Diamond in stock at newegg for $570 (ouch)
Printable View
Diamond in stock at newegg for $570 (ouch)
280 only has 1 frame buffer. I agree that it is microstuttering if you want to be strict on the term, but of course it is going to be worse at the beginning for the reason Cooper said.
Then I guess there is nothing wrong with my statement then :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Aberration
sapphire 4870x2 2GB Version on sale for Canada and U.S. at Extreme-pc.ca
http://www.extreme-pc.ca/showproduct...=99&menu3id=39
question is, is it noticeable? Doubt it if I read some of the charts correctly.
Grats AMD. :clap:
Looks like 1x 4870x2 is about equal to 2xGTX280SLI (except Crysis, where it seems to not do well at all).
The next 6-12 months should be great to see some real competition again.
yup, either all no stock (or fake stock info *cough* awd-it *cough*) or courier delivery (which is a no go since I live alone, depots are out in the wild I work full time and would get fired for getting stuff delivered to work).Quote:
Originally Posted by azza21
Why do you say that. I thought it did pretty damn well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceevee
Good thread OP , moff to read :D
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...2737/17223.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by ceevee
:yepp:
As ATI haven't lowered the clock of the gpu and ram on the X2 the card appears to overclock badly. But still the standard 4870 doesn't oc as well as the gtx 280.
What I'd like to see is Crysis benchies of the highest overclock stock volts of a gtx280 and the 4870x2. Knowing that the 280 clocks well and is good in crysis. It may be in with a chance.
People need to freaking read ether.real review turn the freaking AA to x16 on Crysis!!!!!!
why? thats pointless and just will show that the cards are crippled when you do that, even 280 trisliQuote:
Originally Posted by Oblitus
Did you not read the review? 30FPS at 16xAA, 1920x1200. I have been playing it that way all weekend. Its freaking awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG
Ok if that's true, the card is ordered. Even though Catalyst A.I. is a mystery to me. As I can see there's nothing but pros in here, so I grab the chance by its head of hair and ask the following (please excuse if this' the wrong thread): Does anybody know a Tool other than the 3DM family (I only use 06 and Vantage) and the Crysis Benchmark Tool that can stress out a CF config? I tried (all in their newest availab. versions):Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
- the Masaki Kawase Tool (rthdribl)
- the Video Card Stability Test
- Lightsmark
- Furmark
- Cinebench
- ATItool artifact test
The benching is done like this (specs see sig. + pic): CF enabled and two open instances - for each card - of GPU-Z (latest ver. aswell) for monitoring load and temp. Whatever the Catalyst A.I. setting is (Disabled/Standard/Adv.) none of the tools mentioned above is using both cards. Only the "main" one (in Slot 1) is fully stressed. Looking at the screenshot, please don't ask me why the 2nd one - which does nothing - is always hotter than the one that is actually doing all the work...that'll be another discussion :shrug: (I guess it's the watercooling loop). And something else: resolution or the place on the screen where the test is running never made any difference.
If CF is enabled in 3DM or in Crysis Bench Tool, well -wow- both cards are equally stressed. And if it comes to Catalyst A.I. in these tests, I never noticed any difference to whatsoever it was set to.
Thanks a lot for any comment and/or advice.
https://share.ols.inode.at/7YDECB3FW...DROFAVEO0QZB6W
only if you have Vista :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblitus
Under XP the HD4870X2 doesn't cope well with AA
sounds like he didnt read itQuote:
Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG
THat has definitely been an interesting correlation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
Well, I don't know about everyone else here but when playing at higher resolution I can't see one bloody difference between 4XAA and 16XAA. Nor should I considering the high resolution pretty much smooths edges out without the need for AA.Quote:
Originally Posted by ether.real
Dude, do you know that ATI cards only have 2x, 4x, 8x and then all the Custom AA modes? All your tests with 8xQ, 16x, and 16xQ are useless. Also I don't know what game are you playing, Crysis on ATI cards doesn't support 16xAA from the game, and the last time I tested it from CCC it was not possible to force AA in Crysis :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by ether.real
Or are you using 2x, 4x and 8x with some combination of CFAA modes? :shrug:
Canadian Sirs don't say the B word... good review mate, at least you bundled the card with a decent CPU... waht's the use in bundling this card with a 3ghz CPU... totally ridicilous to me...Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Al lright 2Diff, lets see if I can clear a bit of this up.
