Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Final smackdown ATI 4650 and 4670

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 1:21:22 PM

Looking at these numbers, if true, and no reason not to disbelieve them, the lil bros in the 4xxx series are tough too, maybe too tough for the green team http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/ati-hd-radeon-hd...
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 1:44:43 PM

Ouch... Dude, AMD/ATi is not holding back on it's strike XD

Let's see if nVidia counters or just places the other cheek... Wait, they already got slapped twice! XD

Well, the 8800 series did make a lot of profit for them, so they should get their $h17 together ASAP.

I want some competition and a major price drop on the 4870X2! XD

Esop!
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 1:45:42 PM

I dont like the title :D  because IMO HD 48xx werent a smackdown for NVIDIA,they peformed well and had good performance so they made Nvidia to lower the GTX cards prices.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 1:49:21 PM

Still slower than a 3850 or 9600GT.
They are going to have a hard time selling these cards for more than $90 with that performance.
Especially considering you can still get a better performing 3850 for $75 after MIR.
It will give the 9500GT a thrashing at a $80 price point, though.
Kinda makes me wonder how the real low end is going to shake out.
September 2, 2008 1:57:21 PM

outlw6669 said:
Still slower than a 3850 or 9600GT.
They are going to have a hard time selling these cards for more than $90 with that performance.
Especially considering you can still get a better performing 3850 for $75 after MIR.
It will give the 9500GT a thrashing at a $80 price point, though.
Kinda makes me wonder how the real low end is going to shake out.


They still aren't shipped, in the shelves if i understand correctly. the 9600GT is more a refurbished/renamed product. And the 3850/70 cards are reaching EOL.

So i guess they will aim 35-100$/€. And all the Nvidia fandango, sorry fanboys i would not buy neither GPUs neither chipsets. Soz.
September 2, 2008 1:57:45 PM

Yuka said:


Well, the 8800 series did make a lot of profit for them, so they should get their $h17 together ASAP.


I'm not sure that they have made loads of money on the 8XXX, haven't seen the reports on all the defects the cards are suffering from?
September 2, 2008 2:04:45 PM

JeanLuc said:
I'm not sure that they have made loads of money on the 8XXX, haven't seen the reports on all the defects the cards are suffering from?


Yeah if anything, their 8800 series sales are holding them afloat from their defective mobile chipsets and the beating they are taking in the GPU market right now.
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 2:10:16 PM

JeanLuc said:
I'm not sure that they have made loads of money on the 8XXX, haven't seen the reports on all the defects the cards are suffering from?


That report has been around like... 2 months? (July 9, 2008)

The 8800 series have been around like... 2 years? (November 8, 2006)

I know they made a profit, and a big one from it. They even "skipped" 1 gen thanks to ATi being slow on realeasing a contender. The 9800 series are a 8800 re-make and we all know that.

The GTX series are the new flagships and still perform close to the 8800; better, but still close with NO big improvements (DX10 and SM4.0).

Not going to the "nVidia sucks" thingy, but we all need a clear picture of what the companies are selling to us.

Esop!
September 2, 2008 2:33:45 PM

A shame they gimped it with a 128-bit memory interface. This could have been the death knell for nvidia in the entry level/mainstream market.
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 2:37:41 PM

There's a good reason for the smaller memory interface though - huge memory interfaces are expensive in die space. Considering the desired price point, this will be a phenomenal performer.
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 3:19:01 PM


These definatly have a solid market segment to aim at as they wont need extra power so can go in all those shop bought systems with generic psu's.
3690 ? where did that come from ?? Im off to do some googling/

Mactronix
September 2, 2008 3:19:32 PM

cjl said:
There's a good reason for the smaller memory interface though - huge memory interfaces are expensive in die space. Considering the desired price point, this will be a phenomenal performer.

