# HIS Radeon HD3870 X2 1 GB



## W1zzard (Jan 25, 2008)

The HIS Radeon 3870 X2 combines the power of two ATI RV670 GPUs into one to reach for the performance throne in single card processing power. Even tough the implementation has some minor limitations the overall product is certainly interesting and can maybe bring AMD back in the game.

*Show full review*


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 28, 2008)

pretty nice review, costs way less than the Single GPUs at that, plus performs higher than the other boards, Crysis and Supreme Commander are washout games anyway.


----------



## ShinyG (Jan 28, 2008)

Much better reviews than the other 3870x2 reviews I've seen on the internet! Good job!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 28, 2008)

you mean these 2 reviews? 

http://www.fpslabs.com/reviews/video/amd-radeon-hd-3870-x2-review

http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/Graphics-cards/ATI-Radeon-HD-3870X2-1-GB.html


----------



## DaMulta (Jan 28, 2008)

Nice review, and I'm very surprised about the lack of PCI-E 2.0.

Would you be able to use 2 maze4 GPU water blocks on this card?


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 28, 2008)

Very, very nice review!

Only one thing missing, the 8800 Ultra. I think that a lot of people want to know how fast this one is compared to the "old" fastest card available.

It costs 590$ in my country, that's to bad...


----------



## sneekypeet (Jan 28, 2008)

I dont think so DM look at my thread and look at the naked pic of W1zzards. The spacing of the holes is farther from the core on mine than his....mine will obviously use the maze4.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=46287 
MINE^^^^^

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_3870_X2/images/front.jpg
X2^^^^


----------



## DaMulta (Jan 28, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> I dont think so DM look at my thread and look at the naked pic of W1zzards. The spacing of the holes is farther from the core on mine than his....mine will obviously use the maze4.




The block looks like it would hit the bridge chip, and some of the memory. I guess that it wouldn't be long till there is some full coverage blocks out.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jan 28, 2008)

The performance of the card is just.... wow. Well the noise issue can be easily fixed by purchasing two VF900CUs  or something like that. The card runs cool doesnt it? Its just the bad choice for the fan thats the problem. W1zzard, the reason why the second core runs warmer is due to the hot air from the first core. The air that gets to the second core can be considered as exhuast. Thats the reason why one runs warmer, its not because of how the drivers are written.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 28, 2008)

Rice review but 8/10 

Also the card being PCI-E 1.1 is a revelation.  But didn't some rumored articles on TomsHardware predict massive differences between using this on PCI-E 1.1 and 2.0 slots? I could have put up the link but Tomshardware removed the article.

Finally, the fastest video-card is an ATI. After say a huge time gap? But for how long?


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 28, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Rice review but 8/10



8 is fair. It uses a lot of power and it's very noisy. Not to mention that the driver support for this card will be terrible in the first weeks/months.

8/10 is the correct score.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 28, 2008)

ya i guess a 5/10 is average.


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Jan 28, 2008)

great review, its a shame it sux in crysis though as that is the game a lot of people compare to these days, I love the power of it in almost all of the other games / Bench apps though..

I hope that ATI can make the drivers for this card really work.  Their other twin gpu cards have not been all that great so it would be nice to see this thing really rock out...   And 2 of em in crossfire!!!!!  now that is what I wanna see.

As always your reviews are by far the best on the net imo....  

BTW W1zz, what happened to all the other graphs you have previously shown of late...  value for money etc...  ????  they were good.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 28, 2008)

DrunkenMafia said:


> what happened to all the other graphs you have previously shown of late...  value for money etc...  ????  they were good.



The price of this card hasn't been decided/put-up yet. I guess W1zzard will put up those charts such as performance / dollar when definitively we know its price at least in the US markets. But still I wonder why Performance/Watt chart hasn't been put up.


----------



## Judas (Jan 28, 2008)

Overall a very fairly good product  "well done  AMD/ATI " power consumption is not too bad if you think its running two core's. As for Crysis well what card runs well with it? it does fairly well for first drivers. Crysis is not a game its a benchmark for newer cards


----------



## Mussels (Jan 28, 2008)

finally a review of the x2 from someone i can trust!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 28, 2008)

That game just plain sucks, what were they thinking when they released that game.


DrunkenMafia said:


> great review, its a shame it sux in crysis though as that is the game a lot of people compare to these days, I love the power of it in almost all of the other games / Bench apps though..
> 
> I hope that ATI can make the drivers for this card really work.  Their other twin gpu cards have not been all that great so it would be nice to see this thing really rock out...   And 2 of em in crossfire!!!!!  now that is what I wanna see.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mussels (Jan 28, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> That game just plain sucks, what were they thinking when they released that game.



i liked the game - that said, i had to run it on medium graphics with a system wel beyond the reccomended specs. If the performance patch comes out, people will see it as the game was intended and it will be a very different game. Without the graphics, crysis really does lose its best aspect.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Jan 28, 2008)

Isn't that CPU bottlenecking these benchmarks? Any of the games that are cpu dependant (like Crysis) will get poor results and not reflect what the card is capable of.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 28, 2008)

he makes a good point: wizzard, would you be willing to re-test with a faster, or overclocked CPU? preferably around 3GHz? (thats about the highest stock core 2 in the average consumers price range)

Even if you just choose 2-3 benchmarks and do tests at 3GHz and say, 3.4 or 3.6Ghz that would really be appreciated.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 28, 2008)

Well with what you just said that proves the point the game sucks. Also the point the card does well in a wide range of games is good in my book with the specs he tested with.


Mussels said:


> i liked the game - that said, i had to run it on medium graphics with a system wel beyond the reccomended specs. If the performance patch comes out, people will see it as the game was intended and it will be a very different game. Without the graphics, crysis really does lose its best aspect.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 28, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> Well with what you just said that proves the point the game sucks. Also the point the card does well in a wide range of games is good in my book with the specs he tested with.



Some games have more CPU needs than others. 2.2Ghz is quite low by TPU's standards, with with a dual GPU card it would be nice to see if the CPU is limiting it.

You're just a crysis hater, so i'm not talking about that anymore. You're ignoring my comments about the patch/performance needed as if thats killed it, when it hasnt - the patch isnt even out yet.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Jan 28, 2008)

Not a bad card looks like it likes DX9 better though


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 28, 2008)

ya that performance patch sounds like what Microsoft Promises with Service Pack 3 for XP 
(a performance boost)


----------



## Mussels (Jan 28, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> ya that performance patch sounds like what Microsoft Promises with Service Pack 3 for XP
> (a performance boost)



hey i'm quite optimistic about XP3's service pack


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 28, 2008)

if there was a cpu bottleneck in crysis why can other cards score higher?

the performance summary graphs are gone for now because i suspect a conceptual flaw in the calculation method


----------



## pt (Jan 28, 2008)

good review
ATI FTW again 
we just need to wait for some driver support


----------



## Mussels (Jan 28, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> if there was a cpu bottleneck in crysis why can other cards score higher?
> 
> the performance summary graphs are gone for now because i suspect a conceptual flaw in the calculation method



the question i have is more along the lines of "if its this fast with a 2.2GHz core 2 - how fast is it on a 3-4GHz chip? Does it scale, or is this as fast as it gets?"

Not doubting you w1zz - you probably know more than us, and tested things that didnt make it into the final review, its just something i personally want to know.


----------



## Laurijan (Jan 28, 2008)

Yet another ati product that does not live up to what it is on paper (2x 3870) - according to the 3DMark06 scores it performes like a single 8800GTS :-(


----------



## LiveOrDie (Jan 28, 2008)

ATI can't keep up with DX10 looks like it to me, the card would of been great when xp was still the leading OS


----------



## Hawk1 (Jan 28, 2008)

Excellent review! Thanks W1zzard. I will be picking up one of these (OK, maybe the ASUS dual fan one)


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 28, 2008)

btarunr said:


> The price of this card hasn't been decided/put-up yet. I guess W1zzard will put up those charts such as performance / dollar when definitively we know its price at least in the US markets. But still I wonder why Performance/Watt chart hasn't been put up.



These cards are on the sheves in the UK for around £300, thats $620 in US speak, they are very nice fast cards but in the UK....way too expensive IMO, yes across the board it is the fastest card on the market currently, for how long depends on the 9800 x2 but it does get beaten in a few tests by a single G92 8800GTS and in the UK one of those and £100 change to go back in the wallet may just be a little more inviting!

That said......I still like it! is it worth two 8800GT's (UK price)...........hmmmmm I dont know.  I might just get one to have a play though


----------



## mR Yellow (Jan 28, 2008)

pt said:


> good review
> ATI FTW again
> we just need to wait for some driver support



Not really. I'm gonna give this generation of cards a skip. 
The  3870X2 is just another last ditch effort to out perform nVidia.

This doesn't impress me.  

The best 2 graphics cards to date are:
ATi 9700 and nVdia 8800GTX.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 28, 2008)

$620 in the UK 

It's already into Newegg for $440.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 28, 2008)

btarunr said:


> $620 in the UK
> 
> It's already into Newegg for $440.



with improved drivers, $400 USD would make this fairly competitive.

I only say this because supreme commander and crysis were quite crap in the benchmarks - drives could fix this. For all we know, the 2nd GPU wasnt working properly in those titles.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 28, 2008)

btarunr said:


> $620 in the UK
> 
> It's already into Newegg for $440.



Yup......thats £300, we get over $2 to the single £ these days   whick makes this price even more insulting over here as the global prices are set in US $, take a look here:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-091-HT&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=416


----------



## btarunr (Jan 28, 2008)

That's like 47% over the US rate.  Now for an aready jacked up price, they add £50 as VAT  what's the cause of such insane pricing? Import duty or the retailers playing foul?

Has it hit Oz shores yet?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 28, 2008)

http://www.austin.net.au/PriceGuide...CS CARDS&SubCategory=ATI Radeon - PCI EXPRESS

these guys are normally over priced anyway, $650 AU.

Their info is even totally wrong, saying 4x DVI


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 28, 2008)

some models have 4 dvi teh asus model


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 28, 2008)

added the "performance summary" page to the review .. ouch ..


----------



## rampage (Jan 28, 2008)

great review w1zzard, but i think i will stick with my 8800gtx for now, it would be nice to see the benchies ran with a higher OC or ever a quadcore with a decent OC, because i know with my gtx there is quite a differance between a dualcore and quadcore cpu's, i know the drivers are in it early stages but it suprising the little gain 2 cores give over a single core (eg 8800gtx / gts) considering most people dont have the 24 inch monitors to to use the higher resioulitions it is almost defeating the point, then also when it comes to heat/ power usage i think most people are becoming more concious of how much electricty there systems are actualy using...  just so people know im not bashing this card its just my opion that gfx designers are trying to come up with rush jobs the beat the compitition and have hit a wall when it comes to desigining the next big thing.....


----------



## Blacklash (Jan 28, 2008)

Yeah you can get a 8800GTX for 399 with rebate @ Newegg and they are awesome high res cards with AA in DX10. You can get 8800GT 512Mb SLi for 29usd more than a 3870 X2, Newegg has those as low as 239usd each with rebate. The Anandtech review shows 8800GT SLi often walking all over the 3870 X2, save sometimes @ 2560x.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3209

If you something that works all the time, I'd say overclocked 8800 GTS 512Mb, 8800GT 512Mb or 8800GT. @ very high resolutions in DX 10 with AA piled on an overclocked 8800GTX is a solid choice too. It will often out perform the new nVidia cards in those cases.

We already know these cards are often going to be hurt badly by AA too. Not to mention they have some sort of odd min FPS issue. DH mentions it.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 28, 2008)

Inference to be drawn: This is not going to compete with the GeForce 9800 GX2 considering it's only 5% faster to the 8800 GTX, also implies that NVIDIA will add another merciless price-tag to the 9800 GX2.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 28, 2008)

well.. its crossfire on a stick with all its limitations except taking up less space in your case..

supreme commander and the 3dmarks would benefit from a faster cpu.. no other real life game would..

and the bottom line is.. it backs up exactly why having tried crossfire .. i ditched it and went back to one 3870 card..

the one and only game that crossfire needs to work with at present dosnt support it.. its the game by the way not the ati drivers..

all the other games listed i can play quite nicely with just one 3870 card..

all in all a bigger power bill for no real life gain..

sorry guys but thats it.. thumbs down..

trog


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jan 28, 2008)

Awesome review, but I think the tests would have been more accurate if a better CPU was used (IMHO, all of these current cards need a C2D/C2Q of at least 3.2Gz speed to push them along)


----------



## Mussels (Jan 28, 2008)

trog100 said:


> well.. its crossfire on a stick with all its limitations except taking up less space in your case..
> 
> supreme commander and the 3dmarks would benefit from a faster cpu.. no other real life game would..
> 
> ...



if supreme commander is so CPU limited, why the heck is this ATI card so much slower than the other cards in teh comparison?? Perpaps this card uses a lot of CPU power for some reason


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 28, 2008)

Guys, please stop talking about CPU bottleneck for Crysis.

People with a Q6600, test Crysis on 2.4Ghz, then test it on 3Ghz, framerate is almost identical.

Crysis is not a CPU game, it's a GPU game.

The only way to gain a lot of performance is a GPU upgrade, that's it.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 28, 2008)

we arent talking about the GAME being CPU limited. we are talking about the CARD. Different cards need more powerful CPU's to bring out their full potential, being a dual card this may take more power from the system to reach its full potential.

We arent saying thats how it is, merely asking wizz to test and see if its true or not.


----------



## Morgoth (Jan 28, 2008)

its nice to that hd3870x2 gives a solid fps on high aa and AF settings


----------



## rampage (Jan 28, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> Guys, please stop talking about CPU bottleneck for Crysis.
> 
> People with a Q6600, test Crysis on 2.4Ghz, then test it on 3Ghz, framerate is almost identical.
> 
> ...




yes i agree, crysis is very GPU limited and hence the need for a good card, im what i think most people are trying to get at is cpu speed has to have some effect in general gaming, or why do we all even bother overclocking our pc's if it dosnt help???

(im not trying to create a flame war, and im sorry if i do, but please correct me if i am wrong)

once again great review and my appoligies for stearing away from the main topic....


----------



## wtf8269 (Jan 28, 2008)

It's quite obvious that this card shines in higher resolutions-which is what I need. I need to run 1600x1200 for my LCD. I just purchased two of these; can't wait to get the rest of the system together. It may not be the most efficient card or the quietest, but I'm not particularly concerned about that. It's not as high of a performance card as I would have liked, but I think two of these should do a great job of lasting me most of the way through college.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 28, 2008)

Wow nice,i cant wait to see some benchies with two of 'em.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 28, 2008)

rampage said:


> yes i agree, crysis is very GPU limited and hence the need for a good card, im what i think most people are trying to get at is cpu speed has to have some effect in general gaming, or why do we all even bother overclocking our pc's if it dosnt help???



It does, but CPU overclock doesn't do you much good in CryEngine 2. An overclock WILL provide you way better performance in UnrealEngine 3 games, Source Engine games, in fact, most games will get a huge performance boost, Crysis just isn't one of them.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 28, 2008)

crysis played the same on my amd system as it does on my current 4 gig wolfdlale system.. 

a faster cpu will only benefit if artificially low resolutions are used.. or with older games that already run more than enough frame rates.. supreme commander being a special case.. all those units aint driven by the grafix card..

trog


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 28, 2008)

HookeyStreet said:


> Awesome review, but I think the tests would have been more accurate if a better CPU was used (IMHO, all of these current cards need a C2D/C2Q of at least 3.2Gz speed to push them along)



I agree totally but W1z does his reviews from the "average consumer" angle and what the average guy (and therefore does not overclock) can expect to get from a system containing in this case a HD3870 x2.

You could argue thats in relative terms, the G92 8800GTS overclocks a bit more than the HD3870 (650mhz - 825mhz) and therefore would beat it in a few more than the exisiting 5 or 6 benches it already beats it in.


----------



## Urbklr (Jan 28, 2008)

Crysis GPU limited??.....I find this interesting, let me clock my e6550 stock, run the timedemo and then come back, im pretty sure the performance will be held back quite a bit. I ran my cpu at 3.4 then 3.44, and there was a FPS improvement....


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 28, 2008)

wtf8269 said:


> It's quite obvious that this card shines in higher resolutions-which is what I need. I need to run 1600x1200 for my LCD. I just purchased two of these; can't wait to get the rest of the system together. It may not be the most efficient card or the quietest, but I'm not particularly concerned about that. It's not as high of a performance card as I would have liked, but I think two of these should do a great job of lasting me most of the way through college.



Lets just hope you get a QX9650 running at 4.5gig+ to realise the full potential!!


----------



## trog100 (Jan 28, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Lets just hope you get a QX9650 running at 4.5gig+ to realise the full potential!!



do i detect some "humour"  there tatty.. 

trog


----------



## Urbklr (Jan 28, 2008)

Crysis- CPU 3.44GHz Card stock- 32FPS Average, Min 18, Max 38
                            Card 830/900- 34FPS Average, Min 23, Max 41
                3.4GHz Card 830/900- 29FPS Average, Min 20, Max 34

That looks like a pretty decent boost, 34FPS vs 29FPS....


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 28, 2008)

trog100 said:


> do i detect some "humour"  there tatty..
> 
> trog




I am FULL of it......humour that is   Have you not heard the old saying?......

"two HD3870 x2 on a slow CPU equall one HD3870 x2 on a fast CPU" ......yeah OK I just made it up but it sounds good to me!


----------



## AsRock (Jan 28, 2008)

Would be nice to see how it does with Armed Assault \Combat Operations.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 28, 2008)

Urbklr911 said:


> Crysis GPU limited??.....I find this interesting, let me clock my e6550 stock, run the timedemo and then come back, im pretty sure the performance will be held back quite a bit. I ran my cpu at 3.4 then 3.44, and there was a FPS improvement....



Maybe this might convince you:
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=499&pgno=3

As you can see, if you play Crysis on 1600x1200, there is only 6% difference between the E6320 and the QX6700 while in reality the QX6700 is more then 50% faster then the E6320!


----------



## gR3iF (Jan 28, 2008)

Some good new Drivers would be good.



W1zz:
What about comparism between a 3870x2 and a crossfire 3870. Then we can see what amd really did.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 28, 2008)

Urbklr911 said:


> Crysis- CPU 3.44GHz Card stock- 32FPS Average, Min 18, Max 38
> Card 830/900- 34FPS Average, Min 23, Max 41
> 3.4GHz Card 830/900- 29FPS Average, Min 20, Max 34
> 
> That looks like a pretty decent boost, 34FPS vs 29FPS....



u have to be running a very low resolution and settings for that to happen.. it dosnt happen with higher ones.. the lower the resolution and setting the higher the gain.. 

at the resolutions and settings i played the game at its pretty much pure grafix card limited..

it all comes down to the resolution and settings.. but what u see isnt the same as what i see thats for sure.. at 1680 x 1050 high settings i see next to no gain from with messing with high or low cpu speeds..

trog


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 28, 2008)

gR3iF said:


> What about comparism between a 3870x2 and a crossfire 3870. Then we can see what amd really did.



I dont have two 3870 cards


----------



## Urbklr (Jan 28, 2008)

trog100 said:


> u have to be running a very low resolution and settings for that to happen.. it dosnt happen with higher ones.. the lower the resolution and setting the higher the gain..
> 
> at the resolutions and settings i played the game at its pretty much pure grafix card limited..
> 
> ...



I was running at 1280x1024 all high, with DX10 water....and sunshafts, and it happened....But i guess that isnt that high of a resolution. But for the 5FPS increase from the very slight clock difference, that's pretty good...


----------



## trog100 (Jan 28, 2008)

gR3iF said:


> Some good new Drivers would be good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



not a lot from reading other places.. its crossfire on one card..

trog


----------



## TUngsten (Jan 28, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> I dont have two 3870 cards



that's just plain wrong!!!


----------



## trog100 (Jan 28, 2008)

Urbklr911 said:


> I was running at 1280x1024 all high, with DX10 water....and sunshafts, and it happened....But i guess that isnt that high of a resolution. But for the 5FPS increase from the very slight clock difference, that's pretty good...



yes it does seem to be a gain.. but u wont see the same in the gpu bench.. how the cpu bench gain pans out in the game i dont know but i dont think it would be noticable..

overall its grafix card limited.. faster grafix card.. big gain.. faster cpu very small not really noticeable gain..

trog


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 28, 2008)

trog100 said:


> overall its grafix card limited.. faster grafix card.. big gain.. faster cpu very small not really noticeable gain..



Yep


----------



## pt (Jan 28, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> added the "performance summary" page to the review .. ouch ..



ouch?


----------



## BullGod (Jan 28, 2008)

Well imo this card is a total disappointment. That's why it got an 8. Are you people blind? The performance is crap. It was faster than the other cards only in old games that run at 100 fps plus. Where is the gain in that? You don't need more than 100 fps. You do need more than 30 tho. In most games that go under 100fps it was not the fastest card. So what are you really getting here?


----------



## BullGod (Jan 28, 2008)

pt said:


> ouch?



yeah ouch. It only outperforms the GTX by 5%. Were talking about a card here that is more than a year old and this one uses two GPU's just manages to be faster by such a small margin. And yeah the ultra usually outperforms the GTX by 10 to 15% so I guess that's why he didn't include it in the review...


----------



## rampage (Jan 28, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Well imo this card is a total disappointment. That's why it got an 8. Are you people blind? The performance is crap. It was faster than the other cards only in old games that run at 100 fps plus. Where is the gain in that? You don't need more than 100 fps. You do need more than 30 tho. In most games that go under 100fps it was not the fastest card. So what are you really getting here?



i think this more to the point, we all know we cant expect a 100% performance increase or even a 50% increase but what we recieved was a 5% in "relative Performance", with a 19>36% performance hit in the "perfromance per watt" comparision and with prices simlar or slightly more expecive to is compition (prices taken from Australian market)

 (these results are taken from W1zzards from resualts as you may have gathered)

p.s. come to think of it i dont think we will see w1zzard comming out saying well here you go, but btw its crap......  (if this is what he thinks, its only me guessing here)....


----------



## DaMulta (Jan 28, 2008)

Look what popped up at XS



			
				zbogorgon said:
			
		

>



http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2731988


----------



## Hawk1 (Jan 28, 2008)

Nice find.


----------



## wtf8269 (Jan 28, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Lets just hope you get a QX9650 running at 4.5gig+ to realise the full potential!!



Me too. I'm hoping they'll be out in time for me to finish my system. If not I may just resort to an e8400.


----------



## Urbklr (Jan 28, 2008)

trog100 said:


> yes it does seem to be a gain.. but u wont see the same in the gpu bench..



That was the GPU bench


----------



## MrW (Jan 28, 2008)

Excellent review. Very detailed. Hope there is a follow-up after drivers have matured.


----------



## Judas (Jan 28, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Yup......thats £300, we get over $2 to the single £ these days   whick makes this price even more insulting over here as the global prices are set in US $, take a look here:
> 
> http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-091-HT&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=416



Over here i found the Asus Radeon HD 3870 X2 and you can pick one up for a cool 499.90 € = 372.565 £


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 28, 2008)

TUngsten said:


> that's just plain wrong!!!



its true. the sapphire card i had for review had to go back.


----------



## MrW (Jan 28, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> The air that gets to the second core can be considered as exhuast. Thats the reason why one runs warmer, its not because of how the drivers are written.



I never thought of that. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 28, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> why the second core runs warmer is due to the hot air from the first core. The air that gets to the second core can be considered as exhuast. Thats the reason why one runs warmer, its not because of how the drivers are written.



what information is this based on?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2008)

Am I seeing that picture correctly?  Is one of the heatsinks made of Aluminum, and the other Copper?

Either way, the second core is going to run warmer than the first because it is being cooled by warmer air.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 28, 2008)

Not if the first core isn't recieving the same cooling potential the second is.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2008)

That true.


----------



## candle_86 (Jan 28, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Rice review but 8/10
> 
> Also the card being PCI-E 1.1 is a revelation.  But didn't some rumored articles on TomsHardware predict massive differences between using this on PCI-E 1.1 and 2.0 slots? I could have put up the link but Tomshardware removed the article.
> 
> Finally, the fastest video-card is an ATI. After say a huge time gap? But for how long?



Untill the 21st of febuary.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 28, 2008)

nvidia deladey [rofl] i guess theyre throwing there resources to combat the new r700


----------



## candle_86 (Jan 28, 2008)

well the leaked G100 specs look like it should anyway.

384 shaders, GDDR4 2400mhz, 512bit bus 1024mb.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 28, 2008)

finally nvidia goes ddr4 ...


----------



## Lazzer408 (Jan 28, 2008)

Crossfire needs a fast cpu to show the best improvement over a single card. It's already known that games demand both a fast gpu and cpu. Crysis on a 3ghz quad sort of eliminated the cpu bottleneck so going to 3.4 on that same quad will show little improvement. The e6550 used in the test setup is most definitly effecting framerates and even more so with crossfire.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Jan 28, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> what information is this based on?



Physics.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Jan 28, 2008)

Urbklr911 said:


> Crysis- CPU 3.44GHz Card stock- 32FPS Average, Min 18, Max 38
> Card 830/900- 34FPS Average, Min 23, Max 41
> 3.4GHz Card 830/900- 29FPS Average, Min 20, Max 34
> 
> That looks like a pretty decent boost, 34FPS vs 29FPS....



Ah here we go. How did I miss this post.

Urbklr if you dont mind, can you run the benchmark at stock clocks vs. 3.44?

Thanks.


----------



## Hawk1 (Jan 28, 2008)

Heres another waterblock for it.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Jan 28, 2008)

I take it the 7.11 drivers came with the card?


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 28, 2008)

added fan noise measurements - page 22 - http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_3870_X2/22.html


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 28, 2008)

InnocentCriminal said:


> I take it the 7.11 drivers came with the card?



We used 8.1 v8.451.2, the driver recommended by AMD. I asked "what driver do I use for my review" and got a link to the driver I used in return.


----------



## Hawk1 (Jan 28, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> added fan noise measurements - page 22 - http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_3870_X2/22.html



Doesn't surprise me. ATI have always (well the last few years at least) had high db fans on their top end cards. How come no NV FX5500 noise comparison (just so I feel a little better)


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Jan 28, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> We used 8.1 v8.451.2, the driver recommended by AMD. I asked "what driver do I use for my review" and got a link to the driver I used in return.



So why is the 7.11 listed in the review?


----------



## erocker (Jan 28, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Am I seeing that picture correctly?  Is one of the heatsinks made of Aluminum, and the other Copper?  Either way, the second core is going to run warmer than the first because it is being cooled by warmer air.



The second core actually runs cooler since it isn't a utilized as much as the first.  Plus having a copper sink in #2 helps as well.  Judging by the best drivers ATi has ever made for crossfire, I doubt they will ever get this card to fully utilize the 2nd core, and they are by far the best at doing it.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 28, 2008)

it clearly states: ATI: Catalyst 7.11, 3870 X2 tested with Catalyst 8.1 v8.451.2

all ati cards except the 3870 x2 were tested using 7.11


----------



## Hawk1 (Jan 28, 2008)

InnocentCriminal said:


> So why is the 7.11 listed in the review?



I think it meant all other (ATI) cards were tested with 7.11, but the x2 used the 8.1.

edit: pwned by W1zz


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Jan 28, 2008)

Arrh makes sense.


----------



## Urbklr (Jan 28, 2008)

Lazzer408 said:


> Ah here we go. How did I miss this post.
> 
> Urbklr if you dont mind, can you run the benchmark at stock clocks vs. 3.44?
> 
> Thanks.



Sure thing


----------



## springs113 (Jan 28, 2008)

for all you guys that post replies based on one outting/showing come on now...i know you all can do better... there are numerous reviews that show better results than the ones i saw on techpowerup..and i do hold techpowerup high in my trust standards so to speak...
but there are certain ways in which the benchmarks are produced and i feel that it could either limit or overhype a cards performance.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 28, 2008)

springs113 said:


> but there are certain ways in which the benchmarks are produced and i feel that it could either limit or overhype a cards performance.



feel free to elaborate


----------



## tkpenalty (Jan 28, 2008)

springs113 said:


> for all you guys that post replies based on one outting/showing come on now...i know you all can do better... there are numerous reviews that show better results than the ones i saw on techpowerup..and i do hold techpowerup high in my trust standards so to speak...
> but there are certain ways in which the benchmarks are produced and i feel that it could either limit or overhype a cards performance.



Well I feel that other reviews are ignorant in many aspects, compared to our reviewers who do some of the most comprehensive and detailed reviews. Say something about that


----------



## springs113 (Jan 28, 2008)

in power usage what other methods do you or could you use to calculate the results...
dont get me wrong...i love the article as i can still remember to this day the article that made me jump on the techpowerup bandwagon...and that is the sapphire x800gto2 which i bought because of that article...but anyways...
i really dont understand the way you calculate the difference in overall performance as opposed to the other cards.  i have seen other reviews with benchmarks that are different and shows the x2 beating out the ultra in majority of the tests and i know for sure that an ultra beats a gtx anyday...i also take into consideration that even on the same rig no benchmark is going to produce the absolute same result so i give or take a little on performance.


----------



## DOM (Jan 28, 2008)

I still wanna know, how come in 3DMark06 its not run with

1600 x 1200, 4x Anti-aliasing, 16x anisotropic filter
2048 x 1536, 4x Anti-aliasing, 16x anisotropic filter ?


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 28, 2008)

DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E said:


> I still wanna know, how come in 3DMark06 its not run with
> 
> 1600 x 1200, 4x Anti-aliasing, 16x anisotropic filter
> 2048 x 1536, 4x Anti-aliasing, 16x anisotropic filter ?



it uses HDR. not all cards support HDR+AA


----------



## springs113 (Jan 28, 2008)

TKPENALTY...i am not jumping on techpowerup as it is my last website that i read everyday mainly because i trust it over everyone else...i also like to put things out, there being that i feel a stupid person is someone that thinks that what they read is acceptable and a smart one is the one that questions why is it acceptable.
so i am not talking fud i just cater to know more, as you and i are not alike so your understanding of one thing might differ from mine and vice-vrsa


----------



## DOM (Jan 28, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> it uses HDR. not all cards support HDR+AA


then why are all the other test done with it ? or 06 is the only one that uses HDR ?

so that means my X1950Xt has HDR


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 28, 2008)

corrected the statement that one gpu is not fully loaded. both are indeed getting loaded fully at least in 3dmark06


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 28, 2008)

springs113 said:


> for all you guys that post replies based on one outting/showing come on now...i know you all can do better... there are numerous reviews that show better results than the ones i saw on techpowerup..and i do hold techpowerup high in my trust standards so to speak...
> but there are certain ways in which the benchmarks are produced and i feel that it could either limit or overhype a cards performance.



Were the other reviews you refer to running a C2d faster than 2.33gig by any chance?


----------



## DOM (Jan 28, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Were the other reviews you refer to running a C2d faster than 2.33gig by any chance?



I seen one with a E6850 same card but on vista


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 28, 2008)

DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E said:


> I seen one with a E6850 same card but on vista



Yep thought as much.....2 GPU's are gonna need serious CPU power to get the most out of them which is why he may have seen other reviews where the card performed better, W1z reviews on the "average man's kit" as the average man does not overclock and makes up 90% of the worlds graphic card sales.


----------



## springs113 (Jan 28, 2008)

yes i have seen a couple others that shows better performance of the card...sometimes its just the luck of the draw... as when i first installed crysis i didnt have any problems (vista) then i installed it on my xp machine it would crash like hell...matter of fact it still does...even when i install it on my dual boot amd setup...
and as far as cpu speed and benchmarking goes... i know it makes a difference even in game playing... because i noticeably feel a difference when gaming on my 6420 @ 3.0 than at 2.1 i even notice a difference when gaming on the same proc @ 3.0 when compared to my x2 5200 @ 3.1 and my fps are  still better on the intel setup


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 28, 2008)

springs113 said:


> yes i have seen a couple others that shows better performance of the card...sometimes its just the luck of the draw... as when i first installed crysis i didnt have any problems (vista) then i installed it on my xp machine it would crash like hell...matter of fact it still does...even when i install it on my dual boot amd setup...
> and as far as cpu speed and benchmarking goes... i know it makes a difference even in game playing... because i noticeably feel a difference when gaming on my 6420 @ 3.0 than at 2.1 i even notice a difference when gaming on the same proc @ 3.0 when compared to my x2 5200 @ 3.1 and my fps are  still better on the intel setup



Yup, see my post above, from what I have seen, and just IMO, if you have a CPU that will only comfortably do say 3Gig you are probably as well off getting a G92 8800GTS and saving some serious money in the process as the performance difference wont be too huge, but now, if you had a quad at 4gig......well this card would eat most things alive.


----------



## springs113 (Jan 29, 2008)

funny things is that i do have 4 gigs ddr2 800 in both setup ...just waiting for a stinking phenom that is worth my dollars and is not 65nm before i jump to 4 ddr 2 1066


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 29, 2008)

Mussels said:


> hey i'm quite optimistic about XP3's service pack



Ya i just hope it brings back Performance Gains like XP SP1a did, SP2 slowed it way down, wish MS would put in DX10 as a bonus


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Jan 29, 2008)

Any chance we could get the actual dimensions for the 3870X2 please?!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 29, 2008)

springs113 said:


> for all you guys that post replies based on one outting/showing come on now...i know you all can do better... there are numerous reviews that show better results than the ones i saw on techpowerup..and i do hold techpowerup high in my trust standards so to speak...
> but there are certain ways in which the benchmarks are produced and i feel that it could either limit or overhype a cards performance.



Tell you what become a Dedicated Reviewer for TPU and give your own review and see how it compares to the Main Boss.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 29, 2008)

Easy way to fix that is to carefully drill holes near the back of the card (where the heat exits)


newtekie1 said:


> Am I seeing that picture correctly?  Is one of the heatsinks made of Aluminum, and the other Copper?
> 
> Either way, the second core is going to run warmer than the first because it is being cooled by warmer air.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 29, 2008)

BullGod said:


> Well imo this card is a total disappointment. That's why it got an 8. Are you people blind? The performance is crap. It was faster than the other cards only in old games that run at 100 fps plus. Where is the gain in that? You don't need more than 100 fps. You do need more than 30 tho. In most games that go under 100fps it was not the fastest card. So what are you really getting here?



So whats your specs? Or do you have more money than brains?


----------



## springs113 (Jan 29, 2008)

first off i think i have an understanding with w1zz and my points saying what i say is not only for me but for those who are probably thinking the same...aren't we all entitled to our opinions..
just like you are to criticize anything i say. its apart of life and i welcome it.  and i know  that w1zz welcomes any comments whether it progressive or detrimental to what he has to say mainly because he is open minded and as well it might just help for him to explain something that he might not have explained the way he probably wanted.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 29, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> Tell you what become a Dedicated Reviewer for TPU and give your own review and see how it compares to the Main Boss.



we really really need a pro motherboard reviewer


----------



## DOM (Jan 29, 2008)

springs113 said:


> funny things is that i do have 4 gigs ddr2 800 in both setup ...just waiting for a stinking phenom that is worth my dollars and is not 65nm before i jump to 4 ddr 2 1066



I think he was talking about a Q @ 4GHz


----------



## springs113 (Jan 29, 2008)

we really really need a pro motherboard reviewer .....

i am not a pro but i am willing to learn...i have a open mind but the only thing really against me is time...


----------



## pt (Jan 29, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> we really really need a pro motherboard reviewer



as long as i get free mb's i can be one for am2 boards


----------



## imperialreign (Jan 29, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Am I seeing that picture correctly?  Is one of the heatsinks made of Aluminum, and the other Copper?
> 
> Either way, the second core is going to run warmer than the first because it is being cooled by warmer air.




but, in theory, a copper heatsink will duct heat off the core fast than aluminum - the aluminum heatsink will give that heat up quicker.  I'd reckon to say that both cores will run about on-par at the same temp with each other.


Anyhow - *Awesome and concise review, W1z!*


Those cards are looking mighty promising!  I'm not too surprised to see such low scores in Crysis, though.

I'm guessing that there still isn't an "official" driver from AMD/ATI yet?  Hopefully, with a couple of driver releases, we should see the potential of these cards come out of the woodwork.


Kinda shocked by the lack of PCIE 2.0 support, though - I wonder why they went that route


----------



## Urbklr (Jan 29, 2008)

Crysis 2.33GHz vs 3.44GHz
GPU Test 1280x1024 All High with DX10 Water, and Sunshafts forced on.
3.44GHz - 34FPS
2.33GHz - 26FPS


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 29, 2008)

I think its been stated a few times why its only PCI E 1.1.

The bridge chip uses this speed, and Ati's partners wanted the card out ASAP. There is a PCI E 2.0 version of the bridge chip, but I don't think they had time to use it.


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 29, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> feel free to elaborate



I think he means that depending on your settings the results of a review can vary greatly compared to the next guy.


----------



## Grings (Jan 29, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> we really really need a pro motherboard reviewer



yes, that would be awesome, we need mobo reviews


----------



## Raovac (Jan 29, 2008)

InnocentCriminal said:


> Any chance we could get the actual dimensions for the 3870X2 please?!



Hey Wiz, can you answer this question please


----------



## Mussels (Jan 29, 2008)

Raovac said:


> Hey Wiz, can you answer this question please



as wizz no longer has the card, the best he could do is google it. Best to find it from another review, and paste it into the comments here.


----------



## Raovac (Jan 29, 2008)

Mussels said:


> as wizz no longer has the card, the best he could do is google it. Best to find it from another review, and paste it into the comments here.



OK, it's 27 cm/ 10-9/16 inches long 


http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/490/6/


----------



## tkpenalty (Jan 29, 2008)

Review more Gigabyte products please...? P31 DS3L? (Damn I should have reviewed it ).


----------



## xvi (Jan 29, 2008)

gR3iF said:


> What about comparison between a 3870x2 and a crossfire 3870. Then we can see what amd really did.



I agree. I think we need to see Crossfire 3870s vs a 3870 X2 before we can get heads or tails about what AMD/ATi has done.
(Yes, I saw Wizzard's post about not having two 3870s. Perhaps we should start a fund?)

Also, it seems like page 5 and up from on this forum causes Firefox to crash for me. Anyone else getting this?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 29, 2008)

xvi said:


> I agree. I think we need to see Crossfire 3870s vs a 3870 X2 before we can get heads or tails about what AMD/ATi has done.
> (Yes, I saw Wizzard's post about not having two 3870s. Perhaps we should start a fund?)
> 
> Also, it seems like page 5 and up from on this forum causes Firefox to crash for me. Anyone else getting this?



first idea: not bad. $1-$2 each would get it fast.

second idea: no problems at all. claer teh caceh and disable any plugins you have.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 29, 2008)

Am I the only one that thinks ATI _could_ launch a cost-effective 512 MB variant of this card?

Also, do the current drivers allow using two of these in CrossFire?


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 29, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> we really really need a pro motherboard reviewer



I did mention it a while ago,  my time is fairly limited but I could at least do one a month to help out if your stuck.  I will have 2 good boards to compare it with also (Once my x38 DQ6 is returned).


----------



## King Wookie (Jan 29, 2008)

This review, while a little thin, does give some comparison to a 3870 crossfire setup.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=11398&page=1


----------



## King Wookie (Jan 29, 2008)

Hmm, Tatty doing reviews.

I'm  keen on that.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 29, 2008)

Yes, Tatty's the man for the job. I endorse.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 29, 2008)

I'd do mobo reviews if I'm given a template, and mobos. lol.

I can do either AMD or Intel.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I'd do mobo reviews if I'm given a template, and mobos. lol.
> 
> I can do either AMD or Intel.



we can give you everything except for a good digital camera and skill. which cam do you use? are you a motherboard guru? how much time do you have?


----------



## btarunr (Jan 29, 2008)

I can review software. It is logistically easy for me, and I can evaluate software such as utilities, media mastering, etc....in case there's a dearth of software reviews or it could add to TechPowerUp!. I can dedicate at least five hours on a weekend for these from Feb. onwards.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 29, 2008)

not really doing software on tpu .. but we need games reviewers for gamepowerup


----------



## btarunr (Jan 29, 2008)

I used to be the review-staff (with mod powers) for League of Gamers before the vBulletin system shut-down


----------



## Wile E (Jan 29, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> we can give you everything except for a good digital camera and skill. which cam do you use? are you a motherboard guru? how much time do you have?


If by guru, you mean good at extracting the max out of my hardware, then I'd have to say yes. But, I don't have a very good camera. DiMage Z6. Not the worst, but it could surely be better. (I really want a Rebel XTi) Starting next week, I'll have a more time on my hands, as I'm changing jobs. My biggest weakness would be the writing of the review, I believe. I've never done an official review before, so some hand holding may be in order. lol. I sometimes have a hard time choosing my words, and would definitely have a hard time with layout. That's why the mention of a template. lol.

If that's not good enough, I fully understand. I was more or less just taking a shot in the dark, so to speak. lol.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 29, 2008)

Wile E said:


> If by guru, you mean good at extracting the max out of my hardware, then I'd have to say yes. But, I don't have a very good camera. DiMage Z6. Not the worst, but it could surely be better. (I really want a Rebel XTi) Starting next week, I'll have a more time on my hands, as I'm changing jobs. My biggest weakness would be the writing of the review, I believe. I've never done an official review before, so some hand holding may be in order. lol. I sometimes have a hard time choosing my words, and would definitely have a hard time with layout. That's why the mention of a template. lol.
> 
> If that's not good enough, I fully understand. I was more or less just taking a shot in the dark, so to speak. lol.



that is the hard part. writing it here on TPU requires some basic PHP/forum code knowledge which i'm pretty poor at, but if you're a quick learner you should be fine.

Once you get the basic template for a review (follow wizzards - intro/closeup/package contents etc) it simplifies quite a bit.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 29, 2008)

Mussels said:


> that is the hard part. writing it here on TPU requires some basic PHP/forum code knowledge



uh? it's just like writing forum posts plus like two or three tags for headings and pages


----------



## Mussels (Jan 29, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> uh? it's just like writing forum posts plus like two or three tags for headings and pages



well *i* personally sucked at it. I found remembering the code harder than analysing the hardware, but that could be me.
You should rememner how much i had to nag you for the forum codes and help, lol.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 29, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> we can give you everything except for a good digital camera and skill. which cam do you use? are you a motherboard guru? how much time do you have?



One for AMD and one for Intel?


----------



## King Wookie (Jan 29, 2008)

While we all volunteer Tatty's services, does he actually have the time and toys to do the job?

Mind you, knowing Tatty, (or any of us) any excuse to get more toys is welcome.


----------



## pt (Jan 29, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> One for AMD and one for Intel?



prob


----------



## Mussels (Jan 29, 2008)

I'd be wiling to do display reviews. Less benchmarks and more observation goes with my strengths, i have a digital camera, large displays and a HDTV to compare screens to - and the video power to watch HD media and game on them.

*plugs self for other kinds of hardware* 

The only requirement i would have for a motherboard reviewer, is lots of overclocking experience and tools. I want to know how a mobo performs on stock cooling with at least two CPU's (older and newer), what improvements come from upgrading cooling (some boards overclock like mad, but require massive cooling upgrades to perform at their best)

TPU is one of the best sites out there - going that extra mile is what makes it great here.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 29, 2008)

Thanks W1z for updating the review system, for the first post of a review thread to link to the article on the main site instead of having the review again on the first post. It makes things more organised


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 29, 2008)

King Wookie said:


> While we all volunteer Tatty's services, does he actually have the time and toys to do the job?
> 
> Mind you, knowing Tatty, (or any of us) any excuse to get more toys is welcome.



I dunno really, I have a top of the range x38 motherboard to compare Intel boards with as well as a top of the range P35 board (well I will have when my x38 DQ6 comes back from RMA), I have a quadcore and an E6600 to slide in the board, I have a multimeter, 2 seperate high quality ram kits but unfortunatly only a little time.......I could perhaps manage one review a month (I am a grandfather now!) and give up most of a Sunday to testing it but mefinks W1z will really need a little more committment than that as Motherboard reviews have been fairly scarce lately and with the new X48's and 790i's coming soon there will be plenty to do.


----------



## erocker (Jan 29, 2008)

W1zzard said:


> not really doing software on tpu .. but we need games reviewers for gamepowerup



I can do that, I have the time and I can write.  I sent you a PM sometime during CES I think.  I'm ready and willing, let me know what I can do for you! 

*I just noticed the post on Gamepowerup.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 29, 2008)

erocker said:


> I can do that, I have the time and I can write.  I sent you a PM sometime during CES I think.  I'm ready and willing, let me know what I can do for you!
> 
> *I just noticed the post on Gamepowerup.



Why you got an avitar with Stevie Gerrard/Liverpool winnin the Champions League???


----------



## pt (Jan 29, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Why you got an avitar with Stevie Gerrard/Liverpool winnin the Champions League???



wrong question
why an american, has a avitar about euro football/soccer?


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 29, 2008)

pt said:


> wrong question
> why an american, has a avitar about euro football/soccer?



I was trying to be polite


----------



## Hawk1 (Jan 29, 2008)

I dont get it. Are these things PCIE 2.0 or 1.1. Every website (retailers and Mfrs) with the exception of ASUS, says they "support" PCIE 2.0. Is that marketing speak for " it will work in a PCIE 2.0 slot" but you don't get 2.0 benefit (yeah, I know it's not a big deal either way). I've looked at the Diamond/Visiontek and HIS sites and they all say the "2.0 support". I guess if W1zz says they are 1.1 then it is, but I find it strange.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 29, 2008)

Maybe they're getting mixed up with the 2.0 gpu's and 1.1 bridge chip thing.


----------



## erocker (Jan 29, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Why you got an avitar with Stevie Gerrard/Liverpool winnin the Champions League???



I'm a big Liverpool fan.  Plus, I was just waiting for one of you Brits to notice.


----------



## Hawk1 (Jan 29, 2008)

tigger69 said:


> Maybe they're getting mixed up with the 2.0 gpu's and 1.1 bridge chip thing.



I suppose. Damn marketing guys.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 29, 2008)

erocker said:


> I'm a big Liverpool fan.  Plus, I was just waiting for one of you Brits to notice.



I did :shadedshu


----------



## erocker (Jan 29, 2008)

Not a fan?  I will take it down.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 29, 2008)

the whole card will never run in pcie 2.0 mode in any 2.0 slot. the pci-e _slot_ speed maximum is x16 pcie 1.1
either those companies do not know that 2.0 isnt supported (why would amd tell them? lol) or they just mean "it will work in a 2.0 motherboard"


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 29, 2008)

erocker said:


> Not a fan?  I will take it down.



Not a Liverpool fan no but dont take it down if it's your team!


----------



## xvi (Feb 11, 2008)

I hope this isn't against forum rules, but ExtremeTech has a review that pits this card against a pair of crossfire 3870s. It looks like it might not be as efficient as two 3870s, only wining because of the increase in core clock.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2252547,00.asp


----------



## hat (Feb 11, 2008)

Uhhh wow it got beat by the 8800gtx, which, if you remember, has only one GPU...


----------



## Wile E (Feb 12, 2008)

hat said:


> Uhhh wow it got beat by the 8800gtx, which, if you remember, has only one GPU...


It beats the GTX in almost all the high-res tests. The fact that it has 2 gpus doesn't matter, it's the price compared to the GTX that matters, and the X2 is cheaper than the GTX.


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein (Feb 12, 2008)

xvi said:


> I hope this isn't against forum rules, but ExtremeTech has a review that pits this card against a pair of crossfire 3870s. It looks like it might not be as efficient as two 3870s, only wining because of the increase in core clock.
> 
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2252547,00.asp



Actually it would make the X2 look *less* appealing if they would get their Crossfire working correctly! 

Someone needs to link some of these "reviewers" to my "How-to". Then everyone will stop poo-pooing Crossfire.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 12, 2008)

Wile E said:


> It beats the GTX in almost all the high-res tests. The fact that it has 2 gpus doesn't matter, it's the price compared to the GTX that matters, and the X2 is cheaper than the GTX.



Cheaper than the Ultra for that matter


----------



## Mussels (Feb 12, 2008)

price and drivers are the two keys. and the drivers seem to be improving at a steady rate.


----------



## Whilhelm (Feb 12, 2008)

Wow there must be something with my 3D Mark 03 because I cannot come close to 56000 marks. It seems that my card runs that benchmark as if I only have one 3870 installed becasue I score around 36000. Everything else seems to work with the card just fine though. Any thoughts as to why I am having this odd problem.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 12, 2008)

Whilhelm said:


> Wow there must be something with my 3D Mark 03 because I cannot come close to 56000 marks. It seems that my card runs that benchmark as if I only have one 3870 installed becasue I score around 36000. Everything else seems to work with the card just fine though. Any thoughts as to why I am having this odd problem.



Is there not a multi GPU patch for 3D Mark 2003?  have you installed it if there is otherwise the bench will not be optimised for more than one GPU.  

If you have not got it already, you can get the latest patch here.....see if that helps:

http://www.futuremark.com/download/3dmark03patch360/


----------



## beastgreeley (Feb 12, 2008)

Will your ATI Tool work for the  HD 3870 x2  W1zzard?


----------



## Mussels (Feb 13, 2008)

beastgreeley said:


> Will your ATI Tool work for the  HD 3870 x2  W1zzard?



try asking in the ATI tool section of the forum


----------



## Blacklash (Feb 13, 2008)

Hanners @ EB didn't have a very good experience with the card either-

http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=531&Itemid=27


----------



## Mussels (Feb 13, 2008)

Blacklash said:


> Hanners @ EB didn't have a very good experience with the card either-
> 
> http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=531&Itemid=27





			
				hanners said:
			
		

> with some game titles offering little or no performance gains over a single Radeon HD 3870, and others (notably Need For Speed: Pro Street) exhibiting performance losses with CrossFire enabled.





			
				hanners again said:
			
		

> Firstly, it initially refused to post at all on our Striker II, nForce 780i-based platform, although thankfully ASUS were extremely fast in getting a motherboard BIOS update out to us which resolved the issue.  We then moved on to our Gigabyte GA-X38-DS5 motherboard, which even more bizarrely refused to detect or allow us to boot from IDE optical drives, although they were fine within Windows Vista itself - naturally, this gave us some OS installation headaches which required changing the graphics board until Vista was fully installed from the DVD drive.



^ those two are the most concering from the review, for those who dont/cant click the link


----------



## Kirby123 (May 30, 2008)

i like my card 
i have the his had 3870 X2


----------



## blackberryf1 (Jun 1, 2008)

hello! first post here I do not know much (almost nothing about cards) and I have two questions.... first, do you think the Collin McRae DiRT game can be played with this card? and second for other applications different from games, do you think this card will be good enough? I mean to render complex animations from programs like Cinema 4D, 3DS Max, etc. etc.

thanks a lot!
bye!


----------



## Kirby123 (Jun 1, 2008)

blackberryf1 said:


> hello! first post here I do not know much (almost nothing about cards) and I have two questions.... first, do you think the Collin McRae DiRT game can be played with this card? and second for other applications different from games, do you think this card will be good enough? I mean to render complex animations from programs like Cinema 4D, 3DS Max, etc. etc.
> 
> thanks a lot!
> bye!



i play crysis perfectly fine with everything maxed out with my X2... 35-103 fps and the demo grip i only get around 77 average fps...


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jun 1, 2008)

good work my friend so can you give me compare it with 9800gx2


----------



## Kirby123 (Jun 6, 2008)

i use to own a 9800 GX2, didnt like it costly for the performance.... the super clock version -.- i changed it out for a oc version of the HIS hd 3870 X2 my fps jumped around 18 on crysis


----------



## Wile E (Jun 7, 2008)

Kirby123 said:


> i play crysis perfectly fine with everything maxed out with my X2... 35-103 fps and the demo grip i only get around 77 average fps...


At what resolution?





Kirby123 said:


> i use to own a 9800 GX2, didnt like it costly for the performance.... the super clock version -.- i changed it out for a oc version of the HIS hd 3870 X2 my fps jumped around 18 on crysis


If that's the case, there was a problem with your system when you had the GX2. First, Crysis doesn't scale properly with Crossfire, so the second ATI gpu on the 3870X2 adds very little performance, if any at all.

Second, the Gx2 is hands down the faster card. There is absolutely no disputing it.


----------



## Kirby123 (Jun 7, 2008)

compairing the HIS superclock to the 9800gx2 ultra clock at the coolmaster event both max gpus on both cards max clocked the his superclock had better performance in everything from 2 fps to 30 fps depending on what they were running. crysis they were almost the same. seeing is believeing in my book so idk what to say  :/


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 7, 2008)

Wile E said:


> At what resolution?If that's the case, there was a problem with your system when you had the GX2. First, Crysis doesn't scale properly with Crossfire, so the second ATI gpu on the 3870X2 adds very little performance, if any at all.
> 
> Second, the Gx2 is hands down the faster card. There is absolutely no disputing it.



Crysis has a problem with DUAL Cards beyond 1900x****. TBH if its 1 game that has the problem, but everything else runs fine with it, im not going to blame the technology used for the hardware.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 7, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> Crysis has a problem with DUAL Cards beyond 1900x****. TBH if its 1 game that has the problem, but everything else runs fine with it, im not going to blame the technology used for the hardware.



I wasn't blaming anything. I was just pointing out that he obviously had a problem with his 9800GX2 setup if Crysis plays better on the 3870X2. Crysis doesn't scale well with any multi gpu setups, but it does scale better with nVidia.


----------



## Kirby123 (Jun 7, 2008)

i get lower fps with everything with that 9800 gx2... i bought it just testing it out and i didnt like it so i trade it in for another 3870 x2... i know it wasnt the layout cuz i have mobos laying around my house enought to build a few computers... seems like a big waist but i admit when i oc it i can go higher with invidia before volt moding it. but with both volt mod there about equal... i have his superclocks and just running one of them outdoes the ultra superclock of the gx2 9800 series.... im not sure what was going on i got a mobo recomended for it and i didnt like the fact that i lost 18 fps to just one of the his superclocked.... a bug in the hardware on invidias part? replacing it with another didnt help though.... mobo replacement to the same kind it ran the same.... well im just going to stick with the he 3870 X2 i run everything perfectly maxed out


----------



## Wile E (Jun 7, 2008)

Kirby123 said:


> i get lower fps with everything with that 9800 gx2... i bought it just testing it out and i didnt like it so i trade it in for another 3870 x2... i know it wasnt the layout cuz i have mobos laying around my house enought to build a few computers... seems like a big waist but i admit when i oc it i can go higher with invidia before volt moding it. but with both volt mod there about equal... i have his superclocks and just running one of them outdoes the ultra superclock of the gx2 9800 series.... im not sure what was going on i got a mobo recomended for it and i didnt like the fact that i lost 18 fps to just one of the his superclocked.... a bug in the hardware on invidias part? replacing it with another didnt help though.... mobo replacement to the same kind it ran the same.... well im just going to stick with the he 3870 X2 i run everything perfectly maxed out


Could've been anything. Hardware conflict, bugged driver, etc., etc.

If the 3870X2 works better for you, then so be it. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just saying there was definitely a problem with the GX2 setup, as it should've been faster in everything, period.


----------



## Kirby123 (Jun 8, 2008)

well im just saying from seeing it with my own eyes crossfireX did better thatn sli 9800GX2 superclock on the ocing spree (crossfireX gpu1 953/1154 gpu2 944/1103) (sli 850/1250 both cores both gpu)


----------



## Wile E (Jun 8, 2008)

Kirby123 said:


> well im just saying from seeing it with my own eyes crossfireX did better thatn sli 9800GX2 superclock on the ocing spree (crossfireX gpu1 953/1154 gpu2 944/1103) (sli 850/1250 both cores both gpu)



I believe you. I'm just saying that there was something wrong with your nvidia setup.


----------



## Kirby123 (Jun 8, 2008)

possibly what? i would like to build another computer to compair my his superclock the the 9800gx2 superclock and load up pictures


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jun 8, 2008)

ok that will be good


----------



## Kirby123 (Jun 8, 2008)

what?


----------



## Kirby123 (Jun 21, 2008)

well its goingto be about a month since this new job...


----------



## <<Onafets>> (Dec 12, 2008)

With a bit of overclocking and coolers i think it'll run at about the speed of a 4850! Mabye a waterblock or heatsink?


----------

