backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by ToeCutter.. on Mar 26 at 4:30 PM

ATI Radeon 4890 shows its face

DailyTech has been able to "acquire" an ATI Radeon HD 4890 video card from one of our sources. Although we don't disclose names in order to protect our sources, we are able to say that the card arrived from Taiwan.

The Radeon HD 4890 features the RV790 core, which we are able to confirm runs at a core clock of 850MHz. We have heard that it is capable of more, but that will be up to individual board partners. The chip is not just an overclocked RV770, as there are a few tweaks and modifications that we are still investigating.

The card also features 1GB of memory via eight GDDR5 chips from Qimonda, which declared insolvency in January. The reference card we have is set to 3900 MHz effective, and we expect most of ATI's board partners to do the same. This provides 124.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

Samsung could emerge as a source for GDDR5 chips if Qimonda is forced to halt production. It recently announced 50nm production of GDDR5 chips, which it claimed was capable of 7 Gb/s.

Pricing and launch dates are still being adjusted at this time. AMD recently tried to lower prices on its Radeon 4870 and 4850 cards, but its board partners believe that the performance of the Radeon 4870 is too good  to lower prices further.

The Radeon 4890 will probably be priced moderately above the 4870, but still far below NVIDIA's GTX 280. The GTX 280 should not be confused with the mobile GTX 280M part, which is actually a rebadged GTS 250/9800 GTX+.

There are new drivers coming out next week that will have increased performance for the Radeon 4890 cards, which will invalidate all current benchmarks that have leaked out

More details will be unveiled next week at the Game Developers Conference. DailyTech will be testing the card this weekend.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Please, please, please
By Lightnix on 3/19/2009 1:11:44 PM , Rating: 5
... test some real games! We already know 3DMark is a terrible suite of benchmarks for testing current video cards. I'd appreciate it if you put your efforts towards testing some actual games, as opposed to giving us an ArbitraryMark 06/vantage score as the fruits of your labour. Thanks!




RE: Please, please, please
By Mitch101 on 3/19/2009 1:14:44 PM , Rating: 5
Ditto quit using 3DMark in no way shape or form will it tell anyone that based on this score you can run FarCry at 1920x1080 at 60FPS. Applications and Games are the only true method of benchmarking.


RE: Please, please, please
By strikeback03 on 3/19/2009 1:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
For some reason someone keeps asking in the Anandtech reviews for them to post 3DMark scores


RE: Please, please, please
By Jedi2155 on 3/19/2009 1:42:48 PM , Rating: 1
I think 3DMark still has its place and use in for comparing graphics cards. Game engines have too many quirks to indicate relative performance in games, and the 3dmark suite will allow a card to take reach is full potential whether that potential is used in future games or not but it does shed some light that would be applied to possibility a future game that might use it that you can't use the current set of available games to test on.

I think a well rounded benchmarking suite has all the bases covered, including 3dmark numbers but having only 3dmark numbers do not help very much.


RE: Please, please, please
By Rob94hawk on 3/19/2009 1:47:05 PM , Rating: 5
People don't buy vid cards to run 3dmark. It's more for "bragging rights."


RE: Please, please, please
By quiksilvr on 3/20/2009 4:12:54 AM , Rating: 5
Dude: "He baby, Josh is running an HD 4650...heh..I got me a 4890!"
Chick: "I have no personality! Show me your penis!"

Sigh...if only life was that simple...


RE: Please, please, please
By spread on 3/21/2009 12:52:38 PM , Rating: 4
It really is. Replace "4890" with "money", and "I have no personality" with "you sure there's no alcohol in this?"

Semi-joking


RE: Please, please, please
By PhoenixKnight on 3/21/2009 1:13:48 PM , Rating: 3
Last year a friend of mine went to Fry's to pick something up and one of the salepeople was hitting on her and started bragging about his computer to her. Needless to say, she wasn't very impressed.


RE: Please, please, please
By DopeFishhh on 3/20/2009 11:34:38 AM , Rating: 2
Ideally 3dmark is meant to act like a common measuring stick for performance. If I bought a new card I'd like to see how it fared against the reviews I looked at, 3dmark seems like one of the better options especially if I didn't have any of the games in the review.

Where 3dmark (and others) fall down is that they don't give you measurements that are universal enough for people to be able to translate them into scores for other games.

Theoretically if they were, I could run a benchmark test and be able to calculate system performance in any game past, future or present with reasonable accuracy. Not only would that make benchmarks useful but they could easily be the only performance metric you need consult prior to purchase.


