Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8800 GT vs HD3870 Interesting Video

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 8, 2007 1:48:10 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnLMJUDl0Qw

Although they did use hl2 for run the comparison and steam games due to favor ATI cards, seems like a valid review to me. Thoughts?
December 8, 2007 2:08:47 AM

Hm, interesting... I think some of the stuff was exaggerated a bit, but still interesting.
December 8, 2007 2:15:14 AM

Yeah, but looked like a legit review.
Related resources
December 8, 2007 2:16:11 AM

The differences in the 8800gt and the gtx are dramatic in his testing. Also, i thought every other benchmark showed the ati's taking a big hit when aa was enabled.

Good review though, not sure on its accuracy.

After watching the review where he says it rivals a gtx when oc'd, i dont buy it anymore.

December 8, 2007 2:21:49 AM

No reason to fake benchmarks, unless it's a payed review...which I doubt it is.
December 8, 2007 2:29:19 AM

i new 3870 was better from the beginning
December 8, 2007 2:49:42 AM

Yes these reviews from tigerdirect are legit.
December 8, 2007 4:01:36 AM

Meh, just another company trying to sell a product. Use the benchmarks from the site your posting on rather than the limited benchmarks posted by a retailer (probably at whatever resolution and level of AA and AF that makes the game look the most appealing.) So far, via Tomshardware, it looks like the 3870 gets a small whomping by the 8800gt by 14%.

My money has a home atm, and its not ATi.
a b U Graphics card
December 8, 2007 9:22:34 AM

nightscope said:
Thoughts?


IMO crap review, the guys reading specs without knowing what they mean to anything.

"It's a 256bit card , so the bandwidth on this thing is insane" :sarcastic:  Jeez guess he never heard of 512bit, 386bit, 320bit cards with similar clocks. :whistle: 

'when you turn the filters on it runs faster' :pt1cable: 

I've seen those benchies elsewhere (I remember the charts but not the sitename [but the results are similar to those of Computerbase's 8X results) and really that's cherry picking. Running at 8X is very high and really only playable at 1280x1024, so it's not an option most people would use since they'd likely be running at higher res with lower AA if they're selecting a card like this. Also it depends on the game, look at the different benchies in the computerbase review and you see when the games are more texture bound or shader bound as well.

IMO this guy is reading some other (non-telegenic) guy's benchmarks and picking the things that will make the card look good and worth talking about so people will buy them. Being based on TigerDirect I'd say treat this guy like a car salesman, he's probably have told you how great the GeforceFX or XGI Volari V8 Duo was if he or his overlords thought it would sell more of them from their site.

edit: updtd computerbase link
a b U Graphics card
December 8, 2007 9:39:51 AM

chadwixx said:
The differences in the 8800gt and the gtx are dramatic in his testing. Also, i thought every other benchmark showed the ati's taking a big hit when aa was enabled.


That's when going to 4XAA, 8XAA is a different story though and alot of the cards flip-flop because then the GF8 cards start to hurt their dedicated hardware advantage by increasing the demands and the bottleneck for AA moves from the R6 series shaders to the GF8's ROPs.

But like I sad, it's an unusual situation where someone would care about 8X AA versus higher res, especially in new games (HL2 being used while arguably "one of the best games out there" it's nowhere near as stressful as many), but if you're stuck on an old 19-20" LCD maybe that's your sweet spot, but I don't think it has wider application where I'd draw any global conclusions from that. There's no way you're going to get 8X AA on 1600x1200 in any of the more demanding titles.

Quote:
After watching the review where he says it rivals a gtx when oc'd, i dont buy it anymore.


Why not? At 860mhz core 1375(2750)mhz memory I could see it rivaling the STOCK GTX in the same way that when OC'ed the GT beats the GTX.

But like I said, cherry-picked results to put the product in the best light, but no significant information, it's like watching the equivalent of the PR description on the side of a product box pointing out all the good and ignoring anything remotely underwhelming.
December 8, 2007 11:36:09 AM

somewhere around 30-34th second of the "review"

"they released a new card based on the 55nm process so it's a SMALLER CARD"

LMAO
December 8, 2007 12:12:44 PM

Crappy review, probably not paid by ATI, but made by a fanboy.

