ATI Radeon HD 4000 Series discussion

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-17-2008, 05:37 AM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by w0mbat

R700 isnt the same as R680.

maybe, but if they are still using AFR -> fail
06-17-2008, 05:38 AM
Stanley Pain

Wow, these cards LOOK a whole lot nicer then the "COFFIN" that is the GTX2xx series
06-17-2008, 05:39 AM
y2kbos

Quote:

Originally Posted by w0mbat

R700 isnt the same as R680.

We dont know that.

Odds on Ati making a dual single slot card not based on crossfire are slim imo.
06-17-2008, 05:44 AM
w0mbat

True, we dont know that, I know that ;)
06-17-2008, 05:44 AM
perkam

Quote:

Originally Posted by w0mbat

True, we dont know that, I know that ;)

:ROTF::up:

Some people should realize that there are members on XS who have these cards well in advance, and a LOT of them get them well before launch. That, or they have credible sources inside ATI giving them the information :)

Perkam
06-17-2008, 05:53 AM
AliG

Does that mean you are agreeing with w0mbat that the r700 uses some advanced technology over the r680 besides the new bridge chip or just agreeing (which many of us already know) that there are people here that are given cards to test out or have sources
06-17-2008, 06:06 AM
Luka_Aveiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by AliG

Does that mean you are agreeing with w0mbat that the r700 uses some advanced technology over the r680 besides the new bridge chip or just agreeing (which many of us already know) that there are people here that are given cards to test out or have sources

From what I could understand, both.
06-17-2008, 06:16 AM
XSAlliN

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

The same balance of RV670. 320/16 = 800/40 in terms of proportion.

It's not the same - don't put ratio in balance. For 320 (or should I say 64) - 16 is not enough - I own the card and I feel that from my own experience. For 800 (or should I say 160 SP) - 40 TMU might be enough. 320/800 - that's just marketing - 64/160 SP now that's something tangible since nobody can assure me that the present games or capable of working with 5 operations per cycle. It's a different kind of optimization which should be done in particular for ATi - and game dev. work on both grounds (both ATi and nVidia - even if it hat the nVidia logo on it). It's true that ATi can get more juice from their drivers but that happens rarely and they might optimize an older game (like we've seen among time).
06-17-2008, 06:16 AM
STaRGaZeR

OK here we go again with the NDA guys...

Quote:

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

It's not the same - don't put ratio in balance. For 320 (or should I say 64) - 16 is not enough - I own the card and I feel that from my own experience. For 800 (or should I say 160 SP) - 40 TMU might be enough. 320/800 - that's just marketing - 64/160 SP now that's something tangible since nobody can assure me that the present games or capable of working with 5 operations per cycle. It's a different kind of optimization which should be done in particular for ATi - and game dev. work on both grounds (both ATi and nVidia - even if it hat the nVidia logo on it). It's true that ATi can get more juice from their drivers but that happens rarely and they might optimize and older game (like we've seen among time).

Do you realize that if 16 was not enough in the RV670, 40 will be exactly the same with 800SPs if nothing else but the number of units has changed?
06-17-2008, 06:24 AM
nsidious

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kbos

:down:

About the same, but will feel much much smoother with GTX 280

and i imagine you know that from first hand:shakes:
06-17-2008, 06:24 AM
AliG

Not really, in fact not at all. Get over it. All that matters is that the texture fill rate is now nearly triple of what the r600's was and that should be enough for most games at max details, except for crysis I don't see even the 4850 not bringing at least 30 fps at max details (in dx9 mode at least, we have no idea what dx10 does to the performance yet)
06-17-2008, 06:54 AM
w0mbat

http://www.forumdeluxx.de/forum/showthread.php?t=500923

9850@3GHz
HD4850 CF@default

Lost Planet DX10@1920x1200, all@max, 4xAA/16xAF
http://www.abload.de/img/lostplanetmaxr24.jpg
06-17-2008, 07:03 AM
tenebre

^^ :shocked:

1920x1200x64??
06-17-2008, 07:04 AM
y2kbos

Quote:

Originally Posted by nsidious

and i imagine you know that from first hand:shakes:

http://crysis.4thdimension.info/foru...&postcount=547
06-17-2008, 07:09 AM
w0mbat

9850@3GHz
HD4850 CF@default

WiC@1920x1200, all@max, 4xAA/16xAF

avg: 48fps, min: 16fps, max: 52fps
http://www.abload.de/thumb/wic5dk.jpg
06-17-2008, 07:14 AM
ANP !!!

You doing a great job wOmbat :up:, keep us posted with more results, 48fps is quite close to what my 8800GTX can do at that settings. I think the 4850 looks like a winner for the price.
06-17-2008, 07:16 AM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kbos

http://crysis.4thdimension.info/foru...&postcount=547

And your point is?The GTX280 actually scores lower than 4850 CF in this test..
06-17-2008, 07:19 AM
w0mbat

@ANP !!!: Ur 8800GTX does avg 48fps+ in WiC @1920x1200, all@max, 4xAA/16xAF? GTX 280 does avg 47fps w/ only 8xAA instead of 16x.
06-17-2008, 07:23 AM
y2kbos

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

And your point is?The GTX280 actually scores lower than 4850 CF in this test..

Point is all though the GTX 280 is more expensive its still very fast and you get a better gaming experience with one card than two..

HD4850 are not that cheap, 2 x 8800gts can be had for cheaper and they are faster..
06-17-2008, 07:26 AM
clonez

hah lol never

edit: you do realize thats a phenom? imagine those scores with yorkfield >4 ghz...
06-17-2008, 07:26 AM
Jowy Atreides

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kbos

Point is all though the GTX 280 is more expensive its still very fast and you get a better gaming experience with one card than two..

HD4850 are not that cheap, 2 x 8800gts can be had for cheaper and they are faster..

huh, 2x8800gts for the price of a 4850??

where do you live, because the gts is more expensive than the $200 for a 4850
06-17-2008, 07:27 AM
w0mbat

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kbos

Point is all though the GTX 280 is more expensive its still very fast and you get a better gaming experience with one card than two..

HD4850 are not that cheap, 2 x 8800gts can be had for cheaper and they are faster..

Wrong, who told u that? And 2x8800GTS arent cheaper and for shure not faster.
06-17-2008, 07:31 AM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kbos

Point is all though the GTX 280 is more expensive its still very fast and you get a better gaming experience with one card than two..

HD4850 are not that cheap, 2 x 8800gts can be had for cheaper and they are faster..

Again ,I ask you where is the proof that CF 4850 is worse for gaming than GTX 280??Link the proof in your reply and stop using unproven statements to support you view.
BTW 8800GTS SLI ,following your logic,is then faster than GTX280 while costing 2x less...And don't fool yourself with SLI 8800GTS being faster than 4850 CF,you're going to be very disappointed soon.

edit:also you are wrong about the prices of SLI 8800GTS and single 4850...
06-17-2008, 07:33 AM
Genius_pt

But I would say 9800gtx sli is pretty close to what hd4850 cf perform.
06-17-2008, 07:34 AM
w0mbat

Yeah, but 9800GTX SLI is much more expensive.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page