HD4670 reviews

[AzN]

These seem good with AA but without AA it's about 20% slower than 3850 or 8800gs depending on the game

You can get a nice 9600gso for $65 after $20 rebate which is actually cheaper than 4670.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814121251

If you are a gamer these would be better value and even better since it's stock clocked G92 chip which is 600/1500/900. Overclocking on these would be monstrous as well. Most reviews put up 4670 against a stock 9600gso which is 550/1375/800. Most g92 chips hit 700 core 1700SP and 1000 memory or higher.

I just don't see how a 4670 is that good for value oriented buyers who are trying to squeeze performance out of their $$$? IF 3850, 9600gso, 9600gt or even 3870 wasn't in the picture.. Then maybe these would be a good idea but it's just another underperforming card hidden by the fact that most reviewers add AA which the RV7xx line is good at.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn
These seem good with AA but without AA it's about 20% slower than 3850 or 8800gs depending on the game

You can get a nice 9600gso for $65 after $20 rebate which is actually cheaper than 4670.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814121251

If you are a gamer these would be better value and even better since it's stock clocked G92 chip which is 600/1500/900. Overclocking on these would be monstrous as well. Most reviews put up 4670 against a stock 9600gso which is 550/1375/800. Most g92 chips hit 700 core 1700SP and 1000 memory or higher.

I just don't see how a 4670 is that good for value oriented buyers who are trying to squeeze performance out of their $$$? IF 3850, 9600gso, 9600gt or even 3870 wasn't in the picture.. Then maybe these would be a good idea but it's just another underperforming card hidden by the fact that most reviewers add AA which the RV7xx line is good at.

well at its $80 MSRP it is an okay card. it will be even more attractive once the price drops a little more and maybe some rebates get thrown in.

the cards main attraction for many is that it is small and doesnt need external power. this is good for people with oem comps that dont want to buy a power supply and a video card. of course if you already have a good psu then going with a 9600gt or 8800gt would be much wiser.

the 9600gso seems to have performance all over the place. some sites have it beating the 4670 easily while others dont. also most sites have the 9600gt beating the 9600gso except in rare occasions. I dont know if its the lack of memory or what but the 9600gso just doesnt seen to perform as consistently as the 9600gt.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn
These seem good with AA but without AA it's about 20% slower than 3850 or 8800gs depending on the game

You can get a nice 9600gso for $65 after $20 rebate which is actually cheaper than 4670.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814121251

If you are a gamer these would be better value and even better since it's stock clocked G92 chip which is 600/1500/900. Overclocking on these would be monstrous as well. Most reviews put up 4670 against a stock 9600gso which is 550/1375/800. Most g92 chips hit 700 core 1700SP and 1000 memory or higher.

I just don't see how a 4670 is that good for value oriented buyers who are trying to squeeze performance out of their $$$? IF 3850, 9600gso, 9600gt or even 3870 wasn't in the picture.. Then maybe these would be a good idea but it's just another underperforming card hidden by the fact that most reviewers add AA which the RV7xx line is good at.

well at its $80 MSRP it is an okay card. it will be even more attractive once the price drops a little more and maybe some rebates get thrown in.

the cards main attraction for many is that it is small and doesnt need external power. this is good for people with oem comps that dont want to buy a power supply and a video card. of course if you already have a good psu then going with a 9600gt or 8800gt would be much wiser.

What is so attractive about not having a external power for your video card? You just plug and it's done. If you are a desktop owner it wouldn't make much difference. Only thing attractive about this card would be OEM computer users who use 300 watt power supplies who won't need to change out their power supply and still get decent performance with their crappy computers.

the 9600gso seems to have performance all over the place. some sites have it beating the 4670 easily while others dont. also most sites have the 9600gt beating the 9600gso except in rare occasions. I dont know if its the lack of memory or what but the 9600gso just doesnt seen to perform as consistently as the 9600gt.

4670 is good with AA. Other than that it's just a souped up mainstream 8 ROP card for the mass like 8600gt was. One thing I have to give up is the texture throughput and SP on this card and it does carry its weight in mid resolutions and AA. Then again GSO has 12ROP, 48TMU and 192bit bus vs 8 ROP 32TMU 128bit bus on 4670 which is clocked higher.

