4870 on way back...

C64 · 17 Jul 2008 at 20:27

the 4850 obliterates the 8800gtx let alone the 4870

Rroff · 17 Jul 2008 at 21:25

I wouldn't call an average performance gain of less than 15% obliterates...

LoadsaMoney · 17 Jul 2008 at 21:28

Don't matter, the 8800 GTX still cuts through every game bar one at well palyable fps, just like the 4800 range.

J.D · 17 Jul 2008 at 21:52

Rroff said:
I wouldn't call an average performance gain of less than 15% obliterates...

OK then. It beats the GTX easily. Is that any better?

.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12109544&postcount=8

(just for laughs)

Adrianr · 17 Jul 2008 at 23:34

Owenb said:
I always find it funny when i hear people on about seeing, or hoping to see, a *big* boost when they are on about 15-20%. I went from a GF2 pro to a 9700pro to a 4850, now they are big boosts!

This is the trick.. Get used to having to lower the eye candy and such on recent releases to almost the point of it not working.. Then go and get something daft and ramp it all up again

7600gs to a 8800GT was a big enough of a boost for me. Still see me keeping it for ages too tbh, despite how tempting those 4870s are.

Amnesia · 18 Jul 2008 at 01:42

gurusan said:
That's what I don't quite understand either. It's like tightening up the throttle cable for 60% max throttle and then changing from a 300HP car to a 500HP car, then saying you are disappointed with the acceleration of the new car.

my thoughts too

wuyanxu · 18 Jul 2008 at 08:07

C64 said:
the 4850 obliterates the 8800gtx let alone the 4870

where did you get that?

OCed 8800GTX is same as 8800Ultra at stock. and Ultra is a tiny bit faster than 4850,
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4870,1964-19.html

If you game with vysnc off then pointless upgrading from anything in the past year but if you game with it on as the screen tearing bugs you then a 4850 or 4870 is a good upgrade as it allows higher FPS + max AF + AA in most current games.

correction:
if you bought 8800GTX in the past 2 years.

J.D · 18 Jul 2008 at 09:54

wuyanxu said:
where did you get that?

OCed 8800GTX is same as 8800Ultra at stock. and Ultra is a tiny bit faster than 4850,
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4870,1964-19.html

correction:
if you bought 8800GTX in the past 2 years.

Hahaha. Please read through that review again. I only checked Grid and the 4850 has....... 0 FPS. That is just wrong.

Check other reviews and you'll see why the 4850 is better. I wouldn't upgrade my GTX to one but if I was buying new then it would be the 4850 time and time again

.

psychas · 18 Jul 2008 at 10:04

so did u send the card back yet ?

Diggsy · 18 Jul 2008 at 10:07

psychas said:
so did u send the card back yet ?

Was supposed to go back yesterday, but I missed the flaming courier!!

Hopefully will get it re-arranged for Monday.

TheMightyTen · 18 Jul 2008 at 10:07

You want as powerful a card as possible if you are going to enable vsync due to to the limited framerates that can be output;

Say in the case of your average LCD monitor; normally at 60Hz, with vsync enabled the ideal framerate would be 60, graphics card can not display at this FPS it will then drop to 30 FPS, then 20, then 15 and so on. It can only ever display at a framerate that are these factors of 60 (assuming Triple buffering);

60, 30, 20, 15, 12, 10, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

So you need a Graphics card that can maintain the highest framerate possible regardless of what is going on on screen and what AA & AF you have enabled.

Dr_Fartypants · 18 Jul 2008 at 10:09

TheMightyTen said:
You want as powerful a card as possible if you are going to enable vsync due to to the limited framerates that can be output;

Say in the case of your average LCD monitor; normally at 60Hz, with vsync enabled the ideal framerate would be 60, graphics card can not display at this FPS it will then drop to 30 FPS, then 20, then 15 and so on. It can only ever display at a framerate that are these factors of 60 (assuming Triple buffering);

60, 30, 20, 15, 12, 10, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

So you need a Graphics card that can maintain the highest framerate possible regardless of what is going on on screen and what AA & AF you have enabled.

Try triple buffering. You won't see the sharp drops in framerate, and you won't lose any performance (until you get above the monitor refresh rate of course).

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17894486

wuyanxu · 18 Jul 2008 at 10:35

J.D said:
Hahaha. Please read through that review again. I only checked Grid and the 4850 has....... 0 FPS. That is just wrong.

Check other reviews and you'll see why the 4850 is better. I wouldn't upgrade my GTX to one but if I was buying new then it would be the 4850 time and time again .

still, average out with the GRID scores, 4850 may only overtake 8800GTX a tiny bit.

my point is, 8800GTX is still a very powerful card. if anyone owns one (or 2) there's no reason to upgrade yet.

wait for die-shrink of gt280, or 5870.

if a card is not more than 150% faster than your current card, there's no point upgrading.

The Asgard · 18 Jul 2008 at 10:47

wuyanxu said:
still, average out with the GRID scores, 4850 may only overtake 8800GTX a tiny bit.

my point is, 8800GTX is still a very powerful card. if anyone owns one (or 2) there's no reason to upgrade yet.

wait for die-shrink of gt280, or 5870.

if a card is not more than 150% faster than your current card, there's no point upgrading.

Depends on the game.

Hellgate grinds on the 8800 GTX 620/2000 and is unplayable with any AA and full detail at 1920x1200. With the 4870 at stock you can max out AA and whack everything on for a silky smooth experience.

melbourne720 · 18 Jul 2008 at 10:57

I think the trick is the worthiness of the upgrade is dependant on a number of factors:-

for instance

Scougar · 18 Jul 2008 at 11:03

ROFL.. nice equation

TWIMTBP equation would read slightly different on the top line

(as would the non-existant DAMMITTWIMTBP equation

)

Loving the fanboiCoefficient

Matthew

thegoonden · 18 Jul 2008 at 11:05

C64 said:
the 4850 obliterates the 8800gtx let alone the 4870

4850 scored about 2000 less than my 8800GTXOC2 in 3dmark06, which is at least in part due to the CPU on that system being 7% or so slower, and using DDR2 vs my DDR3.
However, I ran furmark (mainly to test fan throttle....don't want to build my mate a corpse now do I), and the 4850 score more than 2x what the 88 did!!!!

Only tested a couple of games, and the story was the same.....one game the GTX would have the edge (probably those that are cpu limited, since the GTX did have another 200MHz to play with CPU wise, and in others the 4850 had the edge.

So 4850=>8800GTXoc2

assuming the 4870 is what? 50% quicker than the 4850?, it DOES seem like quite an upgrade.

All this talk of AA not botherin it excites me, but it only goes up to 24x not 32

C64 · 18 Jul 2008 at 13:26

wuyanxu said:
where did you get that?

OCed 8800GTX is same as 8800Ultra at stock. and Ultra is a tiny bit faster than 4850,
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4870,1964-19.html

correction:
if you bought 8800GTX in the past 2 years.

lol it always amazes me the lengths people go to to big up or justify their own hardware
all that matters is games and the 4850 is a lot better than any 8800gtx accross the board lets look at GRID with AA and AF

Mortster · 18 Jul 2008 at 13:36

The thing is I upgraded from an 8800GTX to a 4870, I always have used VSync to cap at 60fps, with triple buffering support to alleviate any 60/30/15 fps drops. Now it's all well and good saying I use VSync so why get a 4870 for more frames, but you always need a healthy buffer of fps above and beyond the 60fps mark to keep a nice constant vsync'ed 60fps.

For example, take GRID, I used to set this at 1920x1200 but no way could I get a healthy 60fps at all times with any AA applied. With the 4870 it's always pumping out somewhere close to 70-75fps, so I can happily vsync at 60fps knowing that i'm pretty much always going to get that level of performance.

And also if you can't enable triple buffer support due to the game and/or lack of VRAM for the extra back buffer, then without the buffer of extra frames you will end up dropping from 60fps to 30fps, then 15fps etc..

I can understand if you have a decent 8 series card and run a low resolution like 1280x1024 that you don't need to upgrade based on the games currently out there, because those cards can pretty much always guarantee a healthy dose of fps above the 60fps mark at that res.

There's a few factors to take into account, but you cant just say I use vsync therefore I dont need to upgrade to benefit from those extra fps above 60, because you _will_ benefit from those extra fps to keep that healthy buffer for a constant 60fps experience throughout the game. !

I'm not trying to justify my purchase. Honest guv

Antx777 · 18 Jul 2008 at 17:45

[ramble on]Well, I have Quad 9650 CPU, 2 GTX8800's in sli on a Samsung 226bw (22") and it's probably too much for my 1680 res TBH, as every game (Fear, COD 2/4, Dirt, Grid, Stalker, Oblivion run too easy (and beg for a Dell ££30"££)

.
Crysis also eases through at this res.

It's not always easy to upgrade your video card, because you have to take several things in to consideration. 1680x1050 or below won't require the latest card. However, if you do upgrade your card, then you "have" to upgrade your monitor to gain the benefit (perhaps). That said, I would hazard a guess that most people game on 22" TFT's or lower (but like I said - it was a hazardous guess

Would be better if games employed tougher AA/AF (some games only do 4aa -oblivion doesn't do any if HDR is enabled [or something like that]) Like 32aa/32/af

...

I don't know!. I think, in the future when Cards makes Crysis fly at at 2560x1600 - then I guess, we will ALL have to have 30" monitors won't we???[ramble off/]

~Ant