ATi 4xxx Series Review

[extra]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Quincunx AA is a supersampling algorithm

Quincunx is not super-sampling. It's a post-filter that uses pixel sampling from neighboring pixels like ATi?s CFAA does

Yeah and just pointing out that like the 8xQ or 4xQ or w/e the Q doesn't stand for Quincunx anymore. (who thought up that name, anyhow? rofl.) I believe it "stands for" quality. I think.

I'm not actually sure that you can enable Quincunx antialiasing on the newest Nvidia cards. Not that this is bad or anything, it was useful back when cards didn't have the horsepower that they do today. Anyone more knowledgeable want to fill me in? I'd love to know what happened to that mode! The hardware doesn't even support it anymore does it? Or does it?

I love it, Nvidia's rush release of the new 9800omguberwtfrushed+++ edition seems to already be having an effect on prices some of the 4850's seem to have like $30 mail in rebates already. Nice. ^_^ Props to both companies.

As for the reviews, the one thing that bugs me is this:

I want to see games ran at more modest resolutions (1360x768 - 1600x1200) yet with AA cranked way up in all titles. Instead it seems most of the focus is just in cranking the resolution way up to 2500xwhatever. I want to see more results with the highest quality AA modes available at mid resolutions. Especially windscreen ones like 1360x768. Don't just show me 4x results, damnit! *grin*

 

[Kuzi]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
That would be awesome, it would have an even easier time stomping the GTX :thumbsup: Im all for it

The thing though is, even in the original 4850 Firingsquad article, the 4850 performs much worse than in pretty much every other site... Now, Firingsquad was actually one of my favourite review sites, so I dont know what happened, but when their results go agaisnt everyone else, I have no option but to discard them

Ill wait for computerbase and Xbit labs before pointing fingers, since they are the ones doing the most extensive benchmarks, with loads of settings and games

The HD 4850 numbers on the Firingsquad site seem low. I'll wait for Anandtech, Techreport, and Xbitlabs comparisons, those sites I trust the most.

Check the numbers from this French site

Quake Wars: 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 68
9800GTX+ : 70.8

Half Life 2 : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 73.1
9800GTX+ : 74.2

STALKER : 1920x1200 No AA
HD 4850 : 49
9800GTX+ : 54

Rainbow Six : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 36.9
9800GTX+ : 32.8

Oblivion : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 66.3
9800GTX+ : 54.9

GRID : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 70
9800GTX+ : 62.8

Bioshock DX10 : 1920x1200 No AA
HD 4850 : 119.6
9800GTX+ : 108.2

Company of Heroes: 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 38.3
9800GTX+ : 42.1

World in Conflict: 1920x1200 No AA
HD 4850 : 27
9800GTX+ : 19

Crysis DX10 : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 16.9
9800GTX+ : 12.5

Indice : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 77.4
9800GTX+ : 69.3

These are the AA4x results, except for the few games where AA didn't work I used the (No AA) numbers. The 9800GTX+ is faster in 4 games (two of those games by only 1-2 frames), while the HD 4850 is faster in 7 games.

Those numbers seem the opposite of the Firingsquad numbers. I guess we have to wait for more reviews.

 

[taltamir]

1360x768? (what kind of monitor do you have?) that is nothing... look at 1280x1024... and add a few percent to it and you will get the speed at the resolution you mentioned... some of these cards can max out crysis at such a dinky resolution.
1920x1200 is the golden standard now

 

[taltamir]

oh wow... this is like "oh we had this in for a while but didn't want to release it so we could milk the market for more..."
Thank you AMD for putting the pressure on nVidia

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: ddarko
Isn't it amazing that when it seemed like Nvidia would go the multi GPU route, chizow was all for it but now, several months later, he's crapping all over it? Tough to read such BS hypocrisy but there it is in his own words.

Seems to happen a lot on the "green team"...



Rollo's stance back when the Nvidia multi-GPU solution was considered the best:

Originally posted by: nRollo
Hmm. Can't comment on micro stutter, but in general games feel smooth and fast to me with 3 way SLi.

There are pros and cons to multi GPU sets, but for me the pros have outweighed the cons since Voodoo2 days.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...154535&highlight_key=y



Fast-forward three months...



Rollo's stance now that ATI's multi-GPU solution is considered the best:

Originally posted by: nRollo
I think the AT review pretty effectively demonstrates why CF costs less than a GTX280-
they got no/very poor scaling in 3 of 7 games tested.

When you throw microstutter, mouse lag, and other multi card issues into the mix, it becomes apparent that the 4850s are priced appropriately.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

*edit - I see a 4850 with a $30 rebate now available, that puts it at $169.99 after rebate. Compared to an unavailable $229.99 card that sometimes is faster, soemtimes not. How exactly does that recapture the mid range lead for Nvidia?

You personal attack aside, you clearly did not read read that review or the one from Firingsquad. The 9800GTX+ wins nearly all the benchmarks. It probably would have won in Tomb Raider by the ATI card would only go as high as 4xAA while they ran the GTX+ at 16XAA

It's not "sometimes" it wins, it's nearly every time.

Your remark about AA is also grossly inaccurate. Lets see some ATI benches at 16xAA.

Let's get away from the FiringSquad numbers, that many people have pointed out don't seem to jive with numbers posted from various other sites. Here:

http://www.hardware.fr/article...force-9800-gtx-v2.html

Quake Wars: 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 68
9800GTX+ : 70.8

Half Life 2 : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 73.1
9800GTX+ : 74.2

STALKER : 1920x1200 No AA
HD 4850 : 49
9800GTX+ : 54

Rainbow Six : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 36.9
9800GTX+ : 32.8

Oblivion : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 66.3
9800GTX+ : 54.9

GRID : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 70
9800GTX+ : 62.8

Bioshock DX10 : 1920x1200 No AA
HD 4850 : 119.6
9800GTX+ : 108.2

Company of Heroes: 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 38.3
9800GTX+ : 42.1

World in Conflict: 1920x1200 No AA
HD 4850 : 27
9800GTX+ : 19

Crysis DX10 : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 16.9
9800GTX+ : 12.5

Indice : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 77.4
9800GTX+ : 69.3

Keep in mind that the 9800GTX+ is a good deal more money then the 4850 and isn't even available now. Tell me again, how has Nvidia recaptured the mid range? By releasing another respin of the G92 that costs more money than the 4850 and more often then not performs worse?

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: ChaosDivine

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
For those of you who don't know, Amberclad and I have older modular hx520's. they were supposed to come with 2 six pin and 2 six + 2 6+2 pin pci-e cables. however, ours both came with 4 x 6 pin connectors, instead. corsair will fix that problem for anybody, you just have to ask them to send you the 2 x 6+2 pin adapers. They have a rep on the AT forums, his name is yellowbeard. He hangs out in the psu forums a lot and is very helpful.

Thanks for the info! Have 3x HX520s here.

you need to look VERY closely for the 6+2 pin cables. I didn't even know that I had them until yellowbeard mentioned that they were standard on the hx 620. SOME hx 520's have them, just not all of them.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

*edit - I see a 4850 with a $30 rebate now available, that puts it at $169.99 after rebate. Compared to an unavailable $229.99 card that sometimes is faster, soemtimes not. How exactly does that recapture the mid range lead for Nvidia?

You personal attack aside, you clearly did not read read that review or the one from Firingsquad. The 9800GTX+ wins nearly all the benchmarks. It probably would have won in Tomb Raider by the ATI card would only go as high as 4xAA while they ran the GTX+ at 16XAA

It's not "sometimes" it wins, it's nearly every time.

Your remark about AA is also grossly inaccurate. Lets see some ATI benches at 16xAA.

