Looks like all the
Cinema 2.0 fuss that AMD has been blustering about with its new
RV770-based GPUs is fully warranted. The benchmarks are in and AMD's new
$549 ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 -- what AMD calls the "world's fastest graphics card" -- is an out and out screamer, besting
the best cooked up over at NVIDIA thanks to that RV770 GPU pair nuzzled up next to 2GB of GDDR5 memory. As noted by
PC Perspective, the new champ, "is able to run away from NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 280 1GB card handily. Our various game tests proved this - Crysis, Call of Duty 4 and GRID showed big gains for AMD's new card at resolutions 2,048 x 1,536 and 2,560 x 1,600," though performance gains are less dramatic as resolutions drop to 1,600 x 1,200. Not that any self-respecting gamer would push so few pixels. CrossFireX performance was disappointing, however, as the systems didn't scale well when going from 2 to 4 GPUs. In fact, Crysis seemed to barely notice the additional CrossFireX horsepower, something that should be corrected with future driver releases. Make no mistake though, as power-hungry, expensive, and hot-running as the new HD 4870 X2 may be, it's a big day for AMD as it retakes the graphics crown from NVIDIA, as short-lived as this victory may be.
Read -- HotHardware
Read -- PCPer
Read -- Tweaktown
Read -- CustomPC
Read -- TechGage
Read -- AMD press release
posted Aug 12th 2008 1:51AM
can it run crysis on max settings with full AA? dont think so
The CRYSIS website has a "can you run it" indicator that tests your computer to find out if you meet the requirments.
I tested and passed an HP laptop with an Nvidia 7000 series GPU in it and 3GB of RAM. The goddamned thing claimed I met the requirements for medium settings but the game chugged along horribly at less than 4 frames per second.
Being able to play Crysis in VERY HIGH with all options turned on, I was only able to accomplish with a desktop I just pieced together.
HP Quad Core with 5GB of RAM and a Geforce 280.
CRYSIS is the ultimate test of hardware. If you can run it in VH, then your computer kicks ass.
Sorry, but how did you piece it together if it's an HP desktop?
Abuzar
The Desktop comes boxed from Circuit City, but you've gotta add a video card, a monitor and whatever gaming elements you want - like a Physx card for example.
Fortunately, it came with built in wifi.
@Flashpoint
I just built a ~$600 HTPC (AMD Phenom, ATI HD4850, 4GB DDR2) that runs Crysis @ very high at 1920x1080 with hardly any slowdown with some minor overclocking. Unless you're the type of person that absolutely needs 8xAA/16xAF (I'm not), Crysis can still look breathtaking and rarely dip below 30 Hz.
well have you tried omega drivers for your laptop, coz that really makes a difference when playing modern games.
3GB? 4GB? 5GB?
What the hell kind of gamers are y'all? No wonder your performance is suffering. 2GB yields the best performance and overclocking; end of story. Go get something with D9's in them.
@Cornelius -
Yeah, thats the nice thing about Crysis, even 20-30FPS is very playable due to the motion blur effects used.
Someone hasn't obviously used Vista if they think that 2GB is great for Crysis...
I'm using 50% of my physical RAM sitting at my DESKTOP.
This seems a little disingenuous to me. Aren't these new cards basically just two stuck together? It seems that if Nvidia wanted to, they could do the exact same thing. It's quite possible I'm missing some detail though...
They're 2 chips on one single PCB. nvidia did a similar thing with the 7950gx2 and the 9800gx2. but the gtx 280 is too fucking big and power hungry to stick two together and have it not spontaneously combust.
My feelings exactly. Putting two chips on one card is basically winning through a low-blow technicality.
Exactly. There isn't anything revolutionary here. They didn't shrink a process or create a new more efficient chip or anything. They slapped a couple of cards together to make an ubercard. Watch as NVIDIA counters and we continue the arms race without any real progression. Read: It feels like the days of the P4's race for more MHZ. However in this case instead of having AMD just create something that is efficient as hell and can wipe the floor with the competitor without resorting to tricks we have ATI pulling crap like this.
