# Radeon HD 4890 3DMark Performance Revealed



## btarunr (Mar 18, 2009)

Taiwan-based English tech website OC Heaven has disclosed some performance figures of the upcoming ATI Radeon HD 4890 1 GB graphics accelerator. The tests run are two of the most popular synthetic benchmarks: 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark06. Also disclosed, rather verified, are the card's clock speeds as read by ATI Catalyst Control Center and GPU-Z. The test bed, from what the 3DMark06 window shows, consists of an Intel Core i7 920 CPU running at 2.66 GHz, coupled with 3 GB of system memory. In 3DMark06, the HD 4890 accelerator secured a score of 16,096 points, with SM 2.0 score of 6155, HDR/SM 3.0 score of 7521, and CPU score of 4836. In 3DMark Vantage, it secured a score of P10996. Catalyst Control Center reveals the card's memory bandwidth to be 124.8 GB/s, up from the 111 GB/s on its predecessor, the HD 4870. The early driver in use makes provides "RV790" as the device string to GPU-Z. 

*Update (03/19):*Ukrainian website Overclockers.com.ua has come up with a more comprehensive 3DMark shootout between cards in this segment. Radeon HD 4890 and HD 4890 CrossFireX are part of the comparison. The testers used an Intel Q6600 CPU running on an X48 motherboard with 4 GB of memory. The article can be read (Google-translated to English) here.



 

 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 18, 2009)

Until Wizzard Tests the board, Im not holding my breath.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 18, 2009)

What's a comparible score with a 4870?


----------



## niko084 (Mar 18, 2009)

Sasqui said:


> What's a comparible score with a 4870?



Close to the same..


----------



## alexp999 (Mar 18, 2009)

That seems a little low. My GTX 260 beats that.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 18, 2009)

Told ya. HD2900 all over again.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 18, 2009)

> I know some of you might want to say that HD4890 is just an overclocked version of HD 4870, but the test results are somewhat convincing. It shows a pretty good improvement in comparison with HD4870. *The score on 3DMark06 is very close to GeForce GTX 285*, but not on 3DMark Vantage* because of the advantage of PhysX that GTX 285 has taken*. Will HD4890 be fast enough to compete with GTX 285 in gaming? guess we'll have to see some more test results to be able to tell.



- the tester notes.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 18, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Told ya. HD2900 all over again.




Yea, but without the VIVO


----------



## alexp999 (Mar 18, 2009)

I get a GPU score of about 10,800 which isnt affected by Physx, I thought the 4870 was capable of more than these results show. The 4890 should be even further ahead.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 18, 2009)

dont always go by 3DM, as games dont tell lies.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> I get a GPU score of about 10,800 which isnt affected by Physx, I thought the 4870 was capable of more than these results show. The 4890 should be even further ahead.



And 8800's score comparable with a 4850, but what do you think does better outside a synthetic benchmark? Don't know about anyone else here, but I play games, I like to benchmark, but end of the day I'd rather play games better.


----------



## alexp999 (Mar 18, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> And 8800's score comparable with a 4850, but what do you think does better outside a synthetic benchmark? Don't know about anyone else here, but I play games, I like to benchmark, but end of the day I'd rather play games better.



I suppose, we need to wait until some gaming benchmarks come out then.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> I get a GPU score of about 10,800



At clock speeds of 576 MHz core/999 MHz memory ?

For reference, this the P score GTX 260-192 manages at stock speeds:






Your GTX 260 at 756/1269 can't be used for a making the statement "My GTX 260 beats that.", "my overclocked GTX 260 beats that" sounds legit.

Again, I'm not taking into account the differences in the test-beds, drivers, etc. between you and Guru3D


----------



## shiny_red_cobra (Mar 18, 2009)

Actually we need to wait till ATI provides official drivers for this card, as it is not fully supported yet so obviously the scores are a little low. Give it a couple of months and the drivers will improve substantially, and so will the scores.


----------



## ShogoXT (Mar 18, 2009)

Vantage score stinks as long as Physx is calculated into the CPU score and total score. 
The 3dmark06 though is promising.... If this card matches the GTX 285, consider them sunk.


----------



## niko084 (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> That seems a little low. My GTX 260 beats that.



You are also clocked to 3.6, that chip is at stock.


----------



## niko084 (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> I get a GPU score of about 10,800 which isnt affected by Physx, I thought the 4870 was capable of more than these results show. The 4890 should be even further ahead.



It is take a look-
http://hwbot.org/listResults.do?gpu...r=true&filterBlocked=true&sli=false&limit=100


----------



## OnBoard (Mar 18, 2009)

Here's my GTX 280 stock clocks. Only GPU scores on both

3DMark06: SM2.0: 6446 SM3.0: 7175
Vantage: GPU: 10924

HD4890 wins on 3DMark06 SM3.0 score but loses on rest. GTX 275 should match it nicely.

edit: HD 4890 scores:
SM 2.0 score of 6155, HDR/SM 3.0 score of 7521
Vantage: GPU 9801


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Mar 18, 2009)

Real world results would be good.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 18, 2009)

Ah, something is not adding up with the 3Dmark06 results.  I overclocked my 4870 to 850/975, using a E8400 at 3.60Ghz and this is my results:










They used a 920 @2.67Ghz in which we all should know by now that 3D06 is cpu bound.  The results should have been much higher.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 18, 2009)

shiny_red_cobra said:


> Actually we need to wait till ATI provides official drivers for this card, as it is not fully supported yet so obviously the scores are a little low. Give it a couple of months and the drivers will improve substantially, and so will the scores.



Screw the card. I need a full frontal shot of your avy.


----------



## Imsochobo (Mar 18, 2009)

drivers is the same as 4870, with tweaks if theyve altered the core to make it more efficient, everyone knows its based on an better 55NM process, is that all, hope not


----------



## alexp999 (Mar 18, 2009)

All I meant by my card, was that I was comparing a heavily OC'd GTX 260, to effectively a heavily OC'd 4870, so thought they would be closer matched than these results.


----------



## OnBoard (Mar 18, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Ah, something is not adding up with the 3Dmark06 results.  I overclocked my 4870 to 850/975, using a E8400 at 3.60Ghz and this is my results



You are on XP, results are not comparable (XP scores higher).

WarEagleAU: EastCoasthandle got 16155 3DMarks SM2:6907 SM3:8525 CPU:3364 on XP


----------



## WarEagleAU (Mar 18, 2009)

I hate that my work blocks pictures of yalls results. Looks to be a nice little improvement, but ATI needs to get on the Physx deal.


----------



## ShogoXT (Mar 18, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> I hate that my work blocks pictures of yalls results. Looks to be a nice little improvement, but ATI needs to get on the Physx deal.



Not really, its only serving to make Nvidia look better in this synthetic benchmark. Is that worth paying Nvidia money for?

EDIT: Sorry if that sounded fanboish, just annoyed how that works in Vantage. It screws the score....


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 18, 2009)

ShogoXT said:


> Not really, its only serving to make Nvidia look better in this synthetic benchmark. Is that worth paying Nvidia money for?



Well this may be news but some games use Physx. To bad Vantage doesnt use Havok instead.


----------



## farlex85 (Mar 18, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> The results are comparable IMO.  Many here believe that Vista is just as good as XP.  Furthermore, the 3D06 is CPU bound. The results with a quad core should have been higher then a dual core using XP.



It's been shown time and time again the in 3d06 xp yeilds better scores than in vista. Note that the i7920 did score 1500 points more in cpu score at 1ghz lower clock than the e8400. Sounds about right. This is a preliminary score w/o proper drivers and completely at stock (who here benches their stuff at stock?). It's also a 4890, not a 5870. Once it is released it will be a bit faster than the 4870, but not by a landslide. These seem about right considering.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 18, 2009)

OnBoard said:


> You are on XP, results are not comparable (XP scores higher).
> 
> WarEagleAU: EastCoasthandle got 16155 3DMarks SM2:6907 SM3:8525 CPU:3364 on XP



The results are comparable IMO.  Many here believe that Vista is just as good as XP.  Furthermore, the 3D06 is CPU bound. Having a quad core can increase the overall results of the benchmark when compared to a dual core. Therefore, IMO, the 920 quad core should have been higher then a overclocked dual core using XP.  The results of the 920 clearly show a higher benchmark result the E8400 at 3.60GHz.





farlex85 said:


> It's been shown time and time again the in 3d06 xp yeilds better scores. Note that the i7920 did score 1000 points more in cpu score at 1ghz lower clock. Sounds about right. This is a preliminary score w/o proper drivers and completely at stock (who here benches their stuff at stock?). It's a 4890, not a 5870. Once it is released it will be a bit faster than the 4870, but not by a landslide. These seem about right considering.


I would rather wait for other benchmark results.  Do to the higher CPU scores there doesn't appear to be any correlation with overall results.  If you look at both SM2.0 and SM3.0 they are much lower and I've seen higher results then that when using a Q2C.


----------



## erocker (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> All I meant by my card, was that I was comparing a heavily OC'd GTX 260, to effectively a heavily OC'd 4870, so thought they would be closer matched than these results.



That's just speculation.  It's not a heavily OC'd 4870 it's a stock 4890.  We have no idea what kind of overclocks these cards get yet.  I love my GTX 260 too, but since I love new cards, it's getting a playmate!


----------



## alexp999 (Mar 18, 2009)

erocker said:


> That's just speculation.  It's not a heavily OC'd 4870 it's a stock 4890.  We have no idea what kind of overclocks these cards get yet.  I love my GTX 260 too, but since I love new cards, it's getting a playmate!



Even if I hadnt made that comment, you must agree that these clocks seem unexplainably low. Iam basing my comments of what I know now, which afaik, is that the RV770 brings nothing more than higher clocks.

Take EastCoastHandle's results for example. His CPU score is lower, yet the SM scores are higher with the 4870 clocked at the same speed.


----------



## farlex85 (Mar 18, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I would rather wait for other benchmark results.  Do to the higher CPU scores there doesn't appear to be any correlation with overall results.  If you look at both SM2.0 and SM3.0 they are much lower and I've seen higher results then that when using a Q2C.





alexp999 said:


> Even if I hadnt made that comment, you must agree that these clocks seem unexplainably low. Iam basing my comments of what I know now, which afaik, is that the RV770 brings nothing more than higher clocks.
> 
> Take EastCoastHandle's results for example. His CPU score is lower, yet the SM scores are higher with the 4870 clocked at the same speed.





Drivers, this is an unreleased card


----------



## cdawall (Mar 18, 2009)

i could see it running with a GTX260 considering with both cards oc'd my G92 8800GTS keeps up with a 4850 oc'd and the 4870 runs with a 9800GTX


----------



## alexp999 (Mar 18, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Drivers



But if it is based off an RV770 then there should be no excuse on the drivers front.


----------



## farlex85 (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> But if it is based off an RV770 then there should be no excuse on the drivers front.



I was under the impression it was an RV790. Even if it's similar, it's going to be a tad different. For all we know, the only difference may be on the software level. Either way, it's a preliminary benchmark of an unreleased card (thus not to be expected as full results).


----------



## johnnyfiive (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> That seems a little low. My GTX 260 beats that.



It should, physx.


----------



## ghost101 (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> That seems a little low. My GTX 260 beats that.



Because your cpu (physx) score is through the roof.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For comparison:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=895112

HD4870 using cat 9.2, at 850mhz and q9300 @ 3.3ghz. I get a gpu score of 10,034 and overall score of P10613

The HD4890 is an overclocked hd4870, which is basically what the name of the card suggested.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> But if it is based off an RV770 then there should be no excuse on the drivers front.



It's not based off an RV770.


----------



## ghost101 (Mar 18, 2009)

btarunr said:


> It's not based off an RV770.



What makes you so sure? I think it is if these results are true.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 18, 2009)

ghost101 said:


> What makes you so sure? I think it is if these results are true.



Results aside, we were talking about drivers. It's not that existing drivers (the ones used in this test) seamlessly support RV790 just because it has a lot in common with the RV770.


----------



## alexp999 (Mar 18, 2009)

btarunr said:


> It's not based off an RV770.



You're article said it was! 



ghost101 said:


> Because your cpu (physx) score is through the roof.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...



I was only referring to the GPU score as I know physx affects the CPu score.


----------



## ghost101 (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> I was only referring to the GPU score as I know physx affects the CPu score.



Fair enough. What do you get with the 260 gtx? Is it overclocked?


----------



## alexp999 (Mar 18, 2009)

ghost101 said:


> Fair enough. What do you get with the 260 gtx? Is it overclocked?



I get about 10,800 GPU score and yes it is overclocked. But this card seems way too far behind. I know the 4870 cant quite match a GTX 260, but I only have a 192SP version, and I would have thought the RV790 would be capable of more than that.

Now I'm not throughing doubt on this, I'm just speaking my mind, when I say this.
How do we know this is even genuine? You could quite easily edit the fields in the screenies. Only reason I say this, is cus they have blanked out the BIOS version. WHY???


----------



## niko084 (Mar 18, 2009)

http://pchardwareblips.dailyradar.com/story/rv790_to_become_radeon_hd_4890/

Looks like the news is, it is indeed a different core.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> You're article said it was!



"It is effectively only an overclocked RV770" true, since its specs are identical to the point where clock speeds get in. But it wasn't said they had the same IDs, or the same ASICs.


----------



## alexp999 (Mar 18, 2009)

btarunr said:


> "It is effectively only an overclocked RV770" true, since its specs are identical to the point where clock speeds get in. But it wasn't said they had the same IDs, or the same ASICs.



If it has the same fab process, same number of stream processors, TMU's and ROP's, same memory interface. That in my book means based off. I didn't say it was an RV770, but the architecture must be so close to being the same (if not the same), then I cant see a reason for the drivers not to be fully optimized.


----------



## farlex85 (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> I get about 10,800 GPU score and yes it is overclocked. But this card seems way too far behind. I know the 4870 cant quite match a GTX 260, but I only have a 192SP version, and I would have thought the RV790 would be capable of more than that.
> 
> Now I'm not throughing doubt on this, I'm just speaking my mind, when I say this.
> How do we know this is even genuine? You could quite easily edit the fields in the screenies. Only reason I say this, is cus they have blanked out the BIOS version. WHY???



It could be fake. Given the circumstances it seems far more likely that it's just not running on all software cylinders yet. Either way, it's the first numbers, never trust them fully.



alexp999 said:


> If it has the same fab process, same number of stream processors, TMU's and ROP's, same memory interface. That in my book means based off. I didn't say it was an RV770, but the architecture must be so close to being the same (if not the same), then I cant see a reason for the drivers not to be fully optimized.



Again the main difference b/t the cards may lie at the software level. Perhaps you are expecting too much.


----------



## niko084 (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> I get about 10,800 GPU score and yes it is overclocked. But this card seems way too far behind. I know the 4870 cant quite match a GTX 260, but I only have a 192SP version, and I would have thought the RV790 would be capable of more than that.
> 
> Now I'm not throughing doubt on this, I'm just speaking my mind, when I say this.
> How do we know this is even genuine? You could quite easily edit the fields in the screenies. Only reason I say this, is cus they have blanked out the BIOS version. WHY???



We don't realistically.

But also the 4870 can come pretty close...
http://service.futuremark.com/resultComparison.action?compareResultId=522177&compareResultType=19

We have to take into account that this card is at "Stock Clocks" if it's even real, and is on pre-release drivers.

Do NOT take any of the numbers posted up as accurate, expect anywhere up to 20% or so off, if you look at a lot of cards numbers that seemingly get released before the release, they range from 5-20% off, in either direction.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 18, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> It could be fake. Given the circumstances it seems far more likely that it's just not running on all software cylinders yet. Either way, it's the first numbers, never trust them fully.
> 
> 
> 
> Again the main difference b/t the cards may lie at the software level. This is certainly the most likely cause for low numbers.



If anything was tweaked I am willing to believe it was to optimize the shaders making them more efficient.  Other then that we really have to wait and see once the card is released in order to know if anything was changed or not.  That would IMO determine if drivers for the 4870 wouldn't be as effective for the 4890, for example.


Furthermore, I honestly don't believe those results are correct.  Here is a i7 920 and 4870 (750/900) stock using Vista:
3D Marks 16057
SM2.0 = 6013
SM3.0 = 7481
CPU    = 5050
CPU clocked at 2.673GHz
source

Yet they are claiming 16096 using 850/975 also using a i7 920.  Come on, something is obviously not adding up with that result.
3D Mark 16096
sm 2.0 = 6155
sm 3.0 = 7521
cpu     = 4836


----------



## btarunr (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> If it has the same fab process, same number of stream processors, TMU's and ROP's, same memory interface. That in my book means based off.



Your book excludes the ASIC design itself as a factor.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> That seems a little low. My GTX 260 beats that.



With your CPU running at just 2.66gig or thereabouts?


----------



## alexp999 (Mar 18, 2009)

Tatty_One said:


> With your CPU running at just 2.66gig or thereabouts?



But they have an i7, thats got 8 threads!

Their CPU score is higher than mine in 3DMark 06


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 18, 2009)

alexp999 said:


> But they have an i7, thats got 8 threads!
> 
> Their CPU score is higher than mine in 3DMark 06



Really? I have found in 2006 that I need to get around 300mhz+ more speed to match it on CPU score.


----------



## Mega-Japan (Mar 18, 2009)

Where's my Crysis benchmark? :O


----------



## Polarman (Mar 18, 2009)

They don't mention how hot this card is!


----------



## SteelSix (Mar 18, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Screw the card. I need a full frontal shot of your avy.



+1 !!


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Mar 19, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> I was under the impression it was an RV790. Even if it's similar, it's going to be a tad different. For all we know, the only difference may be on the software level. Either way, it's a preliminary benchmark of an unreleased card (thus not to be expected as full results).



i totally agree! we should wait before we rush into conclusions on how good or bad this card is.


----------



## Ketxxx (Mar 19, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Screw the card. I need a full frontal shot of your avy.



+1


----------



## truehighroller1 (Mar 19, 2009)

I get 10800~ with my 4870 1GB and my CPU "Q9450" @ 3.86GHZ~. I wouls say this is a decent increase yes. My card is at 820 / 925.


----------



## Binge (Mar 19, 2009)

btarunr said:


> - the tester notes.



The 4800 series does so much better than any GTX200 card in 3DMark 06.  I really hate that benchmark... I mean older nVidia cards smoke the newer ones and they smoke the 4800 cards too.


----------



## iStink (Mar 19, 2009)

I hope ATI knows they need to offer this card at a killer price with how well nvidia is going.  I see ati as a great competitor, but it's obvious with nvidia's purchase of physx , 3dmark vantage scores will be a tad askew lol.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 19, 2009)

iStink said:


> I hope ATI knows they need to offer this card at a killer price with how well nvidia is going.  I see ati as a great competitor, but it's obvious with nvidia's purchase of physx , 3dmark vantage scores will be a tad askew lol.



You don't say...


----------



## btarunr (Mar 19, 2009)

Binge said:


> The 4800 series does so much better than any GTX200 card in 3DMark 06.  ...I really hate that benchmark...



On the bright side, you always end up with better scores in Vantage thanks to PhysX.


----------



## Binge (Mar 19, 2009)

I end up with a better score because it's a better card for the benchmark PhysX or no PhsyX







\


Top Performing 4870x2
1	giorgos th.	ASUS 4870 X2	850/900	*18526*	i7 Extreme 985 @ 4500


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 19, 2009)

Binge said:


> The 4800 series does so much better than any GTX200 card in 3DMark 06.  I really hate that benchmark... I mean older nVidia cards smoke the newer ones and they smoke the 4800 cards too.



Really?  My old Gainward GTX260 (192) @ 795mhz got me 22,040 in 3D Mark 2006 with my quad at 4.4gig, my old Xpertvision HD4870 1GB @ 815mhz didnt get anywhere near that, about 20,400 I think..... identical system settings.


----------



## Binge (Mar 19, 2009)

Your 192 was legendary.  You even said it yourself when I benched a 280 and it got lower marks that it was strange.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 19, 2009)

Binge said:


> Your 192 was legendary.  You even said it yourself when I benched a 280 and it got lower marks that it was strange.



True..... you got me there!


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 19, 2009)

as we say no big different it is only overclock for 4870 , but there is only one think about vantage score i have 4870 and i overclock it at 800/1000 but my gpu score is 9250 so did the only 50 more gpu give more than 750 gpu score


----------



## Saakki (Mar 19, 2009)

* ATI Radeon HD 4890: 850/975 MHz, 1 GB GDDR5
    * HD 4870 IceQ 4+ Turbo: 770/1000 MHz, 1 GB GDDR5
    * GeForce GTX 285: 648/1476/1242 MHz , 1 GB GDDR3


----------



## EarlZ (Mar 19, 2009)

Nothing really much an overclocked core can do, so this thing can finally beat the 260 216 in all possible situations, grats for ATI, next up is 280 and 285!


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 19, 2009)

EarlZ said:


> Nothing really much an overclocked core can do, so this thing can finally beat the 260 216 in all possible situations, grats for ATI, next up is 280 and 285!



Next up is apparently the GTX275, rumour has it that NVidia will release this new card on 6th April, the same day as the 4890 is released just to try and  ATi, it obviously sits between the 260 and the 285, it will allegedly outperform the 4890 (just) but be 10% cheaper.......  there are a number of sources claiming this on the webz, whether it's true or not IDK, I posted one link earlier in this thread I think.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 19, 2009)

WTF is the shader count?! W=Where.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 19, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> WTF is the shader count?! W=Where.



800.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Mar 19, 2009)

Apparently the shaders are more efficient than the 4870's. How true this is I don't know, we'll have to wait and see the real results.

I hope this card isn't power hungry, I really don't.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 19, 2009)

btarunr said:


> 800.



Source?


----------



## btarunr (Mar 19, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Source?



http://www.schottenland.de/preisvergleich/preise/proid_9880215/POWERCOLOR-Radeon-HD4890-A79F-TI3


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 19, 2009)

Shaders? They need more ROPs!


----------



## Black Hades (Mar 19, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> I hate that my work blocks pictures of yalls results. Looks to be a nice little improvement, but *ATI needs to get on the Physx deal*.



ATi will get on the Physx deal when DirectX11 is out  , and then where do you think Physx will stand?

I'm pretty neutral to the whole AMD/Nvidia thing but I see this as reallity, Physx is going to be just as mainstream as Itanium was (and is) for Intel. No matter how much Nvidia tries to push the matter or promote it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 19, 2009)

btarunr said:


> http://www.schottenland.de/preisvergleich/preise/proid_9880215/POWERCOLOR-Radeon-HD4890-A79F-TI3



I wonder if they are reliable.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 19, 2009)

Here are some more benchmarks, and comparisons with cards in its range. Also included is CrossFireX scaling in 3DMark. (Google Translated from Russian to English): http://translate.google.ru/translat...19/103501/&sl=ru&tl=en&history_state0=&swap=1

The good news is HD 4890 CrossFire should outperform GTX 295 whilst being the cheaper solution (eventually) a-la 2x GTX 260 vs. HD 4870 X2 in those days. 



TheMailMan78 said:


> I wonder if they are reliable.



I don't


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 19, 2009)

ROPs!? We need more TMUs!

Agreed. From analysis of 4830 performance, it is quite clear that the bottleneck is ROP and TMU not shader. 

HOWEVER, scaling shaders is much much easier than redesigning the ROP/TMU stages.  It's pimping shader statistics because it is the easiest and cheapest modification.

*****

I hope w1z will benchmark this against the RV770 with *identical shader clocks*. That way we can see if there really has been any shader optimisations, or if, in reality, the RV790 is *only* an overclocked RV770 (with marginal internal layout changes to avoid hotspots etc.)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 19, 2009)

btarunr said:


> I don't


 You don't what?


----------



## btarunr (Mar 19, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You don't what?



..find them unreliable, though we never know. HD 4850 was listed till the last moment as having 480 SPs. But looking at these benches, I don't think anything more than 800 SPs are on that card, given that it's already clocked high.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 19, 2009)

btarunr said:


> ..find them unreliable, though we never know. HD 4850 was listed till the last moment as having 480 SPs. But looking at these benches, I don't think anything more than 800 SPs are on that card, given that it's already clocked high.



 Ok. Your word is gold then 

My "sources" say that shader count will become more and more important in the coming months. Disclaimer: My source is an AMD shareholders letter. Which Iv used to wipe my ass with in the past.


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Mar 19, 2009)

Maybe its a driver issue,

All ATI cards start slow thanks to drivers so give it a month or two and it'll be quite a show!


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 20, 2009)

Ok, here is what I read so far...one reviewer said that he benchmarked the video card using Vantage at 1280x1024.
Based on a Q9450 @ 3.60Ghz  (testbed appears to be similar between video cards):
4870............ (750/900): P7715
4870 ............ (850/975 @ 3.0Ghz unless that was a typographical error): P8696
HD4890......... (850/975): P9801
GTX280 (600/1300/1100): P9367 
GTX285 (650/1475/1240): P10436


DailyTech believes the drivers are not optimized and they will benchmark the card this weekend with another set of drivers.  Hopefully we will see some game benchmarks soon.


----------



## farlex85 (Mar 20, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Ok, here is what I read so far...one reviewer said that he benchmarked the video card using Vantage at 1280x1024:
> Based on a Q9450 @ 3.60Ghz a
> 4870............ (750/900): P7715
> HD4890......... (850/975): P9801
> ...



Where did the 9801 come from? And yes, drivers. When is this card to be released?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 20, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Where did the 9801 come from? And yes, drivers. When is this card to be released?



I've updated my other post to include one more result (4870 at 850/975).  The 9801 is the GPU result only from vantage.  You can click on the "4890"<--to read that post. Along with this post


4890 top, 4870 bottom...been seen in a few threads already around the net.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 20, 2009)

Different ASIC 

An RV770 from our reviews:






The RV790:





Look at the arrangement of the components on the package, around the die.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 20, 2009)

LOOK! 
So, it's 6-pin after all.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Mar 20, 2009)

Dual 6 pin yeah.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 20, 2009)

I can confirm that the die-size of RV790 is greater than that of RV770. There is 'more' of something in this GPU.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 20, 2009)

Well that throws the "it's just a higher clocked 4870" out of the window.  

Fuds dispelled so far:
It is not a 8+6 pin design specifically
Die size is not the same therefore not just a higher clocked 4870




done by someone else

more to come...


----------



## btarunr (Mar 20, 2009)

The PCB has provision for 8+6 pins, but that's very optional. Manufacturers may choose use a 8+6 pin design, if they feel it helps their factory-overclocked models. You will note that the reference PCB for GeForce GTX 285 has provision for 8+6 pins, though the product ended up with only 6+6. 

The RV790 is a 'reworked' RV770, not an RV770 with higher clocks. So when one says 'it's just an overclocked HD 4870", it should be taken in context of the point that both GPUs have near-identical specs (so far), and not literally.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 20, 2009)

btarunr said:


> The PCB has provision for 8+6 pins, but that's very optional. Manufacturers may choose use a 8+6 pin design, if they feel it helps their factory-overclocked models.
> 
> The RV790 is a 'reworked' RV770, not an a RV770 with higher clocks. So when one says 'it's just an overclocked HD 4870", it should be taken in context of the point that both GPUs have near-identical specs (so far), and not literally.


From the context that I've read posted on the issue it did read to me "just a 4870 clocked higher'.  In reality (which others have pointed out) that this is a refresh of the RV770. No that does not mean it's a next gen GPU or a different current gen GPU.  Just a refresh...which from my prospective is more then just an overclocked 4870.  And cannot draw any comparisons of the use of such a term based on the information so far (unless there is actual information to suggest otherwise).  However as with any new release like this I look forward to knowing more about what this RV790 is when it's publicly reviewed.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 20, 2009)

btarunr said:


> I can confirm that the die-size of RV790 is greater than that of RV770. There is 'more' of something in this GPU.



Hmmmmmm This is becoming very interesting. Maybe it does in fact have more than 800 shaders.


----------



## DeathTyrant (Mar 20, 2009)

Looking pretty tasty. Come on then, let's get some game benchies please!


----------



## Salsoolo (Mar 21, 2009)

any info on TDP?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 21, 2009)

Salsoolo said:


> any info on TDP?



I've only found a pic showing idle temps of 900/1000.  Which IMO are decent when compared to the 4870 during its release. 





Until the card is release we have to take all this pre-released information with a grain of salt.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 21, 2009)

Hmmmm i wonder if these will work in Hybrid with a 4870x2 in CrossfireX??


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 22, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Shaders? They need more ROPs!



agree 100% , let they made it with 640SP but with more ROP'S and more texture units


----------



## Binge (Mar 22, 2009)

Wipe the slate clean and make something innovative.  If people were tired with overclocked and rebranded nV cards I don't know why there isn't more outrage with this


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 22, 2009)

fact of NV changing the Name of the GF9800 to GF GTS250. I recall back in the Day NV had the vanilla, GTS, and Ultra, too many Nomenclatures now TBH.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Mar 25, 2009)

Looks like the UK will be getting the 4890 very very soon...


----------

