AMD tests 4870 and 4870CF-beats GTX260 in Crysis-rumor

Yeorwned said:
Run at 1920x1200 and AA really is useless...you can't tell the difference with a monitor equipped with a sexy dot pitch.
Click to expand...

It is misconception that at high res like 1920x1200 don't need AA - maybe for a CRT monitor. Actually even at 1920x1200 24" LCD, with AA or without AA is very apparent in the game like Age of Conan or World in Conflict. Jagged edges are very apparent without AA.

Crysis might be a exception that framerates will drop too much when running AA so people would normally running it without AA on. Also unless you hacked it, it won't let u run AA at Dx 9.
 
I didn't hack anything for sure. What is the drop down box in the graphics tab in game then? AF? I could have sworn it was AA. Running DX9.

I've never noticed any jagged edges in Age of Conan since I moved to 1920x. I did see them at 1280 on my old 17" but my subscription expired last night so I can't check anything there at this point. I bought the game for the team based PvP server which was a waste of time...

Sounds like you're going out of your way to find edges and reason for AA though.
 
Yeorwned said:
I didn't hack anything for sure. What is the drop down box in the graphics tab in game then? AF? I could have sworn it was AA. Running DX9.

I've never noticed any jagged edges in Age of Conan since I moved to 1920x. I did see them at 1280 on my old 17" but my subscription expired last night so I can't check anything there at this point. I bought the game for the team based PvP server which was a waste of time...

Sounds like you're going out of your way to find edges and reason for AA though.
Click to expand...

I normally run the game without AA on first, if jagged edges bothers me too much, then I would turn AA on, at least to 2xAA. My sig system is not a fast system, so I am in no position to let my framerate drop unless really need it.

Too bad you can't run AoC anymore. Without AA on, even at the character selection page, you will see very obvious jagged edges on high detail avatars.

About Crysis' Dx9 with AA, I haven't run it for a while on, so don't quote me on it. At least I remember in the Crysis demo, it won't let me select AA under Dx9 mode.
 
What resolution are you running Conan at?

I've never tried the Crysis demo so I'm assuming there are definitely some differences. The story line is cheesy but it's a neat game considering how you can react with just about anything.
 
Yeorwned said:
What resolution are you running Conan at?

I've never tried the Crysis demo so I'm assuming there are definitely some differences. The story line is cheesy but it's a neat game considering how you can react with just about anything.
Click to expand...

My monitor is 24" 1920x1200 LCD. So naturally I would try to run every game at default resolution.

Crysis' cheesy story line about North Koreans in South Asia that is fantasy. They can't even make it out of their own Korean penisula. Use Communist Chinese is more appropriate. But then again, they might offend a quarter population of world gamers (like Sharon Stone and Richard Gere), so game developers generally would avoid in doing that.
 
RB30 said:
It is misconception that at high res like 1920x1200 don't need AA - maybe for a CRT monitor. Actually even at 1920x1200 24" LCD, with AA or without AA is very apparent in the game like Age of Conan or World in Conflict. Jagged edges are very apparent without AA.
Click to expand...

Indeed - AA only becomes less important when DPI increases, not resolution.
 
I can tell you that when I have an NVIDIA Geforce 7800GTX on the 1280 @ 17" monitor, I definately saw edges at character selection. When I jumped to the ATI Radeon HD4850 on the 1920 @ 24" monitor, I saw none. Both with AA off because of performance. Could it be driver related at this point? On the Conan forums, thousands of threads dealing with video card issues so there are definitely some driver issues out there...

turumbar said:
Indeed - AA only becomes less important when DPI increases, not resolution.
Click to expand...
and when you have a 24" monitor with a 1920 resolution, you're getting really high up there in pixel pitch.
 
