Curse

Nevin · Jul 01, 2008, 08:13 PM // 20:13

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341

Quote - Final Words (Anandtech.com)

"Final Words

Due to circumstances quite beyond our control, this will be essentially the third time we've covered the Radeon HD 4850. AMD has managed to make the $200 price point very exciting and competitive, and the less powerful version of RV770 that is the 4850 is a great buy for the performance.

As for the new business, the Radeon HD 4870 is not only based on an efficient architecture (both in terms of performance per area and per watt), it is an excellent buy as well. Of course we have to put out the usual disclaimer of "it depends on the benchmark you care about," but in our testing we definitely saw this $300 part perform at the level of NVIDIA's $400 GT200 variant, the GTX 260. This fact clearly sets the 4870 in a performance class beyond its price.

Once again we see tremendous potential in CrossFire. When it works, it scales extremely well, but when it doesn't - the results aren't very good. You may have noticed better CrossFire scaling in Bioshock and the Witcher since our Radeon HD 4850 preview just a few days ago. The reason for the improved scaling is that AMD provided us with a new driver drop yesterday (and quietly made public) that enables CrossFire profiles for both of these games. The correlation between the timing of our review and AMD addressing poor CF scaling in those two games is supicious. If AMD is truly going to go the multi-GPU route for its high end parts, it needs to enable more consistent support for CF across the board - regardless of whether or not we feature those games in our reviews.

That being said, AMD's strategy has validity as we've seen here today. A pair of Radeon HD 4850s can come close to the performance of a GeForce GTX 280, and a pair of Radeon HD 4870s are faster across the board - not to mention that they should be $50 less than the GTX 280 and will work on motherboards with Intel-chipsets. Quite possibly more important than the fact that AMD's multi-GPU strategy has potential is the fact that it may not even be necessary for the majority of gamers - a single Radeon HD 4850 or Radeon HD 4870 is easily enough to run anything out today. We'll still need the large monolithic GPUs (or multi-GPU solutions) to help drive the industry forward, but AMD raised the bar for single-card, single-GPU performance through good design, execution and timing with its RV770. Just as NVIDIA picked the perfect time to release its 8800 GT last year, AMD picked the perfect time to release the 4800 series this year.

Like it's RV670 based predecessors, the Radeon 4850 and 4870 both implement DX10.1 support and enable GPU computing through their CAL SDK and various high level language constructs that can compile down SPMD code to run on AMD hardware. While these features are great and we encourage developers to embrace them, we aren't going to recommend cards based on features that aren't yet widely used. Did we mention there's a tessellator in there?

On the GPGPU side of things, we love the fact that both NVIDIA and AMD are sharing more information with us, but developers are going to need more hardware detail. As we mentioned in our GT200 coverage, we are still hoping that Intel jumping in the game will stir things up enough to really get us some great low level information.

We know that NVIDIA and AMD do a whole lot of things in a similar way, but that their compute arrays are vastly different in the way they handle single threads. The differences in the architecture has the effect of causing different optimization techniques to be needed for both architectures which can make writing fast code for both quite a challenge. The future is wide open in terms of how game developers and GPGPU programs tend to favor writing code and what affect that will have on the future performance of both NVIDIA and AMD hardware.

For now, the Radeon HD 4870 and 4850 are both solid values and cards we would absolutely recommend to readers looking for hardware at the $200 and $300 price points. The fact of the matter is that by NVIDIA's standards, the 4870 should be priced at $400 and the 4850 should be around $250. You can either look at it as AMD giving you a bargain or NVIDIA charging too much, either way it's healthy competition in the graphics industry once again (after far too long of a hiatus)."

fenix · Jul 02, 2008, 01:43 AM // 01:43

But buying a HD 4870 requires giving your money to AMD, so lol no.

GeForce > Radeon anyway.

awesome sauce · Jul 02, 2008, 02:15 AM // 02:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

But buying a HD 4870 requires giving your money to AMD, so lol no.

GeForce > Radeon anyway.

You people are the reason that there are plain shirts with stitched-on horse logos costing upwards of $40.

Golgotha · Jul 02, 2008, 02:46 AM // 02:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

But buying a HD 4870 requires giving your money to AMD, so lol no.

GeForce > Radeon anyway.

What the hell kind of retarded logic is that? You buy the best product available to keep competition going. If AMD were not around we'd be buying midrange Nvidia cards for $400. Same goes the opposite way. No competition means price gouging.

And I own an 8800GT.

Nevin · Jul 02, 2008, 04:24 AM // 04:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

But buying a HD 4870 requires giving your money to AMD, so lol no.

GeForce > Radeon anyway.

Before the ever so popular 8800 GT that actually put Nvidia on the map for it's first time, there was the 9800 pro. So GeForce was not always > Radeon, and now it isn't anymore.

Brianna · Jul 02, 2008, 04:35 AM // 04:35

Well, aside from Price, I do think that the GTX280 is still the fastest single video card you can buy, is it not? So Nvidia still may be the champion of Power.

However, price to performance is what most people care about, good / comparable performance to greater counterparts for a good price. That is really the selling point it seems.

fenix · Jul 02, 2008, 04:45 AM // 04:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevin

Before the ever so popular 8800 GT that actually put Nvidia on the map for it's first time, there was the 9800 pro. So GeForce was not always > Radeon, and now it isn't anymore.

Look at the while range of GeForce cards, compared to Radeon cards. Sure, Radeon have a new really good card, but GeForce do too (GTX260/280), and have a lot of other good cards to back it up.

Nevin · Jul 02, 2008, 05:09 AM // 05:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

Look at the while range of GeForce cards, compared to Radeon cards. Sure, Radeon have a new really good card, but GeForce do too (GTX260/280), and have a lot of other good cards to back it up.

When the HD 4870x2 is released it will be 50 dollars cheaper then the GTX280, and perform all around better, in addition of course to being able to be used on intel chip set mother boards. The problem with this is that Nvidia will have a hard time x2ing videocard that already is the size of 2 cards to begin with, imagine the power consumption. Sure they'd still have the "most power at highest price" card status, but now they're tapping into other price ranges making you actually have to buy one of those damn expensive power supplies. So we'll have to wait and see, the HD 4870x2 may reign supreme as best gpu deal.

-Loki- · Jul 02, 2008, 09:28 AM // 09:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevin

Before the ever so popular 8800 GT that actually put Nvidia on the map for it's first time, there was the 9800 pro. So GeForce was not always > Radeon, and now it isn't anymore.

I guess you weren't around until 3 years ago.

Anarkii · Jul 02, 2008, 10:18 AM // 10:18

I'll count on nvidia saving its punch for when Nehalem is released, because that'll be when majority of the power users will be upgrading next.

deluxe · Jul 02, 2008, 01:54 PM // 13:54

If you buy nvidia atm you are dumb. (or just like to waste too much money)

Nevin · Jul 02, 2008, 07:22 PM // 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Loki-

I guess you weren't around until 3 years ago.

Really radeon 9800 was 3 years ago?... Hmm sounds like someone has their years mixed up. The architecture for the 9800 has been around since at least 2002.

moriz · Jul 02, 2008, 08:03 PM // 20:03

apparently, the RV770 CAN tackle the GTX280.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ATI...V770,5796.html

Golgotha · Jul 03, 2008, 03:08 AM // 03:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevin

Really radeon 9800 was 3 years ago?... Hmm sounds like someone has their years mixed up. The architecture for the 9800 has been around since at least 2002.

The 9700 and 9800 were arguably the best jump in GPU power ever. Arguably, because of the 8 series phenomenal ability.

The 6800GT was the best bang for the buck card during the 6 vs. x800 series wars. The 6600GT was then the best midrange card as well. Nvidia and ATI have always leap frogged each other. ATI took the lead with the x1800 series (vs. 7800) and also the x1900 series (vs. 7900). Nvidia countered and came up on top with the 8 series against a subpar 2900 series. Now ATI has the upper hand and I'd put my money on Nvidia for the next.

Anyone that argues that either company is superior to the other is a complete idiot and should never give advice on any hardware, ever... For eternity... And should be chaperoned whenever typing.... By a man with a big stick.

Each new architecture usually yields a new top dog, or at least an even playing field. There have been times when this is not the case, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

moriz · Jul 03, 2008, 03:17 AM // 03:17

actually, the nvidia 8 series encompasses two different core designs: G80 and G92. the 9 series also use the G92. the GTX200 series is obviously a new core.

in the same time, ATI went through the HD2000 and HD3000 series (R600 and RV670, respectively). the HD4000 series (RV770) is their newest addition.

all in all, nvidia has been dominating the GPU scene for two generations. ati's HD4800 is of course the dominant cards for the time being, with the R700 (or is it RV700?) coming in a few months in the form of the HD4870x2.

Golgotha · Jul 03, 2008, 03:30 AM // 03:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

actually, the nvidia 8 series encompasses two different core designs: G80 and G92. the 9 series also use the G92. the GTX200 series is obviously a new core.

in the same time, ATI went through the HD2000 and HD3000 series (R600 and RV670, respectively). the HD4000 series (RV770) is their newest addition.

all in all, nvidia has been dominating the GPU scene for two generations. ati's HD4800 is of course the dominant cards for the time being, with the R700 (or is it RV700?) coming in a few months in the form of the HD4870x2.

I left out refreshes where there wasn't a definitive winner. The 3800's were very competitive with Nvidia's 8800 offerings when taking the price difference into consideration. Not to mention the 3850 completely destroyed the 8600GTS when it came to the low-midrange sector for a small bump in price. When putting it to price/performance breakdown they were a more than viable option. Same cannot be said for the 2900's.

I also consider the 8800GT's as a 9 series since they were under the G92 core opposed to the G80 that the 8800GTS and GTX's were first released as. Naming be damned (and Nvidia royally screwed their naming convention up the last two generations), its still a 9 series card.

Brianna · Jul 03, 2008, 04:32 AM // 04:32

I just saw the ATI HD4870 today; http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814129113

I heard it is good, especially with the GDDR5, I was considering buying an 8800GT 512mb but that is tempting - despite that I really dislike ATI for my extremely bad past instances with them on multiple occasions.

I just don't get why they limited the memory bandwidth with 256, Nvidia moved forwards on that. It's still a good card though.

Golgotha · Jul 03, 2008, 07:29 AM // 07:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

I just saw the ATI HD4870 today; http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814129113

I heard it is good, especially with the GDDR5, I was considering buying an 8800GT 512mb but that is tempting - despite that I really dislike ATI for my extremely bad past instances with them on multiple occasions.

I just don't get why they limited the memory bandwidth with 256, Nvidia moved forwards on that. It's still a good card though.

Huh? Last I checked they both were 256-bit. The only cards with higher were Nvidia's G80 GTX and GTS cards, respectively, which explains their strange memory sizes. And the new cards as well. Not the 8800GT.

I own an 8800GT and wouldn't even consider suggesting it unless you received a killer deal on a good brand (eVGA, XFX, BFG). If you're looking for midrange, go with the 4850, which is still significantly faster than the 8800GT. If you want power, go with the 4870.

Brianna · Jul 03, 2008, 07:57 AM // 07:57

No no, when I said ''Moved Forwards'' I was specifically speaking in regards to both of ATI's and Nvidia's newest offerings; their brand new cards in other words.

But, the old GTS's from Nvidia even have a 320 bit path: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130327 and the GTX's had 384 bit I think.

Either way, it doesn't matter that much to me, the card is still good none the less. I am just not sure about switching to ATI honestly - I would throughly be pissed if I still had driver problems and game crashes like I have had with their cards over many years.

It's like jumping off a cliff again, and then hitting the bottom and realizing why I stopped jumping off of the cliff over and over before. Again I do not personally hate or resent ATI, I just do not trust them in my own builds as I simply just like to have a stable system, it is most important to me - and enough bad luck puts me off of them.

I Dont Do Coke · Jul 03, 2008, 10:28 AM // 10:28

Good, I'd like to see Nvidia dropping their prices now. I'm just not fond of ATI from my previous experiences with their cards and respective drivers, but I won't be getting a new build until the mainstream Nehalems launch so I've got time to choose between them and Nvidia...