ATi 4xxx Series Review

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: 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?

He's not saying it, various review sites are. There needs to be a composition site for benchmarks, sort of how there are composites of presidential polling. It would help clarify the picture and it would help eliminate confusion over outliers, like the firing squad review.

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: thilan29

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

well, right now I'm going through a back log of games I have and under older titles the 8800 GTX Oc'd kills at 1900x1200 resolution, maxed settings, and AA/AF on.

But, I'm starting to approach the grand opening of the newer titles I have managed to pick up on the cheap like Crysis and Mass Effect. I was the best IQ I can get with ~30+ FPS and if a $50 upgrade will let me do that then I'm all for it!

 

[doggyfromplanetwoof]

Originally posted by: thilan29

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

Interesting image there...

 

[tuteja1986]

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?

oh yeah , especially if you can sell a 8800GTX for $200. this is sort of like a $100 trade up to get GT280 performance.

 

[ginfest]

Is that GTX280 performance across the board? All games and no problems? I thought I've read that when CF works it's great but that there were compatibility problems with some games? Please clarify because I can get the 2 4850 for $300.00 and have been offered $250.00 for my card.
Or is the 4870 the way to go?

 

[taltamir]

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...

nvidia cards do better in crysis... test some other games. and please keep us posted .

 

[praesto]

Originally posted by: ginfest
Is that GTX280 performance across the board? All games and no problems? I thought I've read that when CF works it's great but that there were compatibility problems with some games? Please clarify because I can get the 2 4850 for $300.00 and have been offered $250.00 for my card.
Or is the 4870 the way to go?

No it's not gtx280 performance across the board. Nobody can promise you that there won't be any problems in any games, neither can they promise gtx 280 performance in all games. CF doesn't work AT ALL in some games, which leaves you with one hd 4850. Some games might work with CF, but only let you gain a 30% performance increase over a single hd 4850. Hell, some games will give you 95% performance increase over a single hd 4850. That's how multi-GPU works.

My personal opinion: Multi-gpu is not reliable, be it SLI or CF.

 

[qliveur]

Originally posted by: ginfest
Is that GTX280 performance across the board? All games and no problems? I thought I've read that when CF works it's great but that there were compatibility problems with some games? Please clarify because I can get the 2 4850 for $300.00 and have been offered $250.00 for my card.
Or is the 4870 the way to go?

You are correct that in some games X-fire doesn't work at all. I take it that you're referring to the deal on VisionTek 4850s at BestBuy? If you can get $250 for your 8800GTX then I'd say go for it because just one 4850 offers 8800GTX-level performance.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: 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?

What I'm saying is that your results for Crysis pretty much mirror those of AT and firing squad. This is a good thing IMO. It would be odd if you had drastically different results. I'm definitely interested to see more results on your comparison between these two cards.

I'm personally also interested in hearing more subjective analysis of the card too. Like, even if they show similar frame rates, does one just 'feel' faster for some reason or did you have any software/driver/install/BSOD issues. Sometimes, raw numbers don't tell the whole story.

Case in point (and why I'm a bit reluctant to go with dual 4850s), I had a 3870X2 a while back and FRAPS was telling me that it was cruising along at a smooth 50-60fps in WoW with 8xAAA, but it felt really sluggish... Dropping down to 4xAAA would make it feel much better, although the fps counter didn't reflect much difference. Note: this wasn't meant to be an attack on ATI, my 9800GX2 was choppy for no apparent reason in HL2:EP2 at some points when every benchmark shows that the GX2 owns HL2:EP2.

 

[gags]

Whats the hit like running two of these in a P45 mobo with 2 x 8pci-e lanes over a x38 or x48 with 2 16 pci-e lanes?

 

[AmberClad]

Here's a review of P45 Crossfire versus X48 Crossfire, just for you . Based on what I remember, in some games like Crysis and WIC, there is a noticeable performance hit with P45. In others, the difference is minimal.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: doggyfromplanetwoof

Originally posted by: thilan29

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

Interesting image there...

I hate to give fud props, but that slobodan guy seems to be a little more knowledgeable about graphics than fuad.

 

[AmberClad]

That's nice. Bigger please . I mean, at that point, it's a dual slot card already - why not use all the available space for more heatsink goodness?

