ATI 4xxx Series Thread

[deepinya]

Sweet, maybe ATI will finally be back in the mix!

 

[ghost recon88]

Originally posted by: JPB
The 4850 and 4870 specs are up on GPUReview HERE

If the specs are right.

Can anyone do the math and figure out if they are 256-bit or 512 based on those bandwidth numbers?

Edit: Just answered my own question by scrolling to the bottom of that page. Appears 256-bit for both the HD4850 and HD4870. 1GB of GDDR5 on the HD4870, here I come They don't have GDDR3 listed for any HD4870 models thankfully

 

[bryanW1995]

I know that 55nm is more efficient that 65nm, but I'm extremely concerned about the relatively small power draw of 4870. if it's really only 150w, and gt200 ends up at the rumored 250w, this could get ugly even for 4870x2. of course, it could take nvidia 6 mos to get out gt200 in volume, too...

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I know that 55nm is more efficient that 65nm, but I'm extremely concerned about the relatively small power draw of 4870. if it's really only 150w, and gt200 ends up at the rumored 250w, this could get ugly even for 4870x2. of course, it could take nvidia 6 mos to get out gt200 in volume, too...

Not necessarily. I would imagine 4870x2 would be competitive against a gt200, and it would not have to compete against a dual-gt200 card until either:
a) Nvidia refreshes the gt200 on a smaller, more energy-efficient process, or
b) Nvidia includes an external PSU and water cooler with every gt200gx2 it chips

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I know that 55nm is more efficient that 65nm, but I'm extremely concerned about the relatively small power draw of 4870. if it's really only 150w, and gt200 ends up at the rumored 250w, this could get ugly even for 4870x2. of course, it could take nvidia 6 mos to get out gt200 in volume, too...

Well single-chip RV770 isn't going to match GT200 in performance, and I think that 4870 X2 power consumption should be close to that of GT200 (along with performance being competitive IMO). As you pointed out nVidia is at a disadvantage here; AMD is mature @ 55nm right now, and nVidia has not put out a single 55nm chip. GT200 will be a huge 65nm chip (from what we know) and RV770 is a small 55nm chip; which would you rather produce?

I think AMD is holding back on the clocks a bit, I'm pretty sure RV770 @ 55nm can do a bit more than 850MHz on the core. R600 did 745MHz and the only reason it wasn't 800MHz+ was thermals were already insane. I think AMD wanted to focus on performance-per-watt as much as raw performance this generation, and RV770 might have a good amount of overclocking headroom because of that.

 

[ghost recon88]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Well single-chip RV770 isn't going to match GT200 in performance, and I think that 4870 X2 power consumption should be close to that of GT200 (along with performance being competitive IMO).

How do you know RV770 won't complete with the GT200?

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

I think AMD is holding back on the clocks a bit, I'm pretty sure RV770 @ 55nm can do a bit more than 850MHz on the core. R600 did 745MHz and the only reason it wasn't 800MHz+ was thermals were already insane. I think AMD wanted to focus on performance-per-watt as much as raw performance this generation, and RV770 might have a good amount of overclocking headroom because of that.

I'm not sure this is a good idea, especially for their high end parts. This makes more sense as a strategy for lower end or HTPC parts, not performance parts were fastest card around is a big marketing point.

 

[BenSkywalker]

How do you know RV770 won't complete with the GT200?

Pretty much based on the most optomistic estimates we have seen it won't be able to keep up with a 8800Ultra. I'm not saying thatt is the case, but the rumors that we have seen have all been in the same general ballpark, if any of them are to be believed in terms of chip architecture and what has been done to it, the GT200 will likely slaughter it single v single. What is sad, we feel fairly comfortable saying this without knowing anything about the GT200. Pretty much, if nV just realesed a slightly upclocked 9800 they could comfortably hold the single gpu crown for a while longer yet. The GT200 may end up being a laughable upgrade over the 9800- but that realisticly speakng is all nV needs if anything we have heard about the RV770 chip is correct.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Extelleron

I think AMD is holding back on the clocks a bit, I'm pretty sure RV770 @ 55nm can do a bit more than 850MHz on the core. R600 did 745MHz and the only reason it wasn't 800MHz+ was thermals were already insane. I think AMD wanted to focus on performance-per-watt as much as raw performance this generation, and RV770 might have a good amount of overclocking headroom because of that.

