4850 or 4870 for me?

khanis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
481
Specs:
X2 5000+ @ 3.1ghz
2 gigs of DDR2 675mhz @ 800mhz
8800GTS 320mb (621/1435/920)

My motherboard doesn't support Phenom CPU's, as there is no BIOS update to enable it.
I can probably get either the 4850 or 4870, but I'm afraid that the 4870 will be bottlenecked by my CPU. I play at 1680x1050, I love AA/AF.
This will probably be my last upgrade til I build an i7 rig later.
What do you think would be best for me?
 

xbob04

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
308
If you hold on to video cards for a while, I'd get the HD4870. If you are upgrading EVERYTHING when you build your new rig, HD4850.
 

mekkanic

Gawd
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
925
I was JUST going to post this question today about playing @ 1680 x 1050 and picking the correct vid card....glad I got the answer before getting any "do a search" replies...

edit: I wonder if 512MB of vid card memory would be enough.....any thoughts?
 

gregnash

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
2,164
would the 4850 512mb be able to hold its own at that res. with everything turned up/on for WAR or WoW (really the only graphics intensive games I play).
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
would the 4850 512mb be able to hold its own at that res. with everything turned up/on for WAR or WoW (really the only graphics intensive games I play).
a 4850 would be a waste of money if thats your current cpu in your sig.
 

gregnash

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
2,164
a 4850 would be a waste of money if thats your current cpu in your sig.

Actually will be doing a complete rebuild when I get the 4850... Looking at:
Foxconn A7DA-S
Sapphire 4850 1GB
G.Skill PI Black 4GB DDR2 - 800mhz
AMD 9600 Agena (not sure about this)
Corsair 650TX
WD Caviar Black 640GB (not sure about this)
XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 120mm
All for just under $800 shipped/tax
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
Actually will be doing a complete rebuild when I get the 4850... Looking at:
Foxconn A7DA-S
Sapphire 4850 1GB
G.Skill PI Black 4GB DDR2 - 800mhz
AMD 9600 Agena (not sure about this)
Corsair 650TX
WD Caviar Black 640GB (not sure about this)
XIGMATEK HDT-S1283 120mm
All for just under $800 shipped/tax
well that will help out tremendously although I wouldnt get that cpu.
 

gregnash

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
2,164
LOL... yes I know that my current system sucks ass.... Hence why I am upgrading soon. But really want to be price conscious because as you can see I don't upgrade often. Up until about the last year or so my current system has been just fine. But now that I have bumped up to the 22" monitor from my old 930B things have gone south a bit.
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
a 4850 would be a waste of money if thats your current cpu in your sig.

No, it isn't. I have an X2 5000 at 3ghz as well along with a 4850. At 1280x1024 I am CPU limited in a couple of games, but the extra power is still definitely worth it. 8xAA is possible in most of the games I play, and I am at a lower resolution (aka, more CPU limited)

and still about half its performance down the drain in newer games. anyway hes upgrading so...

Completely false. My friend has a 9600GT with a Core 2 Quad at 3ghz. He's CPU is much faster, but I still get better FPS because my GPU is faster (my resolution is slightly higher - he plays at 1440x900). I am CPU limited, yes, but its not by all *THAT* much. Games still don't need a fast CPU, and the X2 really isn't all that slow.
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
No, it isn't. I have an X2 5000 at 3ghz as well along with a 4850. At 1280x1024 I am CPU limited in a couple of games, but the extra power is still definitely worth it. 8xAA is possible in most of the games I play, and I am at a lower resolution (aka, more CPU limited)

Completely false. My friend has a 9600GT with a Core 2 Quad at 3ghz. He's CPU is much faster, but I still get better FPS because my GPU is faster (my resolution is slightly higher - he plays at 1440x900). I am CPU limited, yes, but its not by all *THAT* much. Games still don't need a fast CPU, and the X2 really isn't all that slow.
your 5000 X2 is no comparison to his single core 3500 in modern games and yes in some newer games a slow cpu can keep you from getting half the performance that a high end card is capable of. also just look at cpu benchmarks for newer games to get a reality check on just how bad his single core cpu would hold him back.

