• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

4870X2 With 1 GPU Disabled - Review

ten80p

ten80p

ten80p

Associate
Joined
10 Nov 2007
Posts
1,063
Last edited:
Two things i got from that review:

1) The gtx 280 is still most likely going to be the single GPU king
2) More games need to be coded like FEAR! With the 3870/3870X2, 4870/4870X2, and 8800gt/9800gx2 at 1920x1200, they all show a pretty much exactly double-up of performance when a second GPU is added.

Edit: 3) My 8800GT is still obscenely good when considering performance per watt and performance per dollar. And I should probabaly save my money and get a gtx280 for 1920x1200 gaming.. Well that's 4.. good article!
 
Last edited:
The resolution was to low for me to see the advantages of the extra memory. They also could have used a lot more aa to see if there was any difference. I think we all know the 512 version of the 4870 can handle all those resolutions easy so nothing new in that review.
 
One thing I got from that review - the reviewer is a bit of a muppet. You are only going to see the difference with 1Gb of RAM when running at 2560 x 1600. That review is a complete waste of time - of course you're not going to see much difference.
 
To be fair the review uses 4AA/16AF and most gamers aren't using 30" screens at 25x16 anyway so the review is prob aimed at the majority gaming audience and those holding out from getting a 4870-512 because of the 4870-1Gb and that no-ones else has yet reviewed a genuine 1Gb card, surely anyone with a 30" screen wanting AA/AF wouldn't be looking at a single 4870 solution ?
 
Is it not obvious from the countless reviews of the 4870 that it handles those resolutions with ease though. It was also a review of the x2 which is a top end card for the top end resolutions. Surely if someone buys an x2 and play at 1600 res they are gonna bump on as much aa as possible to use up the extra power the card has.
 
Last edited:
TheRealDeal said:
Is it not obvious from the countless reviews of the 4870 that it handles those resolutions with ease though. It was also a review of the x2 which is a top end card for the top end resolutions.
Click to expand...

I agree it was obvious but nice to see it all but confirmed at last even if it's not surprising. Also agree it's kinda strange they didn't test at 25x16 for the X2, they prob only had a 24" or 26" screen so that is a bit disappointing but theres at least a dozen reviews that have
 
Helios1234 said:
One thing I noticed int he conclusion was the fact that crossfire is disabled in windowed mode. Who actually plays game windowed?
Click to expand...

Not sure.. More importantly why should those who play windowed only get to use half the card they paid for? (Not meant as an agressive reply - genuine question!)
 
I was actually considering swapping to a GTX 260 from a 4870, mainly for the power consumption thing and better Crysis performance. But after seeing those benchmarks, I'm settled on the 4870. At the settings I play (1920 x 1200 4xAA (or more) and 16xAF) the 4870 near enough always ousts the GTX 260, especially in the game I'm playing most at the mo (STALKER). What the review leaves out, but that I would be interested to know, is what the minimum frame rates were.

It's just as important that a GPU has lower minimal frame rates than just higher one's. As frame rate drops are equally annoying as a lower overall frame rate.

Anyone have any benchmarks that show this?
 
darkblade said:
One thing I got from that review - the reviewer is a bit of a muppet. You are only going to see the difference with 1Gb of RAM when running at 2560 x 1600. That review is a complete waste of time - of course you're not going to see much difference.
Click to expand...

Forced to agree. Who on earth tests something as powerful as a 4870X2 without using 2560x1600?

Also, the Quake4 tests show the GTX260 outperforming the GTX280 which is clearly impossible and throws doubt on the rest of his results for me.
 
Adrianr said:
Not sure.. More importantly why should those who play windowed only get to use half the card they paid for? (Not meant as an agressive reply - genuine question!)
Click to expand...

Well I'd have thought it would be more of a power saving feature if you're doing less stressful 3d stuff on windows where you don't need as much horsepower so to speak.
 
nib95 said:
I was actually considering swapping to a GTX 260 from a 4870, mainly for the power consumption thing and better Crysis performance. But after seeing those benchmarks, I'm settled on the 4870. At the settings I play (1920 x 1200 4xAA (or more) and 16xAF) the 4870 near enough always ousts the GTX 260, especially in the game I'm playing most at the mo (STALKER). What the review leaves out, but that I would be interested to know, is what the minimum frame rates were.

It's just as important that a GPU has lower minimal frame rates than just higher one's. As frame rate drops are equally annoying as a lower overall frame rate.

Anyone have any benchmarks that show this?
Click to expand...

This review shows you minimum frames as well as average.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce-gtx200-games_2.html#sect0
 
2560x1600 = 4.1 Megapixels
1920x1200 = 2.3 Megapixels

That's almost double the amount needed to be procssed. How silly is it not to test the most powerful card on the planet and not use the highest resolutions available? Wizzard needs to get a thirty incher asap.
 
darkblade said:
One thing I got from that review - the reviewer is a bit of a muppet. You are only going to see the difference with 1Gb of RAM when running at 2560 x 1600. That review is a complete waste of time - of course you're not going to see much difference.
Click to expand...

i don't know why he bothered to release that review to be honest, wizzard is certainly no idiot however.

maybe because a lot of the punters still think more is better.
 
tdream said:
2560x1600 = 4.1 Megapixels
1920x1200 = 2.3 Megapixels

That's almost double the amount needed to be procssed. How silly is it not to test the most powerful card on the planet and not use the highest resolutions available? Wizzard needs to get a thirty incher asap.
Click to expand...


the 30 inchers are still the domain of the minority of people with top end graphics cards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom