Palit Radeon HD 4870 X2 1GB – AMD Reclaims GPU Supremacy

[PAGETITLE=Introduction, Closer Look] [Top Ad] Since ATI's acquisition by AMD, it's become ever-so-difficult to begin any sort of AMD-related article and not mention the trouble that the company has faced since. But there's little point now - we all know about it, and know about it very well. So how about we start things off on a happier note this time? Sounds good. AMD is now responsible for building the most powerful graphics card in the world. How's that? It all began with the launch of the Radeon HD 4850 and HD 4870 cards, which took even NVIDIA by surprise. Those cards were the first launch from the ATI camp that offered consumers a real choice when on the lookout for a new GPU. Unlike the HD 3000-series, which could never keep up to NVIDIA's comparative offerings, the HD 4000-series out-performed them in many regards. It's good to see, because if there's a company that needs some uplifting, it's AMD. But with their HD 4000-series launch as successful as it was, we all knew what was next: Dual-GPU models. When the HD 3870 X2 came launched this past January, AMD became a real threat to NVIDIA, because despite the dual-GPU likeness, the card managed to outperform any one of NVIDIA's single-GPU offerings, but that wasn't too surprising given the design. But with their HD 4000-series keeping up to and sometimes surpassing NVIDIA's equal offerings, what could possibly be in store with a dual-GPU model of the HD 4870? How would it compare to NVIDIA's GTX 280? Those questions will be answered today, and the results are sure to please. Closer Look at the Radeon HD 4870 X2. Like the HD 3870 X2 before it, the HD 4870 X2 offers nothing more than the single-GPU version of the card, except twice of everything. It's essentially two HD 4870 GPU cores placed on the same card, with various improvements to offer up to a 100% improvement in performance, which as we will find out is nice, since the SRP of the card is lower than purchasing two HD 4870s separately, in most cases. The HD 4870 by itself was a mind-blowing card, offering a staggering 800 stream processors, 1.2 TeraFLOPS worth of horsepower, and the X2 version of the card essentially doubles those numbers to offer 1600 stream processors and 2.4 teraFLOPS worth of computational power. That metric by itself puts the HD 4870 X2 in another league compared to NVIDIA's GTX 280, which offers close to 1 TeraFLOP of power. Model Core MHz Mem MHz Memory Bus Width Stream Proc. HD 4870 X2 750 900 2x1024MB 256-bit 1600 HD 4870 750 900 512MB 256-bit 800 HD 4850 625 993 512MB 256-bit 800 HD 3870 X2 825 900 2x512MB 256-bit 320 HD 3850 X2 666 828 2x512MB 256-bit 320 HD 3870 775 900 512MB 256-bit 320 HD 3850 666 828 512MB 256-bit 320 HD 3650 725 800 256,512MB 128-bit 120 HD 3450 600 500 256MB 64-bit 40 The basic improvements of the HD 4000-series includes PCI-E 2.0 and DX10.1 support, the option for Quad-GPU via CrossfireX along with enhanced anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering methods, including the option to use up to 24x CFAA (custom filter AA). Given that these cards can power most any game with maxed out graphics, it's the AA where they may make the most noticeable difference. As mentioned above, the new card essentially doubles the available stream processors, so this card can go well beyond the general task of gaming and handle hardcore computational scenarios where a lot of horsepower is a requirement. Straight from AMD, here is a chart explaining the differences between the X2 card and their already-launched HD 4870 and HD 4850: Radeon HD 4870 X2 Radeon HD 4870 Radeon HD 4850 Transistors ~ 1.9 billion 965 million 965 million Manufacturing Process 55nm 55nm 55nm Stream Processors 1600 800 800 Texture Units 32 16 16 Core Clock 750 MHz 750 MHz 625 MHz Mem Data Rate 3.6 Gbps 3.6 Gbps 2.0 Gpbs Math Processing > 2.4 TeraFLOPS 1.2 TeraFLOPS 1.0 TeraFLOPS DX 10.1 Support Yes Yes Yes Tessellation Unit Yes Yes Yes UVD Yes Yes Yes ATI PowerPlay Yes Yes Yes Here we can see that the SRP for the HD 4870 X2 is $549, which equates to about $100 more than its main competitor, the GTX 280. That's not a small premium, as $450 is high to begin with. But bear in mind, when the GTX 280 was first launched, a little over a month ago, it retailed for $649, so it itself has dropped considerably due to the intense competition. As you'll see in this article though, the HD 4870 X2 actually warrants itself the $100 premium. If your computer is prone to bleeding, this card shouldn't be installed. HD 4870 X2 die shot Bad humor aside, as I mentioned in our review of Palit's GTX 280 card, these new high-end GPUs are not for the weak of heart. In that article, I said that for the GTX 280 to be worthy of a purchase, you either have to own a 30" monitor capable of a 2560x1600 resolution, or plan to use intense AA modes at the same or lower resolutions. Forget it if you are running anything less than 1920x1200... the GTX 280 and HD 4870 X2 is going to be overkill, and you will not likely see a real-world difference over a 9800 GTX/+ or HD 4870 unless running a DX10-heavy game. It's the higher resolutions and higher AA settings that sets both dual-GPU setups and massive GPU cores apart. They thrive on these insane settings, and it's very rare that lower resolutions will show a worthy increase, and if it does, chances are the human eye wouldn't be able to differentiate the differences between the two. The GTX 280 effectively became the first card to be catered towards those with an insatiable need for the highest settings their game can offer, and ATI's Radeon HD 4870 X2 takes it all one step further. But before we hop into testing, let's first tackle our testing methodologies, which I highly recommend reading through if you haven't before. [PAGEBREAK] [PAGETITLE=Testing Methodology and Test System] Regardless of the operating system or product being reviewed, there are a few conditions that are met prior to testing to assure we receive accurate, repeatable results. Desktop and scrap files are cleaned up, including emptying of recycle bin/trash. No virus scanner or firewall is installed. Internet is disabled. Computer has proper airflow and room temperature is 80°F or less. Hard-drives affected by testing are defragged using Diskeeper 2008 before each fresh run. Below is our testing machine, which remains untouched throughout all testing except for the graphics card. AMD didn't coincide the HD 4000 series' launch with a new Catalyst release, but rather released a 'hotfix' driver as soon as the cards began showing up in retailers. We are using that driver for all testing, but will retest when the Catalyst 8.7 releases, to see if performance at all improves. Testing Machine. Processors: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Quad-Core 3.0GHz Motherboard: ASUS Maximus Extreme (X38-Based) Memory: OCZ 2GB Titanium DDR3-1600 (@ DDR3-1333, 7-7-7-20, 1.9v) Video: ASUS EAH3850 TOP 256MB - Catalyst 8.2. ASUS EAH3870 X2 1GB - Catalyst 8.3. ASUS EAH4850 512MB - Catalyst 8.6 Hotfixed Driver. ASUS EN8800GTS 512MB - NVIDIA 169.25. ASUS EN8800GTX 768MB - NVIDIA 169.25. Palit 9600GSO Sonic 768MB - NVIDIA 174.35. ASUS EN9800GTX 512MB - NVIDIA 174.35. Gigabyte 9600 GT 512MB - NVIDIA 174.35. Palit 8800GT Super+ 1GB - NVIDIA 169.25. Palit GTX 280 1GB - NVIDIA 177.41. Palit HD 4870 X2 - Catalyst 8.52.2-080722a Beta Driver. Sound: Onboard HD Audio. Storage: Seagate 7200.11 500GB Power Supply: Corsair HX620W Chassis: Antec P182 Mid-Tower Etcetera: Windows Vista Ultimate 64-Bit Cooling: Corsair Nautilus 500 In previous GPU reviews, we've used Windows XP Professional due to its stability (when compared to Vista), but as Vista becomes increasingly popular and the choice for many, it makes sense for us to make the switch as well. We choose to use the 64-Bit version of the OS due to it being the logical choice for gamers who want to use more than 2GB of RAM in their machine. Game Benchmarks. Depending on the graphic card being reviewed, we split up models into two different categories: Low-End to Mid-Range and Mid-Range to High-End. The former will see the GPUs tested using 1280x1024 and 1680x1050 resolutions, since those are the most common resolutions for gamers looking to purchase a GPU in that price-range. For our Mid-Range to High-End category, we test GPUs at 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and also 2560x1600 to better reflect the resolutions for those looking for a solid GPU offering. We do not use time demos in our reviews except where necessary, and in the case of our current GPU reviews, the only game to be subject to a time demo is Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. This is due to that game disallowing greater than 60FPS without the use of a time demo. But since the game is a popular choice for multiplayer gamers, it should be included in some form or another. Manual Benchmarks In an attempt to deliver "real-world" results, all games except the above mentioned title are played through manually, with the average FPS recorded with the help of FRAPS 2.9.4. In our personal tests, we have found that manual benchmarks are the best way to deliver accurate results, since time demos rely heavily on the CPU. In order to deliver the best results, each title we choose is explored to find the best possible level for our benchmarking. Once a level is chosen, we play through in order to find the best route, and then in future runs, we stick to that route as close as possible. We are not robots, so we cannot make sure that each run is identical, but they will never be far off from each other. As we see in our results, scaling is good, so we are confident that our methodology is a good one. Call of Duty 4. 1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600 Call of Juarez. 1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600 S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600 Unreal Tournament III. 1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600 Need for Speed: Pro Street. 1680x1050 1920x1200 Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. 1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600 Note that Need for Speed: Pro Street is not run at 2560x1600 because the game...

Palit Radeon HD 4870 X2 1GB – AMD Reclaims GPU Supremacy

Page 195 –

Rob Williams