Printable View
Well now that we know how well the 4850 performs, we can assume the 4870 will perform 20% better [1 review backs this up]. So do we still think the 4870x2 is still on target performance wise? There hasn't been a lot of info on this card and companies normally release their top tier products first if given the option to do so...
looking at the numbers the HD4850 is faster than the 9800gtx in most games but still not in crysis:(. however i would agree with people that say it is a better buy than the 9800gtx and it should be a tiny bit faster then the 9800gtx+ save the games it is lower in (the 9800gtx+ will have a noticeable lead in crysis).
however what is the most impressive about this card is how well it can handle higher resolutions and how little of a hit it takes with AA enabled. however once more games take advantage of the shadder power available the card will come crashing down as far as AA performance goes. it performs well now due to it's multitude of shadders that are not being used by the game to render textures so it can use them for AA. once you use those up then AA performance will take the same hit the 2900's and 3800's saw. but in today's games it is impressive.
for the price this card will be extremely attractive and will be the best card in the price range. however this is not a GTX 260 competitor, some people seem to think that this card is that fast. it's not. and i doubt the 4870 will beat the GTX 260 as well.
and yes Crossfire is fast in select games but please let us stop hearing about how much better it is than the GTX 280. you can not compare dual GPU results with that of single gpu.
however impressive card!
It kicks very much ass, and it's on sale in some places in the USA for $189.
Dropping 9800GTX to $200 won't make it for NVidia. They need to drop it to at most $170.
And for the GTX+, a 50MHz bump in clocks won't give the card the push needed to compete with 4850 at high resolutions with high AA and AF; at those conditions the card is very bandwidth-limited anyway, and I see no increase in memory clocks.
Techreport seems to rave about the card
wow. directX 10.1 ownage!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
What is DX 10.1? :shrug: :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
I agree with what you have said and I'm still wondering why people don't apply that way of thinking when comparing the GTX280 to the 9800GX2.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Not again please, but I lol'd at those results remembering BZ's screenshots with 38 FPS :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
They usedQuote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
Why? Someone said the drivers that comes with the card on the CD is Cat 8.7.. :shrug:Quote:
ATi Catalyst 8.6 (Radeon HD 4850)
Dunno if it's true though
CD is Cat 8.5 i believe. 8.6 was just released yesterday
How come no ATI can do AA in Bioshock ? whats so different about it when compaired to other unreal engine games ?
Looking at the results from other games, AA on an ATI would slaugher everything else if it worked.
ATI can do AA in all UE3 games since X1k series.
My thought was based upon:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuen4y
8.6 is being used yes, but 8.7 supposedly might come out in the next few weeks to include full support of the HD48xx cards. Seems like cat 8.6 runs them fine though. The CD drivers were 8.5 from what user reviews have been saying.
Nope . Catalyst 8.6 is, but early build :) .Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Early adopters here stated the CD is catlyst 8.5.
Catalyst 8.6 just came out according to the ATI website!
I forgot who said it but Cat 8.7 is supposed to be the one to fully engage PowerPlay on the 4800's hence at idle they're only dropping 125MHz core clock when they should be going lower IIRC.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3338
anandtech just put theirs up
shader utilized rendering of direct X 10.1?....Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
newegg has them for sale now, all $199
Considering thats launch price wouldn't be surprised to see it down the 179.99 in a few weeks.
What I was getting at is there are currently no DX10.1 games out if AC is patched of course, which that article makes no mention of. Which makes the post I quoted (you)...well, confusing at minimum, but false for all intents and purposes until someone can find out if the AC game benched in that review is patched or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
If it isnt patched, I would say that review is garbage and intentionally or not, shows a bias in that game as we all know DX10.1 runs quicker than DX10, and that site SHOULD know that, or at least make a mention of it (if I missed it I apologize).
NOT AC PLOT AGAIN :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
(i'm not mad @ you nor even anyone, I just don't want newer posts to talk about this, ok? beating dead horses is not fun, unless they are alive)
WTF are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
I just mentioned the facts. No conspiracy (Im not Jakko :rolleyes: :rofl:). We all saw it ran faster in DX10.1. If thats how they benched, its flawed. Dont try to extrapolate more out of it please. ;)
EDIT: I dont want to rehash either, but their testing methodology is now coming into question b/c it isnt clear on what they used. You are making into something it never was.
Don't say Jakko's name, I don't want him to post anything about it again, I sure remember your statements and mines about that BS, let just stop it ok?Quote:
Originally Posted by jas420221
I would like to know if AC was patched or not, since I don't know it, I'll wait for a newer review that uses patch/unpatched etc etc etc...