Printable View
Well his personal review confirms for me that CF 4870s best the GTX 280 in AoC and that was my only remaining concern. Good to know as AoC is one of the more demanding games out currently and if the 4870s don't choke with high levels of AA in it, thats awesome.
Who is "they"? AMD? Did they really admit that? Since when do these large corporations ever admit to a flaw in their product? I had heard that both Nvidia and AMD are doing very well at the moment by not admitting to the existence of microstuttering or even the lack of multi-GPU driver support.Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
They did indeed admit that they should have used the PCIE 2.0 bridge chip and not the PCIE 1.1 one, but they didn't say. But they did indeed admit using the wrong chip.
Uh, you'll see that has absolutely nothing to do with microstuttering though.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Note they never said anything about microstuttering, they just admitted they made a mistake with the type of bridge chip used. As to for what reasons, I don't know. I'm just re-affirming the fact they did indeed state it.
More like with the performance output.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
and the cards can always be faster and better designed ;)
yup and you wont hear them admitting for a longtime. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by gojirasan
Especial when both aim for multi-gpu solutions in the future. :ROTF:
find it strange that Toms Hardware has no 4870 review yet
Strange?No,they are probably trying hard as hell to find a game+resolution+eye candy mode in which 9800GTX+ beats Radeon 4850 and 260 beats Radeon 4870 :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by natty
Give them time,i'm sure with their track reocrd they will provide us a "good material" :D :D
Strangely enough, their previous 4850 review showed it crushing so who knows, maybe the world really is ending
They did admit it, I don't have the link but I distinctly remember them admitting it quietly that they should've used a better chip. It was during either Computex or some other convention so it wasn't a public announcment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
lovin the 4870!
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q...g/DSC_0285.jpg
And i'm loving your case! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by lyl
That's a sick setup. I'm probably going to have the same loop going soon though for the GPU as well. You going to put a waterblock on that sucker?Quote:
Originally Posted by lyl
BTW i'm thinking about inverting my motherboard on my Stacker as well... I forgot but what were the advantages of inverting the motherboard? I remember BTX did it for a reason but the thoughts escape me
i wasn't referring to the PLX chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Yeah, i plan on putting it in the loop once theres a worthy block :P Looking for a full cover, but some of the new GPU-only blocks look nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
First i gotta get some games for this puppy
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q...g/DSC_0280.jpg
I know its off topic but what were the cooling advantages to inverting the motherboard? I want to do it with my stacker once I get my triple rad loop put in but I forgot what it was good for besides the obvious fact that its on the other side for my door...
Source: http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/...rm_factors.aspQuote:
The BTX, or Balanced Technology Extended form factor, unlike its predecessors is not an evolution of a previous form factor but a total break away from the popular and dominating ATX form factor. BTX was developed to take advantage of technologies such as Serial ATA, USB 2.0, and PCI Express. Changes to the layout with the BTX form factor include better component placement for back panel I/O controllers and it is smaller than microATX systems. The BTX form factor provides the industry push to tower size systems with an increased number of system slots.
One of the most talked about features of the BTX form factor is that it uses in-line airflow. In the BTX form factor the memory slots and expansion slots have switched places, allowing the main components (processor, chipset, and graphics controller) to use the same airflow which reduces the number of fans needed in the system; thereby reducing noise. To assist in noise reduction BTX system level acoustics have been improved by a reduced air turbulence within the in-line airflow system.
This is very reminiscent of the R300 ATi Radeon 9500/9700/9800 hey days.
Even though I am very much an nVidiot I raise my glass to ATi....in fact I'm hoping to get a couple of 1GB HD4870 cards and crossfire them.
To those who are lucky enough to have their hands on one of these lovely cards, what are the dimensions?
How "thick are they?" (as in do they take more than 2 slots or just 2 slots like my G92 GTS)?
Due to the ill thought out layout of my motherboard (P5E3 vanilla) I will not be able to use any PCI-E devices if I get 2 Radoens, luckily my X-Fi can sit in the bottom PCI slot (where it is currently).
would be nice if the P5E3 was layed out like the other P5E boards with say a PCI-E slot for audio devices above the primary PCI-2.0x16 Graphics slot.
Anyway just thought I would say that ATi's marketing team are exceedingly clever. nVidia were boasting and parading around terms such as "Whoopass" and "wide gulf in performance over previous generation", yet ATi were "playing the price to performance game" and instead it appears they accidentally produced a high performing product.
Kudos to ATi, now is the time for Intel to acquire them...
John
Ah thanks, makes senseQuote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
They're 9.5" long and are just a normal 2 slotterQuote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
guys here is what i found will add more if i find more
http://nwgat.wordpress.com/2008/06/2...-4850-roundup/
If someone has found a test comparing HD4870 in crossfire compared to a HD4850 in crossfire running on a AMD phenom then please write the link here. These setups seems to perform fairly similar on Intel computers for some games where I have seen that those games run better on AMD in high resolutions compared to Intel, but Intel run them better on low resolutions.
The reason why those cards perform similar could be that the FSB isn’t fast enough.
These cards are so fast so they need very fast I/O, intel may have problem to deliver that I/O performance. AMD is very strong at I/O because it has it's hypertransport.
Well at higher resolutions, the GPU is increasingly the limiting factor so in truth at higher resolutions, CPU becomes more irrelevant...
It depends, but I/O will also be something that can limit performance, especially when it comes to very fast cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Check this review: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/
AMD Phenom that is at lower clock and smaller cache pulls ahead for some games as the resolution goes up. That can only be explained by bad I/O performance on the Intel computers.
hmm 4870 single card looks tempting.
which drivers are people using? I checked ati stie, they dont list any for R700 cards yet
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS THREAD:
DO NOT BUY ANY 4870's at this time
over in the general discussion forum we are finding that the numbers of dead cards has reached the double digits (read: more than 10) and as an owner of 2 dead HIS 4870's at this time i can safely say they are not safe to buy