 

[ddarko]

Originally posted by: praesto

Originally posted by: ginfest
Is that GTX280 performance across the board? All games and no problems? I thought I've read that when CF works it's great but that there were compatibility problems with some games? Please clarify because I can get the 2 4850 for $300.00 and have been offered $250.00 for my card.
Or is the 4870 the way to go?

No it's not gtx280 performance across the board. Nobody can promise you that there won't be any problems in any games, neither can they promise gtx 280 performance in all games. CF doesn't work AT ALL in some games, which leaves you with one hd 4850. Some games might work with CF, but only let you gain a 30% performance increase over a single hd 4850. Hell, some games will give you 95% performance increase over a single hd 4850. That's how multi-GPU works.

My personal opinion: Multi-gpu is not reliable, be it SLI or CF.

The thing that is overlooked is that GTX280 isn't always GTX280 performance across the board. Even single GPU solutions produce results that fall short of where they should. Look at Anand's review of the GTX280/260 and examine the Assassin's Creed and Bioshock results. The 280/260 are producing far below where they should. In the other games, the 280/260 give the highest performance of any solution, even exceeding SLI/Crossfire. But in some games like Assassin's Creed and Bioshock, the 280/260 comes is below where they should, hardly exceeding a 9800GTX.

My point is, performance will vary from game to game for BOTH dual AND single GPU solutions. Single GPUs do suffer from the same performance variance that dual GPU solutions do yet, for some reason, while SLI/Crossfire are criticized for this, when it happens to single GPU, it gets excused.

I am not saying variance is not a problem; just that it occurs with single GPUs as well. I think the way to deal with this is to focus ultimately on the results and ask: even when the solution doesn't work as well as it should, does it still give acceptable results? In some cases, the answer is no, the frame rates are too low. This was the result of 4850 in Crossfire in the Witcher benchmark where you only got frame rate around 21 fps. But in many other cases, the frame rates, even though they're coming in below where they should, are still giving great results. In Assassin's Creed, the 280/260 are still producing results in the high 30s to mid 40s. In Bioshock, in the 50-60 fps range. The same goes for 4850 in Crossfire mode for Bioshock, where even though Crossfire didn't scale at all, it still gave a frame of 55 fps at 2560x1600 resolution.

Don't get hung up the efficiency of scaling. Efficiency is a useful criteria for evaluation but efficiency for efficiency's sake is missing the forest for the trees. In the end, look at the frame rates you're getting. Even if you're getting terrible efficiency, why does it matter from a gaming perspective if you still get high playable frame rates.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: ddarko

Originally posted by: praesto

Originally posted by: ginfest
Is that GTX280 performance across the board? All games and no problems? I thought I've read that when CF works it's great but that there were compatibility problems with some games? Please clarify because I can get the 2 4850 for $300.00 and have been offered $250.00 for my card.
Or is the 4870 the way to go?

No it's not gtx280 performance across the board. Nobody can promise you that there won't be any problems in any games, neither can they promise gtx 280 performance in all games. CF doesn't work AT ALL in some games, which leaves you with one hd 4850. Some games might work with CF, but only let you gain a 30% performance increase over a single hd 4850. Hell, some games will give you 95% performance increase over a single hd 4850. That's how multi-GPU works.

My personal opinion: Multi-gpu is not reliable, be it SLI or CF.

The thing that is overlooked is that GTX280 isn't always GTX280 performance across the board. Even single GPU solutions produce results that fall short of where they should. Look at Anand's review of the GTX280/260 and examine the Assassin's Creed and Bioshock results. The 280/260 are producing far below where they should. In the other games, the 280/260 give the highest performance of any solution, even exceeding SLI/Crossfire. But in some games like Assassin's Creed and Bioshock, the 280/260 comes is below where they should, hardly exceeding a 9800GTX.

My point is, performance will vary from game to game for BOTH dual AND single GPU solutions. Single GPUs do suffer from the same performance variance that dual GPU solutions do yet, for some reason, while SLI/Crossfire are criticized for this, when it happens to single GPU, it gets excused.

I am not saying variance is not a problem; just that it occurs with single GPUs as well. I think the way to deal with this is to focus ultimately on the results and ask: even when the solution doesn't work as well as it should, does it still give acceptable results? In some cases, the answer is no, the frame rates are too low. This was the result of 4850 in Crossfire in the Witcher benchmark where you only got frame rate around 21 fps. But in many other cases, the frame rates, even though they're coming in below where they should, are still giving great results. In Assassin's Creed, the 280/260 are still producing results in the high 30s to mid 40s. In Bioshock, in the 50-60 fps range. The same goes for 4850 in Crossfire mode for Bioshock, where even though Crossfire didn't scale at all, it still gave a frame of 55 fps at 2560x1600 resolution.

Don't get hung up the efficiency of scaling. Efficiency is a useful criteria for evaluation but efficiency for efficiency's sake is missing the forest for the trees. In the end, look at the frame rates you're getting. Even if you're getting terrible efficiency, why does it matter from a gaming perspective if you still get high playable frame rates.

This is correct, but multi-gpu suffers from all of the trappings of single gpu plus those only inherent with multi-gpu. Of course, cost is a factor as well. Between 4850 CF and single GTX 280 at $650 it's a tough decision, but if they 280 was closer to $500 I'd take the 280 over 4850 CF.

 

[lopri]

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?

In your case, wait to see how HD 4870 performs. If the 4870 performs ~20% better (and possibly more) than the 4850, then it'll be in the league of GTX 260. At that point 4850 CF could become moot, especially with 1GB of DDR5 on the 4870.

AMD's investment on the legendary (i.e. craptastic) R600 finally starts to pay its dividends, IMO. Partly because of the way newer games are coded and partly because of AMD's refinement of the architecture. We've seen these trends in the past from both AMD and NV.

My opinion is still reserved as far as Crossfire is concerned, but my HD 3850 experience with Vista has been nothing but pleasant in many ways. (Note: Not just for gaming. My main gaming is done on a G92 SLI rig)

I have a high expectation for HD 4870, and at the same time, am curious how NV will counter it. Right now NV's answer to $200 market is G92/G92b but how will they answer the $300 offering from AMD? I can't imagine any GT200 variant hitting that price point anytime soon. (I've heard the chip itself cost $100+)

 

[ddarko]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: ddarko

Originally posted by: praesto

Originally posted by: ginfest
Is that GTX280 performance across the board? All games and no problems? I thought I've read that when CF works it's great but that there were compatibility problems with some games? Please clarify because I can get the 2 4850 for $300.00 and have been offered $250.00 for my card.
Or is the 4870 the way to go?

No it's not gtx280 performance across the board. Nobody can promise you that there won't be any problems in any games, neither can they promise gtx 280 performance in all games. CF doesn't work AT ALL in some games, which leaves you with one hd 4850. Some games might work with CF, but only let you gain a 30% performance increase over a single hd 4850. Hell, some games will give you 95% performance increase over a single hd 4850. That's how multi-GPU works.

My personal opinion: Multi-gpu is not reliable, be it SLI or CF.

The thing that is overlooked is that GTX280 isn't always GTX280 performance across the board. Even single GPU solutions produce results that fall short of where they should. Look at Anand's review of the GTX280/260 and examine the Assassin's Creed and Bioshock results. The 280/260 are producing far below where they should. In the other games, the 280/260 give the highest performance of any solution, even exceeding SLI/Crossfire. But in some games like Assassin's Creed and Bioshock, the 280/260 comes is below where they should, hardly exceeding a 9800GTX.

My point is, performance will vary from game to game for BOTH dual AND single GPU solutions. Single GPUs do suffer from the same performance variance that dual GPU solutions do yet, for some reason, while SLI/Crossfire are criticized for this, when it happens to single GPU, it gets excused.

I am not saying variance is not a problem; just that it occurs with single GPUs as well. I think the way to deal with this is to focus ultimately on the results and ask: even when the solution doesn't work as well as it should, does it still give acceptable results? In some cases, the answer is no, the frame rates are too low. This was the result of 4850 in Crossfire in the Witcher benchmark where you only got frame rate around 21 fps. But in many other cases, the frame rates, even though they're coming in below where they should, are still giving great results. In Assassin's Creed, the 280/260 are still producing results in the high 30s to mid 40s. In Bioshock, in the 50-60 fps range. The same goes for 4850 in Crossfire mode for Bioshock, where even though Crossfire didn't scale at all, it still gave a frame of 55 fps at 2560x1600 resolution.

