Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The 4870X2

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 12, 2008 8:36:24 PM

Was very disappointed when I heard that it gets released in fall. That sucks. I'm building a PC within a few weeks and I'm now forced to purchase the weaker 4870 (does that at least beat a GX2???) even though I have enough money to shell out for a 4870X2 but am unable to cause they're only coming a few months later. They should have been released at the same time as the other two cards. Just dumb.

More about : 4870x2

June 12, 2008 8:37:30 PM

Buy two 4870s. Problem solved.
June 12, 2008 8:41:19 PM

More expensive and not as fast, according to what people say.
Related resources
a c 86 U Graphics card
June 12, 2008 8:42:58 PM

It seems there isn't enough GDDR5 chips at this moment to release them all at once, but buy a crossfire board and two of those 4870s. :D 
June 12, 2008 8:46:45 PM

according to what people say? are there even any BENCHMARKS for the 4870x2 compared to the 4870. please post a link if there are any, as i am curious myself.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 12, 2008 8:50:54 PM

the advantage of the 4870 x2 is that there supposedly won't be any micro stuttering and its cheaper than 2 4870s...

the gtx 280 in all likelihood will be very close (maybe a little bt better) then the 4870 x2... so you might wanna just pick that up instead...

either way wait for benchmarks and when the 4870 gets a score... multiply it by like 1.7 or something to get estimated 4870 x2 scores... now i know thats not how it works... but its close enough... and thats what i'm going to do
June 12, 2008 8:52:10 PM

just get 2 4870's and a crossfire motherboard if you dont already have one. the cards are going to cost you the same if not a little less than an x2, and if there is a performance difference, then it really will not be much, if at all. plus, if you get a motherboard with 3 or more pci-e x16 slots, you can always get an x2 later and have quad crossfire if you so desire.
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 12, 2008 8:55:45 PM


I got feed up waiting and have started building with a 3850 as a temp solution. I do have a second older rig that i will be putting it in after so it makes sence in my position. If i didnt have a second hom eready foe it i would probably have settled for a 3650 instead.
Mactronix
June 12, 2008 8:59:14 PM

Well yeah I am in fact going to pick up a Xfire motherboard, but with only 2 slots unfortunately. GTX280? Hand me red one, please.

If they solve the AFR issues on XF then I'll consider getting two 4870's.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 12, 2008 9:09:09 PM

labofgode3x... 2 4870s will not be cheaper than a 4870 X2... the 4870s are supposed to retail at 300 - 350... more likely higher... so two of those would put you around 700 while the X2 is supposed to retail around 550 - 600... which speaks for itself... not only will the X2 probably perform better than 2 4870s it will be cheaper
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 12, 2008 9:15:26 PM


^
Yep the whole idea of making them a modular design is to keep costs down eventually we could see tripple or quad GPU cards. Of course it will need a couple of shrinks before thats sensible but i recon its coming.
Mactronix
June 12, 2008 9:18:36 PM

I feel your pain.

I planned to pick up a 4870X2 this month. Instead I'll have to grab a 4870 to hold me till the fall.
June 12, 2008 9:26:43 PM

i'm planning on getting a 4870x2 in fall as well...hopefully it'll live up to the hype that surrounds it :) 
June 12, 2008 9:27:23 PM

Well better start savin some damn money so I can upgrade as soon as it hits the shelves then...sigh :) 
June 12, 2008 9:28:14 PM

On a side note, how should the 4870 compare to the GX2? Faster? I just wanna be able to max crysis and everything that comes during the summer till I pop in the X2.
June 12, 2008 9:28:31 PM

Patience..

GTX280 / 4870 (X2) - New architecture.. Drivers are not mature.. Code will be written with the 8800 / 3870 (X2) series in mind for some time because the price points are far from the "sweet spot" for game developers in terms of optimization.

Nehalem - Is just around the corner and the quad core can blow through a photo album with almost zero delay.

The rule: Skip 1 generation and if you are buying the latest tech wait 6 months to 1 year for maturation and price drop before buying.