Let's get away from the FiringSquad numbers, that many people have pointed out don't seem to jive with numbers posted from various other sites. Here:

http://www.hardware.fr/article...force-9800-gtx-v2.html

Quake Wars: 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 68
9800GTX+ : 70.8

Half Life 2 : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 73.1
9800GTX+ : 74.2

STALKER : 1920x1200 No AA
HD 4850 : 49
9800GTX+ : 54

Rainbow Six : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 36.9
9800GTX+ : 32.8

Oblivion : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 66.3
9800GTX+ : 54.9

GRID : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 70
9800GTX+ : 62.8

Bioshock DX10 : 1920x1200 No AA
HD 4850 : 119.6
9800GTX+ : 108.2

Company of Heroes: 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 38.3
9800GTX+ : 42.1

World in Conflict: 1920x1200 No AA
HD 4850 : 27
9800GTX+ : 19

Crysis DX10 : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 16.9
9800GTX+ : 12.5

Indice : 1920x1200 AA4x
HD 4850 : 77.4
9800GTX+ : 69.3

Keep in mind that the 9800GTX+ is a good deal more money then the 4850 and isn't even available now. Tell me again, how has Nvidia recaptured the mid range? By releasing another respin of the G92 that costs more money than the 4850 and more often then not performs worse?

Face it 4850 is just superior how you look at it. It has 1 teraflop processing power for games that would are processor heavy. It would obliterate 9800gtx+ when it does. 2 fps difference doesn't make a card better.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: Creig
Fast-forward three months...

Rollo's stance now that ATI's multi-GPU solution is considered the best:

Originally posted by: nRollo
I think the AT review pretty effectively demonstrates why CF costs less than a GTX280-
they got no/very poor scaling in 3 of 7 games tested.

When you throw microstutter, mouse lag, and other multi card issues into the mix, it becomes apparent that the 4850s are priced appropriately.

Actually it's kinda funny that he would dump on CF setups because he uses a multiGPU platform himself (albeit, much faster with 2xGTX 280). Just look at his sig for confirmation.

 

[Mem]

Hehe this says it all ,hope its not a repost.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: ddarko
Isn't it amazing that when it seemed like Nvidia would go the multi GPU route, chizow was all for it but now, several months later, he's crapping all over it? Tough to read such BS hypocrisy but there it is in his own words.

Seems to happen a lot on the "green team"...



Rollo's stance back when the Nvidia multi-GPU solution was considered the best:

Originally posted by: nRollo
Hmm. Can't comment on micro stutter, but in general games feel smooth and fast to me with 3 way SLi.

There are pros and cons to multi GPU sets, but for me the pros have outweighed the cons since Voodoo2 days.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...154535&highlight_key=y



Fast-forward three months...



Rollo's stance now that ATI's multi-GPU solution is considered the best:

Originally posted by: nRollo
I think the AT review pretty effectively demonstrates why CF costs less than a GTX280-
they got no/very poor scaling in 3 of 7 games tested.

When you throw microstutter, mouse lag, and other multi card issues into the mix, it becomes apparent that the 4850s are priced appropriately.

yap, he definitely contradicts himself... the question is... when was he right, then or now? (since the statements are exact opposites of each other).

 

[Denithor]

TechPowerUp has a nice thorough review of the 4850 including some details not listed in the AT preview.

They give it a 9.8/10 rating, their Editor's Choice award, and make the following concluding statements:

AMD has certainly engineered a winner with their Radeon HD 4850 series. This card, positioned in the $199 segment, reaches unprecented performance levels thanks to its excellent architectural improvements. In most benchmarks it can beat the GeForce 9800 GTX which is almost $70 more expensive. As we expected, AMD's RV770 GPU can not take on the GeForce GTX 280, but sometimes it comes really close. Due to AMD's new AA design, enabling 4x Anti-Aliasing is basically free now, so there is no reason not to use AA. In my opinion the sweet spot for this card is around 1600x1200 4xAA - never before could you run all games with a $199 VGA card at this res.

Even though it offers lots of performance the HD 4850 is quiet, actually it is the quietest card we ever tested in idle. Under load the fan ramps up but noise stays within well acceptable levels. A small tradeoff of these fan control settings is that the GPU almost reaches 100°C under load, not critically high but a few °C less would be better. AMD has also kept the power consumption down, the card offers one of the best performance/watt ratios on the market.

Since recent price drops brought the Radeon HD 3850 down to a mere $120, there is no way AMD can beat that card's price/performance. On the other hand that price drop lets AMD have a very nice product stack going from lowest-end up to $199 ($299 with the Radeon HD 4870 which we will test soon). NVIDIA has taken measures and announced their GeForce 9800 GTX+ today which will have higher performance at a lower price.
Overall I think the Radeon HD 4850 is the best card on the market right now if you are on a limited budget, yet want to be able to play all the latest and greatest titles out there.

They have performance/watt and performance/value comparisons to lots of other cards that are quite interesting to review.

Good stuff in there!

 

[zod96]

I still don't get how they are getting those numbers with the 4850. I have one and have been testing it with my old 8800GT. And in every test I've run the 4850 just barely beats my GT, by like 3-5 FPS. I'm using the newest drivers for both the GT and the 4850. Its the same system specs everything is the same, just the video card is different. Even in 3dmark 06 the GT get 12.6K and the 4850 gets 11.9K And yet every review I've seen says the 4850 beats even the 9800GTX, which is really confusing to me since it can barely beat my GT. I must be doing something wrong, what it is I don't know but something's not right...

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: zod96
I still don't get how they are getting those numbers with the 4850. I have one and have been testing it with my old 8800GT. And in every test I've run the 4850 just barely beats my GT, by like 3-5 FPS. I'm using the newest drivers for both the GT and the 4850. Its the same system specs everything is the same, just the video card is different. Even in 3dmark 06 the GT get 12.6K and the 4850 gets 11.9K And yet every review I've seen says the 4850 beats even the 9800GTX, which is really confusing to me since it can barely beat my GT. I must be doing something wrong, what it is I don't know but something's not right...

Btw tried the 4850/70 hotfix?

Radeon? HD 4800 Series Hotfix

The information in this article applies to the following configuration(s):

* Radeon? HD 4870 series
* Radeon? HD 4850 series

This Hotfix improves overall performance and stability. The Hotfix includes the Display Driver and Catalyst Control Center.

To download the Hotfix Driver, please click on the links below:

Radeon? HD 4800 Series Hotfix for Windows XP (32-bit and 64-bit included)
Radeon? HD 4800 Series Hotfix for Windows Vista (32-bit and 64-bit included)

Note: This driver is provided as is and is not supported by AMD. It has not completed full AMD testing, and is only recommended for users experiencing the particular issue described above.

Link.

 

[HurleyBird]

Originally posted by: zod96
I still don't get how they are getting those numbers with the 4850. I have one and have been testing it with my old 8800GT. And in every test I've run the 4850 just barely beats my GT, by like 3-5 FPS. I'm using the newest drivers for both the GT and the 4850. Its the same system specs everything is the same, just the video card is different. Even in 3dmark 06 the GT get 12.6K and the 4850 gets 11.9K And yet every review I've seen says the 4850 beats even the 9800GTX, which is really confusing to me since it can barely beat my GT. I must be doing something wrong, what it is I don't know but something's not right...

4850 is weak in 06 (although strong in vantage) start cranking up the AA a bit and you'll see the 4850 really start to pull ahead.

 

[woolfe9999]

Originally posted by: zod96
I still don't get how they are getting those numbers with the 4850. I have one and have been testing it with my old 8800GT. And in every test I've run the 4850 just barely beats my GT, by like 3-5 FPS. I'm using the newest drivers for both the GT and the 4850. Its the same system specs everything is the same, just the video card is different. Even in 3dmark 06 the GT get 12.6K and the 4850 gets 11.9K And yet every review I've seen says the 4850 beats even the 9800GTX, which is really confusing to me since it can barely beat my GT. I must be doing something wrong, what it is I don't know but something's not right...

Is it perchance the case that your GT is OCed and the 4850 isn't? It's a "duh" sort of thing but an easy mistake to make.

Also, you didn't mention whether you were testing with AA on or off. The margin of superiority of the 4850 is much, much higher with AA on.

- woolfe

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: woolfe9999

Originally posted by: zod96
I still don't get how they are getting those numbers with the 4850. I have one and have been testing it with my old 8800GT. And in every test I've run the 4850 just barely beats my GT, by like 3-5 FPS. I'm using the newest drivers for both the GT and the 4850. Its the same system specs everything is the same, just the video card is different. Even in 3dmark 06 the GT get 12.6K and the 4850 gets 11.9K And yet every review I've seen says the 4850 beats even the 9800GTX, which is really confusing to me since it can barely beat my GT. I must be doing something wrong, what it is I don't know but something's not right...

Is it perchance the case that your GT is OCed and the 4850 isn't? It's a "duh" sort of thing but an easy mistake to make.

Also, you didn't mention whether you were testing with AA on or off. The margin of superiority of the 4850 is much, much higher with AA on.

- woolfe

also, 3-5 fps isn't much at 100 fps, but at 30 fps it's very significant.

 

[Munky]

http://www.hardware.fr/article...force-9800-gtx-v2.html

The updated review from a competent site compares the 4850 with the 9800gtx+, and the gtx is slightly faster without AA but still loses with 4x AA. On a related note, I noticed that without AA the 9800gtx+ is almost on par with the gtx260, which further begs the question: who did Nvidia really hurt with the recent 9800gtx stunt?

 

[uclaLabrat]

now that's funny. Way to cannibalize the 260 sales!

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: zod96
I still don't get how they are getting those numbers with the 4850. I have one and have been testing it with my old 8800GT. And in every test I've run the 4850 just barely beats my GT, by like 3-5 FPS. I'm using the newest drivers for both the GT and the 4850. Its the same system specs everything is the same, just the video card is different. Even in 3dmark 06 the GT get 12.6K and the 4850 gets 11.9K And yet every review I've seen says the 4850 beats even the 9800GTX, which is really confusing to me since it can barely beat my GT. I must be doing something wrong, what it is I don't know but something's not right...

This is interesting. I always like hearing from actual forum members. A bit more detail on your methodology would be helpful though, for instance:

resolution
AA/AF levels (and what type of AA used - AAA, xQ, xS, transparency etc.)
games you're using

 

[zod96]

Well I ran crysis at 1680x1050 first with no aa and no af my gt got like 34 fps the 4850 got like 37. Then I put 4xAA and 16XAF, no supersampling just regular AA and AF and the GT got like 19 and the 4850 got like 22. I'm going to download the COD4 demo tonight and fire that up and compare as well...

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: zod96
Well I ran crysis at 1680x1050 first with no aa and no af my gt got like 34 fps the 4850 got like 37. Then I put 4xAA and 16XAF, no supersampling just regular AA and AF and the GT got like 19 and the 4850 got like 22. I'm going to download the COD4 demo tonight and fire that up and compare as well...

The differences you saw between the two cards isn't far off from what AT got...

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3338&p=6

1600x1200:

8800GT: 25.9
HD 4850: 29.8

Firing squad too:

http://firingsquad.com/hardwar...ce_9800_gtx+/page6.asp

1600x1200 2xAA:
8800GT: 19.4
HD 4850: 22

Looks like the difference between these two cards in Crysis is about 3-4fps at 1600x1200.

 

[HumblePie]

So currently I have an 8800 GTX card that is clocked at 670/2100. I get good FPS in most games I played, but right now, there is a sale on the 4850 for $150.

I was thinking of buying two of these guys for Cross fire and selling my 8800 GTX for $200 to $250 since it over clocks higher than ultra speeds. I currently have an DFI x38 board and can do a CF set up.

So is worth it to me to switch? How big of an improvement would 4850's in CF set up be over my single 8800 GTX 670/2100 card?

 

[zod96]

So wait your saying only in crysis the cards are neck and neck. But in others the 4850 beats the GT plus it beats the 9800GTX?

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: HumblePie
So currently I have an 8800 GTX card that is clocked at 670/2100. I get good FPS in most games I played, but right now, there is a sale on the 4850 for $150.

I was thinking of buying two of these guys for Cross fire and selling my 8800 GTX for $200 to $250 since it over clocks higher than ultra speeds. I currently have an DFI x38 board and can do a CF set up.

So is worth it to me to switch? How big of an improvement would 4850's in CF set up be over my single 8800 GTX 670/2100 card?

That wouldn't be a bad investment but if you're doing fine with your current card, I'd keep the 8800GTX. However, $150 is a pretty good deal.

On another note, Asus introduced a 1GB 4850 with a different cooler:
http://img525.imageshack.us/im...d4850a1gbdhfx57fu4.jpg

EDIT: Original article http://www.fudzilla.com/index....view&id=8048&Itemid=34