I'm not sure this is a good idea, especially for their high end parts. This makes more sense as a strategy for lower end or HTPC parts, not performance parts were fastest card around is a big marketing point.

agreed. amd is stupid if they could get 950 or more core and clocked it at 850. They might not beat gt200 but they could probably convince a lot more people to go ati if they put out a killer card now.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I know that 55nm is more efficient that 65nm, but I'm extremely concerned about the relatively small power draw of 4870. if it's really only 150w, and gt200 ends up at the rumored 250w, this could get ugly even for 4870x2. of course, it could take nvidia 6 mos to get out gt200 in volume, too...

Not necessarily. I would imagine 4870x2 would be competitive against a gt200, and it would not have to compete against a dual-gt200 card until either:
a) Nvidia refreshes the gt200 on a smaller, more energy-efficient process, or
b) Nvidia includes an external PSU and water cooler with every gt200gx2 it chips

That shouldn't matter to anyone though.

Multi-GPU solutions are best for achieving levels of performance unattainable with single GPU solutions.

Why would anyone by a multi GPU solution that was only competitive with a single GPU?

1. Variable scaling means by definition the multi GPU solution would trail in many games and situations.

2. Some people notice things like "micro stutter" and "mouse lag" with multi GPU.

3. Multi GPU can force a wait for profile ontpo the end user at times.

In short, multi GPUs involve tradeoffs, single GPUs are preferable when they can offer the same performance.

(which should not be construed as me saying I don't like multi GPU, I wouldn't be without it, but I'd always pick single if it offered the same level of performance)

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: ghost recon88

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Well single-chip RV770 isn't going to match GT200 in performance, and I think that 4870 X2 power consumption should be close to that of GT200 (along with performance being competitive IMO).

How do you know RV770 won't complete with the GT200?

Single-chip it won't, unless GT200 is a complete failure or RV770 is way better than the specifications would indicate.

Of course it isn't a fair comparison; RV770 is not designed to compete w/ GT200 on a single-GPU basis, it is designed for a dual-GPU card. This will be the basis of AMD's graphics high-end for the future, and I'm sure after GT200 nVidia will do the same.

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

How do you know RV770 won't complete with the GT200?

Pretty much based on the most optomistic estimates we have seen it won't be able to keep up with a 8800Ultra. I'm not saying thatt is the case, but the rumors that we have seen have all been in the same general ballpark, if any of them are to be believed in terms of chip architecture and what has been done to it, the GT200 will likely slaughter it single v single. What is sad, we feel fairly comfortable saying this without knowing anything about the GT200. Pretty much, if nV just realesed a slightly upclocked 9800 they could comfortably hold the single gpu crown for a while longer yet. The GT200 may end up being a laughable upgrade over the 9800- but that realisticly speakng is all nV needs if anything we have heard about the RV770 chip is correct.

That's not really true - the single-GPU HD 4870 should defeat the 8800 Ultra soundly in every single game, some times by a large amount. The 8800 Ultra isn't 2x faster than the 3870, and it looks like the 4870 will be. nVidia will not be able to compete with RV770 using the G92 chip, unless they increase memory bandwidth and core speed significantly.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The 8800 Ultra isn't 2x faster than the 3870, and it looks like the 4870 will be.

You must have seen WAY different numbers for the chip layout then I have, because what I have seen it looks to be marginal over the 3870, and the claims we have heard put it in the 1.5 times the performance of the 3870 which isn't close. Also- the 880 Ultra is normally 50%-100% faster then the 3870. I think people have just gotten used to looking at the 3870x2 when comparing it to nVidia's older parts so they are at least somewhat close.

 

[Jax Omen]

Did you look at any of the other benchmarks? The only two games that showed anything REMOTELY approaching a 50-100% difference between the Radeon and the 8800 Ultra were CoD4 and STALKER. Considering you're comparing a sub-$200 card to a $400+ (if you can even find it now) card, that's not bad at all. Even better when you compare release prices (what, $250 versus $800?).

Also, the numbers I saw for the 4870, in the sticky thread we're in, looked to be 1.5-2x as powerful, depending on what aspect of the card you're talking about.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

The 8800 Ultra isn't 2x faster than the 3870, and it looks like the 4870 will be.

