some ATI 4800 details

The numbers I have seen so far look to be in favor of ATI, but like most have said I too have yet to see a true in game benchmark of the cards. If AMD keeps pricing below 300 dollars for their single gpu cards they will basically beat Nvidia all around. The GT200 seems to be fast, but it produces a lot of heat and takes a lot of juice where as the 4800 series seems to take after the 3800 series in power consumption and the amount of heat it will put off. It looks like a repeat of the 9700 and the 5800 situation. To everyone that has seen numbers does it seem like something is wrong with this whole picture? Is Nvidia releasing news about a fake card and really releasing something completely different to fool everyone? It just seems that they were making some great cards at good prices like the 9600gt and they come out with this and it is almost the complete opposite. I guess this all doesn't matter because we will see in about a month anyways plus even after the cards are released we can just blame it on drivers for about a year.
 
good job, AMD. That's right after my birthday, when I get my fat checks from grandma.

And everyone knows tom's loves intel and doesn't like AMD. There's even people on their own forums that say that.

It's probably my rampant AMD fanboyism, but I think that if Tom's is right about teh "Trojan" name, I think AMD plans on quietly dropping a bomb on NVIDIA. Didn't the whole trojan story involve a bunch of people who were getting their asses kicked sending a horse into the enemy base, and then having that fake horse statue present thing open up a can of whoop ass?

I don't remember all that stuff, but it's something to think about. Specially with these NDA guys running around with little smile emoticons.

The 8800GTS 320mb does not have the balls to feed my new g2400 monitor. =[
 
Mad_CatMk2 said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ati-radeon-4800,5375.html

hmm...why does Tom's always get 'these kind' of news.
Any credibility? (Esp the fact that the 4 series is going to be released after the GT 200?)
:confused:
Click to expand...

hmm... donno, Toms has traditionally been pretty slanted in NVs favor...

But still, if its true, and the HD4870 really does consume only double or low triple digit wattage figures, ATI should make it a point of marketing to advertise " you will NOT need to upgrade your powersupply, unlike some 240W TDP people".
 
Yeah u guys notice this quote from Tom's article :p

"Yes, we know, we previously said that the 4800 series would launch in May, but as it stands right now, we won’t be seeing the first new cards until mid-June."

I can't wait to see these new cards though :)
 
MyIllusion said:
Yeah u guys notice this quote from Tom's article :p

"Yes, we know, we previously said that the 4800 series would launch in May, but as it stands right now, we won’t be seeing the first new cards until mid-June."

I can't wait to see these new cards though :)
Click to expand...

That's nothing new. Many rumors already pointed to a paper launch in May and availability only in June/July.
 
As far as guesses go for the performance of each card, these are mine (based on specs alone obviously):

The HD 4870 should be a single chip card that performs close or equal to the HD 3870 X2, which makes it about 30% slower than the 9800 GX2.
The HD 4870 X2 should be 70% faster than the HD 4870, without Crossfire woes in mind.
As for the single GT200 based card (9900 GTX), it should be 10-20% faster than the GX2.

So, based on specs alone, only the HD 4870 X2 should match or surpass the 9900 GTX.
 
NVIDIA is badtalking Intel, not AMD...that is an important hint.
When NVIDIA is very quiet about a new generation, it's usually good ;)
 
Atech said:
NVIDIA is badtalking Intel, not AMD...that is an important hint.
When NVIDIA is very quiet about a new generation, it's usually good ;)
Click to expand...

Could the same be spoken about AMD too? They're pretty quiet. :cool:

Let's hope for some HEALTHY competition this summer.
 
I wouldn't think Nvidia is screwed. AMD has a whole lot of ground to make up in the graphics market & a single series isn't going to do it. Nvidia is dominating in every area of the market pretty much. Sales & market share wise I'm referring to. Not performance where people tend to argue most about. If all of the rumors hold up to be true, then the 4800 series will be a damn good one. It wont be what the 9xxx series did to Nvidias FX series however so it still may not be enough to knock the iron grip NV has on the GPU market atm. AMD needs to keep releasing gen after gen after gen of superior parts if they want to be on the top of things. We will still benefit the most if it drives down prices in the long run. I won't be complaining about that :).
 
When I upgrade my 8800GT, I will not be upgrading my power supply to compensate. ATI gets my dollar.
 
Even if general availability is June, benchmarks should be in within the next few weeks on engineering samples, right?
 
damn, I need a new video card and am sick of waiting. But ATI is looking good here. Not counting out Nvidia, I think they will at least keep the high end even if the card is ridiculous. I am looking forward to the price / performance that they are promising.
 
If the price point of the 4870 is indeed $230, Crossfire 4870s will be cheaper than the GTX 280

Which leads to the next question, which has better performance, one GTX280 or crossfire 4870s?
 
Eldragon said:
If the price point of the 4870 is indeed $230, Crossfire 4870s will be cheaper than the GTX 280

Which leads to the next question, which has better performance, one GTX280 or crossfire 4870s?
Click to expand...

The HD 4870 is not rumored to cost $230. The MSRP is rumored to be $349. GTX 280 is rumored to cost $499, which is the rumored price for the HD 4870 X2.
 
Silus said:
The HD 4870 is not rumored to cost $230. The MSRP is rumored to be $349. GTX 280 is rumored to cost $499, which is the rumored price for the HD 4870 X2.
Click to expand...

I Got the following from Tom's Hardware:
The Radeon 4850 will succeed the 3850 512MB and should cost about $189-$219 at launch. Our sources indicated that 4870 GDDR5 cards will cost between $249 and $279, but somehow we feel that AMD might aim go for $199 and $249 at launch

And this From Fudzilla:

ATI's Radeon RV770XT-based cards powered with GDDR5 memory will end up with a $229 suggested e-tail price and it’s likely to drop quickly to under the $200 mark. This is the price for a 512MB card that should be the top of the mainstream / performance line of ATI RV770 generation.


These are of course, Rumors too. We won't know for sure until the end of the month or so.
 
If you think that a 800+ million transistors card, with GDDR5 an 480 Stream Processors, will only cost $200-230, you need to think again. Not even the GDDR3 model will cost only $200-230, much less the GDDR5 model.

Rumors are rumors, but nonsense rumors are crystal clear.
 
Man I am psyched...this 4870 512MB card looks like my long awaited single-GPU sucessor to my X1900 CF after a bunch of unworthy releases from both camps. Up until these cards I would've either had to swap over to an SLI board or throw down on a very expensive GPU to see a significant improvement...now I can get a $300 single card that will pwn harder than the X1900s...perfect!
 
Well, I hope that guru3d rumor is what the HD 4870 is as that would be just awesome. However, the VR-Zone rumor sounds more plausible. Here's hoping though.
 
Thread bookmarked for a lookback after launch to see who made the right calls..and who was just letting out FUD ;)
 
This is what vr-zone says:
4870 is 30% faster than a 4850
The 4850 is 25% faster than a 9800 GT
The 4870 is 25% faster than a 9800 GTX

Their math doesn't add up.

Coming from the 8800 GT with 112 SPs with the 9800 GTX having 128 SPs, there at least a 15% gap in performance. From what I have seen the 9800 GT will have about the same performance as a 8800 GT too. So with that you can say that the 4850 will be about 10% faster then a 9800 GTX. Putting a 4870 at least 40% faster then a 9800 GTX (Adding the 30% on to the 10%). This is the main reason I don't believe it.
 
holy sh*t!! got some new screens of a 3dmark06 run!!
18297 with an AMD 4400+ and with a GDDR3 version of the 4870!
Here
 
coolchu001 said:
holy sh*t!! got some new screens of a 3dmark06 run!!
18297 with an AMD 4400+ and with a GDDR3 version of the 4870!
Here
Click to expand...

What will that 3D-shitty-marks picture tells us about performance?
Ab-so-fuck-ing-lut-ly nothing...it's a worthless number, giving NO indication of gaming performance...
 
Atech said:
What will that 3D-shitty-marks picture tells us about performance?
Ab-so-fuck-ing-lut-ly nothing...it's a worthless number, giving NO indication of gaming performance...
Click to expand...

higher #s most likely mean better gaming/3d performance
 
coolchu001 said:
higher #s most likely mean better gaming/3d performance
Click to expand...

Bollock compare the 2900Xt vs 8800...or hell compare the current generations...3D-shitty-makrs are useless...only good for n00b/ePenis stuff...

Wanna know the preformance in games...go play some games!
 
Isn't that the screen shot that was proved false? Besides that if thats just a 2 core cpu being a AMD one with a high score like that, I'm pretty sure it will translate into good gaming scores. People had a hard time getting that with a intel quad overclocked to over 4 ghz with one volt modded 8800 GTS G92.
 
The VR Zone and guru3d numbers could be right.....sometimes the 3870X2 got horrible speeds due to driver issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top