Not only die-space but they tend to increase the number of layers of the PCBs too. Maybe we will see GDDR5 variants of them .
September 2, 2008 3:30:53 PM

They would make for a very good laptop GPU
September 2, 2008 4:58:09 PM

One thing that's significant to note, and I only noticed this because I'm looking at them, is they require no power connector. Which, for someone like me, who wants to boost his gaming (Running an X850XT right now) but doesn't have the power supply to run a bigger card (ie anything with a 6 pin connector) will choose this over the HD 3850. I'm anxious :D 
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 6:03:08 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Looking at these numbers, if true, and no reason not to disbelieve them, the lil bros in the 4xxx series are tough too,


Just BRING THE DAMN THING TO LAPTOPS ALREADY !!! [:thegreatgrapeape:4]

Arggh, been hoping for a nice fall refresh, but everything is getting delayed in the Mobile segment.

Hopefully a mobilized version of this by Early November or else all my disposable income will be focused on new Ski gear (want 2 new pairs of SKis (GOODE & Salomon) new Akpine Touring Boots, and new Bib Pants).

Need something better than the meak HD3650 but with good power characteristics and the new HDMI support, and of course without the baggage of the nVidia mobile line.

jamesgoddard said:
They would make for a very good laptop GPU


Exactly! :D 
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 6:27:52 PM

There's nothing wrong with ski gear though :D 
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 6:28:48 PM

how can this be a smackdown when a 9600gso/8800gs cost like nothing already?
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 6:34:49 PM

Yuka said:

I know they made a profit, and a big one from it. They even "skipped" 1 gen thanks to ATi being slow on realeasing a contender. The 9800 series are a 8800 re-make and we all know that.


Yeah but the profit made on the G80 was lost on the low price drops and poor yields of the G92.
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 6:40:21 PM

and btw, i thought nvidia was losing money for every 8800gt that went out of the fab? i just cant find the article where ive read that.
September 2, 2008 8:38:49 PM

cjl said:
There's a good reason for the smaller memory interface though - huge memory interfaces are expensive in die space. Considering the desired price point, this will be a phenomenal performer.


This will allow them to sell the cards for under $100US. According to Madshrimps they expect $60 to be the top figure but I have a hard time believeing the HD4670 will be less than $100. If it is, Wow that's one serious bargin for the performance. Unknowns are overclocking and yes he 128-bit bus is a bottleneck, but I'm sure you can find the extra performance to match the HD3850 and maybe beat it in some benchmarks.

mactronix said:
These definitely have a solid market segment to aim at as they wont need extra power so can go in all those shop bought systems with generic psu's.
3690 ? where did that come from ?? I'm off to do some googling/

Mactronix


HD3690 is rare, very rare. Seems it was never officially released in North America for one. I think it was only available in Asia-Pacific market.

The point is the HD4650 crushes the 9400GT, the 9400GT won't even reach 30fps in most modern games with high detail on.

The HD4670 crushes the 9500GT and keeps pace with the HD3850. The HD3850 requires an external connector, less efficient UVD post processing and no lossless audio via HDMI (all important features to HTPC users). Those that buy pre-fab'ed Dell and HP boxes can slap either of these cards in and with 20" and smaller LCD's and CRT's can play modern games without issue. Crysis presents a problem for just about any PC but those powered by Quad Core CPU's and $400+ graphic card setups, nevermind you'll need at least 700W PSU's to run these rigs when you factor in overclocking.

Glad they tested Race Driver: GRID and NFS: Pro Street... With my LCD (24"@1920x1200) I expect a minor performance hit with one card compared to the resolutions they tested at. I will run the games at 720p (1280x768) full screen and it should be just about perfect! My plan is to upgrade from the 690G chipset to the 790GX and this will allow Crossfire for two HD4670's. But I think I'll wait for DRR3 1GB or DRR5 1GB configs and that should be fairly close to HD4850 and still not require an external connector. Then I should be able to run the games at my default resolution and come pretty close to the performance of a HD4850 for about the same price, if not less depending on the cost.

