4870 or 4890

[iceclock]

is there a big difference between the 4890 and the 4870 vapor-x edition , im wondering if the extra 35$ id pay for the 4890 is worth it thanks

 

[55Range]

The 4890 is better/faster.
But you may want to consider the newer cards.. Gtx 460. 560..

 

[iceclock]

thanks, well i got a good deal on the 4870 for 60$ off ebay so, and the next step is overclocking the cpu with a new cooler, anyways, thanks

 

[Dougx1317]

The main difference is the 4890 uses less power at idle, and it overclocks a lot better. Some 4890 can be OC'ed to 1000Mhz on the core. This is a big increase over the 4870's 750Mhz stock. Having owned them, I can tell you that there is not a huge difference in real world performance. My advice is that you make sure to get the 1GB version in either case. 512MB is just not enough for a 4870 or 4890 in today's games at most resolutions.

EDIT: I just sold my 4890 for $110, so $60 is a great deal for a Vapor-X 4870.

 

[Embra]

For $60, the vapor-X is a pretty good deal for middle gaming. What are the rest of your specs? Particularly your PSU?

 

[iceclock]

gx 750 coolermaster. q6600 @ stock, mugen 2 rev b cooler, 2x2 gigs of ddr2 vitesta 1066+ a-adata ram, p5k deluxe black pearl edition, suprano rs case, 4 case fans, 2 thermaltake 1500rpm red fans, 1 cooler master 2200rpm sickeflow, and 1 vantec cASE FAN , 1500 rpm , 320 gig sata2 seagate barrakuda drive, and dvd-rw and 4890

 

[jjb8675309]

I had a 4890 no doubt it was a beast of a card in its day... however as previously stated is not much of a jump from a 4870 and for half the price get the 4870 and hopefully a 1 gig model

 

[iceclock]

ya went with a 4890 for 115$ bucks, the vapor-x edition, wish i could of got my hands on a 2 gig version but not without paying a premium which would defeat the purpose of me buying the card for low bucks,

 

[jjb8675309]

yeah 2 gigs will make no difference a chip like that will barley be able to take advatage of a 1 gig frame buffer

 

[iceclock]

ya ur right, but it cant hurt to have 2 gigs, when games really need 2 gigs, of video ram, which is coming real soon, 1 gig videocard are starting to get taxed

 

[jjb8675309]

yeah but you will still need a faster chip (4870) to take advatage of more than 1 gig of memory, such as a 5870 level of performance, now that is a card that can make use of 1 gig or more... future games demands still won't matter, but I catch your drift, personally between the 6950/70 (1 gig vs 2 gig models) I would get the 1 gig, honestly the 2 gig frame buffer makes little to no difference right now at 1080p and i don't plan on dropping $1,000 on a monitor with 1600p any time soon, however even at higher than 1080p ive seen many benches where 2 gigs makes no difference between 1 gig for those models. In the end if games start making use of more mem then yes the extra mem will help, as long as the core can supply the framebuffer with enough video throughput. With respect to the 4890: sure get 1 gig (sounds like you already did)if you can but if there is a huge price premium going from 512 to 1 gig then its not worth it imo, just my two cents,enjoy

just remember 2 gigs will definatley not be used by a 4890 level of gpu.... so there is nothing to worry about imo, you will likely be replacing the 4890 in a year or two so all in all its a good investment for decent midrange/mainstream performance now at a low price-tag, have fun and I hope this helped you understand the memory size issue, overall its more of a marketing ploy if you ask me....

 

[Dougx1317]

I agree that you don't need 2GB on a 4870/4890, I do think that 1GB is worth it over 512MB. That card can make use of more than 512MB, and you really need that for a lot of games.

 

[jjb8675309]

^^please show me a benchmark, I'd like to see for myself to settle this, I believe it but Ive seen many indicating otherwise, also it completely depends on what resolution we are talking about here...? What resolution are you gaming at OP? Either way the OP already got the 1 gig it sounds like so he should be good to go if there were going to be any inadequacies with the 512mb model...

to my knowledge the 1 gig will make a difference but not until 16X10 or 19X10, but I could be wrong its been a while since I've read up on the old 4 series although I used to own a 1 gig 4890 which was a darn powerful card for its day and still ample muscle for most games today at decent settings and resolution...

 

[Dougx1317]

Here are some unofficial benchmarks. The extra memory really shines with a high amount of AA on. Look specifically at "Crysis Warhead 512MB 1920x1200 8xAA" where the 1GB version gets ~14FPS compared to the ~6FPS of the 512MB. I know neither of these would be playable, but that is a huge increase. You should also note that the 1GB version is clocked 50Mhz less on the core than the 512MB. I wish I could find official benchmarks of more current games, but the card just isn't on the list of benchmarked cards anymore. I'll keep an eye out for some more official results though.

http://www.overclock.net/ati/401321-4870-512mb-vs-1gb-comparison.html

 

[jjb8675309]

yeah well for playing modern games with that level of card you will probably not have enough muscle to use aa at all so... but either way thanks for the benchmark

I still think that the the 1 gig will not make much of a difference but a small difference nonetheless

 

[Dougx1317]

In Crysis at 4x AA, the difference is 23 vs 30FPS. If the cards were clocked the same, the spread would increase even more. This could be the difference between playable and not. Although 30FPS is still too low for most people, you can see how the extra 7FPS could make or break certain games. There are plenty of games that use VRAM heavily. For example, GTA IV and Oblivion. It just depends what games you play at what settings.

Another benchmark I found. Look at the Bioshock graph. 40.3 vs 7.5FPS. That's playable vs not at all. I'm not saying the difference will be that much everywhere. There are times and places it makes sense.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_4870_1gb_review/

In any case, we can both agree that 2GB is just wasteful.

 

[iceclock]

yes well crysis doesnt usually go high in fps, if u got everything on maxed out in 1280x1024 in crysis with aa and af at a constant 30 fps its more than enought

 

[jjb8675309]

In Crysis at 4x AA, the difference is 23 vs 30FPS. If the cards were clocked the same, the spread would increase even more. This could be the difference between playable and not. Although 30FPS is still too low for most people, you can see how the extra 7FPS could make or break certain games. There are plenty of games that use VRAM heavily. For example, GTA IV and Oblivion. It just depends what games you play at what settings.

Another benchmark I found. Look at the Bioshock graph. 40.3 vs 7.5FPS. That's playable vs not at all. I'm not saying the difference will be that much everywhere. There are times and places it makes sense.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_4870_1gb_review/

In any case, we can both agree that 2GB is just wasteful.

yeah i see what you are saying, the fps jump is significant but I wouldn't be using AA if I had a card like that to begin with

 

[iceclock]

cheers, i still find that most game utilize more than 512 megs, i find that u need atleast 1 gigs of ram, the exception certain 736 ish megs of ram videocard, such as gx 460 which offer great performance, but in general no,

 

[iceclock]

Best answer selected by iceclock.

 

[jjb8675309]

yeah thats right well the 1 gig is faster enjoy the card

 

[iceclock]

thanks

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey