# ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2 First Benchmarks



## malware (Jan 14, 2008)

Thanks to Asian website ITOCP, we can get an idea of how fast the first ATI Radeon 3 series dual GPU graphics card will be. Benching on Intel Core 2 Duo 6600 processor at 2.4GHz and 2GB of RAM, the system managed to score 9573 marks (SM2.0: 4494, SM3.0/HDR: 4476) on Futuremark 3D Mark 2006 set to 2560x1600 resolution. The GPU Core/Memory of this card is rated at 770MHz / 2250MHz (2x512MB). Lower resolution benchmark numbers are not mentioned in the original article.



 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Nex- (Jan 14, 2008)

Lol. Check this out guys. The HD3870X2 on youtube!: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0-cbF8lJHW0


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 14, 2008)

It looks a bit choppy at times,but at that rez with aa/af......wow


----------



## snuif09 (Jan 14, 2008)

das ist geil


----------



## imperialreign (Jan 14, 2008)

I really hope this is just the tip of the iceberg with these cards - hopefully, some more refinement and tweaking before final release will finally deliver the competitive mid/high end card from ATI we've been lacking since the initial release of the 1950.

I hope, though, that this card doesn't turn out to be another one-hit-wonder.


----------



## Darknova (Jan 14, 2008)

Gah....Wow....My 3870 feels really lowly now


----------



## niko084 (Jan 14, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> I really hope this is just the tip of the iceberg with these cards - hopefully, some more refinement and tweaking before final release will finally deliver the competitive mid/high end card from ATI we've been lacking since the initial release of the 1950.
> 
> I hope, though, that this card doesn't turn out to be another one-hit-wonder.



Are you crazy?!?!?

The HD3850 is a complete ANIMAL especially for a sub $200 card that draws next to no power....

I can play Crysis maxed 1280x1024 no AA, Rv6 Vegas maxed I get like 90fps, over 300fps in CS:S completely maxed.....

This card solo eats up my previous Crossfire 1950xt 512mb cards...
And its only a 256mb...... Going to buy a 512mb here in a week or two.

HD3870x2 would be a monster for sure but..... Seriously...
The HD3850 is a stomper for a *midrange priced* card!


----------



## cool_recep (Jan 14, 2008)

Nex- said:


> Lol. Check this out guys. The HD3870X2 on youtube!: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0-cbF8lJHW0



it is old news dude...


----------



## Nex- (Jan 14, 2008)

cool_recep said:


> it is old news dude...


i diden't knew that man.   Anyway it is new news for me and some others.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Jan 14, 2008)

Exactly, nice one Nex!


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2008)

niko084 said:


> Are you crazy?!?!?
> 
> The HD3850 is a complete ANIMAL especially for a sub $200 card that draws next to no power....
> 
> ...


so crysis in DX10 on 'very high' works at what FPS? oh and 'maxed' includes AA by most definitions.


----------



## niko084 (Jan 14, 2008)

Mussels said:


> so crysis in DX10 on 'very high' works at what FPS? oh and 'maxed' includes AA by most definitions.



25-30ish and yes DX10 Very High or DX9 High, doesn't seem to have much on an impact at all.
Card is running at 725/1004, its perfectly stable up to around 780/1050.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 14, 2008)

ah if its OC'd that could make a diff, i'm just getting pissed at everyone saying 'maxed' when they mean DX9 on high with no AA at 1024x768.

25 FPS *Shudders*


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jan 14, 2008)

hang on

so this card is two in one, so how much is two normal 3870? if this is going to be around $400-500, can you just get two normal 3870 for around the same price?


----------



## mdm-adph (Jan 14, 2008)

WhiteLotus said:


> hang on
> 
> so this card is two in one, so how much is two normal 3870? if this is going to be around $400-500, can you just get two normal 3870 for around the same price?



People will buy it for the same reason people still buy 8800 Ultras, even though I'm pretty sure a few x-fire'd ATI cards are faster (and quite a bit cheaper) -- they get to have the title of "fastest card."


----------



## suraswami (Jan 14, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> People will buy it for the same reason people still buy 8800 Ultras, even though I'm pretty sure a few x-fire'd ATI cards are faster (and quite a bit cheaper) -- they get to have the title of "fastest card."



And I know few who buy high end hardware just to boast.  I know a person who has the highest clocked unlocked C2D + 8800 Ultra + highest mem available and uses just for browsing.


----------



## csplayer089 (Jan 14, 2008)

only 9500 on 3dmark06?

a tad low?

whoa nvm...res is 2560x1600

thats pretty damn good


----------



## Monkeywoman (Jan 14, 2008)

HEY! u guys notice that rig was running on ABSOLUTE STOCK! check this out, with mature drivers its an easy 10,000 points. add to that an oced quad, 3.2Ghz instead of that 2.4 garbage and uve got ur self 12,000 points at 1600x1200. don't forget to oc those chips eh? this card has lots of potential


----------



## nflesher87 (Jan 14, 2008)

Monkeywoman said:


> HEY! u guys notice that rig was running on ABSOLUTE STOCK! check this out, with mature drivers its an easy 10,000 points. add to that an oced quad, 3.2Ghz instead of that 2.4 garbage and uve got ur self 12,000 points at 1600x1200. don't forget to oc those chips eh? this card has lots of potential



you beat me to it, I was shocked to see that they used an E6600 at stock, all of the initial benchmarks these days are the very latest CPU such as the QX9650 overclocked like hell
this is impressive


----------



## mandelore (Jan 14, 2008)

damn thats a nice card....

I wonder what it would score on a 4ghz+ qx9650 & hi end tweaked ddr2.

and then with some oc on the card itself AND at default 3dmark rez!!! lols!


----------



## niko084 (Jan 14, 2008)

Mussels said:


> ah if its OC'd that could make a diff, i'm just getting pissed at everyone saying 'maxed' when they mean DX9 on high with no AA at 1024x768.
> 
> 25 FPS *Shudders*



25 fps is fine as long as its stable at or above that..
Considering a TV in non progressive is less...

But yes it would be nice to see something more around 50-60 but thats not going to happen with any current equipment.. Especially not with AA.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 14, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> People will buy it for the same reason people still buy 8800 Ultras, even though I'm pretty sure a few x-fire'd ATI cards are faster (and quite a bit cheaper) -- they get to have the title of "fastest card."


What about the people that don't have a Crossfire board?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 14, 2008)

that is a pretty low 3dmark score, no ?


----------



## niko084 (Jan 14, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> that is a pretty low 3dmark score, no ?



Thats what I thought at first then I looked at it again...

It's not at 1280x1024 its at 2560x1600!


----------



## mdm-adph (Jan 14, 2008)

Wile E said:


> What about the people that don't have a Crossfire board?



The extra cost of a Crossfire board is usually offset by the fact that you're able to run two cheaper cards for greater performance than just one super-expensive one.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 14, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> The extra cost of a Crossfire board is usually offset by the fact that you're able to run two cheaper cards for greater performance than just one super-expensive one.


I doubt this will be a great deal more expensive than 2 3870's. Not to mention, changing your board and running 2 cards can be a hassle. What if you already have a great board, but no x-fire support?

Even if you do have an X-fire board, running one of these will perform on par with a pair of 3870s in X-fire, but also leave you the option to add another later, completely trumping the idea of a pair of 3870s.


----------



## springs113 (Jan 14, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I doubt this will be a great deal more expensive than 2 3870's. Not to mention, changing your board and running 2 cards can be a hassle. What if you already have a great board, but no x-fire support?
> 
> Even if you do have an X-fire board, running one of these will perform on par with a pair of 3870s in X-fire, but also leave you the option to add another later, completely trumping the idea of a pair of 3870s.



not if you are like me...lol...with the msi xfire 790 board that can hold four dual slots...currently the only board available that can do that


----------



## Wile E (Jan 14, 2008)

springs113 said:


> not if you are like me...lol...with the msi xfire 790 board that can hold four dual slots...currently the only board available that can do that


lol. My only point was that there are always exceptions.


----------



## imperialreign (Jan 14, 2008)

niko084 said:


> Are you crazy?!?!?
> 
> The HD3850 is a complete ANIMAL especially for a sub $200 card that draws next to no power....
> 
> ...



Oh, I understand that, the 3850 is an excellent card (and when have ATI released a sub par midrange?) - I'm just saying that this new card is looking to be the calm before the storm for ATI.  I get the impression the potential of this card is going to come from left field and take people by surprise . ..  just my opinon . . .





As to talk of price . . . I wonder if ATI will keep to their older statement that they don't intend to release anything over the $499 mark anymore . . .


----------



## zOaib (Jan 14, 2008)

so when is this DEVIL comin out , i am ready for it =P


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jan 14, 2008)

niko084 said:


> 25 fps is fine as long as its stable at or above that..
> Considering a TV in non progressive is less...
> 
> But yes it would be nice to see something more around 50-60 but thats not going to happen with any current equipment.. Especially not with AA.



25 on a PC monitor is atrocious, though. TVs cheat and blur the frames to make them appear smoother. I can't stand anything under 40, and I'm not happy until 60+. If the refresh rate is under 100, I can see that too (which really bugs the shit out of me).

So, basically, my eyes function too fast I guess


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jan 15, 2008)

yeah the 2500 x 1600 resolution means this bitch is a monster.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 15, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> 25 on a PC monitor is atrocious, though. TVs cheat and blur the frames to make them appear smoother. I can't stand anything under 40, and I'm not happy until 60+. If the refresh rate is under 100, I can see that too (which really bugs the shit out of me).
> 
> So, basically, my eyes function too fast I guess



yeah i agree... i have an LCD, anything under 35 FPS makes me think im epileptic, crysis' bloated engine in dx10 does do that from time to time... which is why i refuse to run it at 'maxed' even with an aggresive OC on an 8800GT.

I would love to have this card, i bet it would work awesome on a basic 19" LCD.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jan 15, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> As to talk of price . . . I wonder if ATI will keep to their older statement that they don't intend to release anything over the $499 mark anymore . . .


You know, as much as I like ATI, I think that if they did say that, it's complete BS -- if this card comes out and it's fast as greased lightening (like it looks like) and is the fastest thing around, ATI will charge whatever ridiculous price they want, and people will pay it.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 17, 2008)

Ok, does anyone have results of a single 3870 at stock clocks running the same bench in 3dmark, I am trying to test it here but the highest I can get my rez to is 1920x1200(Limit of my 24")

Id like to get a good comparison of a 3870x2 to the 3870.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 17, 2008)

how can you get a good comparison to a 2 gpu card with one 3870? unless you compare it to a 3870x2 with one gpu running only? Its like sli v's single card.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 17, 2008)

tigger69 said:


> how can you get a good comparison to a 2 gpu card with one 3870? unless you compare it to a 3870x2 with one gpu running only? Its like sli v's single card.



i just want to know a 3dmark number so i can compare my OCed 3870 to a 3870x2, did I phrase it wrong?


----------



## imperialreign (Jan 17, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> You know, as much as I like ATI, I think that if they did say that, it's complete BS -- if this card comes out and it's fast as greased lightening (like it looks like) and is the fastest thing around, ATI will charge whatever ridiculous price they want, and people will pay it.



yeah, I can completely agree with them charging whatever they want for their high end models; but, I'm pleasantly surprised that they're doing their best to keep prices below nVidia's hardware.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 18, 2008)

only for the top model do people pay more, and quantity is a big one. if this thing is rare, prices will skyrocket.


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 18, 2008)

Mussels said:


> only for the top model do people pay more, and quantity is a big one. if this thing is rare, prices will skyrocket.



