AMD's Radeon HD 4870 X2: R700 First-Look

[zunaro]

Hats off to AMD!! Quite impressive!

Although this is a dual-gpu solution, the fierce competition is good! I would easily consider buying one of these (even after buying nvidia cards since their 4 series... I might even have a 3..), but will wait to see what comes out soon before I do

 

[Guest]

I would like to see some benchmarks at lower resolutions. I want to see if a X2 card is much better at lower display resolutions (Is the porpose of these cards to be used on large screens only ?) I want to see if Crysis will run 2X better on a normal PC monitor (1280x1024 or 1600x1200).

 

[gamerk316]

How about some comparisions against SLI 280's? If an X2/GX2 Model card, it SHOULD preform faster than any non-SLI/CF solution. Instead, you are taking a dual card with built-in CF support, and not comparing it against SLI.

Also, I would REALLY like to see how these preform in a ganme that can run in OpenGL, considering how badly ATI preformed the last time a high end openGL game was tested (Doom III)

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]lanmaster2[/nom]I would like to see some benchmarks at lower resolutions. I want to see if a X2 card is much better at lower display resolutions (Is the porpose of these cards to be used on large screens only ?) I want to see if Crysis will run 2X better on a normal PC monitor (1280x1024 or 1600x1200).[/citation]
At resolutions under 1920x1200 and especially under 1600x1200 you'd be starving the card of data, and a HD4870 would probably perform similarly.

 

[Thurin]

Which is part of it.

The point was to see a full overview of the specifications and detailed information on what to expect performance-wise... plus I'm trying to point out that lately some of the articles including the one on macs we saw a few days ago are somewhat colored.

seeing the full picture supported by facts all across the board is what I'm after... not making anyone out to be the bad apple.

 

[amdfangirl]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]At resolutions under 1920x1200 and especially under 1600x1200 you'd be starving the card of data, and a HD4870 would probably perform similarly.[/citation]

Even if it could process all that data the fps wouldn't really show past about 75fps (75hz-ish monitor + eye seeing speed)

 

[Thurin]

[citation][nom]NeoData[/nom]*something went wrong while saving my post*Unless you point was to point out the performance margins at lower resolutions are very similar [/citation]

That's what the reply was aimed at *edit*

 

[warezme]

Its two GPU's even though its in one card with twice the memory of the older model (hence Xfire in a fancy package, illustrated by their lack of memory sharing). Wouldn't it have made more sense to compare it to two GTX280's? if you wanted apples to apples then?

 

[bydesign]

Little late with the previews...

 

[Guest]

"Crucial 2 x 1 Go DDR3 1333 MHz 7-7-7-20"
Unless this has some magic meaning the numbers don't reveal, this shows that the tests were performed with 2Gb of ram, yes?

Given that (1) There is a marked difference between 4Gb and 2Gb of ram (especially for FSX), and (2) many other reviews are showing that the 4870X2 bottlenecks on the rest of the system performance, I find myself quite disappointed by this glaring oversight (especially given the current cost of DDR2, and the cost of a 3GHz processor, mean that more ram is more likely if running at such speeds).

 

[sandmanwn]

[citation][nom]warezme[/nom]Its two GPU's even though its in one card with twice the memory of the older model (hence Xfire in a fancy package, illustrated by their lack of memory sharing). Wouldn't it have made more sense to compare it to two GTX280's? if you wanted apples to apples then?[/citation]
They did that over at Anand. The 280 SLI lost there too.

 

[georgy]

Too bad there is no comparaison with 4870 crossfire.

 

[JerryC]

Valued trustworthy source? Is there some reason they didnt bother to test in anything but 4xAA and low rez? Perhaps its because they didnt like the 8xAA and high rez results?

So far as I can tell, your "valued trustworthy source" is anything but.


[citation]BUT!According to other valued/trustworthy sources the 4870 X2 manages only a 1.09 over 1.00 increase in performance.see link:http://tweakers.net/reviews/957/4/ [...] ina-4.html (Copy paste the link if needed).............................As for the significant increase stated in this article, it's great, but only applicable to those games with integrated support for crossfire technology. (Further and extensive testing would be desirable, and posting actual facts to support claims would also be duly noted. // I know some testing has been done, but a full review on exactly what value is added with the new card, still remains to be seen.)[/citation]

 

[trinix]

The Dutch review is okay on Tweakers.net. I read it myself and the comments posted by the users over there and I must agree with them.

Why would anyone buy a card that's more expansive than a 4850 to do things the 4850 can do easily at enough frames. It's like buying a budget system a screen of 17" and a video card of more than the whole system and screen. Why not buy a system that's not holding it back.

Other problem with Tweakers review they used an old pcie1.1 board. Not sure how much this will affect the overall performance, but it's more a way not add everything topnotch. It's a nice site for news, but in the end they just don't have a testlab that's capable yet to perform these tests.

We can discuss if we find it worth the money or not. We can bitch about fanboyish things. AMD has finally done what it should have done 2 generation ago and been promising for 2 generations. Getting the fastest high end card out. If it performs less on low-end systems, it's not an issue.

The same people who don't want to admit the win are the ones who said the Ultra was a good card and the ones that admitting the win, including me, are the ones that said why would anyone buy a card so expansive for no real advantage.

I really don't care who's got the best high end card. I'd never buy a high end card, or at least not yet. I can game on a 1680x1050ish resolution fine. I don't have the money to buy this monster or a screen to support that resolution anyway. I'm buying a 4850 or 4870, depending on a few things. Or even wait on the next generation as I'm not buying it until December anyway.

 

[GlItCh017]

*Waiting for the L4D benchmark* Looks like a good card though, promising competition in an otherwise (up till recent) slanted market. Keep it coming AMD, Nvidia needs to get its head back into the game now. More affordable PCs woot! Now if only proc's went down in price from competition like this...

 

[GlItCh017]

[citation][nom]amdfangirl[/nom]Even if it could process all that data the fps wouldn't really show past about 75fps (75hz-ish monitor + eye seeing speed)[/citation]

It's interesting, you can tell the difference between 75fps and 90fps if you get adrenaline going while gaming because that increases how many frames you can actually see. You know, during those oh **** moments that get your heart racing. Competitive gamer speaking here of course. I know you hardly ever get that as a casual gamer.

I don't think there is a set limit to how many frames the eye can capture. It's like saying the fastest a human can do a 50 yard dash is the current record...enough rambling here I just always find that discussion interesting.

 

[theLaminator]

^amen brother.

I'm an Intel guy myself but I wish AMD would get a nice high end processor up for a reasonable price. Like everyone has said they compete we win.

 

[trinix]

Your eyes can only see about 30 frames. So even if your adrenaline can go running I doubt you will really notice the difference between 70 and 90. Maybe if you play with the FPS on your screen and see it increase, your mind is making double images and flowing them better together, but it's better to have a good FPS that doesn't increase or decrease a lot.

 

[San Pedro]

What a beast of a card this is at high resolutions with AA and AF enabled. I was actually most surprised with Crysis performance.

Oh and you'll never tell the difference between 75 and 90 FPS when your monitors refresh rate is 60hz. . .

 

[dobby]

i just got my 4850 from the courier, and while i am very happy with, (being able to CnC3 at fll settings, it really hot, 78 - 85C and this is normal, i wish they would put more effort into cooler chips. well at least ATi Nvidia balance has been restored.

 

[Mathos]

hmmm, and they even did it on an 850w PSU. So that does look promising for not super high power draw. And for anyone that wants less power draw, they'll have the 4850x2 which will probably still outpace the gtx280, but use less power and produce less heat. Lets just hope they'll find a quieter cooling solution. I still wish Sapphire would put more into their VaporX cooler, or put it on more cards. One of the only single slot coolers I've seen that could easily cope with the heat output of the 3870.

 

[phantom93]

this aint no first look!! This was in maximum PC, they used 2 of these for there 08' dream machine!!!

Sry i had to get that out of the way, this does look like a great card, I am saddened to see ATi cme out ahead of nvidia but nvidia is having alot of issues...

 

[deck]

Anybody hear anything about Linux support with this card? I know the 4780 is supported out of the box, can we expect the same with this card. i realize Crossfire will likely not work, but it would be nice to have at least one of the GPUs supported.

I have a 3870x2 and I am very disappointed that no Linux support has been introduced yet. I keep contacting ATI support and all they can tell me is that their engineers are working on it.

 

[Guest]

too bad they didn't implement shared memory, it would have made it much better.

 

[deck]

[citation][nom]San Pedro[/nom]What a beast of a card this is at high resolutions with AA and AF enabled. I was actually most surprised with Crysis performance.Oh and you'll never tell the difference between 75 and 90 FPS when your monitors refresh rate is 60hz. . . [/citation]


You will if you don't force v-sync. Screen tearing sucks...