4870x2 review!

[PP Mguire]

This card is BEAST and i might add sexy as hell. :worship::yumyum:

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=607&pageid=2

Althought its a beast of a card for a single slot, the 280 still shows its power in SLI taking it out. Of course 4GPUs > 2 but the GT200 is still the fastet chip out there.

 

[!TIMMY!]

lol the 2nd World in Conflict graph is wrong. The average of the X2 cant be higher then the max can it.

Very interesting review, not that I can afford a X2 lol.

 

[Daza]

Im sitting pretty for the 4850x2 no way im paying nearly £400 for one from a certian etailer.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~127542,00.html

 

[Zoot]

For the Resolution I game at (1600X1200) a single HD4870 would be a lot better value for money for me...

 

[Bungral]

I've read 4 reviews so far and have another 5 or 6 to go..

Neoseekers was an alright read. Was a better one I read earlier (maybe Guru3d's).

Obviously wanna see what our very own OC3D have to saw on it though

*cough* steal one if you have to! *cough*

 

[Bungral]

Ok make that about 10 more to go

Gonna have oblong eyes!

Edit:

Pah... TweakTown are crippling the cards in their review with a 3.0GHz clocked Q6600 and 2 x 1GB of RAM at 800MHz . Did they not wonder why they were getting quite similar results on a lot of the benches.

There were signs of bottleneck in some reviews with CPUs clocked much higher than that!

 

[Bungral]

Come across a good review.. Gonna link to the Crysis page as it show some crazy results with AA....

Also the lil bit on the conclusion about micro stuttering is the first I've seen to mention it.

If ya got time read the whole thing then do

http://www.cluboverclocker.com/reviews/video/sapphire/hd4870x2_2GB/page7.asp

 

[darkorb]

Well it is good, not many people have quads clocked @ 4ghz?

 

[JN]

Dont sweat it, our review is coming soon. We're not gonna rush it out tho

 

[Mr. Smith]

Dont sweat it, our review is coming soon. We're not gonna rush it out tho

You just take your time, as the saying goes it's not always the jokey who comes first that wins the race

 

[Bungral]

Na man take ya time on it... I'm just being selfish and wanna see it nooooooooow!!

But yeah rather it nice and detailed rather than rushed like quite a lot of the 20 or so I've now read.

 

[JN]

Na man take ya time on it... I'm just being selfish and wanna see it nooooooooow!!

But yeah rather it nice and detailed rather than rushed like quite a lot of the 20 or so I've now read.

Yeah ur gonna see lots of that. AMD are being a bit weird at the moment - setting NDA's for a certain date then pushing it back last minute thus screwing over reviewers, but probably getting on nV's nerves.

 

[Bungral]

Yeah ur gonna see lots of that. AMD are being a bit weird at the moment - setting NDA's for a certain date then pushing it back last minute thus screwing over reviewers, but probably getting on nV's nerves.

Yeah must be a pain in the arse.. Especially for those where things weren't just plain sailing. Any little bugs and it would set ya back quite a bit.

Out of all the ones I read I'd say only 5 maybe did it well and 2 really well.

A lot were using a dual core at 3GHz or even at stock then saying with each result that it looks like its CPU bound or bottlenecked.... Then clock ya fookin CPU higher!!!

 

[JN]

Yeah must be a pain in the arse.. Especially for those where things weren't just plain sailing. Any little bugs and it would set ya back quite a bit.

Out of all the ones I read I'd say only 5 maybe did it well and 2 really well.

A lot were using a dual core at 3GHz or even at stock then saying with each result that it looks like its CPU bound or bottlenecked.... Then clock ya fookin CPU higher!!!

I'll probably be running a Q6600 @ 3.6ghz with 4GB ram and a reasonably high FSB. I'm tempted to use the QX9650 i have here, but i've yet to get acquainted with it and dont wanna spend a day overclocking it first.

 

[Mr. Smith]

For the love of god use the QX! That will do 3.6 no sweat and probably 4 with tweaking. Why not set 1.4v on the vcore and get an easy 3.7/8. 30 mins OCCT and you are stable enough for a review and well within the safe 24/7 operating voltage of the penryns (1.45v is the new 1.55v lol)

Suppose all previous data has been collected on the q6600 3.6 platform so it would make for a level playing field but the q6600 is old. Times change. Do both, or run the q6600 for the review and throw in a couple of qx9650 results to give an idea of how the cpu affects this gpu.

Please?

 

[Bungral]

I'll probably be running a Q6600 @ 3.6ghz with 4GB ram and a reasonably high FSB. I'm tempted to use the QX9650 i have here, but i've yet to get acquainted with it and dont wanna spend a day overclocking it first.

3.6GHz Q6600 would more than likely do... I think even at around that level there were signs of bottleneck at certain resolutions in certain games but it wasn't too much and not that frequent.

Speak to Rast and crack ya QX9650 out ... That should do 4GHz on air (baring being a duff ol chip of course).

I was reading that to alleviate bottleneck you should run ya fsb higher to allow more bandwidth. So would having say your Q6600 running at 3.6GHz be better for the GPU at 8 X 450MHz or 9 X 400MHz to get there? Forget RAM for the time being.

 

[Bungral]

Smithy, did you read that review I linked towards the bottom of the last page.... Thought that one might interest you a little bit actually.

For the love of god use the QX! That will do 3.6 no sweat and probably 4 with tweaking. Why not set 1.4v on the vcore and get an easy 3.7/8. 30 mins OCCT and you are stable enough for a review and well within the safe 24/7 operating voltage of the penryns (1.45v is the new 1.55v lol)

Suppose all previous data has been collected on the q6600 3.6 platform so it would make for a level playing field but the q6600 is old. Times change. Do both, or run the q6600 for the review and throw in a couple of qx9650 results to give an idea of how the cpu affects this gpu.

Please?

 

[Rastalovich]

Meh it`s awkward.

I`d keep the same cpu as u may have used on a review u compare it with.

The extreme cpu will artificially hike the results in general, unless u take the cpu score out of the equations... but then why use it ?

:whack:

Speak to Rast and crack ya QX9650 out ... That should do 4GHz on air (baring being a duff ol chip of course).

Ya Jim`d do it easy. Cost me 2x mobos to try it plus 2 stuck sensors.

 

[Bungral]

Cost you 2 mobos an 2 stuck sensors?? Explain!!

Meh it`s awkward.

I`d keep the same cpu as u may have used on a review u compare it with.

The extreme cpu will artificially hike the results in general, unless u take the cpu score out of the equations... but then why use it ?

:whack:

Ya Jim`d do it easy. Cost me 2x mobos to try it plus 2 stuck sensors.

 

[Mr. Smith]

I was reading that to alleviate bottleneck you should run ya fsb higher to allow more bandwidth. So would having say your Q6600 running at 3.6GHz be better for the GPU at 8 X 450MHz or 9 X 400MHz to get there?

You drop the multi to increse your bus so 8x450

Smithy, did you read that review I linked towards the bottom of the last page.... Thought that one might interest you a little bit actually.

I scanned it but I didnt see any specs of the test bed and it seems dodgy tbh.

I`d keep the same cpu as u may have used on a review u compare it with.

The extreme cpu will artificially hike the results in general, unless u take the cpu score out of the equations... but then why use it ?

You been drinking? Anyway, omitting the cpu score? Huh? We're on about cpu bottlenecks here no 3dmark scores. Using an underpowered cpu is like purposely crippling the card, hence my suggestion of including just a few with the qx (or just review with the qx)