A quote from one of the reviews "As you can see, the Radeon HD 4870 X2 isn't going to end up in any "green" PCs. When either idling or running under a heavy graphics workload, the Radeon HD 4870 X2 consumed more power than another single graphics card, and sometimes more than two single-GPU based graphics cards. "
Who cares if its a technicality, its perfectly legit. It's still one card, and you don't even need a crossfire motherboard to use it. ATI designed the GPU for this purpose exactly, and if anything, that's smart thinking. It's absolutely idiotic to say that it's almost like ATI cheated or something.
See, but the thing is. ATI DID revolutionize by creating the RV770 core. This is new tech. NVIDIA CANT counter this in the same way because it's not feasible with the GTX280.
So the only option for them would be innovating more. That's the only option left for AMD as well. So your comment about not advancing is technology is bunk.
If I'm not mistaken, and in an overly simplified manner, isn't this analogous to the way Intel dual core and quad core processors are structured.
And last I checked, it's working pretty well for Intel. I disagree with the comments that this is a "low-blow".
I agree with you to some degree that this card isn't as huge of a technical accomplishment as the HD 4870. Nvidia could as well made a GX2-260 or something to boost its performance. You have to consider that a X2 card gives an equivalent performance while taking up half the case space as a full solution, which means more pcs (especially with microatx mbs with a good case) can take advantage of dual gpu acceleration with less footprint and less power/heat.
I have full faith that this competition will be heated and this card is no where enough to knock nvidia from its throne.
It's not exactly the same as two stuck together though, it's two GPUs not two separate cards. Also, in the past scaling was an issue for multi-GPU setups, so 20% overhead in this situation is pretty damn good for ATI to achieve.
let the arms race between nvidia and AMD continue.
Someday, someday we will be able to run Crysis using just the onboard graphics chipsets.
Cesium,
Sorry but you're wrong, Nvidia did NOT do the same thing with the 9800 GX2 (if by "similar" you were implying dual GPU per PCB).
The 9800 GX2 was 2 separate cards joined together by a quasi-SLI bridge, in a matter of speaking.
So, rather than 2 GPU's per 1 PCB a la the 4870 X2,
Nvidia's 9800 GX2 solution consisted of 2 9800 PCB's sandwiched together -- sufficed to say, it was an inferior and less elegant design.
@Hamidxa: but it was functional, and still provides performance that rivals the 280 in some cases.
I dont care if they used 3 PCB's, its still two cores attached via a bridge, and as long as they dont have heat problems (only the traditional +80C temperatures that Nvidia cards are known for, and after seeing the temps of the 4870, ATI cards), i, nor should anyone care. One is no less elegant or efficient than the other.
ATI should try making their cards more efficient when not being in use. They drain like ive never seen before. At least Nvidia implemented a low power mode for their new gen cards.
@Ruben
"I dont care if they used 3 PCB's, its still two cores attached via a bridge"
CrossFire or SLI == slow speed bridge.
X2 == has cross fire (slow) bridge + dedicated bridge.
nVidia and ATI 3870 X2 are two cards glued together. 4870 X2 is two chips having dedicated bridge. Difference is that integration of the two chips on 4870 X2 happens on lower level, allowing more cooperation of the two chips during rendering. Drivers are apparently not there yet though.
RTFA the benchmark on Tom's Hardware (first linked). It has plenty of architectural info.
"ATI should try making their cards more efficient when not being in use."
I second.
Crossfire and SLI do not run quite as nicely as a single-GPU solution. You often have:
1) General compatibility issues that affects game performance (It seems like every other game I play has Xfire/SLI issues, although I'm sure it's no nearly that many)
2) Stuttering problems in many games, ranging from almost not noticable to nearly unplayable (in those games people usually end up disabling SLI/Xfire)
3) Not supported at all. This is a waning minority, but there are still a decent number of titles that will only utilize one GPU.
But in general, this card could be very good value for the money depending on street price. Most of the time you would be able to use the card to it's full potential, and the 4870 is still a great GPU on it's own.
I just don't think it's fair to compare the two cards, as they are not going to be equivalent in all games, depending on the Crossfire support. I would like to see a Tri-SLI rig of the GTX 280 going against a Quad Crossfire (dual 4870 X2) rig. That would produce some interesting results.
