AMD touts the ATI Radeon HD 4870 x2 as the 'world's fastest graphics card'

by Andrew Yoon { Aug 12th 2008 at 12:01AM }

AMD (ATI) has just launched its newest assault against competitor Nvidia in the ever-continuing graphics arms race. It is touting the awkwardly-named ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 as the fastest graphics card ever made, with 2.4 teraFLOPS of processing power. (In comparison, Nvidia's RSX GPU found in the PS3 promises performance of 1.8 teraFLOPS. ATI's chip in the Xbox 360 promises 1.0 teraFLOPS.)

The performance is achieved by simple arithmetic: combining two ATI Radeon HD 4800 series GPUs into a single card, and a whopping 2GB of onboard memory -- the most of any graphics card on the market. The HD 4870 x2 is the first card that supports AMD's upcoming "Cinema 2.0" effort. However, until there's software that supports the endeavor, purchasers of AMD's latest cards will have to simply appreciate playing current games like Oblivion at 2560x1600 with 24X AA -- y'know, the way games are supposed to be played.

The ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 is immediately available from various "e-tailers" with a pricetag of $549 SRP. A cheaper, less powerful little brother, the ATI Radeon HD 4850 X2, will be available in September at an estimated price of $399.

Tags: amd, ati, hd-4850-x2, hd-4870-x2, radeon, radeon-hd-4850-x2, radeon-hd-4870-x2

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Ciatrick Leodis McKelvin @ Aug 12th 2008 12:03AM

AMD touts the ATI Radeon HD 4870 x2 as the 'world's fastest graphics card'**

**today

Slayer @ Aug 12th 2008 12:58AM

I have to admit, that's they way video cards are in most cases. However, a lot a gamers seem to use that as an excuse to stay away from pc gaming and figure they need to update their hardware constantly. Which is not the case. If you take a look at the majority of today's pc games like Mass Effect, Assassins Creed, Gears of war, most of them float around the same system requirements along with many other pc games.

Put simply, theres no need to feel you have to burn a hole your wallet to get that new video card just because it's the fastest one out there. If the one you have is keeping up with the newer games with little or no issues don't buy another one.

Tiptup300 @ Aug 12th 2008 1:00AM

**as of last week.

Fixed

BananaBoat @ Aug 12th 2008 2:06AM

AMD now has a much more important title; Best performance per dollar. The 270-300 dollar 4870 is so close on the heels on the GTX 280 that it would be pretty nuts to go with the 280 over the 4870 (considering the 280 is a ton more money). Not to mention that it's direct competitor (the 260 at the same price) doesn't perform nearly as well. Things are a little less clear at the 170-200 dollar price point, since Nvidia dropped the 9800GTX down, and then released the 9800GTX+ which is basically an overclocked 9800GTX. I'd still go with the 4850, seeing as how the 4850 is single slot, and not very power hungry or large compared to the 9800GTX which is dual slot and HUGE.

Oh well, the 4870x2 is effectively over my pay grade, and the 4870 is fufilling my gaming dreams anyway (atleast for now). Crysis at 1920x1200, on high, at a respectable framerate has been my (gaming) dream since I first bought the game, and now it's a reality. I'm hoping to last atleast a couple of years before I put any more money into my PC, so here's hoping Farcry 2 will atleast run as good if not better than Crysis.

Draken Stark @ Aug 12th 2008 2:58AM

*Slayer

You're right on that it doesn't need to be upgraded constantly. However as often as you would need to buy a new generation console you'd need a new computer within the year for new games. Usually computers (new or the sum of the parts for upgrading) are much more expensive than any console anyway. At least that's how it's been since the N64 days from what I've seen.

I'd put up links, but I'm tired and dont have the time to go searching. (quickly goes to bed for work early tomarrow.

FOXHOUND @ Aug 12th 2008 7:19AM

Admittedly, I was one of those console gamers that felt daunted and overwhelmed cost-wise to also enjoy PC gaming... but when THE ORANGE BOX (more specifically, TEAM FORTRESS2) was released, I tried it on my current PC and found I actually was just fine. So my wallet is now getting squeezed by the fourth interest behind the PS3/X360/Wii (in that order). :]

colin @ Aug 12th 2008 9:58PM

Then the GX2 280 comes out. Then the GTX 380 comes out. Then the GX2 390 comes out. Then its 2009. Then NVidia and AMD change their numbering lettering schemes once everyone figures them out.

neko to kuruma @ Aug 12th 2008 12:04AM

Now I remember why my computer can't play the latest games. Stuff is expensive.

Huey2k2 @ Aug 12th 2008 12:16AM

Except you don't need one of these to play the most recent games on the market.

A single Radeon HD 4850 would easily run any game on the market today... and you can easily get one from online retailers for around $250, maybe even less depending on where you go.

Anticrawl @ Aug 12th 2008 12:37AM

The 4870's overclocked are only about 280 on newegg, if not cheaper when they have a sale.

Jeff @ Aug 12th 2008 12:42AM

A $150 8800 GT could easily play any game at the market in 720P maxed. Including Crysis.

Saria the Cat @ Aug 12th 2008 12:45AM

@Huey2k2: Wow, only $250? What a steal! Now all I need is more RAM, more hard drive space, and...Wait a second. This isn't a steal at all. :(

Slayer @ Aug 12th 2008 1:05AM

@Saria the Cat

Ram is cheap. You can find kits that run about 30-60$ on the web. You can get a decent sized hdd for about 99$ too.

Ninjakamster (PS360 FTW!) @ Aug 12th 2008 1:11AM

I got my 4850 for $200 from VisionTek, works like a charm, huge boost from my previous 7900GT. :D

Saria the Cat @ Aug 12th 2008 1:26AM

Hmm...okay...$250 + 50 + 100...$400?! Why, that's the cost of a 360!

Anyway, I'm just being a major troll and giving you guys a hard time. :) I have a laptop anyway. Just a hater from the console camp, don't pay me any mind...

Einhanderkiller @ Aug 12th 2008 1:49AM

Actually, the HD 4850 is around $150.
And the 8800 GT can be found for as low as $100.

Haggard @ Aug 12th 2008 8:21AM

Yeah but Saria, at that price you get roughly twice the graphics power as a 360. And when was the last time you surfed joystiq, did some word processing or checked your emails on your 360?

Courtney @ Aug 12th 2008 3:40PM

I just ordered parts for a new 'puter because I badly need to upgrade (running on an old Athlon 2Ghz). For an Intel 3Ghz Dual Core, motherboard, 2GB ram, 9600GT 512MB video card, 160GB HD, DVDRW, and new case, cost was about $500. I'm mostly upgrading because of the work I do on my PC, but wanted the ability to play more games than I can now. That rig will at least let me run everything I want to play. For an extra hundred or so, it would have let me play everything close to or at maximum.

As my computer gets used for a ton more stuff than my consoles, that seemed like a fair price to pay for the performance level.

Wiinterfang @ Aug 12th 2008 12:15AM

I have a laptop :(.

Von Dozier @ Aug 12th 2008 12:17AM

ATI is a joke.

Huey2k2 @ Aug 12th 2008 12:19AM

Apparently you don't follow the GPU market very closely.

The current Radeon HD 4800 series cards are on par if not faster than the new gen Nvidia cards... and are about half the price on average.

The Artist formally known as Jesus @ Aug 12th 2008 3:30AM

@Von Dozier

I believe you have ATI confused with AMD

Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Aug 12th 2008 1:07PM

Please note: AMD/ATI yet has to deliver good drivers, fitting the cards.

Disclaimer: going to buy 4870 this fall.

Ryan @ Aug 12th 2008 12:22AM

That picture is not the Radeon HD 4870 X2...

Good review here: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=605&type=expert

carg0 @ Aug 12th 2008 12:23AM

right, world's fastest, for about two weeks...

Dash @ Aug 12th 2008 12:33AM

And yet the architecture of the 360's GPU enables better video processing than the RSX does. TeraFLOPS are simple a measure of the RAW power of the card, not a measure of it's graphical ability. Much more determines how well a GPU works including it's architecture, drivers, and software used. AMD can tout this figure as much as it wants, but it doesn't guarantee better performance. Until there are proper drivers for this card (something that ATi has always struggled with) it won't ever need that much power and probably won't be able to match nVidia's far superior drivers or software support.

Quadzilla @ Aug 12th 2008 12:40AM

Just imagine by tomorrow you'll have to edit this cause something knew will have been crowned fastest in the world.

zuburi @ Aug 12th 2008 12:48AM

"Combining two ATI Radeon HD 4800 series GPUs into a single card..."

This thing is just 2 4800 GPUs duct-taped together!

xblingdaddy2005x @ Aug 12th 2008 1:53AM

Thank god someone made that joke. I thought I might have to.

Haggard @ Aug 12th 2008 8:22AM

They made some tweaks though, so that this card is faster than having two seperate 4870 cards running in Crossfire. Cheaper, too.

Azerael @ Aug 12th 2008 12:58AM

Uh, Intel doesn't own nVidia.

Microswirl (MKWii:1676- 4270-3674) @ Aug 12th 2008 1:21AM

Nobody said they did. (???)

mezzanine @ Aug 12th 2008 1:02AM

Maybe. In a few months it'll probably be $200.

Foetoid @ Aug 12th 2008 1:12AM

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the Ps3 has NOWHERE NEAR that teraflop level of graphical processing power.

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=7

From the article:

"The GPU inside the PS3 is NV47 based which is another name for the 7800GTX. It has 24 pixel shader pipelines and 8 vertex shader pipelines"

"PC videocards such as the X1900XTX have far more raw horsepower than either of the 2 videocards in either console and is pushing a GPU clock speed of up to 650MHZ (some have shipped at 675MHZ) along with 24 more pixel shader pipelines and yet the X1900XTX is just over 500GFLOPS so to even begin entertaining the thought that a less advanced GPU with significantly less raw power could brute force 1.3 teraflops better performance is wishful thinking"

1.8 teraflops is 100% marketing BS. The 360 gpu on the other hand is a different story.

"This GPU here inside the Xbox 360 is literally an early ATI R600, which when released by ATI for the pc will be a Directx 10 GPU. Xenos ias clocked at 500MHZ and that it has 48 unified shader pipelines along with a polygon performance of 500 Million triangles a second. Microsoft said the 360’s GPU could perform 48 billion shader operations per second back in 2005. However Bob Feldstein, VP of engineering for ATI, made it very clear that the 360’s GPU can perform 2 of those shaders per cycle so the 360’s GPU is actually capable of 96 billion shader operations per second."

The Ati R600 is equivalent to an 8800GT graphics card, pretty much on of the best cards on the market at a great price.

Einhanderkiller @ Aug 12th 2008 1:51AM

The GPU in the 360 is not anywhere close to the performance of a 8800 GT. The R600 in the 360 is about equivalent to something like an X1900.

Haggard @ Aug 12th 2008 8:25AM

Yeah, I heard that it was similar to an x1900 somewhere too.

5th hot meal @ Aug 12th 2008 1:15AM

Actually saying that ati/amd is 1st to market with a 2gb is wrong, what about the nvidia quadro fx 4700 x2? it has been out for a bit, but it costs $3000.

(i may get one for the hell of it just to see what crysis runs like on it).

:)

Lekko @ Aug 12th 2008 11:30PM

You are about to burn a lot of money...

That's a workstation card, not a gaming card.

Foetoid @ Aug 12th 2008 1:17AM

I used to think the same way. I was always an Nvidia fanboy. Until i realised the HD4870 is only 5% slower than the 280GTX for about half the price. It's a joke to go with Nvidia these days. Yes the 280GTX is pretty much the most powerful card on the market except the card listed in this article, but for half the price you lose only 5% of the power. I've got a lovely 9600gt in my PC at the moment, soon to jump over to a HD4850. ATI have lagged behine Nvidia for so long that its hard for people to realise they're so close they are to Nvidias power now for half the price.

gtrazn @ Aug 12th 2008 1:17AM

Will there be a gtx 280 x2?

Btw RSX gets 1.8 teraflops combined with Cell BE.

Abuzar Baloach @ Aug 12th 2008 2:37AM

No. Too power hungry and hot. It's not feasible. Fun thing is that a 4870x2 is on par with GTX290s in SLI, but is about the same price. So the GTX280 SLI setup costs almost double, but will perform about the same.

DeadPlasmaCell @ Aug 12th 2008 1:23AM

Glad I got outta PC gaming looong ago.. Too much investment for such little return.

John @ Aug 12th 2008 1:50AM

Good for you, no one cares...

Why do you morons insist on polluting every thread that mentions a computer with your "this is why I dumbed down my gaming" comments?

DeadPlasmaCell @ Aug 12th 2008 2:09AM

lol a bit sensitive there ay John?? Maybe you're new to this whole Internet thing, but believe it or not, you aren't the only one who has an opinion on things.. I know, it's a tough pill to swallow.

Any ways, I'm not tryin to insult PC gaming or anything, Hell I was first to pre-order $400+ video cards back in the day, but in the end, to me, it just wasn't worth investing so much money to play a couple of games at high settings or get a badass 3Dmark score (That still around??) Cuz it's just not the badass video card you need, you need to back it up with CPU, RAM and HDD so there's no bottleneck. To me it just wasn't worth dumping money into year after year when I could just get a console that I don't have to hassle with.

John @ Aug 12th 2008 1:49AM

In before the flood of "death of PC gaming" comments

Ninjakamster (PS360 FTW!) @ Aug 12th 2008 1:59AM

Long live PC gaming! : )

ddpp33 @ Aug 12th 2008 2:53PM

PC gaming is NOT expensive unless you are dumb. You can get a video card that can play Crysis(or any other game) quite well for $100 these days. In fact at any given point a $100 video card can almost always play any game on the market acceptably(up until recently Crysis had been the one exception to that rule.)
The existence of $400+ video cards is always cited as proof that PC gaming is expensive but the only thing it is proof of is that some people have much more money than they need.