And he had no idea what specs ment xD
December 8, 2007 12:18:28 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:


Why not? At 860mhz core 1375(2750)mhz memory I could see it rivaling the STOCK GTX in the same way that when OC'ed the GT beats the GTX.

But like I said, cherry-picked results to put the product in the best light, but no significant information, it's like watching the equivalent of the PR description on the side of a product box pointing out all the good and ignoring anything remotely underwhelming.


Those results are not cherry picked. Go to any forum about OCing the hd 3870 and people get to those OCs and faster all the time. It's not cherry picked like the Phenom. Those cards really do OC that fast, that easily. I am fixing to have to leave for work, but when I get back, I will throw you some links to back up what I am saying.
December 8, 2007 12:55:48 PM

The "cherry picking" TGGA was talking about wasnt because of OCd frequencies. Im not even sure how to explain it... since it cant really be explained any further than it is. re-read what he was saying.

Edit: just watched that POS video.

My thoughts: its like something i would expect from a newegg review. "PCIe 2.0 and DDR4.. this thing is FAST!"
December 8, 2007 12:56:30 PM

Here we go again ... arguing if this or that test is biased because a certain company made the card ... stop it ! Do ya notice when ATI wins ya get all this b*llsh*t from nvidia fanboys . Ape you're the guru genious .... put the trillions of dropped frames back into the video output of the benchies on nvidia's and see what the tests show ! And then the NV trolls cry when someone runs the speed up on the ATI ram and bawl all over the forum . Then they cry like babies when they"re overclocked .... as NV cards are all maxed on OC"ing . Like I said put back the millions upon millions of dropped frames ..... NO YOU CAN'T ... You say .... then don't even try to compare the companies . Christ if anyone could eliminate trillions of frames in any test .... any lousey card could win a framerate test and you know it ! I don't know if these experts are dumb or can't realize what NVIDIA is doing to trick people . Tell the D*M truth ..... Our programmers said it's like having a race and one team eliminates hundreds of laps or miles from it to win "NVIDIA " and the other has to run the whole mileage to win " ATI " ..... NO race ... No win ! False .... phoney statistics . Those benchmark tests and any whatsoever are a joke . Tell the truth .... stop backing up an inferior company . What are you saying the guys at Tiger are liars ??? I'd trust them more than a so called guru here . And they did'nt even mention the dropped framerate issue .
December 8, 2007 1:12:36 PM

trooper1947 said:
Here we go again ... arguing if this or that test is biased because a certain company made the card ... stop it ! Do ya notice when ATI wins ya get all this b*llsh*t from nvidia fanboys . Ape you're the guru genious .... put the trillions of dropped frames back into the video output of the benchies on nvidia's and see what the tests show ! And then the NV trolls cry when someone runs the speed up on the ATI ram and bawl all over the forum . Then they cry like babies when they"re overclocked .... as NV cards are all maxed on OC"ing . Like I said put back the millions upon millions of dropped frames ..... NO YOU CAN'T ... You say .... then don't even try to compare the companies . Christ if anyone could eliminate trillions of frames in any test .... any lousey card could win a framerate test and you know it ! I don't know if these experts are dumb or can't realize what NVIDIA is doing to trick people . Tell the D*M truth ..... Our programmers said it's like having a race and one team eliminates hundreds of laps or miles from it to win "NVIDIA " and the other has to run the whole mileage to win " ATI " ..... NO race ... No win ! False .... phoney statistics . Those benchmark tests and any whatsoever are a joke . Tell the truth .... stop backing up an inferior company .


Stop making your sell look like an ignorant fool. nvidia doesnt "drop frames". Thats just slightly retarted.
December 8, 2007 1:19:03 PM

Why would tigerdirect fake benchmarks? It has to sell both the 8800 GT and the 3870, so why would it promote the sale of one over the other? I believe those benchmarks are true. I'm not a fanboy either, I'm the owner of a 9800 Pro and a 7900 GS. I believe the reason why the 8800 GT has higher performance is because it sacrifices picture quality. Between my old x850xt and my 7900 GS, clearly my x850xt has a much better picture quality that is very noticeable, to me at least.

The 3870 also runs cooler, is a better investment, and based on a smaller die process (hence why it runs cooler). IMO the 3870 is a better card...but that's just my opinion.
December 8, 2007 1:23:44 PM

I think you're very retarded idiot .... " skittle " they do and it's a known fact . They do have inferior quality video and that's a known fact .... and NO they did'nt fix the problem ! Name calling can go both ways .... seems that's all you get in the way of response from these dim witted kids . That red dye in those skittles is rotting your brain .... let alone causing cancer . Now I've lowered myself to his standards ....
December 8, 2007 1:31:08 PM

Skittle...on the tomshardware review of the 3870 vs the 8800 GT, it STATED that the 3870 had better picture quality than the 8800 GT. Not only that, but on other reviews as well.

trooper1947 and skittle, please don't start a flame war here, be nice please.
December 8, 2007 1:58:53 PM

I just want the damn card. lol

Best,

3Ball
December 8, 2007 2:12:39 PM

nightscope said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnLMJUDl0Qw

... seems like a valid review to me. Thoughts?


1. Used the HL2 engine which is one of the very few games comparable to the 8800GTX.
2. Used clock speed numbers over and over and over again.
3. Compared Crysis at 40fps to.... nothing.
4. Stated idle power usage but no load usage (they must be thinking people aren't going to game with this?).

They are selling you this product and raping it's advantages. Can't see why you'd watch this joke from Tiger after they compared HL2 twice to the GTX and then went straight to idle wattage if your a informed gamer. Watch a few of their other reviews and you'll rofl.
December 8, 2007 4:56:11 PM

Blacken said:
1. Used the HL2 engine which is one of the very few games comparable to the 8800GTX.
2. Used clock speed numbers over and over and over again.
3. Compared Crysis at 40fps to.... nothing.
4. Stated idle power usage but no load usage (they must be thinking people aren't going to game with this?).

They are selling you this product and raping it's advantages. Can't see why you'd watch this joke from Tiger after they compared HL2 twice to the GTX and then went straight to idle wattage if your a informed gamer. Watch a few of their other reviews and you'll rofl.


I don't see anything wrong with the benchmarks they ran. Yes, hl2 does favor ATI, still though, the 3870 is on par with the 8800 GT.
December 8, 2007 5:29:28 PM

No, not quite, 8800GT is still better on average.
December 8, 2007 5:40:47 PM

IMO, the 8800 GT has a higher average fps because it sacrifices picture quality. If both had the same picture quality, they would be about equal in performance. Just my two cents...
December 8, 2007 5:47:29 PM

Even if the 8800GT pops out more frames per second than the ATI is anybody really going to notice? I play COD 4 with an old 7800gt and it seems to work just fine. Go for the bang for your buck or your personal preferance. Yes the guy in the video seemed to be a moron in my opinion but the fact is the 8800GT and the 3870 are both good cards, bother offer good performance, and both make the 8800gtx look like a bad investment at twice the price.
December 8, 2007 6:31:06 PM

nightscope said:
I don't see anything wrong with the benchmarks they ran. Yes, hl2 does favor ATI, still though, the 3870 is on par with the 8800 GT.


