Specifications
Since only the Radeon HD 4850 has been made available for the moment, let’s look at the specifications for that card, along with those of the GeForce 9800 GTX +, which Nvidia has pulled out of its sleeve at the last minute to compete with it (though it won’t be available until July17).
| GPU | HD 3870 X2 | HD 4850 | 9800 GTX | 9800 GTX + | 280 GTX |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPU frequency | 825 MHz | 625 MHz | 675 MHz | 738 MHz | 602 MHz |
| ALU frequency | 825 MHz | 625 MHz | 1688 MHz | 1836 MHz | 1296 MHz |
| Memory frequency | 900 MHz | 1000 MHz | 1100 MHz | 1100 MHz | 1107 MHz |
| Memory bus width | 2x256 bits | 256 bits | 256 bits | 256 bits | 512 bits |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR3 | GDDR3 | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Memory quantity | 2 x 512 MB | 512 MB | 512 MB | 512 MB | 1024 MB |
| Number of ALUs | 640 | 800 | 128 | 128 | 240 |
| Number of texture units | 32 | 40 | 64 | 64 | 80 |
| Number of ROPs | 32 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 32 |
| Shading power | 1.06 TFlops | 1 TFlops | (648) GFlops | (705) GFlops | 933 GFlops |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 64 GB/s | 70.4 GB/s | 70.4 GB/s | 141.7 GB/s |
| Number of transistors | 1334 million | 956 million | 754 million | 754 million | 1400 million |
| Process | 0.055µ | 0.055µ | 0.065µ | 0.055µ | 0.065µ |
| Die area | 2 x 196 mm² | 260 mm² | 324 mm² | 248 mm² | 576 mm² |
| Generation | 2008 | 2008 | 2008 | 2008 | 2008 |
| Shader Model supported | 4.1 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
When looking at the main characteristics, first of all the 4850 seems to leave the 9800 GTX, or even its + version, no chance – with 27% more transistors, 800 ALUs, and a theoretical processing power of 1 Tflop, or 42% higher, not to mention support for Direct3D 10.1 and a superiority that’s often quite marked in synthetic tests, as we’ve seen. All that is nothing to sneeze at. Yet, due to its keeping a 256-bit memory bus, memory bandwidth remains a little weak. And AMD still has a clear lag in the number of texture units and ROPs, and seems not to have learned from the errors of the past in that department.
Engraved at 55 nm, the RV770 is a relatively small chip at 260 mm², less than half the size of the GT 200. That’s no longer an advantage for AMD, however, with Nvidia catching up with the 9800 GTX +, which introduced the G92b, a G92 engraved at 55 nm and which, according to our measurements, is 5% smaller than the RV770 thanks to its smaller number of transistors. That, by the way, is the main innovation of this card, and it allows a 9% boost in GPU frequency (and ALU frequency). And… that’s all! All the other characteristics (with the possible exception of temperature and power consumption, which we’ll check later) remain identical. We initially wondered why Nvidia hasn’t called the new card "GeForce 9800 Ultra," and that would appear to be the explanation. It remains to be seen whether this new version really deserves to exist, except that it’s always a positive point for the purchaser to be able to distinguish between the two versions of the GPU (which wouldn’t have been possible with a gradual replacement of the 9800 GTX’ GPU).
Finally, note that the 4850 has the same theoretical power as the 3870 X2, but with an architecture that’s slightly improved, as we’ve seen, and other characteristics that are slightly different (in particular more texture units). So it will be particularly interesting to compare these two cards in the tests.
Bottom line as i see it, this is a Smashing card!
Prices on the UK market put a HD4850 at £120 (ebuyer.com) where as the GTX260 is £300! considering the overal performance difference between the two, i'd get 2 HD4850's in Crossfire mode and still be cheaper than a GTX260.
Once again AMD/ATI have produced a card that isnt amazing on performance, but bang for your buck its probably the best card on the market at those prices
The very fact that, yet again, we have a whole page dedicated to noise is a sure sign that these manufacturers still don't have all of the priorities covered. How many years ago was it that THG posted that funny video showing an Nvidia card as a leaf blower & barbecue? - and still we have to put up with substandard cooling solutions. I haven't bought a graphics card for years now without getting an aftermarket heatsink to go with it - thank god for companies like Zalman & Thermalright who are sparing our ears!!
I have seen on the reg that the 4870 more than doubles the performance of a 3870. If this is true and they hit a ~$300 price tag than AMD/ATI are back baby.
Apparently they use 160W at load but beat the 3870 on performance/W by a long way.
Can't wait to see it. Even though I know that this site rakes in more from intel/nvidia.
http://www.pcper.com/images/review [...] 48-bar.jpg
Dual 4870s can take on a 280 no sweat and push for serious performance, and they're supposedly near similar price. By itself the 4870 takes on the $100USD more; 260. I smell price drops.
Thanks to Tom’s Hardware for including the FSX test in these results. It’s interesting to see how differently the cards line up with FSX. No other game produces similar results or shows up the new technology in a different light. To any serious simmer it is the AA/AF performance on big screens that is crucial and this shows the biggest differences and biggest insights. Also it was good to see that my card (an overclocked 8800 GTX) is still top of the pile!
lets just hope that this brings in enough profits to help the CPU market, because if you look at the info on the intel nahalem, it looks as though they have alot more potential, but they dont want to release that potential just yet, where as, if AMD release a competitor then we might just see the nahalems full potential!!