Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4870, what about it makes it so much faster than 4850

Tags:
  • Radeon
  • Asus
  • FPS
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 31, 2009 8:15:58 PM

I have recently been reading FPS benchmarks on tomshardware, and found that one 4870, performs just south of 2 4850's.
I have been looking at a 4850 crossfire setup, using one overclocked asus card at 680 mhz, and later adding a second one of the single slot variety.
Now the asus one has a clock speed within spitting distance of a 4870, so my question is, what is it about the 4870 that is so much better than the 4850. If its the clock speed than will the 680 mhz asus perform similarly, or is it the ddr5 aspect, or something else. Both cards are of the 512 mb variety.
Thanks

More about : 4870 makes faster 4850

a b Ĉ ASUS
February 1, 2009 1:13:27 AM



Big boost in memory bandwidth.
February 1, 2009 2:31:32 AM

jaguarskx said:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video/ati-radeon-hd4850/4800-spec.png

Big boost in memory bandwidth.


I am not going to put to talk anything down, but I think that the additional memory bandwidth of the 4870 is not all that necessary between the two. There is about a 20% difference in performance and their is about a 20% difference in core clock. That's what I have come to notice. Overclocking the memory on a 4850 yeilds WAY SMALLER increases compared to overclocking the core. The performance of both cards prodominantly scale in response to their core clock speeds...
February 1, 2009 7:12:56 AM

3870 x 2 pc - express 1.1 wtf??
February 1, 2009 8:52:51 AM

Think about it first. You very rarely see 100% scaling regarding core clocks, it just doesnt happen, in gpus or cpus, only in rare cases. Its a combination of higher core speeds and memory speeds, with Id guess 70-80% of the higher results coming from core speeds, the rest from the memory. Remember also, whens the last time anyone took their GDDR3 to 3600? Maybe 2400-2500, but not 3600, and most likely for the 4850, around 2100-2200 tops, so its also missing that performance, no matter what you do
February 1, 2009 7:07:12 PM

Quote:
GDDR5 is the secret weapon.


Well, I score near a TriFire 4870 running at stock speeds with my Trifire 4850 running cores at 700MHz and my memory at 2000...

GPU Score is in the low 18000s (same as Geforce 295 on i7 platform).
February 1, 2009 10:00:41 PM

How about in games? At high res, with heavy textures?
February 1, 2009 10:52:31 PM

Antman56 said:
Well, I score near a TriFire 4870 running at stock speeds with my Trifire 4850 running cores at 700MHz and my memory at 2000...

GPU Score is in the low 18000s (same as Geforce 295 on i7 platform).



What benchmark is that on? Vantage performance preset?

February 1, 2009 11:08:58 PM

cjl said:
What benchmark is that on? Vantage performance preset?


That was on the Performance Preset... look at my review. I have the screenshots for High Preset score too...
Take a look at the review too JaydeeJohn... it is loaded with Benchmarks and detailed analysis of performance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/259595-33-pearly-940x...
February 1, 2009 11:11:21 PM

Cool, thx for the link
February 1, 2009 11:18:57 PM

cjl said:
What benchmark is that on? Vantage performance preset?


The more I think about it... it is probably a good deal closer to a 4870 Trifire than a 4870X2 (just to redefine "near" a 4870 Trifire)
February 2, 2009 2:45:43 AM

-That people can brag that they spent more cash than you.
-DDR5 memory
-Clocked faster
-More shader processors
-Its gpu temperature is **** HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 2, 2009 2:54:11 AM

shuaid said:

-More shader processors


They both have 800(5x160)sp...
February 2, 2009 3:47:51 AM

I'm certain one poster already had it correct.

A combination of small increase in GPU clock matched with GDDR5.

GDDR3 is the bottleneck for 4850's and synthetic benchmarks further this philosophy because the software is not designed to stress the memory, but the GPU. Therefore, if the GPU's are theoretically close or equivalent then benchmarks will be closer in these synthetic circumstances than real world performance numbers from games that use gobs of memory.
February 2, 2009 5:55:31 AM

how much of a difference in performance might I see between a 4870 512 mb and a 1gb is it worth the extra $~50? problem is, thats getting up towards a gtx 260, which I somehow think I would prefer. anyone used both these three cards all on a similar system and have some non opinionated comparison?
February 2, 2009 5:55:53 AM

Low 18k range?

I have no idea what a 4870 trifire gets, but my 4870x2 is in the low 16k range. If 18k is closer to tri than to 16k, the scaling must truly be miserable between 2 and 3.
February 2, 2009 6:32:42 AM

cjl said:
Low 18k range?

I have no idea what a 4870 trifire gets, but my 4870x2 is in the low 16k range. If 18k is closer to tri than to 16k, the scaling must truly be miserable between 2 and 3.


Your right... I thought most 4870X2s were getting mid 14000s on the GPU Score. Scaling is really good on my cards and I am sure 4870s scale just as well.

My apologizes... I based my assumptions on this review I remembered from a while ago:

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_gtx295_f...

Only uses an i7 920. Again, my bad :( 
February 2, 2009 7:54:04 AM

shuaid said:
-That people can brag that they spent more cash than you.
-DDR5 memory
-Clocked faster
-More shader processors
-Its gpu temperature is **** HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!



When I got a 3870x2 in February 2008, it was the only time I've spent so much. The card was good while it lasted but it died earlier this month. Amazingly, Newegg's replacing it with a same price as I paid 4870x2. Can't wait till it arrives.

I was going to just buy a 4850, but I won't turn down a much better warranty offer. Still, I'm not sure I'd spend over $300 again for a GPU. I'm just glad my power supply and case can handle it. The only game I've been able to play that's current on my IGP is LOTRO.

Antman56 said:

Only uses an i7 920. Again, my bad :( 


When the 4870x2 arrives, I'll see how it does with the triple core, but I'm upgrading to a Phenom II 940 and still might have to overclock to avoid CPU limitations. Why would an i7 920 have issues? Though they're reported as best in CrossfireX with two 4870x2's you'd think it would avoid limitations with just one.
February 2, 2009 8:07:41 AM

yipsl said:
When I got a 3870x2 in February 2008, it was the only time I've spent so much. The card was good while it lasted but it died earlier this month. Amazingly, Newegg's replacing it with a same price as I paid 4870x2. Can't wait till it arrives.

I was going to just buy a 4850, but I won't turn down a much better warranty offer. Still, I'm not sure I'd spend over $300 again for a GPU. I'm just glad my power supply and case can handle it. The only game I've been able to play that's current on my IGP is LOTRO.



When the 4870x2 arrives, I'll see how it does with the triple core, but I'm upgrading to a Phenom II 940 and still might have to overclock to avoid CPU limitations. Why would an i7 920 have issues? Though they're reported as best in CrossfireX with two 4870x2's you'd think it would avoid limitations with just one.


Thats one very sweet warranty replacement :D 

Lotro really does scale well, Ive had crazy frame rates out of really low tech cards, they did a really sterling job on making hte game look respectable even at minimum and yet theres still plenty of improvement when maxing everything when it demands high end hardware. The 4870x2 should really make a difference in what settings you can run as well :D  although as far as Im aware you still wont get the crossfire benefits :(  but even a single 4870 will let you chuck all the dx10 options on for most of the game.
February 2, 2009 1:32:55 PM

Yes, but I'll get Mass Effect for sure and maybe Fallout 3. I can always replay Oblivion and The Witcher. There I should get some Crossfire support.

I doubt that they'll come out with a sub $200 card in June that equals the 4870x2 (that happened with the 4850 vis a vis the 3870x2 last June) but 40nm might bring a dual GPU card that actually has sideport enabled and contributing to the bandwidth.

That was basically the only promise made with the 4870x2 AMD made but didn't keep. Sideport's there but disabled because it would affect thermals way too much. They also said it didn't improve the bandwidth between GPU's that much. You'd think it would, since it adds to the PCIe 2.0 bus.
February 2, 2009 1:52:37 PM

yipsl said:
When I got a 3870x2 in February 2008, it was the only time I've spent so much. The card was good while it lasted but it died earlier this month. Amazingly, Newegg's replacing it with a same price as I paid 4870x2. Can't wait till it arrives.

I was going to just buy a 4850, but I won't turn down a much better warranty offer. Still, I'm not sure I'd spend over $300 again for a GPU. I'm just glad my power supply and case can handle it. The only game I've been able to play that's current on my IGP is LOTRO.



When the 4870x2 arrives, I'll see how it does with the triple core, but I'm upgrading to a Phenom II 940 and still might have to overclock to avoid CPU limitations. Why would an i7 920 have issues? Though they're reported as best in CrossfireX with two 4870x2's you'd think it would avoid limitations with just one.


The reason I said "it was only a i7 920" is because "cjl" has a Intel i7 965 Overclocked. I was assuming an i7 more "earthly" than that when I was talking about most people getting GPU scores in the 14000s with a 4870x2. I assumed that most people with a TriFire of 4870s are getting around a 20-21k for their GPU Score. So hopefully that clears up my misjudgement
!