Difference between the GSO and GT is bandwidth and ROP vs Texture Throughput and SP. 9600gso tend to be better raw performers while 9600gt is better with AA performance. There are different GSO cards. It's just different clocks. It's the same G92 chip that is clocked slower than other G92 chips on purpose to make way for 9600gt. Othe wise Nvidia will be competing with themselves. People have lot of luck overclocking the GSO/GS in line of 8800gt performance. I've gotten mine high as 756/1836/1060 just on stock fan @ full speed. GSO has more potential. I just don't think these 4670 can even get near 8800gt performance even volt modded using exotic cooling. Hardware sites test for different things so it just depends. I just think some reviewers aren't consistent period so they get performance all over the place.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn
These seem good with AA but without AA it's about 20% slower than 3850 or 8800gs depending on the game

You can get a nice 9600gso for $65 after $20 rebate which is actually cheaper than 4670.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814121251

If you are a gamer these would be better value and even better since it's stock clocked G92 chip which is 600/1500/900. Overclocking on these would be monstrous as well. Most reviews put up 4670 against a stock 9600gso which is 550/1375/800. Most g92 chips hit 700 core 1700SP and 1000 memory or higher.

I just don't see how a 4670 is that good for value oriented buyers who are trying to squeeze performance out of their $$$? IF 3850, 9600gso, 9600gt or even 3870 wasn't in the picture.. Then maybe these would be a good idea but it's just another underperforming card hidden by the fact that most reviewers add AA which the RV7xx line is good at.

well at its $80 MSRP it is an okay card. it will be even more attractive once the price drops a little more and maybe some rebates get thrown in.

the cards main attraction for many is that it is small and doesnt need external power. this is good for people with oem comps that dont want to buy a power supply and a video card. of course if you already have a good psu then going with a 9600gt or 8800gt would be much wiser.

What is so attractive about not having a external power for your video card? You just plug and it's done. If you are a desktop owner it wouldn't make much difference. Only thing attractive about this card would be OEM computer users who use 300 watt power supplies who won't need to change out their power supply and still get decent performance with their crappy computers.

well thats what I just said. if you have a decent power supply then of course external power isnt an issue.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Azn

I just don't see how a 4670 is that good for value oriented buyers who are trying to squeeze performance out of their $$$? IF 3850, 9600gso, 9600gt or even 3870 wasn't in the picture.. Then maybe these would be a good idea but it's just another underperforming card hidden by the fact that most reviewers add AA which the RV7xx line is good at.

Well, I took a look at prices on Newegg, and here's what I see.

9600GSO is cheaper by $10 after rebate.
3850 is the same price after rebate.
9600GT is the same price after rebate.
3870 is $10 more after rebate.

If you don't look at rebates, the cheapest competition (9600GSO) starts at $10 more. The 4670 just came out in stores, so it hasn't even had a chance to drop to a street price or get rebates yet.

Looking at performance (Anand's own review), the 4670 beats the 9600GSO (cheapest competitor) in Crysis without AA, Smokes it with AA in Quake Wars, slightly loses in Oblivion without AA, slightly wins with, slightly loses in Conan without AA, ties in Grid without AA, smokes it with, and slightly wins in the Witcher without AA.

So performance wise, without AA it sometimes slightly loses, and sometimes slightly wins. Otherwise with any AF or AA applied, it smokes it. In most games today you can apply AA and framerates would still be smooth.

Power...well, it uses anywhere from 20-30 watts less than a 9600GS and 3850. That allows it to run without a PCI-e connector, which is huge for average Joe. A lot of people have 2 year old Dells or maybe just grabbed a new budget HP system off the shelf. They'll have a PCI-e slot generally, but usually won't have a decent enough PSU to come with a PCI-e connector. They could use a molex adapter, but I tried doing that to my fiancee's 2 year old HP and she simply didn't have two spare molex connectors in her system.

Anyway, less power also means less heat and generally less noise. Which is another plus. The low power nature and complexity of the card also allows it to be smaller in size compared to typical cards out right now. This is big for people with small cases.

I think you really have to look at think outside the enthusiast box. You and I, we're not going to pick this up for our main gaming machine. But 3850+ performance in a smaller profile, lower power, $79 card is impressive. I'm not really trying to argue that this card is hands down better than a 9600GSO or 3850, but IMO its strengths far outweigh the strengths of those other cards. High end enthusiasts will likely feel differently.

