Introduction

AMD is saying that the new Radeon HD 4870 X2 which was released today is the fastest single video card in the world today. Is that so? Let’s compare its performance to all other high-end video cards available today. Check it out.

As you can assume by its name, Radeon HD 4870 X2 is a video card with two Radeon HD 4870 GPUs. On X2 they work under the same clock rates as the regular HD 4870: 750 MHz for the graphics chip and 900 MHz for the memory. Both cards are based on GDDR5 memories, which are capable of transferring four data per clock cycle, thus the performance of the memory is if it was running at 3.6 GHz, achieving a 115.2 GB/s maximum theoretical transfer rate. Each GPU accesses 1 GB memory thru a 256-bit bus.

So basically the new Radeon HD 4870 X2 is two Radeon HD 4870 working in parallel under CrossFire mode in just a single card. Putting two of them in parallel would equal to four Radeon HD 4870 in CrossFire.

We will talk more about the differences between the Radeon HD 4870 X2 and other current high-end video cards, but before let’s take an in-depth look on the reviewed model from Sapphire.

click to enlarge
Figure 1: Sapphire HD 4870 X2.

click to enlarge
Figure 2: Sapphire HD 4870 X2.

click to enlarge
Figure 3: Sapphire HD 4870 X2.

This video card requires the installation of two auxiliary power connectors, one with 6 pins and another with 8 pins. The product comes with the necessary adaptors for you to convert standard peripheral power plugs into a 6-pin and an 8-pin power plugs if your power supply doesn’t provide them or if you are installing two cards in CrossFire and your power supply has only one or two auxiliary power cable for video cards.

click to enlarge
Figure 4: Auxiliary power plugs.

Introduction (Cont’d)

We removed the video card cooler to take a look. The cooler is all made of copper. During our benchmarking we were really disappointed by the standard AMD cooler. The air blowing out from the cooler was as hot as 73º C (163º F) and the temperature on the metallic part of the cooler was at 70º C (158º F). We hope that AMD partners launch models using a better cooling solution. Sapphire and HIS are the most probable candidates, as they like launching models with solutions from Arctic Cooling. If you are really worried about the hot air generated by this monster you should really think on water cooling, and Asetek announced today a water cooling solution for Radeon HD 4870 X2.

click to enlarge
Figure 5: Video card cooler.

On Figures 6 and 7 you can see the video card without its cooler. It uses sixteen 1-Gbit Hynix H5GQ1H24MJR-T0C GDDR5 chips, making its 2 GB memory (1 Gbit x 16 = 2 GB), 1 GB per GPU. These chips can officially work up to 1 GHz, so there is 11% headroom for you to overclock the memories keeping them inside their specs. Of course you can always try to push them above their official specs.

click to enlarge
Figure 6: Sapphire HD 4870 X2 with its cooler removed.

click to enlarge
Figure 7: Sapphire HD 4870 X2 with its cooler removed.

On Figure 8 you can see all accessories and CDs/DVDs that come with this video card. With the accessories that come with this card you can convert the video output to VGA, HDMI, component video and composite video, plus the DVI and S-Video connectors already present on the product.

click to enlarge
Figure 8: Accessories.

This video card comes with three games inside a DVD called “Ruby ROM 1.1”: Call of Juarez, Dungeon Runners and Stranglehold. Programs that come with this video card include CyberLink DVD Suite (PowerProducer 4, PowerDirector 5 Express, Power2GO 5.5, Mediashow 3 and trial versions of PowerBackup 2.5, PowerDVD Copy and LabelPrint 2), Cyberlink Power DVD 7, 3DMark Vantage Full, EarthSim and GameShadow.

Let’s now compare the Radeon HD 4870 X2 specifications to its main competitors.

More Details

To make the comparison between Radeon HD 4870 X2 and the other video cards we included in this review easier, we compiled the table below comparing the main specs from these cards. If you want to compare the specs of the reviewed video card to any other video card not included on the table below, just take a look on our nVidia Chips Comparison Table and on our AMD ATI Chips Comparison Table.

GPU	Core Clock	Shader Clock	Processors	Memory Clock	Memory Interface	Memory Transfer Rate	Memory	Price
GeForce GTX 280	602 MHz	1,296 MHz	240	1,107 MHz	512-bit	141.7 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	USD 420 - 475
GeForce GTX 260	576 MHz	1,242 MHz	192	1,000 MHz	448-bit	112 GB/s	896 MB GDDR3	USD 270 - 300
GeForce 9800 GX2	600 MHz	1,500 MHz	128	1,000 MHz	256-bit	64 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	USD 290 - 470
GeForce 9800 GTX+	738 MHz	1,836 MHz	128	1,100 MHz	256-bit	70.4 GB/s	512 MB GDDR3	USD 200 - 210
GeForce 9800 GTX	675 MHz	1,688 MHz	128	1,100 MHz	256-bit	70.4 GB/s	512 MB GDDR3	USD 187 - 200
Palit GeForce 9800 GT 1 GB	600 MHz	1.5 GHz	112	900 MHz	256-bit	57.6 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	N/A
Radeon HD 4870 X2	750 MHz	750 MHz	800	900 MHz	256-bit	115.2 GB/s	1 GB GDDR5	USD 560 - 580
Radeon HD 4870	750 MHz	750 MHz	800	900 MHz	256-bit	115.2 GB/s	512 MB GDDR5	USD 280 - 290
Radeon HD 4850	625 MHz	625 MHz	800	993 MHz	256-bit	63.5 GB/s	512 MB GDDR3	USD 170 - 190
Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2	857 MHz	857 MHz	320	927 MHz	256-bit	59.3 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	–
Radeon HD 3870	776 MHz	776 MHz	320	1,125 MHz	256-bit	72 GB/s	512 MB GDDR4	USD 123 - 160

It is important to notice that this table reflects the current prices for the listed video cards at Newegg.com, which are lower than the prices we published in other reviews, since prices tend to drop every day. We couldn’t find the reviewed card being sold yet and Radeon HD 4870 X2 models from other vendors are costing today between USD 560 and 580, even though the official suggested price is of USD 549.

This puts Radeon HD 4870 X2 as the most expensive video card available today, costing exactly the same thing as two Radeon HD 4870, so price-wise there is no difference between having one HD 4870 X2 or two HD 4870 in CrossFire. The advantage is, of course, the use of just one PCI Express slot on X2.

Some important observations regarding this table:

• All nVidia chips are DirectX 10 (Shader 4.0), while all AMD/ATI chips are DirectX 10.1 (Shader 4.1).
• The memory clocks listed are the real memory clock. Memory clocks are often advertised as double the figures presented, numbers known as “DDR clock”. Radeon HD 4870 and Radeon HD 4870 X2 use GDDR5 chips, which transfer four data per clock cycle and thus the “DDR clock” for these video cards is four times the value presented on this table (i.e. 3.6 GHz).
• GeForce 9800 GX2, Radeon HD 3870 X2 and Radeon HD 4870 X2 have two GPU’s. The numbers on the table represent only one of the chips.
• All video cards included on our review were running at the chip manufacturer default clock configuration (i.e. no overclocking), except Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2. The official core clock for Radeon HD 3870 X2 is 825 MHz, while the official memory clock is 900 MHz. So this card was a little bit overclocked. We couldn’t reduce these clocks to their reference values and since we hadn’t any other Radeon HD 3870 X2 available we included this video card anyway.
• Prices were researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review.
• We couldn’t find Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2 for sale. This model will be more expensive than cards from other vendors based on the same GPU because it features water cooling. Just for you to have an idea, prices on the regular Radeon 3870 X2 are quoted between USD 240 and USD 370.

Before going to our tests let’s recap the main features from Sapphire HD 4870 X2.

Main Features

Sapphire HD 4870 X2 main features are:

• Graphics chip: Two Radeon HD 4870, running at 750 MHz.
• Memory: 2 GB GDDR5 memory (256-bit interface) from Hynix (H5GQ1H24MJR-T0C), running at 900  MHz (“3.6 GHz”).
• Bus type: PCI Express x16 2.0.
• Connectors: Two DVI and one S-Video output (with component video support).
• Video Capture (VIVO): No.
• Cables and adapters that come with this board: S-Video to component video cable, S-video to composite video adapter, DVI-to-VGA adapter, DVI-to-HDMI adapter, one standard 4-pin peripheral power plug to 6-pin PCI Express auxiliary power plug (PEG) adapter, one standard 4-pin peripheral power plug to 8-pin PCI Express auxiliary power plug (PEG) adapter and Crossfire bridge.
• Number of CDs/DVDs that come with this board: Five.
• Games that come with this board: Call of Juarez, Dungeon Runners and Stranglehold (inside “Ruby ROM 1.1” DVD).
• Programs that come with this board: CyberLink DVD Suite (PowerProducer 4, PowerDirector 5 Express, Power2GO 5.5, Mediashow 3 and trial versions of PowerBackup 2.5, PowerDVD Copy and LabelPrint 2), Cyberlink Power DVD 7, 3DMark Vantage Full, EarthSim and GameShadow.
• Minimum Required Power Supply: 650 W.
• More information: http://www.sapphiretech.com
• Average price in the US*: USD 560

* Researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review.

How We Tested

During our benchmarking sessions we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions the only variable device was the video card being tested.

Hardware Configuration

• CPU: Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (3.2 GHz, 1,600 MHz FSB, 12 MB L2 memory cache).
• Motherboard: EVGA nForce 790i Ultra SLI (P05 BIOS)
• Memories: Crucial Ballistix PC3-16000 2 GB kit (BL2KIT12864BE2009), running at 2,000 MHz with 9-9-9-28 timings.
• Hard disk drive: Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS (300 GB, SATA-300, 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache).
• Video monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 305T (LCD, 30”, 2560x1600).
• Power supply: OCZ EliteXStream 1,000 W.
• CPU Cooler: Thermaltake TMG i1
• Optical Drive: LG GSA-H54N
• Desktop video resolution: 2560x1600 60 Hz

Software Configuration

• Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit
• Service Pack 1

Driver Versions

• nForce driver version: 15.17
• AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.5
• AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.6 + hotfix (8.501.1.0, 6/21/2008) (Radeon HD 4850, HD 4870)
• AMD/ATI video driver version: 8.520.0.0 (Radeon HD 4870 X2)
• nVidia video driver version: 175.16
• nVidia video driver version: 177.34 (GeForce GTX 260, GTX 280)
• nVidia video driver version: 177.79 (GeForce 9800 GT, 9800 GTX+)

Used Software

• 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 + October 2007 Hotfix
• 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1
• Call of Duty 4 – Patch 1.6
• Crysis – Patch 1.2.1 + HardwareOC Crysis Benchmark Tool 1.3.0.0
• Half-Life 2: Episode Two – Patch June 9^th 2008 + HardwareOC Half-Life 2 Episode Two Benchmark Tool 1.2.0.0
• Unreal Tournament 3 – Patch 1.2 + HardwareOC UT3 Benchmark Tool 1.2.0.0

Resolutions and Image Quality Settings

Since we were comparing very high-end video cards, we ran all our tests under three 16:10 widescreen high resolutions: 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600. We always tried to run the programs and games in two scenarios for each resolution, one with low image quality settings and then maxing out the image quality settings. The exact configuration we used will be described together with the results of each individual test.

Error Margin

We adopted a 3% error margin. Thus differences below 3% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 3% should be considered as having similar performance.

3DMark06 Professional

3DMark06 measures Shader 3.0 (i.e. DirectX 9.0c) performance. We run this software under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions: 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600, first with no image quality enhancements enabled – results we call “low” on the charts and tables below –, then setting 4x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering. See the results below.

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 1680x1050 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	17557
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	16260	7.98%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	16221	8.24%
GeForce 9800 GX2	15623	12.38%
GeForce GTX 280	14904	17.80%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	14215	23.51%
GeForce GTX 260	13701	28.14%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	13355	31.46%
GeForce 9800 GTX	12759	37.60%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	11842	48.26%
GeForce 9800 GT	11471	53.06%
Radeon HD 3870	10694	64.18%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 1920x1200 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	17414
GeForce 9800 GX2	15547	12.01%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	15489	12.43%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	15486	12.45%
GeForce GTX 280	14215	22.50%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	13017	33.78%
GeForce GTX 260	12668	37.46%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	12206	42.67%
GeForce 9800 GTX	11631	49.72%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	10691	62.88%
GeForce 9800 GT	10253	69.84%
Radeon HD 3870	9454	84.20%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 2560x1600 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	15920
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	14146	12.54%
GeForce 9800 GX2	13015	22.32%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	12315	29.27%
GeForce GTX 280	11766	35.31%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	10159	56.71%
GeForce GTX 260	9894	60.91%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	9365	69.99%
GeForce 9800 GTX	8743	82.09%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	8077	97.10%
GeForce 9800 GT	7679	107.32%
Radeon HD 3870	6823	133.33%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 1680x1050 - High	Score	Difference
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	16260	0.78%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	16134
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	13946	15.69%
GeForce 9800 GX2	13900	16.07%
GeForce GTX 280	12157	32.71%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	11063	45.84%
GeForce GTX 260	10617	51.96%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	9391	71.80%
GeForce 9800 GTX	8981	79.65%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	8881	81.67%
GeForce 9800 GT	7899	104.25%
Radeon HD 3870	6915	133.32%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 1920x1200 - High	Score	Difference
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	15489	1.15%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	15313
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	13091	16.97%
GeForce 9800 GX2	12213	25.38%
GeForce GTX 280	10991	39.32%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	10014	52.92%
GeForce GTX 260	9450	62.04%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	8144	88.03%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	7972	92.08%
GeForce 9800 GTX	7811	96.04%
GeForce 9800 GT	6826	124.33%
Radeon HD 3870	6114	150.46%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 2560x1600 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	12479
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	12315	1.33%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	10893	14.56%
GeForce 9800 GX2	9829	26.96%
GeForce GTX 280	8704	43.37%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	7550	65.28%
GeForce GTX 260	7285	71.30%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	6065	105.75%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	5896	111.65%
GeForce 9800 GTX	5774	116.12%
GeForce 9800 GT	5045	147.35%
Radeon HD 3870	4319	188.93%

3DMark Vantage Professional

3DMark Vantage is the latest addition to the 3DMark series, measuring Shader 4.0 (i.e. DirectX 10) performance and supporting PhysX, a programming interface developed by Ageia (now part of nVidia) to transfer physics calculations from the system CPU to the video card GPU in order to increase performance. Physics is used to calculate how objects interact (for example, if you shoot what exactly will happen to the object when the bullet hits it – Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back?). Notice that we didn’t upgrade the PhysX to the latest version, which would make the physics calculations for CPU Test 2 to be made by the GPU instead of the CPU on nVidia video cards (since we aren't considering CPU or 3DMark scores this change wouldn't produce any increase in our results anyway).

We ran this program under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions: 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600, first using the “Performance” profile, then using the “Extreme” profile – which basically enables anti-aliasing at 4x, anisotropic filtering at 16x and put all details settings at their maximum value (called “extreme”). The combination of 2560x1600 resolution with extreme settings didn’t produce reliable results according to the program, so we aren’t going to add them here. The results we are comparing are the “GPU Score” achieved by each video card.

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 1680x1050 - Performance	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	11697
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	8725	34.06%
GeForce GTX 280	7695	52.01%
GeForce 9800 GX2	6990	67.34%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	6193	88.87%
GeForce GTX 260	5898	98.32%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	5651	106.99%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	4797	143.84%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	4499	159.99%
GeForce 9800 GTX	3805	207.41%
GeForce 9800 GT	3691	216.91%
Radeon HD 3870	2977	292.91%

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 1920x1200 - Performance	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	9472
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	6545	44.72%
GeForce GTX 280	6106	55.13%
GeForce 9800 GX2	5379	76.09%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	4880	94.10%
GeForce GTX 260	4582	106.72%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	4336	118.45%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	3725	154.28%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	3370	181.07%
GeForce 9800 GT	2951	220.98%
GeForce 9800 GTX	2891	227.64%
Radeon HD 3870	2269	317.45%

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 2560x1600 - Performance	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	5542
GeForce GTX 280	3549	56.16%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	3482	59.16%
GeForce 9800 GX2	2910	90.45%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	2728	103.15%
GeForce GTX 260	2640	109.92%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	2382	132.66%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	2050	170.34%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	1815	205.34%
GeForce 9800 GT	1638	238.34%
GeForce 9800 GTX	1557	255.94%
Radeon HD 3870	1244	345.50%

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 1680x1050 - Extreme	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	8405
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	6195	35.67%
GeForce GTX 280	6005	39.97%
GeForce 9800 GX2	4858	73.01%
GeForce GTX 260	4531	85.50%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	4360	92.78%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	3567	135.63%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	3445	143.98%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	3201	162.57%
GeForce 9800 GT	2741	206.64%
GeForce 9800 GTX	2703	210.95%
Radeon HD 3870	1855	353.10%

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 1920x1200 - Extreme	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	6916
GeForce GTX 280	4732	46.15%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	4415	56.65%
GeForce GTX 260	3576	93.40%
GeForce 9800 GX2	3508	97.15%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	3490	98.17%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	2753	151.22%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	2669	159.12%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	2399	188.29%
GeForce 9800 GT	2136	223.78%
GeForce 9800 GTX	2038	239.35%
Radeon HD 3870	1439	380.61%

Call of Duty 4

Call of Duty 4 is a DirectX 9 game implementing high-dynamic range (HDR) and its own physics engine, which is used to calculate how objects interact (for example, if you shoot what exactly will happen to the object when the bullet hits it – Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back?), giving a more realistic experience to the user.

We ran this game under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600, maxing out all image quality controls (i.e. everything was put on their maximum values on the Graphics and Texture menus). We used the game internal benchmarking feature, running a demo provided by nVidia called wetwork. We are putting this demo for downloading here if you want to run your own benchmarking. We updated the game to version 1.6. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.

Call of Duty 4 - 1680x1050 - Maximum	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	134.6
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	127.7	5.40%
GeForce 9800 GX2	106.2	26.74%
GeForce GTX 280	105.3	27.83%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	93.4	44.11%
GeForce GTX 260	91.0	47.91%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	75.7	77.81%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	72.4	85.91%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	72.2	86.43%
GeForce 9800 GTX	69.1	94.79%
GeForce 9800 GT	61.3	119.58%
Radeon HD 3870	43.0	213.02%

Call of Duty 4 - 1920x1200 - Maximum	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	120.6
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	110.7	8.94%
GeForce 9800 GX2	94.5	27.62%
GeForce GTX 280	91.7	31.52%
GeForce GTX 260	77.1	56.42%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	76.4	57.85%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	61.3	96.74%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	59.5	102.69%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	59.1	104.06%
GeForce 9800 GTX	57.7	109.01%
GeForce 9800 GT	50.8	137.40%
Radeon HD 3870	35.4	240.68%

Call of Duty 4 - 2560x1600 - Maximum	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	83.8
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	74.3	12.79%
GeForce 9800 GX2	64.8	29.32%
GeForce GTX 280	64.8	29.32%
GeForce GTX 260	53.5	56.64%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	48.1	74.22%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	40.6	106.40%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	39.7	111.08%
GeForce 9800 GTX	38.3	118.80%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	36.7	128.34%
GeForce 9800 GT	33.3	151.65%
Radeon HD 3870	22.4	274.11%

Crysis

Crysis is a very heavy DirectX 10 game. We updated this game to version 1.2.1 and used the HOC Crysis Benchmarking Utility to help us collecting data. Since we don’t think the default demo based on the island map stresses the video card the way we want, we used the HOC core demo available with the abovementioned utility. We ran this demo under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions: 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600, first with image quality set to “low” and then with image quality set to “high”. Since all video cards achieved a number of frames per second below 10 at 2560x1600 with image details set to “high”, we are not including this test as the results aren’t reliable. We ran each test twice and discarded the first result, as usually the first run achieves a lower score compared to the subsequent runs since the game loses time loading files. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.

Crysis 1.2.1 - 1680x1050 - Low	Score	Difference
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	125	4.17%
GeForce GTX 280	125	4.17%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	120
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	101	18.81%
GeForce GTX 260	99	21.21%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	91	31.87%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	91	31.87%
GeForce 9800 GTX	84	42.86%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	84	42.86%
GeForce 9800 GX2	75	60.00%
GeForce 9800 GT	75	60.00%
Radeon HD 3870	71	69.01%

Crysis 1.2.1 - 1920x1200 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	119
GeForce GTX 280	115	3.48%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	108	10.19%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	84	41.67%
GeForce GTX 260	83	43.37%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	76	56.58%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	76	56.58%
GeForce 9800 GTX	69	72.46%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	67	77.61%
GeForce 9800 GX2	63	88.89%
GeForce 9800 GT	61	95.08%
Radeon HD 3870	58	105.17%

Crysis 1.2.1 - 2560x1600 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	103
GeForce GTX 280	95	8.42%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	71	45.07%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	53	94.34%
GeForce GTX 260	52	98.08%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	49	110.20%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	49	110.20%
GeForce 9800 GTX	44	134.09%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	43	139.53%
GeForce 9800 GX2	42	145.24%
GeForce 9800 GT	39	164.10%
Radeon HD 3870	35	194.29%

Crysis 1.2.1 - 1680x1050 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	57
GeForce GTX 280	42	35.71%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	37	54.05%
GeForce GTX 260	32	78.13%
GeForce 9800 GTX	29	96.55%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	29	96.55%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	29	96.55%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	28	103.57%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	26	119.23%
GeForce 9800 GX2	25	128.00%
GeForce 9800 GT	25	128.00%
Radeon HD 3870	19	200.00%

Crysis 1.2.1 - 1920x1200 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	47
GeForce GTX 280	34	38.24%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	30	56.67%
GeForce GTX 260	26	80.77%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	23	104.35%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	23	104.35%
GeForce 9800 GTX	22	113.64%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	21	123.81%
GeForce 9800 GX2	21	123.81%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	20	135.00%
GeForce 9800 GT	20	135.00%
Radeon HD 3870	16	193.75%

Unreal Tournament 3

Unreal Tournament 3 is the latest installment from this famous first person shooter franchise, supporting DirectX 10 graphics when installed on Windows Vista with a DX10 compatible card. We upgraded Unreal Tournament 3 to version 1.2 and benchmarked it with the help of HOC UT3 benchmarking utility using the “Containment” demo, maxing out image quality settings (image quality at “high” and anisotropic filtering at x16). It is important to notice that we haven’t applied the PhysX mod to this game, which would transfer PhysX processing from the CPU to the GPU on nVidia cards. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.

Unreal Tournament 3 - 1680x1050 - Maximum	Score	Difference
GeForce 9800 GTX	112	16.67%
GeForce 9800 GX2	108	12.50%
GeForce GTX 260	106	10.42%
GeForce GTX 280	104	8.33%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	104	8.33%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	104	8.33%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	96	0.00%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	96
GeForce 9800 GT	95	1.05%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	84	14.29%
Radeon HD 3870	83	15.66%

 

Unreal Tournament 3 - 1920x1200 - Maximum	Score	Difference
GeForce 9800 GTX	108	13.68%
GeForce 9800 GX2	106	11.58%
GeForce GTX 260	103	8.42%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	98	3.16%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	95
GeForce 9800 GTX+	94	1.06%
GeForce GTX 280	91	4.40%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	89	6.74%
GeForce 9800 GT	80	18.75%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	78	21.79%
Radeon HD 3870	75	26.67%

Unreal Tournament 3 - 2560x1600 - Maximum	Score	Difference
GeForce 9800 GTX	92	1.10%
GeForce 9800 GX2	92	1.10%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	91
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	78	16.67%
GeForce GTX 260	76	19.74%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	63	44.44%
GeForce GTX 280	62	46.77%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	60	51.67%
GeForce 9800 GT	52	75.00%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	51	78.43%
Radeon HD 3870	47	93.62%

Half-Life 2: Episode Two

Half-Life 2 is a popular franchise and we benchmark the video cards using Episode Two with the aid of HOC Half-Life 2 Episode Two benchmarking utility using the “HOC Demo 1” provided by this program. We ran the game in three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600, under two scenarios. First with quality set to maximum, bilinear filtering and anti-aliasing set to x0. This configuration we are calling “low” on the charts and tables below. Then we maxed out image quality settings, enabling x16 anisotropic filtering and 16xQCS anti-aliasing. This configuration we are calling “high” on our charts and tables. We updated the game up to the June 9^th 2008 patch. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.

Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 1680x1050 - Low	Score	Difference
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	170.0	6.25%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	164.9	3.06%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	160.4	0.25%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	160.0
GeForce 9800 GTX+	160.0	0.00%
GeForce GTX 260	157.0	1.91%
GeForce GTX 280	156.3	2.37%
GeForce 9800 GT	156.0	2.56%
GeForce 9800 GTX	153.8	4.03%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	151.0	5.96%
Radeon HD 3870	145.7	9.81%
GeForce 9800 GX2	136.8	16.96%

Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 1920x1200 - Low	Score	Difference
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	165.0	4.43%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	158.0
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	156.7	0.83%
GeForce GTX 280	156.3	1.09%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	155.0	1.94%
GeForce GTX 260	153.0	3.27%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	149.8	5.47%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	149.0	6.04%
GeForce 9800 GTX	146.9	7.56%
GeForce 9800 GT	143.0	10.49%
GeForce 9800 GX2	135.2	16.86%
Radeon HD 3870	120.1	31.56%

Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 2560x1600 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	156.0
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	147.0	6.12%
GeForce GTX 280	145.1	7.51%
GeForce 9800 GX2	130.6	19.45%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	129.7	20.28%
GeForce GTX 260	124.0	25.81%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	119.0	31.09%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	117.0	33.33%
GeForce 9800 GTX	107.9	44.58%
GeForce 9800 GT	96.0	62.50%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	93.9	66.13%
Radeon HD 3870	72.8	114.29%

Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 1680x1050 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	157.0
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	145.0	8.28%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	144.0	9.03%
GeForce 9800 GTX	137.9	13.85%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	126.1	24.50%
GeForce 9800 GX2	125.4	25.20%
GeForce GTX 260	121.0	29.75%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	116.2	35.11%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	94.0	67.02%
GeForce GTX 280	89.3	75.81%
GeForce 9800 GT	80.0	96.25%
Radeon HD 3870	68.3	129.87%

Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 1920x1200 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	157.0
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	131.0	19.85%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	124.0	26.61%
GeForce 9800 GTX	116.3	35.00%
GeForce 9800 GX2	111.1	41.31%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	106.5	47.42%
GeForce GTX 260	101.0	55.45%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	97.2	61.52%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	74.0	112.16%
GeForce GTX 280	70.3	123.33%
GeForce 9800 GT	63.0	149.21%
Radeon HD 3870	56.8	176.41%

Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 2560x1600 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	130.0
Sapphire Radeon HD 4870	75.0	73.33%
GeForce 9800 GTX	71.3	82.33%
GeForce GTX 260	61.0	113.11%
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850	58.4	122.60%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	50.6	156.92%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	46.0	182.61%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	39.0	233.33%
GeForce 9800 GX2	37.5	246.67%
GeForce 9800 GT	36.0	261.11%
GeForce GTX 280	35.5	266.20%
Radeon HD 3870	34.9	272.49%

Conclusions

Is Radeon HD 4870 X2 really the fastest single video card in the market today? For most scenarios, yes.

Here is a summary of what we’ve seen.

On 3DMark06, which simulates shader 3.0 (DirectX 9.0c) games, Radeon HD 4870 X2 was between 23% and 65% faster than the regular HD 4870, between 8% and 17% faster than two GeForce 9800 GTX+ in SLI, between 12% and 27% faster than GeForce 9800 GX2 (which is also a dual-GPU solution) and between 18% and 43% faster than GeForce GTX 280.

On 3DMark Vantage, which simulates shader 4.0 (DirectX 10) games, Radeon HD 4870 X2 was between 89% and 103% faster than the regular HD 4870, between 34% and 59% faster than two GeForce 9800 GTX+ in SLI, between 67% and 97% faster than GeForce 9800 GX2 (which is also a dual-GPU solution) and between 40% and 56% faster than GeForce GTX 280.

On Call of Duty 4 Radeon HD 4870 X2 was between 44% and 74% faster than the regular HD 4870, between 5% and 13% faster than two GeForce 9800 GTX+ in SLI, between 26% and 29% faster than GeForce 9800 GX2 (which is also a dual-GPU solution) and between 28% and 31% faster than GeForce GTX 280.

On Crysis Radeon HD 4870 X2 was between 19% and 94% faster than the regular HD 4870, between 32% and 124% faster than two GeForce 9800 GTX+ in SLI, between 60% and 145% faster than GeForce 9800 GX2 (which is also a dual-GPU solution) and between 3% and 38% faster than GeForce GTX 280, except at 1680x1050 with no image quality settings enabled, where GTX 280 was 4% faster than HD 4870 X2.

On Half-Life: Episode Two we only saw Radeon HD 4870 X2 making other cards eating dust at 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 with image quality settings maxed out. Under this scenario HD 4870 X2 was 27% and 73% faster than the regular Radeon HD 4870, 20% and 183% faster than two GeForce 9800 GTX+ in SLI, 41% and 247% faster than GeForce 9800 GX2 and 123% and 266% faster than GeForce GTX 280. When running with no image quality settings enabled most high-end video cards achieved the same performance level on this game.

The only game where Radeon HD 4870 wasn’t the fastest card around was on Unreal Tournament 3, probably showing the lack of scalability under CrossFire configuration using our methodology, even though it achieved a good result at 2560x1600, where it was 47% faster than GeForce GTX 280 and 17% faster than the regular HD 4870.

As we mentioned, under most circumstances Radeon HD 4870 X2 will really be the fastest single card around.

We see only two problems with this card. The first one is, of course, its price. Today it is found around USD 560, but we hope to see its price dropping in the next few weeks. Keep in mind that GeForce GTX 280 arrived at the market two months ago at USD 650. So for the extreme gamer with money in his pocket looking for the fastest video card in the market, Radeon HD 4870 X2 is certainly the best option. If you REALLY have the money to build the ultimate gaming machine, two Radeon HD 4870 X2 in CrossFire should fulfill your wildest dreams. The gamer that doesn’t want to spend this much on a high-end video card we think that the regular Radeon HD 4870 is a terrific buy.

The second problem is the heat produced by this card. During our tests the air blowing out from the cooler was as hot as 73º C (163º F) and the temperature on the metallic part of the cooler was at 70º C (158º F). Unless you want to transform your room into a sauna, we strongly recommend you to wait for manufacturers to launch Radeon HD 4870 X2 models with a better cooling solution or for cooler manufacturers to launch add-on coolers or water cooling systems supporting this new video card.

It is important to mention that even with this very high temperature, the card was very stable and we haven’t trouble running any of our programs.

Originally at http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/602

---

© 2004-10, Hardware Secrets, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Total or partial reproduction of the contents of this site, as well as that of the texts available for downloading, be this in the electronic media, in print, or any other form of distribution, is expressly forbidden. Those who do not comply with these copyright laws will be indicted and punished according to the International Copyrights Law.

We do not take responsibility for material damage of any kind caused by the use of information contained in Hardware Secrets.