Friday, September 26th 2008

Radeon HD 4830 Projected to Outperform GeForce 9800 GT

As reported earlier, AMD is preparing a scaled-down version of the RV770 graphics processor, called RV770LE. The new graphics core would go into making the Radeon HD 4830 SKU. The new graphics core was created to compete with the GeForce 8800/9800 GT, which seem to be in a comfortable market position owing to their price and price/performance. They are comfortably placed between the GeForce 9600 seties and the 8800 GTS 512M/9800 GTX/GTX+.

AMD has already started projecting the HD 4830 to outperform the the G92GT, in essence, the GeForce 9800 GT. In a slide titled "Best Graphics Card for <$150", the company puts up figures where the new card is projected 10% faster in most games tested. The only glitch, is that most of AMD's own increment projections are based around that 10% mark, which means it could be a very tight contest between the HD 4830 and 9800 GT. A prelude could be that for the 9800 GT, its CUDA and PhysX processing capabilities could bail it out, if it does fall into a tight spot, as in, if the two end up in a neck and neck contest. The new Radeon accelerator comes out sometime next month.
Add your own comment

26 Comments on Radeon HD 4830 Projected to Outperform GeForce 9800 GT

#1
nflesher87
Staff
curious that those are all results at 1920x1200...who in their right mind is going to have a 1920x1200 capable monitor and expect to game with one of these cards? :wtf:

yeah it's great for scaling but it also begs the question of why they didn't include lower res results? less gain over the 98GT? none at all?
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Yes, not only high resolution, but also 4x AA, something RV7xx is good at.
Posted on Reply
#3
ShadowFold
by: btarunr
Yes, not only high resolution, but also 4x AA, something RV7xx is good at.
It sure is :D I think with 4x AA turned off the 9800 would be alot closer but then again, it cant do 4x AA with out sacrificing performance! And AA is important on low resolution monitors, which is what someone would have if they were buying a <150$ card.
Posted on Reply
#4
kajson
I'm thinking about getting this one, but only if it uses considerably less power (say 20%)then a 4850, do you guys reckon it will use a lot less or because of the 256bit memory bus it wont differ much? The 4870 does use a lot more then the 4850..
Posted on Reply
#5
dsdsdk
lol at the graphs.. why cant they do a honest graph where they dont offset the Y-axis.
Posted on Reply
#7

:laugh:
#8
jbunch07
Of course they are going to present the graph that looks best for them, come on now, I thought we knew these kind of things, It's simple business behavior. :p
Posted on Reply
#9
PVTCaboose1337
Graphical Hacker
I seriously doubt this! The 9800gt is a pretty good card. We shall see.
Posted on Reply
#10
eidairaman1
well if you hadnt noticed, all the graphs for the 9800GT are the same across the board, meaning they don't have a tangible part in their hands to test. That graph is just to keep the stock holders happy. Charts like this go back and forth between the companies (NVs Charts show their boards being faster) AMDs= their own parts.
Posted on Reply
#11
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
I'm waiting for a full review on the card. The 9800GT is going to be hard to match considering W1z's last review of Zotac's 9800GT puts it only 1% behind a full 9800GTX or only 3% behind an HD4850. Of course Zotac's 9800GT was a pre-overclocked card, hopefully the HD4830 is a pretty decent overclocker too.
Posted on Reply
#12
DarkMatter
by: eidairaman1
well if you hadnt noticed, all the graphs for the 9800GT are the same across the board, meaning they don't have a tangible part in their hands to test. That graph is just to keep the stock holders happy. Charts like this go back and forth between the companies (NVs Charts show their boards being faster) AMDs= their own parts.
:banghead::banghead::banghead: OMG! Just again! :banghead::banghead::banghead: OMG! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Nvidia results are the same because the graph is to show how much faster the Ati card is. Nvidia card is the baseline and thus all its results represent the baseline 1. Why can't people just learn to read the damn charts instead of stupidly look at them? I see why they make the charts this way, IT ACTUALLY WORKS FFS!!
Posted on Reply
#13
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: DarkMatter
:banghead::banghead::banghead: OMG! Just again! :banghead::banghead::banghead: OMG! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Nvidia results are the same because the graph is to show how much faster the Ati card is. Nvidia card is the baseline and thus all its results represent the baseline 1. Why can't people just learn to read the damn charts instead of stupidly look at them? I see why they make the charts this way, IT ACTUALLY WORKS FFS!!
Exactly. The nVidia card is set to 1 and the improvement over that is shown on the graph, it is a pretty common thing to do in graphs. So the ati card at 1.1 is a 10% improvement over the nVidia, 1.6 would be a 60% improvement, and 2.0 would be a 100% improvement.

Though, I don't really think the graph actually shows us anything. With only 6 games, the test is pretty limitted. Add to that, we don't know the actual framerates. Which means that the nVidia card could have been getting 10FPS in Call of Duty 4 and that would mean the ATi was getting 11FPS, not exactly that great, and both are still unplayable.
Posted on Reply
#14
ascstinger
if nothing else.. things sure are looking to make an excellent midrange market
Posted on Reply
#15
yogurt_21
sigh I'll be happy when these pr graphs vanish and are replaced by independent benchmark results. ie "20% faster in blank game on blank settings according to TPU's reviews"
Posted on Reply
#16
mdm-adph
by: ascstinger
if nothing else.. things sure are looking to make an excellent midrange market
Hopefully, if they can put this on the market at ~$100, I'll get it, but I don't think...

I'm sorry -- I lied, I'm actually just staring at your avatar.
Posted on Reply
#17
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: mdm-adph
Hopefully, if they can put this on the market at ~$100, I'll get it, but I don't think...

I'm sorry -- I lied, I'm actually just staring at your avatar.
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I think it will hit at about $100 though, the 4670 is ~$80, so I would guess $100 is doable for this card.
Posted on Reply
#18
ascstinger
rofl... my bet's on 120ish, as 4850's are starting to drop in price, but are still 170 and up, which puts it at 40 above the 4670, but $50 under the 4850, right about in the middle (all that is without rebates, with those the price could easily hit $100)
Posted on Reply
#19
Apocolypse007
that's some impressive dx10 performance for DMC4
Posted on Reply
#20
mdm-adph
by: ascstinger
rofl... my bet's on 120ish, as 4850's are starting to drop in price, but are still 170 and up, which puts it at 40 above the 4670, but $50 under the 4850, right about in the middle (all that is without rebates, with those the price could easily hit $100)
Hell, if it comes in at $120, I'd get a 8800GT, when the prices on those inevitably drop (especially if they go below $100).

I resolve never to pay above $100 for a graphic card. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#22
Basard
by: nflesher87
curious that those are all results at 1920x1200...who in their right mind is going to have a 1920x1200 capable monitor and expect to game with one of these cards? :wtf:
yeah, i know right, wtf...

if im going to spend 350+ for a monitor, i probably have 200 for a decent card, instead of <150.... thats why i have a 22" dell lcd, and a powercolor 3870 that only cost 125 bucks haha....
Posted on Reply
#23
suraswami
by: [I.R.A]_FBi
price it @ 100 dollah AMD
+1
Posted on Reply
#24
TheGuruStud
Anyone want my 9800...I mean 8800GT? *rolls eyes*

USELESS card. Get the gtx+ or go home.
Posted on Reply
#25
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Thats pretty interesting. I thought at first it was like the 4630 or something and I was like, no way in hell. Now that I looked at it, it seems feasible.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment