Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Update on 4890...

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 9, 2009 11:05:14 PM

More about : update 4890

March 10, 2009 5:39:17 AM

Meh gtx 285 is almost 30 percent faster then a 4870. I doubt the 4890 can beat the gtx 285 in raw performance but just like the 4870 gtx 280 battle the people might choose the 4890 over a gtx 285. I sense another price performance war.
March 10, 2009 8:24:27 PM

4890 is not going to be beating a GTX 285 anytime soon. Making up 30+% in performance?
Related resources
March 10, 2009 8:35:50 PM

They should be^

It would be easier if Sli and Crossfire were 2nd to Single GPus:) 

Either make some decent drivers (pointed to both companies) or stop making quad sli or tri sli:D 
March 10, 2009 9:02:55 PM

Quote:
Who cares if it does or not? ATI has an answer for the gtx295 right around the corner, I doubt they are concentrating on beating the gtx285.


Who cares? I would hope AMD does if they plan on staying in business. It dosent have to beat it to stay in business, but it needs to just be a legit improvement over the 4870, which it will be. Claiming it might beat a GTX 285 like that fud link does is stupidity.


March 10, 2009 9:04:59 PM

L1qu1d said:
They should be^

It would be easier if Sli and Crossfire were 2nd to Single GPus:) 

Either make some decent drivers (pointed to both companies) or stop making quad sli or tri sli:D 


My personal experience with Crossfire also has me leaning towards this. The support is just not there.
March 10, 2009 9:08:32 PM

Dosent matter, the 4870 and GTX 260 are competitors, not the GTX 280 or 285.

Its nothing to debate, the debate isnt even there. The 4890 will just overtake the GTX 260 all together. Still too far away from the GTX 280/5, as it should since it remains competitive with the GTX 260.
March 10, 2009 11:06:58 PM

i think it'll be approximately 15% faster than 4870 and gtx 260, i don't think it''ll outperform the 285, but it will come close to the 280... i hope, at least...
too early to know, but it'll surely be a sweet deal...
March 11, 2009 5:29:45 AM

If its 5 percent slow then the gtx 280 and 30 percent cheaper I dont know bout you guys but thats a sweet deal .
March 11, 2009 5:32:43 AM

If the 4890 is 5 percent slower then the gtx280 and 50 percent cheaper I dont know bout you guys but thats a sweet deal to me.
March 11, 2009 5:43:36 AM

If it's 5 percent slower and 10 percent cheaper it's a good deal to me. (To a point.)
March 11, 2009 9:37:06 AM

4890 512 mb may be 5-10% quicker than normal 4870 1 gb or even its oc edition, but the 4890 1 gb oc edition, oced by ur self again will come close to GTX280 i believe
a c 130 U Graphics card
March 11, 2009 10:08:37 AM

What matters is its performance in its price segment and that will be the best.
Also dont forget that AMD were all set to roll with 40nm chips but are releasing this on a 55nm leaving a die shrink revision for later with improvements to come.

Mactronix
a c 176 U Graphics card
March 11, 2009 12:11:04 PM

% matters, a lot.

The link isn't really worth reading. The only interesting thing in it is that it claims that the notebook versions are shipping. This does put the chip a lot closer to being finished. We still have no idea what internal changes have happened that might make it C4C faster then the 4970. We still have no idea if there are more SP or not, or high much higher it might be clocked. The only thing that seems set in stone about this chip is that it will be on the 55nm node. Dropping to 40nm probably won't do much, other then make it cheaper for them to produce. (unless there are even more tweaks they can make.)
a c 130 U Graphics card
March 11, 2009 5:13:14 PM

+1
% means nothing its completly dependant on the hardware used, and if a die shrink dosent make any differance i would be very surprised. It would basically mean the laws of physics were on holiday.

Mactronix
March 11, 2009 5:51:03 PM

There is a slight chance that the 1gb edition which comes later is maybe 40 nm because Ati always has last minute surprises and they said its gonna 300 dollars is a lot if it doesn't the die shrink for 1 gb edition.
March 11, 2009 8:44:41 PM

The very same reason why many people choose the 4870x2 over a gtx295. Performance goes and in hand with price.
a c 176 U Graphics card
March 11, 2009 8:50:46 PM

Stranger, we might be talking about two different things here. Some people say "big deal, you got 30FPS and I got 20FPS, so I'm only 10FPS slower." The problem is this is absolute values, and totally ignores percentage. His "not bad" 20FPS is actually 33% slower, which sounds a lot worse, because at these low FPS it IS worse. Same is true if you are talking about 40FPS instead of 50FPS. Might be only 10 frames, but its also 20% slower.

If the 4970 is going to be 30% faster then the 4870, then we know it will come close to the GTX280. You can't just say it will add 10 FPS to your games, as that lacks any real detail. (what res is the first that comes to mind.) By saying 10% slower then the GTX280, but 30% cheaper, we have some idea about its performance.
a c 130 U Graphics card
March 11, 2009 9:10:57 PM

:)  @ 4745454b

Well to be fair no one said FPS was a better way of doing it either, it isnt. You get the same issue, ie what system ? what settings ?

People who know a little about computers will understand that these percentages and FPS being thrown about are just ball park. People who dont know so much and come for advice could get misslead and take some of these figures as gospel.
Everyone is of course entitled to thier own opinion and to express it how they like.
My opinion on the subject is that S/S has a point here.

Mactronix
a c 176 U Graphics card
March 11, 2009 10:43:03 PM

So your saying "paper numbers" have no relation to actual performance? Who is "taking a piss" now? Sorry, but "paper numbers" mean things whether you choose to accept that or not. I didn't say context doesn't matter, but % does matter as well.
a b U Graphics card
March 11, 2009 10:59:34 PM

Last i remember the hd 2900xt was a beast of a card with beastly paper numbers lol.
=]
a c 176 U Graphics card
March 12, 2009 1:28:07 AM

But only in synthetic benchies, which I hope we all remember I hate. In actual game play, it was many % behind.
a b U Graphics card
March 12, 2009 4:48:36 AM

I predict the 4890 will be a % of fps over the 4870. Everyone, fill in the blanks
March 12, 2009 4:51:07 AM

I predict the 4890 512 Mb will be 10% of fps over the 4870 1gb oc.
a c 130 U Graphics card
March 12, 2009 7:41:48 AM

Im assuming that paper numbers are the same thing as a paper launch ? no?
Which means nothing without the actual hardware.
Synthetics are fine as long as you are using the same hardware every where else in the rig and are just comparing the performance of one component.
This is the whole problem with benchmarks, a lot of people take then as fact and they just cant be, there are to many differentials to take into account.
Every single piece of hardware will work differently, even if its only very slightly. Drivers give different results on different systems, again even if its not a lot, its still there. Even the graphics chips themselves all offer various levels of performance.
The same is true for gaming benchmarks. You could build two differant systems with seemingly identical components and you wouldnt get the exact same performance.

Mactronix
a c 176 U Graphics card
March 12, 2009 12:06:35 PM

Paper numbers are the numbers you'd see in a "normal" review. 25FPS at XXX by XXX resolution for example. Strange was talking about the way Hard reviews, where they talk about the experience. Sometimes they will mention that although X card was on paper faster, there is no real way to tell the difference between the two unless you could look in the case, or see the benchmark results.

Quote:
Synthetics are fine as long as you are using the same hardware every where else in the rig and are just comparing the performance of one component.


My problem with synthetic benchies is that they don't model real world usage. Take the previously mentioned 2900XT. 3DMark said it should compete really well, but in actual games it could barely take on the 8800GS. Even the 8800GT was faster. Synthetic harddrive programs have the same issue. They model what the drive is theoretically capable of, but they fail to take into account real world usage. (not all clusters needing to be read are next to each other for example.) I've seen to many times where a synthetic benchmark says X should be faster, but real world programs say Y really is.

The only time when I use them is to stress test X device. If an overclocked video card can handle many loops of 3DMark (or a new to me used video card.) then I can say the overclock is stable.

Again, saying/guessing that X will be Y% faster then Z gives us an idea as to Xs relative performance. Reading Rescawen's post gives me an idea as to how fast s/he thinks it will be. I do not understand why Strange says its "shite"
a b U Graphics card
March 12, 2009 2:14:11 PM

Guessing is one thing, but guessing using guesstimates is another. I trhink I understand SS here. But..... heheh, if you know the previous performance of an older card, and draw a % of perf of a newer cards perf vs the older one, then its not paper, even tho its all a guess. When ATI announced their 4xxx series, they gave a % as to how much better the new 4xxx series would be over the older 3xxx series, and at the time it was a paper guesstimate, it did come thru as to its ability, one gen vs another.,Going by this line of thought, you can use a % guesstimate, not using HW differences only, as in clock gen ,tmus etc, but also common sense as to what a companies done in the past as well as what is needed currently for people to pull the trigger for a better card, as in a certain % to justify a new purchase
March 12, 2009 8:52:14 PM

Stranger, the "30%" remark was 4870 vs GTX 285. The GTX 285 is allegedly like 15% better than the GTX 280. Its really simple math.

According to your charts, its a 20% difference in Fallout 3, 15% difference in Crysis, and a 25% difference in Stalker. That's close enough for some rough estimation done by some folks in this thread.

On a different note, one thing I do notice on those charts is buying a GTX 295 over a 4870X2 is a little questionable.
a c 130 U Graphics card
March 12, 2009 9:33:27 PM

May i suggest an addition to your Sig S/S

Bottlenecking is an evil word.
Generalizing is an evil practice :D 

mactronix
March 12, 2009 10:04:36 PM

I still don't get it, this just seems like rambling to me.

Other than that, nothing. Clearly stated 30% when talking about the 285 GTX.

Then again I just don't care enough to read the post properly after % have no meaning.

This could completely change the p/p results then.

To me 10% isn't a epenis its basically insurance. For example that is:) 

It would mean the the 20-30% the 4870 X2 has over the 280 GTX is meaningless which puts the 280 GTX ontop? And yes I mean 280 GTX not 285 GTX to clear that out.

Anyways I'm pretty finished with this particular thread since it did get off topic from what the 4890 will be, and apprerntly its going to be nothing since % don't matter.
March 12, 2009 10:22:27 PM

GTX285 is about 20% faster than 4870 1GB on average (few exceptions on 2560x1600 4xAA, but also few exceptions where 4870 beats even the 285)

My prediction is that the 4890 will be at least 20% faster thus coming VERY close to 280/285 if not beat them. ATI might pull another bomb here.

P.S - GTX285 is exactly 8-10% faster than GTX280 as only diff is clock speed and the clock speed is about 10% faster (which doesnt always scale linearly with performance)
March 12, 2009 11:42:33 PM

yes your right, clock speed memory speed and shader speed, each varying from 8%-15%.

But do go on.

The 285 GTX right in the above charts shown by Strangestranger, shows the 285 GTX 25% faster, right in the first 1.

You won't see 20% from the 4890, not with 100 mhz increase and soo little SP added.

Strangestranger its not that my brain can't comprehend, its that your opinion shouldn't be treated as fact.

Though percetages mean nothing to you, doesn't means its not a good way to judge the brand, I mean it does sound alot more appealing right?

So this really isn't a matter of being right or wrong, its a matter of personal preference.
March 13, 2009 12:01:52 AM

according to those benchmarks the stock clocked 285 is about 18% faster than the 1GB 4870... i thought it was much more... i actually think an 18% increase is possible... I think the 4890 will perform just the same as a stock 285, if not it'll be a little less... probably like 5%...

From what i think, the 4890 will outperform the 280, which according to those benchmarks is 7-15% (10% in average) faster than the 1 GB 4870...
March 13, 2009 12:03:18 AM

I think even an OC 275 will beat an OC 280...
a b U Graphics card
March 13, 2009 12:06:04 AM

My thoughts as well. How a small bump in clocks can be stretched to 15% , and 20% stretched to 30% is beyond me. A clock for clock increase isnt a guess, its accurate, and nothing scales 100% no matter what, and we dont have more than 10%. Im also not sure why some people are sooo confident about exactly what ATI is going to release here. I guess I need more links, as the best info Ive found has it bouncing anywheres from 30% better than the 4870 down to 12% better. If we take an average or in between those numbers, and there wont be a difference between the 285 and the 4890. All the 275 rumors etc, all the 295 unavailabilities, and only the 285 as a true common seller available, Im not so sure nVidia does have an answer to this one, and again, not sure why some people are insisting they know what ATI is releasing
March 13, 2009 12:06:52 AM

and to those saying 160sp and a 100mhz increase won't affect performance...
look at the performance difference on a 4850 and a 4830 (that's a 160sp difference)
and the 4850 is clocked approximately 100mhz higher on all clocks...

does that makes sense to you?
March 13, 2009 12:09:30 AM

yeah jaydee is right... we are all assuming we know for a fact all these new cards' specs. If those specs were like the ones mentioned, then that's what i think it would happen.
March 13, 2009 12:11:12 AM

Nica Guy said:
and to those saying 160sp and a 100mhz increase won't affect performance...
look at the performance difference on a 4850 and a 4830 (that's a 160sp difference)
and the 4850 is clocked approximately 100mhz higher on all clocks...

does that makes sense to you?


An overclocked 4830 can match a 4850 in performance btw.
a b U Graphics card
March 13, 2009 12:13:20 AM

I think ati is just tricking us again the 4890 will have over 1000+ sps. xD
The card sit between the gtx280-gtx285 in my opinion.
March 13, 2009 12:16:54 AM

spathotan said:
An overclocked 4830 can match a 4850 in performance btw.




cool :)  ...
making my point even clearer on how clock speed increases can affect performance... add 160sp to that and
it'll probably increase those 20% in performance...

i agree with invisik... probably between those 2 cards at a much better price...
March 13, 2009 12:17:18 AM

The 4890 will be a great card no doubt. I think the price is more important than where it fits in line.

hmmm
March 13, 2009 12:20:07 AM

Nica Guy said:
cool :)  ...
making my point even clearer on how clock speed increases can affect performance... add 160sp to that and
it'll probably increase those 20% in performance...

i agree with invisik... probably between those 2 cards at a much better price...


Keep in mind that's a pretty high OCed 4830, the ones with good coolers can do it pretty easily. But youre still better off just buying a 4850.

While I think Nvidia is just flooding their lineup even more with the GTX 275, they are probably dead on with their apparent guesstimation as to where the 4890 will fall, between the GTX 260 and GTX 280, and im gonna have to go with that. If it comes in cheaper than the GTX 280 (which im sure it will) its a win.
a b U Graphics card
March 13, 2009 12:28:04 AM

Exactly. Its the price that counts here. Theres tons of room for pricing with this card. Everyone involved will be winners here, and nVidia is going to suffer for it. All the partners, ATI and consumers, all win, except nVidia
March 13, 2009 12:31:55 AM

ATI is just really missing a STRONG partner, somebody that does their own development for drivers and software and even hardware, like EVGA does. EVGA has even released a SLi Enhancement Patch that adds SLi support to games that arent normally supported.
a b U Graphics card
March 13, 2009 12:34:50 AM

I wouldnt bet on nVidia knowing anything here. Or why did they release their cards, the original G200s at such high prices? I mean, ATI had announced its pricing before NDA lifting. No, I cant say nVidia knows a thing of what ATI is doing here
March 13, 2009 12:44:34 AM

spathotan said:
Keep in mind that's a pretty high OCed 4830, the ones with good coolers can do it pretty easily. But youre still better off just buying a 4850.

While I think Nvidia is just flooding their lineup even more with the GTX 275, they are probably dead on with their apparent guesstimation as to where the 4890 will fall, between the GTX 260 and GTX 280, and im gonna have to go with that. If it comes in cheaper than the GTX 280 (which im sure it will) its a win.



im not planning on buying a 4830, i already got a 4850... next buy probably something in the 5000 series or 4890 if its a good deal... my 4850 is still performing very well with new games...
March 13, 2009 12:55:04 AM

What I would like to see is a 4670 revision.

That card still impresses me with the amount of power it can bring to the table, and it doesn't even need a connector.

If ATI (doubtful we'll see it from Nvidia) made 1 that can match the 4850 or the 4870 (not likely anytime son), with out a power connector, I just found my gf's new card:D 

Though that would really be looking at a new gpu and not a revision:p 
a b U Graphics card
March 13, 2009 1:11:37 AM

Even tho we saw some leaked specs and perf on the 740, its possible it may just be the card youve just described. The one G3D had was engineering sample, not completely best silicon,clocks, or drivers. Maybe better perf, less power yet from the real one
March 13, 2009 1:18:53 AM

thank god, I've tried the 4850 in her system, and that card ran hot as hell in there, but she has a Vaio that has no ventilation.

:p 
a c 176 U Graphics card
March 13, 2009 2:17:09 AM

^_____ Drills, saws, and tin snips can fix that...
!