ATI 4xxx Series Thread

[manko]

Originally posted by: taltamir
and 280GTX more then 100% faster than a 9800GTX...

At three times the price of the 4850. Too rich for my blood.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
HD4870 at $229 would be nice. Almost too nice.

That'd most likely be a steal.

 

[zod96]

Yeah if these prices are true I might switch from nvidia to ati. I like a single slot card with 1 power connector like the 8800GT. And I think I read that nvidia's new cards will both be dual slot dual power connector type cards. Add to that the price, I'm hearing $450 for the GTX260 and like $600 for the GTX280, way to rich for my blood. I think the ati 4850 might be the sweet spot. They say its as fast as the 9800GTX yet is only going to cost from $199-219 if that's true I think Ati will have a winner in the 4850

 

[allies]

How much faster is the 9800GTX vs. an 8800GTS? I thought they were relatively close, and the GTS sells for <$200 AR. It actually doesn't look to stellar for AMD right now...

 

[AshPhoenix]

Don't know if this is true

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: manko

Originally posted by: taltamir
and 280GTX more then 100% faster than a 9800GTX...

At three times the price of the 4850. Too rich for my blood.

thats about the gist of it... 2x the performance at 3x the price... Not even close to having the same bang for the buck, but has higher bang IF you are willing to pay for it.

This means both are VERY nice options, which is a good thing (restores balance to the world)

 

[firewolfsm]

Originally posted by: AshPhoenix
Don't know if this is true

This is fake.

 

[bryanW1995]

how do you know? I've read in many places that 4870 will be 20-30% faster than 9800gtx, and I've also heard several times that 4850 will be 20%+ faster than 8800gt.

 

[chewietobbacca]

4850- 10% > 98GTX
4870- 40% > 98GTX

487X2- 30% > 98GX2

http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2110

 

[HOOfan 1]

Originally posted by: chewietobbacca
4850- 10% > 98GTX
4870- 40% > 98GTX

487X2- 30% > 98GX2

http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2110

Have 4870X2 samples even been fabricated yet?

 

[superbooga]

Originally posted by: chewietobbacca
4850- 10% > 98GTX
4870- 40% > 98GTX

487X2- 30% > 98GX2

http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2110

That would mean 4870x2 is only 30-40% faster than 4870, since a card that is 40% faster than the 9800GTX is already close to 9800GX2 performance. Also what benchmark are they using? Vantage?

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1

Originally posted by: chewietobbacca
4850- 10% > 98GTX
4870- 40% > 98GTX

487X2- 30% > 98GX2

http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2110

Have 4870X2 samples even been fabricated yet?

It's just 2 RV770 chips, so yes the chips have been fabricated.

I'm sure there are ES boards floating around some where, but I would assume anything you hear right now on 4870 X2 performance is just speculation. As superbooga pointed out, if HD 4870 was 40% faster than 9800GTX, it would be close to 9800GX2 in a number of situations.

IMO any "Card X = 20% > Card Y" statement is pure BS. As seen in the nVidia chart, gains can range from 45% to 140% comparing the same two cards.

 

[zebrax2]

seems like the 4850 will be priced at $179 to $219

dailytech

 

[dv8silencer]

Originally posted by: zebrax2
seems like the 4850 will be priced at $179 to $219

dailytech

Deal!

 

[zod96]

If that price is true $179 then I definately will be upgrading my 8800GT to the 4850....

 

[bryanW1995]

that's not a deal, that's disappointing. if it was as fast as 9800gtx then it would be priced like it... I'd rather see gtx 280 @ $650, gtx 260 @ $450, 4870 @ $369, 4850 @ $249, 9800gtx @ $249, etc etc. These things are all priced relative to the competition's performance. If gtx 280 is $650, there will be a VERY IMPORTANT reason for it; ie, it will be fast as hell. ditto for 4870 @ $369 and 4850 @ $249. The only reason to price those things at $199 and $299 will be if their performance is weak.

 

[zod96]

I guess will find out for sure on the 18th

 

[dv8silencer]

Originally posted by: zod96
I guess will find out for sure on the 18th

Hopefully earlier

 

[chewietobbacca]

Well if they're trying to get market share back, then they're going to price it low.

Lets put it this way - if a 4850 at $199 is offering the same performance as 9800GTX, they'll force Nvidia to cut margins big time to compete otherwise Nvidia will lose market share. Besides, the 4850 is the PRO version of the card so it's supposed to fill in like the X1950PRO did and be priced for mainstream/low-end performance

 

[ronnn]

More fudo

 

[bryanW1995]

I'd be surprised if fuad didn't have something intelligent to say today...:laugh:

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
how do you know? I've read in many places that 4870 will be 20-30% faster than 9800gtx, and I've also heard several times that 4850 will be 20%+ faster than 8800gt.

Well, for one thing, why not display the 3DMark06 scores? Why waste the effort utilizing percentage scores? 8800GT apparently represents 100% baseline in that graph. So I ask, why would somebody display these numbers when it is easier for everyone to interpret plain old 3DMark scores?

No big deal, I was just curious why it was done this way.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: ronnn
More fudo

Somehow I doubt it, but I'm all for being pleasantly surprised.

 

[ronnn]

Actually this one makes some sense. Is the one way they could possibly get the performance increases that are being hinted at. The 3870 holds its own without aa, so to fix that would be big.

But making sense, which is rare for fuad, is not the same as being right (rarer).

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: chewietobbacca
Well if they're trying to get market share back, then they're going to price it low.

Lets put it this way - if a 4850 at $199 is offering the same performance as 9800GTX, they'll force Nvidia to cut margins big time to compete otherwise Nvidia will lose market share. Besides, the 4850 is the PRO version of the card so it's supposed to fill in like the X1950PRO did and be priced for mainstream/low-end performance

nobody gives a donkeys wiener about market share. They care about making MONEY, and market share happens to follow this, by accident.
AMD would price it lower to move more units, thus making more money, not to "get market share"