Yeorwned said:
I can tell you that when I have an NVIDIA Geforce 7800GTX on the 1280 @ 17" monitor, I definately saw edges at character selection. When I jumped to the ATI Radeon HD4850 on the 1920 @ 24" monitor, I saw none. Both with AA off because of performance. Could it be driver related at this point? On the Conan forums, thousands of threads dealing with video card issues so there are definitely some driver issues out there...
Click to expand...

I saw those jagged edges on character menu the very first time that I ran AoC. Ever since I turned on the 4xAA. Since my frame rates are not that good in big city like Old Tarantia 14-30fps with max distance and shadows max, I will try AoC with 2xAA or no AA later.
 
RB30 said:
Since my frame rates are not that good in big city like Old Tarantia 14-30fps with max distance and shadows max
Click to expand...
Imagine how I felt the first time around on an overclocked 7800 that got 5 FPS in Tortage/OT with draw distance at less than 10% :mad:

Amazing what $150 upgrade will do...
 
Yeorwned said:
and when you have a 24" monitor with a 1920 resolution, you're getting really high up there in pixel pitch.
Click to expand...

I thought 24" 1920x1200 has approximately the same dpi as 22" 1680x1050 or 19" 1280x1024?
 
Yeorwned said:
Imagine how I felt the first time around on an overclocked 7800 that got 5 FPS in Tortage/OT with draw distance at less than 10% :mad:

Amazing what $150 upgrade will do...
Click to expand...

I know what you mean about 7800. I used to have 7800GT on this sig system. Then I added another 7800GT for SLI. Later swapped to 8800 Ultra beating 7800GT SLI hand down.
 
RB30 said:
I thought 24" 1920x1200 has approximately the same dpi as 22" 1680x1050 or 19" 1280x1024?
Click to expand...
My old 17" has 73DPI while my new 24" has 94DPI so considerable difference. The 22" I took bad sported 88DPI. The average 30" screen running 2560 is over 100DPI.
 
Yeorwned said:
and when you have a 24" monitor with a 1920 resolution, you're getting really high up there in pixel pitch.
Click to expand...

That's actually a pretty normal pixel pitch. A 17' 1280x1024 monitor has ~90 DPI, and a 24' 1920x1200 monitor has ~95 DPI. You really want something with >150 DPI, preferably > 200, if you want to ignore AA.
 
Yeorwned said:
I didn't hack anything for sure. What is the drop down box in the graphics tab in game then? AF? I could have sworn it was AA. Running DX9.

I've never noticed any jagged edges in Age of Conan since I moved to 1920x. I did see them at 1280 on my old 17" but my subscription expired last night so I can't check anything there at this point. I bought the game for the team based PvP server which was a waste of time...

Sounds like you're going out of your way to find edges and reason for AA though.
Click to expand...


I just double checked regarding AA on Age of Conan.

When I turned off AA, in the character selection menu, my Stygian character's hair and the Stygian flag pole, massive and ugly jagged edges all around. Unbearable.

At 2xAA, jagged edges were still noticable, but not as bad as AA off.

At 4xAA, jagged edges were not noticable (only very very faint), so 4xAA is the sweet spot.
 
I finally broke down and bought parts to do a system rebuild so I can crossfire my two 4850s on an X48 chip so I'll check the AA on an ATI setup this weekend if I can get a hold of a friends account info.
 
I proclaim the benchmarks as true.

Other sites also describe that 4870 as slightly faster than the GTX 260.
 
Unless you have a 22" with 1920x1200 resolution, your DPI is pretty much the same as every other lcd :)
 
DPI is relevant when considering viewing distance and whether you want to catch all the detail.
If you have higher DPI, you may need/want to sit closer to the screen.
Lower DPI and you can sit further back.

Just thought I'd drop that in, not really replying to anything :)
 
hd4870sdh5.png


Our AMD rep gave us the green light to post some preliminary benchmarks of the HD4870s in single and CrossFireX setups. We have the stats on our forums, check it out!

We've tested our cards in Vista 32bit. It certainly looks promising for the Reds considering the pricepoint they are offering their HD4800 series cards. :D
 
iBP_James said:
Our AMD rep gave us the green light to post some preliminary benchmarks of the HD4870s in single and CrossFireX setups. We have the stats on our forums, check it out!

We've tested our cards in Vista 32bit. It certainly looks promising for the Reds considering the pricepoint they are offering their HD4800 series cards. :D
Click to expand...


Thank you for bringing your benchmark stats to us, but I found those benchmarks are pointless because:

1. benchmark resolution 1280x1024 are 1600x1200 are too low for today's systems. At these resolutions, they tended to be CPU bound.

2. Your CPU QX9770 at 4.0Ghz to too much for normal users. Since at your resolutions, the framerates are CPU bound and you are testing with a super fast CPU, we don't know if the 4870's performance are actually been tested.
 
RB30 said:
Thank you for bringing your benchmark stats to us, but I found those benchmarks are pointless because:

1. benchmark resolution 1280x1024 are 1600x1200 are too low for today's systems. At these resolutions, they tended to be CPU bound.

2. Your CPU QX9770 at 4.0Ghz to too much for normal users. Since at your resolutions, the framerates are CPU bound and you are testing with a super fast CPU, we don't know if the 4870's performance are actually been tested.
Click to expand...

We wanted to make sure that the GPUs weren't going to be CPU bound in any way.

You can also see that there are some slight FPS drops from lower resolutions to going to higher resolutions does mark some FPS drop, the 4870s seem to be adequately tested in 1600 x 1200 resolution (which is already more pixels than WSXGA+ 1680 x 1050). :)

All-in-all, a great value for the money as we do more tests to bench its capabilities. :D
 
iBP_James said:
We wanted to make sure that the GPUs weren't going to be CPU bound in any way.

You can also see that there are some slight FPS drops from lower resolutions to going to higher resolutions does mark some FPS drop, the 4870s seem to be adequately tested in 1600 x 1200 resolution (which is already more pixels than WSXGA+ 1680 x 1050). :)

All-in-all, a great value for the money as we do more tests to bench its capabilities. :D
Click to expand...

It would be great if you have a 280 running on the same system for base line and add a common widescreen 24" resolution 1920x1200.

The crossfire benchmark results look very dispointing especially in World in Conflict, at 1600x1200 CF actually has lower framerate.
 
RB30 said:
It would be great if you have a 280 running on the same system for base line and add a common widescreen 24" resolution 1920x1200.

The crossfire benchmark results look very dispointing especially in World in Conflict, at 1600x1200 CF actually has lower framerate.
Click to expand...

That was actually a typo. :(
 
RB30 said:
It would be great if you have a 280 running on the same system for base line and add a common widescreen 24" resolution 1920x1200.
Click to expand...

Do the majority of LCD owners have native 1920x1200 24" monitors?

I'd think 22" would be the majority with 1680x1050 or 1600x1200 resolutions.
 
Frostex said:
the only single reason i would consider a slower card like this is for Crossfire and the scaling is utterly crap here... Nvidia SLI scales a lot better than Xfire does. If you're shooting for Multicard systems this is a big problem for price:performance.
Click to expand...

you don't have a clue what you're talking about...
 
also, my processor is 1 ghz slower, a q6600 at 3.0 ghz, and I only score about 3,500 less on 3dmark06 than you did with the 4870's, and I run dual 3870's.
 
GlacierFreeze said:
Do the majority of LCD owners have native 1920x1200 24" monitors?

I'd think 22" would be the majority with 1680x1050 or 1600x1200 resolutions.
Click to expand...

24" is the current norm for new PC purchasers. Besides we are looking at benchmarks of high-end video cards offered by ATI and nVidia, naturally a $400 24" 1920x1200 LCD monitor is the standard.

Just look at the benchmark system, he is using QX9770, a $1500 CPU. Is that a majority?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top