Discussion in 'Reviews' started by W1zzard, Jun 19, 2008.
To read this review go to: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4850/
read the first sentence on the first page. graphs will come over the day. i'm benching as fast as i can
Take your time
But HD4850 has a higher memory clock than HD4870? Am I missing something?
Wow... 9.x? You mean 9.9? Its priced lower than a 9800GTX isnt it?
i still dont know what score in the 9.0 to 9.9 range to give .. depends on the final benchmark scores
yes 4870 has gddr5 which has double the bandwidth
But 1069MHz isn't a 25MHz step?
yep you are correct .. fixed
damn! that runs hot indeed!
it sounds like ATI are having a good win this time around in the mid-high range segment.
wow this card is asteal at 200$ it beats the 9800gtx and trails the 3870x2 by 15% not to bad for a mid-high range card.
so no architectural info yet though? pity. guess we'll have to wait till the 4870's launch for that.
I wonder how it will stack up against a 9800gtx 8800gts with the new 177 series drivers?
It will be interesting to compare those drivers with the 8.6 Cat drivers using the mentioned cards.
Im impressed with Powercolors Memory OC and GPU OC. Compared to MSIs its a bit better. Strange.
it would definetly push ati to make better drivers faster for the 4000 series if the 9800gtx performed a bit better.
quake 4 scores in this review are correct, i benched 3 times to verify
My opinion on the latest TPU reviews:
Company of heroes, I don't know for sure but my guess is that this game did not sell well at all. I don't know a single gamer who owns this game and I am active on game-forums all over the planet and none of my friends ( Belgium, USA, Canada ) know or own this game. I know it's a good game and everyone that did buy it enjoyed it, but come on, that game is like two years old and I really think that nobody cares about that game anymore. So for me, a useless benchmark.
Far Cry, Cryisis got released and Far Cry 2 is on the way, and you guys still waist time bencharming in Far Cry? Come on, it was released more then 4 years ago. Yes it was a good game, but who's gonna buy a new GPU for Far cry???
Prey, beatifull game, awesome gameplay, but come on, who still plays it? I am pretty sure I finished that game with my 7600GT on 1600x1200.
Quake 4, again, nice game, but it's old and for some reason the multiplayer never got the attention it deserved.
Splinter Cell 3, I enjoyed it....more then 3 years ago.
3DMark03, 3dMark05, why?
Why don't I say anything about F.E.A.R, simply because the multiplayer is free ( and not dead yet ) and the game is one of the first multi-GPU optimized games.
Don't get me rong, I love the TPU reviews, I just wish that you guys tested in more games that are usefull for more gamers.
- World of Warcraft ( IT IS the most popular MMORPG on the planet and running it on 2560x1600 with high AA and AF settings is still not possible on all areas )
- Replace Far Cry with Far Cry 2 as soon as it gets released
- Stop running 3DMark03 and 3DMark05 and start running 3DMark Vantage ( better, stop running 3DMark )
- Trackmania Nations Forever, it's free, it's new, it's becoming more popular every day and you need powerfull hardware to run it maxed out
- America's Army 3.0 as soon as its out ( free online UnrealEngine-3 FPS-game )
- Age of Conan, this game is selling like crazy in Europe, better then GTA4
- Team Fortress 2
- Mass effect
I have only played Trackmania Nations Forever, so don't think I mention these games for my personal intrest.
Replacing old, dead games by new and/or popular games would only improve the TPU reviews that are already really great. And please don't start bitching at me just because I think it's better, it's just my opinion, just one guy's opinion. ( I got banned for posts like this one on Guru3D )
One more thing, about the overclocking part. I would love to see one more 3DMark chart where the OC results are included, just so that gamers know what performance impact to expect once overclocked. Pretty sure everyone would love to know if an overclocked 4850 can beat the 3870X2.
Good review W1z. Good that I waited for the new 4x series. I am going to return the 38x and buy this one. Woo hoo. Go AMD Go.
exactly, i also play track mania and i played AA there good games and i love to see benchies of it
really want to sink it to its knees run warmonger on it maxed out
It's not about high-demanding games. So many reviewers think that they need to test games that are high-demanding, others think they need to test games on very high resolutions with unplayable AA and AF settings, and most of them think both.
It's about good games, popular games, new games. Nobody cares how Far Cry runs on a 4850HD when you can run the game just fine with a card that is two years old. Nobody wants to know about 3DMark on 2560x1600 with AA enabled but I see so many websites using those kinds of benchmarks for their review-conclusions.
Look at the Top3 resolutions on the Valve survey ( 1.776.835 Submissions, last updated on 3:53am PST (11:53 GMT), June 19 2008 ):
1. 1280x1024, 1280x800, 1280x768
Only 2.29% players higher then 1680x1050.
It's not just TPU, every hardware-review websites should look at the trends. To bad none of them do...
Brilliant reviewing as usual, Wiz.
Those Q4 results are peculiar, but I noticed them in another review you did, the GTX280 ones I believe.
Speaking of the 280, I really can't see Nvidia selling many of these, especially if the die shrink in a few months is true, and considering the performance-per-$ compared to the 4850. Glad to see ATi fighting back.
I've been thinking of buying a gaming laptop for Uni, if I go, but at this rate, I'll just build a semi-portable PC, with a 4850 or 4870 inside.
Noticed the Performance-per-$ chart though, somewhat confused as to how the 3850 managed to get to the top, before I checked prices. Some American retailers seem to have them around the $130 mark, we have them at, the cheapest, between £75-80. I can see how it topped the chart there.
This is all good news for ATi. A card that is already kicking ass and taking names, without needing another driver set to get to full speed, but here's hoping 8.7s eek out something extra either way.
Jelle Mees, I do kind of agree with you, but the point of reviews has always been to compare performance in demanding games. If it can play the demanding games, it's basically inevitable that it will perform everywhere.
Still, I do wish they used 1680x1050 in testing, but 1600x1200 should give very good indication of performance at the widescreen version.
What I really want to see is testing LOW resolutions with HIGH AA/AF, and overall high settings. Some people take advantage, lower the res to get higher settings, and AA allows them to counter the jaggies that appear more with lower resolutions. Although it doesn't happen as much with LCDs, since the LCD will generally display images a little rougher at non-native resolutions, and people want to avoid that happenning.
Boy, I need to pick a side and stick to it.
thing is people buy based on what the card can do even if they aren't going to use that potential its the fact that the card can
That very same survey also states things such as >40% use AMD processors, >78% use XP, etc. I don't doubt the results of the survey but the fact that VALVe and its games are all about mid-lower mid systems, and users with such systems how many people still use Intel onboard graphics and play Counter Strike 1? Every second street in my city has a gaming shack with PC-2004 systems running CS.
Separate names with a comma.