Its sad they do that, the same thing is still going on with the 3870 cards too!  I was gonna buy a 3870 the day of release and they were 220 on newegg, they had sold out by the time I checked out my cart, so i missed out.  Went back to check on stock the day after next and they were 279.99.  Atleast they are only 250 now but i still think its ridiculous that they can price gouge like that


----------



## Mussels (Jan 18, 2008)

they raise the price to reduce sales. people would rather save up for a bit longer, than be told 'nah we ran out'


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 18, 2008)

id rather just pay MSRP and if they are out of stock then I wait till they are not.  If they anticiate high sales/low stock (which they do) they should have just set the MSRP higher


----------



## niko084 (Jan 18, 2008)

TheGuruStud said:


> 25 on a PC monitor is atrocious, though. TVs cheat and blur the frames to make them appear smoother. I can't stand anything under 40, and I'm not happy until 60+. If the refresh rate is under 100, I can see that too (which really bugs the shit out of me).
> 
> So, basically, my eyes function too fast I guess



Little funny considering your "BRAIN" can't process over I believe its 64fps.

But yes in some scenes 25 does look a little off, but its perfectly playable.


----------



## niko084 (Jan 18, 2008)

imperialreign said:


> Oh, I understand that, the 3850 is an excellent card (and when have ATI released a sub par midrange?) - I'm just saying that this new card is looking to be the calm before the storm for ATI.  I get the impression the potential of this card is going to come from left field and take people by surprise . ..  just my opinon . . .
> 
> 
> As to talk of price . . . I wonder if ATI will keep to their older statement that they don't intend to release anything over the $499 mark anymore . . .



Well they have always kinda held on there but it was a nice card to see by all means..

From the looks of it the 3870x2 should be destroying 8800ultras and for a few hundred less...
See what happens on release.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 18, 2008)

niko084 said:


> Little funny considering your "BRAIN" can't process over I believe its 64fps.
> 
> But yes in some scenes 25 does look a little off, but its perfectly playable.



thats a myth. an old one at that, and everyone has their own opinion on what number it is.

Some tests were done 2-3 years ago, and some people can see over 100FPS -it varies per person.

I know i can see up into the 80's, games feel slow to me below around 70, and i cant stand a refresh rate below 80.


edit, link and quote
http://amo.net/nt/05-24-01FPS.html


			
				page said:
			
		

> The Human Eye perceiving 220 Frames Per second has been proven, game developers, video card manufacturers, and monitor manufacturers all admit they've only scratched the surface of Frames Per Second.





			
				page again said:
			
		

> Do a search for high-speed video cameras and you'll find some capable of 44,000+ frames per second, that should give you a clue.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jan 18, 2008)

Mussels said:


> thats a myth. an old one at that, and everyone has their own opinion on what number it is.
> 
> Some tests were done 2-3 years ago, and some people can see over 100FPS -it varies per person.
> 
> I know i can see up into the 80's, games feel slow to me below around 70, and i cant stand a refresh rate below 80.



Exactly, and I know people that 60 Hz doesn't even bother them. It gives me a splitting headache, though.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 18, 2008)

another link from the same source.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html


			
				page said:
			
		

> The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.


----------



## niko084 (Jan 18, 2008)

Mussels said:


> another link from the same source.
> 
> http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html



That quote from the line doesn't fit...

Flashing an image doesn't mean you can "see" that many fps..
Flashing 120 images in 1 second and being able to tell what each one of them is, that is proof of seeing 120 fps.... good luck remembering though.

My source was not tested by sight of eye and claiming to be able to see things, it was done by neurologists, I'll see if I can find the link again, and its not old its fairly new.

I'm open to things being incorrect by all means.


----------



## twicksisted (Jan 18, 2008)

tigger69 said:


> It looks a bit choppy at times,but at that rez with aa/af......wow



He must be lying though about that resolution... that dell 27" monitor in the video clip only does 1920X1200... I know as I was going to buy it, but went for a 24" samsung instead as it was half the price...


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 18, 2008)

twicksisted said:


> He must be lying though about that resolution... that dell 27" monitor in the video clip only does 1920X1200... I know as I was going to buy it, but went for a 24" samsung instead as it was half the price...



do you have the samsung 245bw??


----------



## twicksisted (Jan 18, 2008)

um... well im at work now so i cant look... but i think its the 245B

yeah its the SM-245B (just looked at overclockers where i bought it)


----------



## asb2106 (Jan 18, 2008)

twicksisted said:


> um... well im at work now so i cant look... but i think its the 245B
> 
> yeah its the SM-245B (just looked at overclockers where i bought it)



ahh very cool, I have the 245bw and I love that monitor, the contrast is amazing and I have had great luck gaming with it.  Samsung does make a great monitor


----------



## Ketxxx (Jan 18, 2008)

The hell kind of design do they call that? I'm apauled by that PCB.


----------



## Hawk1 (Jan 18, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> The hell kind of design do they call that? I'm apauled by that PCB.



I agree! **rubbing hands anxiously**


----------



## Ketxxx (Jan 18, 2008)

I'm serious, its a terrible PCB design, they should be shot for that.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 19, 2008)

Ketxxx said:


> I'm serious, its a terrible PCB design, they should be shot for that.


You think every pcb is terrible. I'd like to see what you come up for this.


----------



## niko084 (Jan 20, 2008)

Wile E said:


> You think every pcb is terrible. I'd like to see what you come up for this.



Honestly...

Probably a better design but that costs quite a bit more.... Not to the company mind you but once it gets to us of course it will be an extra $100...


----------



## Kursah (Jan 20, 2008)

Wile E said:


> You think every pcb is terrible. I'd like to see what you come up for this.



I know it's possible for them to do, but I do not know what production costs would come to, but if they in-fact would make both cores on one die (I thought I read that was their plan back in Sept-Oct 2007), keeping the PCB length around 9", 1GB of GDDR4 @ High speed, and one 6pin PCIe plug (maybe 2 if they can't get complete stability or OC-ability).

That's where I believe this card should've headed, it's only a matter of time before one of the two big graphics card compainies does such a thing. And with their newer process, lower power-consumption chips, 2 of them on one die can be cooled fairly easily with cooling solutions they had to use to cool their previous generation furnaces. Take and improve the cooling technology a bit, add a couple extra heat-pipes (with wick technology), a seperate VRM and Mem heatspreader (like my XTX and some newer vid cards implement, HIS ICEQ3's,etc.)

I know it may not sound too realistic right now...but I honestly assumed that instead of seeing 2-GPU's on a single PCB or 2 PCB's sandwiched that we'd actually have a dual-core one-die GPU solution. I'm sure soon enough!


----------



## Wile E (Jan 20, 2008)

Kursah said:


> I know it's possible for them to do, but I do not know what production costs would come to, but if they in-fact would make both cores on one die (I thought I read that was their plan back in Sept-Oct 2007), keeping the PCB length around 9", 1GB of GDDR4 @ High speed, and one 6pin PCIe plug (maybe 2 if they can't get complete stability or OC-ability).
> 
> That's where I believe this card should've headed, it's only a matter of time before one of the two big graphics card compainies does such a thing. And with their newer process, lower power-consumption chips, 2 of them on one die can be cooled fairly easily with cooling solutions they had to use to cool their previous generation furnaces. Take and improve the cooling technology a bit, add a couple extra heat-pipes (with wick technology), a seperate VRM and Mem heatspreader (like my XTX and some newer vid cards implement, HIS ICEQ3's,etc.)
> 
> I know it may not sound too realistic right now...but I honestly assumed that instead of seeing 2-GPU's on a single PCB or 2 PCB's sandwiched that we'd actually have a dual-core one-die GPU solution. I'm sure soon enough!


I believe it as well. Gpus are more or less progressing just like cpus, in that manner. I wouldn't be surprised to see a dual core gpu next year at this time. My comment wasn't aimed at gpu development, but at actual pcb design and layout. I think the layout is fine. It could be a lot worse, like nVidia using 2 pcbs on one card ala 7950GX2


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 20, 2008)

i think the nvidia design is just lazy and stupid,the did it once and it flopped,so whats the differance now.Same design,differant gpu.


----------

