Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4870 and aa and af question

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Performance
  • ATI
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 29, 2010 8:38:38 PM

is an ati 4870 512mb slightly faster than an ati 5770 playing at a 1280 x 1024 resolution? I already have a 4870, but i'm just curious. Apart from that, would someone say having 16x anisotropic filtering on it's own has more performance than 4x anti-aliasing on it's own. Or could it be that they both tax as much FPS (reducing it) off the graphics card as each other. I know that the difference between 8 af and 16 af is hardly noticable, but anyway. With 2 aa and 16 af, would that give more performance than 4 aa and 8 af? I think so but don't know for sure, and i also guess that i will be told it depends on the game. Also, taking ati catalyst control center into account, which anti-aliasing filter gives the best performance over quality; there are a number of them for example box and edge etc, but i don't really know which one is the most basic and gives most performance rather than quality.

More about : 4870 question

May 29, 2010 11:43:43 PM

5770 is better but at xfire 4870. Get a cheaper card because, at your resolution a 5770 would be bottlenecked and wouldn't be able to reach its full potential. More AA = better graphics. AF doesn't really do much, stick with AA.
m
0
l
May 30, 2010 12:00:18 AM

sorry i don't understand first sentece, your saying the 5770 is better at cross fire x, you mean the way it scales or the overall performance is slightly better. Or is the 5770 just slightly faster altogether. No i'm just wanting to know which card is faster lol just upgraded from gts 250 to ati 4870 because of it's good price, without losing any money since i bought it second hand and sold my gts. No 1280 x 1024 is a good resolution to play at because anti-aliasing destroys a card's performance therefore having 19 inch monitor helps decrease performance loss, 1280 x 1024 gets more performance than 1680 x 1080 or whatever it is, my monitor is great quality anyway. I heard that with dual graphics chip cards, a large screen resolution is needed to game, perhaps then resolution will bottleneck it. AF does look great, it filters textures, making things look soo much more sharper and you can see things with objects that wouldn't have been there without af. Playing a game without aa is a real pain though, lol switching back from aa to no aa you can see a real big difference, almost like a necessity to have this on 4 at least, so that's why i have to have a powerful card for such a low resolution.
m
0
l
Related resources
May 30, 2010 12:05:06 AM

5770 is better as a single card, but 4870 scales better at xfire. Having a lower resolution monitor such as yours, bottlenecks your card if its something like the 5770 or 4870. Also at lower resolution, the quality is worse. You asked a question, and I answered it, it seems like you're trying to make me change my answer? 8x AA runs better and has better quality textures then 8x AF, and 4xAA.
m
0
l
May 30, 2010 12:12:31 AM

what do you mean by bottleneck? I'm thinking you mean restricting it's performance. Looking at all reviews they show the 1280 x 1024 resolution versus any other resolution bigger, the 1280 x 1024 resolution gets more performance for any game. Quality is the same on all monitor resolutions starting from 1280 x 1024 it depends on the brand of the monitor, i have found my 19 inch dell monitor with 1280 x 1024 resolution to have better image quality and smaller pixels than my sony hd television at 32 inch.
m
0
l
May 30, 2010 12:14:00 AM

thanks for your reply though :)  aniso-tropic filtering makes you able to see further into the distance in games, makes things more clearer in my knowledge, and anti-aliasing only smooths edges on the exteriors of things, both aa and af i think are equally useful, no more than 8 af is needed though, but aa is more taxing on reducing performance than af. I think this is because of my experience viewing the picture quality with and without these filters.
m
0
l
May 30, 2010 12:17:01 AM

Bottlenecking means exactly what you said. The reason why 1280 x 1024 has better FPS, is because that resolution shows less then wut higher resolutions show. AA is way more worth it than AF, IMO. But yeah everybody has different likings.

(Example, person is like at the very top right of your screen and u can barely even see their toe at 1280 x 1024, at 1900 x 1200 for example, you could probly see up to their chest or thigh. Meaning you have the advantage of knowing their position first.)
m
0
l
May 30, 2010 12:34:38 AM

the resolution just scales things down, so you can see the same things you could see on a 1900 resolution, but things are smaller, cramped into a smaller screan. This is surely correct. I don't do maths, but i remember in gcse, doing scale factors, bigger resolutions are just scale factors for example scale factor x 1.5. Bigger resolutions just scale things bigger, put them on more pixels, you get the same amount of stuff on a 1280 resolution, except things are a lot more smaller. I'm sitting right infront of the screen anyway, so i don't need a big hd like television right infront of my eyes. I'd like to have a 22 inch screen to be honest, but i thought having a matx computer, meaning i need a cooler graphics card, and no cross fire - x, i aught to get a smaller screen to get good performance alongside a lesser graphics card. I have a cooler master elite 342 btw, so there's actually plenty of space anyway. Only thing that is a must is a modular psu, to reduce as much wires as possible
m
0
l
May 30, 2010 3:54:13 AM

Nashsafc said:
what do you mean by bottleneck? I'm thinking you mean restricting it's performance. Looking at all reviews they show the 1280 x 1024 resolution versus any other resolution bigger, the 1280 x 1024 resolution gets more performance for any game. Quality is the same on all monitor resolutions starting from 1280 x 1024 it depends on the brand of the monitor, i have found my 19 inch dell monitor with 1280 x 1024 resolution to have better image quality and smaller pixels than my sony hd television at 32 inch.




cpu has to calculate as well not just gpu..
remember that
m
0
l
May 30, 2010 9:14:35 AM

he's talking about my particular resolution exclusively not taking other things into account, and ofcourse every resolution bottlenecks a card, but 1280 x 1024 gives better performance than 1680 because the card doesn't have to display the detail on as many pixels. I have the exact same cpu as your picture as well although it's a phenom ii 720, i can unlock the 4th core anyway, i've tried it. It's at 3.1ghz, so that reduces the bottleneck. So anyway what would give slightly better performance? 4x anti-aliasing and 8x anisotrpic filtering or 2x aa and 16x af? But then i suppose there is no point in having 16 af because looking at many reviews the difference is hardly noticable comparing 8 af to 16 af.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 30, 2010 9:41:04 AM

AF is more important than AA unless you want to be surrounded with blurred/bilinear filtered textures 5 feet away from your character (given that you're playing an fps game).

but given the circumstances at the resolution that you're playing at, both are important visually.

