Is it worth the price to upgrade with or should I wait for HD4870? Also will the HD4870 run AoC smoothly? I have heard some bad experiences that computer games have with ATI cards.
Its a $600 price tag for a Graphics card that is on par with the 9800 GX2. The best advantage it has over the card is in games that support only 1 video card. However, those will not even fully utilize the card.
On the other hand the HD4850 competes with the GX260 at $200 less. Its still unknown how well the HD4870 will perform. On the sheet it looks like it will CRUSH the GX280. However, so did the HD3870. It really matters how the card performs in reality and that won't be known until July. I would wait for it though, if anything prices will drop.
An HD4870 will run AoC smoothly considering an HD3870 can.
The reviews are out. The 4870 simply eats the competition. It competes at the same level are better then the G260, and sometimes performs better then the G280 for half the price.
I'm going to buy a completely new PC with 1/2 4850. Judging from the benchmarks, it's quite a card for its price. And from what I saw on a chinese benchmarking site (I don't speak chinese, made it quite hard to follow), the 4870 performs better than the nvidia card. At 1/3 of the price!
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
The reviews are out. The 4870 simply eats the competition. It competes at the same level are better then the G260, and sometimes performs better then the G280 for half the price.
Where are these reviews? I haven't seen one legit one for the 4870 one yet. The only ones I've seen were for the g280 which performed on par or better with both company's dual gpu cards while on beta drivers.
Not impressed. the 4850 they review matches up well against the 9800GTX, but again they aren't even trying to go for high end gaming. The reliance on crossfire for high end gaming is just plain stupid as dual cards only scale well on certain games. If the best copetition was the 9800GTX I would say they are doing a good job, but losing around 10 frames fer game to the current generation, lower price on not is going to hurt them, especially since most of the losses are to the g260, not even the really expensive g280. AMD needed to really knock one out of the park considering how long they have been behind, and while they certainly got a solid hit, it doesn't look like it's good enough.
if u guys dig around u would notice that most of the other card companies are gonna drop supporting shaders 3.0 and such for their cards but for nvidia. they gonna develop their own shaders as far as i know which means more problems with those cards and new gen games which are more sensitive to your hardware than older games
ive had radeion cardes before and never had anything good from them they all either wouldnt play the game right or didnt support this or that.
all u guys do is talk about performance dont forget about support adabity and just plain normal use before u judge a card.
nvidia cards have always been more expensive but in the long run they have better support.they work with nearlyall games ive yet had a problem with a nvida card not working with a game.
im currently using a old desktop my newer one fried during a powre surge. its only able to use pc1 no express or agp so best card i can use is a nvida geforce 6200 and yet i can play AoC at medeium graphics most the time with only 1 gig ram and card is only 256 ram.
so for all those just going this or that sucks before u make a decision remember the track record of the companyies u buying your card from
Not impressed. the 4850 they review matches up well against the 9800GTX, but again they aren't even trying to go for high end gaming. The reliance on crossfire for high end gaming is just plain stupid as dual cards only scale well on certain games. If the best copetition was the 9800GTX I would say they are doing a good job, but losing around 10 frames fer game to the current generation, lower price on not is going to hurt them, especially since most of the losses are to the g260, not even the really expensive g280. AMD needed to really knock one out of the park considering how long they have been behind, and while they certainly got a solid hit, it doesn't look like it's good enough.
Um... what were you expecting???
AMD strove to create a good bang for your buck card and thats just what they have done. The 9800GTX is the newest card that NVIDIA has in the $200 price range, and the 4850 beats it, what more could you ask for?
The new 4870 even matches and sometimes beats the GTX 260 and it costs $100 less than the GTX 260, that is impressive. Its performance exceeds its price range, which is a good thing.
It appears to me that they did "knock one out of the park" because they did what they set out to do. Create a card that gets your moneys worth.
The GTX 260 and 280 on the other hand, seem to be the dissappointment.
-------------------------------- Desktop - AMD 8450 Tri Core, 3 gigs of DDR2 800 RAM, ATI HD 3200 Graphics, Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit Laptop (Dell Latitude E6400) - Intel P8400, 2 GIGs of RAM, Intel X4500, Windows XP Professional
Not impressed. the 4850 they review matches up well against the 9800GTX, but again they aren't even trying to go for high end gaming. The reliance on crossfire for high end gaming is just plain stupid as dual cards only scale well on certain games. If the best copetition was the 9800GTX I would say they are doing a good job, but losing around 10 frames fer game to the current generation, lower price on not is going to hurt them, especially since most of the losses are to the g260, not even the really expensive g280. AMD needed to really knock one out of the park considering how long they have been behind, and while they certainly got a solid hit, it doesn't look like it's good enough.
Um... what were you expecting???
AMD strove to create a good bang for your buck card and thats just what they have done. The 9800GTX is the newest card that NVIDIA has in the $200 price range, and the 4850 beats it, what more could you ask for?
The new 4870 even matches and sometimes beats the GTX 260 and it costs $100 less than the GTX 260, that is impressive. Its performance exceeds its price range, which is a good thing.
It appears to me that they did "knock one out of the park" because they did what they set out to do. Create a card that gets your moneys worth.
The GTX 260 and 280 on the other hand, seem to be the dissappointment.
So you're saying that AMD's plan was to not compete for great performance and are happy to have their current gen GPU be the toast of the last gen cards, so it's a winner. No matter how good their mid range card is, until the can be competative at the top they will have the perception of weak cards which will hurt them. If their best option for high end performance is to use a dual card configuration that doesn't provide any benefits half the time then I would say the "bang for the buck" arguement is a little weak.
As for the GTX 260 and 280 bein disspointments all the reviews I've read have been extremely positive and the cards have been seen as anything but dissapointing. Of course as we've seen from this thread, results can be spun in a number of different ways. Let's wait until there are non-beta drivers to have a final conclusion
Not impressed. the 4850 they review matches up well against the 9800GTX, but again they aren't even trying to go for high end gaming. The reliance on crossfire for high end gaming is just plain stupid as dual cards only scale well on certain games. If the best copetition was the 9800GTX I would say they are doing a good job, but losing around 10 frames fer game to the current generation, lower price on not is going to hurt them, especially since most of the losses are to the g260, not even the really expensive g280. AMD needed to really knock one out of the park considering how long they have been behind, and while they certainly got a solid hit, it doesn't look like it's good enough.
Um... what were you expecting???
AMD strove to create a good bang for your buck card and thats just what they have done. The 9800GTX is the newest card that NVIDIA has in the $200 price range, and the 4850 beats it, what more could you ask for?
The new 4870 even matches and sometimes beats the GTX 260 and it costs $100 less than the GTX 260, that is impressive. Its performance exceeds its price range, which is a good thing.
It appears to me that they did "knock one out of the park" because they did what they set out to do. Create a card that gets your moneys worth.
The GTX 260 and 280 on the other hand, seem to be the dissappointment.
So you're saying that AMD's plan was to not compete for great performance and are happy to have their current gen GPU be the toast of the last gen cards, so it's a winner. No matter how good their mid range card is, until the can be competative at the top they will have the perception of weak cards which will hurt them. If their best option for high end performance is to use a dual card configuration that doesn't provide any benefits half the time then I would say the "bang for the buck" arguement is a little weak.
As for the GTX 260 and 280 bein disspointments all the reviews I've read have been extremely positive and the cards have been seen as anything but dissapointing. Of course as we've seen from this thread, results can be spun in a number of different ways. Let's wait until there are non-beta drivers to have a final conclusion
Well I would hope they are not running on non-beta drivers as the GTX 280 is already for sale.
AMD dominates their price ranges they released in. 4850 > 9800GTX at the same price and 4870 >= GTX 260 while being $100 cheaper. Yeah, thats what I call a winner. ATi's plan is not to create a monster card, why you may ask? Because there is only a small market for those massive cards that cost >$500. On the other hand, there is a much larger market for the $200-300 range and ATi is winning in that range.
They will be considered weak for having a dual GPU as their high end card? Doubtful, as I said that is not their goal. I don't get how you think not having a massive GPU will make their other cards appear weak, that's just a logical fallacy. I understand people like having a single GPU compared to a dual GPU, but if that dual GPU beats the single GPU in most games and costs significantly less, then I will take the dual GPU.
Even their 4870 can in no way be considered weak since it loses to the GTX 280 only by about 14%, but guess what... it costs half.
Perhaps the GTX 260 and 280 may not be a dissappointment for some, but I was expecting a larger increase in performance. ATi has nearly caught up to NVIDIA with the 4870, so I am going to give credit where credit is due. A card performs nearly as well as the strongest card the opposition has, yet costs half. What more do you want?
I am not trying to spin the reviews, I am just giving facts. ATi is on top in the price range they have positioned themselves in and the 4870 is quite the performer even when compared to the GTX series.
You don't have to be competitive at the top to be competitive, that is just nonsense. In fact, thats the equivilent of saying every car manufacturer needs to have a $100k sports car so that they can look good. Newsflash, not everybody has the money for a $100k car and not everybody is going to want to spend $650 on a video card, especially when there are cheaper options that offer great performance as well.
-------------------------------- Desktop - AMD 8450 Tri Core, 3 gigs of DDR2 800 RAM, ATI HD 3200 Graphics, Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit Laptop (Dell Latitude E6400) - Intel P8400, 2 GIGs of RAM, Intel X4500, Windows XP Professional
Not impressed. the 4850 they review matches up well against the 9800GTX, but again they aren't even trying to go for high end gaming. The reliance on crossfire for high end gaming is just plain stupid as dual cards only scale well on certain games. If the best copetition was the 9800GTX I would say they are doing a good job, but losing around 10 frames fer game to the current generation, lower price on not is going to hurt them, especially since most of the losses are to the g260, not even the really expensive g280. AMD needed to really knock one out of the park considering how long they have been behind, and while they certainly got a solid hit, it doesn't look like it's good enough.
Um... what were you expecting???
AMD strove to create a good bang for your buck card and thats just what they have done. The 9800GTX is the newest card that NVIDIA has in the $200 price range, and the 4850 beats it, what more could you ask for?
The new 4870 even matches and sometimes beats the GTX 260 and it costs $100 less than the GTX 260, that is impressive. Its performance exceeds its price range, which is a good thing.
It appears to me that they did "knock one out of the park" because they did what they set out to do. Create a card that gets your moneys worth.
The GTX 260 and 280 on the other hand, seem to be the dissappointment.
So you're saying that AMD's plan was to not compete for great performance and are happy to have their current gen GPU be the toast of the last gen cards, so it's a winner. No matter how good their mid range card is, until the can be competative at the top they will have the perception of weak cards which will hurt them. If their best option for high end performance is to use a dual card configuration that doesn't provide any benefits half the time then I would say the "bang for the buck" arguement is a little weak.
As for the GTX 260 and 280 bein disspointments all the reviews I've read have been extremely positive and the cards have been seen as anything but dissapointing. Of course as we've seen from this thread, results can be spun in a number of different ways. Let's wait until there are non-beta drivers to have a final conclusion
Well I would hope they are not running on non-beta drivers as the GTX 280 is already for sale.
AMD dominates their price ranges they released in. 4850 > 9800GTX at the same price and 4870 >= GTX 260 while being $100 cheaper. Yeah, thats what I call a winner. ATi's plan is not to create a monster card, why you may ask? Because there is only a small market for those massive cards that cost >$500. On the other hand, there is a much larger market for the $200-300 range and ATi is winning in that range.
They will be considered weak for having a dual GPU as their high end card? Doubtful, as I said that is not their goal. I don't get how you think not having a massive GPU will make their other cards appear weak, that's just a logical fallacy. I understand people like having a single GPU compared to a dual GPU, but if that dual GPU beats the single GPU in most games and costs significantly less, then I will take the dual GPU.
Even their 4870 can in no way be considered weak since it loses to the GTX 280 only by about 14%, but guess what... it costs half.
Perhaps the GTX 260 and 280 may not be a dissappointment for some, but I was expecting a larger increase in performance. ATi has nearly caught up to NVIDIA with the 4870, so I am going to give credit where credit is due. A card performs nearly as well as the strongest card the opposition has, yet costs half. What more do you want?
I am not trying to spin the reviews, I am just giving facts. ATi is on top in the price range they have positioned themselves in and the 4870 is quite the performer even when compared to the GTX series.
You don't have to be competitive at the top to be competitive, that is just nonsense. In fact, thats the equivilent of saying every car manufacturer needs to have a $100k sports car so that they can look good. Newsflash, not everybody has the money for a $100k car and not everybody is going to want to spend $650 on a video card, especially when there are cheaper options that offer great performance as well.
AMD is putting way too much confidence in the average buyer then. Not everyone is going to go look at benchmarks. Many will look and say the GTX 280 is the most powerful, the the version of that card in the $200 range must be the most powerful. The car anology is a bad one because sports cars are puree luxury, and don't offer anything any driver needs other than status. A stronger video card provides very tangible improvements.
Not saying they're putting out bad cards, just saying that their strategy is questionable. Also when it comes to video cards a 14% gap is a lot.
AMD is putting way too much confidence in the average buyer then. Not everyone is going to go look at benchmarks. Many will look and say the GTX 280 is the most powerful, the the version of that card in the $200 range must be the most powerful. The car anology is a bad one because sports cars are puree luxury, and don't offer anything any driver needs other than status. A stronger video card provides very tangible improvements.
Not saying they're putting out bad cards, just saying that their strategy is questionable. Also when it comes to video cards a 14% gap is a lot.
You mean getting 60 compared to 70 rames isn't a luxury? Knowing that you have a higher 3D mark score isnt a luxury?
It is a luxury, because a 4870 can play all games just as well as the GTX 280, it only loses by a few frames. And its not like those frames really matter because who can distuinguish the difference between 60 and 70 frames?
A 14% gap isn't much, considering the GTX 280 costs more than double the 4870.
The only time when a few frames might matter is when you are playing on a huge resolution with all the effects up, but guess what, the average consumer isn't going to have a 24+ inch monitor. A 4870 will be more than enough for the average gamer.
I happen to think their strategy is much more logical than NVIDIAs, considering there are more consumers in the $200-300 range than there is in the +$600 range. And, I think that those who put an investment in are more often than not going to research products before they buy. Computer gaming is not exactly cheap (compared to consoles) and people like to get the most for their money, especially with the economy the way it is here in the states.
-------------------------------- Desktop - AMD 8450 Tri Core, 3 gigs of DDR2 800 RAM, ATI HD 3200 Graphics, Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit Laptop (Dell Latitude E6400) - Intel P8400, 2 GIGs of RAM, Intel X4500, Windows XP Professional
ATI/AMD has always aimed for the average buyer. A person above me said the average buyer won't look at benchmarks, and just buy the monster card... is wrong. People who don't watch benchmarks, will buy a mid-range card. Because those are the cards which are the cheapest, and still perform quite well. Those are the cards you can find at less-specialized stores, like Mediamarkt.
Sure, NVidia is more loved by the hardcore 1337 gamers, but there are way less of those than there are normal gamers. That worked for about 2-3 years, nvidia releasing the monster cards, ATI selling to average customers. But now ATI's mid-range cards are beating Nvdia's high-end cards (9800 GTX).
I'm only wondering why they made the whole 3XXX series, those were pieces of crap, even for their prices. If they just skipped those, and focused on the 4XXX series, Nvidia would have suffered... greatly.
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
LOL, very nice benchmarks on anandtech. Especially on Bioshock! I really got to buy myself an 4850/4870 . And the improvement on Crossfire is really paying of, again, especially in bioshock, where the 4850 even out performs the GTX 280 SLI.
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
AMD is putting way too much confidence in the average buyer then. Not everyone is going to go look at benchmarks. Many will look and say the GTX 280 is the most powerful, the the version of that card in the $200 range must be the most powerful. The car anology is a bad one because sports cars are puree luxury, and don't offer anything any driver needs other than status. A stronger video card provides very tangible improvements.
Not saying they're putting out bad cards, just saying that their strategy is questionable. Also when it comes to video cards a 14% gap is a lot.
Get the 4870 X2. If the 4870 compares with the GTX 280 then the 4870 X2 should be your luxury car.
Yeah im going for the 4870 personaly, iv always been a ATI fan(always seemed to accept overclocking more) but this time the card just simple wins in the numbers and price, best bang for your buck. Althought i thought it would be 250 like the 3870 launch, guess i was wrong or maybe il just have to wai a month or so so not 1 brand is out.
Personal preference here! But I have never had great experience with the ATI cards when it comes to gaming. Othr stuff, they are okay. When it comes to gaming however, the Nvidia cards have always been a better buy in my not so humble opinion. as for the GTX 200 series, they are a goo card, but not for the price. They are hands down out performed by the X2 cards however. Far better fill rate and shades in the series 9 X2 cards, and for a fair bit less cash. That is my recommendation and what I would buy in your given circumstance.
Its great being able to trumpet around ATI, but there are still some forseeable problems with the 4870. 1st is power consumption. It eats alot. The worst part is that the beginning versions are underclocked in order to consume less power, but its using nearly as much as the GX280 Idle. Might be a driver issue though since this card isn't due out for a little while much like the 260. Scaling these probably won't be possible in Quad Crossfire. Also the 9800 X2 is on the same level as the GX280. Its actually pretty good to get a single GPU performing as well as 2 GPUs.
I really can't use a desktop card from nVidia though. They are made solely to play games. I also use CAD programs that just perform badly with desktop cards. While Workstation cards cost a bunch and don't work well on games. However, the silverlining is ATI's HD cards that are actually able to display polies pretty well mainly because of its stream processor design.
Right now I have to give major props to ati. They released a kick ass card at 199. The only reason the 9800 gtx is 199 now and not 350 is because of ati . Nvidia had a huge lead over ati and they dropped the ball, they released 9800gtx that barely beat the 8800gtx 17 months after its release and still charged 350 for it.
Also you will notice that ati does not reduce the gpu power between there two released cards. Theres no "pipes" turned off, when you pay 100 more for the 4870 you get ddr5 and it has better cooling for the higher clock speed. It also supports directx 10.1, and you can even get physx to work on ati even though it supports havok.
The thing about high end video cards that cracks me up is that you only "need" them when you run huge resolutions. My monitor only supports 1400x900 so even the 4850 is overkill for most games specially mmo's and later i can grab a second 4850 when I need it and when its cheaper.
I have always been a big fan of nvidia ,but there reduced "pipes" on cheaper cards has always ticked me off. Multiple gpu's are the way to go for card makers, you want more performance you get a x2 card or x4. Now granted multiple gpus will be slow adoption by developers just like in the cpu world, but it will come.
Its great being able to trumpet around ATI, but there are still some forseeable problems with the 4870. 1st is power consumption. It eats alot. The worst part is that the beginning versions are underclocked in order to consume less power, but its using nearly as much as the GX280 Idle. Might be a driver issue though since this card isn't due out for a little while much like the 260. Scaling these probably won't be possible in Quad Crossfire. Also the 9800 X2 is on the same level as the GX280. Its actually pretty good to get a single GPU performing as well as 2 GPUs. I really can't use a desktop card from nVidia though. They are made solely to play games. I also use CAD programs that just perform badly with desktop cards. While Workstation cards cost a bunch and don't work well on games. However, the silverlining is ATI's HD cards that are actually able to display polies pretty well mainly because of its stream processor design.
Either you, or I have been misinformed. The 4XXX series consumes a fair amount, but still less than the GTX 200 series. And for those workstation cards... I have an ATI firegl v3100, the first workstation card ATI made for PCI-e, and I'm able to play most of the latest games, it performs way out of it's league actually. I'm playing Warhammer Mark Of Chaos at an average quality, while it's minimum reqs are 256 MiB vRAM, my card only has 128. And that 128 MiB is still GDDR1, so...
Can't find an explanation for that though, but whatever it is, ATI performed a small miracle in that card. Can't say I play let's LOTRO at ultra high settings though, it goes to high (or even very high in some places), and I can still feel the difference in 3DS MAX (don't think it has special features for CAD yet though, it has a separate driver for 3DS MAX.). Yet I need a different card, I want better graphics! And the workstation cards are a bit of my price range...
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
Its great being able to trumpet around ATI, but there are still some forseeable problems with the 4870. 1st is power consumption. It eats alot. The worst part is that the beginning versions are underclocked in order to consume less power, but its using nearly as much as the GX280 Idle. Might be a driver issue though since this card isn't due out for a little while much like the 260. Scaling these probably won't be possible in Quad Crossfire. Also the 9800 X2 is on the same level as the GX280. Its actually pretty good to get a single GPU performing as well as 2 GPUs. I really can't use a desktop card from nVidia though. They are made solely to play games. I also use CAD programs that just perform badly with desktop cards. While Workstation cards cost a bunch and don't work well on games. However, the silverlining is ATI's HD cards that are actually able to display polies pretty well mainly because of its stream processor design.
Either you, or I have been misinformed. The 4XXX series consumes a fair amount, but still less than the GTX 200 series. And for those workstation cards... I have an ATI firegl v3100, the first workstation card ATI made for PCI-e, and I'm able to play most of the latest games, it performs way out of it's league actually. I'm playing Warhammer Mark Of Chaos at an average quality, while it's minimum reqs are 256 MiB vRAM, my card only has 128. And that 128 MiB is still GDDR1, so...
Can't find an explanation for that though, but whatever it is, ATI performed a small miracle in that card. Can't say I play let's LOTRO at ultra high settings though, it goes to high (or even very high in some places), and I can still feel the difference in 3DS MAX (don't think it has special features for CAD yet though, it has a separate driver for 3DS MAX.). Yet I need a different card, I want better graphics! And the workstation cards are a bit of my price range...
here we go, I went searching for the power consumption charts from Tom's Hardware. I enjoy this site and frequently visit it for hardware info.
Comments
Its a $600 price tag for a Graphics card that is on par with the 9800 GX2. The best advantage it has over the card is in games that support only 1 video card. However, those will not even fully utilize the card.
On the other hand the HD4850 competes with the GX260 at $200 less. Its still unknown how well the HD4870 will perform. On the sheet it looks like it will CRUSH the GX280. However, so did the HD3870. It really matters how the card performs in reality and that won't be known until July. I would wait for it though, if anything prices will drop.
An HD4870 will run AoC smoothly considering an HD3870 can.
I'll finish the thread title for you. GeForce GTX 280 is a waste of money.
ya i would wait for the 4870x2 will be the one to get imo
The following statement is false
The previous statement is true
Totally agree , wait for the 4870 .
The reviews are out. The 4870 simply eats the competition. It competes at the same level are better then the G260, and sometimes performs better then the G280 for half the price.
I'm going to buy a completely new PC with 1/2 4850. Judging from the benchmarks, it's quite a card for its price. And from what I saw on a chinese benchmarking site (I don't speak chinese, made it quite hard to follow), the 4870 performs better than the nvidia card. At 1/3 of the price!
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
Where are these reviews? I haven't seen one legit one for the 4870 one yet. The only ones I've seen were for the g280 which performed on par or better with both company's dual gpu cards while on beta drivers.
member of imminst.org
Anandtech It was released less then 12 hours ago.
Not impressed. the 4850 they review matches up well against the 9800GTX, but again they aren't even trying to go for high end gaming. The reliance on crossfire for high end gaming is just plain stupid as dual cards only scale well on certain games. If the best copetition was the 9800GTX I would say they are doing a good job, but losing around 10 frames fer game to the current generation, lower price on not is going to hurt them, especially since most of the losses are to the g260, not even the really expensive g280. AMD needed to really knock one out of the park considering how long they have been behind, and while they certainly got a solid hit, it doesn't look like it's good enough.
member of imminst.org
if u guys dig around u would notice that most of the other card companies are gonna drop supporting shaders 3.0 and such for their cards but for nvidia. they gonna develop their own shaders as far as i know which means more problems with those cards and new gen games which are more sensitive to your hardware than older games
ive had radeion cardes before and never had anything good from them they all either wouldnt play the game right or didnt support this or that.
all u guys do is talk about performance dont forget about support adabity and just plain normal use before u judge a card.
nvidia cards have always been more expensive but in the long run they have better support.they work with nearlyall games ive yet had a problem with a nvida card not working with a game.
im currently using a old desktop my newer one fried during a powre surge. its only able to use pc1 no express or agp so best card i can use is a nvida geforce 6200 and yet i can play AoC at medeium graphics most the time with only 1 gig ram and card is only 256 ram.
so for all those just going this or that sucks before u make a decision remember the track record of the companyies u buying your card from
Um... what were you expecting???
AMD strove to create a good bang for your buck card and thats just what they have done. The 9800GTX is the newest card that NVIDIA has in the $200 price range, and the 4850 beats it, what more could you ask for?
The new 4870 even matches and sometimes beats the GTX 260 and it costs $100 less than the GTX 260, that is impressive. Its performance exceeds its price range, which is a good thing.
It appears to me that they did "knock one out of the park" because they did what they set out to do. Create a card that gets your moneys worth.
The GTX 260 and 280 on the other hand, seem to be the dissappointment.
--------------------------------
Desktop - AMD 8450 Tri Core, 3 gigs of DDR2 800 RAM, ATI HD 3200 Graphics, Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit
Laptop (Dell Latitude E6400) - Intel P8400, 2 GIGs of RAM, Intel X4500, Windows XP Professional
Um... what were you expecting???
AMD strove to create a good bang for your buck card and thats just what they have done. The 9800GTX is the newest card that NVIDIA has in the $200 price range, and the 4850 beats it, what more could you ask for?
The new 4870 even matches and sometimes beats the GTX 260 and it costs $100 less than the GTX 260, that is impressive. Its performance exceeds its price range, which is a good thing.
It appears to me that they did "knock one out of the park" because they did what they set out to do. Create a card that gets your moneys worth.
The GTX 260 and 280 on the other hand, seem to be the dissappointment.
So you're saying that AMD's plan was to not compete for great performance and are happy to have their current gen GPU be the toast of the last gen cards, so it's a winner. No matter how good their mid range card is, until the can be competative at the top they will have the perception of weak cards which will hurt them. If their best option for high end performance is to use a dual card configuration that doesn't provide any benefits half the time then I would say the "bang for the buck" arguement is a little weak.
As for the GTX 260 and 280 bein disspointments all the reviews I've read have been extremely positive and the cards have been seen as anything but dissapointing. Of course as we've seen from this thread, results can be spun in a number of different ways. Let's wait until there are non-beta drivers to have a final conclusion
member of imminst.org
Um... what were you expecting???
AMD strove to create a good bang for your buck card and thats just what they have done. The 9800GTX is the newest card that NVIDIA has in the $200 price range, and the 4850 beats it, what more could you ask for?
The new 4870 even matches and sometimes beats the GTX 260 and it costs $100 less than the GTX 260, that is impressive. Its performance exceeds its price range, which is a good thing.
It appears to me that they did "knock one out of the park" because they did what they set out to do. Create a card that gets your moneys worth.
The GTX 260 and 280 on the other hand, seem to be the dissappointment.
So you're saying that AMD's plan was to not compete for great performance and are happy to have their current gen GPU be the toast of the last gen cards, so it's a winner. No matter how good their mid range card is, until the can be competative at the top they will have the perception of weak cards which will hurt them. If their best option for high end performance is to use a dual card configuration that doesn't provide any benefits half the time then I would say the "bang for the buck" arguement is a little weak.
As for the GTX 260 and 280 bein disspointments all the reviews I've read have been extremely positive and the cards have been seen as anything but dissapointing. Of course as we've seen from this thread, results can be spun in a number of different ways. Let's wait until there are non-beta drivers to have a final conclusion
Well I would hope they are not running on non-beta drivers as the GTX 280 is already for sale.
AMD dominates their price ranges they released in. 4850 > 9800GTX at the same price and 4870 >= GTX 260 while being $100 cheaper. Yeah, thats what I call a winner. ATi's plan is not to create a monster card, why you may ask? Because there is only a small market for those massive cards that cost >$500. On the other hand, there is a much larger market for the $200-300 range and ATi is winning in that range.
They will be considered weak for having a dual GPU as their high end card? Doubtful, as I said that is not their goal. I don't get how you think not having a massive GPU will make their other cards appear weak, that's just a logical fallacy. I understand people like having a single GPU compared to a dual GPU, but if that dual GPU beats the single GPU in most games and costs significantly less, then I will take the dual GPU.
Even their 4870 can in no way be considered weak since it loses to the GTX 280 only by about 14%, but guess what... it costs half.
Perhaps the GTX 260 and 280 may not be a dissappointment for some, but I was expecting a larger increase in performance. ATi has nearly caught up to NVIDIA with the 4870, so I am going to give credit where credit is due. A card performs nearly as well as the strongest card the opposition has, yet costs half. What more do you want?
I am not trying to spin the reviews, I am just giving facts. ATi is on top in the price range they have positioned themselves in and the 4870 is quite the performer even when compared to the GTX series.
You don't have to be competitive at the top to be competitive, that is just nonsense. In fact, thats the equivilent of saying every car manufacturer needs to have a $100k sports car so that they can look good. Newsflash, not everybody has the money for a $100k car and not everybody is going to want to spend $650 on a video card, especially when there are cheaper options that offer great performance as well.
--------------------------------
Desktop - AMD 8450 Tri Core, 3 gigs of DDR2 800 RAM, ATI HD 3200 Graphics, Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit
Laptop (Dell Latitude E6400) - Intel P8400, 2 GIGs of RAM, Intel X4500, Windows XP Professional
Um... what were you expecting???
AMD strove to create a good bang for your buck card and thats just what they have done. The 9800GTX is the newest card that NVIDIA has in the $200 price range, and the 4850 beats it, what more could you ask for?
The new 4870 even matches and sometimes beats the GTX 260 and it costs $100 less than the GTX 260, that is impressive. Its performance exceeds its price range, which is a good thing.
It appears to me that they did "knock one out of the park" because they did what they set out to do. Create a card that gets your moneys worth.
The GTX 260 and 280 on the other hand, seem to be the dissappointment.
So you're saying that AMD's plan was to not compete for great performance and are happy to have their current gen GPU be the toast of the last gen cards, so it's a winner. No matter how good their mid range card is, until the can be competative at the top they will have the perception of weak cards which will hurt them. If their best option for high end performance is to use a dual card configuration that doesn't provide any benefits half the time then I would say the "bang for the buck" arguement is a little weak.
As for the GTX 260 and 280 bein disspointments all the reviews I've read have been extremely positive and the cards have been seen as anything but dissapointing. Of course as we've seen from this thread, results can be spun in a number of different ways. Let's wait until there are non-beta drivers to have a final conclusion
Well I would hope they are not running on non-beta drivers as the GTX 280 is already for sale.
AMD dominates their price ranges they released in. 4850 > 9800GTX at the same price and 4870 >= GTX 260 while being $100 cheaper. Yeah, thats what I call a winner. ATi's plan is not to create a monster card, why you may ask? Because there is only a small market for those massive cards that cost >$500. On the other hand, there is a much larger market for the $200-300 range and ATi is winning in that range.
They will be considered weak for having a dual GPU as their high end card? Doubtful, as I said that is not their goal. I don't get how you think not having a massive GPU will make their other cards appear weak, that's just a logical fallacy. I understand people like having a single GPU compared to a dual GPU, but if that dual GPU beats the single GPU in most games and costs significantly less, then I will take the dual GPU.
Even their 4870 can in no way be considered weak since it loses to the GTX 280 only by about 14%, but guess what... it costs half.
Perhaps the GTX 260 and 280 may not be a dissappointment for some, but I was expecting a larger increase in performance. ATi has nearly caught up to NVIDIA with the 4870, so I am going to give credit where credit is due. A card performs nearly as well as the strongest card the opposition has, yet costs half. What more do you want?
I am not trying to spin the reviews, I am just giving facts. ATi is on top in the price range they have positioned themselves in and the 4870 is quite the performer even when compared to the GTX series.
You don't have to be competitive at the top to be competitive, that is just nonsense. In fact, thats the equivilent of saying every car manufacturer needs to have a $100k sports car so that they can look good. Newsflash, not everybody has the money for a $100k car and not everybody is going to want to spend $650 on a video card, especially when there are cheaper options that offer great performance as well.
AMD is putting way too much confidence in the average buyer then. Not everyone is going to go look at benchmarks. Many will look and say the GTX 280 is the most powerful, the the version of that card in the $200 range must be the most powerful. The car anology is a bad one because sports cars are puree luxury, and don't offer anything any driver needs other than status. A stronger video card provides very tangible improvements.
Not saying they're putting out bad cards, just saying that their strategy is questionable. Also when it comes to video cards a 14% gap is a lot.
member of imminst.org
You mean getting 60 compared to 70 rames isn't a luxury? Knowing that you have a higher 3D mark score isnt a luxury?
It is a luxury, because a 4870 can play all games just as well as the GTX 280, it only loses by a few frames. And its not like those frames really matter because who can distuinguish the difference between 60 and 70 frames?
A 14% gap isn't much, considering the GTX 280 costs more than double the 4870.
The only time when a few frames might matter is when you are playing on a huge resolution with all the effects up, but guess what, the average consumer isn't going to have a 24+ inch monitor. A 4870 will be more than enough for the average gamer.
I happen to think their strategy is much more logical than NVIDIAs, considering there are more consumers in the $200-300 range than there is in the +$600 range. And, I think that those who put an investment in are more often than not going to research products before they buy. Computer gaming is not exactly cheap (compared to consoles) and people like to get the most for their money, especially with the economy the way it is here in the states.
--------------------------------
Desktop - AMD 8450 Tri Core, 3 gigs of DDR2 800 RAM, ATI HD 3200 Graphics, Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit
Laptop (Dell Latitude E6400) - Intel P8400, 2 GIGs of RAM, Intel X4500, Windows XP Professional
ATI/AMD has always aimed for the average buyer. A person above me said the average buyer won't look at benchmarks, and just buy the monster card... is wrong. People who don't watch benchmarks, will buy a mid-range card. Because those are the cards which are the cheapest, and still perform quite well. Those are the cards you can find at less-specialized stores, like Mediamarkt.
Sure, NVidia is more loved by the hardcore 1337 gamers, but there are way less of those than there are normal gamers. That worked for about 2-3 years, nvidia releasing the monster cards, ATI selling to average customers. But now ATI's mid-range cards are beating Nvdia's high-end cards (9800 GTX).
I'm only wondering why they made the whole 3XXX series, those were pieces of crap, even for their prices. If they just skipped those, and focused on the 4XXX series, Nvidia would have suffered... greatly.
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
LOL, very nice benchmarks on anandtech.
Especially on Bioshock! I really got to buy myself an 4850/4870 
. And the improvement on Crossfire is really paying of, again, especially in bioshock, where the 4850 even out performs the GTX 280 SLI.
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
Get the 4870 X2. If the 4870 compares with the GTX 280 then the 4870 X2 should be your luxury car.
Yeah im going for the 4870 personaly, iv always been a ATI fan(always seemed to accept overclocking more) but this time the card just simple wins in the numbers and price, best bang for your buck. Althought i thought it would be 250 like the 3870 launch, guess i was wrong or maybe il just have to wai a month or so so not 1 brand is out.
Personal preference here! But I have never had great experience with the ATI cards when it comes to gaming. Othr stuff, they are okay. When it comes to gaming however, the Nvidia cards have always been a better buy in my not so humble opinion. as for the GTX 200 series, they are a goo card, but not for the price. They are hands down out performed by the X2 cards however. Far better fill rate and shades in the series 9 X2 cards, and for a fair bit less cash. That is my recommendation and what I would buy in your given circumstance.
Its great being able to trumpet around ATI, but there are still some forseeable problems with the 4870. 1st is power consumption. It eats alot. The worst part is that the beginning versions are underclocked in order to consume less power, but its using nearly as much as the GX280 Idle. Might be a driver issue though since this card isn't due out for a little while much like the 260. Scaling these probably won't be possible in Quad Crossfire. Also the 9800 X2 is on the same level as the GX280. Its actually pretty good to get a single GPU performing as well as 2 GPUs.
I really can't use a desktop card from nVidia though. They are made solely to play games. I also use CAD programs that just perform badly with desktop cards. While Workstation cards cost a bunch and don't work well on games. However, the silverlining is ATI's HD cards that are actually able to display polies pretty well mainly because of its stream processor design.
Right now I have to give major props to ati. They released a kick ass card at 199. The only reason the 9800 gtx is 199 now and not 350 is because of ati . Nvidia had a huge lead over ati and they dropped the ball, they released 9800gtx that barely beat the 8800gtx 17 months after its release and still charged 350 for it.
Also you will notice that ati does not reduce the gpu power between there two released cards. Theres no "pipes" turned off, when you pay 100 more for the 4870 you get ddr5 and it has better cooling for the higher clock speed. It also supports directx 10.1, and you can even get physx to work on ati even though it supports havok.
The thing about high end video cards that cracks me up is that you only "need" them when you run huge resolutions. My monitor only supports 1400x900 so even the 4850 is overkill for most games specially mmo's and later i can grab a second 4850 when I need it and when its cheaper.
I have always been a big fan of nvidia ,but there reduced "pipes" on cheaper cards has always ticked me off. Multiple gpu's are the way to go for card makers, you want more performance you get a x2 card or x4. Now granted multiple gpus will be slow adoption by developers just like in the cpu world, but it will come.
Own, Mine, Defend, Attack, 24/7
Either you, or I have been misinformed. The 4XXX series consumes a fair amount, but still less than the GTX 200 series. And for those workstation cards... I have an ATI firegl v3100, the first workstation card ATI made for PCI-e, and I'm able to play most of the latest games, it performs way out of it's league actually. I'm playing Warhammer Mark Of Chaos at an average quality, while it's minimum reqs are 256 MiB vRAM, my card only has 128. And that 128 MiB is still GDDR1, so...
Can't find an explanation for that though, but whatever it is, ATI performed a small miracle in that card.
Can't say I play let's LOTRO at ultra high settings though, it goes to high (or even very high in some places), and I can still feel the difference in 3DS MAX (don't think it has special features for CAD yet though, it has a separate driver for 3DS MAX.). Yet I need a different card, I want better graphics! And the workstation cards are a bit of my price range...
You know it, the best way to realize your dreams is waking up and start moving, never lose hope and always keep up.
Either you, or I have been misinformed. The 4XXX series consumes a fair amount, but still less than the GTX 200 series. And for those workstation cards... I have an ATI firegl v3100, the first workstation card ATI made for PCI-e, and I'm able to play most of the latest games, it performs way out of it's league actually. I'm playing Warhammer Mark Of Chaos at an average quality, while it's minimum reqs are 256 MiB vRAM, my card only has 128. And that 128 MiB is still GDDR1, so...
Can't find an explanation for that though, but whatever it is, ATI performed a small miracle in that card.
Can't say I play let's LOTRO at ultra high settings though, it goes to high (or even very high in some places), and I can still feel the difference in 3DS MAX (don't think it has special features for CAD yet though, it has a separate driver for 3DS MAX.). Yet I need a different card, I want better graphics! And the workstation cards are a bit of my price range...
here we go, I went searching for the power consumption charts from Tom's Hardware. I enjoy this site and frequently visit it for hardware info.
That chart doesn't include the 4870 I was talking about. It idles at 200 watts, and under load is around 278 watts.