• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Sapphire HD 4870 X2

alexp999

Staff
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
8,012 (1.83/day)
Location
Dorset, UK
System Name Gaming Rig | Uni Laptop
Processor Intel Q6600 G0 (2007) @ 3.6Ghz @ 1.45625v (LLC) / 4 GHz Bench @ 1.63v | AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-62 2 GHz
Motherboard ASUS P5Q Deluxe (Intel P45) | HP 6715b
Cooling Xigmatek Dark Knight w/AC MX2 ~ Case Fans: 2 x 180mm + 1 x 120mm Silverstone Fans
Memory 4GB OCZ Platinum PC2-8000 @ 1000Mhz 5-5-5-15 2.1v | 2 x 1GB DDR2 667 MHz
Video Card(s) XFX GTX 285 1GB, Modded FTW BIOS @ 725/1512/1350 w/Accelero Xtreme GTX 280 + Scythe sinks| ATI X1250
Storage 2x WD6400AAKS 1 TB Raid 0, 140GB Raid 1 & 80GB Maxtor Basics External HDD (storage) | 160GB 2.5"
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster SM2433BW @ 1920 x 1200 via DVI-D | 15.4" WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050 resolution)
Case Silverstone Fortress FT01B-W ~ Logitech G15 R1 / Microsoft Laser Mouse 6000
Audio Device(s) Soundmax AD2000BX Onboard Sound, via Logitech X-230 2.1 | ADI SoundMAX HD Audio
Power Supply Corsair TX650W | HP 90W
Software Windows 7 Ultimate Build 7100 x64 | Windows 7 Ultimate Build 7100 x64
Benchmark Scores 3DM06: 19519, Vantage: P16170 ~ Win7: -CPU 7.5 -MEM 7.5 -AERO 7.9 -GFX 6.0 -HDD 6.0
i forced mgpu to off now, lets see if there is any difference

edit: no major difference between mgpu forced on and off
So basically Crysis has no real benefit in having a 4870X2 over single 4870.

Thats why I ended up getting a GTX260 over a 9800GX2. Dual GOU is great when it works, but a waste of money when it doesnt. Thats why I want nvidias next graphics card to be an even better single GPU, not two PCB's slapped together again.

Thanks for the reviews W1zz!
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
300 (0.07/day)
Location
Ambugaton
Processor Intel Skylake i5 6500 3.2 Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-Z170-HD3p v1.1
Cooling Noctua NH-D9L + 2x Corsair Pro 120mm ML
Memory HyperX Fury Black 32GB DDR4 2400Mhz CL15 1.2v
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1070 G1 8GB GDDR5 256bit
Storage 128GB NVME| 500GB SSD | NAS 4TB (Raid1) |
Display(s) 24" Dell U2417H
Case Cooler Master CM Silencio 452
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC 889 + Microlab Solo 6C
Power Supply Seasonic M12II-620 EVO Bronze 620W
Software Windows 10 x64
You and 95% of the rest of consumers.


That's the situational crux of cards like the 280 and the X2. They're just not needed.
-----------
What we're left with, is overkill horsepower cards, that don't live up to their expectations, who's prices are 'questionable' and etc.

The X2 doesn't 'dominate' anything, it doesn't even win 100%.
-----------
WHO THE FUKK CARES anymore?
-----------
All I know is, cards are getting huge, they're not changing their architecture and they're focing us into one of two product choices.
-----------
I just can't wait until physics on GPUs becomes a full fledged industry standard, and they can start shrinking GPUs to the point of 100% integration coughlarabcough :)
Well, I guess you got your 280 and once the euphoria dispersed you became jaded:).

Great, one Terraflop, then 2, then 5, and so on.. who really cares about that? I enjoy old games like Arcaum and Fallout 100 times more than I did playing Crysis. And those games run on a 800Mhz Procesor with integrated graphics even...

Regarding to your car analogy, we now have the 300Km/h cars, great, but we lack the highways to go that fast.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,446 (1.00/day)
Processor Intel Core i9 7980XE Custom IHS @ 4.6Ghz 1.23v
Motherboard ASUS Rampage VI Extreme
Cooling EK ROG R6E Monoblock, EK-CoolStream PE 360, EK-CoolStream PE 240, EK X-RES 140 Revo D5 RGB PWM
Memory G.Skill Trident Z RGB F4-3000C14D 64GB
Video Card(s) Asus GTX 1080Ti Strix OC
Storage Samsung 950 Pro NVME 512GB, 2x 850 Evos 1TB, WD Black 1TB
Display(s) LG 43ud79-b
Case Corsair 500D SE
Power Supply Cooler Master Vanguard Series 1000W
Software Windows 10
Your timedemo is actually faster then guru3d's, by 10 fps on HD4870, and the difference between GTX280 and HD4870 is also about the same. What you are not getting, is Crossfire scaling on the same level as the other review sites, they are at ca. 1.8x, while you have 1.4x.

This might be down to your motherboard, and it's most likely just a driverflaw as it seems like Crossfire need to be written to support it, or that it just not scale as good on it.

I'm a GTX280 owner myself, and as a reviewer to, I have no thoughts at all about you being biased towards Nvidia, or any other for that matter. I'm just pointing out that you are not getting the average scaling, the reasons for that, as stated above, is most likely the combination of P35/CFX/Drivers. I've tested 2xHD4870 myself, and had a scaling of above 1.8x on a X38 motherboard, so somthing is not right with P35 and this HD4870x2. I've also tested HD3870x2 on a P35, and it also lacked scaling compared to x38, but not all games scaled bad, just some like COD4.
I've look at a few reviews and all are aabout the same look at this one this is with a Gigabyte X48-DQ6 http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_4870x2/6.htm the HD 4870 X2 was just a hype
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
2,490 (0.55/day)
Location
Your house.
System Name Jupiter-2
Processor Intel i3-6100
Motherboard H170I-PLUS D3
Cooling Stock
Memory 8GB Mushkin DDR3L-1600
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1050ti
Storage 512GB Corsair SSD
Display(s) BENQ 24in
Case Lian Li PC-Q01B Mini ITX
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair 450W
Mouse Logitech Trackball
Keyboard Custom bamboo job
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Finished Super PI on legendary mode in only 13 hours.
As long as it remains at its current price its a horrid price/preformance ratio. Also the GTX280 55nm that is supposed to be clocked significantly higher will likly topple it, the GTX280 isn't to far behind in all honesty from the R700, so ATI has some gloating room for now, anyone rememeber what Nvidia does?

x1800XT -> 7800GTX 512 -> x1900XTX -> 7900GTX -> x1950XTX -> 7950GX2

same here

HD3870 X2 -> 9800GX2 -> HD4870 -> GTX280 -> HD4870 x2 -> GTX280 55nm

Nvidia doesnt like to loose
I just love how your explanation of why the 4870 X2 isn't a great card is to use a card that hasn't even been made yet (GTX280 55nm). If we're going to play that game, then I'll go ahead and say the GTX280 55nm is crap because of the HD 5880 X4.

And seriously -- seeing as how the 55nm 9800GTX+ was a colossal snore, I don't see why a 55nm GTX280 would be that much different than a 65nm one. :shadedshu
 

Ourasi

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
16 (0.00/day)
Techpowerup 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF
74.0-98.4 COD4 33%
84.5-119.6 Call of Juarez 42%
262.6-337.8 Company Of Heroes 29%
37.9-34.2 Crysis -11%
104.4-137.7 Enemy Territory 32%
268.9-252.8 FarCry -6%
122.0-192.0 F.E.A.R. 58%
144.8-203.0 Prey 40%
54.1-161.6 Quake4 300%
143.3-239.5 Splinter Cell 67%
63.9-104.6 S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 64%
61.8-58,5 Supreme Commander -5%
73.1-74.1 Team Fortress 2 1%
132.6-151.9 UT3 15%
52.0-55.0 World In Conflict 6%

HD4870x2 is on average 32% faster then GTX280 at 1920x1200 AA/AF according to your own numbers. What was the basis for the 14% you have?

Guru3d 1920x1200 4XAA/16XAF
62.0-117.0 COD4 89%
50.0-54.0 Frontline: Fuel of war 8%
63.0-102.0 S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 63%
103.0-159.0 F.E.A.R. 62%
99.0-84.0 GRAW2 -18%

Guru3d rates HD4870x2 to be on average 37% faster then GTX280.