This system is running a 40" bravia 120hz refresh rate @ 1920X1080p tv..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fmR0DT3ZTNE
8800GTS 640 OC'd with 30-40fps avg on Grid and 200 fps avg CS:S. We will not upgrade to the new garbage till we see significant price decrease. This card will cost you $120 shipped on ebay.

Let the benchmarks decide ;')

Blackwater11

Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 12, 2008 10:09:53 PM

^ and when you wanna play the newest games at max...

in that world why don't you look at say the e3 of last year so you can get hyped for games that already game out... so then all the games your getting are 6 months late... that way when you go online you can have no one to play with...


no thanks i'd rather be able to play the newest games a max... and you can often get the newest technology... and a high end system for around 1200 - 1500 when it comes out... that doesn't sound like too much considering you pay that much once every two years...
June 12, 2008 10:15:56 PM

Well I am just posing a question here on whether the 4870 will be faster than the 9800GX2 and will be able to finally fluidly play crysis on 1680x1050 so 1680x1050 at very high, will that go well? Thanks
June 12, 2008 10:45:51 PM

The HD4870 will not be faster than the 9800GX2 in Crysis ( Very High ) @ 1680x1050 and above, that is certain...
June 12, 2008 10:59:33 PM

Damn it then...how about two of them?
Will there still be the stuttering issues?
June 12, 2008 11:02:25 PM

Enough of the mental masturbation already! Wait for the cards to be officially reviewed, bench marked etc, then start the usual childish fanboy wars.
June 12, 2008 11:05:00 PM

I'm not making a fanboy war, I'm just asking so I know how much money should I set aside and what should I buy.
June 12, 2008 11:21:15 PM

Nobody can answer that for you right now, like everyone else, you are going to have to wait for the real answers. Any recommendations that you get now will not be based on fact, they will at best be a WAG.
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 12:17:17 AM

Currently waiting for benchies on the 4850. Coming soon. Crysis at 16x10
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 1:10:12 AM

quantum112 said:
They should have been released at the same time as the other two cards. Just dumb.


When has that EVER happened before from either company?
That you expected them to do so makes me question you logic, not theirs. :heink: 
June 13, 2008 1:17:31 AM

Thogrom,

Thankyou for keeping the demand for Nvidias and ATI's latest garbage high.
We would all like to thank you for keeping the demand high for the latest tech so after the release all the prices drop and demand slows for the generation behind. My second 8800GTS 640 arrives in the mail in 2 days for $120.. Appreciate it.. Sounds like I owe you a beer..
Drinks are on me! Keep up the good work..

a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 1:28:11 AM

Blackwater, it's funny you call it their latest garbage, when the GTS-640 is now not even worth what you're paying for it.

The GF8800GT beats it with new features and better power consumpition too, and it's $125 on NewEgg, so your argument would make sense with that card; but adding another old GTS-640 for $120 instead of you selling yours for that price and buying a GF8800GTS-512 new with warranty and saving enough to buy an additional game.

To each their own, but the GTs-640 in SLi isn't my idea of a 'good choice' nowadays, especially if an HD4850 beats it for the same price and half the power.
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 1:30:44 AM

Ape, is 2800 in Vantage E very good with highly oceed quad? The quad was at 4 Ghz with a non oceed 4850
June 13, 2008 1:51:02 AM

I'd like to thank anyone willing to pay $120 for an 8800 640
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 1:54:06 AM

Hey, I got a 320 on the cheap....takers?
June 13, 2008 1:54:56 AM

pulls out his magic bean stand......... 1 bean 5$.....
June 13, 2008 2:06:28 AM

The 512 cannot handle the 1920X1080p 40".. I researched it - there is not enough memory.

Your data on the GT beating the GTS 640 is inaccurate. The benchmarks are all showing that @ higher resolutions the 640 wins. You are correct that the GT is faster @ lower resolutions, consumes less power, and costs about the same.

As far as garbage goes well ape..