None of the tools listed above properly support Crossfire. As you mentioned, 3DMarks do as does the Devil May Cry benchmark tool but those are the only ones I can think of that are completely free and will show real benefits from CF.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2DIFF
Do the same thing with 3DMark06 looped on the Batch Size Test at the highest resolution possible. You wil lsee both cards being used. Then try it with AI disabled and you will see a noticeable change. You won't really see a difference relative to where the slider is but rather a difference between checking off the "Disable Catalyst AI" box.Quote:
The benching is done like this (specs see sig. + pic): CF enabled and two open instances - for each card - of GPU-Z (latest ver. aswell) for monitoring load and temp. Whatever the Catalyst A.I. setting is (Disabled/Standard/Adv.) none of the tools mentioned above is using both cards.
The "F" bomb is not accepted. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
You're saying it'll be slower in XP with AA? Is this true?Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
enable AA to see the HD4870X2 dominate, the onboard 2Gb allosw for almost "free" 4xAAQuote:
Originally Posted by pablorodano
do note that running in Windowed mode does put the card into 3D clocks mode and you'll be running at 500/500; to properly load test you need to run full screen 3D app (3Dmark looped, 3DMark01 Nature is very good test)Quote:
Originally Posted by 2DIFF
is there a review which has the 4870, 4870x2 and 3870 xfire all benched and tested in the same review? trying to decide if i should get another 3870, a 4870 or a 4870x2.
Actually, there is, because the context of your statement is in the crossfire / SLI FUD / truth sense, while Cooper's is (probably) the real truth behind the 'microstuttering.'Quote:
Originally Posted by ether.real
Why don'tcha git yer hands off my maple syrup, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
Yeah, like Guru3D's 3GHz C2D with 2GB DDR3 for crossfire testing with a 4GB framebuffer! When will they learn (or buy a Quad)Quote:
Originally Posted by lm358
Its not that he is wrong, I think it is just not honest to look at microstuttering in the first 60 seconds of a game like that last review did for the 4870x2, and claim that MS is still present.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Even though I dont get MS with my 8800GT in the true sense, when I first load into a game or change maps, for a few seconds I get stutter.
So hopefully with these on the market now the issue can really be looked at better than it has previously.
I got mine today! :D
http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j3...h_IMG_1943.jpg
dont know about windows XP , but with windows vista 64bit + SP1 + catalyst 8.8 beta its OK >> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=198045Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
more games soon (I just received the card today) !!
PS: the catalyst driver from the CD suks a lot !!!!
crysis 1680x1050 Very high = 32 fps ( CD driver)
Crysis 1680x1050 Very High = 40 fps ( cat 8.8 beta)
Crysis 1680x1060 Very High + AA 4x = 36 Fps ( cat 8.8 beta)
regards
under XP definitely less forgiving :)
on Vista you get almost free 4xAA
what are your numbers at High settings (instead of Very high) comparing 4xAA to noAA
I figured the QxAA was worthless. However, 16x can be forced from the driver. If you look at the screenshots in the review the difference from 8x to 16x is noticeable.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
You may be right, I dont know. Most of the time I think microstuttering is from hard drive caching due to people SLI'ing GPUs with little RAM (ie, 8800GTS 320MB). This should not be an issue with 2x1GB framebuffers. Regardless, it does happen on the X2, and not on the 280, so I figured it was worth noting that. Outside of initial loading, gameplay is smooth as butter, and I am very happy with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Consider it an observation from someone who hasnt done a lot of in-depth examination of the issue.