heck even your cpu is hurting you more than you know it. I had a 2.6 5000 X2 and held back even cards like the 4670 and 9600gt. I had used an overclocked 8600gt for about a year and then decided I wanted a better card. I was surpised that a 4670, 9600gt or even a 8800gt delivered the SAME minimum framerates as the 8600gt did in my system. pairing the 4670 with a decent Core 2 game me those numbers I saw in all the reviews of the card though. even on a slow 4670 I literally got a 25-35% increase in performance in newer games over the 5000 X2 and yes I ran benchmarks to prove it.

just imagine how bad a slow X2 not to mention his old single core 3500 will hold back a faster card. if you look at cpu benchmarks for newer games they look almost like gpu benchmarks do where you have a huge range from top to bottom. those like me that have actually dumped their slow cpus and upgraded now KNOW that it makes a huge difference.
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
your 5000 X2 is no comparison to his single core 3500 in modern games and yes in some newer games a slow cpu can keep you from getting half the performance that a high end card is capable of. also just look at cpu benchmarks for newer games to get a reality check on just how bad his single core cpu would hold him back.

I assume we are still talking about the OP here, who has a 3.1ghz X2 as per the first post

Specs:
X2 5000+ @ 3.1ghz
2 gigs of DDR2 675mhz @ 800mhz
8800GTS 320mb (621/1435/920)

heck even your cpu is hurting you more than you know it. I had a 2.6 5000 X2 and held back even cards like the 4670 and 9600gt. I had used an overclocked 8600gt for about a year and then decided I wanted a better card. I was surpised that a 4670, 9600gt or even a 8800gt delivered the SAME minimum framerates as the 8600gt did in my system. pairing the 4670 with a decent Core 2 game me those numbers I saw in all the reviews of the card though. even on a slow 4670 I literally got a 25-35% increase in performance in newer games over the 5000 X2 and yes I ran benchmarks to prove it.

just imagine how bad a slow X2 not to mention his old single core 3500 will hold back a faster card. if you look at cpu benchmarks for newer games they look almost like gpu benchmarks do where you have a huge range from top to bottom. those like me that have actually dumped their slow cpus and upgraded now KNOW that it makes a huge difference.

I'm running a 3ghz X2 and I have done my own set of benchmarking. I upgraded from a 7950GT (which is faster than the 8600GT) and saw a *huge* increase in FPS (min/avg/max) while increasing the IQ (from no AA to 24xCFAA and still had higher FPS). Again, comparing it to my friends rig with a Core 2 Quad at 3ghz but a 9600GT my system is faster in games. Comparing it to the results [H] get my system only trails by a little. Games barely use a second core (if at all), so even the guy with the single core really isn't all that bad off, as all it takes is a high clock, fast single core to run modern games.
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
I assume we are still talking about the OP here, who has a 3.1ghz X2 as per the first post

I'm running a 3ghz X2 and I have done my own set of benchmarking. I upgraded from a 7950GT (which is faster than the 8600GT) and saw a *huge* increase in FPS (min/avg/max) while increasing the IQ (from no AA to 24xCFAA and still had higher FPS). Again, comparing it to my friends rig with a Core 2 Quad at 3ghz but a 9600GT my system is faster in games. Comparing it to the results [H] get my system only trails by a little. Games barely use a second core (if at all), so even the guy with the single core really isn't all that bad off, as all it takes is a high clock, fast single core to run modern games.
no and you originally quoted me when I was directly responding to someone about their single core 3500. see all the confusion you caused for nothing. :p:D

also you are VERY WRONG thinking that dual cores dont matter and you need a BIG reality check. saying that a fast single core is all thats needed to run modern games is beyond silly especially for the newest titles like Far Cry 2.


here are a few games that really arent very cpu intensive but even in these you will see that the dual core helps.

in Bioshock at 1600x1200 and high quality even a slow dual core gets 50% better framerates then a fast single core Athlon. also that Athlon that is getting killed is stronger than his 3500 so you do the math.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6177688/p-7.html

even worse results for a single core in CoD4 an max settings. again the Athlon 64 that is getting killed is faster than his 3500 cpu.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/p-5.html

Crysis at 1600x1200 and high quality the single core Athlon is still losing pretty bad. dont forget that his 3500 is slower than a Athlon 64 4000.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html

World in Conflict at 1600x1200 and Very High Quality gets 10fps on Athlon 64 4000 which is less than half of the slowest Core 2 performance. Again remember that the A64 4000+ thats getting killed is faster than his 3500.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6179006/p-7.html



here are some newer more cpu intensive games where a single core will not even get very playable framerates if at all.

a single core cpu cant really even get playable framerates in Far Cry 2.
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,663817/Reviews/Far_Cry_2-_GPU_and_CPU_benchmarks/?page=2

single core 4000 A64 which is stronger than his 3500 cpu can only get 17fps in Warhead.[
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...ecial_and_general_info_about_the_game/?page=2

hey his single core cpu will only get him SINGLE digit fps in GTA 4. http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...U_benchmark_review_with_13_processors/?page=2



here are a few of my own results with my GTX260. his 3500 cpu is about equal to one of my E8500 cores downclocked to 2.0 so his results would be close to these. this will give you an idea of how much better a fast dual core is compared to a relatively slow single core cpu like his.

E8500 @3.16 stock vs E8500 @2.0 single core(as strong or slightly stronger than his 3500 A64)


Call of Juarez 1680x1050 all high no AA
E8500 @3.16.... 61 fps
E8500 @2.00.... 27 fps

Fallout 3 1680x1050 max settings 4x AA
E8500 @3.16.... 59 fps
E8500 @2.00.... 28 fps

Crysis 1680x1050 DX10 high no AA
E8500 @3.16.... 37.25 fps
E8500 @2.00.... 12.27 fps

Far Cry 2 1680x1050 ultra settings 2x AA
E8500 @3.16.... 52.22 fps
E8500 @2.00.... 12.06 fps

turning down the settings will not really help in those newer games because its the cpu that is holding them back from getting good framerates.
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
very true that he will be bottlenecked by the 3500 and maybe kllrnohj will get it now...

I never said he wouldn't be bottlenecked. I thought we were talking about the OP with the 3.1ghz X2. I didn't realize the thread had been hijacked after half a page.Thats what I get for not paying more attention to the posters.

That said, your counter-argument doesn't counter what I said. I said a *fast, high clocked* single core. Downclocking your E8200 to 2ghz doesn't count as fast or high clocked (neither does the links you posted as they didn't include a fast, high-clocked single core - I'm assuming that OC'ing is on the table given that this is the [H] forums) ;) Repeat that test but leave the E8200 at 3.1ghz - just disable a core. I also never said that dual-cores didn't matter, I just said that he isn't that bad off (with the games he said he plays being WAR and WoW)
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
I never said he wouldn't be bottlenecked. I thought we were talking about the OP with the 3.1ghz X2. I didn't realize the thread had been hijacked after half a page.Thats what I get for not paying more attention to the posters.

That said, your counter-argument doesn't counter what I said. I said a *fast, high clocked* single core. Downclocking your E8200 to 2ghz doesn't count as fast or high clocked (neither does the links you posted as they didn't include a fast, high-clocked single core - I'm assuming that OC'ing is on the table given that this is the [H] forums) ;) Repeat that test but leave the E8200 at 3.1ghz - just disable a core. I also never said that dual-cores didn't matter, I just said that he isn't that bad off (with the games he said he plays being WAR and WoW)
just look over those numbers as some include the AMD 4000 which was the highest clocked and fastest single core cpu from AMD. also my cpu at 2.0 is indeed faster than the fastest single core cpu. there is no single core cpu made that would be as fast as one of my cores at 3.16 so that argument is irrelevant.

again just look at the cpu benchmarks for the newest games and even if you overclocked a single core cpu to record breaking speed you would only get in the teens for GTA 4, Far Cry 2 and Crysis. :eek:



just for fun I ran the Far Cry 2 benchmark again with one core disabled and one at stock 3.16 speed. this is sort of pointless because like I said there is no single core cpu that would be this fast anyway.

Average Framerate: 16.09
Max. Framerate: 26.05
Min. Framerate: 9.12
 

alg7_munif

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
5,862
The HD 4850 will be bottlenecked but don't forget that it will also be a massive improvement in single threaded games over the 7600GS even if it is bottlenecked.
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
The HD 4850 will be bottlenecked but don't forget that it will also be a massive improvement in single threaded games over the 7600GS even if it is bottlenecked.
yes but if it doesnt allow you to play all the newer games then the final results are almost useless. you cant really turn down settings to help with the framerate if the cpu is problem. its clear that several games will be in the teens and single digits no matter what video card someone goes with if they have a single core cpu. anyway he is smart enough to realize that and he will be upgrading that 3500 like he said.
 

khanis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
481
The HD 4850 will be bottlenecked but don't forget that it will also be a massive improvement in single threaded games over the 7600GS even if it is bottlenecked.

The thing is, the money could be better spent by getting something weaker like the 4670, which would offer nearly the same performance as the 4850 with that rig.
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
just look over those numbers as some include the AMD 4000 which was the highest clocked and fastest single core cpu from AMD. also my cpu at 2.0 is indeed faster than the fastest single core cpu. there is no single core cpu made that would be as fast as one of my cores at 3.16 so that argument is irrelevant.

You are ignoring overclocking which, given this forum, is something you need to take into accoount. A 4000+ OC'd to 2.8ghz would beat your C2D with 1 core disabled at 2.0ghz (and AMD makes a 2.6ghz Athlon64 ;) )

again just look at the cpu benchmarks for the newest games and even if you overclocked a single core cpu to record breaking speed you would only get in the teens for GTA 4, Far Cry 2 and Crysis. :eek:

GTA IV has Euphoria - massive CPU needs and Crysis doesn't run well on anything. I would hardly compare those games to the likes of WoW :rolleyes:
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
The thing is, the money could be better spent by getting something weaker like the 4670, which would offer nearly the same performance as the 4850 with that rig.

With the single core 3500, yes, with the X2 5000+ at 3.1ghz, no. I hate hijacked threads, they make things needlessly confusing
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
You are ignoring overclocking which, given this forum, is something you need to take into accoount. A 4000+ OC'd to 2.8ghz would beat your C2D with 1 core disabled at 2.0ghz (and AMD makes a 2.6ghz Athlon64 ;) )



GTA IV has Euphoria - massive CPU needs and Crysis doesn't run well on anything. I would hardly compare those games to the likes of WoW :rolleyes:
a 4000 overclocked to 2.8 would probably not beat one of my cores at 2.0 and even if it did what difference would it make?..1 to 2 fps? if you could look at those benchmarks you would see that the 4000 made some newer games unplayable so overclocking wont matter since framerates would still be in the teens at best. I never mentioned WoW but you said what you said about single cores in modern games so I gave you a reality check for the newer titles. just admit that single cores cant play most newer titles very good if at all and be done with it. you are just arguing for the sake of it now. ;)
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845

proof?

I never mentioned WoW but you said what you said about single cores in modern games so I gave you a reality check for the newer titles. just admit that single cores cant play most newer titles very good if at all and be done with it. you are just arguing for the sake of it now.

Wrath of the Lich King and Left4Dead are both new releases, even newer than Crysis :p (but again, the part about modern games was for the OPs X2 @ 3.1ghz)
 

gregnash

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
2,164
Sorry for all the confusion by my hijacking of the thread. I felt that I was soon to be in the same situation as the OP so was wondering where to go.

Like the OP I want the best bang for the buck but also want to ensure that I will be able to play current games (in my case WoW and WAR) at maxed everything at the resolution of 1680x1050. And with upcoming games like StarCraft2 and Diablo3 it would be nice to "future proof" myself if possible in determining whether our money is better spent on a card with 512mb or 1024mb. From there we will be able to make the decision of whether to stay with the 4850 or move up to a 4870.
 

Ogilvy

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
2,723

Proof:

Fallout 3 1680x1050 8XAA 15XAF GTX 260 After 5 mins. of gameplay...






Crysis and Warhead will also go over 512 MB at that res. with higher shaders and objects.

If you're running newer games with high-ultra settings and have a GPU that can handle it, it's best to have over 512 MB of VRAM.

Unless Rivatuner is erroneously reporting vidmem usage...I can only comment on what i've tested and observed. Games run smoother with more VRAM.
 

khanis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
481
According to most benchmarks, the 4850 1GB doesn't really show any improvement in FPS over the 512mb version.
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
Proof:

Fallout 3 1680x1050 8XAA 15XAF GTX 260 After 5 mins. of gameplay...






Crysis and Warhead will also go over 512 MB at that res. with higher shaders and objects.

If you're running newer games with high-ultra settings and have a GPU that can handle it, it's best to have over 512 MB of VRAM.

Unless Rivatuner is erroneously reporting vidmem usage...I can only comment on what i've tested and observed. Games run smoother with more VRAM.

I wouldn't call that proof. I want actual, real FPS numbers. Games pre-allocate more memory than they will need because allocating memory is dreadfully slow. All the reviews of the 4870 1GB I've seen have the 4870 1GB being faster, yes, but not by all that much, and it isn't a case where unplayable became playable. I think that by the time 512mb is not enough there will have been a new generation worth upgrading to anyway.
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
I wouldn't call that proof. I want actual, real FPS numbers. Games pre-allocate more memory than they will need because allocating memory is dreadfully slow. All the reviews of the 4870 1GB I've seen have the 4870 1GB being faster, yes, but not by all that much, and it isn't a case where unplayable became playable. I think that by the time 512mb is not enough there will have been a new generation worth upgrading to anyway.
fps numbers dont always tell the whole story. thats even been mentioned in reviews right here on Hardocp when it comes to video memory.
 

Ogilvy

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
2,723
Well, what I was proving, is that some newer games might require more than 512 MB of VRAM @ 1680 x 1050 if you use AA and higher textures. If you're going to buy a 9800 GT or 9600 GT or another midlevel card and run everything on med-high, then you probably won't need more than 512 MB.

But if your GPU(s) can afford you to crank up the settings to max with AA, then I believe a card should have more than 512 MB. Even [H] has said this in recent reviews, stating they "can't recommend" an HD 4870 512 MB anymore because of the lack of VRAM.

I think an HD 4850 is a good enough GPU where you can use more than 512 MB for better, smoother gameplay. I have the X2 4850, and it runs very, very well with the 1 GB per GPU framebuffer.


As far as raw framerates....again, I have to site the GX2 benchmarks, beating the GTX 280 in many games, but ask anyone who has ever owned a GX2 and now a 280. They will tell you hands down they'd keep their 280 over the GX2.
 

kllrnohj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
6,845
Well, what I was proving, is that some newer games might require more than 512 MB of VRAM @ 1680 x 1050 if you use AA and higher textures. If you're going to buy a 9800 GT or 9600 GT or another midlevel card and run everything on med-high, then you probably won't need more than 512 MB.

But if your GPU(s) can afford you to crank up the settings to max with AA, then I believe a card should have more than 512 MB. Even [H] has said this in recent reviews, stating they "can't recommend" an HD 4870 512 MB anymore because of the lack of VRAM.

I think an HD 4850 is a good enough GPU where you can use more than 512 MB for better, smoother gameplay. I have the X2 4850, and it runs very, very well with the 1 GB per GPU framebuffer.

I don't think the 4850 will ever see much benefit from the extra 1GB of RAM, at least not enough to justify an extra $30-50 when the 4850 512 is only $125 with the 4850 1GB being $160

Crossfiring two 4850s, as in the case of your X2, is a different story, and 1GB would definitely be the way to go. But if its just a single card, I don't think its worth it.

As far as raw framerates....again, I have to site the GX2 benchmarks, beating the GTX 280 in many games, but ask anyone who has ever owned a GX2 and now a 280. They will tell you hands down they'd keep their 280 over the GX2.

fps numbers dont always tell the whole story. thats even been mentioned in reviews right here on Hardocp when it comes to video memory.

I agree, but game run throughs tend to be harder to find, so I wasn't going to be picky. If the video card runs out of VRAM, the FPS will drop like a rock (see the old 8800GTS 320 vs. 640mb for an example)
 
Top