Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4850 1GB vs. 4870 512MB vs. GTX 260 @ 1920x1200

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 3, 2008 5:27:48 PM

Which card would be better at 1920x1200 resolution? I'm mostly interested in 4850 1GB vs. 4870 512MB, but the GTX 260 is fine for comparison too. Would it be worth it to pay the extra for the 4870, even with less VRAM?

Thanks for your comments.
December 3, 2008 5:50:40 PM

the 4870 1Gb would fair a bit better at that resolution. Its is usually a bit faster than the 260 but it depends on the game.
December 3, 2008 5:58:04 PM

actually lately reviews have been in favor of the 260 GTX. I'd go for the 1 gig 4870 to be more future proof than the rest. I mean they are both about the same give or take 1-3 fps (some games, they kill each other) but the 4870 1 gig has both more ram and dx 10.1:) 

although the 260 GTX (old version) can now be found for under 200$ on newegg if its available to u:)  it performs only a little less than the Sp 216, and it OCs alot mroe

For the 4850 1 gig, compared to the 512 is just waste, many reviews have shown minimal gains.

seeing as the 260 GTX can be found for around only 20-40$ more, it would be a waste at this point.


What motherboard do u have?
Related resources
a c 179 U Graphics card
December 3, 2008 6:02:39 PM

Will you be using the card on the system in your sig, MITHRANDIR? If so none of them will give its best and will be handicapped by the Athlon.
As a question, the GTX260 and HD4870 are similar, as CUSTOMISBETTER has said, with the newer 216 core GTX260 just edging clear with both cards
at stock speeds. The HD4850 is the slowest and not even the extra memory will help here.
December 3, 2008 9:30:56 PM

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

First off, no, this is not for the system in my sig. I'm thinking about building a new system.

Secondly, I guess my main question is: is the 4850 powerful enough to game nicely at 1920x1200, or do I need to step it up a notch?

Along that vein, since the 1GB version of the 4850 is apparently not worth the price premium, would it make much difference to get a 1GB 4870 instead of a 512MB version?

BTW, I prefer the AMD cards, because the system I build will most likely not support SLI.
December 4, 2008 9:15:27 PM

LOL yeah all these forums have been is 260 GTX or 4870 or 4870 X2 or 4850 or blah blah blah since August:p 

When ever I see performance, driver or monitor related threads its such a break:p 
December 4, 2008 10:21:21 PM

If I'm were you, and if I am gaming at that high resolution then I would buy Radeon HD 4870 X2. No Doubt.

Or wait until Radeon HD 5870 with DirectX 11 comes out next year in Q1/Q2 2009. (If you desperately need DirectX 11 and more powerful GPU for high resolution or if you can wait that long)

This is because I like to put high Anti-Aliasing and high image details but to make this possible at that high resolution like 1080P (which will be standard in the near future) or 1920x1200, without ruining performance then Radeon HD 4870 X2 is the right choice.

Anyway, this is just my recommendation but the last words and decision will be yours... Good Luck!
December 4, 2008 10:40:50 PM

do u just cut and paste? http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/257656-33-what-graphi...

You posted the exact same post in both threads. 5870 is way out there, I mean there is not confirmation on the dates.

4870 X2 is a big leap, he's better off buying 1 4870 seeing how it goes, then either buying a second 1 or grabing a 4870 X2 for tri Crossfire.

if the resolution was 2560x1600, then I'd say yeah no lower than a 4870 X2....but @ 1920x1200, even a GX2 can max out most games with out AA
December 4, 2008 11:06:33 PM

L1qu1d said:
do u just cut and paste? http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/257656-33-what-graphi...

You posted the exact same post in both threads. 5870 is way out there, I mean there is not confirmation on the dates.

4870 X2 is a big leap, he's better off buying 1 4870 seeing how it goes, then either buying a second 1 or grabing a 4870 X2 for tri Crossfire.

if the resolution was 2560x1600, then I'd say yeah no lower than a 4870 X2....but @ 1920x1200, even a GX2 can max out most games with out AA


Well, They both got same or similar Question... So I got same answer for them. Instead of retyping, I could just use copy and paste process which is faster than retyping. This is why we have copy and paste process. I don't see any problem with that action. Just saving my time and energy. :D 

Anyway I saw the roadmap of ATI and NVIDIA. ATI will have DirectX 11 for about 6 months before NVIDIA which is a good news for me since I've been waiting for 1 year. I am still building my rig which never seem to end. I desperately need DirectX 11 by Q1 2009 (if possible) because DirectX 10.1 will become obsolete pretty soon by Q3 2009. Trust me, we will see more DX11 games by Q3 2009. I just wanted to future proof myself. 1080P will also be future standard and today, we already have smaller LCD Monitor with 1080P capable like Acer H213Hbmid (21.5"). You need something powerful with current generation GPU like HD 4870 X2 or otherwise you must wait for HD 5870. 2560x1600 is crazy and that would never be Full HD standard in the near future so it's better to forget it for now. Of course, I am not guaranteeing about whether the roadmap will be true or false. :bounce: 

1 Radeon HD 4870 1 GB is nothing for me at 1920x1200 resolution. When you turn on AA high and maxed details, the performance will become slow. I had checked the benchmarks already. You need either HD 4870 X2 or 1 HD 5870...

Sorry if my ideas looked too futuristic or too strange for you :D  . It is just my personal taste and it is my recommendation but it is the OP who had to make his final decision, not me
December 4, 2008 11:55:45 PM

L1qu1d said:
Here's Left 4 dead performances:

http://www.guru3d.com/imageview.php?image=15746

Heres another benchmark

http://www.guru3d.com/article/top-10-games-with-radeon-...


both from guru3D.


I am sorry but I was looking at a different benchmarks of HD 4870 X2 with heavy games like Crysis or Stalker Clear Sky. I was not happy with HD 4870 1GB's performance on some heavy games. HD 4870 X2 only has 35 fps when it comes to games like Stalker Clear Sky with high AA and Maxed details so a single HD 4870 1GB will be much lower in performance.

HD 4870 1GB will not future proof you. In the future, games will become very heavy like Crysis. This is my prediction.

Check these benchmarks:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTUzMSwz...

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15105/5

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2325448,00.a...

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/745/6/

However, our goal is to try to get at least 60 fps or closer to 60 fps in all games with high settings + at least 4x AA. LCD Monitors will support only max 60 fps and will not go above 60 fps.

I know that my fate is that I would spend more money since I love the high Anti Aliasing with high image details. :( 
December 5, 2008 12:08:08 AM

NO CARD will future proof u that much, why spend 600 for future proof, i mean you might get lucky, but why jump the gun when its unnecessary?

I'd say the 4870 1 gig is good enough for now, and god forbid, grab another 1, i mean 2 4870s generally perform better than 1 4870 X2 from the benchmarks I've seen, which is weird since it should be the same thing:S Either or, I'd say stick to the 4870. AA won't always be there, and some game don't do AA well.
December 5, 2008 12:25:42 AM

L1qu1d said:
NO CARD will future proof u that much, why spend 600 for future proof, i mean you might get lucky, but why jump the gun when its unnecessary?

I'd say the 4870 1 gig is good enough for now, and god forbid, grab another 1, i mean 2 4870s generally perform better than 1 4870 X2 from the benchmarks I've seen, which is weird since it should be the same thing:S Either or, I'd say stick to the 4870. AA won't always be there, and some game don't do AA well.


hmmmmmmmmm.....

If you get 1 Radeon HD 4870 1GB is just like you get 1 Radeon HD 5850 for 2009. :ouch: 

I would rather get either HD 4850 X2/4870 X2/1 HD 5870 and get ready for future 2009 game party........ :bounce: 

I am just wondering about why it is necessary for GPU company to keep on increasing and improving the speed of newer generation GPU in comparison to older generation GPU. The answer is simple, in the future, games will be heavy (maybe as heavy as Crysis) and that 1080P or higher resolution will be something normal. Future proofing as much as we can is good for us but I am not saying that our GPU will never become obsolete because one day, it will...

Anyway, I will wait for HD 5870 for DirectX 11 Games since I don't wanna miss DX 11 Games by 2009. :D 
December 5, 2008 12:37:51 AM

So then I guess when the 5870 X2 you'll grab that 1 too for future proofing? Why jump the gun so quick? Your speaking as a person that loves AA, I mean look at the 9600 GT it can hold its own even current gen games with no AA on...

Crysis doesn't run well even on the 4870 X2, it runs better on the 280 GTx than the 4870 X2, and even better on the 9800 GX2 (ofc both the X2 cards have some major stutters from reviews I've read)

Is the 4870 X2 a good choice? Yes Is it necessary? Not really. Like you said its, up to the OP how much he games.
December 5, 2008 10:15:37 AM

i can futureproof u guys that this thread has no future....... ;s
December 5, 2008 8:45:40 PM

Quote:
come on people dont wait for a 5870x2 or new nvidia cards, thats just a waste of time. whats the point to have a dx11 when there is just a few dx10 games not to mention dx10.1. when you want to purchase dx11 card there will dx12 and you will wait for a dx12 card. Whats the point if you dont have enough games.


It is Microsoft who wanted to do a "Revolution" in order to improve the world's PC graphics. DirectX 10.1 will become obsolete pretty soon when DirectX 11 comes out by Q1/Q2 2009. Check the future roadmap... :D 

Let's get ready for this new Revolution! :bounce: 
December 5, 2008 8:57:25 PM

obsolete? DX 9 games are still being made...can any1 say COD World at war???? Left 4 dead??

Get out of here LMAO honestly....DX 10 implimentation is SOOOOOOO minimal, even Crysis warhead decided to leave VERY high accomplishable in DX 9...barely any diff...


PFFFT!!!!!!!
December 5, 2008 9:11:14 PM

Who cares about DirectX 10.1 which only has minor update for DirectX 10. DirectX 11 Games will come in at least Q3 2009 and many game developers will jump directly to DX 11 and use new features like tessellation, etc (according to the future roadmap of ATI, NVIDIA). Unlike DX 9, DX 10 would not last very long.

Anyway, I still don't wanna miss the DirectX 11 party by 2009 and this is why it is convenient for me to wait and future proof myself.

HAH!! :D 
December 5, 2008 9:58:03 PM

yes thats what every1 said about dx 10.

K go get your dx 11 card. If thats all ur buying it for....well thats ur prob:) 
December 5, 2008 10:12:02 PM

L1qu1d we don't know how revolutionary dx 11 is going to be... it will probably be more revolutionary than (the very capable) dx 9.0c - dx10. It may well be worth it.
December 5, 2008 10:24:05 PM

yes thats exactly what ppl said about DX 10 as well:) 
a b U Graphics card
December 5, 2008 10:31:13 PM

As we've seen before, it doesn't matter what Microsoft says, only what NVidia does. ATI has had one of the best DX11 features (tessellation) since the 2900XT, yet it has never been implemented.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 20, 2009 2:52:43 PM

Bump...


Did you get your 5870x2 yet techno boy :non:  :non:  ... Just wondered coz I saw this thread and it made me chuckle lol

:lol: 
!