I call the entire 9 series lineup garbage.
I call Quad sli garbage
I call Alienware overpriced garbage

Now let me ask you.. Does a 240 watt card still using GDDR3 without HDMI or display port outputs running super hot for around $4-650 sound like a card worth stepping into? How about a card notorious for driver issues newly designed around GDDR5?

No thanks.
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 2:11:24 AM

How bout one that spanks your 640 really bad for 220$ ? Besides, unless youre talking the 8800GTX or the Ultra, all those other cards are bandwidth bottlenecked, thats why it falls off at higher res
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 2:13:11 AM

^ black water your philosophie is fine but i'm saying I don't agree with it it's an opinion... thanks for calling me a loser with your stupid reply... reply with something helpful... I also have an 8800 gts 640... but i'm not going to sli them... I don't believe in sli or crossfire...

but just because some people WORK for their money and like getting new hardware shortly after it comes out compared to waiting 2 years...

blackwater ... even your profile says newbie...

now that i'm done being pissed @ blackwater....


no one can say how these cards are going to do... best bet is to just wait 2 weeks and wait for official benchmarks from reliable sources... as much as i love speculation... i'm kind of tired of it right now due to the stupid responses some members make...

granted i'm probably one of them but i'm still tired of it

:p 
June 13, 2008 2:13:43 AM

blackwater 11 the 9600gt is not even close to a flop. I hate Nvidia but they have had MANY great cards with the x600gt in it. and the 9600gt picks up where the 7600gt left off.

pulls out the popcorn and beer to watch this unfold.
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 2:21:57 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Ape, is 2800 in Vantage E very good with highly oceed quad? The quad was at 4 Ghz with a non oceed 4850


E2800 would be terrible, X2800 sounds good, but still not spectacular.

I remember seeing the marks in the X-2K range.

EXPreview has two Dual X2s up on QX9650s X1950 & X2500 results;

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=25840
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=24205

Two X2s on Phenom 3GHZ getting X3000 just 6 days ago;
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=152175
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 2:30:20 AM

So a 4850 = to a 3870x2. But therell be no AA/AF dropoffs like weve seen from the 2-3xxx series
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 2:45:50 AM

blackwater11 said:
The 512 cannot handle the 1920X1080p 40".. I researched it - there is not enough memory.


It can definitely handle it, and perhaps you should provide the research because I think it's bunk, especially since it's such a blank open ended statement without commenting on game, texture quality, AA level, etc.

Quote:
Your data on the GT beating the GTS 640 is inaccurate. The benchmarks are all showing that @ higher resolutions the 640 wins. You are correct that the GT is faster @ lower resolutions, consumes less power, and costs about the same.


Actually, the big difference is overclocking, where the GT very easily is made whole by a nice OC. There are still exceptions where performance falls off below even an HD3850 sometimes, but then again so does the GF8800GTS-640.

Quote:
As far as garbage goes well ape..


I wasn't talking about those, you said new architecture, skip 1 generation and, latest garbage as a reply to someone talking about the newest technology in a thread about the newest technology, not the end of the last.

Quote:
How about a card notorious for driver issues newly designed around GDDR5?


I submit your data is a little outdated, since the card isn't notorious for anything yet other than more hype than facts, also nV and ATi both have driver issue in the last generation so it wouldn't colour my view of the unknown. As for the other card, it's not in the same price range we're talking about now is it?
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 2:47:35 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
So a 4850 = to a 3870x2. But therell be no AA/AF dropoffs like weve seen from the 2-3xxx series


Dunno, I wouldn't base anything on 3Dmark.