You must have seen WAY different numbers for the chip layout then I have, because what I have seen it looks to be marginal over the 3870, and the claims we have heard put it in the 1.5 times the performance of the 3870 which isn't close. Also- the 880 Ultra is normally 50%-100% faster then the 3870. I think people have just gotten used to looking at the 3870x2 when comparing it to nVidia's older parts so they are at least somewhat close.

4870 has 103% more shader performance, 120% more texture performance, and 72% more memory bandwidth than RV670.

And there are very few cases where 8800 Ultra is 2x 3870... Call of Duty 4 is a serious outlier. Look at Crysis, for example, and that's a game where R600 cards don't do so hot. Double the 3870's performance, and the hypothetical 4870 would be 28% faster than an Ultra. For an idea of 4870 X2 vs GT200, assuming 80% CF scaling, GT200 would have to be 130% faster than 8800 Ultra to compete.

Look at a game like Oblivion (2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF)... there doubling 3870's performance gives you 45% higher performance than 8800 Ultra. In engines where R600 does well, like UE3 (Bioshock, UT3, RB6:V, etc), 4870 would be significantly faster as well.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

The 8800 Ultra isn't 2x faster than the 3870, and it looks like the 4870 will be.

You must have seen WAY different numbers for the chip layout then I have, because what I have seen it looks to be marginal over the 3870, and the claims we have heard put it in the 1.5 times the performance of the 3870 which isn't close. Also- the 880 Ultra is normally 50%-100% faster then the 3870. I think people have just gotten used to looking at the 3870x2 when comparing it to nVidia's older parts so they are at least somewhat close.

4870 has 103% more shader performance, 120% more texture performance, and 72% more memory bandwidth than RV670.

And there are very few cases where 8800 Ultra is 2x 3870... Call of Duty 4 is a serious outlier. Look at Crysis, for example, and that's a game where R600 cards don't do so hot. Double the 3870's performance, and the hypothetical 4870 would be 28% faster than an Ultra. For an idea of 4870 X2 vs GT200, assuming 80% CF scaling, GT200 would have to be 130% faster than 8800 Ultra to compete.

Look at a game like Oblivion (2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF)... there doubling 3870's performance gives you 45% higher performance than 8800 Ultra. In engines where R600 does well, like UE3 (Bioshock, UT3, RB6:V, etc), 4870 would be significantly faster as well.

It doesn't always work that way.

 

[ghost recon88]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

The 8800 Ultra isn't 2x faster than the 3870, and it looks like the 4870 will be.

You must have seen WAY different numbers for the chip layout then I have, because what I have seen it looks to be marginal over the 3870, and the claims we have heard put it in the 1.5 times the performance of the 3870 which isn't close. Also- the 880 Ultra is normally 50%-100% faster then the 3870. I think people have just gotten used to looking at the 3870x2 when comparing it to nVidia's older parts so they are at least somewhat close.

4870 has 103% more shader performance, 120% more texture performance, and 72% more memory bandwidth than RV670.

And there are very few cases where 8800 Ultra is 2x 3870... Call of Duty 4 is a serious outlier. Look at Crysis, for example, and that's a game where R600 cards don't do so hot. Double the 3870's performance, and the hypothetical 4870 would be 28% faster than an Ultra. For an idea of 4870 X2 vs GT200, assuming 80% CF scaling, GT200 would have to be 130% faster than 8800 Ultra to compete.

Look at a game like Oblivion (2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF)... there doubling 3870's performance gives you 45% higher performance than 8800 Ultra. In engines where R600 does well, like UE3 (Bioshock, UT3, RB6:V, etc), 4870 would be significantly faster as well.

It doesn't always work that way.

Well that may be the case, there's no need or point in handing nVidia the crown before their latest card has even been released.

 

[bryanW1995]

amd gave nvidia the single core performance crown for this round a long time ago. 4870x2 has a decent chance of meeting/beating performance of gt200, but 4870 will be doing well (as mentioned several times already) to beat 8800 ultra.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Did you look at any of the other benchmarks? The only two games that showed anything REMOTELY approaching a 50-100% difference between the Radeon and the 8800 Ultra were CoD4 and STALKER.