RE: Please, please, please
By Proteusza on 3/19/2009 1:48:41 PM , Rating: 4
Generally speaking synthetic benchmarks have the lowest validity of all benchmarks, since performance in synthetic benchmarks is only indicative of performance in the same synthetic benchmark.

Besides, you say game engines have their quirks, havent you realized that synthetic benchmarks such as 3DMark themselves have rendering engines which would themselves have quirks?

Future games using technology in synthetic benchies? As I said, synthetic benchies themselves have rendering engines, so it really doesnt matter, cos you could quite easily find a rendering engine more advanced than them (Crysis is a case in point).

Whenever I see synthetic benchmarks in a review I always sigh and skip them, since I dont know about you guys but I never play this "3D Mark" game.


RE: Please, please, please
By MadMan007 on 3/19/2009 2:16:18 PM , Rating: 5
Pretty much all of the arguments you listed can have either 3DMark or blank game inserted and still be valid, different games don't always have corresponding results either. 3DMark is just another benchmark like any game. It does provide some low-level information that games don't though like the specific shader tests and whatnot. It's sort of like HDTach for hard drives in that way...gives you an idea things are working right but doesn't always correspond to real-world program use.


RE: Please, please, please
By The0ne on 3/19/2009 3:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
Test apps just needs to be done better that's all. I wouldn't want to be testing hardware on games solely simply because of the unreliability of the game itself. I rather have a proper tool that allows you to perform your test consistently, effectively and accurately rather than relying on a game, mostly, aren't consistent in the content being tested (weather, effects, position, etc.) That's what tools are for.

And yes, you don't get to play on the tool *roll eyes* you do play the game.


RE: Please, please, please
By just4U on 3/20/2009 1:21:04 AM , Rating: 1
I always reference 3dmark scores as a gauge. It's designed to test your systems performance so it's relevant for what it's used for.


RE: Please, please, please
By VooDooAddict on 3/19/2009 2:35:22 PM , Rating: 5
I think the next step for synthetic benchmarks would be licensing game engine tech.

I'd be much happier with 3dmark if it's different "game" tests were snippets of:

Epic's UnrealEngine
ID'd Latest Engine
Valve's Latest Engine
One of the MMORPG Engines


RE: Please, please, please
By plonk420 on 3/19/2009 3:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
why not test those SEPARATELY, as well as the GPU/CPU-crushing FutureMark? Epic/ID, and especially Valve are far from bleeding edge. and everyone "feels" that Crysis/et al are far from efficiently programmed...


RE: Please, please, please
By christojojo on 3/19/2009 5:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
plonk420 said, "why not test those SEPARATELY, as well as the GPU/CPU-crushing FutureMark? Epic/ID, and especially Valve are far from bleeding edge. and everyone "feels" that Crysis/et al are far from efficiently programmed... "

and

inperfectdarkness said, "i'd rather see a benchmark of the serious engine & the lithtech engine; rather than id's POS."

So what you two are saying is only test game engines that are Coded perfectly and only sold by certain companies?

That makes perfect sense when you talk about "wonderfully coded for console" games like Call of Duty World of barely going ten minutes before crashing" and the like. Yep these days of console ports and and Beta gold it definitely is wise to only target test on games that are perfectly coded.

Seriously, the games tested should be on games that we as hobbyists and professionals can show our non tech friends and family performance on games they play too.

If we are going for perfection of my own personal flavor they might as well stop at testing Dark Forces and Outlaws.

I am sorry for the rude reply but reading the ideal tests with dream games makes as much sense as fake benchmarks.


RE: Please, please, please
By The0ne on 3/19/2009 7:41:41 PM , Rating: 4
While I agree with your statements there still has to be a point where one draws the line when one encounters a game like Crysis. It is a good example of how poorly this game was coded although the end result are good. So you have all other games run 50fps and this one game alone runs at a mere 10fps due to? And it's look prettier how? And it's a good/great/so-so game even though...??

So really, when put into various perspectives Crysis shouldn't be use as a benchmark at all. All it tells you is that the game is so crappy it'll take several generations of video hardware advancement to be playing at higher fps. Are you really benchmarking the video hardware or are you benchmarking how poorly this game is to be able to bring down video cards that run any other games out there just fine.


RE: Please, please, please
By sleepeeg3 on 3/19/2009 10:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone?


RE: Please, please, please
By inperfectdarkness on 3/19/2009 3:21:43 PM , Rating: 1
i'd rather see a benchmark of the serious engine & the lithtech engine; rather than id's POS.

if this is a 45nm chip, & they make a mobile version within 2 months--i'm going to jizz in my pants.

...because if it is, it will almost certainly destroy any semblence of the gtx-m series being top-dog; especially in x2 configuration.

all i really want is a 15.4" laptop with quad core, wuxga & a 45nm 1gb mobility 4890. the force is strong with this one. i can FEEL the "win" eminating from it.


RE: Please, please, please
By Natfly on 3/19/2009 4:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
This is supposedly a 55nm chip. The next process node that AMD will use for its graphics chips will be 40nm.


By inperfectdarkness on 3/21/2009 8:06:10 AM , Rating: 2
so the 4860 is 40nm...but this is 55nm? where's the logic in that?


RE: Please, please, please
By TA152H on 3/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Please, please, please
By Alpha4 on 3/19/2009 6:07:41 PM , Rating: 1
Alpha4_RS_ @ hotmail.com

;)


RE: Please, please, please
By Chocobollz on 3/20/2009 3:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
performance in synthetic benchmarks is only indicative of performance in the same synthetic benchmark

I found that your statement is contradicting with your own thoughts. I mean, you're saying that synthetic benchmark is only indicative of performance in the same benchmark, so what do you think about a real game benchmark? IMO, it is just the same concept, it just using a different engine, that's all. You can't just compare performance between different game because every game made different, just as the case with 3DMark. You can't compare its score with another game because it's using a different engine.

quote:
Besides, you say game engines have their quirks, havent you realized that synthetic benchmarks such as 3DMark themselves have rendering engines which would themselves have quirks?

Ok, so what's the point then? If both have the same quirks, then both can't be used as benchmarks, is that what you mean?

I myself prefer 3DMarks to quickly measure performance between different graphics cards than using some games I don't even play. If you play Crysis for example, do you expect everyone else to play it too? Not everyone play Crysis but anyone could just download 3DMarks to measure their card's performance against other cards.

I found this debates of whether using synthetics or real world benchmarks as a useless debate. IMO, 3DMark itself is a game, it just it can't be controlled/played by the user, so it just as the same as running a game. It may not reflect real world performance because it is not a real world benchmark, it is synthetic , for God's sake.


RE: Please, please, please
By codecore on 3/19/2009 7:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
How about posting WEI (windows experience index) scores?


RE: Please, please, please
By zpdixon on 3/20/2009 7:56:27 AM , Rating: 2
Please test an ATI Stream GPGPU app, like BarsWF, the world's fastest MD5 cracker: http://3.14.by/en/md5


Shame on Nvidia...
By Amiga500 on 3/19/2009 1:27:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The GTX 280 should not be confused with the mobile GTX 280M part, which is actually a rebadged GTS 250/9800 GTX+.


First I've heard of this little re-brand (probably lost it in the clutter).

That is just taking the piss. Infact, consumers could probably make a case for misrepresentation.




RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By ExarKun333 on 3/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By Dictator93 on 3/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By Madcat1 on 3/19/2009 1:54:42 PM , Rating: 5
I honestly liked that line. It goes to show that if you screw up ordinary people with bogus "new" products, you get burned by critics/reviewers.

And although ill admit it does seem out of place in this article about ATI, it does however give bad rep for Nvidia. And anyone who argues that Nvidia didnt earn this bad rep, is a "fanboy".


RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By SerafinaEva on 3/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By SlyNine on 3/19/2009 3:29:00 PM , Rating: 5
Because ATI has the best value, When Nvidia has the best value Dailytech is biased towards them.

Weird, I know. The idea of preferring the company that provided you with the best value.


RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By notolerance on 3/20/2009 12:07:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by SerafinaEva on March 19, 2009 at 2:18 PM No surprise from Dailytech, a site that is reknown for being biase towards ATI and Microsoft and negative towards Sony and Nvidia. That's why you shouldn't take blogging sites like these with a grain of salt, they're just bloggers with opinions, not real credibility.


Ok... so you feel obligated to go out of your way to post on a site about how biased they are, then encourage people to take what the site says with a grain of salt, yet you still read through and post comments yourself... So, in other words, you expect everyone to value your opinion because?!... Of course, you know better right?! We just have to ask you, you'll tell us...

Pure comical genius!...


RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By icanhascpu on 3/19/2009 1:52:03 PM , Rating: 3
Telling the truth is fanboism?

Says more about you than anything.


RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By SerafinaEva on 3/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By DigitalFreak on 3/19/2009 2:34:18 PM , Rating: 3
R U RETARDED?


RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By Proteusza on 3/19/2009 2:52:18 PM , Rating: 5
Shame, it must suck being an Nvidia fanboy, must lead to a lot of unnecessary stress.

Cos you know that ATI has Mobility Radeon 4850's, 4870's and 4850X2's right?

But hey, you or I will probably never own any of those so it doesnt matter. In fact, I own an Nvidia card right now, but I just wanted to point out that your fanboy bias led you to ignore ATI's mobility radeons. Have a nice day, hope you dont froth at the mouth.


RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By DeepBlue1975 on 3/20/2009 9:35:08 AM , Rating: 4
As for me, the last thing nvidia made 100% worth it was the 8800 series... (I have one of those, pretty old by today's standards).

But if I were to switch my vid card again, I'd go with an ATI again. They are simply much better at the same price point.


RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By SlyNine on 3/20/2009 6:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
8800GT is like the 9700pro was. Just way ahead of the game.

I jumped on the 9700pro right away, Missed the boat on the 8800GTX, but got the 8800GT as soon as they came out and the cards still a great card, well other then the fact I had to get aftermarket HSF for these.


RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By FaceMaster on 3/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Shame on Nvidia...
By Dribble on 3/19/2009 2:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
If that's so terrible then find me a mobile part with the same name that performs identically to the desktop equivalent - either from Ati or nvidia?


4890 X2
By DigitalFreak on 3/19/2009 2:32:47 PM , Rating: 3
I wonder if there will be a 4890 X2 card?




RE: 4890 X2
By kkwst2 on 3/19/2009 4:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you wonder this? Of course there will be. Probably not tomorrow though.


RE: 4890 X2
By Totally on 3/22/2009 12:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
No, this is just a stop gap along with the mainstream 40nm parts, until the 5XXX series arrives.


RE: 4890 X2
By ToeCutter on 3/26/2009 4:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would you wonder this? Of course there will be.


No, there probably won't be an X2 version of the 4890.

The poster you answered is wondering this because there are quite a few articles saying an X2 version of the 4890 will "be left up to ATI partners" while ATI focuses on the next gen 5xxx part.

Now, don't you feel silly?


By tpurves on 3/19/2009 5:30:17 PM , Rating: 3
But when you say things like 850MHz could you at least give us an indication of how that compares to average stock clocks on the old cards? Is that a big difference? a small difference? what percentage? How much does core clock (on it's own) typically translate into performance?

Any of those small tidbits of information would have made this article much more informative. thx.




By 7Enigma on 3/20/2009 9:14:58 AM , Rating: 2
Stock 4870

Core clock: 750MHz
Memory: 900MHz

Toxic 4870 (the one I have)

Core clock: 780MHz
Memory: 1000MHz

4890 at 850MHz is a bit over 10%. Nothing earth-shattering, but unfortunately it doesn't need to be to have a very good card for the money.


By PhoenixKnight on 3/21/2009 1:23:06 PM , Rating: 2
There's a lot more to video cards than merely clock speed and memory.


By 7Enigma on 3/23/2009 7:02:47 AM , Rating: 2
Of course, but not in this generation of cards. X1900 to 4870 was a huge leap that had very little to do with clockspeed increases. 4870 to 4890, that's about it.


DailyTech will be testing the card this weekend.???
By bupkus on 3/19/2009 2:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
DailyTech will be testing the card this weekend.

Hehehe. I wonder if this will be a stick in the eye to Anandtech?
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.




By Jacerie on 3/19/2009 6:23:04 PM , Rating: 5
They prolly mugged Anand as he was getting the mail...


I wish they would make some decent coolers
By VashHT on 3/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: I wish they would make some decent coolers
By kellehair on 3/19/2009 2:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
The stock cooler on my overclocked 4870 is actually quite nice. The fan speed is easily adjustable in the CCC, I can't hear it over my case fans and it keeps temps reasonable at all times.


By just4U on 3/20/2009 1:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I was impressed with the fan that was on Sapphire's Radeon4870. Very well done design that ramps up and down as it should and can be easily adjusted if one wants to.

Not a fan of the single slot coolers on the 4850 though. Reminds me to much of the 8800GT's that were such heat scores. Easy enough to replace though so no biggie.


By piroroadkill on 3/19/2009 7:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but then I own a Radeon 2900XT, which is probably the hottest single-chip graphics card of all time, and even after fitting an aftermarket cooler, it still roasts away


Same die as RV770?
By psychobriggsy on 3/19/2009 1:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are new drivers coming out next week that will have increased performance for the Radeon 4890 cards, which will invalidate all current benchmarks that have leaked out.

DailyTech will be testing the card this weekend.


WIN!

Actually can you measure the die size, see if it's the same size as RV770?




Bah!
By kayronjm on 3/21/09, Rating: -1
OOOOOOOOHHHHH
By tjr508 on 3/19/09, Rating: -1
"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki