's reviews.

The rest was really depressing - just pages and pages of graphs with no context whatsoever besides screen resolution and level of AA. Anand, or someone who works with him, REALLY seems to understand Computer Engineering, but fails at actually conveying the benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Crysis is a game that can beat down all cards. We're once again using the high settings with the shaders at very high, and even at a fairly tame resolution of 1680x1050 only 8 cards manage to get past the magical 30fps rate, with nearly half of those are just squeaking by. Crysis is particularly punishing on the HD3000 series cards at these kinds of settings, where only the HD3870 X2 was competitive without resorting toCrossfire. This makes the placement of the HD4000 series all the more important.
Click to expand...

That's the only game listed though. :/ To be fair, they're working with a very short time table for the amount of effort they put in, but you're right. Usually they do include all the settings (like the 9600 reviews) but in the last two they haven't.
 
Omegaslast said:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ3NSwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

i guess this confirms it, the 8800 GT SLI is the same as a 9800 GX2, and a 9800 GX2 is better than a gtx 280, so why the fuck do most people care about ANYTHING besides 8800gt SLI?

(besides the people who cant use nvidia chipsets)
Click to expand...
Because the average may be higher but the minimum fps will be a lot lower than the new cards in memory bandwidth intensive parts of a game. Read the [H] review of the 280/260 to see this. The gx2 had better average fps in some cases but the new cards were more consistant and felt smoother in actual gameplay.

That's why the anandtech benchmarks are so dissapointing as said above. If they could just expand each benchmark into meaningful breakdown...
 
Omegaslast said:
i did read it, and i dont know your point is, because the hard OCP review says the GTX 280 has higher fps than the 9800GX2. So its basically agreeing with you...? and im asking people why they are saying the 9800GX2 is better than the GTX 280.
Click to expand...

I was just relaying my experiences which mirror those in the [H] review.
 
Dan_D said:
I was just relaying my experiences which mirror those in the [H] review.
Click to expand...

Im basically saying it seems to me you have more ammo on your side than you think, sure the gtx 280 is smoother, but theres also the fact that the GTX 280 in the hard ocp review says its better than the 9800 gx2...

although you may be arguing more for the "well the 9800GX2 is $400 and the GTX 280 is $600" crowd.
 
Dan_D said:
I don't know what was going on with the [H] review. I didn't write it nor participate in the review. I'm just relaying my personal experiences. I haven't played Crysis on the Geforce GTX 280's yet. Crysis actually worked very well on the Geforce 9800GX2 and there was some improvement to running in Quad-SLI when it came to Crysis. In CoD4, and in other games though the Geforce 9800GX2 was quite inconsistent in its' performance. This was especially true of Age of Conan. The 9800GX2 flat out sucks for that game.
Click to expand...

I have played Crysis on the GTX 280, and single 280 delivers a much smoother experience IMHO than a 9800GX2 @ high @ 1920x1200 0aa/0af. GTX 280 SLI is really the first setup that runs it well @ 1920x1200 @ very high. Been playing it and its just fantastic.

Congrats to AMD, they have won this round without a doubt. How nVidia responds will be very intresting.
 
jimmyb said:
It could be worse I suppose. Imagine trying to verify their findings if they just chose settings arbitrarily and played through the game! Oh wait...
Click to expand...


Settings are not chosen arbitrarily on [H], they max the settings as far as they can while still getting playable frame rates. It's better than not knowing the settings at all, or not knowing how many frames are dropped, or how often they are dropped.

[H] and PCper are the only sites I have found that give you any semblance of information, to make a real world estimation of perfromance. An average or median frame rate number is practically useless with out the rest of the data.
 
Omegaslast said:
yeah the GTX280 is a waste of money, i agree

but with 8800GTs going for so cheap now, why the fuck would anyone buy anything else?
Click to expand...
Others have mentioned the less-than-spectacular Nvidia chipsets. The other issue is that, if you're one of the people who notice microstuttering, or play games that don't scale well in SLI, the 8800GT SLI route won't be feasible. I fall into the former category, and I found out the hard way.
 
LOL everyone is so testy. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, and go to bed. At the end of the day it's not that big of a deal. Just pick what you think would be the best option for YOU (because when it comes down to it, it matters what you want/need, not what some review or someone else who's grouchy in a forum says you need). Anyway, I liked the review, but I'm going to see what [H]ard has to say.

Goodnight everyone! Don't stay up too late fighting all night! ;)
 
Karma said:
Impatiently waiting for the 4870 1GB & 4870X2......... :cool:
Click to expand...

Well, hopefully if you can wait, it will pay off for you in Karma points. :) We've all waited this long, lets see what the overall waters look like tomorrow. Off to bed. Night all...
 
Anand's review was really technical, or at least the first part was. All that deep information kind of lost me, and I was suprised that the FPS numbers were actually around where I expected. When they were talking about "falling short" and all of that, I really thought the HD 4870 was just going to be a HD 4850 with an extra sticker attached.
 
For the record I really am glad I have 8800gt SLI. I am vindicated for the time being.
 
I'm glad I have SLI'd 280s. I might build a new setup once the R700 is released. :)
 
I hope more reviews show the same results that Anand got. I havent been able to recommend AMD for the last year and half to family and friends, but looks like I might be getting a 4870 in a week or 2. Looks like we finally have a graphics war again, damn 2007 and half of 08 was boring for video hardware.
 
RikkAndrsn said:
Anand's review was really technical, or at least the first part was. All that deep information kind of lost me, and I was suprised that the FPS numbers were actually around where I expected. When they were talking about "falling short" and all of that, I really thought the HD 4870 was just going to be a HD 4850 with an extra sticker attached.
Click to expand...

"Falling short" was in reference to reaching the teraflop mark I believe.
 
http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/video/atirv770/architecture/

Take a look at the rage3d article on the architecture if you want to see changes done. I'm still reading through it, but it's amazing that in ONE year, ATI basically modified or updated every component as well as restructured the architecture and struck it in a 260mm^2 die with 956M transistors. Ridiculous...
 
Just read the Anads review and really must say wow and give an aplaud @ AMD 48xx series! Amazing to see AMD incresing the SP and texture pushing power so much in such a short time, impressive.

They really hitted the performance/price sweetspot this time too, much like Nvidia did with 8800GT some time ago. I agree with the previous posters that Anand has most excelent tech knowledge behind him. Tech portition of the review was very well written, as in easy to read and comprehend even if you don't have much before hand experience with GPU architechtures. I found the benchmarkings ok, maybe they lacked in writing and could have used more graphs dunno.

Ordered an 4850 yesterday but after this review the 4870 seems tempting. Then again seeing how greater pixel pushing power needs rather big bump in power consumption (4850 > 4870), I think I will settle for 4850 and slap a 3rd party cooler on it.
 
for some reason I find this interesting.

17129.png

crysis_01.png


and then

17130.png

cod4_02.png


finally

17134.png

bioshock.png


there are more but not as similar in comparison... but I find it weird how similar setups get such different results.... probably the last time i check in with anandtech
 
its damn near impossible to compare cards across different rigs, OS's, and most importantly, how each side runs their setups to test FPS. Timedemos, location of actual in-game runs, etc. can all impact the actual FPS values as well as settings which have to be disclosed

That's why I look at the whole body of work to determine the final verdict on cards (meaning, many reviews) and see whether there are major inconsistencies between reviews or whether they sum up to a general consensus. In the case of the 4870 though, both reviews seem to suggest it matches up well and beats the GTX260 in many situations.
 
congrats to AMD, i am delighted that they are giving nVidia a real run for their money this time around.

we need it.
 
As I said in another of the threads, anand has the 3870x2 beating the 280 in a couple of tests, which makes me... skeptical, to say the least, about the veracity of their results.
 
Omegaslast said:
Im basically saying it seems to me you have more ammo on your side than you think, sure the gtx 280 is smoother, but theres also the fact that the GTX 280 in the hard ocp review says its better than the 9800 gx2...

although you may be arguing more for the "well the 9800GX2 is $400 and the GTX 280 is $600" crowd.
Click to expand...

I'm arguing that the Geforce GTX 280 is a better card than the 9800GX2. That doesn't always mean its' faster when it comes to raw frame rates, but it is certainly better as it offers smoother gameplay and much of the time it offers higher minimum frame rates.

heatlesssun said:
I have played Crysis on the GTX 280, and single 280 delivers a much smoother experience IMHO than a 9800GX2 @ high @ 1920x1200 0aa/0af. GTX 280 SLI is really the first setup that runs it well @ 1920x1200 @ very high. Been playing it and its just fantastic.

Congrats to AMD, they have won this round without a doubt. How nVidia responds will be very intresting.
Click to expand...

I'm not calling AMD the victor just yet.
 
Honestly, Im impressed I was expecting this kind of performance but being in the UK where prices are retarded I was expecting bad pricing, but these card start at £200 and average £230, compared to the 280 which starts at £400 and averages £450

Which makes 4870 xfire tempting....HOWEVER xfire scaling looks completely crap :/
 
The reason why people with NVIDIA chipsets don't get two 8800GTs and run them in SLI is because if you're the type to not upgrade everything at once, you're going to be stuck on an NVIDIA chipset next time you upgrade your motherboard.

I for one plan up upgrading my graphics card since I got a 24in monitor, and the 8800GTS 320mb isn't cutting it anymore. Then, when Deneb or Nehalem becomes a viable choice, I'm going to slap my video card into that board.

Since you can use crossfire on intel chipsets, and intel chipsets are better than NVIDIAs, I have much more upgrade options and a much better upgrade path if I buy myself an AMD 4870.

Plus, I miss a lot of the little features that ATI puts in their cards, and the g80 GPUs are void of so many little things (like video in).
 
i am consulting an a gaming rig for a family member....

INTEL CPU
INTEL CHIPSET
Ati Video

thats just the best option for the price.performance.....

then i might be a lil jaded because of the crappy nvidia chipsets of late
 
Omegaslast said:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ3NSwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

i guess this confirms it, the 8800 GT SLI is the same as a 9800 GX2, and a 9800 GX2 is better than a gtx 280, so why the fuck do most people care about ANYTHING besides 8800gt SLI?

(besides the people who cant use nvidia chipsets)
Click to expand...

Not that we "can't" use nvidia chipsets, its that we DON'T WANT TO!
Intel chipsets are just better period. Nvidia needs to get together with Intel and get SLI on Intel chipsets or I forsee a lot of people going to crossfire set ups now that AMD has a competitive solution AND they can run on Intel motherboards.

If SLI worked on Intel boards, I think a lot of people out there would be buying a 2nd 8800GT at about $100. But since it doesn't why not get a pair of 4850's in crossfire, etc.
 
POPEGOLD said:
i am consulting an a gaming rig for a family member....

INTEL CPU
INTEL CHIPSET
Ati Video

thats just the best option for the price.performance.....

then i might be a lil jaded because of the crappy nvidia chipsets of late
Click to expand...

POPEGOLD himself is going to use an Intel CPU?!?!? Has hell frozen over? :p
 
Ckamc said:
for some reason I find this interesting.

*images*

there are more but not as similar in comparison... but I find it weird how similar setups get such different results.... probably the last time i check in with anandtech
Click to expand...

Probably different areas used for the benchmarks. Like, for call of duty, that 2nd site benched CoD 4's multiplayer instead of single player.
 
Ckamc said:
for some reason I find this interesting.

there are more but not as similar in comparison... but I find it weird how similar setups get such different results.... probably the last time i check in with anandtech
Click to expand...

What exactly are they doing for those benchmarks, running around in high-poly enviroments, playing shader heavy firefights, or a mix of both?

I'd hate to bring a card home that handles large areas well but slows down in firefights.
 
It's amazing to see how each site is producing conflicting benchmarks. We need a better standard in terms of resolution, settings, and aa if you ask me.
 
Yeorwned said:
It's amazing to see how each site is producing conflicting benchmarks. We need a better standard in terms of resolution, settings, and aa if you ask me.
Click to expand...

That would be the worst thing possible. If there was an exact standard, hardware could optimize to that standard and say screw everything else. Oh wait...they already did...and ATI was the worst offender at that. But that was then and this is now.
 
Dan_D said:
I'm arguing that the Geforce GTX 280 is a better card than the 9800GX2. That doesn't always mean its' faster when it comes to raw frame rates, but it is certainly better as it offers smoother gameplay and much of the time it offers higher minimum frame rates.
Click to expand...

But then this is the kind of argument that formed itself AFTER the card has come out.

Imagine the sheer number of people trying to kick s**t around if someone said "listen, the next iteration fron nVidia GTX280 is going to be $200 more than the GX2 but is not going to necessarily give a higher average fps, but offer a smoother gameplay" - everyone would be like "WHAT?? the next card I'd definitely expect it to be at least 50% faster than the previous gen"

Holy crap... That would been ugly in all kinds of forums...

To me, it's more like as if GTX280 didn't have the kind of groundbreaking whooomp that a lot people were expecting, but they still try to find something good to say about the card.

Just my thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top