Radeon HD 4870: Better Than GTX 260! : Introduction
Source: Tom's Hardware – Keywords: radeon, hd, 4870
Introduction
Only a few days ago, everything seemed perfect in the best of all possible worlds for Nvidia. The card manufacturer had just launched its GeForce GTX 260 and 280, which – despite the six-month delay – pushed the unified architecture introduced with the GeForce 8 to the limits of what a 65-nm process and a gigantic number of transistors could offer. The performance gain compared to the former –and now older – generation wasn’t overwhelming (59% on average over a 9800 GTX), but the arrival of CUDA applications was an interesting development, and Nvidia had no competition. Meanwhile, AMD seemed to be ever deeper in the red with its graphics division, avowedly incapable of competing on the high-end market segment as it once did, with its existing high-end cards quickly aging performance-wise. Then came the hush-hush release of the Radeon HD 4850, even before anybody had time to test it, and at an astoundingly low price of $199.
Yet, in the AMD camp, a miracle has happened. The Radeon HD 4850’s performance surprised everybody – including Nvidia. Despite the last-minute launch of the GeForce 9800 GTX+, which will not be available in retail channels until mid-July, Nvidia simply can’t match the explosive performance/price ratio of the Radeon card as we demonstrated in our recent test. The familiar marketing pitch about optimizing efficiency and the architecture’s yield, which has always sounded like fluff, suddenly took on a new meaning considering the Radeon HD 4850’s test results. It also even awakened hopes of an even better performance in the future. Having managed — to its own surprise — to increase the number of multiprocessors from 320 to 800 despite a 43% increase in the number of transistors and at the same engraving depth, AMD doesn’t want to settle for playing in the minors – and for good reason. A Radeon HD 4870, based on the same architecture but with higher performance (and of course at a higher price) has been announced and is slowly beginning to be available, though there’s still some uncertainty about that last point. On paper, at least, it could directly compete with Nvidia’s new high-end cards, and at a significantly lower price. But how about in practice?
- Next page Toward Faster Memory
- ATI Radeon HD 4850: Smarter by Design?
- iBuypower Gamer 942IL: Best of the Best?
- Nvidia's CUDA: The End of the CPU?
- Nvidia GeForce GTX 260/280 Review
- Quad SLI Vs. 3-Way SLI
- Comparative Component Charts
- Best Graphics Cards for the Money: June 08
- Radeon 3850 AGP Plus Single-Core CPU
- GPU vs. CPU Upgrade: Extensive Tests
- NForce 780a SLI Debuts Hybrid SLI

the card seems to beat the 260 alot of the time and thats only one card get 2x 4870 in CF and when CF is working you out do an gtx 280 for the same as 2x4870 in CF (basicly same price)
the 2x and 3x ATI cards was not so good
Basically the GTX 280 is set end up costing about $559 and the GTX 260 about $359 after the price cuts...
And even after hearing that news, which clearly demonstrates the power of competition, I'm still getting myself a 4870 (perhaps even the 1GB version)... Suck on that Nvidia.
I think it is unfair to use a game as a benchmark that has been clearly optimised in this way.
On the other hand if that is the road developers are going to go down then AMD should pull their finger out and get their physics acceleration stuff out.
Isn't unreal 3 cuda optimised to run the physics through the GPU, hence leaving the CPU free to help boost the framerates. I think it is unfair to use a game as a benchmark that has been clearly optimised in this way. On the other hand if that is the road developers are going to go down then AMD should pull their finger out and get their physics acceleration stuff out.
The CPU won't give much of a boost to framerates as such, but having the physics somewhere quicker than the CPU will generally help the system as a whole.
Don't forget that power consumption increase with frequency is quadratic, which is not the case with bus widening. The main problems really are
1) technical: routing complexity not only on the PCB (as said in the article) but also on the die,
2) financial: pad buffers take a lot of silicon area, which increases the cost and reduces the yield.
I'm keen to get the ASUS EAH4870/G/HDMI/512MB but was wondering about the 1GB version that's supposed to be coming out in August. Do you think there will be a major difference in speed if I'm using a 19" wide or 22" wide screen, between the 512MB version and the 1GB version?
If not, I think I'll just get the 512...
Thanks!
And AFAIK there's a lot of politics and licensing behind the CUDA/physics angle... Intel has Havok and nVidia has Ageia, AMD has the hardware but no code for it
the physX think well some one has made an ATI>CUDA>physX so that it can be used on ATI hardware Nvidia are actively supporting this,ATI is not supporting it but are not stopping at as well (as its the physX driver and the CUDA thats been modified to make it work)
CUDA is Free and open as why above Nvida is actively supporting it, this should make physics move along faster in game support beening on Nvidia or ATI cards
9800 gx2 is 87% faster than HD4870.
HD4870 is same fast than HD3870.
Some tests from Apricot Optimizing GLSL;
http://www.yofrankie.org/?p=261#comments
http://www.yofrankie.org/?p=258#comments