Printable View
looks quite solid to me, just need to be available and reviewed now :D
any experts able to comment on the mounting holes, AC S1 or HR-03 (GT/Rev A) compatible?
how did it get to 512MB ?
well this just made my video card purchase very easy..
280GTX 1GB ordered!
that stock cooler looks extremly sexy...
too bad it will have to leave the card one its out of the box:p:
I woudnt worry too much, aslong as the fancontroller is good it wont be too loud.Quote:
DC12V 1A:eek:
Sounds to me like you're looking for an excuse not to buy this one :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Do you honestly think they will only come in 512MB? When there is already a 4850 1GB from Asus available?
http://asus.com/news_show.aspx?id=11871
Besides, that extra 512Mb gonna cost ya some penny, 200$ of pennies that is.
you cant compare gddr3 with gddr5. Theres absolutly no problem getting 1gb of ddr3 but with the limited capacity of gddr5 i dont think we see 1gb gddr5 cards for another 2 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Right you are. And even more strongly make his point moot :P :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Actually we should see them, maximum, in about 2-3 weeks once the reference cards come out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Perkam
very nice , and looks like very good components quality
the only bad thing seems the FAN (looks like same as HD2900XT)
HD4870 watercooled should be good ;)
:up:
maybe u get your sounds wrong.. how about some blackgate caps for clear soundQuote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
oooh 200$? oh my heart.. medic!!!
JK with yah.. i wouldnt be shocked and appaulled if they would release only 512MB ver
3870 was supposesed to be 1GB aswell
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article...r+HD+3870+1GB/Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Pwnt?
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/6940/69205662wl7.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
I just hope it's quieter than that, I would prefer it to be more along the lines of the 8800GTX cooler, in noise at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
@NapalmV5: The 3870 would not have a 1GB version by reference, but AIBs were allowed to make them. There was just little use in is. Just check this review (linked to conclusion): http://techreport.com/articles.x/14654/10
I'm not against your decision though, it's just not what I would have done. Especially because a single GTX280 is more than twice the price of a single 4870 (512MB though) over here.
@v rr: wow that's only a teeny bit more expensive than a 512MB version over here. I guess we are being scammed here up north.
so why do you need all this additional vRAM?Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
far from itQuote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
the unofficial 1GB 3870 was released @ the end of last earth cycle.. bit late
u ati fanatucii should take some chill pills.. huh?
im by no means nvidias :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:
Radeon cards tend to do better with lower amounts of VRAM. It's just the way the cards handle texture data, they're more efficient at swapping the data than GeForce cards.
you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by YMAA
when the 256 mb RV670 are usually within single digits of the 512mb variants(core and memory clocks held constant)and the 8800GT suffers massively there is something to be said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
u guys make it like the 512MB @ ati runs high rez heroically.. it doesnt!Quote:
Originally Posted by YMAA
max high quality + no antialiasing @ 1920x1080 = not very playable
Will the new ATI Support PhysX or does one have to upgrade to a newer card in future. I want to upgrade to HD 4870 but the new nvidia GPU PhysX support is too tempting
did no one else notice that it appears that the card pictured has no cross fire capability?
that's usually due to the core not being fast enough not the memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
yup, dependig on the game it might work with 512mb, but since newer games use higher res textures, vram bottleneck will get an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
with new games being console ports...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
well...
Which card and which game? What framerate is considered playable? Not doubting your opinion, just want some more information :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
u dont say..Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
really??
wow
*sigh*
Wouldn't the bridge "port" be at the top of the card near the PCI bracket? Didn't see a picture of that area, just assumed it was there.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
um the first pic clearly shows the PCI bracket and a solid pcb where the crossfire link would be. I see no traces or solder points there either.
How much more are the 1gb versions supposed to run? I thought that 4870 was 1gb period, I didn't know they were first going to have a 512mb variant (at the price point I was thinking for 1gb). Now I'm really not sure what to do. The 260 and 280 don't seem worth the money to me, and the 4850 simply isn't a big enough of a performance increase coming from an 8800gt. Guess I'll just have to wait for some reviews, but I'm tired I waiting :(.
as we all know 9800gtx has higher core clock, still 8800gtx beats the 9800gtx -> vram limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by YMAA
Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
:confused:
Please explain more... because my understanding is that 512mb @GDDR5 (3.5ghz) would be fine at 19x12. Not that there isn't going to be a 1g version, just find your comments somewhat "illogical".
Do want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expreview
But with 1GB.
We were debating ATI vs. nVidia max quality no AA 1920 x 1080, not nVidia vs. nVidia high quality 4xAA 1920 x 1080.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Also, Napalm, we never said an ATI card with less VRAM would automatically run a max quality high-res game heroically, the meaning was that an ATI card would generally do better at higher resolutions than a comparable nVidia card. Perhaps we should have been more specific.
Doesn't really show it that clearly, the bracket is still sort of in the way. Not a clear shot of the top, I'd still like a better picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
512MB just isnt enough for 1920 rez be it ati/nvidia
illogical? maybe those of you not running high rez.. why u guys arguing with those of us @ high rez?
i can go back 5 years.. hell ill go back 10 years @ warzone 2100
your ati/nvidia 512MB craps itself @ 1920
Just gonna pop in for a quick question: Do you guys think it's relevant that a card is faster at 1920x1200 with AA enabled etc. than another card, yet the absolute framerate isn't playable anyway?
Click the link, they stripped the card and there are CF connections present.
chuckles; it's like you can now have 150fps+ in some games or <20fps in others, much the same as before. :woot:Quote:
Originally Posted by munim
look; if i was buying now id have a 4850 bang for buck,
and nitpicking the neck and neck perf. of the 4870 and a 9800gtx+...
i think the gtx260 will beat 4870, but i'll be pleasantly surprised if it is the other way around, cos the gtx2xx's are pretty darn expensive
ati have just played catchup with the g92 series, which means they should gain significant marketshare, but really they've only matched wot nv has had for a long while.
will 4870 dominate the g92's? , and yet sit under gt200.
i wish there were some graphs and such for 4870 already.
Looks like a decent stock cooler, at least compared to the RV670 heatsink. How thick are those heatpipes? Looks at least 8mm
Interesting results from the Techreport review. Have not seen it before and its making me think twice on waiting for the 1GB cards. I game at 1920x1080
Its not just about the v-ram, in general the 9800gtx takes a far harder hit than the 4850 (which mind you has less bandwidth and same amount of memory) which goes to show that it also is about how much back end power the g80 cards have (which is good for ati since their 800 shaders has proved to be more than enough for aa)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
I'd much rather they used a 512bit bus to either that 512MB or 1GB of RAM. It will end up choking when compared to other 512bit cards. Doesn't mean it will suck but it wil be like running WinXP with 1GB of RAM instead of 2GB.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
or perhaps it's just memory bandwidth limited...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
and the fact of the matter is, if you had an 8800ultra, the frame rate is so darned low you'de be reducing settings anyway.
and the second example shows a 3870x2 beating a 8800ultra... observe how the 3870 only has 512mb addressable space...
Well, going from 512MB to 1GB on a RV670 made absolutely no difference, not even on a 25x16 res. Just check this review:Quote:
Originally Posted by Miwo
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14654
Not sure how that will translate to what an RV770 will do with the extra RAM.
EDIT: @Hornet331: How is it possible for the 3870 to be faster than a 9800GTX on those settings? Especially in crysis which generally favors the NVIDIA cards.
Considering how well the 4850 does with 512mb @ 1920x1200 or 2560x1600, I doubt 512->1Gb will make that much of a difference for the 4870.
I think the future headroom for a 4870 can be useful, I don't think it will mater to anyone whom will dispose of his card when something better for the price comes around. Like a next year refresh for example.
1GB is probably pretty useless on a 4850 though.
Yeah I know ^^ , i was just saying that I have not seen the review until reading this thread ;) , not the other way around. I just woke up!
Stock cooler looks very nice. Would be interesting to see a 512MB vs 1GB comparision of these cards.
You guys hate that fan? I LOVE that fan on my 2900pro. If it didnt have it there would be no way I could hit the overclocks I do. You dont HAVE to run it loud, it just an option if you want to clock higher on the stock cooler!
Thanks for making this discussion go nowhere though. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Hardly....... I have ZERO problems playing any of my games at 1920X1200 w/ 8AA and 16AF on my CF4850's. Only exception is Crysis because the engine just sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Not at all, it doesn't matter if it's 2GHz GDDR3@512bit bus or 4GHz GDDR5@256 bit bus, the amount of bandwidth is the same, and nothing else matters. Once you have that, the amount of Mb per GDDR chip also doesn't matter as long as the bandwidth/latency is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Availability and price of 1024Mb GDDR5 chips should be a great inconvenient, I'm sure ATI wanted to have 1GB cards at launch.
lol so you too want to argue/oppose me..Quote:
Originally Posted by RickCain
im talking single 512MB
2 x 512MB is not same
you don't need a 512bit bus with GDDR5, all that bandwidth would be wasted while you would be hitching for lack of video mememory in many new games (1920x1200 4xAA framebuffer + tons of textures like in Age of Conan = problem).Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
someone posted results for crysis 4870 at vr-zone, but seems fake. why would 4870CF scale so well in crysis when we know 4850CF doesn't really?
Also seems kind of low GTX280 scores, at DX10 1920x1200 I am getting much higher fps than they show.
yes it is , they still seem to share the memory so whats in one cards Vram is in the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Why are most of you throwing deaf ears at my question. Am not a fanboy i go for the most cost effective card, that has most of the options i want and i don´t upgrade in a hurry. Will the HD 4870 support Physx in near future?
It could do as NVidia have offered Physx to ATI if they adopt CUDA to the ATI hardware, is it going to happen ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shocker003
Your guess is as good as mine.
AMD/ati will support havok which is more usefull , but really , without PhysX being in 100% of the market , developers will not impliment it , havok is owned by intel , and shared to AMD , so all CPU manufactures have this technology :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shocker003
why want physX anyway? it slows down your Fps and doesnt really do anything
napalm is right. 512MB is not enough for some of today's games @ 1920X1200 and up and it is certainly will not be enough for tomorrows games i am not going to buy a brand new card and have it crap out performance wise in 2 months. 512mb is enough for 1280x1024 but anything more is seriously going to limit the cards usability down the road. i remember when people said 256mb was enough now it can't even take 1280x1024
It never will. To support PhysX, even though it's now an "open" API, they would need to support CUDA to make it work. That will never happen for a number of reasons. But first and foremost, it will basically mean AMD/ATI admits the failure of Brook+.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shocker003
If you want PhysX, you will need a separate PhysX card.
It's the same. Data is mirrored.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
how do you explain 4850 crossfire getting 150+ fps on very high 1900X1200 and 4Xaa ,Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Tbh gig cards are not yet needed...
playing half-life at 1920x1200 is different than playing Crysis (or future games) at 1920x1200. It's not like the resolution is the only thing that determines the amount of vram used. Stop talking like it's an absolute number.
they have the same amount of addressable space. the data on both memory banks is mirrored.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
as in completely identical.
as in no additional data can be stored over a single card solution.
by the time future games make use of it, the 4800s and GTX 280s will be obsolete so the point is rather moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptobs2000
I SWEAR HAVE PEOPLE YET TO FIGURE OUT THAT FUTURE PROOFING DOESN'T WORK?
This 512MB version might explain why you can find the 4870 for sub or around 250 euro in some sites
http://www.electronicagigant.nl/nl/product/420297
http://azerty.nl/producten/product_d...press-x16.html
http://www.sallandautomatisering.nl/?pid=51287&ref=2
also I heard that ATI allows the 3rd party to decide upon all the stats on the memory, so expect a lot of different versions on this card.
I wounīt like to be taken by surprise by the ever changing wind of VGA technology and games. If 4870 will support physx that means that i am safe when physx games starts coming out and X2 will be a good option as one core will handle grahpics while the second core will maybe handle physx. Itīs just a wish:shrug: Nvidia has made this leap with their 280 and i know the game programmers will soon start coming up with games with physx engine. I have a ATI onboard grahpic in my HTPC and am damn impressed with the picture quality and i will like to pick up a 4870 x2 when it comes out but if physx is not supported then i have to go with Nvidia:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papu
Hmm the fan design looks the same as HD2900, the heatpipe looks good tho
a 512,000,000 bit bus is pointless at this time and far too costly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
slows down fps? my fps is increased in ut3 very nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papu
dont worry about physx support that much.Quote:
I wounīt like to be taken by surprise by the ever changing wind of VGA technology and games. If 4870 will support physx that means that i am safe when physx games starts coming out and X2 will be a good option as one core will handle grahpics while the second core will maybe handle physx. Itīs just a wish Nvidia has made this leap with their 280 and i know the game programmers will soon start coming up with games with physx engine. I have a ATI onboard grahpic in my HTPC and am damn impressed with the picture quality and i will like to pick up a 4870 x2 when it comes out but if physx is not supported then i have to go with Nvidia
nvidia has physx but ati have the advantage of running 2 gpus on nehalem. yes it is not such near future as 4870x2 but a nehalem + ati (like 4850) cf may be better as nehalem + nvidia (like 9800gtx+) with physx in a physix game.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
On topic: I think we'll se some nice 1 GB GDDR5 versions of this card.
you too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papu
not you too.. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
again cf @ 2 x 512MBQuote:
Originally Posted by Papu
yes correct.. what do you guys take me for?Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
but..
1st gpu/512MB = 50%
2nd gpu/512MB = the other 50%
this goes back to the voodoo2/5 days
not future proofing.. all i want is to be able to play @ max high quality 1920 @ single gpu/1024MB.. is that too much too ask.. im paying :shrug:
same was said about 128 -> 256-> now 512 and so will @ 1024Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
Depends on the reasoning for wanting it. If the game needs your PhysX processor to create those effects, then the game will run slower because you're adding content for the GPU to render. However, if the game needs PhysX to accelerate what's already there, the game will run faster. Sounds like UT3 uses a PhysX processor to speed up content that will be there regardless of the presence of hardware. UT3 installs a PhysX driver and library, to run the effects in software mode. So in that sense it would be nice to have a PhysX hardware accelerator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papu
Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
For a complete ignorant in multiGPU solutions. Data is mirrored in both cards. The only thing you're right about is that 512MB is not enough for 1920x1200, let alone AA.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
so 1xgpu/512MB vs 2xgpu/2x512MB vs 4xgpu/4x512MB is all the same
i see.. you guys win! :)
Good lord. Someone could punch you in the face and you wouldn't notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5you too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papu
not you too.. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
again cf @ 2 x 512MBQuote:
Originally Posted by Papu
yes correct.. what do you guys take me for?Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
but..
