[nextpage title=”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 through 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 at the reviewed model from Sapphire.
Figure 1: Sapphire HD 4870 X2.
Figure 2: Sapphire HD 4870 X2.
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 adapters 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.
Figure 4: Auxiliary power plugs.
[nextpage title=”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 73° C (163° F) and the temperature on the metallic part of the cooler was at 70° C (158° 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.
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.
Figure 6: Sapphire HD 4870 X2 with its cooler removed.
Figure 7: Sapphire HD 4870 X2 with its cooler removed.
In 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.
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.
Now let’s compare the Radeon HD 4870 X2 specifications to its main competitors.
[nextpage title=”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 in the table below, just take a look at 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 note 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.
[nextpage title=”Main Specifications”]
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: https://www.sapphiretech.com
- Average price in the US*: USD 560
* Researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review.
[nextpage title=”How We Tested”]
During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions the only variable 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 (30” LCD, 2560×1600).
- Power supply: OCZ EliteXStream 1,000 W.
- CPU Cooler: Thermaltake TMG i1
- Optical Drive: LG GSA-H54N
- Desktop video resolution: 2560×1600 @ 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+)
Software Used
- 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 9th 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: 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600. 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.
[nextpage title=”3DMark06 Professional”]
3DMark06 measures Shader 3.0 (i.e., DirectX 9.0c) performance. We run this software under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, 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 – 1680×1050 – 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 – 1920×1200 – 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 – 2560×1600 – 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 – 1680×1050 – 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 – 1920×1200 – 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 – 2560×1600 – 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% |
[nextpage title=”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. Mechanical physics is the basis for calculations about the interaction of objects. 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 at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600. First we used the “Performance” profile, and then we used the “Extreme” profile (basically enabling anti-aliasing at 4x, anisotropic filtering at 16x, and putting all detail settings at their maximum or “extreme” value. The combination of 2560×1600 resolution with extreme settings didn’t produce reliable results according to the program, so we aren’t going to add them here. The results being compared are the “GPU Scores” achieved by each video card.
3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1680×1050 – 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 – 1920×1200 – 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 – 2560×1600 – 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 – 1680×1050 – 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 – 1920×1200 – 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% |
[nextpage title=”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? It gives a more realistic experience to the user.
We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, maxing out all image quality controls (i.e., everything was put on the 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 benchmarks. The game was updated to version 1.6. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.
Call of Duty 4 – 1680×1050 – 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 – 1920×1200 – 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 – 2560×1600 – 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% |
[nextpage title=”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, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, 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 2560×1600 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 – 1680×1050 – 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 – 1920×1200 – 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 – 2560×1600 – 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 – 1680×1050 – 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 – 1920×1200 – 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% |
[nextpage title=”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 note 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 – 1680×1050 – 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 – 1920×1200 – 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 – 2560×1600 – 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% |
[nextpage title=”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, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, 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 9th 2008 patch. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.
Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 1680×1050 – 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 – 1920×1200 – 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 – 2560×1600 – 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 – 1680×1050 – 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 – 1920×1200 – 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 – 2560×1600 – 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% |
[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
Is Radeon HD 4870 X2 really the fastest single video card on 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 1680×1050 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 1920×1200 and 2560×1600 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 2560×1600, 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 on 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 73° C (163° F) and the temperature on the metallic part of the cooler was at 70° C (158° 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.
Leave a Reply