4xAA/8xAF is "my" sweet spot (excluding crysis). and yeah, 16xAF is hardly noticeable vs 8xAF.
m
0
l
May 30, 2010 9:57:39 AM

yeah i play with this on too. Infact there's no difference at all between 16af and 8af, our eyes can't see that far clearly, and infact it would make the game unrealistic wouldn't it. Even though games are meant to be unreal.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 30, 2010 3:15:58 PM

1. The performance is very similar between the 4870 and the 5770, in tests, they both win and loose some tests each. The main difference is as you know DX11.

2. Stop the nonsense with the bottlenecking. That depends on how much eye candy is turned on, what CPU he is using, what game he is playing etc. You might not need a 4870 to run all new games, but it doesn't automatically mean that it is overkill.

3. OP is right about the resolution, higher resolutions doesn't automatically mean a larger field of vision (changing the aspect ratio in newer games might, though). A lower resolution on a smaller screen means that the pixels are smaller than with the same res on a larger screen and therefore loss of detail only becomes a problem for extremely small objects or very small screens and low resolutions - certainly not anything you will notice in normal gaming with a 19" screen.

m
0
l
May 30, 2010 4:43:27 PM

lol windows is bottlenecking my graphics card massively, since it is graphically inefficent, despite i have 4gb of ram, and a 3 core processor to overcome background tasks, and anything else trying to slow my system down. I know this by comparing my system to an xbox 360, the xbox 360 has an ati x1800 gpu lmao. Games requiring 256mb of graphics (min) like battlefield bad company 2 on the xbox look smashing, i woudln't even be able to play that game on medium and get xbox 360 smooth frame rate peformance on the computer. I have a 360 controler i can use on pc and notice difference. lol it's just annoying to think that, i know since windows isn't designed for games, but why does it have to be this graphically inneficient.
m
0
l
May 30, 2010 9:00:21 PM

ok apart from this now, i'm having some problems with my ati 4870 temperature, i have a adequate cooling system in my case, and the wires are tidied as much as possible. Fan is at adequate speed as well, however with some games, notorious crysis yes i am getting 88 degrees centigrade. The heatsink is installed properly on the fan and so is the thermal paste, the stock cooler is being used to cool the gpu. By the card getting this hot is it possible that artifacts and flashing images can come into the game? Or does that only happen with overclocking. With overheating is it a case of either working or not working without any screan irritations? If it gets to hot i know the game will exit and i will get an error message about graphics hardware overheating. But hopefully at 88 degrees at least i won't get any image disturbances in the game? Because i think i am in crysis, i will restart it and test it again.
m
0
l
May 30, 2010 9:04:10 PM

If you've overclocked it, turn it down a notch. Maximum load temperature at degrees centigrade is 70~.
m
0
l
May 30, 2010 10:06:23 PM

the point is i havn't overclocked it. I'm getting this hot temperature without overclocking, and i'm asking at least if it doesn't reach 105 degrees celcius, should my game go unaffected, without image corruption and artifacts appearing in my screan? Getting this temperature definately means i am unable to overclock anyway lol. I have a matx system, but that shouldn't effect it that much because with my gts 250 i was getting 40 idle, eventhough it's a cool card, it still shows that i had a reasonable cooling system in my case. Are there any good budget coolers that i can buy for this card acutally, but are they really worth it, i mean if i'm getting temperatures this high with the stock cooler i doubt an aftermarket cooler will help cool a real deal more. I'm not going to upgrade the case, the whole idea is that the gaming package remains small and i have a single graphics card configuration anyway, the case has more than enough depth for my ati 4870 and cpu cooler to be installed it's 45 cm in depth.
m
0
l
May 31, 2010 12:06:18 AM

Try opening up your case and cleaning out dust inside, or you can clean dust inside and outside the graphics card, sometimes dust causes fan speed to lower.
m
0
l
May 31, 2010 12:47:58 AM

lol this system is new, it's been working for 3 days - everything in it apart from the cpu, dvd drives and hard drives that were transfered from another computer but are still relatively new. The cpu never goes above 46 degrees on load, seems like cooling is decent. Is it typical that the 4870 get's up to 80 degrees, but it's not typical that it gets up to 88? The gpu is second hand, but almost new, there's no dust in the fan anyway. I have the fan running at 30 percent too, so it's running at 1800 rpm on average, which is quite loud for that 60mm fan or something that the graphics card has.
m
0
l
May 31, 2010 1:51:18 AM

If it's second hand then there may be a problem with it, that the previous owner did not tell you.
m
0
l
May 31, 2010 2:33:38 AM

he said he didn't know about he they reinstalled the stock cooler back on since he was using an after market cooler on it. He said that he hadn't been using the card for that long. The card was getting up to 90 degrees when i first got it, i took the stock cooler off, and inspected the thermal pasting job on the gpu. It was excessively done so i cleaned it all off and then put a new layer on it, spread a thin layer of thermal compound with small piece of card to get thermal paste equally everywhere. Put the cooler back on. Was getting temperatures 2 degrees lower. Lmao.
m
0
l
!