Don't get hung up the efficiency of scaling. Efficiency is a useful criteria for evaluation but efficiency for efficiency's sake is missing the forest for the trees. In the end, look at the frame rates you're getting. Even if you're getting terrible efficiency, why does it matter from a gaming perspective if you still get high playable frame rates.

This is correct, but multi-gpu suffers from all of the trappings of single gpu plus those only inherent with multi-gpu. Of course, cost is a factor as well. Between 4850 CF and single GTX 280 at $650 it's a tough decision, but if they 280 was closer to $500 I'd take the 280 over 4850 CF.

Of course price can change the scale dramatically. For me, a $400 4850 Crossfire versus a $650 GTX280 is not much of a tough decision, the former is more compelling. For the original poster, who has the choice of buying a 4850 Crossfire for $300 and can sell his current card for $250 - that means he can get a 4850 Crossfire for $50 versus a GTX280 for $400 ($650-$250). It's tough to see how anyone should pass up dual 4850s for 50 bucks. The 4870 Crossfire will of course perform better but for much more money; I also think supply for the 4870 will be short for a while, I don't think GGR5 memory is as plentiful as ATI would have us believe, raising the possibility of having to wait for a while and diminishing the chance that you can get a similar deal. $50 for two 4850's should be illegal. I really don't see a downside.

 

[qliveur]

If the 4870 offers GT260-level performance for $300, then I agree that Nvidia probably won't have an answer for it until it die-shrinks the GT200. No G92 can perform at that level. Nvidia's near-panic response to the 4850 is an indication that R770 is performing better than they had anticipated.

 

[bryanW1995]

this isn't a near-panic response by nvidia. I guarantee you that they knew about 4850 performance WELL before the nda was lifted. Even before they knew for sure what performance would be, they certainly had a few plans in place:

1. 8800gt >/= 4850 = business as usual, maybe even a decent spike in g92 prices
2. 8800gts = 4850 = no g92 price spike, but no major reaction as g92b is coming soon
3. 9800gtx ~ 4850 = uh oh, let's drop 9800gtx prices with mir's but don't worry, g92b is on the way!
4. 9800gtx < 4850 = paper launch 9800gtx+ and send off emails at 1:35am to anand and his tech site peers.


now, they probably didn't EXPECT 4850 to be > 9800gtx, but they clearly had a plan in place just in case that unlikely eventuality came to pass. This is a cutthroat business and often the difference between abject failure (every other video card company to ever exist except ati and nvidia) and living to fight another day is to have a plan of action in place and implement it ASAP. AMD marketing could learn a lot from nvidia's reaction (3870 launch, anyone?)


btw, did anybody notice that there is a phenom 9600 combo deal on the sapphire 4850 right now? $314.98 for the pair...that's $115 for a quad!! I know it's a phenom with the tlb bug, but unless you're running virtualization servers you can get away without the patch and get yourself a great system for a very low price!

 

[qliveur]

Nice lineup on scenarios there. Makes sense to me. What do you think they'll do if 4870>GT260?

 

[nonameo]

Originally posted by: qliveur
Nice lineup on scenarios there. Makes sense to me. What do you think they'll do if 4870>GT260?

I think they'll cut prices on the GT260 some.

 

[praesto]

Originally posted by: ddarko

Originally posted by: praesto

Originally posted by: ginfest
Is that GTX280 performance across the board? All games and no problems? I thought I've read that when CF works it's great but that there were compatibility problems with some games? Please clarify because I can get the 2 4850 for $300.00 and have been offered $250.00 for my card.
Or is the 4870 the way to go?

No it's not gtx280 performance across the board. Nobody can promise you that there won't be any problems in any games, neither can they promise gtx 280 performance in all games. CF doesn't work AT ALL in some games, which leaves you with one hd 4850. Some games might work with CF, but only let you gain a 30% performance increase over a single hd 4850. Hell, some games will give you 95% performance increase over a single hd 4850. That's how multi-GPU works.

My personal opinion: Multi-gpu is not reliable, be it SLI or CF.

The thing that is overlooked is that GTX280 isn't always GTX280 performance across the board. Even single GPU solutions produce results that fall short of where they should. Look at Anand's review of the GTX280/260 and examine the Assassin's Creed and Bioshock results. The 280/260 are producing far below where they should. In the other games, the 280/260 give the highest performance of any solution, even exceeding SLI/Crossfire. But in some games like Assassin's Creed and Bioshock, the 280/260 comes is below where they should, hardly exceeding a 9800GTX.

My point is, performance will vary from game to game for BOTH dual AND single GPU solutions. Single GPUs do suffer from the same performance variance that dual GPU solutions do yet, for some reason, while SLI/Crossfire are criticized for this, when it happens to single GPU, it gets excused.

I am not saying variance is not a problem; just that it occurs with single GPUs as well. I think the way to deal with this is to focus ultimately on the results and ask: even when the solution doesn't work as well as it should, does it still give acceptable results? In some cases, the answer is no, the frame rates are too low. This was the result of 4850 in Crossfire in the Witcher benchmark where you only got frame rate around 21 fps. But in many other cases, the frame rates, even though they're coming in below where they should, are still giving great results. In Assassin's Creed, the 280/260 are still producing results in the high 30s to mid 40s. In Bioshock, in the 50-60 fps range. The same goes for 4850 in Crossfire mode for Bioshock, where even though Crossfire didn't scale at all, it still gave a frame of 55 fps at 2560x1600 resolution.

Don't get hung up the efficiency of scaling. Efficiency is a useful criteria for evaluation but efficiency for efficiency's sake is missing the forest for the trees. In the end, look at the frame rates you're getting. Even if you're getting terrible efficiency, why does it matter from a gaming perspective if you still get high playable frame rates.

I haven't thought if it that way, even tho' what you say is certainly very apparant in the benchmarks. Single gpu solutions do indeed offer various results depending on the game.

But due to all respect, taking a look at the SLIzone forums is everything you have to do to really NOT consider going SLI. There's simply too many complaints regarding SLI solutions. I have no technical knowledge of SLI or SLI problems, I do however know that many people are having issues with their SLI/CF solutions, which is also resembled in the benchmarks.

Single gpu solutions might suffer from the same performance variances, but that is more often the case with multi-gpu solutions, and the performance variances are too great in some cases (only one card being used).


From a gameplay perspective, the efficieny doesn't matter much as long as your fps is high. From your wallets perspective, the efficieny is what matters. My wallet wouldn't approve of a ''purchase which pays off 50%'', that I know for sure

When all that has been said, the 8800GT SLI solution results in the 280 GTX anandtech review really tempt me to sell my current motherboard, get a SLI mobo and another 8800gt for a price which is unbeliveably low...

If I was going to buy a new computer this month, I'd probably take a look at the games I want to play, see if 4850 CF works in them. If it does, then 4850 is a no-brainer compared to a 280 GTX

 

[qliveur]

Well apparently Nvidia went with the worst-case scenario in bryan's lineup. One might say that Nvidia itself is admitting that 4850 > 9800GTX.

 

[taltamir]

ultimately, multi GPU exacerbates the performance variation... the GPUs used in dual GPU or more exhibit less of a performance delta from one game to another then the multi GPU do...

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: qliveur
Nice lineup on scenarios there. Makes sense to me. What do you think they'll do if 4870>GT260?

I think that it's pretty certain that 4870 is at least going to be competitive with 260. The 1gb version could very well surpass it. Nvidia is going to have to limp along and hope/pray that they can get a refresh of gt200 launched soon. Frankly, I'm shocked that we're even discussing this right now. I honestly thought that gt200 was going to annihilate rv770, and nvidia most likely did, too. It doesn't matter, however, because amd's marketing dept starting lineup couldn't even make the roster at nvidia. nvidia's team can (and has in the past) make chicken shit look like chicken salad, while ati's team can (and also has in the past) make kobe beef look like beef tips. amd needs to throw a bunch of money at nvidia's marketing team and snag a few of them to add some spice to their pr.