Can't wait for next week if the release date is true...






a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 9:28:21 PM

Therell definately be a gap between the 4670 and the 4850. Now, the thing is, as nVidia has squeezed its partners a tad, this leaves an open for ATIs partners to come in with GDDR5 or even a 256 bus. Thatll squash the 9600 type gpus out. Currently the 4870x2 is the fastest card out, and wont get beaten for awhile. The coming of the 4850x2 will be the second fastest card out, the 4870 varies from going to No.3 to fourth currently, with the 4850 2 down in rank at 5th or 6th best card. With these cards coming in from the bottom, and with a possible in between card yet to come, yes, this is a smackdown. Currently we see nVidia possibly coming out with a G270/260+/280- or whatever itll be, but it and the G280 will lose to the 4850x2. ATI has taken very little time to place these cards at the high end for at least what can be termed a competitive stance at the high end. Now (even tho some people have been waiting) they go after the mid to low end, using much less power, performing well above last gen, and putting up better numbers than their competitor. And on the cheap. 128 bus with GDDR5 could kill a 9600, whoda thunk?
September 2, 2008 10:17:41 PM

what I can't wait for is the rumored, but higly anticipated RV740 w/ 480 SP : 32 TMU : 16 ROP's

If that ever does come out in 2009 i would have to assume [hopefully they do it], have at least a 256 bit bus.

Although if the rumors are correct w/ GDDR5, I wonder if the 128 bit bus would even be a problem for most ppl's set up.
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 10:32:52 PM

Yea, that card keeps popping up. Remember, this is the beginning of the GDDR5 era. It does go faster, by alot, so yea I could see it happening. Whats nice about this is the pricing/power requirements. Simple board layout on the cheap, and using a 128 makes it even cheaper. Looks like some of ATIs innovations are finally paying off
a c 171 U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 10:51:41 PM

Seeing as these cards are more or less3870/50 cards with lower memory specs, all it would take is someone to release a card with beefed up memory. Overclockers should also spend most of their time working on getting the memory speeds up. Once the 3870/50 go away, the fact that you can spend ~$80 and get something that performed nearly as well as those cards but at much better thermal points is outstanding. Hardcore gamers won't be interested in these, but I am so feeling the itch to replace my x1800XT. I thought the 8800GT and 3850 were the cards, but these look even better. (I honestly probably won't buy this card either, the x1800XT still works fine for my low res gaming needs.)
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 10:59:17 PM

The problem will be keeping it under the 75 watt draw. Like was said earlier, there could easily be varients of the 740 which meet those requirements, and still eol the 9600, as this just may be the first 40nm product ever made for any common use in PC history. Time will tell
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2008 1:35:28 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Yeah but the profit made on the G80 was lost on the low price drops and poor yields of the G92.


It's kinda hard to think that nVidia would put it's price point below costs.

Maybe it squeezed it's partners for that, but meh, i don't actually know and i'm just fuzzing.

Anyway, anyhow, the 9800X2 is a fine card (the good thing) and it's selling fine imo; now, the defective chips thingy (the bad thing) it's getting to nVidia like the knives to the stakes in a BBQ.

Now, i don't know who takes the RMA fees here. I mean, nVidia sells chips to it's partners and that's it. Someone, i'm sure, can enlight us about that topic.

And hell yeah! BRING THA NOTEBOOKS!

Esop!
a c 358 U Graphics card
September 3, 2008 2:08:58 AM

meh,

nothing remarkable
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2008 6:08:35 AM

Until you realize that this is 3850 class performance at the likely price point of the Nvidia 9500.
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 3, 2008 8:05:12 AM


Sure opens up a lot of possabilities for people. Anyone think they(partners) might consider going with unconventional memory set ups with the 4670 like 320 instead of 256 to keep costs etc down if they do decide to offer beefed up versions. Opening up the bus to 256 would defeat the purpose of using a 128 bus in the first place, but it could be that using 320 like Nvidia did would give them a sweet spot power/performance wise. I have seen other benchmarks for these cards and it does seem that the memory or the bus is hampering it compared to the 3690 (jury i still out on availability from what i can find). Im not clued up enough on it all but i just seems to me that if they could make a card with Gddr5 memory and 320 mb Ram and keep it below 75 watts on a 128 bit bus then they could have something cheap that could really fly. The clock speeds would maybe need upping to compensate for the 128 bus but still i can dream.

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2008 8:29:55 AM

Im thinking from what Ive read and remember, unfortunately, GDDR5 comes in only 512 variants or 1024. But certainly GDDR3 could be used, but it could offset costs vs performance, but something they could try. The 740, unfortunately again, is the mystery card. If it comes in as the 40nm version, with GDDR5, even on a 128 bus itll stomp anything out there, being very close to a 4850
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 3, 2008 8:58:21 AM


Well from what i have read its the 870 that is meant to be 40 nm with the 740 being 55nm. There is always the price point to consider but as far as the 4650/4670 goes i really think the main plus is the lack of a need for extra power. which basically gives it the upgrade market for shop bought PC's with generic PSU's. I think the 740 will struggle to keep itself under the 75 watts on a 55nm process with a 256 bit bus even allowing for the GDDR5. As i said before the price point needs considering, also if something else comes along like DX11 suport while being slightly cheaper than a 4850 then people wont mind so much if it dosent quite equal it in performance. A card that performs just behing a 4850 will still run a 22" screen with all the whistles and bells.

Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2008 9:10:26 AM

Youre probably right on the 740 at 55nm, Ive been reading too much, and getting some things blended in, as there isnt alot on the 740. Any links would be appreciated. Yea, the 75 watt threshold is the concern here. If it does make it, itll be a revolution, as these (4670 and 50) will be as well, as Im thinking the OEMs are going to snap these up
September 3, 2008 11:44:29 AM

Yuka said:

Now, i don't know who takes the RMA fees here. I mean, nVidia sells chips to it's partners and that's it. Someone, i'm sure, can enlight us about that topic.


Usually the partner/brand takes the hit. Up to a small percentage of "defects". If it surpasses that percentage somethings are usually renegotiated. Nothing new here.

If there is a major flaw or defect fabric, well, depends on the manufacturers/partners contract. Some will send Nvidia the hit, another will take hit themselves. IT world is one thing, bussiness world is a completely different Boom Festival.
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2008 1:16:46 PM

radnor said:
Usually the partner/brand takes the hit. Up to a small percentage of "defects". If it surpasses that percentage somethings are usually renegotiated. Nothing new here.

If there is a major flaw or defect fabric, well, depends on the manufacturers/partners contract. Some will send Nvidia the hit, another will take hit themselves. IT world is one thing, bussiness world is a completely different Boom Festival.


Yeah, that was kinda my point. I mean, nVidia is a big hog compared to his partners (cept ASUS maybe), so they can "choose" so to not get hit ($ wise), but still take the image damage.

And on the 4670 topic, i don't know. Making it a faster card could be a shot in the foot (8800GTS any1?). A slight difference with the 4850 on a *really* cheap price + passive cooling, i mean, come on; that'd be the people's choice defacto. On a 40nm process, it would OC nicely and u could just put active cooling and u have a 4850 (maybe faster). The chip/design is great, but that card was meant to stay on low cost range.

Now, if ATi makes the 4670 the "new" 4850 with GDDR5, 40nm process, 512Mb+ and with a very quiet active cooling solution, that'd make more sense to me.

Esop!
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 3, 2008 1:32:20 PM


Well for my part i was thinking more from a board partners OC and special edition point of view, but then again what you are saying makes a lot of sense. GDDR5 top end cards GDDR3 cards and GDDR2 cards all on the same board with differant RAM and BUS sizes would make things really cheap to produce and give them cards to cover the whole mid section right up to just below enthusiast level. Then they bring out the RV870 and the top end looks like thiers as well. Just hope either Nvidia keep them honest or they stick to the ethos of providing cards at a price point.

Mactronix
September 3, 2008 3:58:52 PM

Yuka said:

And on the 4670 topic, i don't know. Making it a faster card could be a shot in the foot (8800GTS any1?). A slight difference with the 4850 on a *really* cheap price + passive cooling, i mean, come on; that'd be the people's choice defacto. On a 40nm process, it would OC nicely and u could just put active cooling and u have a 4850 (maybe faster). The chip/design is great, but that card was meant to stay on low cost range.

Now, if ATi makes the 4670 the "new" 4850 with GDDR5, 40nm process, 512Mb+ and with a very quiet active cooling solution, that'd make more sense to me.
Esop!


I can see ATI making the R740 stock. And have a market for it without cannibalizing 4850 sales. Non OC (reference cards) are finishing their stocks while we speak. OC Cards 4850/70 with more RAM are getting announced and im sure they will be shipped soon enough. Now i can see R740 taking their place with a stock design. They get a speed bump and this rumored cards falls in the 100$ category.

So they will have something in their 30-50$ (44xx), something in those 75$ (46xx), RV740 on 100$, 4850 on 150$, and the high end well, you already know. Seems like a good strategy. Of course the 44xx and 46xx are cards more to the OEM side.
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 11:23:47 PM

Yep, now only two left, the over 100$ range (47xx) and the 4850x2. A complete market wrap, and very formidable
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 12:03:32 AM

I'm a little dissapointed though that the HD4670 is GDDR3, I kinda though that would be on the HD4650 for price reasons, but was expecting the HD4670 to be a little more 'exotic' to help compete with the GF9600 series and their 256/192bit interfaces. Maybe those will come later as support was put on the chip.
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 1:45:46 AM

It doesn't have TV-Out... Maybe too stripped down to stay on low price IMO.

But performance wise, it should be omg-close to the 8800GTs even :p 


Esop!
September 11, 2008 2:00:01 AM

no fairs, that wasn't on newegg when i was on... oh well, the saphire one is better anywho. :bounce:  . but, i think gddr5 will come, i mean are we really going to whine about a litle thing like memory bandwith on an $80 card? gimmie a break here 2ghz ddr3 a year ago wasn't even available, now its standerd, besides the 4670 isn't ment to compete with the 9600gt, yet.
September 11, 2008 2:04:44 AM

I dunno, with a 256-bit bus, it could *definitely* compete with a 9600GT. Plus, it goes from behind right with the HD 3850 to beating it in every aspect.
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 2:41:59 AM

There is a gap between the 4670 and the proposed LE card, so GDDR5 is a very good possibility. Notice the ram speed is already cranked on the card
September 11, 2008 3:05:27 AM

well since ati helped develop gddr3, gddr4, AND gddr5, and since they are (almost)always first out the gate with new memory/card combos(x1950?2900?3870?4870?) yeah, ati sure likes their memory, so gddr5 WILL come, its just a bit more expensive and rare then a mid-range card can handle, 800mhz gddr5 that is cheaper might come, or if 4870 ever slows down(lol) they might have some 900mhz chips left over...have Patience/ :wahoo:  . unfortunatly, we may need to wait for rv735, with 45nm and 1ghz gddr5 for 3870 shatering performance at this price.
September 11, 2008 6:29:38 AM

Hmm... At $80US, the 4670 is nice, but not exactly a killer deal. Mostly what's to be expected, with a $90US or so Radeon 3850s and $65US Radeon 2600XTs. Likewise, it's similar as to how it'll compete with nVidia's $90US GeForce 9600GSOs; it's weaker than them, but cheaper.

Of course, I think that part of their potential to be a crushing blow was spent by the 4850 when it came out; it came and smashed pretty much the entire price-performance tree, causing it to be re-built much lower, having a trickle-down effect that reached even the cheap cards. Had the 4600 series been out before the 4850, it would've come out to meet the realm of $100US GeForce 8600GTS cards and $150 3850s, and would've utterly butchered the landscape there, but not had much of an effect on the stuff really above it. That would've taken something like the 4850.

I don't really expect this to have ALL that huge an impact... I don't forsee significant across-the-board price drops in this price region as a result... However, I don't expect it to be a flop of a card, like, say, the 3600s kinda were when they came out, as weak-ish mid-range cards with a price too big for them. Seems like the price fits the 4600s... Or at least, the 4670.

djfourmoney said:
HD3690 is rare, very rare. Seems it was never officially released in North America for one. I think it was only available in Asia-Pacific market.

It was a China-only card, if I understand. Made, I think, due possibly to some restrictions on what level of technology can be sold to China. Of course, while the stuff is made outside the USA, it's worth noting that after being merged into AMD, ATi is now an American-owned business, and the US government has a number of restrictions as to what can be sold to China.

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Therell definately be a gap between the 4670 and the 4850. Now, the thing is, as nVidia has squeezed its partners a tad, this leaves an open for ATIs partners to come in with GDDR5 or even a 256 bus. Thatll squash the 9600 type gpus out.

Please do remember that you not only need so many pins for a 256-bit memory interface, there is also apparently a minimum die size for a 256-bit interface; I don't know of a single GPU ever made that had one that was smaller than 190 mm² in size. (that was RV670) Most mid-range GPUs tend to be smaller than that; G94 was a bit anomalous by having a 225 mm² die size, so while labeled as a 600-series, it was more like a "hacked-down high-end" like the Radeon X1950pro of yore, or the 6800GS on PCI-e, both of which were made on GPUs that were reduced from the top-end, so there were no disabled units.

I'm not quite positive, but I think that for RV730, which can be seen as a reworking of RV670, the memory interface size was a casualty of some of the components moving around, such as placing more cache near the edge of the chip to make it more effective. It's not just enough to have the transistors alone to fit the memory interface; those transistors have to have interconnects between them on the chip and the pins on the package, so the interface needs to be placed along the edge.

Now, as for GDDR5 memory, it's a possibility, but as of yet, it's not quite known exactly how much more expensive than GDDR3 memory it is. If it's not that much more expensive, then yes, it could be quite an economical choice to go with a 128-bit memory interface for the mid-range, coupled with 3.6 GHz+ memory. It would allow for a much smaller die size, (more recent 128-bit memory interfaces have been able to come on diesas small as 100 mm²) yet still provide 50+ GB/sec of bandwidth, easily enough to bring it into the same competition as previous high-end cards like the GeForce 8800GT; more than that is kinda superflous, as was also demonstrated by how little use is seen by the extra bandwidth the 4870 has over the 4850. It's for a similar reason why the 512-bit Radeon HD 2900XT used GDDR3 at only 1.8 GHz... Simply put, with current GPU cores, 100GB/sec and up is sheer overkill, and winds up, for once, being bottlenecked consistently by the GPU core.

FrozenGpu said:
what I can't wait for is the rumored, but higly anticipated RV740 w/ 480 SP : 32 TMU : 16 ROP's

If that ever does come out in 2009 i would have to assume [hopefully they do it], have at least a 256 bit bus.

Well, with a chip that large, I believe it would be sufficient to fit a 256-bit memory interface...
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 6:58:28 AM

The LE is the 98GT killer. The 4670, I wasnt thinking about the size on the pad, so youre probably right. Tho, a GDDR5 would certainly go after the 9600GT, and in some of the reviews, Ive seen the 4670 beating tying and losing to the GSO, so its a draw, as next driver launch is the good one coming up, and should bump them even, tho Im thinking nVidia knows this as well, and is coming with their bigga badda boom bang or whatever heheh. One thing tho, and you mentioned it. Cost. nVidias solutions are simply costlier, and the oems are gonna snap up these cards like kids in a candy shop, as Im sure ATI is going to present a nice price to them. nVidias die sizes are simply too large, and costly
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 6:59:56 AM

Jaydee,when will we see the HD 4670 LE ?
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 7:14:44 AM

It wont be a 4670, more likely a 4830, or something to that effect. A month from now or so. Havnt gotten alot of info on that card, anyone else can chime in if they have some links or "whatever" Possibly called a 4750 as well
!