Benchmark(s)? As in more than one?
It's obvious they used what they could to promote the product. Don't get me wrong, nothing against the 3870 (love to have one) - but these guys seem to tell a one sided story for which ever side they need to promote, know what I mean? Telling you it runs at "xx watts idle" and neglecting load (how many people aren't going to want to know the load score?) which, as I've seen from numerous benchies, is higher than the 88GT. It's not just this review, check out the others. Reminds me of QVC.
And, c'mon, 40fps in Cry compared to what? Oops... we forgot.
I'd still buy from Tiger, but consumers don't deserve to be detoured by this tard.
December 8, 2007 6:42:12 PM

This is an inherently ATI centric biased "review". The only thing you come away from with this review (That is true) is yet another example of the 3870's overclocking ability. Aside from that, the tests are pretty comical, and in the case of crysis, the 3870's rival 8800gt is omitted.
a c 130 U Graphics card
December 8, 2007 7:13:39 PM

At the end of the day its all down to individual preference isn't it i have gone on record before as saying that i have never had a Nvidea card Why? I personally prefer ATI rendering over Nvidia when i first had to upgrade a Graphics card i went look at some mates systems/checked out some display rigs in the shops and decided i liked ATI better.
That was years ago and i have never had anything but ATI since, now having said that if i had got a new card or system in the last year it would definitely have had a GTS 320/640 in it as the ATI performance was so bad price/power/heat all taken into account.
I have discussed what trooper1947 is talking about with the missing frames and how the ATI cards do more processing than the Nvidia card with some very knowledgeable people on other forums and while it really is like trying to compare oranges to apples the reviews are only trying to show what the cards can do at approx similar settings (in an unbiased review anyway).
Maybe they should do a extra part in reviews let the cards really shine, optimise each card so people can see what the cards are really capable of then let personal opinion worry about image quallity?
Mactronix
December 8, 2007 7:23:38 PM

Why would they promote one product over the other if they're trying to sell both? Yes he's not very bright, and yes they did not include in many benchmarks, still, the 3870 (again, IMO) is as good as the 8800 GT. They need to use the same 3d party drivers for both for a good comparison.
a c 130 U Graphics card
December 8, 2007 7:32:24 PM

nightscope said:
Why would they promote one product over the other if they're trying to sell both? Yes he's not very bright, and yes they did not include in many benchmarks, still, the 3870 (again, IMO) is as good as the 8800 GT. They need to use the same 3d party drivers for both for a good comparison.


Why are some reviews biased ? put simply someone is getting something out of it.
They may well have a very similar review boasting about all of the 8800GT good points, i dont know but at the end of the day every body promotes one product over another dont they?
How many adverts do you see that finish with, Also try this or its not bad but this is just as good ? You dont do you its how adverts work and thats all this is a long winded advert for the 3870/3850.
Mactronix
December 8, 2007 8:19:51 PM

mactronix said:
Just as i thought i typed tiger direct in on youtube and found this amoungst a lot of others for differant cards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmhSIETnK4U
Mactronix


No benchmarks, doesn't compare to 3870 (probably wasn't out when this video was released). So they're promoting both products, not one over the other. So this actually makes the 3870 review seem even more believable.
December 8, 2007 9:00:08 PM

Okay but all the other reviews I've seen showed that the 8800GT is remarkably better than the 3870 on average.

Also if the 3750 is better than the 8800GT, why the hell would AMD price it at $229, approximately $50 lower than the 8800GT? The company isn't in great shape you see...
December 8, 2007 9:51:14 PM

Evilonigiri said:
Okay but all the other reviews I've seen showed that the 8800GT is remarkably better than the 3870 on average.

Also if the 3750 is better than the 8800GT, why the hell would AMD price it at $229, approximately $50 lower than the 8800GT? The company isn't in great shape you see...


They're both good cards in their own respect ! As far as why lower in price .... then ask why NVIDIA raped buyers witht he $850.00 Ultra .... you telling me the ultra is $640.00 better than any other ? -- :pt1cable:  -- yea I guess with that reasoning if a company is profitably higher they should rape customers .... ROFL !!!! ---- :kaola:  Just make that donation check out to Nvidia ... not charity this year ..... and there will be no competition and we all can pay them $600.00 - $900.00 for one of their video cards next year . :o 
December 8, 2007 10:10:24 PM

Trooper

Nobody ever forced people to buy a 8800ultra. It was there own decision so you can't base an argument on that.
December 8, 2007 10:25:44 PM

ATI should change their motto to "The Way It's Meant to be Displayed". As a former 8800 GTX user, I'm more than satisfied with my recent upgrade to the 3870's in crossfire. The 2 cards outperform the single GTX and look amazing compared to it. The colour is absolutely stunning, soo much more vibrant on the ATI cards. That must explain why Nvidia products top the fps charts, they sacrifice image quality by saturating the colour and showing more grays.
December 9, 2007 3:00:39 AM

Evilonigiri said:
Okay but all the other reviews I've seen showed that the 8800GT is remarkably better than the 3870 on average.

Also if the 3750 is better than the 8800GT, why the hell would AMD price it at $229, approximately $50 lower than the 8800GT? The company isn't in great shape you see...


First off the price of the HD3870 has gone up to $270 for most of the HD3870's, some have fallen to $250, and a few etailers are selling it for $220, They scale very well, and to be honest, Nvidia always seemed to overprice their cards back in the day when the infamous 7900GTX was a whopping $600 I benched it with something as simple as HL2 Lost Coast got 96 fps, then a friend of mine was telling me to try out the X1900 AIW, I was skeptical at first, b/c it cost a fraction of that $600 premium, at $250 the X1900 AIW card got 89 fps. Now Nvidia is doing a good job at coming off their high horse but at the same respect (the 8800GT), ATi is at least holding their own. I hope do well b/c the consumers need good healthy competition, or else we all lose...So fanboys, do a little research, a few fps really isn't going to change much, and just go with w/e gives you the best bang for your buck given w/e budget you have...
- nuff said mothafuckas :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
December 9, 2007 4:30:46 AM

Evilonigiri said:
Okay but all the other reviews I've seen showed that the 8800GT is remarkably better than the 3870 on average.

Also if the 3750 is better than the 8800GT, why the hell would AMD price it at $229, approximately $50 lower than the 8800GT? The company isn't in great shape you see...


To give consumers another reason to buy their card instead of the competitor. Think about it. If you're doing research for a new card, and all the charts you see show the 8800 GT getting higher performance than the 3870 (for all the wrong reasons) , which would you buy? Of course ATI will price theirs lower...
a c 130 U Graphics card
December 9, 2007 5:23:41 AM


Tell you what i would love to know and thats how much all in. Research,development,transport,factory running costs etc that it actually costs to make a Graphics card. It seems to me that it must be a lot less than they ask or they wouldnt be able to cut prices the way they sometimes do.(I think i can just about remember when the prices didnt automatically go up) :lol: 
Point is i dont really understand why they price so high the GT came out and the price went up ok so its supply and demand but why then when the 3870 came out did it do the same,If AMD/ATI really wanted to get back some market share why didnt they fix the prices. I dont really see a lot performance wise between the two cards so for my money 30-40 $/£ would be the deciding factor.
Or is it the partners that control the prices i guess that would make more sence if ATI/Nvidia sold to X/Y/Z company for a fixed price and stood back and let them get on with it.
Mactronix
December 9, 2007 5:35:53 AM

Well I know the price of the 3850 went up, I'm just referring to the MSRP.

IMO, if a card is truly great, the company will never price it dirt cheap. What I'm thinking is if the HD3870 is truly much better than the 8800GT, AMD, who's strapped for cash, would price it as much as the 8800GT or more. Anyways, just look at the Phenom. The 9700, clocked at 2.6ghz, performs about the same (a little lower on avg I believe) as the Q6600 and it's priced $10 more. If are really thinking about the consumers, they should have priced it at around $239. I think this proves what I'm trying to say...
December 9, 2007 1:13:47 PM

i did'nt base any argument ... just a reply .... Evilonigir said " Also if the 3750 is better than the 8800GT, why the hell would AMD price it at $229, approximately $50 lower than the 8800GT? The company isn't in great shape you see...

