Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4870 depression

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 14, 2009 7:00:58 AM

I recently traded my 9800gtx+ OC for the HD 4870 today and i was told i would be amazed at the diffrence. so i installed everything and updated the drivers and wouldnt u know it, no diffrence from the nvidia card. it almost seems like its not running as well as the nvidia. i ran the auto tune in the catalyst program which oc'd it a little. Anyone using this card that has the settings perfected? im new to ati so im still not familar with everything...been an nvidia fanboi for awhile.

More about : 4870 depression

March 14, 2009 7:56:45 AM

Whoever said itd be a great upgrade, shame on them. Its an upgrade, and certain games, youll certainly see it, such as Grid, but other than that, the person who said that needs to get corrected. Sorry to hear you were an instrument of bad advice
March 14, 2009 7:58:29 AM

dreadloxx said:
I recently traded my 9800gtx+ OC for the HD 4870 today and i was told i would be amazed at the diffrence. so i installed everything and updated the drivers and wouldnt u know it, no diffrence from the nvidia card. it almost seems like its not running as well as the nvidia. i ran the auto tune in the catalyst program which oc'd it a little. Anyone using this card that has the settings perfected? im new to ati so im still not familar with everything...been an nvidia fanboi for awhile.


Some more details would be helpful. What resolution and detail settings are you using, with which games? One can assume that you have left all settings the same between cards. If the detail settings and resolution are set too low, it maybe a case of CPU bottlenecking.
Related resources
March 14, 2009 8:21:27 AM

guess that would help...my specs are

phenom 9950
ocz fatal1ty 2x2 gb
antec 650w psu
HD 4870
vista 64
1680x1050 res

i mainly play WoW and my framerates arent as amazing as everyone makes them out to be with this card. also CoD5 and FEAR 2 wouldnt think the cpu would be hurting me but im messing with alittle oc'ing to get it up to 2.8ghz.
a b Î Nvidia
March 14, 2009 9:13:21 AM

HD4870 vs 9800GTX+ OC

Yeah, what you did was replace a pretty great card with a NEARLY IDENTICAL one. It varies by the game but there is very little difference. Some games are identical.

In fact, by going ATI you just sacrificed the Physics portion of many games until ATI finally supports it.

Live and learn I guess, but that's also what benchmarks are for. It took me less than five minutes to get a brief overview of the difference between your cards.

FYI, you can use the latest "ATI Tray Tools" to turn on VSYNC if it's not being supported. For LCD monitors which run at 60Hz anything above is a waste. I have some older game that run at over 400FPS meaning my CPU and GPU work over 6x harder than they need to. Use FRAPS or the ATI Tray Tool version to look at the frame rate.

New card?

You've got a good system. You should wait at least another year before getting another video card and make sure it's much faster or don't bother. I'd wait and get a 32nm die.

SLI:
You were a prime candidate for SLI. I'd sell your spare card ASAP though as the new ATI 40nm DX11 are right around the corner and NVidia is due for a significantly better card within the next four months.
March 14, 2009 11:03:15 AM

The 4870 is a good deal better at higher resolutions. I upgraded from an 8800gt OC to a 4870 and the difference is all settings go to max in every game without fail.

It's the difference between playing Empire Total War on Ultra or or Medium/High, the difference between 16x AF and 8xAA and 4x and 4x. You won't notice it quite so much because the 9800gtx is just one step below, but you should see that your games mostly default to the highest settings where they didn't before.

If you are disappointed with the 3d mark 06 score then don't be, my 4870 only scored about 1500 more than my 8800gt but that is because it cant run the benchmarks on high settings.
March 14, 2009 3:00:20 PM

if you're playing below 1680x1050, you wont notice a difference as both card will give you 40-60fps on most games. but when you go up on the resolution, 1920x1080, that 9800gtx+ will struggle a bit while the 4870 1gb will give you quirky smile on your face.

i first had a 9600gt then a 4850, i was playing @ 1440x900, theres a big difference alright. then i went up to a 4870 playing @ 1440x900 before a monitor upgrade. i was loathing my 4870 1gb as it didnt offered any impacting difference compared to my previous 1gb 4850 (only that i can play nba2k9 and farcry2 @ 16xAF with not a single hint of stutter).

then lo and behold, my 1920x1080 monitor came.

anyway, cod5 favors the nvidia cards, cod4 favors ati.
March 14, 2009 7:09:22 PM

by traded i mean took the 9800gtx back and got the 4870. thanks for all the responses btw. now since the 4850 is equal to the 9800gtx then i would be just fine with the 4850? the reason i switched is because my motherboard has the ati chipset and i would like to run crossfire eventually. i thought that the 4870 would mesh better with my system but like i said, im not seeing much improvement. i guess i should take this one back and swap it for the 4850 and get some cash back
March 14, 2009 7:36:23 PM

When you say you don't see much difference, are you talking about literally seeing better graphics, or are you objectively benchmarking this somehow (3DMark, COD4, etc)?

I guess in terms of how pretty things looks, your screen resolution pretty much bottlenecks any cards better than the 9800GTX+ or HD4850. If you were running something like COD4, you should be able to see a boost in fps, ceteris paribus. My 4850 gives me around 120-130fps in COD4. With a 4870, at the same resolution, i should get at least 10-15fps more, if not more.

If I were you, I'd just keep the 4870, and then cf with another 4870 later on when I need more gpu power. Of course, you'd have to consider things such as whether you'll be getting a bigger screen down the line or if your 650w PSU could support 2 4870s.
March 14, 2009 8:01:17 PM

i guess when i say that i dont see much difference, im talking about fps and since my monitor only supports up to 1680x1050 this new card is overkill, im just worried now if i go to the 4850 its going to drop even lower, but on the flip side of that is if i run xfire with the 4850's i would be better off then running a single 4870, so basically 2-4850's for the same price as 1- 4870
a b Î Nvidia
March 14, 2009 8:15:09 PM

I`d advise you keep the 4870.
Right now it`s little too much for your monitor resoloution, that is true, but it will still be playing at high/maximum settings next year whereas you may need to spend on an upgrade to CF the 4850.
March 14, 2009 8:37:29 PM

You are fine, just stick with the 4870. By the way you should check benchmarks before going from one card to another and always consider what games you play. I also play wow and have used the same card for almost three years now. I have yet to actually NEED an upgrade playing at 1600x1200.
March 14, 2009 8:54:37 PM

dont think its been said, but did you clean out the nvidia drivers
March 14, 2009 9:47:39 PM

Slightly offtopic, it's been proven that people have been playing WoW on Asus EEE PC's.
March 15, 2009 10:53:59 AM

nows the time for you to driver force 16xAF.
March 15, 2009 4:22:59 PM

Quote:
If your getting 130fps in COD4 at 1650x1080, then your certainly not running everything on high. I run everything on high with 4x AA and I get 75-93fps at 1650x1080 with a highly overclocked 4850.


Everything is maxed except for v-sync. max AA and AF. Also at 1680x1050.

Off the top of my head, I can think of 2 possibilities why you are getting lower fps:
1) The game, by default, caps fps at 85 or 90 (I forget). You gotta enter a console command to change your cap (I reset my fps cap at 125).

2) Your cpu is slower/older than mine. I'm using an E8400 OC @ 3.6.
March 16, 2009 12:23:52 AM

why are you guys not playing with vsync on? screen tearing is annoying.
March 16, 2009 3:40:25 AM

does ati have a desktop program that lets u monitor temps and usage similar to nvidia's monitor?
March 16, 2009 6:28:11 AM

dreadloxx said:
does ati have a desktop program that lets u monitor temps and usage similar to nvidia's monitor?




whoa there!
did u even erase the nvidia drivers and install CCC? CCC has temp monitoring...
March 16, 2009 6:50:12 AM

i dunno about you guys but 4870 > 9800gtx any day of the week. sorry to hear it did not rise above your expectations but damn bro... like seriously the 4870 is a better card. do not feel as though you should be getting 50 more fps in every game...
March 16, 2009 12:47:59 PM

I would agree with werxen. THe hd4870 is way better than the 9800gtx.
Let me see you playing COD4 with the 9800xt with settings at 8x AA and 15Aniso at 1920x1080, or Crysis at 1920x1080 with 8xAniso.
I switched from 9600gt to hd4870 1Gb and yes I see great improvements.
Although the 9800gtx was better card then the 9600gt you should still see improvements especially if you play at higher resolutions.
If you stick at lower resolutions than you would not notice the difference with your bare eyes. You would need to use Fraps just to see increase FPS performance.

Keep the card, all you need to do in future is buy one more, when the price drops, and it will happened in a month or two, as ATI puts out the 4890.
They are already offering $30 rebates on the 4870s 1GB so you can get them for around $169 if you are lucky with the rebates from Newegg
March 16, 2009 3:32:00 PM

I'll say that I orignally had a Phenom 9950 @ 3.0ghz (overclocked) I upgraded to a Phenom II 940 3.0ghz, (oced to 3.6 now) however, instantly I noticed a drastic difference in games, and this was before I went crossfire. My Phenom 9950 was bottle-necking the 4870, once I put in the Phenom II, I saw around 20-30% improvement in Crysis, and quite a few other games. With cards being as powerful as they are now, it seems you really need a serious processor to fully use them. Also remember that the 4870s are designed for higher res gaming, with AA\AF, if you run at a low res, such as below 1600, you will not really been utilzeing all the power the card has, you'd be better off with a lower-end card if you game at low res, for instance 1280x1200 = stay with a lower end card, don't bother with the 4870.
March 16, 2009 3:55:36 PM

This thread is silly and BS. Definitely posted by an NVIDIA spokesperson or a fanboy. I am not surprise. Just because HD 4870 does not always run well in only 1 or few games but that does not mean that it is worse than 9800 GTX+ OC. Saying that it does run as well as NVIDIA without even being specific is total BS. The fact is most games run better with HD 4870 than 9800 GTX+ OC.

It depends on which game you play and at what resolution you play with. Like macabre215 said, you have to check the video cards' benchmark of the game that you wanna play before you buy a video card and check also the resolution.
March 16, 2009 4:14:09 PM

dreadloxx said:
by traded i mean took the 9800gtx back and got the 4870. thanks for all the responses btw. now since the 4850 is equal to the 9800gtx then i would be just fine with the 4850? the reason i switched is because my motherboard has the ati chipset and i would like to run crossfire eventually. i thought that the 4870 would mesh better with my system but like i said, im not seeing much improvement. i guess i should take this one back and swap it for the 4850 and get some cash back



Wow you traded a faster much better and newer card for an old 9800gtx?...The reason you didnt notice much difference is becuase you probably had old driver's still installed.

Doesnt matter enjoy your card.
March 16, 2009 4:22:12 PM

Just keep the HD 4870. You're fine. At least you know you have all the GPU your CPU can handle.
March 16, 2009 6:06:35 PM

Techno-boy said:
This thread is silly and BS. Definitely posted by an NVIDIA spokesperson or a fanboy. I am not surprise. Just because HD 4870 does not always run well in only 1 or few games but that does not mean that it is worse than 9800 GTX+ OC. Saying that it does run as well as NVIDIA without even being specific is total BS. The fact is most games run better with HD 4870 than 9800 GTX+ OC.

It depends on which game you play and at what resolution you play with. Like macabre215 said, you have to check the video cards' benchmark of the game that you wanna play before you buy a video card and check also the resolution.


well historically nvidia cards have always outperformed ati. that being said its like the intel vs. amd debate, price vs. performance.


if i remember correctly though, the gtx draws A LOT less power than the 4870. this, however, is not a typical concern to most computer users but it might sway some peoples decisions.
March 16, 2009 6:32:28 PM

By choosing 1 game and making their decision as to a cards worth is worthless. Take GRID for example. Are we to conclude that the 4870 1gig is the fastest single card out now on that alone?
Point here is, as Cleeve always points out in his system on upgrades, you need to make a large enough jump to actually fully see it, tho, there certainly are exceptions to this, as in GRID. When the OP was propositioned on this, the word amazed should have been omitted, because there isnt an amazing difference between the 2 cards, just like there isnt an amazing difference between the G280 and the 4870, but yes, there is a difference, and yes, in a few instances, it will be amazing, but not overall
March 16, 2009 6:47:20 PM

werxen said:
well historically nvidia cards have always outperformed ati. that being said its like the intel vs. amd debate, price vs. performance.


if i remember correctly though, the gtx draws A LOT less power than the 4870. this, however, is not a typical concern to most computer users but it might sway some peoples decisions.


Historically? I thought around the time span of the 9800 Pro, it was the TOP performing card, bar none. And the 9600 XT, was the TOP performing Mid-Range card, bar none. Around then, I don't even remember anyone bothering with Geforce cards, I hardly heard anyone talk about them, much less care to use them, due to their lack of performance. At least, this is what I remember. I'd say *DESIGN* wise, ATI destroys Nvidia, the cards have MASSIVE bandwidth in comparison to Nvidia, ATI just really needs to start seriously working on their drivers, and actually answering and observeing customer complaints\feedback on their own forums.

On the subject of GPU maker vs GPU maker, I honestly think there will never be a offical "king", technology changes constantly, and new designs are implemented and new ideas, they shift with every new card, some of the new ideas implemented might make THIS card perform better than it's rival, but then that rival will do the same thing, and then implement new design ideas, it's a never ending cycle, this game likes ATI, this game likes Nivida, ect. It's a pointless debate, where people can constantly pull out facts about "well ATI is way better on THIS game, well Nvidia DESTROYS ATI on this game.." and so forth. No point in argueing about it. I will say this, you can hate on this brand or that brand, however, if ATI, or Nvidia were to go down, the survivor would have zero competition, and would be free to cheapen their costs towards quality, charge whatever they wanted, and literally screw you over. So be glad both are doing well, and leave it at that, competition breeds quality.

If you compare numerous benchmarks, over and over, they all seem to even out. So simply put, lets not have a Nvidia\ATI fanboy war.
March 16, 2009 7:50:13 PM

Nica Guy said:
whoa there!
did u even erase the nvidia drivers and install CCC? CCC has temp monitoring...


I know that is has temp monitoring, but it seems u have to open your catalyst menu up and view the ati overclocking to see any temps or usage, i remember nvidia having a program called "Nvidia system monitor" that lets u have bubbles on your screen to show usages of different hardware. just was curious if ati has something similar.
Also to the guy that said this thread was bs, lol im sorry im not a genius but ive only used nvidia cards so i am extremely new to ati. i love this site because u get so much feedback and people seem to like helping others most of the time. so no im not a fan boi and i dont work for nvidia although that wouldn't suck if i did lol. and to xx12amanxx read the post before u reply to it and try and burn someone. i didnt trade for a 9800gtx i traded the 9800gtx lol.
March 16, 2009 7:53:42 PM

werxen said:
well historically nvidia cards have always outperformed ati. that being said its like the intel vs. amd debate, price vs. performance.


if i remember correctly though, the gtx draws A LOT less power than the 4870. this, however, is not a typical concern to most computer users but it might sway some peoples decisions.


Historically, ATI also had one of the best cards like Radeon 9700 Pro and Radeon 9800 Pro in which it can beat anything that NVIDIA throws at it during the past or during the old Radeon 9000 series time. Of course, not just NVIDIA that offers the fastest card, according to history...

Historically, AMD also beat Intel during the years of AMD Athlon 64 VS Intel Pentium D (Before Intel Core 2 Duo).

Strange, I thought that ATI draws much less power since ATI is normally the first one to die shrink their GPU and adopting newer tech and ATI is also normally cheaper which made me lean towards ATI than NVIDIA even if I am not a fanboy of either side. Even if NVIDIA slightly outperform ATI but NVIDIA's card price could be very expensive and not the best deal and that is the kind of problem that NVIDIA used to have in the past like having difficulty in lowering the price maybe due to using bigger monolithic GPU. The smaller the GPU size the cheaper the price will be and the less power it will consume so it would produce lesser heat. Sometimes, people don't look at who offers the fastest card but who offers the best deal (best price/performance or best bang for buck). Anyway, this time, it looks like ATI has the best deal with Radeon HD 4000 series.

I don't hate competition too, because that is good for customers like me. Competition allows the price to go down and pressuring the 2 companies to make new innovations for customers rather than rehashing the old tech and making it too expensive again and again. So... monopoly is bad for customers but it is only good for those who owns the company.
March 16, 2009 11:45:00 PM

Techno-boy said:
Historically, ATI also had one of the best cards like Radeon 9700 Pro and Radeon 9800 Pro in which it can beat anything that NVIDIA throws at it during the past or during the old Radeon 9000 series time. Of course, not just NVIDIA that offers the fastest card, according to history...

Historically, AMD also beat Intel during the years of AMD Athlon 64 VS Intel Pentium D (Before Intel Core 2 Duo).

Strange, I thought that ATI draws much less power since ATI is normally the first one to die shrink their GPU and adopting newer tech and ATI is also normally cheaper which made me lean towards ATI than NVIDIA even if I am not a fanboy of either side. Even if NVIDIA slightly outperform ATI but NVIDIA's card price could be very expensive and not the best deal and that is the kind of problem that NVIDIA used to have in the past like having difficulty in lowering the price maybe due to using bigger monolithic GPU. The smaller the GPU size the cheaper the price will be and the less power it will consume so it would produce lesser heat. Sometimes, people don't look at who offers the fastest card but who offers the best deal (best price/performance or best bang for buck). Anyway, this time, it looks like ATI has the best deal with Radeon HD 4000 series.

I don't hate competition too, because that is good for customers like me. Competition allows the price to go down and pressuring the 2 companies to make new innovations for customers rather than rehashing the old tech and making it too expensive again and again. So... monopoly is bad for customers but it is only good for those who owns the company.


actually historically intel has always been faster. the trend changed for a couple years then went back to how it used to be. a lot of AMD fanboys cling to the fact that the athlon series was amazo but in fact thats the only decent thing AMD has ever put out. do not confuse winning a battle with winning the war.
March 16, 2009 11:48:15 PM

werxen said:
actually historically intel has always been faster. the trend changed for a couple years then went back to how it used to be. a lot of AMD fanboys cling to the fact that the athlon series was amazo but in fact thats the only decent thing AMD has ever put out. do not confuse winning a battle with winning the war.


That last part is a bit silly to say, when the war isn't over, and the battles are still rageing. Didn't AMD just set a world-record on their new Phenom II design for overclocking? Yeah...Yeah I thought so. Please, stop toting around your fanboyism, both are fine companies. By the way, you contradicted yourself, you said quote "intel has always been faster" then you say that the Athlon series was in fact, faster at one point....might wanna rethink your sentences and statements before you click "Submit your reply"
March 17, 2009 2:20:31 AM

rpaulg87 said:
That last part is a bit silly to say, when the war isn't over, and the battles are still rageing. Didn't AMD just set a world-record on their new Phenom II design for overclocking? Yeah...Yeah I thought so. Please, stop toting around your fanboyism, both are fine companies. By the way, you contradicted yourself, you said quote "intel has always been faster" then you say that the Athlon series was in fact, faster at one point....might wanna rethink your sentences and statements before you click "Submit your reply"


lol? you're talking about how the phenom hit ~ 8 gighz and got beaten by an i7 ~ 5.6 gighz? :lol:  its not fanboyism when facts are presented. also i said historically intel has always been faster. amd came out with the athlon which was faster for a small time then they lost again. nothing is contradictory i am speaking history here not fanboyism. look up fanboy and history and get an idea of what you are talking about.
March 17, 2009 8:08:30 AM

"Historically" you wanna define that term for me? As that would mean throughout history, Intel was ALWAYS faster than AMD, and that was not the case. Once again, contradicting yourself and making yourself sound silly. Secondly, I find it foolish to see fanboys like you talking like this, it is better to let people think you are foolish, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. What I7 beat the Phenom II that was extremly over-clocked? If it was a chip that was 150-300-500-600$ more, then that is saying absolutely nothing.

The point of the overclocking is that for years AMD hasn't been able to do that, now they can, and now they are back on track, Intel makes 1000$ processors, AMD current top chip runs for exactly 200$, and can over-clock better than ANY of Intels chips, are you following yet? AMD was recently just in the "low-end" for processor, their Phenom II put them at a excellent mid-range and brought them back into the game, wait a year or two and see if they start releaseing very high end, EXPENSIVE Phenom chips. Anyway, I'm done, my points are valid, and you have already proved you are a fanboy, by contradicting yourself and talking foolishly, where as I think both brands are fine. I'll let you have the "last word" as I know people like you won't stop until they do, have fun trolling :) 
March 19, 2009 12:35:09 AM

werxen said:
actually historically intel has always been faster. the trend changed for a couple years then went back to how it used to be. a lot of AMD fanboys cling to the fact that the athlon series was amazo but in fact thats the only decent thing AMD has ever put out. do not confuse winning a battle with winning the war.


Your philosophical/fanboyism-style statement: "actually historically intel has always been faster" is actually wrong. Always faster??? Then what about AMD Athlon 64 VS Intel Pentium D? (during that time span before Intel Core 2 duo). Well, you got a classic Intel fanboy statement there. This is not even my opinion but from the facts of reviews/benchmarks that I read about AMD Athlon 64 VS Intel Pentium D. Historically, AMD Athlon 64 also won the award for being one of the fastest CPU during its time. :o 


In business and marketing view, demand and price are also important than just who wins the war on speed. I think that you don't even know much about business and marketing. You better also have business/marketing view as well, in order to be competitive in the market rather than just consider who offers the fastest speed. We got to look at the price war too. I am not even interesting in getting something like Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme which could cost like $1000 or $800 even if it is very fast as an example. If you are rich then go ahead and get something expensive but I bet that most of us aren't rich. :o 

Anyway, I am not a fanboy of either side and I like competition as I mentioned earlier and I would not even care who wins or who has faster speed but as a customer I care about who offers the best deal and the best price. I am just a customer looking for a good product with the best price for me and decent performance that I think it is best suitable for me (regardless to brand or who made it). :bounce: 
March 19, 2009 2:20:13 PM

you're talking about how the phenom hit ~ 8 gighz and got beaten by an i7 ~ 5.6 gighz said:
you're talking about how the phenom hit ~ 8 gighz and got beaten by an i7 ~ 5.6 gighz


that i7 system mustve cost twice as much or even thrice (4x if its the top of the line i7)?

Didn't AMD just set a world-record on their new Phenom II design for overclocking? said:
Didn't AMD just set a world-record on their new Phenom II design for overclocking?


99% of us dont use "likwahid naytrohagen" (see: dont mess with the zohan).

so both achievement that the 2 of you stated failed the "Practicality Test".
March 19, 2009 2:57:56 PM

wh3resmycar said:
that i7 system mustve cost twice as much or even thrice (4x if its the top of the line i7)?



99% of us dont use "likwahid naytrohagen" (see: dont mess with the zohan).

so both achievement that the 2 of you stated failed the "Practicality Test".


Yeah um...regardless of "practical" use that shows how far AMD has come from their previous years of being hardly over-clockable. Their new design structure allows smooth, and extremly high overclockability, on air, water, or on liquid nitrogen which Intel chips can't even withstand the temperatures of what the Phenom II could. I think it was a proper achivement to mention when for the past few years people have looked down on AMDS bad over-clocking abilitys, now proving that they have fixed it and drastically improved the design....but that could just be me :ange: 
!