• 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.

My disappointment with the 4870

What was the point of the thread if you sold the card 3 months ago? :confused:

Well, I was wondering if anyone else had any problems - they all seemed to have rave reviews so I was wondering if it was a hype thing, or if I was the odd one out.

so Benga what do you have now, and more importantly are you happy with it?

Well thats the reason I made this thread, after seeing the price of the sapphire 4870, I thought I may go for one, but obviously having some doubts from previous experience.

I am currently running a 7900gto, and have just got back into pc gaming , so thought it may be a good time to upgrade. As above, I game at 1366x768, so this card should eat most games for a while at that res.

For example, L4D, gives me 25-50fps on most things medium. Wouldnt mind a bit more oomph to crank up the games a bit :)
 
I first bought a Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB quite a while ago now and I was very happy with the card. I wouldn't have any trouble playing games at near enough their maximum settings at a resolution of 1920x1200. However, then the card started playing up so I sent it back for a new one. Once again, my second card was also faulty so I asked if I could have a refund and then purchase a new card but from a different manufacturer.

After I received my refund, I went for the Powercolor ATI Radeon HD 4870 1024MB and to be completely honest, the only difference between the 512MB and the 1024MB variant was that games appeared a little smoother, not by a lot but enough to notice which would be due to the higher VRAM. That's not to say that the 512MB variant of the card was unplayable because it wasn’t, far from it.

May I ask why some people are so concerned about the frames per second they are getting and not so much how the actual games run? I just get the impression that the people who judge all their games just based on how many FPS they get and all they do is constantly look at the FPS counter and completely neglecting the actual game play. When in actual fact, if you judged how smooth the game runs on a particular set of settings instead of getting too concerned about how many FPS you are getting, I'm sure the game would seem much smoother running.

I understand that the higher the FPS will effectively result in smoother game play. However, it isn't always as clear cut as this. I tend to find quite a lot of people will want a specific number of FPS in a game, say for example 60 to be deemed playable and if they don't reach this number, they're not happy bunnies. In reality though, even if you don't get say for example, a constant 60 FPS the game could still and probably will be playable but because they are so concerned about the actual number, it will appear, due to the counter, relatively unplayable to them. If you judge the actual game play though, I"m sure it's perfectly playable.

If we take Crysis for example which I can play at a resolution of 1920x1200 and everything on the "Very High" settings and it's pretty playable with the following system:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.4GHz
ATI Radeon 4870 1024MB @ stock settings
4GB of RAM @ 780MHz

Admittedly, it's not silky smooth but it's definitely very playable without a doubt. However, if you purely judged the games performance by the FPS you are getting, then I would suspect a lot of people would be disappointed and it would appear that the game would be pretty unplayable and yet, it honestly isn't. I understand that people have different expectations and what is playable to one person may not be to another but I hope most people can see what I'm trying to get at.

What are other people's thoughts about this? :)
 
Last edited:
i agree with you that benchamrks numbers aren't the most important game playability is; however, playability is linked to fps. some may require higher fps for it to be playable while others have lower thresholds.

personnally I am ok with a RTS or RPG at 20+ fps; however in FPS I need more coz the game is faster paced and needs to be more responsive and the playable threshold is higher -> 40+ fps is ideal and smooth (dipping below 30fps in a shooter is just not on for me, i would rather decrease settings). anything above is all gravy,

that said I am quite partial to AA and those gimmicks, so if i can crank the detail, i'm there.

in the end it's what satisfies each individual
 
It took me 15 minutes to read all the messages here. What captured my attention is the title of this thread really. I have a 4870 1GB and because my experience with it is incredible so I just popped in and check out what this is all about.

I have over 14 years of PC gaming exeprience and same number of years of putting together PC for gaming. So I hope my comment and feedback will be of some value to you all.

Now that I have read all the messages and am wondering why no body ever mentioned which Catalyst driver they are using?! For your information I am using Catalyst driver 8.8 currently. I bought my PowerColor PCS HD 4870 1GB DDR5 about 3 weeks ago. It runs at its stock speed of 780MHz/3.6GHz which is slightly higher than the reference card.

In my possession, I have the following titles:

Call of Duty Modern Warfare (i.e. COD 4)
Crysis Warhead (purchased it last Saturday)

other titles I have got:

Call of Duty World At War (i.e. COD 5)
Ghost Recon Advaced Warfighter 2 (purchasd it last Saturady)
Fallout 3
Crysis 2
Team Fortress 2
World in Conflict
Left 4 Dead

To address what you said about your experience with Crysis Warhead, I can tell you I can run Warhead with frame rate over 40 lower than 50 with my current system:

Q6600 @ 2.4GHz
2*2048 Cosair XMS2 DDR2 @ 1066MHz
Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bits
Catalyst 8.8
Resolution which runs at 1680*1050
Cosair TX750Watts

I enjoy the game very much because before I bought the game I did hesitate a long while given so many reviews are saying things negatively about the title. In fact, soon after I returned home I installed and ran the game right away and to my great amazement, the game ran so smoothly. So I cranked up the settings to maximum and all I lost was some 15 frames per second from the default settings.

Call of Duty 4 makes me motion sick possibly because the frame rates are always holding at 70! I was in fact trying to down the core speed and mem speed of my PowerColor to reduce the FPS when playing COD4!! I actually tried out everything including the using CCC amd max'd out all the 3D settings.

To address the OP issue, first I believe you should not come to a forum to sing bad about a product be it nVidia or ATi. Before I purchased this card, I came to this forum and asekd for opinions. People would just say go for GTX260, nVidia is the way to go but none of them said anything like ATi is bad, 4870 ruins my life...you see what I am getting at?

I would suggest if every you are going to have the same card again, try a different driver that's one thing. The other thing is make sure your power supply is good enough. A 650W PSU after 2 to 3 years should be reconsidered about its performance. You have only 2 GB memory that's barely enough to run Vista in fact not to mention a big game like Crysis.

I haven't played Stalker before, but there are titles badly coded out there. There is one flight simulation which is badly coded and with my current rig I can only play it at 40FPS most of the time and when things get busy in one screen, it drops well below 29 which is barely playable.

Another thing is the HIS might have a problen with her card, I saw it myself. It's heat dissipation is bad. I felt a demo unit in one of the downtown retail outlet here. It is as hot as 80C at idle. I would suggest you to pick up one with decent heat sink and fan. There are so many variants out there and you have to make a wise choice. that's my final words.
 
Is anyone else disapointed by their 4870 experience?

Mine was better then all my expectations, especally with the scare stories about noise/drivers.

No problems with drivers, no noise problems and awsome fps on everthing i tried.

*Edit*
Play the following with it, max'd out.

WoW
Sins of a solar empire
SupCom - FA
Mass Effect
Fallout 3
 
Last edited:
Well before ATI even released a 1GB card most people on this forum (and others) were claiming quite the opposite...

So who's to blame? the OP for not doing his research? or a bunch of ATI fanboys who went around the internet spreading lies?

I would not accuse anyone of spreading lies as that would mean knowing before hand that 512MB would be not enough & intentionality saying it was enough & you have zero proof of that.
 
Could have been worse

I went GTX280 -> 4870x2 -> GTX280 again

Now that was dissapointing

You got that on Cut & Paste.

All it will take is one driver revision from the one you lasted used on the 4870x2 & your comment becomes invalid to its performance.
 
Dont depend on Crysis as a means to test the cards capability.

Try several other drivers for your GFX Card and not just the most recent. Sometimes the the most recent will work flawlessly with some games but unfortunately you may see a performance drop in others. I suppose its 'whats hot' at the time for the driver developers to concentrate on.

If all else fails, slap a decent cooler on and overclock the nuts off it. :D
 
.snip. What are other people's thoughts about this? :)

Good well thought out post FW as usual.

You make a very valid point. I’ve been running my overclocked 8800GTX for two years and haven’t experienced any slow down at 1920x1200 with AA at all. Apart from Crysis that is. However, I was quite happy to drop to a lower res and a few detailed settings because once in the game, the visuals tend to take second stage. If people are really saying that dropping from ultra to high is spoiling their experience, than they aren’t playing games for what they really are. Of course everyone wants to play the latest games at the highest settings but you have to be sensible about it. For example, it’s pretty pointless upgrading from a GTX280 to a 4870 as the frame rate is barely noticeable to the naked eye.

In my opinion, if it plays and plays well then you’re fine.
 
I played Crysis comfortably at 1280x1024 on both my 8800GT and 4850, and my 4850 currently handles pretty much anything I throw at it 1680x1050.

I don't play Crysis or Stalker though, so I think the games are more to blame than the cards ;)
 
I think the OP may have other issues besides Vram.
But i have been saying for a while now that 512MB is really the bottom end now as before it was 256MB-512MB & now its 512MB-1024MB.
Its been at 256-512 for a long time & even games as old as Quake4 had 512MB gfx settings.
If there is an option for a 1024MB card then take it, its better to be safe than sorry that the only reason that your not playing a game at the settings you like is because of Vram.
And these are only upto 1600x1200 tests
http://www.yougamers.com/articles/13801_video_ram_-_how_much_do_you_really_need/images/oblivion_ram/
http://www.yougamers.com/articles/13801_video_ram_-_how_much_do_you_really_need/images/stalker_ram/
http://www.yougamers.com/articles/13801_video_ram_-_how_much_do_you_really_need/images/bioshock_ram/
http://www.yougamers.com/articles/1...uch_do_you_really_need/images/cod4_ram_usage/
http://www.yougamers.com/articles/13801_video_ram_-_how_much_do_you_really_need/images/crysis/

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17922341
 
Last edited:
Dont depend on Crysis as a means to test the cards capability.

Try several other drivers for your GFX Card and not just the most recent. Sometimes the the most recent will work flawlessly with some games but unfortunately you may see a performance drop in others. I suppose its 'whats hot' at the time for the driver developers to concentrate on.

If all else fails, slap a decent cooler on and overclock the nuts off it. :D

Cat 9.1 is rumoured to have good crysis improvements.
 
Could have been worse

I went GTX280 -> 4870x2 -> GTX280 again

Now that was dissapointing

Thats funny because in the review where they ran multiple test runs on various games and compared both the average frame rates and minimum frame rates the 4870X2 left the 280 standing in all but dead space (obviously coded for Nvidia), the other games tested were left 4 dead, COD:WaW, fallout3, Crysis:Warhead. And this is at every resolution upto 2560*1600, so a pretty thorough comprehensive test set up.
So stop trolling and go bury your head in some sand, do us a favour
 
To play Crysis Warhead with 1680x1050 and high detail you need CPU 3.8-4 GHz at least + 4 GB RAM.Even on my card and not overclocked CPU FPS going down to 18 ;)

Dont be ridiculous!
A 3GHz dual-core and a high end card will run that game fine at 1680x1050.
Most of the time that game dont even use 20% of my i7 CPU usage. GPU power matters far more with that game, or just about any game for that matter.
With my i7 at 2.66GHz or 4.15GHz it makes little difference to Crysis, and i play it at 1920x1200 on highest with a 295.
 
Last edited:
Thats funny because in the review where they ran multiple test runs on various games and compared both the average frame rates and minimum frame rates the 4870X2 left the 280 standing in all but dead space (obviously coded for Nvidia), the other games tested were left 4 dead, COD:WaW, fallout3, Crysis:Warhead. And this is at every resolution upto 2560*1600, so a pretty thorough comprehensive test set up.
So stop trolling and go bury your head in some sand, do us a favour

I done the exact same as him. Stop being such an insulting fanboy, kid. Charts and numbers dont tell you everything. The 9800GX2 was also faster than a 280 in lots of benchmarks, but from owning that card aswell, it's total cr*p compared to a 280.
 
Last edited:
I done the exact same as him. Stop being such an insulting fanboy, kid. Charts and numbers dont tell you everything. The 9800GX2 was also faster than a 280 in lots of benchmarks, but from owning that card aswell, it's total cr*p compared to a 280.

I'm afraid the combination of trying to be condescending and having a very poor grasp of English doesn't really work too well for you. This wasn't a redneck overclocking forum last time I checked.

I agree /re the 9800GX2 vs the 280 however.
 
ATI cards suck at Crysis.....but if you were not getting great FPS in CoD4 I'm thinking something is wrong because my 512mb 4870 actually beats my GTX 280 in CoD4 and also looks noticeably better too! And this is even at 2048x1152 with 4xAA.....I find I need 8xAA forced in the control panel to match 4xAA of the ATI card.
 
Back
Top Bottom