im looking at getting a 4870 soon but want to know what quality and resolutions it will handle on games like crisis to know wether or not i need to spend more money or wait for the x2 model. Has anyone seen or done benchies for the 4870 in any recent games?

I would like to see them, thanks

Dang... you live in a cave bro?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341

And if you know how to use "the Google" I'm pretty sure you'll be able to find some preliminary benchmarks on a 4870X2. They're out there in the tubes somewhere.

www.google.com in case you can't find it

ATI are sitting on a gold mine, not sure this will save AMD/ATI, but it can't hurt.

But, I don't think nVidia will go down without a fight -- at least I hope not.

AMD makes it sound like ATI is dragging them down. With the R700 family of GPUs kicking @55, it kind of sounds like the other way around... Anywho, with the 4870x2 rolling out this quarter, hopefully they can start to see profits towards the end of the year. I need my $5 shares to make me some money.

just got my 4870 today!

My PC specs are listed in my sig.

9734 pts
========
SM2 - 4145
SM3 - 5253
CPU - 1975

Thats with my CPU at 2.6Ghz (stock).

10677 pts
========
SM2 - 4566
SM3 - 5586
CPU - 2241

Thats with my CPU clocked to 3.0 Ghz.

By the looks of it you need a fast processor to get the most out of the card. my X2 5000+ isn't really good enough.

Something is wrong there. There is no way it it would bench so low. The cpu score pulls down overall score, but the sm2 and sm3 are too low. SM2 can somewhat be pulled down by lower cpu clock, but SM3 should be mostly independent of cpu at the high 3ghz mark.

Here's benchmark from 8800gts. Notice the 6.4-6.6k shader scores. A 4870 is supposed to wipe the floor with it.

I just want to know how you got that CPU to 3.6 GHz with 4 sticks of RAM. I managed it with 2 but after that it just said 'no' and had to roll back to 3.2

I didn't have to do anything. Just put in the sticks, ran it at the stock 800mhz at 1:1 ratio at 1600mhz fsb for 3.6ghz. Any reason it shouldn't work?

Here's my personal benchie from 3D06

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=7481500

You'll see my specs in there and I ran the full series of test to give you a better idea. (This was overclocked but I cant remember the exact figures but I did get 122 fps in 3dfur stress test (ran for 30 mins) at this OC 780/1075 @1440x900 with no MSAA

Look for frenchies results in the top 100 scores
#23 and 33 at time of posting (wonder how lon they'll stay in the chart now more people are getting the summer upgrades )
Lol thats unless I've slid 70 places in a day

Much better than Matthew's score. Still looks low for 4870, especially considering the 4211 cpu score propping it up. But still looks good. Matthew's performance is just unacceptable for the card.

Hey,

I just got my 4870 this afternoon (in the uk), put her in, installed drivers, restarted, fired up fraps and then, well, of course, crysis!

Ive got a 2.8ghz e6300 cpu, 2gb ddr2-800, 250gb samsung HD, 750w psu, windows xp, crysis v1.21,

On windows xp, so its dx9, at my max res. of 1400x900, I can run all on high and have 2xAA comfortably at all points throughout the game - yes, inlcuding the snow level too. Cutscenes and using the binoculars bring the fps to around 20 sometimes and around 25fps most of the time. In game it averages around 30fps, very occasionally dropping to around or just under 25fps. I tested at a few save points throughout the game (ive completed it), looking at early on, then the level AFTER you have to rescue the woman and take out some tanks for ther first time, (so thats the 3rd level), also at the level when your in and around a quarry trying to get access to the mountain and the excavation site, also during the snow level and finally on the carrier fighting the sub-boss and final boss.

Ive settled on all on high from the game, no AA, then using the xp hack to put object quality, water, game effects and post-processing to very high. For post processing though I dissabled edge detect AA and motion blur (i just dont like motion blur) in that cvar group. I also forced 16xAF from catalyst control center. It looks frankly unbelievably good.

Again going through alot of save points (lol I spent hours just messing about watching fraps go up and down) I can say with this config (still at 1400x900 by the way) that the game plays brilliantly. It only dips below 25fps on rare occasions, averaging a strong 30-35 fps. In hours of testing it only goes under 25fps a handful of times due to the graphical strain, but on my system sadly the loading pauses can drag it under for a few seconds then it recovers again. If I had a faster cpu and HD I believe very high shadows and very high shaders would play very well, but for me it means alot of loading pauses and general sluggishness, and damn it I bought a highend card so sluggishness won't be tolerated

By the way very high shaders does very little for image quality imho. I preffered very high shadows and seeing damn realistic shadows on the forest floor and just about everywhere. The curious thing about the 4870 is that the frame rates don't die in the second half of the game, unlike with my 7900gt, which played fairly well until the alien ship, then instantly went into the teens fps wise (at MUCH reduced settings than the 4870 of course). I went through paradise lost (the snow level) today with my radeon (with the high/very high config and the 4xaa all on dx9 high config) and I dont think it ever went below 28fps except for obvious loading pauses. Thats with the drivers from the CD. I'll try the 'hotfix' drivers tomorrow.

Im just shocked at how fast this card is. Even more so when it appears 4-5 times more powerful in crysis than my 7900gt oc'd to 700mhz core and 850mhz memory. Where the 7900 got 12 fps in the snow level, at the same crappy settings the 4870 got 55-60. Also, it can only get quite alot faster in its lifetime as new and better drivers come along.

In short, at 1400x900 or 1280x1024 (both almost the same number of pixels) all on high in #DX9# with 2xAA or 'hacked' mixture of high and very high settings is smooth and very very enjoyable with this card. A faster intel dual core than mine and a faster hard drive would get you almost all hacked to very high imho. Future drivers should make all hacked very high and 2xAA possible I should think. (in at least 6 months though, these things take time)

Hope that helps.

Processor(s): Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3GHz (333MHz x 9)


Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor (3.0GHz, FSB 1333MHz x 9)


Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.6 GHz (Wolfdale, 6144 KB Cache)



Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme QX9770 @ 3.852Ghz


Processor(s): Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650 @ 4GHz (400MHz x 10)



All CPUs are a bottleneck in 3Dmark and any overclock you can squeeze out of it will help your scores. These results aren't directly comparable to each other but helps give an idea of how well you can score with a certain CPU clock. It doesn't surprise me that these AMD CPUs are getting around 10K.

well dagger, i was expecting alot more from the 4870 on my system too but you cannot compare my system to yours: -

mine - yours
XP 32bit - Vista 64bit
DX9 - DX10
Dual core - quad core
2GB memory - 8GB memory

These systems are too different, your rig is 5x better than mine! that's why your getting better scores than me. I only spent £450 ish on this rig, hence the low scores.

This thread got me wondering how the 3dMark06 scores change with CPU speed. I didn't have a lot of time last night so I didn't do a balls out OC but this is at least something to look at without so many variables from my above post.



CPU: Xeon X3350
OS: Vista 32bit SP1
GPU: Sapphire 4870 @ 790/1000
RAM: Crucial ballistix 2x2GB 5-5-5-18 (JDEC settings) DDR2 800
MOBO: GA-EX38-DQ6

Here are my 3dmark 06 scores for 2 4870's in Crossfire mode.

just ordered a QX9650 so should see some nice gains in 3dmark.