ATI 4800

rated by 0 users
This post has 21 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 100 Contributor
Posts 862
Points 11,010
Joined: Apr 2008
RyuGTX Posted: Thu, Apr 24 2008 12:39 PM

Saw this interesting article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ati-radeon-4800,5223.html

 

One thing that popped out to me was that they claim the DDR5 versoin will consume 34.5% less power than the DDR3 version of the 4850 model. 

 

Edit:

Link should work now. I figured it would automatically link if I just pasted the web address. 

If you think you can’t do something, you’ll never be able to do it. No matter how easy it is.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,370
Points 20,925
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: new york city
ice_73 replied on Thu, Apr 24 2008 1:19 PM

great find, i love hardware rumors like this


btw your link isnt working... http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ati-radeon-4800,5223.html

best bet is to just go to the homepage of toms hardware and click the article for the 4800.


  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,677
Points 24,005
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Interesting.  But the shaders are still clocked too low.  1050 is better than 775, but Nvidia is still way higher.  Simply adding more isn't enough.  It will be faster than the 3870, but I wonder if it can reach 9800GTX speeds.  Hopefully it does.

And 2GB of memory on a future 4870X2 is overkill.  And on the reverse, 256mb versions available on the 4850?  Hopefully OEMs are smart enough to not make too many of these.  I noticed a lack of 256mb 3850s and for good reason.  Few people buy them, so they are making less.  It's enough for 1280x1024 gaming usually, but it's still not wise.

Hello

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 272
Points 4,205
Joined: Mar 2008

For the next video card generation,I am more interested in the performance instead of power consumed.I am tired of seeing die shrinks! 

Photobucket
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,370
Points 20,925
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: new york city
ice_73 replied on Sat, Apr 26 2008 2:18 PM

 

coolzonestefan:

For the next video card generation,I am more interested in the performance instead of power consumed.I am tired of seeing die shrinks! 



sorry, but that is just plain... ignorant..

with out die shrinks we would have computers that take up rooms, that are less powerfull, and take up huge energy.
it is earth week cmon take care for the enviroment, plus lower power means less electricty bill and trust me you dont want a video card to take up 300 watts. plus die shrinks mean that they can putt more chips on a board. with out die shrinks we wouldnt have the 3870x2 or the 9800 gx2.

sorry if this post came off as rude, i honestly didnt mean it to but that statement showed a lack of knowledge. hopefully now you have a better idea of the usefullness of dieshrinks.

p.s. with out die shrinks expect to pay upwards of 1000 dollars a video card. seriously die shrinks lower production costs, so with out them we'd be paying through the nose on everything.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 23
Points 325
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: 221B Baker St
Bitbrain replied on Sat, Apr 26 2008 5:34 PM

Just be glad they are not nameing it like Nvida is and going something like 3880 GTX Ultra and the and the 5000 series 3985 GT and the 6000 series 3990 GTS Huh?

All errors in spelling and grammar are entirely by design in order to enrage those who have nothing left to add to the discussion and therefore seek superiority through personal attacks.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,677
Points 24,005
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Lower power and die shrinks kick ass.  That's basically how the 3870 came out of the 2900XT, and boy what an improvement in power used.

And good point about the naming scheme.  That's why Ati dropped its XT and Pro crap.  Higher number = higher performance (as long as you're within the same family).  Whose to say a GT should be greater than a GS, but slower than a GTS?  But a 3870 is faster than a 3850... makes sense. 

Hello

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,747
Points 42,815
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: United States, California

I honestly believe that naming schemes can be somewhat confusing by design. ;)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,370
Points 20,925
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: new york city
ice_73 replied on Sun, Apr 27 2008 8:52 AM

recoveringknowitall:

I honestly believe that naming schemes can be somewhat confusing by design. ;)



im never confused by names.... its logical to me.... but then again i read every bit of news about video cards that comes my way

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,747
Points 42,815
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: United States, California

My comment was regarding people that pick up vid cards at places like Best Buy or Circuit City... that crowd is often not as "in the know" as most of us here in the forums who build our own and do LOTS of "homework" 1st.

I too have NEVER been confused by the names, but I don't necessarily represent the average consumer.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,677
Points 24,005
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Names aren't confusing to us.  But to people who don't know enough, it can be.

GeForce 8800 series, best to worst:

8800 Ultra

8800 GTX

8800 GTS 512mb

8800 GT 512mb

8800 GTS 640mb

8800 GT  256mb

8800 GTS 320mb 

8800 GS 

And even some of that order is debatable.  Notice how many GTS' there are and where they rank.  Confusing to people no used to this stuff.

Hello

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,747
Points 42,815
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: United States, California

Crisis Causer:
Confusing to people no used to this stuff.

Exactly... I should have clarified initially.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 862
Points 11,010
Joined: Apr 2008
RyuGTX replied on Sun, Apr 27 2008 4:23 PM

Crisis Causer:

Names aren't confusing to us.  But to people who don't know enough, it can be.

GeForce 8800 series, best to worst:

8800 Ultra

8800 GTX

8800 GTS 512mb

8800 GT 512mb

8800 GTS 640mb

8800 GT  256mb

8800 GTS 320mb 

8800 GS 

And even some of that order is debatable.  Notice how many GTS' there are and where they rank.  Confusing to people no used to this stuff.

 

It has gotten better as the prices have stablized. When the GT was introduced, the G80 GTS cards were selling for a higher price for quite some time. Which helped me get rid of mine for $250. Wink  But looking at the price sort of gives everyday people an idea of a model's performance in relation to the other's in the same family. As long as someone at the store knows it, it is just up to the customer to ask. It isn't that time consuming to recommend a good card for a particular customer.

If you think you can’t do something, you’ll never be able to do it. No matter how easy it is.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,747
Points 42,815
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: United States, California

RyuGTX:
It isn't that time consuming to recommend a good card for a particular customer.

Yup!

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 272
Points 4,205
Joined: Mar 2008

Ice_73!People are not attracted by the cards that consume less and less power!

People buy graphics cards for their newer games to work good!A LOT of them do this!

I really do not get it how my previous statement showed lack of knowledge!I have graphics cards since Trident and I know very well what I am talking about!

 Performance sells!Die shrinks sell much less! Because of this,a lot of cards considered only die shrinks remained in stock at all the stores,because there are a lot of people that read speciality forums and get it why it does not worth it to 'upgrade' if they already own a 8800GTX

Photobucket
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,677
Points 24,005
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Die shrunken GPUs cost less and so they can afford to sell less.Big Smile

You have a point about performance, but a lot of people like lower power now.  The X1800s and X1900s used a lot of power, but people still bought them.  Still, many were not happy.  And the the 2900 line just went too far.  3850/70 is very low power, and also lower in price thanks to die shrink.

And the 9800GTX is not worthy as an upgrade to the 8800GTX.  Nor do I think it was meant as one, judging by the relatively low price.  Nvidia just as using the "9" as a selling point.  It's rather stupid because it's the first time a new 1000 series performs the same.  But that's what the 9900 series is for.  The real next-gen from Nvidia.

Hello

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 862
Points 11,010
Joined: Apr 2008
RyuGTX replied on Mon, Apr 28 2008 2:52 PM

I think I understand both of your arguements.

I think they complement each other rather than being opposite opinions.  I think it is just how you guys originally worded them which made it seem like 2 arguements.

If you think you can’t do something, you’ll never be able to do it. No matter how easy it is.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,370
Points 20,925
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: new york city
ice_73 replied on Mon, Apr 28 2008 4:32 PM

coolzonestefan:

Ice_73!People are not attracted by the cards that consume less and less power!

People buy graphics cards for their newer games to work good!A LOT of them do this!

I really do not get it how my previous statement showed lack of knowledge!I have graphics cards since Trident and I know very well what I am talking about!

 Performance sells!Die shrinks sell much less! Because of this,a lot of cards considered only die shrinks remained in stock at all the stores,because there are a lot of people that read speciality forums and get it why it does not worth it to 'upgrade' if they already own a 8800GTX



die shrinks cause increases in performance. think about it like this with out die shrinks cards would just be getting bigger and bigger and then were back to the old harvard computer that takes up a whole room. seriously if you like pc's being "small" and by that i mean not being a whole room, and consuming thousands of killo-wats an hour then die shrinks are good.

im not implying that die shrinks are worth upgrades. the 9800 is ***. and alot of people do buy for performance but we wouldnt get that much performance increase with out die shrinks.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,370
Points 20,925
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: new york city
ice_73 replied on Mon, Apr 28 2008 4:33 PM

coolzonestefan:

Ice_73!People are not attracted by the cards that consume less and less power!

People buy graphics cards for their newer games to work good!A LOT of them do this!

I really do not get it how my previous statement showed lack of knowledge!I have graphics cards since Trident and I know very well what I am talking about!

 Performance sells!Die shrinks sell much less! Because of this,a lot of cards considered only die shrinks remained in stock at all the stores,because there are a lot of people that read speciality forums and get it why it does not worth it to 'upgrade' if they already own a 8800GTX



die shrinks cause increases in performance. think about it like this with out die shrinks cards would just be getting bigger and bigger and then were back to the old harvard computer that takes up a whole room. seriously if you like pc's being "small" and by that i mean not being a whole room, and consuming thousands of killo-wats an hour then die shrinks are good.

im not implying that die shrinks are worth upgrades. the 9800 is ***. and alot of people do buy for performance but we wouldnt get that much performance increase with out die shrinks.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 272
Points 4,205
Joined: Mar 2008

Die shrinks are good because they cause increases in performance.Maybe...but what happened in reality from nVidia's side wasn't at all a noticeable performance increase with the new series of videocards

Photobucket
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,677
Points 24,005
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Just pretend the 9800GTX is called the 8900GTX and the 9800GX2 is called the 8950GX2.  It makes more sense within performance grounds.  I guess ATi is guilty of the same thing, as the 3870 performs similar to the 2900XT, but I think that drastic series change was neccessary.  They needed to separate themselves from the 2900's reputation of high power and high price.  Nvidia's 8800 line is well recieved and they need not distance themselves from it as drastically.  Calling it 9800 instead of 8900 is just an asshat move.  Even calling it a 8900GTX would be questionable because the 7900GTX relative to the 7800GTX was faster than 9800GTX to the 8800GTX.  And it has less memory, which is stupid.

Ah yes, well anyway. The new smaller die G92 cards (8800 GT, 8800 GTS, 9800GTX) cost less and use less power and perform slightly better (usually) then the old G80s.  So it's a good thing.  But the real gen has yet to come, and Nvidia still is planning a die shrink even further to 55nm (where ATi has been since November).

Hello

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 636
Points 9,140
Joined: May 2008
Location: Worcester, MA

 I wonder when we can expect these.

AMD Athlon X2 5000+ (Thanks to HH)

DFI Lanparty DK 790 FX

EVGA 8800 GT 512 mb

2 GB of G.Skill RAM

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (22 items) | RSS