I hope I didnt come off as trying to pin the X2 as having an MS problem, I am not. If someone could come up with a reliable definition of what MS even is, much less a test for it, I would be glad to go deeper and find out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aberration
no dooubt abooowt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper
Here is a better explanation, one that should be circulated to all the idiots trumpeting MS as the failure of multi-GPU solutions:Quote:
Originally Posted by ether.real
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
I hear it defined as so many things, so who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
I dont know, a single card still appeals to me more.When a proper multi core card comes out, without the need for software and a connection between the two cards, I will happily move.But for now I will still stick with a slower single card.
GT200b will be slower no doubt, but it will probably give just as good a gaming experience.I look forward to seeing that.
That's because it has been warped and has had offspring sung off it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ether.real
The real microstuttering is what is described in my quote. It is a perceived FPS that feels much lower than the reported FPS. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anything other than that is simply 'stuttering.'
How does that even make any sense. You cant perceive a framerate higher than refresh.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Nice review, ether.real. I give you props for being one of the few who are willing to push the card a little with the settings. Love the Crysis bench and hope I can expect the same when mine are up and running this week.
:clap:
Thanks, bro. Love the avatar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion X2
Quote:
Originally Posted by ether.real
Read that very carefully.Quote:
It is a perceived FPS that feels much lower than the reported FPS.
are there any samples or reviews floating around of it? seems it was announced same day, though i haven't seen or heard much about it in my net meanderings... would be interested to see the performance difference.
4870/4850 x2 announced
I think by "It is a perceived FPS that feels much lower than the reported FPS. " he means that if you have 4 frames rendered in a second, frame 1 and 2 will come at you very fast, then there will be a short gap, and frames 3 and 4 will be displayed in quick succession. so it seems like both pairs are a single frame, creating the illusion that you are getting 2 fps rather than 4.
So wouldnt Vsync fix all that?Quote:
Originally Posted by cakofony
I've never used crossfire or sli myself, but i dont think you can use vsync with either. It should give a high enough framerate that you dont have to.
For those into Crysis, I think this is an interesting find:)
Crysis AA Performance: ATI HD4870X2 vs NVIDIA GTX 280 --- XP9 vs DX10Quote:
Going from WinXP DX9 "High" to WinVista DX10 "Very High" at 1920x1200 4xAA causes a massive ~3% performance drop with the ATI HD4870X2... in other words.. under Vista you get higher quality out of the box with DX10 at the same performance as WinXP at "High" Detail... impressive to say the least! The Geforce GTX 280 doesn't fare as well, a ~47% performance drop!
Not always. Furmark is one of the examples where card kicks into 3D clocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
Hey guys, on another forum a guy says that not all cards have the sideport (XSP) connection physically present on them and it depends on the brand (Sapphire, Club3D...). Is this possible? It sounds like crap to me. I think there's just confusion because the sideport isn't supported by drivers yet.
Is the IQ equal in both scenarios ? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
If so, that's a pretty BIG achievement since ATi's cards seem always in disadvantage in Crysis, proportionally compared to other game performance comparison cases against nVidia's cards in its class.
didn't know Futuremark ran in a WINDOW?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
XP "High" vs Vista "Very High" as you can read in the quote and see in the charts;)Quote:
Is the IQ equal in both scenarios ?
so Vista tests are actually at higher IQ!
i would have thought soQuote:
Originally Posted by ether.real
as long as it remains at 60fps anyway i know that when playing quake4 with x1900 crossfire while a 60fps it was smooth as silk but the moment it dropped below 60fps it started to feel like 15fps despite being somewhere between 30-60fps
im guessing this is what everyone refers to as micro stuttering
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooperdale
Reference cards include sideport interconnection. Custom designs can exclude it. Vendors are free to decide.
Furmark - not FuturemarkQuote:
didn't know Futuremark ran in a WINDOW?
I have a problem with this graphic card.
It needs a 6-pin cable and a 8-pin connected to works, but my PSU have only 6-pin cables (toughpower 750w) and I don't know any shop in my city who sells adapters from 6 to 8 or 8 pin cables.
So, is there any possibility to make work this card with two 6-pin or something until I get the 8-pin cable / adapter?
Furmark, not Futurmark. The question if windowed or not is in fact what interests me. I need a Tool to stress out a CF setup that runs windowed (reveals also interesting questions about the CF technology itself). Been testing the whole night with diff. Catalyst A.I. settings, got very confusing results, consolidation will take a whole day, will start a new thread about it this week if possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
Thanks to SKYMTL for his advices, but man! if it comes to esthetics the Devil May Cry Bench Tool really hurt my eyes and gave me bad dreams with monsters in it :) - I could never play a game like this...
for what they need a quad?Quote:
Originally Posted by initialised
i thuoght that this cards intended rez(over 1600x1200) will help the cpu bottlenecting no?
woops! sorry; too early to read attentively :/Quote:
Originally Posted by 2DIFF
From what I've seen, it doesn't matter what your CPU is unless you go way extreme, because nothing can feed the 2 GPUs fast enough, so you constantly get improvementsQuote:
Originally Posted by cowie
well waddyaknow, this card can run crysis! this is pretty much unbeatable, gt200b can't save nvidia from taking nosedives with aa turned on when 4870x2 keeps cruising along. how's the can of whoop ass doing...
Bit-Tech's review is up
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...n-hd-4870-x2/1
Catalyst 8.52.2 (beta)
Are there any 4850 X2 reviews?
Well all cards just out should be reference right? I'm asking this because I have a Club3D on the way and I wouldn't like it if there was no sideport interconnection. At all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
should be interesting, i thought it was next month b4 4850x2's ?Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMpiR
Not sure where you heard that. 4870X2 uses vsync just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by cakofony
As I recall, both cards were lauched at the same day? Am I wrong?
Maybe they await Nvidia's answer for the 4850X2... hopefully Asus will pull one of like they did with the 3850X2
Wait until september ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMpiR
ANNOUNCED yes; but at different time frame; HD4870X2 is now, but availability en mass near end of the month; HD4850X2 not before septemberQuote:
Originally Posted by LaMpiR
The last ati card I used was a radeon 9800, so I've been out of their loop for a while. Three different companies are selling them on newegg, what are the differences in warranties and goodies that you get with them? Sapphire is the one that Ive heard the most about, and its got the lowest price.
Doesnt sound like the sideport will ever get enabled so dont worry about it mateQuote:
Originally Posted by Cooperdale
These are just rumors, but who knows? I'd just like my R700 to have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumid
what does the sideport do?
It's an extra pci-e 2.0 link between teh gpus for communication. it remains to be seen how it works, etc, it currently is jsut a bit of heatsink right in the silicon until they enable it(a la R600 UVD engine).
All current cards have reference design. With 3870X2 there were only two custom designs and both came out months after launch so don't worry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooperdale
provides direct point to point connection between GPUs :DQuote:
Originally Posted by cakofony
It's what I had hoped, thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
where can I find an explanation of the different warranties offered Sapphire, Diamond, and HIS?
Visiontek offers lifetime...Quote:
Originally Posted by cakofony
Was microstuttering eliminated on this card?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=194808Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaac MM
Well is there a preformance hit on the P35 ( pci e 1.1 mobos ) or not?
I'm almost sure you'd want pci-e 2.0 slotQuote:
Originally Posted by y2kbos
Hi guys
I tried record 2 videos with Fraps , but i had to covert them to divx and image quality is not good .......
also recording with fraps while playing cause a litle breaks , however here they are :
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...82#post3214882
:up:
So the little pauses when your driving and moving, isn't due to buffer loading, but rather the fraps program running? There was a couple parts where, it lurched forward, but i mean overall didnt see any tearing or consistant stuttering that wasnt due to the divx to youtube process :P thanks for the ups, this is very encouraging :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
i noticed when recording with fraps the games dont run so smooth and + breaks !Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
yes , i had to convert the video from AVI to Divx and then upload to youtube . the original .AVI files are 3GB each
In the 2nd video a big break when driving is when the Game Saved
best regards
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kbos
I'm willing to be that PCIE 1.1 is just fine. One of the reviews I read used a P35 board, and they made no comments about it either way. I forget which one, it's on the list at the top of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
Anyone notice a trend when games use PhsyX drivers the 4800 series doesn't do very well? For example:
-Mass Effect
-GRAW 2
-Front Line Gears of War
Guru3d
Driver Heaven
However, when DX10.1 is used even the 3870X2 can compete with the 280.
Assassins Creed with DX10.1:
Computer Base
Tech Report
Assassins Creed DX10:
Driver Heaven
Anandtech
Mass EffectQuote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...w-crossfire/11
Almost twice as fast at highest res.
Frontlines: Fuel of War
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...w-crossfire/13
Again faster at max res, though not by much.
GRAW2
Slower at lower res. Almost equal at highest res.
So no, I don't see any trend. What I see is that some games run better on Nvidia hardware and some on ATI. It always was like that and always will be.
I don't think PhysX has any relevance whatsoever.
You miss understood my post, I said the 4800 Series:Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBy
Gaming: Mass Effect @ 260 vs 4870. The 4870 loses 2 resolutions, ties 1 in and wins at 2560 by 1 FPS to the 260 . However, the X2 beats the 280.
Look at the 4800 series in Frontlines: Fuel of War. 4870 loses to the 260. The X2 ties with the 280 up until 2560.
Look at the 4800 series in GRAW 2. The 4870 and 4870 X2 loses completely.
The 4800 series cannot seem to thoroughly beat the 200 series consistently in games that require PhysX driver to be installed (that were included in the reviews). I call that a trend. :rolleyes:
Edit: There was no PhsyX driver installed with Mass Effect. Nor was I able to find any PhsyX drivers on the CD. This may explain why the 4800 series did better in this game.
Astonishing. :eek:
Games that use PhysX, which the 48xx doesnt support, run better on lastest nV.
Uh, vsync works just fine with both as does triple-buffering. And games are much smoother on a multi-GPU setup when it's on.Quote:
Originally Posted by cakofony
1fps is hardly a loss (what's the margin of error?), so 4870 and 260 are equal and considering that the 4800s don't support physx I wouldn't say the 260 is doing better.. it's better in frontlines but only by a few and wins at 2560. Also I guess the 280 and X2 are bottlenecked at res lower than 2560 so we're not sure it's a tie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
OT: guru3d's graphs are confusing different shades of blue that switches with each test, they can do much better.
Those FPS were compiled via average over several runs. Therefore hardly conclusive when averages show 1 FPS, for example. The point being, the reviews of the X2 do show that the 4800 series having problems consistently beating the 200 series when games need the PhysX driver installed. Can the perfomance in GRAW 2, Frontlines: Fuels of War, etc improve with better drivers? We can only hope so...Quote:
Originally Posted by insurgent
They will likely improve performance, but now I'd honestly like to know what gamers will be missing out if they're using ati cards for these games... in the absence of hardware physx support is it reduced to software emulation or disabled? I don't really like the idea of another card just to run physics in games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
Disappointing to see how most reviews dont care about min fps... Cant draw definite conclusions without it. Half as meaningful than they could be imo.
Dammit, I've only had my 9800GX2 for a month. Crazy results though. gg nvidia.
Good point. I have two coming, should be here by Friday -- is there any particular game you would like to see?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonucci
I think it should be OK. I ran some Vantage Benchmarks last night just to test it and it gave scores about the same as those seen in reviews. My CPU score was higher as it is @ 3.6GHZ but other than that about on par with reviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kbos
emu