(Also, IIRC the 9800GX2 actually beat the GTX 280 on Crysis benches. And really, who gives a fuck if the design of the 9800 GX2 was less 'elegant'? It's the framerates that count, and it dished them out readily)
@Hamidxa
Yes, that's what I meant by similar.
i wonder how many of you hypocrites use dual core, tri core, or quad core cpu's.......
intel did the cheapest trick by sandwitching 2 dual core cpu's in one vs amds true native quad core on a single die.
but just as cpus reached a single core MHz limit with little to no performace to heat ratio. multi core cpu's began to lead the way... just like multi gpu's per card will.
Uhm Just like Nvidia has it's own idea of how a high end video card should be build(with a humongous gigantic titan mammot Core). AMD stated that they see the future with dual core GPU. Okay it's not a dualcore like a cpu but 2 cores on one cpu.
If you want to compare graphicscard you look at the price and you make a best bang for the buck comparison. I hate it when people talk shit about but AMD has two cores and NVIDIA has one. Well then ur being f**** over by NVIDIA aren't you? I mean AMD's giving you two cores and the strongest card in the world for the same price or maybe more expensive Nvidia hcard with a humongous core that's slower than the 4870x2 in most of the benchmarks.
I'd buy ATI just to boycott Nvidia after the recent stunts they've pulled.
They only did the 260 in SLI and didn't try the 280 in SLI
GTX280 SLI is quite difficult, with the power consumption and heat and everything.
But here you go. Even has GTX290 TRI SLI.
http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/ATI-Radeon-HD-4870-X2--AMD-Back-On-Top/?page=6
lol I meant GTX280.
The tri sli is actually slower than plain sli that's weird.
too much power? two of these things is 560 watts! id like to see a 2x sli version of this beast it would eat it alive
2x sli of the 280 i mean
Not only did they not do the 280 SLI, but the SLI 280 barely outperforms the SLI 260, so clearly Nvidia has a lot of driver tweaking to do.
650 watts. Considering no PSU is 100% efficient. You would require at least a good 800W PSU. But I guess if you have money to blow on a stupid GTX280, then you have money for a good PSU lol.
650 watts. Considering no PSU is 100% efficient. You would require at least a good 800W PSU. But I guess if you have money to blow on a stupid GTX280, then you have money for a good PSU lol.
Legit. I like the where AMD is going.
Nvidia has really dropped the ball with their latest generation.
WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM DO YOU MAKE A GAME LIKE CRYSIS ON
(WHERE ARE THESE GRAPHICS CARDS AT?)
PS3 Developer Kit
I think all FPS graphs should show the minimum and standard deviation. You wont care that the average is 60 FPS if it regularly dips to 10 FPS - but these graphs don't show that info.
(Or maybe they do - Series1,2,3 ?? LOL)
Average still means 1/2 of the time in terms of FPS so don't expect them to give you what the extremities are...
thats what these graphs ARE! Min, Ave and Max...
Seems like ATI fails over Crossfire in Crysis when compared to Nvidia:
http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/ATI-Radeon-HD-4870-X2--AMD-Back-On-Top/?page=9
i don't know... it's too early to declare an ati victory. this is a dual gpu card, so it's not fair to gauge it against a GTX 280. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of ATI's accomplishment with this product, but I fear ATI's reign will not last long.
Why isn't it fair? They're roughly around the same price point. That's what matters, not if one's got more GPUs than the other. It's like AMDs "true" quad core processors - nobody gives a shit
I would say its completely fair.
However, when looking at the GTX260SLI speeds shown above (especially series 1, which is the most important), it looks like you can get a pair of 260's for the price of a single 280 and slightly better performance, depending on the game. So it looks like Nvidia isnt going to let this sit for too much longer, and spit out a GX 260 soon enough to compete, assuming they have the 55nm process ready.
549 was much more than i expected this card to be. I thought they wanted to destroy the 280, but considering you can get the 280 from retailers at on average $100 less than that, i would probably choose the 280 over this card, especially considering the 280 actually goes into an energy efficient mode, wasting little more than integrated graphics, while the 4870 seems like its full bore all the time.
Stop with the 'fair' comments, starting to sound fanboyish...
So what if its 2 gpu's on one card. Im paying the price for what nvidia used to make us pay for a single gpu solution.
Thats as FAIR as the consumer can get.
Im happy its not like the old 7950 sandwich.
"though performance gains are less dramatic as resolutions drop to 1,600 x 1,200. Not that any self-respecting gamer would push so few pixels."
My 1400x1050 and I will not stand here and take this. Good day.
People need to stop thinking about 'Oh this doesn't count because its actually two chips'. So what? The HD4 series was designed as a shift AWAY from monolithic GPU cores to a multiple scalable design. Nobody cries that Core 2s are fast because omg they have two cores. The design for their (SINGLE) graphics card happens to have twin GPUs on it. It is very much different to two cards, and if AMD can make the design work to have TWO GPUs on a single board and price it and manufacture it as a single board, all power to them. nVidia are welcome to as well. The mindset of one graphics card = one gpu core needs to die. Multiple scalable cores are the future.
indeed, this post is right on the money. Obviously this dual GPU single card design is the future!
You can't polish a (crysis) turd. Maybe just make it slide a bit better
Why doesn't one of the sides just build some sort of giant graphical supercomputer (room sized, of course) with a PCI-E connector on one end and a DVI on the other and put it on the market at a ridiculously high price and claim victory?
Because it's about market share not ability, intel already make super computers, you don't hear anybody brag about that!
Why is it that the tech press give Tech Report no love?!
They are by far the best hardware reviewers around and their site is the least cluttered with infuriating ads!
http://techreport.com/
Here's their 4870 X2 review!
http://techreport.com/articles.x/15293
next up, Russia invades the Phillipines
oh wow I did just notice that there is no antialiasing. this doesn't impress me anymore.
I was glad until I saw the price!!!!
Before we heard numbers like 400usd to 500usd , but AMD did exactly what you expect and asking a crazy 550usd for one!
Hell No it isnt 100usd worth of speed faster than gtx280.
You seem to have no issue when the nVidia 8800 Ultra, barely faster than the 8800GTX, sold for $700-$800.
And obviously you haven't checked the 2560*1600 or 8xAA benchmarks. *eyeroll initiated*
Considering a standard 4870 beats out a single GTX280.. I don't understand why this is such a big deal? Isn't ATI complete domination and trouncing of nVidia's 9800 & GTX series, both in performance and price ratio, already common knowledge by now?
I still don't see the value in spending over $250 for a video card. My nvidia 7950 GT still crushes a lot of the new stuff coming out. I run most things at max. We're talking about a piece of hardware above the budget of probably over 90% of gamers. I can't warrant wasting that much money. Especially when video card technology triples in speed and quality every 2-3 years.
Hahaha Nathan, no it doesn't. Get real. Most of the stuff? What do you play? Msn Messenger games?
Seriously, at 'max' would imply highest settings or maxed out detail which realistically includes resolution. For example, you'd need to use very high texture quality, very high lighting quality, highest aa and highest af settings. Your 7950GT could not max out games like World In Conflict, Supreme Commander, Mass Effect, Crysis and a variety of other games 'IF' you played them at a shitty resolution which is not 'max'.
Now, if your a World of Warcraft addict and its all you play, yes a 7950GT can run that 8 year old game well.
Just goes to show you dont know what you're talking about.
I can run ANYTHING i want in existence on max.... at 640x480 res.
be more specific. This card absolutely destroys for those of us who prefer large RES and high settings. I use a 37" westy and finally these cards show up giving me no more screen tearing :-)
I've been designing gaming systems for a decade, I know what I'm talking about. You don't need a really high priced card for best graphics, you need well made hardware and a well rounded system. The most recent game I've played is HL2E2 and here are the settings.
Resolution: 1280x1024
Filtering 16x
Antialiasing 8xS
Highest shading, highest model, highest texture
Do I really need to go on? It looked pretty nice to me. As I said, max everything and I get a good framerate, around 60 or better. I don't play WoW and no my system can't run crysis very well, but not many systems can on XP. Okay so the card "absolutely destroys", but is it worth paying over $400 when a $200 card can do an adequate job? I mean.... an Xbox 360 costs less than just that video card. I don't see the point when a year later the cards drop in price by half.
What is Crysis?
Crysis is a gorgeous-looking, yet utterly dull PC game that has subpar-to-mediocre gameplay that fanboys insist is the whole REASON to spend $500 on a new video card, because it can't run at full settings on anything made this year without having issues of some kind or another.
Seriously, anybody who gives a damn if their video card is the "world's fastest" is still in the mindset of a 19-year-old in need of Ritalin.