1st gpu/512MB = 50%
2nd gpu/512MB = the other 50%
same was said about 128 -> 256-> now 512 and so will @ 1024Quote:
Originally Posted by xlinka 512,000,000 bit bus is pointless at this time and far too costly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
yes, 4 gpus in afr mode with each 512mb have only have 512mb for texture caching. Thats one of the reasons why you see quad sli failing (2xgx2) while 280gtx still can output a picture that seems to move and not only show less then 1fps. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Erm, yes. You have the same data at the same time in the four cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Your avatar is ironic after reading you, remember we are not in the Voodoo days :ROTF::clap:
Maybe because the 4850 is bandwidth limited by GDDR3, while the 4870 isnt ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ceevee
@GDDR5 / 1GB cards:
Quimonda is ramping the 1Gb chip production in July, so expect first cards in the middle of July and broad availability in August.
cheers
http://www.blindnero.com/pictures/ATI-HD48702.jpg See it now? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
Tri CF \0/Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
no different than voodoo days..Quote:
Originally Posted by biohead
V5 = 2xcores/2x32MB 32MB texture caching
"yes correct" @ 512MB texture caching
and im talking rendering..
gpu/512MB - 100%
2xgpu/2x512MB - 2x50%
4xgpu/4x512MB - 4x25%
great discussion guys
everything u guys/i say: deja vu over and over the last 10 years..
OK now you were talking about rendering... sure.
That is what we are saying dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
You win :clap:
frame buffer is mirrored, you still have the same as with 1 card....Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
I read the recommended price of the 4870 is gonna be 349.99 can anyone confirm this?
yay! :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
u sure didnt read the whole post
its all there
A stupid question .... if DDR5 is not cheap then, why ATI didn't launch the 4870 with 1GB of DDR3 ? :shrug:
So what's the consensus here? if I'm going to be keeping this card for about 6-9 months should I just get the 512mb variant or wait for the 1gb? I play at 1920x1200 btw.
PerformanceQuote:
Originally Posted by jVIDIA
You will be fine with the 512MB variant, at least that's what all tests with a 512MB 3870 vs. a 1GB 3870 so far show. I'm just assuming that this will be the same for a 48x0. This is different on a 9800GTX though, there you would be better off to get a 1GB version over a 512MB version as is is not as efficient in memory handling.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptobs2000
Silly Question...
Will physX still be supported in a software (x86, x64 cpu) mode? If so what is the big deal? There's alot of people running quad core cpu's with nothing running on 2 cores when gaming.
This thread is hopeless...
Within a few eeks there will be 512mb and 1gig versions of both the HD4850 & HD4870. I fail to see why people are complaining.
As to the benefits of 512 or 1024... that depends on your resolution and the games texture cache. Both points are moot because this card will be offered in both forms, possible even with something in between..
So why all the whining?
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
thers nothing "in between" :p
its either 512mb or 1024mb...
1GB might be $329-$349, but the 512MB price is $299.
Perkam
Yeah, but have you seen PhysX on a GPU yet? I don't think so... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by OCam
Yes, in Cellfactor. With all the effects enabled the max you can get is 1-2 FPS, and with image corruption :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
I was poking fun at him saying 512 MEGA bit interface.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
I highly doubt any of us will see a day where 512,000,000 bit interfaces are used... that's 1,000,000 times the bus width we use today and the demand for wider buses isn't nearly as great as the demand for faster ICs and it's easier to get a chip running faster than it is to increase board complexity... I wouldn't be surprised to see a 2k or even a 16k interface within my life but a 512M isn't happening.
Holy cow, 12 watts on the fan alone, 1A :O
That reminds me:Quote:
Originally Posted by 71 (Bryan)
http://members.aol.com/pullingtracto...es/tornado.jpg
ēlog(512*10^6) = 28.93.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
2^28 = 268435456
2^29 = 536870912
512,000,000 phantom megabitz!!! :shocked:
I believe that they are hidden behind the RAM/VRM heat spreader.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
lol i could play that game fine on a 3.0ghz C2d and an ati 2900 , cant remember the settings but the game sucks , the only cool thing was throwing 100+ boxes around at people XDQuote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR