Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1GB Radeon 4870 - Seems a bit fast

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 10, 2009 2:56:08 AM

Hey I have a couple of questions for anyone who wants to answer, I am trying to make sense of benchmark results on my own computer. But only having a 17" monitor doesn't give me a great deal of results to check on the charts.
I spose i would like to know as to what your benchmark for farcry 2 (mainly), is that like average frames or something else but this is what i got.
FARCRY 2 BENCH
{
Run 1
Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1280x1024 (75Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(8x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(High), RealTrees(Very High)
Loop 1
Total Frames: 1692, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 33.17
Max. Framerate: 77.79 (Frame:0, 0.01s)
Min. Framerate: 21.22 (Frame:1351, 42.11s)
}
Aside from this my Card is Gigabyte HD4870 1GB *Stock 750/3400
AA set 8X Edge Detect (?24X)

Seems better than the HIS ICQ to me

Apart from That I Got:

Q6600 (stock), 4GB 1066Mhz EPP (Dominator) Ram, Giga GA-EP45-DS3 Mobo, 2x 200GB SATA2 Hdds no Raid (Shoulda checked the box better)

Basiclly I think im asking if ive got a score like 33 or something

Thanks to anyone who doesnt think im a complete noob

September 10, 2009 2:58:53 AM

Also Running Vista 32 Business and ATI Info:

Driver Packaging Version 8.64-090714a1-085215C-ATI
Catalystâ„¢ Version 09.8
Provider ATI Technologies Inc.
2D Driver Version 8.01.01.934
2D Driver File Path /REGISTRY/MACHINE/SYSTEM/ControlSet001/Control/Class/{4D36E968-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}/0001
Direct3D Version 8.14.10.0685
OpenGL Version 6.14.10.8870
Catalystâ„¢ Control Center Version 2009.0714.2132.36830
a b U Graphics card
September 10, 2009 6:37:37 AM

If the 4870 seems fast, that's because it is fast. Very fast.
Related resources
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 10, 2009 7:11:49 AM

Hello and welcome to the forums :) 
Your score looks fine,its the 8xAA which prevents u getting a better score,if u set the AA to 0x then i think it will give u a good performance boost,but with 8xAA those numbers look fine :) 
September 11, 2009 1:03:07 PM

Hey Thanks For replying, Um I don't usually play it that high i was Testing it as high as i could to stress the card.

My scores are a fair bit better in the regular 8x Box mode in the catalyst Control Centre (Instead of Edge Dectect, Which it says samples 24X, Looks marginally Better but doesn't slow the frames enough *I don't believe* To be as good as it sounds )

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1280x1024 (75Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(8x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(High), RealTrees(Very High)

Total Frames: 2014, Total Time: 51.00s
Average Framerate: 39.49
Max. Framerate: 77.14 (Frame:1, 0.03s)
Min. Framerate: 28.39 (Frame:1148, 27.78s)

September 11, 2009 1:04:32 PM

Maziar said:
Hello and welcome to the forums :) 
Your score looks fine,its the 8xAA which prevents u getting a better score,if u set the AA to 0x then i think it will give u a good performance boost,but with 8xAA those numbers look fine :) 


I'd Appreciate you looking over my latest post on this thread if you have the time
September 11, 2009 2:12:00 PM

OK i don't think i explained this post properly, I am thinking i have a 4870 thats a bit odd.
Gigabyte Radeon HD4870 1GB DDR5 / Stock 750gpu 900ram / Stock Zalman Cooler

Compared to benchmark results mainly for Farcry 2 " http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-card... ", Mine seems to kick there asses.

Im wondering why that might be The reason for these extra frames, And to recommend this card to anyone else looking for a cheap kick ass card

Not having a 22" monitor i can only do 1280X1024

--------------------------------------------------------------
Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1280x1024 (75Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(None), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(High), RealTrees(Very High)

Total Frames: 3301, Total Time: 51.00s
Average Framerate: 64.72
Max. Framerate: 88.39 (Frame:467, 6.00s)
Min. Framerate: 51.45 (Frame:1478, 22.22s)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1280x1024 (75Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Very High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Very High), Terrain(Very High), Geometry(Very High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(Very High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(High), RealTrees(Very High)

Total Frames: 3182, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 62.38
Max. Framerate: 88.67 (Frame:201, 2.53s)
Min. Framerate: 47.83 (Frame:2071, 33.27s)
--------------------------------------------------------------

AF set to 8X in Catalyst

I Think its damn strange that my card is better than ones worth 50 - 100 dollars more

September 11, 2009 3:14:16 PM

You are running at a lower resolution, hence faster.
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 11, 2009 3:17:07 PM

Well that maybe because their test system is different with yours,i mean different CPU,RAM......
a b U Graphics card
September 11, 2009 9:10:00 PM

I think that djcool said it best. You are running at a fairly low res, therefore your card isn't running anything near it full potential and as a result, giving you better results than the benches that are pushing the card harder.
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 12, 2009 7:02:12 AM

yeah i forgot the resolution too,toms may have played with higher resolutions like 1920x1200 etc
a b U Graphics card
September 12, 2009 7:14:23 AM

Your res is way lower then what the other tests were done at. The larger the res the harder your card as to work for it.

If you set the res to the same as the one in the test (which you can't do on that size screen) then you would see closer to the same scores.
a b U Graphics card
September 12, 2009 7:48:44 AM

if you want something more comparative try my benchmark settings. this was from april.

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1280x1024 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(2x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees

* Total Frames: 2576, Total Time: 51.01s
* Average Framerate: 50.50
* Max. Framerate: 76.64 (Frame:370, 6.21s)
* Min. Framerate: 36.16 (Frame:926, 16.94s)

note that i only have 2x AA (you dont need more than 2x AA in this game). i have a q6600 @ 3.0ghz (take note), and 2x2gb ddr2 800 on an older chipset p5k-se(p35).
September 12, 2009 9:17:49 AM

wh3resmycar said:
if you want something more comparative try my benchmark settings. this was from april.

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1280x1024 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(2x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees

* Total Frames: 2576, Total Time: 51.01s
* Average Framerate: 50.50
* Max. Framerate: 76.64 (Frame:370, 6.21s)
* Min. Framerate: 36.16 (Frame:926, 16.94s)

note that i only have 2x AA (you dont need more than 2x AA in this game). i have a q6600 @ 3.0ghz (take note), and 2x2gb ddr2 800 on an older chipset p5k-se(p35).


Thanks for replying, wish i wasn't such a cheap ass and got a better monitor ages ago, but never fear a LED LCD is coming my way Soon. Anyway My results for the same test are as follows:

Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1280x1024 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(2x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)

Total Frames: 3087, Total Time: 51.01s
Average Framerate: 60.52
Max. Framerate: 80.00 (Frame:186, 2.56s)
Min. Framerate: 48.07 (Frame:1323, 21.09s)

PS - Wh3resmycar i'm assuming you have a 4870, Is that correct?
a b U Graphics card
September 12, 2009 10:32:25 AM

i did (palit 4870 1gb factory OC'd but i ran it on stock when i did that test). and that was the old 9.2 driver. you helped me confirmed my doubts, the 9.8 drivers are legit. im on a gtx260-216 now.

a b U Graphics card
September 12, 2009 10:42:55 AM

oh they are legit. 9.8 drivers raised the bar big time. They are the drivers that should have released with the damn card.

Still it is good that they have solid drivers to work with now, as I think that means they are testing some things out for the 5XXX series.
September 12, 2009 12:45:34 PM

wh3resmycar said:
i did (palit 4870 1gb factory OC'd but i ran it on stock when i did that test). and that was the old 9.2 driver. you helped me confirmed my doubts, the 9.8 drivers are legit. im on a gtx260-216 now.


It think your right about the driver being the difference, pretty obvious now, doh!
Sorry to hear that you sold the card man, but it also could be go to see how they compare now. Im sure Nvidia drivers have improved.

a b U Graphics card
September 12, 2009 2:15:57 PM

there were things that i wasnt happy with the 4870 (texture/stutter related) and there are things i aint happy with the gtx260-216 (hdmi/AF performance related). i dont want to go into details because i might hurt the feelings of the resident fanboys here @ thg. but having been able to see how it feels like on both camps helps a lot. especially with discerning the fan boy sentiments from whats happening in real life.

September 12, 2009 4:19:41 PM

I Understand that only one Brand can be better at any given time, But there have been some *** cards on both sides. I Personally owned a Fac OC XFX 7900GTX I recon the thing came pre-f^&*ed, Blue Screening, Texture glitches in oblivion Went on for Miles! $700AU Down the drain, You know something aint right when your GPU's Running 70Deg Idle out of the box and 90 When that dust trap cover over the side got full and good luck getting it out properly without voiding warranty. (Good Thing i had My Gigabyte 6600GT to fall back on Eventually).
Radeons have flaws in their low and mid range cards tending to Suck (That is all I will say). But these are only me and a couple close friends experiences not really into trusting alot of whats said online sometimes.
I think the guys who work on the website here do a great Job and Their results are helpful in finding what I want to buy, Coz thats what I use it for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crysis 1.21 Runs beautiful

contact autosave (out of water - wait for lag to pass F11 Fraps) --> Beach (Pick up flare through it in water - F11) *This could seem lame but it works for me (I'll Post something later Asking about programs to test Cysis)

Crysis 1.21 DX10 1280X1024 NoAA Very High Warhead Runs Better of course.
-- Fraps DX10--
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2758, 98832, 18, 31, 27.906
-- Fraps DX10--
!