Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

ATI HD 4670 REVIEW

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 6:25:18 AM

Take a look:
http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/ATI-Radeon-HD-4670-...

The ATI Radeon HD 4670 proved to be an excellent performer, especially considering its low-power operation and affordable price. In our synthetic 3DMark06 and 3DMark Vantage benchmarks, the Radeon HD 4670 trailed cards like the Radeon HD 3850 and GeForce 9600 GT/GSO, but handily outperformed the ATI Radeon HD 3650 and GeForce 9500 GT. However, in our actual in-game tests, which use anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, the Radeon HD 4670 was able to outpace the Radeon HD 3850 and GeForce 9600 GSO more often than not and finished close behind the more expensive GeForce 9600 GT.

More about : ati 4670 review

a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 6:44:17 AM

Thanks for the link Maziar
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 6:51:02 AM


Now we want some benchies, and i dont mean pics of garden furniture :) 
Mactronix
Related resources
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 6:53:47 AM

No problems dirt:) 
lol mactronix :)  u need benchies ? doesnt this review hav some ? :D 
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 6:58:37 AM


Sorry meant more benchies for comparison, brain got ahead of my fingers again :pt1cable: 

Mactronix :) 
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 6:59:41 AM


Beat me to the punch there Maziar :lol: 

Mactronix
September 10, 2008 7:30:32 AM

Hardcore PWNAGE!

For 80 bucks you something thats faster than an 3850 most of the time pretty sweet!
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 8:11:40 AM

mactronix said:
Beat me to the punch there Maziar :lol: 

Mactronix

you wanted to post the GURU3D one ? :D 
a c 171 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 12:13:24 PM

Nice, though I do wish the guru article included the 3850. From what I saw, aside from the occasional game, the 4670 can hold its own against the 9600GT. Its better then the 9600GT however seeing as its not only cheaper, but doesn't need the 6pin PCIe connector. For $80, AMD has given us one heck of a card.
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 12:34:37 PM

The LE addition looks promising as well. 480 shaders, not sure about clocks and tmus, but its said itll put the 9800GT to bed
September 10, 2008 1:36:16 PM

With that power draw - the 4670 would make an AMAZING laptop GPU
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 1:58:03 PM


Well from what i have seen this card seems extreemly bandwidth sensitive. Maybe some of you guys can tell me if my thinking is correct. I have seen a few reviews now and the main differance between those that rate the 4670 either behind or in front of a 3850 most of the time is the motherboard. When tested on a P45 it is just behind but when using a X48 board it seems to win most of the time. Would i be correct then in saying that this indicates a bandwidth dependancy on the part of the 4670 ?

@Maziar, No i just meant you got the other review in before my explanation :( 

I basically agree with 4745454b.

Mactronix
September 10, 2008 2:39:37 PM

Looks absolutely excellent. Seems as though I found something to replace my X850XT with, and crank up the details!!! And AA and AF... never used those before. Now, where can I find one.
September 10, 2008 3:19:51 PM

I hope this bad boys goes to lappys real soon.

having to choose between a Intel/8600/3650 on the medium class lappys, this is a good lappy candidate.
Low power envelope, low cost and decent performance.
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 3:24:48 PM

Yup it will be good for laptops IF they dont change the specs of it for the laptop version though.
September 10, 2008 5:06:14 PM

Maziar said:
Yup it will be good for laptops IF they dont change the specs of it for the laptop version though.



Not to threadjack but i heard you guys had an earthquake there was it bad?
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 5:09:00 PM

It wasnt in Tehran one was in tabriz for about 3 weeks ago and the second one was today in the south and fortunately no one was hurt :) 
September 10, 2008 6:03:37 PM

I live in CA in the united states and we get big earthquakes here too becuase of the san andreas fault line! Never knew you guys got em too! Glad no one got hurt they can be pretty scary.
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 6:11:58 PM

thanks :) 
September 10, 2008 6:17:01 PM

You can get them anywhere - in the UK we live 1000 miles from the closest fault - but still got a 5.5 quake the other month...

OK not in the big league - but can happen anywhere...
September 10, 2008 6:18:51 PM

Would the 4670 be faster then the x1950 pro?
September 10, 2008 7:04:33 PM

HD 4670 is looking to be on par with the HD3850 from what I've seen. Should be significantly above the HD2600's, HD 3600's, and anything before HD's (X800's & X850's, X1950's).
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 8:05:45 PM

In most cases it outperforms the HD 3850 especially with AA
September 10, 2008 8:31:42 PM

Yep. Good low mid range card. Really promising for laptops and living room AV-computers.
September 10, 2008 9:00:19 PM

Anyone found a site that's selling these yet? I can't seem to find one.
a c 171 U Graphics card
September 10, 2008 9:34:05 PM

It should be slower then the 3850. The 3850 has a faster memory bus. Due to the improvements in handling AA however, the 4670 should be faster then the 3850 with AA enabled. (I believe the number of SP is the same for both cards.) I was hoping for benchies between the 4670 and the 3850 to see exactly how much impact the smaller memory bus would have. If any company chooses to put out a 4670 with higher memory specs, it should be a monster. I believe this is also why the overclocked card showed the kind of gains that it did, as the card is starved for memory. If anyone buys these, get the best cooling you can on the memory, and overclock the crap of the ram. I'd love to see someone come up with a memory volt mod for these cards. This could lead to some nice overclocking!
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 5:49:10 AM

I think the HOTHARDWARE article i posted compares HD 4670 and HD 3850
September 11, 2008 11:04:24 AM

I must say I've been pleasantly surprised by the 4670's results, especially given the remarkably low price. Given that it appears to hold quite strong with AA enabled at medium resolutions in pretty much everything out now, I'm highly tempted to pick this for my next system if I get underway building this not too far into the future, rather than waiting on the 1GB 4870 whenever it comes out. It appears to be providing notably over half the performance of the 4850 at those resolutions, for less than half the price... Possibly this could be the best "bang for the buck" to be seen yet.

Of course, given that the 4850 itself already made a heck of a splash, shaking up the entire landscape, the 4670 won't be making quite as large of a dent, I'd imagine. It's only a decently strong bargain, not wildly well beyond everything, offering more performance than cards twice as pricy; that re-alignment already came, and it also wound up pushing the lower ends down, allowing $100US to buy a GeForce 9600 GSO rather than a GeForce 8600 GTS. We might yet see another set of price drops here...
4745454b said:
It should be slower then the 3850. The 3850 has a faster memory bus.

It's WELL worth noting that the 4600 cards have 32 texturing units rather than the 16 the 3870 has, and it was pretty much well-documented that in virtually all cases, the bottleneck on Radeon 2900 and 3800 cards was the pathetically poor texturing throughput that was hardly improved since the Radeon X800XT back in 2004. I think that this has perhaps been instrumental to the 4670's performance. Not to say that it's being generally restricted by its memory bandwidth... I'm positive that it'd get rather strong performance gains from a higher memory clock; perhaps a GDDR4 or even GDDR5 version might be in order if the chips don't cost too much?
September 11, 2008 11:13:48 AM

Maziar said:
I think the HOTHARDWARE article i posted compares HD 4670 and HD 3850


From all the benchies ive saw it goes toe to toe with a 3850 256mb and being a bit surpassed by the 512mb version.
Now the thing is......the 128bit bus. it is a good value card for the money (that's is quite unquestionable) but for a gaming card, well......My old X800 (being replaced now by a 4850, the 3870 came DOA and i exchanged it) had GDD3 and a 256 bit bus. I'm sad to take her off.

For OEMs (HP,Dell, Gateway, Acer, etc) is a killer card. I hope it finds its was there so Joe Consumer and Little Johnny Consumer can game too.

Off-topic:About quakes, come to Portugal !! The last one was in 1755 !!! Of course it razed the capital and all...but that is something...well..not too bad :) 

Portuguese Humor, highly corrosive and hazardous. Do not touch.
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 11:25:57 AM

Thats not humor, thats common sense heheh, and Im not just refering to Portugal either
September 11, 2008 11:30:03 AM

radnor said:
From all the benchies ive saw it goes toe to toe with a 3850 256mb and being a bit surpassed by the 512mb version.
Now the thing is......the 128bit bus. it is a good value card for the money (that's is quite unquestionable) but for a gaming card, well......My old X800 (being replaced now by a 4850, the 3870 came DOA and i exchanged it) had GDD3 and a 256 bit bus. I'm sad to take her off.

Keep in mind that memory interface isn't important alone. What matters is the bandwidth reached, so a 128-bit 4670 with 2.0GHz GDDR3 would provide just as much memory bandwidth as my 256-bit X800XT with 1.0GHz GDDR3.

As far as benchmarks go, I'd note that it tends to blow away the 3850 when it comes to anti-aliasing; Radeon 3000s sucked at AA compared to GeForce 8/9s, and the Radeon 4000s demolish all of the above. Just looking in Oblivion, (because I haven't calculated in other games yet) the Radeon 4670 takes a mere 17.4% performance hit for using AA+AF, compared to 31.1% for the GeForce 9600GSO, and a whopping 43.0% for the Radeon 3850, and 42.9% for the Radeon 3870.
September 11, 2008 12:47:08 PM

It's good that having an lower end of mainstream graphics card that can play new games. For some time to play a new title, you had to buy a graphics card which cost 150$+ at least.
September 11, 2008 1:07:16 PM

duzcizgi said:
It's good that having an lower end of mainstream graphics card that can play new games. For some time to play a new title, you had to buy a graphics card which cost 150$+ at least.


Meh, nothing new. 8800gs has been out at the same price for the same performance and slightly lower power consumption for a while now.
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 1:37:24 PM

GS power sonsumption is much higher and costs more
September 11, 2008 1:48:35 PM

nottheking said:
Keep in mind that memory interface isn't important alone. What matters is the bandwidth reached, so a 128-bit 4670 with 2.0GHz GDDR3 would provide just as much memory bandwidth as my 256-bit X800XT with 1.0GHz GDDR3.


Yes, i know. i know the benchies, i know the specs. But, well, doesn't seem right. At least a bit future proof. I understand this is in the "value" section. Pretty dam fine for a "value" section.
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2008 1:57:32 PM

I cant believe you say that dagger, its soooo far off. Maybe you can find a few deals where theyre close in price, the gs being old and totally non comparable in power usage and video playback. But you were the one that said the 4850 wasnt as good as the ultra not the gts as well
September 11, 2008 4:11:58 PM

Maybe I should change my 2600XT? I occasionally play Crysis but still couldn't finish it. :p 
I miss good old Doom II
September 11, 2008 8:35:09 PM

On Newegg, 8800gs cost $85 (only one model available because it's old).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
4670 cost $80-90.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
9600gso cost at least $90, but down to $70 if mir is included.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

Total system power consumption 30w more. But is 30w really significant?

Performance is below 8800gs/9600gso, but only slightly:
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...

4670 is definitely a good card for the low price range, but nothing to get excited about, since existing cards in that segment already deliver similar results.
September 11, 2008 8:41:23 PM

Dagger you really need to get off nvidia's nut's! :lol: 
September 11, 2008 8:54:16 PM

xx12amanxx said:
Dagger you really need to get off nvidia's nut's! :lol: 


Benchmarks aren't to your liking? :na: 
September 11, 2008 8:54:29 PM

dagger said:
On Newegg, 8800gs cost $85 (only one model available because it's old).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
4670 cost $80-90.

The 8800GS is being phased out; the "limit 99 per customer" indicates that in the near future, something about the listing is going to change... It's either going to be removed, or that $25US-off sale is going to end, which would jack its price to $110US.

Likewise, any card can have mail-in-rebates, which are dependant on what the board partner thinks, so they aren't proper to use in comparisons.

Plus, you realize that no matter how you look at it, the 8800GS/9600GSO is more expensive than the 4670, yet the latter has a tendency to spank the former at AA performance, with exceptions for high resolutions, though I doubt those spending less than $100US on a video card have a monitor capable of, say, 1920x1200.

dagger said:
9600gso cost at least $90, but down to $70 if mir is included.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

This part was particularly worth noting on its own... That card that you boast is $70US after MIR? Check again, and recognize that it's the 512MB version. Notice that amount of memory? Yup, that means it has only a 128-bit memory interface. Worse yet, the memory is DDR2, clocked to a pathetic 1000 MHz. I'm pretty sure THAT will be a worthy competitor for the 4670 all right! Well, maybe the 3650... :lol: 

dagger said:
Total system power consumption 30w more. But is 30w really significant?

It most certainly is when you had made the claim that, rather than being 30w higher, it was actually slightly lower. :lol:  As you said yourself:
  • dagger said:
    Meh, nothing new. 8800gs has been out at the same price for the same performance and slightly lower power consumption for a while now.
    September 11, 2008 9:13:50 PM

    Give it a bit of time and the 4670's are probably going to drop to the sub $60 mark - lets see what Nvidia can offer then.. I don't think they can make a 9600gso for that
    a c 171 U Graphics card
    September 11, 2008 9:46:08 PM

    I believe at that price you are supposed to buy the 9500GT. I wonder how that compares.

    Makes me wonder what Nvidia is up to. They continue to release "new" cards, that are nothing more then old cards with new names. Where is their new stuff? Did they honestly think they could do this? Did they really believe AMD wouldn't release anything faster?
    a b U Graphics card
    September 11, 2008 9:58:26 PM

    Its what I heard going back to March. An insider "hinted" that theyd stick with the G9x arch, push the G200 at highend and ride it out. They were completely taken by surprise, as ATI let slip varying rumors of both 480 and 800 shaders, while only 1 persom ever mentioned the rop increase.
    September 11, 2008 10:09:32 PM

    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...

    The 4670 is a medium level card, and performs as such.
    At $80-90, it really doesn't offer the best frame/dollar ratio.

    8800gs outperforms it for $85.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

    3870 significantly outperforms if for $10-20 more.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
    But of course, being the 3000s, it's not "cool" anymore. :sarcastic: 

    Or for another $10, blow away the 4670 with 8800gt.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

    All you bandwagon jumpers need to ease off, or that overloaded ride might tip over. :na: 

    It's still good, but at that price for that performance, not great by any standards.
    September 11, 2008 10:10:11 PM

    JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Its what I heard going back to March. An insider "hinted" that theyd stick with the G9x arch, push the G200 at highend and ride it out. They were completely taken by surprise, as ATI let slip varying rumors of both 480 and 800 shaders, while only 1 persom ever mentioned the rop increase.



    Yep no doubt they will release something better next time around but damn what a way to lose money! Lets just ride it out!..lol but if ATI could do it for a year and a half so can Nvidia .
    September 11, 2008 10:14:36 PM

    dagger said:
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd46...

    The 4670 is a medium level card, and performs as such.
    At $80-90, it really doesn't offer the best frame/dollar ratio.

    8800gs outperforms it for $85.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

    3870 significantly outperforms if for $10-20 more.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
    But of course, being the 3000s, it's not "cool" anymore. :sarcastic: 

    Or for another $10, blow away the 4670 with 8800gt.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

    All you bandwagon jumpers need to ease off, or that overloaded ride might tip over. :na: 

    It's still good, but at that price for that performance, not great by any standards.






    Just becuase the 1991 corvette zr1 is faster than a base model c6 vette and costs less doesnt mean you should go out and buy the 91 ZR1!

    September 11, 2008 11:01:29 PM

    4745454b said:
    Makes me wonder what Nvidia is up to. They continue to release "new" cards, that are nothing more then old cards with new names. Where is their new stuff? Did they honestly think they could do this? Did they really believe AMD wouldn't release anything faster?

    Apparently so; they knew that AMD had specified that they weren't going to produce a monstrously huge GPU, and if you look back then, people (particularly nVidia's folks and fans) were strongly predicting that the 4800s would be just an incremental upgrade over the 3800s much in the same way that those were an upgrade over the 2900XT.

    Meanwhile, nVidia over-estimated the demand for those wanting to pay $600US+ apiece for their video cards, and catered their market around the high-end. They gave us a lineup based around a $100US 9500GT, $175US 9600GT, $225US 8800GT, $300US 9800GTX, $450US GTX 260, and a $650US GTX 280, solidly confident that AMD wasn't going to be able to attack anything above $200US.

    After all, the current word was that AMD's GPU would have only 480 stream processors, and a 256-bit memory interface... That meant less far memory bandwidth than the GTX 280 could provide, and far less power.

    As reality turned out, with both the size of AMD's stream processors shrinking due to optimization, as well as a re-design of the core, it turned out that while they had originally planned for only 480 SPs, their chip design was made from the outside in, and they found that with the pad size necessary to fit the outside edges of the RV770, they had a load of empty interior space, that they went ahead and filled up, giving them 40 TMUs and 800 SPs. And on the memory front, they also got GDDR5, which few people saw coming. Coupled with a massive gain in image quality performance, they literally gave nVidia a real blow, especially since, true to suspicions, they still went ahead and targetted the RV770 starting at the $200US range.

    nVidia's response won't really be able to come this year. They're going to be hurting into 2009, when perhaps their old plans will have been re-written to allow them to react to this upset. I think we all know they're certainly losing sleep working on them.

    dagger said:
    8800gs outperforms it for $85.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

    You mean, the soon-to-have-sale-ended (and to vanish entirely not long after) 8800GS gets schooled by the 4670 at 1280x1024 with x4 AA.

    dagger said:
    3870 significantly outperforms if for $10-20 more.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
    But of course, being the 3000s, it's not "cool" anymore. :sarcastic: 

    The only way the 3870 manages to hope to even hit the broad side of a barn is by having AA disabled; it means like a 40% framerate drop in going from off to x4. And if it's off, it's worth noting that it's almost competitive with an 8800GT. But no one ever refers to that as such, because with such medium-high cards, people expect to be able to use AA.


    dagger said:
    Or for another $10, blow away the 4670 with 8800gt.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

    You mean $11US more. ;) 

    At which point, of course, you're talking a nearly 40% price increase of $31US, for a card that in regards to real-world performance, can't exactly be described as "blowing away" any more. While there aren't direct-comparisons to go on, I can see that it the 4670 actually provides a substantial portion of the 4850's performance, and the 4850 very much "blows away" the 8800GT, and competes with the 9800GTX+, which is clocked stupidly higher than the 8800GT.

    Really, I think, from what I've seen, is that the 4670 has just upset the 8800GT and 4850 when it comes to the best price-performance ratio. It's not a fanboy bandwagon if it's backed up by real-world results.
    !