It is entertainning, and somewhat promising, that it's managing to match two X2s in that benchmark though.
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 2:51:14 AM

This is looking like my next card. But of course, Ill still wait for reliable benches
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 3:01:01 AM

well I know vantage doesn't necessarily translate into actual gaming performance... but the gtx 280 I read somewhere gets about X4800.... and the 4870 X2 gets about X5500... I don't remember where I read that... it was a topic here though...

anyway if the GTX 280 gets X4800... and the 3870 X2 gets X3000
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=152175
then that would make the GTX 280 theoretically 60 % faster then the 3870 X2... granted we don't know the test system of the other scores... but thats about in line... if a little less than the nvidia graph that had teh GTX 260 and 280 comparing against the 3870 X2... if the GTX 280 is 60 % faster then that would mean the 4870 X2 is 83 % faster... which would mean that a single 4870 would be just under a 3870 X2... and the 4850 would fit between the 8800 gt and 9800 GTX... I don't know if I did my math right... but this all seems very probable to me...

AND as the drivers mature the scores and performance should only increase... but as I said earlier the 3dmark scores don't always translate into performance
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 3:15:45 AM

The 3870x2 is 6+% faster in Vantage than the 4850 or there about. So to me, the main competitor would be the GTX not the GT, while the 4870 could be seen as 20% faster , so 10+% faster than the x2. From what Ive been reading, the AA/AF has been cleared up a little. Also, Id point out that the 4850 may be BW bottlenecked, where the 4870 wont be
June 13, 2008 4:01:33 AM

blackwater11 said:
The 512 cannot handle the 1920X1080p 40".. I researched it - there is not enough memory.

Your data on the GT beating the GTS 640 is inaccurate. The benchmarks are all showing that @ higher resolutions the 640 wins. You are correct that the GT is faster @ lower resolutions, consumes less power, and costs about the same.

As far as garbage goes well ape..

I call the entire 9 series lineup garbage.
I call Quad sli garbage
I call Alienware overpriced garbage

Now let me ask you.. Does a 240 watt card still using GDDR3 without HDMI or display port outputs running super hot for around $4-650 sound like a card worth stepping into? How about a card notorious for driver issues newly designed around GDDR5?

No thanks.


Goin against the Ape is like playing with fire while being soaked in gasoline. IMHO, an unwise decision! lol

Best,

3Ball
June 13, 2008 4:04:16 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
The 3870x2 is 6+% faster in Vantage than the 4850 or there about. So to me, the main competitor would be the GTX not the GT, while the 4870 could be seen as 20% faster , so 10+% faster than the x2. From what Ive been reading, the AA/AF has been cleared up a little. Also, Id point out that the 4850 may be BW bottlenecked, where the 4870 wont be


It will be interesting to see how all of our predictions over the past few days play out when some good sets of benchies release. This analogy you have played here seems to be a good aiming point for them with that card. If so...I will be impressed. Even though I am in the market for something slightly more high end.

Best,

3Ball
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 4:10:49 AM

I think at release, the 4850 will come close and even trade a few blows with the GTX. But, being that it is ATI, and we can expect a few driver improvements, itll even out with it, or even slightly edge it, as the GTX is a more mature solution, and wont see these kinds of driver improvements
a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 4:17:59 AM

Another thought. The 4870 is suposed to be 20% faster than the 4850. Seeing the results in Vantage, the 280 will run supreme as a single chip solution, the 260 will be 25% less, while the 4870 will be close. At $400, the 260 will be a good solution, but the 4870 at $350 will have more ram, and run using less power. The 4870x2 will beat the 280 or trade blows, and be priced lower, the 4850x2 will beat the 260 and be priced lower as well. My predictions. But, Im still waiting for those benchies heheh
June 13, 2008 4:22:51 AM

Still not understanding how an 8800 GTS 640 out performs an 8800 GT 512 at 1920x1200... Memory is NOT the only thing that effects resolution performance, just about everything in a video card does. Simple truth is the 8800 GT 512 WILL out perform an 8800 GTS 640 at that resolution, sorry.
June 13, 2008 6:01:26 AM

I can see why people would want the best that's out there, but consider a single 4870 for yourself and then go 4870x2 under CrossfireX in the future.

I can't afford one this summer, but can in the fall, so my decision then will be a single 4870x2 and pass down my 3870x2 or get a new mobo and processor and go CrossfireX with a 4850 (or 4850x2) and my current 3870x2.

Know how you feel though. I wanted Deneb to be out last February. I would have loved a 95 watt Deneb clocked at 2.8 on a 780G board with the 3870x2. Instead, I transferred my CPU from an older Nvidia 405 chipset board and went cheap for the 690V board as a stopgap.

At least AMD's not delaying the mainstream cards like they have everything else the past couple of years.
June 13, 2008 1:12:42 PM

After trying the 512 out on the Bravia it DID NOT perform without studdering through Crysis @ 1920X1080p. It DID NOT provide the quality we were looking for when watching DVD's and it is also priced at $150+shipping on Newegg and that's on the cheaper side.

In contrast to a $120 GTS 640 that has served me without fail for a very long time - my decision was finalized on June 10, 2008 at approx. 7:32pm EST to purchase another 8800 GTS 640. After further inquiry and based off the information obtained from many forums and tech sites the interaction between the 8800GTS640 is proven to be the more capable when hooked up to a 40" television.

Ape, do you game on a 40" LCD or larger? Bunk eh? No HDMI / display port, old GDDR3 mem, running super hot @ 240 watts, new architecture, immature drivers and not even running on DX10.1 is in all it's hoopla, hyped up nonsense, "bunk" in it's most rudimentary definition. It's actually wunk - wack and bunk.

Nvidia's stock price is a reflection of their poor decision making and even on it's very best day (300 fps playing counter strike or 60 fps playing Crysis is a day late and about $3-400 short @ $650.

Don't even get me started on the guys running the debacle over at the ATI division. They are either all asleep at the wheel or still hung over.

At these price points clearly the better decision will be to wait for the prices to come down and the architecture to mature.



a b U Graphics card
June 13, 2008 4:28:00 PM

blackwater11 said:
After trying the 512 out on the Bravia it DID NOT perform without studdering through Crysis @ 1920X1080p. It DID NOT provide the quality we were looking for when watching DVD's and it is also priced at $150+shipping on Newegg and that's on the cheaper side.


So you're saying the one that doesn't have PureVideoHD makes watching DVD better than the one with the additional hardware?
That doesn't match up with the results of most reviewers.

Quote:
After further inquiry and based off the information obtained from many forums and tech sites the interaction between the 8800GTS640 is proven to be the more capable when hooked up to a 40" television.


Size of the display wouldn't matter as much to performance as resolution, colour depth and post porcessing features. 24"-40"-120" display makes little difference, the only thing that might be affect is the IQ level, and that has improved from the G80 to G92.

Quote:
Ape, do you game on a 40" LCD or larger?


No, because LCDs are terrible (especially over 30"), I prefer CRTs, Plasmas and 3chip-DLPs, but if size impresses you I have 2 HD projectors that I use to diplay 100'+ I wouldn't game them, but if size is important to you... :kaola: 

Quote:
Bunk eh? No HDMI / display port, old GDDR3 mem, running super hot @ 240 watts, new architecture, immature drivers and not even running on DX10.1 is in all it's hoopla, hyped up nonsense, "bunk" in it's most rudimentary definition. It's actually wunk - wack and bunk.


So after that long rambling junk, you still resort to commenting on the $600 card, and still haven't provided this research to show 512MB can't do 1920x1080. Don't excercise your urban dickshunary skills, excercise those research skill and rustle up that info about the 512MB cards being incapable of handling 1080P, also be sure to include the side not about ATi and nV's different methods of memory handling and compression because you didn't limit it nV not that it matters since both are fine.

Quote:
Nvidia's stock price is a reflection of their poor decision making and even on it's very best day (300 fps playing counter strike or 60 fps playing Crysis is a day late and about $3-400 short @ $650.


No, their stock price reflects a few things, not least of which is the economic slowdown/downturn, added to the poor yields of the G92, and the increase competition provided by AMD after months of un-restained growth, and increased animosity with intel.

Quote:
Don't even get me started on the guys running the debacle over at the ATI division...


Yes, please don't it's already painful enough reading what you go on randomly just about the GF8800 series and memory limitations and the size of your.... LCD. :pfff: 
!