Anandtech 1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF
60.2-94.2 racedriver 56%
33.2-56.3 AoC 70%
51.9-76.0 Oblivion 47%
99.0-139.8 ET:wars 41%
35.8-39.8 Crysis 11%

Anandtech rates HD4870x2 to be on average 45% faster then GTX280 at 1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF.
 

Ourasi

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
16 (0.00/day)
thats the average over all benchmarks
Wouldn't it be better to have an % number pr. resolution? Slapping it all together does not tell the whole story IMHO. I imagine people would find it interesting to know that the higher the resolution, the bigger the difference between HD4870x2 vs. GTX280. After all this is a high-end part, and running this at anything below 1680x1050 should be considered a crime........

The Relative performance and performance per watt/$ would look very different if you applied it to each resolution tested. Alot of work, but worth it me thinks;)
 

DarkMatter

New Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.40/day)
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
nvidia is not even sending samples to us by the way, so stop with those accusations.
Hmm. I always wondered why you were slow reviewing some cards and fast with some others, making me go out to find reviews elsewhere. You have to buy them or wait until someone donates one? Come on Nvidia, give him the cards!!!

Will you be doing more crysis ones too? Or are you sticking to the,

"I shouldnt have to change CLV's in a game"

kinda bad on crysis' point, I might write to them, see if they can include it in the next patch.

A crossfire button on an Nvidia sponsored game! :p
No more patches remember? Just Warhead.

Your timedemo is actually faster then guru3d's, by 10 fps on HD4870, and the difference between GTX280 and HD4870 is also about the same. What you are not getting, is Crossfire scaling on the same level as the other review sites, they are at ca. 1.8x, while you have 1.4x.

This might be down to your motherboard, and it's most likely just a driverflaw as it seems like Crossfire need to be written to support it, or that it just not scale as good on it.

I'm a GTX280 owner myself, and as a reviewer to, I have no thoughts at all about you being biased towards Nvidia, or any other for that matter. I'm just pointing out that you are not getting the average scaling, the reasons for that, as stated above, is most likely the combination of P35/CFX/Drivers. I've tested 2xHD4870 myself, and had a scaling of above 1.8x on a X38 motherboard, so somthing is not right with P35 and this HD4870x2. I've also tested HD3870x2 on a P35, and it also lacked scaling compared to x38, but not all games scaled bad, just some like COD4.
Might be the CPU. I think that latest Ati cards require or get more benefits from a faster CPU or a Quad than Nvidia's cards. It's nothing that I can corfirm, or that I have tested, just something I figured out looking at latest reviews.

It's something that some reviewer could test (come on Wizz ;)). At least I'm very interested in the results. Could be interesting to guess if the different GPU architectures are so different that have very different CPU requirements and it would definately be interesting for end users.

Also it would demostrate that the different reviews are different because of that and not because any kind of bias. Pretty much everyone in TPU knows the system used in the bench plays a big role, but until the HD4000/GTX cards I never had the impression that the influence of the system could be very different between the different architectures, it would just function like a constant multiplier for all cards. Knowing both architectures it is logical for Ati cards to have a bigger driver overhead, but I never found it to make a difference in the past. Now I think there could be something. It's the way I justify the differences between reviews. I'd love to see it confirmed.
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
37,061 (8.62/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
Cooling AMD Wraith Prism
Memory 2x 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) Colorful iGame GTX 1070 Ti Vulcan X
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) Samsung U28D590 28-inch 4K UHD
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D PCIe
Power Supply Antec EarthWatts Pro Gold 750W
Mouse Razer Abyssus
Keyboard Microsoft Sidewinder X4
Software Windows 10 Pro
Hmm. I always wondered why you were slow reviewing some cards and fast with some others, making me go out to find reviews elsewhere. You have to buy them or wait until someone donates one? Come on Nvidia, give him the cards!!!
NVIDIA doesn't, Zotac does ;)

Just a friendly request, make your next NV card a Zotac.
 
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
2,357 (0.53/day)
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
System Name Main Rig
Processor Intel Core i7 4770K De-lidded 4.5GHz
Motherboard MSI Z87-GD65 Gaming
Cooling NZXT Kraken X61
Memory 8GB DDR3-1600 CL8 Crucial Ballistx Tracer Tactical
Video Card(s) Radeon RX Vega 64
Storage 120GB Samsung 840 - 250GB 840 EVO - 640GB WD Black - 2TB Seagate
Display(s) Samsung 27" 144hz Curved 1440P - LG 29" Ultrawide 21:9
Case Fractal Design Arc Midi R2
Audio Device(s) Onboard - Steinburg UR44
Power Supply Corsair 650TX
Software Windows 10 64Bit

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
19,243 (3.47/day)
Processor Core i7-4790K
Memory 16 GB
Video Card(s) GTX 1080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 7
Wouldn't it be better to have an % number pr. resolution? Slapping it all together does not tell the whole story IMHO. I imagine people would find it interesting to know that the higher the resolution, the bigger the difference between HD4870x2 vs. GTX280. After all this is a high-end part, and running this at anything below 1680x1050 should be considered a crime........

The Relative performance and performance per watt/$ would look very different if you applied it to each resolution tested. Alot of work, but worth it me thinks;)
i have been thinking about that, but A LOT of people want to look at one graph and know it all. maybe i could make 4 graphs each for perf summary, perf/$, perf/w and one additional summarizing the 4 resolutions.

i wrote me some nifty programs to do all the work, otherwise i'd spend all my life just processing the numbers. we are looking at over 1500 individual benchmark runs displayed in this review. yep that many! would you have thought that? for example if you were drawing our graphs by hand and it takes you 10 seconds per bar you would spend over 4 hours just to make the graphs
 

candle_86

New Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,914 (0.85/day)
I just love how your explanation of why the 4870 X2 isn't a great card is to use a card that hasn't even been made yet (GTX280 55nm). If we're going to play that game, then I'll go ahead and say the GTX280 55nm is crap because of the HD 5880 X4.

And seriously -- seeing as how the 55nm 9800GTX+ was a colossal snore, I don't see why a 55nm GTX280 would be that much different than a 65nm one. :shadedshu
It already isnt a great card, the price/preformance ratio blows. As for the 9800GTX+ being a snore thats neither here nor there, the G200 55nm is supposed to be clocked higher, and the GTX280 isn't that far away in the first place. All it takes is an overclock from the factory to claim the throne again. The HD4870X2 is to hot, consumes to much power, and doesn't live up to the hype. Its also not signifcantly faster than whats availble that won't super heat your house. The fact is in under a month you'd pay for this card twice simply because of the power draw and the AC bill to keep your house cool
 

Zehnsucht

New Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
438 (0.11/day)
Location
Oslo, Norway
System Name Water
Processor Q9550 Stock
Motherboard Asus P5Q Pro
Cooling Noctua big ass cooler
Memory Corsair Dominator PC8500 4 GB
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD7950
Storage Velociraptor 300 GB, Samsung 500 GB, MyBook 300 GB
Display(s) 1: Eizo 23" LCD Foris FS2331-BK 2: Samsung 226BW
Case Cooler Master ATCS 840
Audio Device(s) Asus STX
Power Supply Corsair HX520
i have been thinking about that, but A LOT of people want to look at one graph and know it all. maybe i could make 4 graphs each for perf summary, perf/$, perf/w and one additional summarizing the 4 resolutions.

i wrote me some nifty programs to do all the work, otherwise i'd spend all my life just processing the numbers. we are looking at over 1500 individual benchmark runs displayed in this review. yep that many! would you have thought that? for example if you were drawing our graphs by hand and it takes you 10 seconds per bar you would spend over 4 hours just to make the graphs
I would certainly want a graph summarizing resolutions. After all, for most people it is not important that card x performs extremly bad in resolutions of 2560xxxx if they only play in 1680.
 

Tatty_One

Senior Moder@tor
Staff member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
21,415 (4.35/day)
Location
Worcestershire, UK
System Name The Grey
Processor Skylake i7 6700k @ 4.6gig - 1.35V
Motherboard MSI Z170A Tomahawk
Cooling Cooler Master Seidon 240V AIO/Viper140's
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX3000 @ 3200mhz CL15 1T
Video Card(s) Palit 8GB GTX 1070 GameRock OC Edition
Storage SkHynix SL308 120GB/CrucialM4 64GB/1TB WD Black
Display(s) LG 29inch 2560x1080 Curved Ultrawide IPS
Case Phanteks Enthoo Pro M Windowed - Gunmetal
Audio Device(s) SB Xifi Elite Pro 7.1through VideoLogic ZXR550's
Power Supply XFX Pro Black Edition 750W Gold modular
Mouse Coolermaster Storm Octane wired
Keyboard Element Gaming Carbon Mk2 Tournament Mech
Software Win 10 Home x64
Wouldn't it be better to have an % number pr. resolution? Slapping it all together does not tell the whole story IMHO. I imagine people would find it interesting to know that the higher the resolution, the bigger the difference between HD4870x2 vs. GTX280. After all this is a high-end part, and running this at anything below 1680x1050 should be considered a crime........

The Relative performance and performance per watt/$ would look very different if you applied it to each resolution tested. Alot of work, but worth it me thinks;)
If thats w1zzards average across something like 18 benchmarks is that not more informative than a higher average across say just 6 benchmarks?

I agree on your comments about resolution, however there are some in these forums who have ordered the card who have 19 inch screens so the masses need to be catered for also I think.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
1,004 (0.21/day)
System Name [Primary Workstation]
Processor Intel Core i7-920 Bloomfield @ 3.8GHz/4.55GHz [24-7/Bench]
Motherboard EVGA X58 E758-A1 [Tweaked right!]
Cooling Cooler Master V8 [stock fan + two 133CFM ULTRA KAZE fans]
Memory 12GB [Kingston HyperX]
Video Card(s) constantly upgrading/downgrading [prefer nVidia]
Storage constantly upgrading/downgrading [prefer Hitachi/Samsung]
Display(s) Triple LCD [40 inch primary + 32 & 28 inch auxiliary displays]
Case Cooler Master Cosmos 1000 [Mesh Mod, CFM Overload]
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar D1 + onboard Realtek ALC889A [Logitech Z-5300 Spk., Niko 650-HP 5.1 Hp., X-Bass Hp.]
Power Supply Corsair TX950W [aka Reactor]
Software This and that... [All software 100% legit and paid for, 0% pirated]
Benchmark Scores Ridiculously good scores!!!
Zehnsucht, not everyone has a fixed resolution LCD. My CRT Trinitrons scale just fine up to 2048x1536.

1500+ individual benchmarks W1zzard? Now that's the professionalism I'm talking about and the reason I rely on TPU reviews when it comes to my hardware purchases.
 

Ourasi

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
16 (0.00/day)
i have been thinking about that, but A LOT of people want to look at one graph and know it all. maybe i could make 4 graphs each for perf summary, perf/$, perf/w and one additional summarizing the 4 resolutions.

i wrote me some nifty programs to do all the work, otherwise i'd spend all my life just processing the numbers. we are looking at over 1500 individual benchmark runs displayed in this review. yep that many! would you have thought that? for example if you were drawing our graphs by hand and it takes you 10 seconds per bar you would spend over 4 hours just to make the graphs
Well, one graph would be sweet if it told the absolute truth, but it does not. One good example is 9800GTX+ vs. HD4870x2 in 1024x768 F.E.A.R.: here HD4870x2 is only 50% faster at 3 times the price, but when you move to 1920x1200 it's close to 300% faster. It would completely change the picture of perf. watt/$ if you excluded 1024x768/1280x1024, or made one for 1920x1200. The average performance advantage of HD4870x2 vs GTX 280 more then doubles, when moving up the resolution ladder.
 

Ourasi

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
16 (0.00/day)
If thats w1zzards average across something like 18 benchmarks is that not more informative than a higher average across say just 6 benchmarks?

I agree on your comments about resolution, however there are some in these forums who have ordered the card who have 19 inch screens so the masses need to be catered for also I think.
I don't think the masses with 19" monitors are lining up to buy HD4870x2 or GTX280, some might, but those should not count :banghead:

His average include 1024x768 and 1280x1024, and thats half of his resolutins. And when half of the benches hardly showes any difference between the cards at all, the numbers get meaningless.
 
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
2,357 (0.53/day)
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
System Name Main Rig
Processor Intel Core i7 4770K De-lidded 4.5GHz
Motherboard MSI Z87-GD65 Gaming
Cooling NZXT Kraken X61
Memory 8GB DDR3-1600 CL8 Crucial Ballistx Tracer Tactical
Video Card(s) Radeon RX Vega 64
Storage 120GB Samsung 840 - 250GB 840 EVO - 640GB WD Black - 2TB Seagate
Display(s) Samsung 27" 144hz Curved 1440P - LG 29" Ultrawide 21:9
Case Fractal Design Arc Midi R2
Audio Device(s) Onboard - Steinburg UR44
Power Supply Corsair 650TX
Software Windows 10 64Bit
It already isnt a great card, the price/preformance ratio blows. As for the 9800GTX+ being a snore thats neither here nor there, the G200 55nm is supposed to be clocked higher, and the GTX280 isn't that far away in the first place. All it takes is an overclock from the factory to claim the throne again. The HD4870X2 is to hot, consumes to much power, and doesn't live up to the hype. Its also not signifcantly faster than whats availble that won't super heat your house. The fact is in under a month you'd pay for this card twice simply because of the power draw and the AC bill to keep your house cool
The 9800GTX+ was clocked higher, how much higher do you think they will clock the "Oh so mighty 55nm GTX280"? It probably won't take the performance crown. People like me, would not buy a GTX280, but would go with an HD4870X2 instead because we like ATi and the card is faster...even if it's only by a small amount. You say the 4870X2 is hot, and consumes a lot of power, what about the GTX series...they aren't exactly the coldest running, low power cards either. Stop trolling on AMD threads...and open a Nvidia fanclub.
 

candle_86

New Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,914 (0.85/day)
your right they are not the coolest, but they run cooler than even the 4850 does. You can buy the HD4870 X2, most users though will go with bang for buck. And by your own admission you wouldn't buy an Nvidia card proves my points its the ATI nutjobs that will get this card. I use a 3850 in my computer, its a decent little card, and when i bought it it was a good price/preformace.
 

cdawall

where the hell are my stars
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
27,631 (5.83/day)
Location
Houston
System Name All the cores
Processor 2990WX
Motherboard Asrock X399M
Cooling CPU-XSPC RayStorm Neo, 2x240mm+360mm, D5PWM+140mL||GPU-2x360mm, 3xbyski, D4+D5+100mL
Memory 4x8GB G.Skill Trident Z 3200 CL16
Video Card(s) (2) EVGA SC BLACK 1080Ti's+EVGA 1080Ti FE
Storage 2x Samsung SM951 512GB, Samsung PM961 512GB
Display(s) Dell UP2414Q 3840X2160@60hz
Case Caselabs Mercury S5+pedestal
Audio Device(s) Fischer HA-02->Fischer FA-002W High edition/FA-003/Jubilate/FA-011 depending on my mood
Power Supply Seasonic Prime 1200w
Mouse Thermaltake Theron || Steam controller
Keyboard Thermaltake Poseidon ZX || Steam controller
Software W10P
well its nice that this has become a fanboi load of nonsense.

look at the scores in most games the 4870X2 beats the GTX280 done end of story.

wait here let me go through the NV fanboi complaints.

uses more power

response from me:
your dropping $550 on a video cards i doubt you will be using a shitty PSU

doesn't scale at low res

response from me:
why the sam hell are you using a low res monitor?

GTX280 55nm beats it
umm no i bet it wont until it gets clocked higher funny thing about die shrinks they don't change performance hence a 130nm P4 @3ghz with the same cache fsb etc performs the same as a 65nm@3ghz.


did i miss any? if i did just say it
 

Ourasi

New Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
16 (0.00/day)
It already isnt a great card, the price/preformance ratio blows. As for the 9800GTX+ being a snore thats neither here nor there, the G200 55nm is supposed to be clocked higher, and the GTX280 isn't that far away in the first place. All it takes is an overclock from the factory to claim the throne again. The HD4870X2 is to hot, consumes to much power, and doesn't live up to the hype. Its also not signifcantly faster than whats availble that won't super heat your house. The fact is in under a month you'd pay for this card twice simply because of the power draw and the AC bill to keep your house cool
HD4870x2 is 35-45% faster then a GTX280 at 1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF on average. And even faster on higher resolutions. To get the throne back, Nvidia would need alot more then a clock bump from 55nm., alot more and way beyond what a shrink can provide.

If you game 24 hours a day for a whole month, the HD4870x2 would cost you less than 15$ extra on the powerbill, so the extra cost on the powerbill with normal gaming, is 1/3 of that at the most. And the heat it produces is about the same as five 60w lightbulb's.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
2,490 (0.55/day)
Location
Your house.
System Name Jupiter-2
Processor Intel i3-6100
Motherboard H170I-PLUS D3
Cooling Stock
Memory 8GB Mushkin DDR3L-1600
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1050ti
Storage 512GB Corsair SSD
Display(s) BENQ 24in
Case Lian Li PC-Q01B Mini ITX
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair 450W
Mouse Logitech Trackball
Keyboard Custom bamboo job
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Finished Super PI on legendary mode in only 13 hours.
The HD4870X2 is to hot, consumes to much power, and doesn't live up to the hype. Its also not signifcantly faster than whats availble that won't super heat your house. The fact is in under a month you'd pay for this card twice simply because of the power draw and the AC bill to keep your house cool
You know, I recall people saying the exact same thing about the GTX 280 when it came out, yet lots of people like you defended it back then... :rolleyes:
 

Polaris573

Senior Moderator
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
4,268 (0.81/day)
Location
Little Rock, USA
Processor LGA 775 Intel Q9550 2.8 Ghz
Motherboard MSI P7N Diamond - 780i Chipset
Cooling Arctic Freezer
Memory 6GB G.Skill DDRII 800 4-4-3-5
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 7850 2 GB PCI-E
Storage 1 TB Seagate 32MB Cache, 250 GB Seagate 16MB Cache
Display(s) Acer X203w
Case Coolermaster Centurion 5
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Music
Power Supply OCZ StealthXStream 600 Watt
Software Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Stay on topic and leave personal attacks out of this please.
 

Megasty

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
1,263 (0.31/day)
Location
The Kingdom of Au
Processor i7 920 @ 3.6 GHz (4.0 when gaming)
Motherboard Asus Rampage II Extreme - Yeah I Bought It...
Cooling Swiftech.
Memory 12 GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer - I Love Red
Video Card(s) ASUS EAH4870X2 - That Fan Is...!?
Storage 4 WD 1.5 TB
Display(s) 24" Sceptre
Case TT Xaser VI - Fugly, Red, & Huge...
Audio Device(s) The ASUS Thingy
Power Supply Ultra X3 1000W
Software Vista Ultimate SP1 64bit
I do have to admit when I look at reviews, I usually only look at the numbers for the res I use the most (1920x1200) then I go back to look at the others. A card like this is completely pointless at 1680x1050 & below but it owns the world at 1920x1200 & above. That's what makes the difference to me. Some people just want the best, fastest, biggest, hottest, bloodsucki-est :D thing that's out there at any given time. I've come to categorize myself as one of those ppl :toast:
 

Tatty_One

Senior Moder@tor
Staff member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
21,415 (4.35/day)
Location
Worcestershire, UK
System Name The Grey
Processor Skylake i7 6700k @ 4.6gig - 1.35V
Motherboard MSI Z170A Tomahawk
Cooling Cooler Master Seidon 240V AIO/Viper140's
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX3000 @ 3200mhz CL15 1T
Video Card(s) Palit 8GB GTX 1070 GameRock OC Edition
Storage SkHynix SL308 120GB/CrucialM4 64GB/1TB WD Black
Display(s) LG 29inch 2560x1080 Curved Ultrawide IPS
Case Phanteks Enthoo Pro M Windowed - Gunmetal
Audio Device(s) SB Xifi Elite Pro 7.1through VideoLogic ZXR550's
Power Supply XFX Pro Black Edition 750W Gold modular
Mouse Coolermaster Storm Octane wired
Keyboard Element Gaming Carbon Mk2 Tournament Mech
Software Win 10 Home x64
I don't think the masses with 19" monitors are lining up to buy HD4870x2 or GTX280, some might, but those should not count :banghead:

His average include 1024x768 and 1280x1024, and thats half of his resolutins. And when half of the benches hardly showes any difference between the cards at all, the numbers get meaningless.
I agree, but we disagree on the resolutions, I dont think a bench should be eliminated because we guess that the majority of x2 owners will be using 16xx and above monitors when it is a plain fact that the most common resolution remains with 17 and 19inch owners, now WE know that it might be fairly foolish to pay this much for a card to game only at those lower resolutions but do all the people out there who might just buy this card,,,,,they are not all hardware enthusiasts and whilst I would agree a large proportion of x2 buyers will be enthusiasts.....not all of them will be.
IMO reviews are not just for enthusiasts.....if they were they would only be reaching 5-10% of users.
 
Top