It has nothing to do with what shape a company is in ... christ the guys at ati did'nt even know what their future was when they were bought out ... cut them some slack ! They offered us a descent all around good card for less and some still bitch and moan . It would'nt matter if they came out with a dual gpu card that smokes the competition these nvidia ball suckers would still come across with that kind of reasoning ! I may end up buying nvidia when the next gen comes on the shelves .... but I'm not going to preach they are god almighty in the industry . In my opinion ATI could have made the framerates much better .... and did'nt .... and nvidia could have made the video quality higher and added the new dx 10.1 and did'nt . I bought the 3870 only because it's a generally a much better all around card and has future capabilities where the g92 is still last year's design . I'm not real happy with either company ! Besides that ati did'nt price the 3850 at $229.00 ----- they priced the 3870 at $219.00 retail .... the jerks we have to buy from inflated the prices . That really pisses me off ! Don't they call that price gouging ?
December 9, 2007 1:21:29 PM

And what in the hell are these popup ads on tom's hardware ????? Annoying .... what's next porn ads ?
December 9, 2007 1:36:35 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Jeez guess he never heard of 512bit, 386bit, 320bit cards with similar clocks. :whistle: 


There are no 386 bit bus cards. But i know you know that.
December 9, 2007 1:43:31 PM

trooper1947 said:
... and nvidia could have made the video quality higher with the new dx 10.1 and did'nt...


You are aware that DX10.1 doesnt really add much right? And it certainly does not "improve video quality" ... not to mention its going to be a long time before you see any game utilize those few extra features.

Generally your monitor plays a bigger role in video (color) quality than the video card.
December 9, 2007 2:07:36 PM

True skittle .... it's just that nvidia could of added it for 85 cents on their boards and did'nt . Another thing that burns my knickers is when companies have capabilities on cpu's and gpu's and disable them to get a few more bucks . Same old corporate ripoff by both firms . I was'nt saying the dx10.1 would increase quality .... maybe that came out wrong . I bought the 3870 and am in no way impressed ! It's better than what I had but far below my expectations . Yea I worded that wrong ! went back and edited that .... thanks for telling me my typing mistake ... that was completely wrong . Yes ... I do admit mistakes and please call me on them . And I appreciate not being called names this time .... LOL :o 
December 9, 2007 2:47:05 PM

trooper1947 said:
True skittle .... it's just that nvidia could of added it for 85 cents on their boards and did'nt .


If you are refering to DX10.1 compatibility, i have to disagree. To my understanding DX10.1 is to a large degree what MS had envisioned for DX10. Sadly NV couldn't comply and MS changed the DX10 requirements so NV could call their cards DX10 cards. It had something to do with virtual memory if you want to look it up.
December 9, 2007 2:51:26 PM

mactronix said:
Tell you what i would love to know and thats how much all in. Research,development,transport,factory running costs etc that it actually costs to make a Graphics card. It seems to me that it must be a lot less than they ask or they wouldnt be able to cut prices the way they sometimes do.(I think i can just about remember when the prices didnt automatically go up) :lol: 
Point is i dont really understand why they price so high the GT came out and the price went up ok so its supply and demand but why then when the 3870 came out did it do the same,If AMD/ATI really wanted to get back some market share why didnt they fix the prices. I dont really see a lot performance wise between the two cards so for my money 30-40 $/£ would be the deciding factor.
Or is it the partners that control the prices i guess that would make more sence if ATI/Nvidia sold to X/Y/Z company for a fixed price and stood back and let them get on with it.
Mactronix


Because the 8800 GT's were going out of stock fast. When you're in the market for buying a video card and you're in a hurry, would you buy the ones that are currently in stock, or wait for the ones not in stock to be in stock? Ati knew this so they priced theirs higher to take advantage of the situation and make a few extra bucks (IMO). You need to apply your logic in these situations...

The only thing I can see Amd fixing in the 3870 lineup are their shader clocks...why are they clocked so slow? I think that's what's holding them back...Other than that, the card is perfect.
December 9, 2007 3:42:50 PM

That was not a review, that was advertising made to look like a review.
!