Is the Sapphire 4890 Vaporx for sale yet. Where

[Blacklash]

Boy are these cards rare now. The Atomic is gone completely, and the Toxic is very hard to find in stock.

The regular Vapor-X that comes @ 870 on the core is easy to score though.

 

[trooper]

can i clock toxic to 1000/1050 like atomic?

 

[Cool Mike]

trooper, Yes, everyone can overclock 1000Mhz+ easy.
I am at 1025 Mhz 65% fan. 1015Mhz auto fan (almost silent)

Toxic's are hard to find now>

 

[trooper]

trooper, Yes, everyone can overclock 1000Mhz+ easy.
I am at 1025 Mhz 65% fan. 1015Mhz auto fan (almost silent)

Toxic's are hard to find now>

i will have one today

 

[_33]

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...-4890-Atomic-Battle-of-the-OC-giants/Reviews/

Don't know if it's been posted before, but it's a short and decent review of the Atomic versus a Nvidia 285 FTW edition.

 

[Cool Mike]

The Sapphire VaporX 2GB is out! Ewiz spec's say 960 Core 4200 Memory.

 

[Tatty_Two]

The Sapphire VaporX 2GB is out! Ewiz spec's say 960 Core 4200 Memory.

Strange, the 1GB vaporX stocks at 870mhz

 

[Tatty_Two]

Boy are these cards rare now. The Atomic is gone completely, and the Toxic is very hard to find in stock.

The regular Vapor-X that comes @ 870 on the core is easy to score though.

Still some available to UK buyers if you know where to look.

 

[twicksisted]

wow 17 pages ... this is one hot (or make that cool) card indeed

 

[Cool Mike]

It has been proven the Toxic has a better cooling solution over the vaporX, right?
I could not find the 2GB version on sapphires web site. Wondering if the 960 core is a typeO
on Ewiz's site. Will 2GB give any real proformance improvements. Never had a 2gb..

 

[Tatty_Two]

It has been proven the Toxic has a better cooling solution over the vaporX, right?
I could not find the 2GB version on sapphires web site. Wondering if the 960 core is a typeO
on Ewiz's site. Will 2GB give any real proformance improvements. Never had a 2gb..

Yes, the Toxic and Atomic versions ADD the heatpipes to the vapor chamber cooling solution, the VaporX has the basic which is still very good of course.

As to the 2GB question, I read an article a few weeks ago, currently there is no game that uses 1GB on highest detail at 19xx res or lower (I think Crysis and a couple of others managed about 860MB at 19xx), if you had a 30 inch plus monitor at 2xxx res then quite probably it would be very helpful.

 

[Cool Mike]

Thanks Tatty. Found the 2GB version on sapphires web site.
870 core. Like the 1GB.

 

[Wile E]

Yes, the Toxic and Atomic versions ADD the heatpipes to the vapor chamber cooling solution, the VaporX has the basic which is still very good of course.

As to the 2GB question, I read an article a few weeks ago, currently there is no game that uses 1GB on highest detail at 19xx res or lower (I think Crysis and a couple of others managed about 860MB at 19xx), if you had a 30 inch plus monitor at 2xxx res then quite probably it would be very helpful.

Actually, GTA4 uses over 1GB at lower then 1920 resolutions.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Actually, GTA4 uses over 1GB at lower then 1920 resolutions.

Wile E!....... havent seen you for a while......although I have been away on holidays too.......Well reading this guys review findings on his personal machine at 1920 he was using 92% of his cards memory in highest detail, that card being an 896MB GTX260 on a GTA4 bench, he went on to say this in general about video cards, noting that the game is so CPU intensive he would rather play the game with an i7 920 and a 9800GT 512MB than with an E8500 and a GTX280 (note the double memory of the 280 over the 9800).........

GTA 4 (PC) - Graphics card guidelines
As GPU power is concerned, we can give an all-clear. Even at 2,560 x 1,600 (but also at 800 x 600) a Geforce 9800 GT is only slightly slower than a GTX 280 - GTA 4 primarily requires CPU power, reducing the resolution doesn't result in much more fps. On two test systems we were able to get a Radeon HD 4870 running. The benchmark revealed that this card also delivered similar results.

Currently we are keeping in touch with Rockstar and AMD to find a solution for the problems with Radeon cards. The Catalyst 8.12 WHQL, that we were supplied with in advance, could solve the Radeon startup problem - we will check that of course. But we think that it is unlikely to be a general driver issue.

his findings were that most of the "stutter" relating to gameplay that most people were having was not actually down to GDDR memory but to Dual core or weaker CPU's, he found that anything below a Q6600 at 3.6gig and it's 4 cores struggled a little but I dont have the game so for my part this is circumstantial.

 

[Wile E]

Wile E!....... havent seen you for a while......although I have been away on holidays too.......Well reading this guys review findings on his personal machine at 1920 he was using 92% of his cards memory in highest detail, that card being an 896MB GTX260 on a GTA4 bench, he went on to say this in general about video cards, noting that the game is so CPU intensive he would rather play the game with an i7 920 and a 9800GT 512MB than with an E8500 and a GTX280 (note the double memory of the 280 over the 9800).........

GTA 4 (PC) - Graphics card guidelines
As GPU power is concerned, we can give an all-clear. Even at 2,560 x 1,600 (but also at 800 x 600) a Geforce 9800 GT is only slightly slower than a GTX 280 - GTA 4 primarily requires CPU power, reducing the resolution doesn't result in much more fps. On two test systems we were able to get a Radeon HD 4870 running. The benchmark revealed that this card also delivered similar results.

Currently we are keeping in touch with Rockstar and AMD to find a solution for the problems with Radeon cards. The Catalyst 8.12 WHQL, that we were supplied with in advance, could solve the Radeon startup problem - we will check that of course. But we think that it is unlikely to be a general driver issue.

his findings were that most of the "stutter" relating to gameplay that most people were having was not actually down to GDDR memory but to Dual core or weaker CPU's, he found that anything below a Q6600 at 3.6gig and it's 4 cores struggled a little but I dont have the game so for my part this is circumstantial.

I find that he is completely mistaken. lol. First off, I completely disabled the game's memory check, and ran it completely maxed out. If he didn't do this, his test is useless, as the game won't let you turn settings up past what the game deems your card capable of.

I was able to test both a 4870 512MB as well as a 4870 1GB. The game clearly preferred the 1GB card. Even then, at 1680x1050, the game pulled over 1GB easily at times. 1920x1200 was even worse. Maxing everything out was a stuttering mess on the 512MB card. Completely unplayable. The 1GB card was just barely playable, but far from optimum or even enjoyable, really.

This is with a QX at 4GHz+, hardly a bottleneck.

Not only that, but how in the hell are cpu requirements gonna go up as you increase graphics? The cpu becomes less and less of a factor, the higher the graphics go, as the gpu becomes the bottleneck.

Sorry, but I find little merit in what you've posted of that review so far. I'd like to see the whole article.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I find that he is completely mistaken. lol. First off, I completely disabled the game's memory check, and ran it completely maxed out. If he didn't do this, his test is useless, as the game won't let you turn settings up past what the game deems your card capable of.

I was able to test both a 4870 512MB as well as a 4870 1GB. The game clearly preferred the 1GB card. Even then, at 1680x1050, the game pulled over 1GB easily at times. 1920x1200 was even worse. Maxing everything out was a stuttering mess on the 512MB card. Completely unplayable. The 1GB card was just barely playable, but far from optimum or even enjoyable, really.

This is with a QX at 4GHz+, hardly a bottleneck.

Not only that, but how in the hell are cpu requirements gonna go up as you increase graphics? The cpu becomes less and less of a factor, the higher the graphics go, as the gpu becomes the bottleneck.

Sorry, but I find little merit in what you've posted of that review so far. I'd like to see the whole article.

I was at work and it's saved as a favorite, I'm at work now but when i get home I'll post the link, his comments about CPU were across the board, not aimed at any particular resolution and is one fact I am pretty sure of as a couple of guys here in a thread, tested a couple of different resolutions with the same graphics settings and even at 19xx with those same graphics settings there was quite a FPS increase between a Q6600 at 3gig and at 3.6gig, thats down to the games basic architecture not the fact that CPU is bottlenecking the card, it would be good if you tested the theory, say with your 1GB card, run the bench with your CPU at stock then with the same graphics card settings run it at 4gig all in 19xx res, we know that at 19xx the graphics card bears most of the burden (under normal circumstances) so if you get a reasonable improvement in FPS at 4gig it would show it's the games architecture.

meanwhile when I get home i will dig out the linky of the review.

 

[Wile E]

I was at work and it's saved as a favorite, I'm at work now but when i get home I'll post the link, his comments about CPU were across the board, not aimed at any particular resolution and is one fact I am pretty sure of as a couple of guys here in a thread, tested a couple of different resolutions with the same graphics settings and even at 19xx with those same graphics settings there was quite a FPS increase between a Q6600 at 3gig and at 3.6gig, thats down to the games basic architecture not the fact that CPU is bottlenecking the card, it would be good if you tested the theory, say with your 1GB card, run the bench with your CPU at stock then with the same graphics card settings run it at 4gig all in 19xx res, we know that at 19xx the graphics card bears most of the burden (under normal circumstances) so if you get a reasonable improvement in FPS at 4gig it would show it's the games architecture.

meanwhile when I get home i will dig out the linky of the review.

I'm not denying that upping the cpu provided an increase in fps, what I am denying is that upping the graphical settings of the game increases the need for cpu power. It does not.

And I can't compare anymore. I no longer have any 512MB cards thanks to this game.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I'm not denying that upping the cpu provided an increase in fps, what I am denying is that upping the graphical settings of the game increases the need for cpu power. It does not.

And I can't compare anymore. I no longer have any 512MB cards thanks to this game.

Damn, you get rid of a card just for one game thats an expensive game!

 

[Wile E]

Damn, you get rid of a card just for one game thats an expensive game!

No. Wanted to upgrade, this game just pushed me to spring for cards larger than 512MB.