 

[AzN]

Anand tested few games. I think Techpowerup has the review with lot more game tested. Fact is a stock 9600gso is faster by a few percent. Factor in the massive overclock ability of GSO and performance lead is more pronounced. Not to mention it cost $15 cheaper NOW... As a value PC gamer 4670 is decent but still comes up little short in performance to other contenders in it's price range. It does have a place for HTPC or those people with OEM computers because of it's low power consumption. Other than that I just don't see it as a want to have card in the value segment.

http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...rcolor/HD_4670/26.html

 

[SlowSpyder]

I wonder if this card would run in Crossfire with a 2900/38x0. They are fairly close in performance, so it might be possible?

The external power thing isn't a big deal for us, but as stated it'll be great for OEM's and OEM PC upgrades.

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: Azn
As a value PC gamer 4670 is decent but still comes up little short in performance to other contenders in it's price range. It does have a place for HTPC or those people with OEM computers because of it's low power consumption. Other than that I just don't see it as a want to have card in the value segment.

Also for people like me who don't game a lot but leave their computer on all the time. Then it appears to average at least 20 watts difference per hour. And, it is likely that it will be available (on occasion) for sub $60 (give it a few weeks for demand to decline somewhat)


edit: Sorry, Azn. I messed up your quote the first time I posted it.

 

[AzN]

I've been saying this again and again and you can quote me from last year with arguments with BFG or Chizow. Texture fillrate is the most important element when it comes to performance today. Just look at this 8 ROP card with 128bit bus performing competitive with 16ROP 256bit bus cards.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Azn
Anand tested few games. I think Techpowerup has the review with lot more game tested. Fact is a stock 9600gso is faster by a few percent. Factor in the massive overclock ability of GSO and performance lead is more pronounced. Not to mention it cost $15 cheaper NOW... As a value PC gamer 4670 is decent but still comes up little short in performance to other contenders in it's price range. It does have a place for HTPC or those people with OEM computers because of it's low power consumption. Other than that I just don't see it as a want to have card in the value segment.

http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...rcolor/HD_4670/26.html

I've seen other reviews going either way within a few percentage points. But I digress... HTPC and OEM computers probably make up by far the largest chunk of the market. I'm impressed because this card can fit the needs of those users and give good performance in today's titles. It can definitely make enjoyable gaming more accessible for many.

 

[Bioapb]

Anyone have any thoughts on what the useful life of this card will be? Seems like as a low end offering it would only be a short time before gaming abilities surpass what this card is capable of.

 

[Avalon]

If we get another Crysis type game (Alan Wake?) in a year or two, it will likely struggle. Other than that I think it'll handle itself well for the next 2 years of upcoming titles at medium settings and low resolution, 1280x1024.

 

[fire400]

when is this freakin' card going to sell ...? I can't bloody find it anywhere right now!

 

[Nohr]

Originally posted by: fire400
when is this freakin' card going to sell ...? I can't bloody find it anywhere right now!

Newegg has three brands of 4670 cards which are all in stock.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Azn
I've been saying this again and again and you can quote me from last year with arguments with BFG or Chizow. Texture fillrate is the most important element when it comes to performance today. Just look at this 8 ROP card with 128bit bus performing competitive with 16ROP 256bit bus cards.

I respectfully disagree with this assessment. Here are some things to consider:

1. Performance between 3850 and 4670:

Despite very near GPU clock speeds, HD3850 which has 16 ROPs and 256bit bus isn't significantly faster by any stretch than a HD4670 which has 8 ROPs and 128bit bus.

Just 1 Example

Also, consider that some games are more texture heavy while others are more shader heavy. This alone implies that your statement is only true if the card is seriously deficient in texture performance, while excelling in all other areas, and the game is more texture heavy.

For example, in a game like Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2, 4670 gets rapped despite having superior texture fill-rate to a 9600GT!

2. Not all texture units are created equal:

Not only does 4670 have 2x the # of texture units of 3850 (32 vs. 16), but each of those texture units delivers up to two times the texture cache bandwidth of 3850's texture unit. In other words the texture units have become more complex. But 4670 still cannot pull away from 3850 in COD4!

3. Not all ROPs are created equal:

3850 with 16 ROPs is nowhere as efficient as 4670 with 8 ROPs. This is so because ATI tweaked the ROPs in RV730 to provide double the AA fillrate for 32-bit and 64-bit color as well as double the peak rate for depth/stencil operations. This is why the 32GB/sec bandwidth on the 4670 doesn't translate into 80% lower performance compared to 3850's 57.6GB/sec bandwidth. If this wasn't the case, no amount of texture boosting would help 4670 overcome its memory bandwidth limitation. AA performance was a major improvement in the 4xxx architecture.

Basically, part of 4670's performance comes from improved texture performance, but another part has to do with other factors. You can't conclude with certainty which of these improvements brought the most value.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Bioapb
Anyone have any thoughts on what the useful life of this card will be? Seems like as a low end offering it would only be a short time before gaming abilities surpass what this card is capable of.

well if you wait a few weeks the card will be around 50 bucks and thats not a lot to pay even you keep it for less than a year. also in 6 months or so there will be a better performing card for the money that will take its place. you could always just sell the 4670 for 20-25 bucks when the 5670 cards come next year. the point is that when you deal with cheap cards like this you arent going to take a big $ loss when you decide to upgrade.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: Azn
I've been saying this again and again and you can quote me from last year with arguments with BFG or Chizow. Texture fillrate is the most important element when it comes to performance today. Just look at this 8 ROP card with 128bit bus performing competitive with 16ROP 256bit bus cards.

I respectfully disagree with this assessment. Here are some things to consider:

1. Performance between 3850 and 4670:

Despite very near GPU clock speeds, HD3850 which has 16 ROPs and 256bit bus isn't significantly faster by any stretch than a HD4670 which has 8 ROPs and 128bit bus.

Just 1 Example

Also, consider that some games are more texture heavy while others are more shader heavy. This alone implies that your statement is only true if the card is seriously deficient in texture performance, while excelling in all other areas, and the game is more texture heavy.

Considering the bandwidth and Color fill of 4670 there's bound to be some performance difference from 3850. COD4 performance is determined by Texture performance mostly.

Firingsquad bench seems off to me. If you searched around the web 3850 is worst performing card in COD4 in it's price range. 4670 is actually beating it here. http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...ercolor/HD_4670/6.html. Not a lot of games are shader bound today. I think we've been throughly tested on this assessment back when 9600gt was released. There are however exceptions.

2. # of ROPs ! = texture performance:

HD4850 has 16 ROPs, same as HD3870, but it has 40 texture units vs. 16 for the 3870. Similarly, 4670 has 32 texture units to 3850s 16 texture units, while 4670 has 8 ROPs to 3850s 16 ROPs. In other words, equating ROPs to texture performance is comparing apples and oranges. A card can have superior texture performance, despite having less ROPs (because those ROPs can be more efficient - see below).

ROP has been an important factor in high resolutions and AA. I agree ROP is part of that equation but look at 4670 with less of everything except texture fillrate neck and neck with 3850.

3. Not all texture units are created equal:

Not only does 4670 have 2x the # of texture units of 3850 (32 vs. 16), but each of those texture units delivers up to two times the texture cache bandwidth of 3850's texture unit. In other words the texture units have become more complex.

This I agree with. Nvidia and AMD does things differently. 9800gtx might excel in 8bit texture formats while 4850 excels in FP16 texture formats.

4. Not all ROPs are created equal:

3850 with 16 ROPs is nowhere as efficient as 4670 with 8 ROPs. This is so because ATI tweaked the ROPs in RV730 to provide double the AA fillrate for 32-bit and 64-bit color as well as double the peak rate for depth/stencil operations. This is why the 32GB/sec bandwidth on the 4670 doesn't translate into 80% lower performance compared to 3850's 57.6GB/sec bandwidth.

Basically, part of 4670's performance comes from improved texture performance, but another part has to do with other factors. You can't conclude with certainty which of these improvements brought the most value.

This I agree with as well. RV770 and RV730 is more efficient in pixel peformance as tested here. http://techreport.com/r.x/rade...850/3dm-color-fill.gif

Considering bandwidth has impact on Pixel fillrate 2900xt is ahead of 4850 is faster in pixel performance than both 3870 or 9800gtx with same 16ROP.

Then again if pixel performance mattered 8800gtx or 2900xt would be dominating 4850 but it doesn't.

Biggest difference is texture performance. If 4670 has 16tmu it wouldn't even get near the performance it is getting now. It would be more in lines of 9500gt if it did.

 

[rogue1979]

The 4670 isn't a bad deal for $79. But cards like the 9600 GSO are just as cheap with similar performance.

The thing is the 9600 GSO was released at $150 and we had to wait for them to get cheap to be killer deals.

The 4670 is already a great budget deal with decent performance, I can imagine after a few months they will be down to the $50 range, were as the 9600 GSO (3850 or 9600GT) won't be much cheaper than they are now. Throw in the rebates that are inevitable and it really gets dirt cheap.

Less than $50 to play modern games including Crysis??? Wow, gaming has never been more affordable. A big plus is with the low heat/power requirements as well as the small size means they will work in any computer with a pci-e slot with no worries. SFF cases with weak power supplies and limited cooling should even be able to handle the 4670. Plus it looks like a little overclocking 800/2200 can boost the performance a little more.

Not to mention a card like this can influence prices on all video cards, making everything
a better deal! When the price goes down some I'm gonna get one just to play with it and see how it compares to my other budget deals (HD 3850 512MB $62 after rebate, 8800 GTS 320MB $75, 9600 GSO $53 after rebate.)

 

[AzN]

Considering GSO can be easily overclocked to 8800gt speeds I think they are a better value.

http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...eForce_8800_GS/25.html

The most amazing fact is the overclocking potential of this card. We saw overclocks of 27% on the core and 30% on the memory, matching the GeForce 8800 GT's performance.

Check out the hot section you can snatch a EVGA 9600gso for $50 after rebate.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Azn
Considering GSO can be easily overclocked to 8800gt speeds I think they are a better value.

http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...eForce_8800_GS/25.html

The most amazing fact is the overclocking potential of this card. We saw overclocks of 27% on the core and 30% on the memory, matching the GeForce 8800 GT's performance.

Check out the hot section you can snatch a EVGA 9600gso for $50 after rebate.

Nope, it does not overclock to 8800GT speeds. Because then I would have bought it instead of the 9800GT 30 minutes ago.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Azn
Considering GSO can be easily overclocked to 8800gt speeds I think they are a better value.

http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...eForce_8800_GS/25.html

The most amazing fact is the overclocking potential of this card. We saw overclocks of 27% on the core and 30% on the memory, matching the GeForce 8800 GT's performance.

Check out the hot section you can snatch a EVGA 9600gso for $50 after rebate.

Nope, it does not overclock to 8800GT speeds. Because then I would have bought it instead of the 9800GT 30 minutes ago.

If you did not buy it, how do you know? Links showing otherwise ??

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Azn
Considering GSO can be easily overclocked to 8800gt speeds I think they are a better value.

http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...eForce_8800_GS/25.html

The most amazing fact is the overclocking potential of this card. We saw overclocks of 27% on the core and 30% on the memory, matching the GeForce 8800 GT's performance.

Check out the hot section you can snatch a EVGA 9600gso for $50 after rebate.

Nope, it does not overclock to 8800GT speeds. Because then I would have bought it instead of the 9800GT 30 minutes ago.

Heh I have the EVGA 8800gs model exact same card as EVGA 9600GSO model except for the dual slot cooler overclocked to 741/1782/1058. Good enough to match 8800gt.

$50 after rebate is a steal.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Avalon
I'm extremely impressed with this card! No external power required, cool, low power, and delivers ~3870 performance? For $79? I was really shocked at the conclusion of the AT review. Derek seemed disappointed. This is a massive step up from last years mid range.

derek has not been very impressed with any of the recent 4xxx series cards. I remember that I actually said "huh?" at the end of the one of them (either 4850 or 4870). personally I think that amd has really busted out the ol' whoopin' stick on the house that hsun build. It'll be interesting to see how nvidia responds.

 

[AzN]

I wouldn't say ATI whooped anything. They've caught up and Nvidia kind of missed with GT200.

9800gtx with gddr5 can easily be in line with 4870. Then again AMD has new tech with more SP for future and better faster 8xAA support.

 

[nosfe]

is it just me or does that cooler on the sapphire board look weaker than the stock one?