AMD Radeon HD 4870 X2 images leaked, rumored for August release

Is this the Radeon card destined to leapfrog NVIDIA's performance leading GTX 200 series? We'll know in August (or soon thereafter), that's the rumored release date for AMD's Radeon HD 4870 X2 graphics card. As the X2 name implies, the card packs a pair of RV770-based GPUs and should be ready to sample with 2GB (!) of that "world's fastest" GDDR5 memory by the end of this month. It's worth noting that the leaked images show a total of 1GB of GDDR5 (16 Qimonda GDDR5 chips) on that black PCB. AMD will then make the 4870 X2 (RV770XT) cards available to its partners in mid-August, hitting retail soon after for an estimated $499 according to sources over at DigiTimes.

Read -- Leaked images
Read -- August launch

[JerkfacedFed @ Jul 3rd 2008 3:47AM]

single slot? interested in seeing the thermals on that card. (obviously there will be 3rd party vendors with various cooling solutions, but the amd design shows that its possible)

[iofthestorm @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:10AM]

No way the 4870x2 will be single slot since the 4870 is double slot. Might be a 4 slot, but I don't know whether the 3870x2 is 4 slots or something. It's gonna be huge, but definitely will beat the GTX280 since we can already see how fast two 4870s are in Crossfire and they are ridiculously fast. This is very very cool. But I wonder, would two 4870x2s be faster than three GTX280s? Battle of the power-supply killing graphics cards commences!

[LC @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:16AM]

Dual slot. Where did you get the idea it would be single slot from?

[JohnTitor @ Jul 3rd 2008 6:17AM]

4 slots? someone is losing it. It looks very similar to the 3870 X2 PCB, which is dual slot. Its just quite long, the first poster probably got confused because the PCB itself is only one slot. In any case with CrossfireX you can double these up and get 4 GPUs, obviously it doesn't scale as well as with 2 but it works, so does a 4870 X2 + 4870 for 3 GPU

[waiownsyou @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:18AM]

Why do video cards keep getting bigger (and in this case, longer) and running hotter (which thereby requries more power) when the rest of the industry is going the operate direction?

[Ayman @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:23AM]

you mean opposite direction,

my guess is that with people who want top of the line, wont care much about power consumption or size as long as performance is the main objective

[ed. @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:40AM]

@waiownsyou

at least ATI/AMD aren't as bad as nvidia. Ati's power-hungry high-performance cards are well priced. $150 less for what will probably be a better card

[j_g_puff @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:48AM]

I don't think that power supplies, processors, ram, motherboards or indeed ANY component in a high-performance system have been getting any smaller...

[waiownsyou @ Jul 3rd 2008 5:11AM]

Yes, I meant OPPOSITE. Sorry, I'm really tired right now and this whole almost-four-month-Summer from college isn't helping.

But ed. brings up a good point. Why the heck are they getting more expensive too? I remember a time when the fastest video card barely even exceeded $450.

Those were the days.

[JohnTitor @ Jul 3rd 2008 6:22AM]

technically you are wrong, for example, you can squeeze the power of the Radeon 7000 easily out of an integrated GPU on a laptop. but if you want the best the market is there. the best selling gpus have always been around that $100 to 200 mark so it really doesn't matter how much the fastest costs.

[Abuzar Baloach @ Jul 3rd 2008 10:56AM]

Also, 500 dollars back then is more now because of inflation.

[bebop @ Jul 3rd 2008 8:47PM]

Because its a big pissing contest to see who is top-of-the-benchmarks. More electrical power gets you more performance, so both companies will go within an inch of meltdown to bring the best performing card to the reviewers. Very few people actually buy these things though. At the low end you now have very capable and cheap integrated and add-in cards that take very little power, and are far more efficient - in terms of performance per watt - than anything that's come before.

[rektide @ Jul 3rd 2008 9:51PM]

Video cards and server processors are the only ones benefiting from Moores law. Moores law states the number of transistors you can put in a given area grows at an exponential rate. CPU's no longer know what to do with extra transistors, but you can always add a huge number of processing elements to a GPU and it will use all of them. So, CPU's are perennially focused on being more efficient and smarter, and GPUs are focused on turning Moores law into the biggest baddest processor arrays on the planet.

A single one of the GPU chips on this board has 800 individual shader processors. You can pick up one of those GPU's on a $200 AMD 4850 graphics card at your local Brick & Mortar today.

[BloodReaper @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:28AM]

But will it play minesweeper?

[Celtic @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:36AM]

Yeah, but only at 800x600 with under 30fps.

[cub3 @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:28AM]

499! - no wonder people are buying consoles to play games.

[m.kozanecki @ Jul 3rd 2008 11:58PM]

OR 699 for the 280gtx which will be slower than this, whatever way you slice it, its still gonna be better than what we currently have

[Shogmaster @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:34AM]

$500 is bargain compared to the $600+ that they are charging for GTX280.

[Hamidxa @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:43AM]

Im not sure if you are trying to be disingenuously ignorant...

This thing is roughly 6-10 times more powerful than any console out there in terms of rendering capabilities, and is expected to launch at a price that puts NV's latest flagships to shame.

But at any rate, if you want something relatively cheap, and something that still shames any console by a wide margin, just invest $299 in the HD 4870, which is arguably still more powerful than every single console brand out there combined.

Heck, for < $150, you can have an 8800 GT, or for $199 an HD 4850, both of which once more, put consoles to shame in terms of displaying graphics.

[initialxy @ Jul 3rd 2008 7:14AM]

console is not a feasible solution to many people, especially university students, who have co-op. we have to move from place to place almost every term. rarely any of us even have a TV. an all-in-one solution (PC) would easily dominate this market.

[Dee @ Jul 3rd 2008 8:43AM]

An all in one system IS dominating the market: it's called a console. A console is a PC without the headaches: load times, OS price and instability, or upgrading your system every year because the industry develops games for top of the line systems not your year old machine. I know console have their problems too, but you can't compare them to PC problems. A good gaming PC is as big or bigger than any console out there, and you can connect any console to a monitor using the right device so you don't need to have a TV.

As long as video cards cost as much as a console, I'm going to stick to buying a console. I seriously doubt any

[IT-Accountant @ Jul 3rd 2008 9:05AM]

@Dee: consoles don't have load times???

where you been, buddy?

Also, I built my most recent rig for under $600 (including 19 inch monitor and pretty decent speakers). And it'll still kick the ass of any PS3 up and down the block.

[Laughing Man @ Jul 3rd 2008 9:13AM]

@ Dee. Yeah gotta love how consoles take out all the hassel. Like how you have to install console games now. Or how you have to update the games to fix patches from crap servers that take days to update. Or my personal favorite UPDATING BETA DEMOS on PS3's. And load times; yeah that went out with PS2. And you can so upgrade your console to better those annoying load times. Your so right Dee, I had to update my system......never. It is 2 years old and I still can play 99% of games at Mid to high settings (depending on how well the company wrote the code). All in one.....because it will play Blu-ray right? Post "all-in-one" when your console can burn ANYTHING, play HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, help you wrote Python code for your class assignment, record live TV like TIVO, allow you to customize everything down to the most insignificant detail....ya know like my system.

I hate it when the console playing peasants dare speak to the PC gaming master race.

[initialxy @ Jul 3rd 2008 10:00AM]

@Dee, assuming everything you said is right. how does that solve our no-TV problem? and do you actually expect me to do my assignments on a console + TV? TV's resolution is simply too low, and 1080p HD-TVs are impossible to carry. don't say "just use a TV-tuner on your PC", cuz that automatically proves that PC dominates by default.

not to mention that as a software engineering student, i wouldn't bother writing any codes on a cell processor with quite limited memory availability.

[J @ Jul 3rd 2008 10:04AM]

The thing about consoles is you don't have to divide you recources between the game and your PC stuff. Any PC you can get now can tear up my Super Nintendo at gaming, but the SNES dosen't slow down or have windows pop up because of my normal background programs.

Not that I like consoles enough to have bought one in the last 12 years.

[Laughing Man @ Jul 4th 2008 1:14AM]

Dear J,

My computer does just out do SNES in gaming, it plays SNES games while doing it. Pop-ups, background crap.....huh? Dude you need to get your system in check because you are pretty much alone on that one.

[Jesse S @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:36AM]

I was just about to get some Nikon glass...

But I think I'll get two of these, a DFI Lanparty UT X48 DDR3 mobo, 8 gigs of DDR3 ram, and an E8400 instead.

[Aaronage @ Jul 3rd 2008 5:29AM]

AMD are doing well just lately, hope they don't screw up :)

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Jul 3rd 2008 6:11AM]

$499??? That's insane. Can't wait for nVidia's response.

As for the cooling.... Judging by estimated price - which is below 2*priceof(4870) - might be they have turned down some factory overclocking which is obviously applying to single chip 4870 cards. Lower performance - lower price.

Also, if one would multiply power consumption of 4870 by two, then you really need to have some huge power supply. During 4870 in crossfire tests people complained that they needed >1000W power supply for system to be stable. Again, decreasing speed of 4870 as used in X2 might be a solution for stable system with say 600W power supply (because theoretically it should be enough to power two RV770).

P.S. conspiracy theory of a day: AMD/ATI thrown in the rumored price to be far below gtx280 to try to piss nVidia.

[Blaine Oliver @ Jul 3rd 2008 6:47AM]

You are an idiot, nvidias response was the 280GTX, this is AMD's response to that. AMD are launching this $100 less than the GTX, and with rebates the AMD card will come out top dog.

[Raj @ Jul 3rd 2008 6:32AM]

It has two tera flops performance????? :) super computer in a desktop..

[Wwhat @ Jul 3rd 2008 1:16PM]

Assuming you compare it to a supercomputer that does only single precision math of course.
Still damn fast I gotta say, if it would ever come about.

[rektide @ Jul 3rd 2008 10:01PM]

A single 4870's dual precision maxes out somewhere under 300 GFLOPs... that is... ludicrous. Its nearly three times IBM's latest HPC variant of its Cell processor; the PowerXCell 8i. NV's GTX 280 maxes out at ~125 GFLOPs DP.

Now double that for this card and you are at .6 TFLOPS for DP.

AMD has finally clobbered NVidia. Download your SDK's here: http://ati.amd.com/technology/streamcomputing/sdkdwnld.html

[Schfelzerberg @ Jul 3rd 2008 7:03AM]

The 9800 GX2 costs around $550. If this is priced at $499 it'll probably give Nvidia a scare. The HD 4850 and HD 4870 is already causing them to rattle just when they thought their 8800 GT and GTS have become the budget kill of the hill.

It's good to see ATI back in the game, and I heard they'll also be pushing the All-In-Wonder Radeons back! Hurray!

[Timothy Sottek @ Jul 3rd 2008 10:31AM]

The 9800 GX2 is already hitting $400. In a month it'll be lower.

The price of the 9800 GTX dropped about $100 in a couple days after the GTX 200 series was released.

Even the GTX 260s and 280s are going on sale already. I'm hoping for a $300-$350 GTX 260 by the end of this month.

[rektide @ Jul 3rd 2008 10:03PM]

This card will grind a 9800 GX2 into dust. It'll almost certainly man-handle a pair of GX2s. The 9800 is a very last gen design, and doesnt have nearly the memory bandwidth.

[yesdog @ Jul 3rd 2008 7:03AM]

HOLY CRAP.. thats what the AMD Radeon HD 4870 X2 looks like???
Sure am glad that was leaked!

[Dagwood @ Jul 3rd 2008 7:22AM]

2GB of RAM ?? Good luck running that in a 32bit OS (maximum total memory of 4GB all together). You may have the fastest video card around, but your system RAM just got chopped in half. Vista 64 bit edition will be your only real option for gaming with this card.

[ShadowKain @ Jul 3rd 2008 7:39AM]

I have to agree. In a 32 bit OS, I do believe because of the limited memory architecture, your video card, motherboard, and RAM (correct me if there is more, I dont mind) take up the available addressing space (4 gb). That is why, anyone with a halfway decent video card, and 4 gigs or ram may notice their system (for Vista users this is pre-SP1' dirty little trick that makes you think you "have" 4 gigs of ram) will only register 3.2 approx. gigs of ram.

@dagwood, I belive ATI may be aiming these cards at 64 bit users a little more this time around if that is the case. 64 bit has to be supported sometime. All of us can't stay stuck on 32 bit architecture forever as memory is going up and up, and many programs and games get more demanding.

It will be interesting to see the size, but I guarantee all that it will be a double slot, as per previous cards. 4 slot someone said? Give me a break. The power reqs. will be through the roof, that is for sure...

[Phillip Reichelt @ Jul 3rd 2008 8:33AM]

Anyone who's going to spend $499 on a video card more than likely already has at least 4GB of memory and should be already running a 64 bit OS.

[Laughing Man @ Jul 3rd 2008 9:24AM]

You retards due realize that your GPU RAM has nothing to do with the 32-bit SYSTEM memory limit, right? You guys are joking. I mean I figured one would understand that dedicated card meant that the card was basically a separate....well computer that your system sends process requests to. Your 32-bit OS doesn't register your GPU RAM as part of your total RAM....well because it can't directly access it.

Computer gamers that don't know how this works....FAIL.

[initialxy @ Jul 3rd 2008 10:13AM]

I must agree with laughing man

[z0phi3l @ Jul 3rd 2008 10:23AM]

Here you go Laughing Man and initialxy

http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/01/14/windows-vista-32-bit-and-64-bit-x86-and-x64-maximum-supported-ram-physical-memory-limit/

Didn't want to call you out without proof :)

[initialxy @ Jul 3rd 2008 10:31AM]

@z0phi3l, thanks for the good article. you win.

[Laughing Man @ Jul 4th 2008 1:45AM]

@ z0phi3l
Thank you for point out what I already know. I never said there was no limit. I said that your DEDICATED GPU didn't affect it. Everything is that article is 100% correct, to bad it assumes that (like more than 65% of our PC users) your GPU is intergrated. Intergrated graphics due suck up address because the motherboard will access it directly. A dedicated card handles all that work.....which is why dedicated GPU's will have memory address limits in their specs.

[Loren @ Jul 15th 2008 3:39PM]

@Laughing Man

I don't know why you insist on making fun of people when you are incorrect yourself. Just like other hardware on the PCI bus, graphics cards do have their on board memory 'memory-mapped' into the addressable 32-bit address space. It's just never been a noticeable issue until recently because lots of people didn't have 4GB of RAM and graphics cards weren't 1GB or greater. Check out this article from dansdata that does a pretty good job explaining:
http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

[ShadowKain @ Jul 3rd 2008 7:43AM]

I also have to add that I do believe that the 9800 GX2 was two circuit boards slapped together, essentially 2 9800 boards soldered together, then piped through the one PCI-E bus of course. This is one of the few cards that actually has the 2 GPU's on ONE board. Correct me if im wrong of course. :)

[Blazie @ Jul 3rd 2008 8:10AM]

Are they going to solve the supply issue with GDDR5? It's already tough enough to find a regular 4870.

[dagamer34 @ Jul 3rd 2008 11:46AM]

It's hard to find 4870s because not a lot of them have been released to channel.

[Kurian @ Jul 3rd 2008 8:46AM]

I'm nVidia fanboy but I think that this just might dethrone the GTX 280 in some games (and lose terribly in others).