Crysis 56%, Oblivion 38%(using the chart w/aa@2560, Ultra is just a hair under 50% faster at 1920x1200), QuakeWars 61%- OK so Oblivion on the 30" at native rez the Ultra doesn't hit 50% faster. Yeah, I looked at the games, did you?

4870 has 103% more shader performance, 120% more texture performance, and 72% more memory bandwidth than RV670.

Pixel fillrate was how much higher? Now how much more shader power does the RV670 have compared to the 8800Ultra already? Obviously improving the TMU situation is going to help, but pixel fill is relatively flat and we saw how the 2900 could do against the Ultra too with incredible mem bandwidth. Pretty much, for what ATi is lacking on the 3870 vs the 8800Ultra we have some much needed improvement on the TMU end and a very minor bump on the pixel drawing end. You may think that is going to make the card 169% faster then the 8800Ultra, but I don't think many people who have followed vid cards in a reasonable fashion for more then a couple months would agree.

You know what, IF it is an architectural change and ATi did away with some of the moronic choices they made with the R6x0 series then it could blow even the most die hard ATi's fans expectations, that just doesn't seem to be what people are indicating.

Well that may be the case, there's no need or point in handing nVidia the crown before their latest card has even been released.

You don't seem to be grasping the situation properly. Right now, nVidia is the King, Queen, Prince and Princess. ATi needs to TAKE the crown, nV already has it with a rather extreme margin of error atm. Talking about years old nV tech and how if the latest and greates ATi GPU is twice as fast as their current highest end they would only lose in a couple games. Seriously, let that sink in

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Right now, nVidia is the King, Queen, Prince and Princess.

Than why bother with this thread? Personally I think the princess has found a pea under her mattress and has been much noisy in stupid ways about intel or whatever. Usually that type of stuff is pr smoke screen.

Even if ati has a killer card, no new games anyways.

That said, the 4800 is still somewhat of a mystery. Hard to believe it will be launched this month without several 3dmock leaks with pictures floating around.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I really like ATI up til they stumbled a bit on R600 there IQ was is best in the industry. This new 4870x2 sounds like it actually could be something speciel with the large cache and shared memory. But I won't fall into the r-600 trap . I hope the 4870x2 is as good as it sounds. Till than we"ll see

 

[Killrose]

Dont know if this has been posted here yet.
pics

forum date is pretty old so it must be around here somewhere..

 

[deepinya]

Since this is all hypothetical

ATI > Nvidia

 

[lopri]

That heatsink looks like 3850's. The core is definitely different, though. Thanks for the pic, Killrose.

I am eagerly waiting for AMD's new offerings. Day by day I grow resentful towards NV's Vista drivers. (it could be the 780i issue or both, though)

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: lopri
That heatsink looks like 3850's. The core is definitely different, though. Thanks for the pic, Killrose.

I am eagerly waiting for AMD's new offerings. Day by day I grow resentful towards NV's Vista drivers. (it could be the 780i issue or both, though)

And day by day I use them with no issues.

I've used NF4, 680i, 780i, 790i with many combinations of NVIDIA video cards, and eveyr version of VISTA pretty much uneventfully, just working like I'd expect.

Seems odd to me that you "hate them more every day" and I can't find problems.

Although I don't OC for the most part, and running products out of spec can cause misreported "NVIDIA driver errors" from what I've seen on NZONE.

Building my 780A rig Saturday, but that one will be XP due to need to have a machine that runs MS Small Business Accounting 2006.

 

[BFG10K]

Seems odd to me that you "hate them more every day" and I can't find problems.

Really? And why is that odd exactly? Perhaps your tiny sample of games simply misrepresents larger samples?

There's 59 page UT2004 thread running since Nov 06 where nVidia finally admit there?s a driver issue. What more evidence do you need?

If you want newer games fire up Crysis with any beta 17x.xx driver and observe the missing back wheels on the vehicles. Now before you respond ?don?t use beta drivers?, the last official drivers we?ve had were in December 2007.

Such driver "support" is beyond comical. ATi bleeds millions of dollars per quarter yet they still manage monthly WHQL releases. What?s nVidia?s excuse for not doing the same?

Although I don't OC for the most part, and running products out of spec can cause misreported "NVIDIA driver errors" from what I've seen on NZONE.

Overclocking can do the same for any vendor; what?s your point?