Introduction

The new Radeon HD 4850 X2 that is being launched today is simply two Radeon HD 4850 video cards in a single board working in CrossFire mode, being a cheaper option to the Radeon HD 4870 X2, which is the most expensive video card available today, and priced to compete with GeForce GTX 280. How is the performance of Radeon HD 4850 X2 compared to GeForce GTX 280 and other high-end video cards? Does it provide a good cost/benefit ratio? That is what we will see in our review.

On Radeon HD 4850 X2 each GPU has 1 GB GDDR3 memory, so the card has a total of 2 GB – most Radeon HD 4850 models have 512 MB. The clocks and specs are the same.

Two things caught our eye on Sapphire’s model. First was the fact that Sapphire decided to use its own cooler instead of using the infamous standard cooler designed by ATI/AMD, which is heavy and known to heat a lot, increasing the temperature inside your PC. This cooler uses two individual aluminum heatsinks with copper base and an aluminum cover holding the two fans. This makes the card to run cooler, to be lighter and to have a more stylish design.

The second thing was the fact that this is the first video card we’ve seen with four DVI connectors. All other X2-style video cards have only two DVI connectors, just like regular video cards. So you can install up to four video monitors directly to this video card. Keep in mind that multiple monitors only work when you are not playing games, as when the system is in CrossFire mode video is generated on only one of the connectors.

click to enlarge
Figure 1: Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2.

click to enlarge
Figure 2: Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2.

click to enlarge
Figure 3: Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2.

click to enlarge
Figure 4: Four video connectors.

Introduction (Cont’d)

This video card requires the installation of one 6-pin auxiliary power connector and one 8-pin auxiliary power connector. If your power supply doesn’t have these connectors don’t worry: the video card comes with adaptors.

click to enlarge
Figure 5: Auxiliary power connectors.

On Figure 5 you can see the video card with its cooler removed. As you can see, it uses individual aluminum heatsinks with copper base on the GPUs and aluminum passive heatsinks on the memory chips. Also notice how this video card uses only solid aluminum capacitors, which are the best kind of electrolytic capacitor.

click to enlarge
Figure 6: Video card with its cooler removed.

The reviewed video card has eight 1 Gbit GDDR3 memory chips from Samsung (K4J10324QD-HJ1A) around each GPU, making its 1 GB per GPU or 2 GB total. These chips support up to 1 GHz (2 GHz DDR), so there is no margin for you to overclock the memories with them still inside their specs. Of course you can try overclocking them above their labeled maximum clock rate.

On Figure 7 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 7: 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, PorwerDirector 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 4850 X2 specifications to the specs of all other video cards included in our comparison.

More Details

To make the comparison between Radeon HD 4850 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 405 - 470
GeForce GTX 260	576 MHz	1,242 MHz	192	1,000 MHz	448-bit	112 GB/s	896 MB GDDR3	USD 240 - 310
GeForce 9800 GX2	600 MHz	1,500 MHz	128	1,000 MHz	256-bit	64 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	USD 220 - 285
GeForce 9800 GTX+	738 MHz	1,836 MHz	128	1,100 MHz	256-bit	70.4 GB/s	512 MB GDDR3	USD 190 - 210
GeForce 9800 GTX	675 MHz	1,688 MHz	128	1,100 MHz	256-bit	70.4 GB/s	512 MB GDDR3	USD 148 - 180
Palit GeForce 9800 GT 1 GB	600 MHz	1.5 GHz	112	900 MHz	256-bit	57.6 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	USD 170
Radeon HD 4870 X2	750 MHz	750 MHz	800	900 MHz	256-bit	115.2 GB/s	1 GB GDDR5	USD 530 - 550
Radeon HD 4870	750 MHz	750 MHz	800	900 MHz	256-bit	115.2 GB/s	512 MB GDDR5	USD 290 - 310
Radeon HD 4850 X2	625 MHz	625 MHz	800	993 MHz	256-bit	63.5 GB/s	1 GB GDDR3	USD 419
Radeon HD 4850	625 MHz	625 MHz	800	993 MHz	256-bit	63.5 GB/s	512 MB GDDR3	USD 160 - 200
Radeon HD 4830	575 MHz	575 MHz	640	900 MHz	256-bit	57.6 GB/s	512 MB GDDR3	USD 130
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 95 - 150

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.

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, Radeon HD 4850 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. The exception was Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2, which price is the suggested price informed by the manufacturer.
• 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 160 and USD 275.

Before going to our tests let’s recap the main features from Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2.

Main Features

Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2 main features are:

• Graphics chip: Two Radeon HD 4850, running at 625 MHz.
• Memory: 2 GB GDDR3 memory (256-bit interface) from Samsung (K4J10324QD-HJ1A), running at 993 MHz (“1.99 GHz”).
• Bus type: PCI Express x16 2.0.
• Connectors: Four DVI (with HDMI support) 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, CrossFire bridge, one standard 4-pin peripheral power plug to 6-pin PCI Express auxiliary power plug (PEG) adapter and one standard 4-pin peripheral power plug to 8-pin PCI Express auxiliary power plug (PEG) adapter.
• 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, PorwerDirector 5 Express, Power2GO 5.5, Mediashow 3 and trial versions of PowerBackup 2.5, PowerDVD Copy and LabelPrint 2), Cyberlink Power DVD 7,3DMark06 Full, EarthSim and GameShadow.
• Minimum Required Power Supply: 650 W.
• More information: http://www.sapphiretech.com
• Suggested price in the US:  USD 419.00

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)
• AMD/ATI video driver version: 8.10 (Radeon HD 4830)
• AMD/ATI video driver version: 8.542.0.0 (Radeon HD 4850 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	4.95%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	16729
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	16260	2.88%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	16221	3.13%
GeForce 9800 GX2	15623	7.08%
GeForce GTX 280	14904	12.25%
Radeon HD 4870	14215	17.69%
GeForce GTX 260	13701	22.10%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	13355	25.26%
GeForce 9800 GTX	12759	31.12%
Radeon HD 4850	11842	41.27%
GeForce 9800 GT	11471	45.84%
Radeon HD 4830	10898	53.51%
Radeon HD 3870	10694	56.43%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 1920x1200 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	17414	6.87%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	16294
GeForce 9800 GX2	15547	4.80%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	15489	5.20%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	15486	5.22%
GeForce GTX 280	14215	14.63%
Radeon HD 4870	13017	25.17%
GeForce GTX 260	12668	28.62%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	12206	33.49%
GeForce 9800 GTX	11631	40.09%
Radeon HD 4850	10691	52.41%
GeForce 9800 GT	10253	58.92%
Radeon HD 4830	9787	66.49%
Radeon HD 3870	9454	72.35%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 2560x1600 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	15920	12.59%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	14146	0.05%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	14140
GeForce 9800 GX2	13015	8.64%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	12315	14.82%
GeForce GTX 280	11766	20.18%
Radeon HD 4870	10159	39.19%
GeForce GTX 260	9894	42.91%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	9365	50.99%
GeForce 9800 GTX	8743	61.73%
Radeon HD 4850	8077	75.06%
GeForce 9800 GT	7679	84.14%
Radeon HD 4830	7308	93.49%
Radeon HD 3870	6823	107.24%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 1680x1050 - High	Score	Difference
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	16260	8.42%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	16134	7.58%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	14997
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	13946	7.54%
GeForce 9800 GX2	13900	7.89%
GeForce GTX 280	12157	23.36%
Radeon HD 4870	11063	35.56%
GeForce GTX 260	10617	41.25%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	9391	59.70%
GeForce 9800 GTX	8981	66.99%
Radeon HD 4850	8881	68.87%
Radeon HD 4830	7943	88.81%
GeForce 9800 GT	7899	89.86%
Radeon HD 3870	6915	116.88%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 1920x1200 - High	Score	Difference
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	15489	12.17%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	15313	10.89%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	13809
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	13091	5.48%
GeForce 9800 GX2	12213	13.07%
GeForce GTX 280	10991	25.64%
Radeon HD 4870	10014	37.90%
GeForce GTX 260	9450	46.13%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	8144	69.56%
Radeon HD 4850	7972	73.22%
GeForce 9800 GTX	7811	76.79%
Radeon HD 4830	7109	94.25%
GeForce 9800 GT	6826	102.30%
Radeon HD 3870	6114	125.86%

3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 - 2560x1600 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	12479	14.97%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	12315	13.46%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	10893	0.36%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	10854
GeForce 9800 GX2	9829	10.43%
GeForce GTX 280	8704	24.70%
Radeon HD 4870	7550	43.76%
GeForce GTX 260	7285	48.99%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	6065	78.96%
Radeon HD 4850	5896	84.09%
GeForce 9800 GTX	5774	87.98%
Radeon HD 4830	5213	108.21%
GeForce 9800 GT	5045	115.14%
Radeon HD 3870	4319	151.31%

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	45.30%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	8725	8.39%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	8050
GeForce GTX 280	7695	4.61%
GeForce 9800 GX2	6990	15.16%
Radeon HD 4870	6193	29.99%
GeForce GTX 260	5898	36.49%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	5651	42.45%
Radeon HD 4850	4797	67.81%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	4499	78.93%
Radeon HD 4830	4220	90.76%
GeForce 9800 GTX	3805	111.56%
GeForce 9800 GT	3691	118.10%
Radeon HD 3870	2977	170.41%

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 1920x1200 - Performance	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	9472	49.05%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	6545	2.99%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	6355
GeForce GTX 280	6106	4.08%
GeForce 9800 GX2	5379	18.14%
Radeon HD 4870	4880	30.23%
GeForce GTX 260	4582	38.69%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	4336	46.56%
Radeon HD 4850	3725	70.60%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	3370	88.58%
Radeon HD 4830	3301	92.52%
GeForce 9800 GT	2951	115.35%
GeForce 9800 GTX	2891	119.82%
Radeon HD 3870	2269	180.08%

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 2560x1600 - Performance	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	5542	32.05%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	4197
GeForce GTX 280	3549	18.26%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	3482	20.53%
GeForce 9800 GX2	2910	44.23%
Radeon HD 4870	2728	53.85%
GeForce GTX 260	2640	58.98%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	2382	76.20%
Radeon HD 4850	2050	104.73%
Radeon HD 4830	1837	128.47%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	1815	131.24%
GeForce 9800 GT	1638	156.23%
GeForce 9800 GTX	1557	169.56%
Radeon HD 3870	1244	237.38%

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 1680x1050 - Extreme	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	8405	22.54%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	6859
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	6195	10.72%
GeForce GTX 280	6005	14.22%
GeForce 9800 GX2	4858	41.19%
GeForce GTX 260	4531	51.38%
Radeon HD 4870	4360	57.32%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	3567	92.29%
Radeon HD 4850	3445	99.10%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	3201	114.28%
Radeon HD 4830	2982	130.01%
GeForce 9800 GT	2741	150.24%
GeForce 9800 GTX	2703	153.76%
Radeon HD 3870	1855	269.76%

3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 - 1920x1200 - Extreme	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	6916	24.52%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	5554
GeForce GTX 280	4732	17.37%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	4415	25.80%
GeForce GTX 260	3576	55.31%
GeForce 9800 GX2	3508	58.32%
Radeon HD 4870	3490	59.14%
Radeon HD 4850	2753	101.74%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	2669	108.09%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	2399	131.51%
Radeon HD 4830	2349	136.44%
GeForce 9800 GT	2136	160.02%
GeForce 9800 GTX	2038	172.52%
Radeon HD 3870	1439	285.96%

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 hapen 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	12.17%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	127.7	6.42%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	120.0
GeForce 9800 GX2	106.2	12.99%
GeForce GTX 280	105.3	13.96%
Radeon HD 4870	93.4	28.48%
GeForce GTX 260	91.0	31.87%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	75.7	58.52%
Radeon HD 4850	72.4	65.75%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	72.2	66.20%
GeForce 9800 GTX	69.1	73.66%
Radeon HD 4830	65.8	82.37%
GeForce 9800 GT	61.3	95.76%
Radeon HD 3870	43.0	179.07%

Call of Duty 4 - 1920x1200 - Maximum	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	120.6	14.10%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	110.7	4.73%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	105.7
GeForce 9800 GX2	94.5	11.85%
GeForce GTX 280	91.7	15.27%
GeForce GTX 260	77.1	37.09%
Radeon HD 4870	76.4	38.35%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	61.3	72.43%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	59.5	77.65%
Radeon HD 4850	59.1	78.85%
GeForce 9800 GTX	57.7	83.19%
Radeon HD 4830	52.6	100.95%
GeForce 9800 GT	50.8	108.07%
Radeon HD 3870	35.4	198.59%

Call of Duty 4 - 2560x1600 - Maximum	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	83.8	18.87%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	74.3	5.39%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	70.5
GeForce 9800 GX2	64.8	8.80%
GeForce GTX 280	64.8	8.80%
GeForce GTX 260	53.5	31.78%
Radeon HD 4870	48.1	46.57%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	40.6	73.65%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	39.7	77.58%
GeForce 9800 GTX	38.3	84.07%
Radeon HD 4850	36.7	92.10%
Radeon HD 4830	33.4	111.08%
GeForce 9800 GT	33.3	111.71%
Radeon HD 3870	22.4	214.73%

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	8.70%
GeForce GTX 280	125	8.70%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	120	4.35%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	115
Radeon HD 4870	101	13.86%
GeForce GTX 260	99	16.16%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	91	26.37%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	91	26.37%
GeForce 9800 GTX	84	36.90%
Radeon HD 4850	84	36.90%
GeForce 9800 GX2	75	53.33%
GeForce 9800 GT	75	53.33%
Radeon HD 4830	74	55.41%
Radeon HD 3870	71	61.97%

Crysis 1.2.1 - 1920x1200 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	119	3.48%
GeForce GTX 280	115	0.00%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	115
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	108	6.48%
Radeon HD 4870	84	36.90%
GeForce GTX 260	83	38.55%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	76	51.32%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	76	51.32%
GeForce 9800 GTX	69	66.67%
Radeon HD 4850	67	71.64%
GeForce 9800 GX2	63	82.54%
GeForce 9800 GT	61	88.52%
Radeon HD 4830	61	88.52%
Radeon HD 3870	58	98.28%

Crysis 1.2.1 - 2560x1600 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	103	19.77%
GeForce GTX 280	95	10.47%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	86
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	71	21.13%
Radeon HD 4870	53	62.26%
GeForce GTX 260	52	65.38%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	49	75.51%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	49	75.51%
GeForce 9800 GTX	44	95.45%
Radeon HD 4850	43	100.00%
GeForce 9800 GX2	42	104.76%
GeForce 9800 GT	39	120.51%
Radeon HD 4830	38	126.32%
Radeon HD 3870	35	145.71%

Crysis 1.2.1 - 1680x1050 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	57	21.28%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	47
GeForce GTX 280	42	11.90%
Radeon HD 4870	37	27.03%
GeForce GTX 260	32	46.88%
GeForce 9800 GTX	29	62.07%
Radeon HD 4850	29	62.07%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	29	62.07%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	28	67.86%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	26	80.77%
GeForce 9800 GX2	25	88.00%
GeForce 9800 GT	25	88.00%
Radeon HD 4830	25	88.00%
Radeon HD 3870	19	147.37%

Crysis 1.2.1 - 1920x1200 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	47	20.51%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	39
GeForce GTX 280	34	14.71%
Radeon HD 4870	30	30.00%
GeForce GTX 260	26	50.00%
Radeon HD 4850	23	69.57%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	23	69.57%
GeForce 9800 GTX	22	77.27%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	21	85.71%
GeForce 9800 GX2	21	85.71%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	20	95.00%
GeForce 9800 GT	20	95.00%
Radeon HD 4830	20	95.00%
Radeon HD 3870	16	143.75%

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	14.29%
GeForce 9800 GX2	108	10.20%
GeForce GTX 260	106	8.16%
GeForce GTX 280	104	6.12%
Radeon HD 4870	104	6.12%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	104	6.12%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	98
Radeon HD 4850	96	2.08%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	96	2.08%
GeForce 9800 GT	95	3.16%
Radeon HD 4830	89	10.11%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	84	16.67%
Radeon HD 3870	83	18.07%

Unreal Tournament 3 - 1920x1200 - Maximum	Score	Difference
GeForce 9800 GTX	108	11.34%
GeForce 9800 GX2	106	9.28%
GeForce GTX 260	103	6.19%
Radeon HD 4870	98	1.03%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	97
Radeon HD 4870 X2	95	2.11%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	94	3.19%
GeForce GTX 280	91	6.59%
Radeon HD 4850	89	8.99%
Radeon HD 4830	82	18.29%
GeForce 9800 GT	80	21.25%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	78	24.36%
Radeon HD 3870	75	29.33%

Unreal Tournament 3 - 2560x1600 - Maximum	Score	Difference
GeForce 9800 GTX	92	3.37%
GeForce 9800 GX2	92	3.37%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	91	2.25%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	89
Radeon HD 4870	78	14.10%
GeForce GTX 260	76	17.11%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	63	41.27%
GeForce GTX 280	62	43.55%
Radeon HD 4850	60	48.33%
Radeon HD 4830	53	67.92%
GeForce 9800 GT	52	71.15%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	51	74.51%
Radeon HD 3870	47	89.36%

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
Radeon HD 4870	170.0	6.25%
Radeon HD 4850	164.9	3.06%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	160.4	0.25%
Radeon HD 4870 X2	160.0	0.00%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	160.0	0.00%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	160.0
Radeon HD 4830	159.0	0.63%
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
Radeon HD 4870	165.0	3.77%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	159.0
Radeon HD 4870 X2	158.0	0.63%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	156.7	1.47%
GeForce GTX 280	156.3	1.73%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	155.0	2.58%
GeForce GTX 260	153.0	3.92%
Radeon HD 4850	149.8	6.14%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	149.0	6.71%
GeForce 9800 GTX	146.9	8.24%
GeForce 9800 GT	143.0	11.19%
Radeon HD 4830	138.0	15.22%
GeForce 9800 GX2	135.2	17.60%
Radeon HD 3870	120.1	32.39%

Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 2560x1600 - Low	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	156.0	4.70%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	149.0
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	147.0	1.36%
GeForce GTX 280	145.1	2.69%
GeForce 9800 GX2	130.6	14.09%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	129.7	14.88%
GeForce GTX 260	124.0	20.16%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	119.0	25.21%
Radeon HD 4870	117.0	27.35%
GeForce 9800 GTX	107.9	38.09%
GeForce 9800 GT	96.0	55.21%
Radeon HD 4850	93.9	58.68%
Radeon HD 4830	84.0	77.38%
Radeon HD 3870	72.8	104.67%

Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 1680x1050 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4850 X2	158.0
Radeon HD 4870 X2	157.0	0.64%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	145.0	8.97%
Radeon HD 4870	144.0	9.72%
GeForce 9800 GTX	137.9	14.58%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	126.1	25.30%
GeForce 9800 GX2	125.4	26.00%
GeForce GTX 260	121.0	30.58%
Radeon HD 4850	116.2	35.97%
Radeon HD 4830	101.0	56.44%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	94.0	68.09%
GeForce GTX 280	89.3	76.93%
GeForce 9800 GT	80.0	97.50%
Radeon HD 3870	68.3	131.33%

Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 1920x1200 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	157.0	3.29%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	152.0
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	131.0	16.03%
Radeon HD 4870	124.0	22.58%
GeForce 9800 GTX	116.3	30.70%
GeForce 9800 GX2	111.1	36.81%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	106.5	42.72%
GeForce GTX 260	101.0	50.50%
Radeon HD 4850	97.2	56.38%
Radeon HD 4830	85.0	78.82%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	74.0	105.41%
GeForce GTX 280	70.3	116.22%
GeForce 9800 GT	63.0	141.27%
Radeon HD 3870	56.8	167.61%

Half-Life 2: Episode Two - 2560x1600 - High	Score	Difference
Radeon HD 4870 X2	130.0	20.37%
Radeon HD 4850 X2	108.0
Radeon HD 4870	75.0	44.00%
GeForce 9800 GTX	71.3	51.47%
GeForce GTX 260	61.0	77.05%
Radeon HD 4850	58.4	84.93%
Radeon HD 4830	51.0	111.76%
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2	50.6	113.44%
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI	46.0	134.78%
GeForce 9800 GTX+	39.0	176.92%
GeForce 9800 GX2	37.5	188.00%
GeForce 9800 GT	36.0	200.00%
GeForce GTX 280	35.5	204.23%
Radeon HD 3870	34.9	209.46%

Conclusions

As expected, Radeon HD 4850 X2 achieved a performance level between Radeon HD 4870 and Radeon HD 4870 X2 and being faster than GeForce GTX 280. Since Radeon HD 4850 X2 and GeForce GTX 280 cost the same thing if you are saving money to buy a GTX 280 you may want to change your mind towards the new Radeon HD 4850 X2, which is today our recommendation on the very high-end segment. The only problem is, of course, price (remember that besides the cost of the video card you also need a video monitor capable of running resolutions like 1920x1200 or 2560x1600, otherwise buying a card like this doesn’t make sense). If you are an average user looking for a high-end video card with the best cost/benefit ratio, our recommendation stands with the regular Radeon HD 4850, which costs less than a half and will produce a performance that is considerable very high for most users.

Talking specifically about Sapphire’s model, we loved the fact that Sapphire decided to use its own cooler (very stylish, by the way) instead of using ATI’s reference model, which is heavy and heats a lot. We also liked the fact that this card comes with four video outputs instead of just two as usual.

You can see detailed numbers comparing Radeon HD 4850 X2 with all current high-end video cards available on the market today on the previous pages. Below we present a quick summary comparing Radeon HD 4850 X2 to the regular HD 4850, to HD 4870 and to GeForce GTX 280.

Compared to Radeon HD 4850, the new HD 4850 X2 was up to 105% faster (more than 100% is possible because the regular HD 4850 has 512 MB memory, while X2 has 2x 1 GB). The difference in performance on 3DMark06 was between 41% and 84%, on 3DMark Vantage was between 68% and 105%, on Call of Duty 4 was between 66% and 92%, on Crysis was between 37% and 100%, on Unreal Tournament 3 it was up to 48% and on Half-Life 2: Episode Two was between 36% and 85% when we maxed out image quality settings (with no image enhancements enabled, performance difference varied a lot depending on the resolution, at 1680x1050 we saw HD 4850 being actually 3% faster than X2, but X2 being 6% faster at 1920x1200; at 2560x1600 X2 was 59% faster).

Compared to Radeon HD 4870, the new Radeon HD 4850 X2 was up to 62% faster. Partial results are like this: between 18% and 44% faster on 3DMark06, between 30% and 59% faster on 3DMark Vantage, between 28% and 47% faster on Call of Duty 4, between 14% and 62% faster on Crysis and between 10% and 44% faster on Half-Life 2: Episode Two with image quality enhancements maxed out. We only saw a significant performance on Unreal Tournament 3 at 2560x1600, where Radeon HD 4850 X2 was 14% faster.

And finally compared to its main competitor, GeForce GTX 280, Radeon HD 4850 X2 was between 12% and 26% faster on 3DMark06, between 4% and 18% faster on 3DMark Vantage and between 77% and 204% faster on Half-Life 2: Episode Two with image quality enhancements maxed out (with image quality settings disabled both cards achieved the same performance). On Unreal Tournament 3 we only saw a significant performance difference at 2560x1600, where Radeon HD 4850 X2 was 43% faster.

The only time GeForce GTX 280 was faster than Radeon HD 4850 X2 was on Crysis with low image quality settings at 1680x1050 (9% faster). At 1920x1200 both cards achieved the same performance and at 2560x1600 Radeon HD 4870 X2 was 10% faster. With image quality set at “high” Radeon HD 4850 X2 was between 12% and 15% faster.

Originally at http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/645

---

© 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.