# Sapphire HD3870 512 MB



## W1zzard (Dec 5, 2007)

Sapphire's new HD 3870 card is based on AMD's RV670 GPU which is made in a 55 nm process with 666 million transitors and support for DirectX 10.1 and PCI-Express 2.0. This card that is sold for around $249 is intended to be AMD's new offering for an upper midrange card - but can it beat the GeForce 8800 GT?

*Show full review*


----------



## Deleted member 30823 (Dec 7, 2007)

What about new drivers from ATi? Do current drivers use all the potential of the chip?

And what about picture quality? We saw that nvidia uses bad tactics, ex. beta drivers for Crysis, total f@cked up quality, disrespect for customers! 

Dunno if they use these tactics for all games (dropping quality) and that's why they get higher scores!!


----------



## trog100 (Dec 7, 2007)

all good stuff.. there is typo in the max clock speed its 862.. and the only reason the card runs hot under load is ATI have chosen to run the fan at a max of 45% at 93 C.. the fan dosnt really speed up till the card reaches 90 C..

basically the cooler is perfectly okay its the low fan speed that causes the card to run at 90 C under load.. its a bit hot for my liking as well but ati seem to have chosen these kinda temps..

trog

ps.. mine runs gaming stable at 830/1230.. at 90 C..


----------



## Morgoth (Dec 7, 2007)

nice anny news from agp version?


----------



## Random Murderer (Dec 7, 2007)

am i the only one that noticed that the 2900xt 512 got 1.1 fps, the same as a 2400pro at 2048 x 1536?
typo, or did it really do that badly?


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 7, 2007)

Random Murderer said:


> am i the only one that noticed that the 2900xt 512 got 1.1 fps, the same as a 2400pro at 2048 x 1536?
> typo, or did it really do that badly?



it really did. the reason is that 512 mb memory is not enough for this benchmark


----------



## Random Murderer (Dec 7, 2007)

W1zzard said:


> it really did. the reason is that 512 mb memory is not enough for this benchmark



that doesn't make much sense considering it got beaten by 256MB cards and other 512MB cards, i.e. the entire hd3k series.


----------



## HousERaT (Dec 7, 2007)

I must say that is one of worst overclocking 3870s I've ever seen on the memory side.


----------



## Basard (Dec 8, 2007)

"Also it has to be mentioned that a BIOS bug exists in the first batches of 3870 cards that will not allow core clock adjustments above 846 MHz. To fix this a new BIOS has been released, which is available here."

Why wasn't the card tested with this new bios? Are you just "keeping it stock?" Or was the review written before the bios came out?  Are you scared that the same thing will happen to this that happend to the Phenoms with the new bios?   wouldn't that suck?


----------



## trog100 (Dec 8, 2007)

Basard said:


> "Also it has to be mentioned that a BIOS bug exists in the first batches of 3870 cards that will not allow core clock adjustments above 846 MHz. To fix this a new BIOS has been released, which is available here."
> 
> Why wasn't the card tested with this new bios? Or was the review written before the bios came out?  Are you scared that the same thing will happen to this that happend to the Phenoms with the new bios?   wouldn't that suck?



it is mentioned i think.. its also 862 not 846.. the cards aint gaming stable over 862 anyway.. all the new bios does is let u clock to a point where the card isnt stable. not much point really..

i have two they are both gaming stable around the 830=840 mark.. 

as for the memory well mine seems to run at 1300 but it artifacts in crysis very badly.. it needs to go right down to 1230 before the artifacts disappear.. the furry bench thing dosnt show them up but crysis does.. 

so take some of these high clocking figures claimed with a pinch of salt.. a quick look at a furry thing dont mean the card is stable..

the memory should go over 1200 thow i would recon on most cards.. mine are both very similar.. irrespective of what bios is loaded..

trog

ps.. my cards have been run in cod 4 as well as crysis.. the stability point for the core is the same in both games.. cod 4 dosnt hit the memory so hard thow..


----------



## Random Murderer (Dec 8, 2007)

trog100 said:


> it is mentioned i think.. its also 862 not 846.. the cards aint gaming stable over 862 anyway.. all the new bios does is let u clock to a point where the card isnt stable. not much point really..
> 
> i have two they are both gaming stable around the 830=840 mark..
> 
> ...



i found my card was crysis stable at 830/1250, but i had to get an antec spot cool to keep the damn memory cool enough...


----------



## Basard (Dec 8, 2007)

Everything runs so hot these days... I can't wait until they start finally making these chips outa plastic and using light.   That would be cool. Infinite Megahertz...


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 8, 2007)

Basard said:


> "Also it has to be mentioned that a BIOS bug exists in the first batches of 3870 cards that will not allow core clock adjustments above 846 MHz. To fix this a new BIOS has been released, which is available here."
> 
> Why wasn't the card tested with this new bios? Are you just "keeping it stock?" Or was the review written before the bios came out?  Are you scared that the same thing will happen to this that happend to the Phenoms with the new bios?   wouldn't that suck?



the new bios just removes the clock limit, it will not give you more overclocking. since our card didnt get close to that limit there is no point in using the new bios


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Dec 8, 2007)

Great review W1zz.  I liked the different graphs you included for the price/performance etc...  It seems to me though that the 3870 is only around 5fps faster than the 3850...  In aussie the 70 is around $100 more than the 50.....  doesn't seem worth it imo.  The gt is around $375.  that is worth the extra moolah over the 50 but I don't reckon the 70 is..


----------



## trog100 (Dec 8, 2007)

its the 512 faster memory that costs the extra.. a 512 850 with a dual slot cooler would be a good buy.. but would cost more..

i see wiz puts down a dual slot cooler as a negatiive.. to me its a positive..  

its the big dual slot cooler shifting hot air out of the case that makes these card run nice and quite.. even with the fan turned up somewhat..

with a 8800gt u are gonna have to pay extra for a decent cooler..

trog


----------



## jpierce55 (Dec 8, 2007)

My card is 100% stable at 843/1206 but runs hot, so I am at 810/1206 with 60% fan for 65c max temp. Performance increase after 810 was so minimal anyway, somewhere between 100-200 points in 3dmark, but only 1-2fps in a game. No need to torture the card.

W1zzard I don't think an aftermarket coolerwill help iirc. The cooler does good if the fan is turned up, I think only the memory would benefit from good copper h.s.

The bios flash is just a waste of the warranty!

Good review.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Dec 8, 2007)

trog100 said:


> its the 512 faster memory that costs the extra.. a 512 850 with a dual slot cooler would be a good buy.. but would cost more..
> 
> i see wiz puts down a dual slot cooler as a negatiive.. to me its a positive..
> 
> ...



I agree.  The single slot cooler on the 8800GT is pathetic....those cards get super hot and super loud 

I feel safer with a dual slot cooler installed lol


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 8, 2007)

Nice review w1zzard.

Seems these cards would benefit from water cooling.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Dec 9, 2007)

Great review as always W1zz. I wasnt really aware of the clock limit even with the bios that was posted a couple weeks back. My biggest complaint would be the temps. Im assuming a decent water cooling setup on these would allow for more memory headroom, right?


----------



## jpierce55 (Dec 9, 2007)

WarEagleAU said:


> Great review as always W1zz. I wasnt really aware of the clock limit even with the bios that was posted a couple weeks back. My biggest complaint would be the temps. Im assuming a decent water cooling setup on these would allow for more memory headroom, right?



I don't expect much, if you preset the fan at 60% 65c is about the peak temp running 810/1206. With 100% I could run 843/1206 fairly cool, but loud. Anything more than 843 got artifacts. I think a voltage increase is the only real help you can get here, after that w/c might help.


----------



## Xaser04 (Dec 10, 2007)

trog100 said:


> its the 512 faster memory that costs the extra.. a 512 850 with a dual slot cooler would be a good buy.. but would cost more..
> 
> i see wiz puts down a dual slot cooler as a negatiive.. to me its a positive..
> 
> ...



Most of the 512mb 3850's I have seen here in the UK are only marginally more expensive than the 256 models. 

EG my powercolor HD3850 512mb was £115. Most 256mb models are this price or a tad below.


----------



## Ketxxx (Dec 10, 2007)

Uknow its saying something when an older gen product is beating a new gen product in half the tests...... of course, that could be just down to W1z' inability to OC a CPU, and thus cuasing a bottleneck. Its easy to take any C2D to 3GHz to help eliminate that


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 10, 2007)

Ketxxx said:


> Uknow its saying something when an older gen product is beating a new gen product in half the tests...... of course, that could be just down to W1z' inability to OC a CPU, and thus cuasing a bottleneck. Its easy to take any C2D to 3GHz to help eliminate that



show me the benchmarks with res > 1024x768 where you see a cpu bottleneck?

if i bench with yorkfield the next time people will say "please use cpus real people can actually buy and afford". god this is so annoying. i spend my time to do over 1000 (ONE THOUSAND) benchmark runs total for a vga review and get such bs.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 10, 2007)

so you do all these tests every time?


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 10, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> so you do all these tests every time?



for every new driver. remember last time how people complained about me using "ancient" catalyst 7.7 ? next complete retest will probably be with catalyst 8.1 and the new nvidia whql once its out, takes me about 10 days to do the testing for all the cards


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 10, 2007)

W1zzard said:


> for every new driver. remember last time how people complained about me using "ancient" catalyst 7.7 ? next complete retest will probably be with catalyst 8.1 and the new nvidia whql once its out, takes me about 10 days to do the testing for all the cards



You do put in a lot of work for these benchmarks. Much love goes out to you for making consumers make the right choices.


----------



## shoman24v (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm still confused with some of the benches.  All I see are numbers but you don't reveal what settings were used.  My PC can't run STALKER in all it's glory yet, with your benches STALKER runs about 300% fast with AA an AF at an ungodly resolution, something that isn't possible in DX9.


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 10, 2007)

shoman24v said:


> I'm still confused with some of the benches.  All I see are numbers but you don't reveal what settings were used.  My PC can't run STALKER in all it's glory yet, with your benches STALKER runs about 300% fast with AA an AF at an ungodly resolution, something that isn't possible in DX9.



all games were run at their high quality setting, except for stalker where accidentally a lower detail level was selected with static lighting. in future reviews (after the 8800 gts 512 tomorrow) i will test with the correct setting


----------



## shoman24v (Dec 10, 2007)

W1zzard said:


> all games were run at their high quality setting, except for stalker where accidentally a lower detail level was selected with static lighting. in future reviews (after the 8800 gts 512 tomorrow) i will test with the correct setting


Thanks, but you may want to note that in your tests.  I chose not to play that game with my current card simply because it looks dated in DX8, and it runs slowly in DX9.  Sorta the reason why I'd love to see the benches in DX9 to see how much more performance I could get with an upgrade....


----------



## Ketxxx (Dec 12, 2007)

W1zzard said:


> show me the benchmarks with res > 1024x768 where you see a cpu bottleneck?
> 
> if i bench with yorkfield the next time people will say "please use cpus real people can actually buy and afford". god this is so annoying. i spend my time to do over 1000 (ONE THOUSAND) benchmark runs total for a vga review and get such bs.



Most highend cards get bottlenecked up to around 1600*1200, especially in CF or SLi. IMO eliminating a CPU bottleneck is important for people to see just how well a card can perform, as on forums like these I doubt anybody leaves their system totally stock. Theres also not any need to "update" card results just because of new drivers. It would be better to simply compare cards roughly in the same class rather than have a bloody great list of other cards results ppl probably wont even bother looking at. eg; you test a 3850 out, wonderful, but compare it to a 3870, 8800GTS and 8800GT. People looking at a review like that are hardly interested in seeing how a 2600XT performs, if they were, they would of googled for a review of that. Just my 2c.


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 12, 2007)

Ketxxx said:


> Most highend cards get bottlenecked up to around 1600*1200, especially in CF or SLi. IMO eliminating a CPU bottleneck is important for people to see just how well a card can perform, as on forums like these I doubt anybody leaves their system totally stock. Theres also not any need to "update" card results just because of new drivers.



show me your data please, numbers, not words


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Dec 12, 2007)

W1zzard said:


> show me the benchmarks with res > 1024x768 where you see a cpu bottleneck?
> 
> if i bench with yorkfield the next time people will say "please use cpus real people can actually buy and afford". god this is so annoying. i spend my time to do over 1000 (ONE THOUSAND) benchmark runs total for a vga review and get such bs.



I really appreciate the reviews you do, and the effort you put into them.  They are some of the better reviews I've read.  It is really hard to please everyone though.  Some have unrealistic views and do not appreciate the difficulty in creating a standardized system for realistic comparison.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 12, 2007)

W1zzard said:


> Sapphire's HD 3870 is a bit shorter than the HD 2900 cards which ensures it will fit every case. The cooler follows the typical ATI style with red transparent plastic.



how long is the card exactly? (cm or mm)


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Dec 12, 2007)

I believe 9 inches or 22.86 cm.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 13, 2007)

Hell, i like the comparisons, and the performance for price is awesome. A review like this allows me to know that my system now sucks. 

It does exactly what the manufacturers hope it will, make me want new hardware/


----------



## sneekypeet (Dec 13, 2007)

I really like the review done here as well. Looks like it took a long time to accumulate all the info. 

Personally I would love a run at 4.0 GHz just to see the difference in output from the GPU. In my eyes it seems as tho this would make testing take twice as long tho, for an already busy man. I appreciate the efforts put forward to get very equal results, but wouldnt mind seeing a balls out run on the cards at say a standard 1280X1024 no AA or AF @ high 3's or 4.0GHz. 

Continue on with the great reviews tho W1z, I realy think Im just being greedy but I wouls still love to see it!!!!!


----------



## Ketxxx (Dec 14, 2007)

W1zzard said:


> show me your data please, numbers, not words



I'll do some googling when I get some spare time, may not be until just after christmas.


----------



## Davidelmo (Dec 14, 2007)

iron_gr said:


> What about new drivers from ATi? Do current drivers use all the potential of the chip?
> 
> And what about picture quality? We saw that nvidia uses bad tactics, ex. beta drivers for Crysis, total f@cked up quality, disrespect for customers!
> 
> Dunno if they use these tactics for all games (dropping quality) and that's why they get higher scores!!



Please show me "total f@cked up picture quality" in Crysis

There were TINY, absolutely minimal differences that brought huge performance increases. I know I would rather play at 30fps at the expense of a tiny bit of shading on the water or something.

Besides, it was a BETA driver. Thus it is a test. They weren't disrespecting customers at all.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 14, 2007)

I want to experiment with 4 3850 cards before the CF-X drivers roll out. Would it work? It's the MSI 790X board with a Windsor 6400+. This CF interconnect cable arrangement I picked from the spider-platform video.

Is there no workaround?


2. Why is it that board-partners have almost given-up making their own PCBs and coolers? Everyone is using reference stuff with just a sticker here and there.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 20, 2007)

Anyone have a idea of performance increase I would get off one of these? I have my 3800+ at 2.6Ghz right now, and am just running stock on the X1800XT as I dislike the extra noise from the fan at higher clocks.


----------



## sneekypeet (Dec 21, 2007)

No offense Steevo but the 3870 will be bottle necked hugely by the 3800+. There will be gains to be had. The new games will run with all the pretty turned on , but say in 3D06 you will be crippled by the 3800+!


----------



## Steevo (Dec 21, 2007)

More pretties is what I am looking for. I dislike playing games at medium settings.



From what I see a 25% boost in performance or better is what I should expect.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 10, 2008)

After having my 3870 for a week or so, and getting one games issues sorted (Test Drive unlimited) I must say that even with this processor it really made a huge difference in gaming, and image quality.


I would really like to thank W1zz for the comparison to older cards (X1800GTO) and the X1900 series, that really helped me put the performance ratio in perspective. For me this gained a average of 50% better based off using FRAPS in game, and a few tools.


Thanks again.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jan 10, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> No offense Steevo but the 3870 will be bottle necked hugely by the 3800+. There will be gains to be had. The new games will run with all the pretty turned on , but say in 3D06 you will be crippled by the 3800+!



Who cares about 3D Marks.. jesus... why do people be so impractical these days? Don't tell me you 3D Mark more than you game... you get a better GPU for practical purposes and not benchmarking.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 10, 2008)

To be honest I am impressed with the 3D06 score of 9000 at stock that I received. And I only have on gig of RAM installed, my 2gig kit was delivered today, but I took the afternoon off to go to my wife's first visit with our OB. We has  11week old in her tummeh.



But anyway, it works great for gaming, and is quieter than my X1800XT, and soon will be hooked up to my theater system. I love it.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 19, 2008)

EXCELLENT REVIEW, just excellent.  

Thanks

14,113 3dMark06 with my system   <--


----------



## tzitzibp (Jan 25, 2008)

Great review...... and many useful comments in this thread!!!

Soon to prepare a crossfire setup with this card....


----------