Maybe it is the "world's fastest" THIS week. One thing I learned when building, repairing, and selling PCs for a living is that claims of "fastest" or "best" are mostly pointless, as the claim will be shattered shortly and the customers will either A.) Bitch that their product is now "obsolete", or B.) Immediately drop more money to get the newest, greatest, bestest hardware this week/month so they can impress their fanboy friends.
Personally, I'm very glad I left PC gaming behind me. It's not worth the headache or the penis-measuring competitions that go on when it comes to the power of one's gaming rig.
Uhm...how about comparing the single version AMD to a single version Nvidia, that's the only real comparision... Now 2 gpu's are compared to 1 gpu... and when I keep that in mind... the HD4870 doesn't compare that great to the 280..
and then again, 2560x1600, wtf, I'm already satisfied if it runs in full glory on 1680x1050 (which is the native resolution of my monitor)...
No. You don't compare 1 GPU to 1 GPU, you compare the price. And some do want it to run on crazy resolutions, let them.
And some people with 30" monitors want to run games on Native on their systems...
Back when the 7950gx2 came out I would complain about slapping 2 PCB's together to make "one" card. But now it's normal, and it's ATI's stated strategy. Nvidia went and made a gigantic core and ATI went to make smaller cores that actually can be stuck together on one PCB. The beauty of ATI's solution though is that you don't need a crossfire motherboard like the 7950gx2 needed (well that needed SLi) so it really can run as a single card.
"CrossFireX performance was disappointing, however, as the systems didn't scale well when going from 2 to 4 GPUs. In fact, Crysis seemed to barely notice the additional CrossFireX horsepower..."
THIS IS JUST PLAIN B.S. Crisis is only one game. More than 2/3s of todays games saw a significant increase with TWO 4870X2 cards in CrossfireX. And on many titles, the scaling was >70% which is incredible for a quad-gpu solution!
This talk is getting crazy…… I know for a fact that NVIDIA has been trying to master the two GPU’S on one card for years. After all they were the ones who took the idea from 3DFx Voodoo years ago but could never perfect it. AMD/ATI has beaten NVIDIA to the post and made a successful card. In time drivers will prove the point. There is not much NVIDIA could do, apart for trying to plant a spy at AMD/ATI and pinch their ideas as they did with 3DFx in the early 90’s.
At the end of the day it is Price/Performance and playability that will decide the outcome and ATI/AMD wins here.
There is never a end to this war.. I imagine there never will be. One company makes a better card then the other comes back and trumps it with another. One company goes under, another rises up. It never ends, thus never a winner performance-wise.
Now when it comes to suckering everyone out of their money to buy these cards then both companies win hands down. All of us loose. I know I've bought quite a few of these cards, all the way back to the early days of the video card wars. Remember slapping in dual Monster cards in your machine. Now that was some power. LOL
The GTX 280 and the 9800GX2 are faster than the 4870X2 in HotHardware's Crysis benchmark. The GTX 280 is cheaper than the 4870X2 and the 9800GX2 costs half the price, I don't get why everyone thinks ATI's cards are best, NVIDIA's cards are still better and cheaper.
Yea all this back and forth about wots better built, the GTX280 1GB or the 4870 x2, the power consumption alone was enough to peak my intrest over the 4870, 280 watts compared a MASSIVE 550W that the GTX280 needs, crist you do the math, it pays for itself compared to the GTX280 power hungry little whore that it is.
personally and i say personally with good reason, i think AMD have a better grasp of wot to put into a bit of kit like a cpu or gfx card, intell's and nvidia's philosophy is just chuck as much in as possible and hope it does'nt fry itself within a year, AMD on the other hand seemed to have refined their ideas and the technology they use with a minimum of power consumption, a phenom 9950 and HD 4870 only need 440 watts of power at peak consumption, an nvidia GTX280 with a top intell would need close to 1000 watts, you could watch your eletricity meter spin so fast that the damn thing would take off and you would'nt see any real gaming difference if all these benchmarks are anything to go by.
just my two cents, hope it counts :)
Knowing nVidia, they will probably make a GTX 300 series with overclocked GTX 200 series processors, slap two OC GTX 280 processors on one GTX 300 board and try to claim victory.