# Sapphire HD 4890 Toxic / Vapor-X



## W1zzard (Jun 10, 2009)

Sapphire's HD 4890 Toxic uses their exclusive Vapor-X cooling technology. This results in a card that delivers considerably more performance than the HD 4890 reference, yet does so without any excess noise. Actually the Sapphire HD 4890 Toxic is the quietest HD 4890 we ever had in our hands.

*Show full review*


----------



## Castiel (Jun 12, 2009)

Thanks W1zz! Man this card is awesome. Screams BEAST!


----------



## vanyots (Jun 12, 2009)

How come it beats GTX275 in all resolutions except 1024x768, and lags in the combined performance graph?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 12, 2009)

Looks like a very nice card, sad that even at 960MHz it still can't top a stock GTX275 though and costs more...


----------



## Paintface (Jun 12, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Looks like a very nice card, sad that even at 960MHz it still can't top a stock GTX275 though and costs more...



you get the best air cooling available in return


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jun 12, 2009)

Why on earth is 6pin + 8pin a good thing?


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 12, 2009)

ZoneDymo said:


> Why on earth is 6pin + 8pin a good thing?



potentially higher power delivery potential. there are enough adapter cables included to even work with older psus


----------



## erocker (Jun 12, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Looks like a very nice card, sad that even at 960MHz it still can't top a stock GTX275 though and costs more...



What graphs are you looking at?  It beats the GTX 275 and 280 in just about everything.  It definitely does when overclocked.  This is the first Toxic review I've seen where the core can't hit 1000 on stock voltage. I also paid considerably less money for my card than a GTX 275 sells for.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 12, 2009)

Paintface said:


> you get the best air cooling available in return



The cooler on this card is not, IMO, the best air cooling available.  The Vapor-X is nothing more than a flat heatpipe used as the base of the cooler.  And no cooler that pushes hot air back into the case can be considered the best air cooler available.  IMO, the best stock air cooler I've ever seen come on a card was the original GTX280/260 cooler.



erocker said:


> What graphs are you looking at?  It beats the GTX 275 and 280 in just about everything.  It definitely does when overclocked.  This is the first Toxic review I've seen where the core can't hit 1000 on stock voltage. I also paid considerably less money for my card than a GTX 275 sells for.



This graph, the one showing the GTX275 outperforming the HD4890 Toxic overall.

And the 1% overclock isn't going to help the HD4890 any, and remember this is a stock GTX275 that has plenty of overclocking headroom left in it also.

As for price, the HD4890 Toxic is going for $270 on newegg right now, a GTX275 goes for $220.  That is $50 less for a better performing card.  I don't know what you got your card for, but I can only go by what prices are available to me.


----------



## erocker (Jun 12, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> The cooler on this card is not, IMO, the best air cooling available.  The Vapor-X is nothing more than a flat heatpipe used as the base of the cooler.  And no cooler that pushes hot air back into the case can be considered the best air cooler available.  IMO, the best stock air cooler I've ever seen come on a card was the original GTX280/260 cooler.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The only problem I have with the relative performance graph is the GTX 275 beats the 4890 at lower resolutions (by 1%) and that doesn't really matter for a high performance card. If you use those lower resolutions, neither card is the right choice. Man, Newegg jacked up the prices.:shadedshu  I paid $230 shipped for mine from ewiz.  So, I suppose I have to agree with you, if a GTX275 is $220, and a 4890 is $270, fifty bucks isn't worth it for performance that the human brain can't differentiate between.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 12, 2009)

erocker said:


> The only problem I have with the relative performance graph is the GTX 275 beats the 4890 at lower resolutions (by 1%) and that doesn't really matter for a high performance card. If you use those lower resolutions, neither card is the right choice. Man, Newegg jacked up the prices.:shadedshu  I paid $230 shipped for mine from ewiz.  So, I suppose I have to agree with you, if a GTX275 is $220, and a 4890 is $270, fifty bucks isn't worth it for performance that the human brain can't differentiate between.



For the difference between the two cards(be it the HD4890 Toxic being 1% better or worse, I'll just say the two are equal), even if you can get the HD4890 Toxic for $230, it isn't worth going for over the GTX275.  The GTX275 is still $10 cheaper, and has more overclocking headroom.


----------



## erocker (Jun 12, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> For the difference between the two cards(be it the HD4890 Toxic being 1% better or worse, I'll just say the two are equal), even if you can get the HD4890 Toxic for $230, it isn't worth going for over the GTX275.  The GTX275 is still $10 cheaper, and has more overclocking headroom.



Then, I challenge any GTX 275 user to go head to head with me in some benchmarks.   Maybe I should just ditch the 260 in my other rig and get a 275 to find out myself?


----------



## Blacklash (Jun 12, 2009)

Guess I got lucky with mine.

I have never seen over 65C load and am more often closer to 60C. That's in a SilverStone TJ10 case. It idles @ 43C with all system fans on low.

http://img35.imageshack.us/i/clipboard01epu.jpg/

I've had the core up to 1050 and I have to keep the fan on blow dry to do that. It does 1000|1100 fine @ 38% fan speed though.

As far as beating a 275 goes the below round up shows an HD 4890 @ 925 on the core and one @ 1000 on the core often matching or passing a 275 @ 713 on the core. They tested the EVGA FTW card in that round up.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...roundup-asus-diamond-his-sapphire-xfx-13.html

If you want the fastest single GPU on the market that's going to be the EVGA GTX 285 FTW, and it's going to cost you.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 12, 2009)

Paintface said:


> you get the best air cooling available in return



http://www.arctic-cooling.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=2_&mID=101

na this is better but the best factory installed cooling , the toxic does have that.


----------



## MrAlex (Jun 14, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Looks like a very nice card, sad that even at 960MHz it still can't top a stock GTX275 though and costs more...



OK what the hell are you on about? At 1920x1200, the Toxic beats the GTX 275 _*11*_ times, while the GTX 275 only beats the Toxic *5* times.


----------



## intel igent (Jun 14, 2009)

nice review W1zz! thnx 

here in Canada the green team card's are a GOOD deal more than the red team so it only make's sense


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 14, 2009)

MrAlex said:


> OK what the hell are you on about? At 1920x1200, the Toxic beats the GTX 275 _*11*_ times, while the GTX 275 only beats the Toxic *5* times.



Look at the overall chart, the GTX275 beats the Toxic.


----------



## erocker (Jun 14, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Look at the overall chart, the GTX275 beats the Toxic.



At lower resolutions which basically negates the argument. Why buy either card for lower resolutions?  What does it matter anyway as both cards will run everything at any settings.  I think people get caught up too much in a few FPS.


----------



## Paintface (Jun 14, 2009)

erocker said:


> At lower resolutions which basically negates the argument. Why buy either card for lower resolutions?  What does it matter anyway as both cards will run everything at any settings.  I think people get caught up too much in a few FPS.



he has to justify his purchase, dont mind him


----------



## MrAlex (Jun 14, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Look at the overall chart, the GTX275 beats the Toxic.



OK...the graphs show that the Toxic beats the GTX 275 3 times out of 5. 
Anything else no point in buying the cards then.


----------



## erocker (Jun 14, 2009)

Paintface said:


> he has to justify his purchase, dont mind him



Lol, so do I, I guess!  Really though, you can't go wrong with either card as by the amount one beats out the other is miniscule.


----------



## intel igent (Jun 14, 2009)

i still think ATi has better quality GFX than Nvidia 

i will trade a few FPS for better quality anyday 

can we really tell the difference between 35FPS and 37FPS?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 14, 2009)

erocker said:


> At lower resolutions which basically negates the argument. Why buy either card for lower resolutions?  What does it matter anyway as both cards will run everything at any settings.  I think people get caught up too much in a few FPS.



Look at the graphs broken down by resolution, the top two resolutions tested:  1680x1050 and 1920x1200

The two cards are virtually even.  No point in paying a dime more for either card.  Right now, even if I assume you can get the Toxic for $230 like you say, the GTX275 for $10 cheaper is a better buy.  $10 is $10, if you can get the same performance and save $10 I say do it.  I'm not caught up in a few FPS, to me the cards are equal, I'm caught up on the $$$.



Paintface said:


> he has to justify his purchase, dont mind him



You mean I have to justify my purchase of the HD4890?  I don't really get how that makes sense in the context.



MrAlex said:


> OK...the graphs show that the Toxic beats the GTX 275 3 times out of 5.
> Anything else no point in buying the cards then.



The two cards are equal in my eyes, and I'll quote myself:



newtekie1 said:


> ...*I'll just say the two are equal*...





erocker said:


> Lol, so do I, I guess!  Really though, you can't go wrong with either card as by the amount one beats out the other is miniscule.



That is my point here, it isn't about which performs better, as they are both so close it won't matter, but the Toxic being more expensive and having no overclocking head room makes the GTX275 a better option.



intel igent said:


> i still think ATi has better quality GFX than Nvidia
> 
> i will trade a few FPS for better quality anyday
> 
> can we really tell the difference between 35FPS and 37FPS?



I use both, I certainly can't tell the difference in IQ between the two.  I've read articles where they freeze frame the game and zoom in so far both images look completely pixelated, and you can't even tell what you are looking at, and some say ATi is better and others say nVidia is better.  Personally, I don't freeze frame in the middle of my games and press my face against the monitor...


----------



## btarunr (Jun 14, 2009)

GTX 275 wins this round. All this card manages is a 1% overclock (in the review), and ends up providing 1.7% performance boost with it. Compare that to say a Zotac GTX 275 AMP. AMD partners shouldn't be putting in so much of development, only to end up matching a GTX 275 at its stock speed. Spend the same $270 on a Zotac 275 AMP, EVGA 275 SSC, BFG 275 OC2, etc. instead. Or you could give this a look.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 14, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> The cooler on this card is not, IMO, the best air cooling available.  The Vapor-X is nothing more than a flat heatpipe used as the base of the cooler.  And no cooler that pushes hot air back into the case can be considered the best air cooler available.  IMO, the best stock air cooler I've ever seen come on a card was the original GTX280/260 cooler.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




1%, mine is currently running at 1100mhz   I also got a very good deal, it cost me £20 less than my Palit GTX275 but I did buy that the week they were released.  To be fair, it only did 1050mhz out of the box, I tweaked the volts using rivatuner to get the extra 50mhz.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=93433&page=14

I only installed this Toxic yesterday and I havent really had any time to make comparisons between this and my 275, TBH, visually i cant really tell any difference in IQ although at my age the old spotlights arent what they used to be .


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 14, 2009)

1% is what W1z got on his with stock voltage.  He was able to push it to 1000MHz after upping the voltage, but even at 1000MHz I don't think the HD4890 can compete with an overclocked GTX275...


----------



## intel igent (Jun 15, 2009)

^^ here in the land of IGLOO's a 275 is on average $80+ more than a 4890 so if you wanna give me some extra cash, like $100 or so (maybe more) i'll return my 4890 and buy a 275 to make everybody happy 

not everybody is in the US and as such we don't get the same pricing as you guy's


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 15, 2009)

intel igent said:


> ^^ here in the land of IGLOO's a 275 is on average $80+ more than a 4890 so if you wanna give me some extra cash, like $100 or so (maybe more) i'll return my 4890 and buy a 275 to make everybody happy
> 
> not everybody is in the US and as such we don't get the same pricing as you guy's



This site talks about US dollars, and more importantly so does this review. If you don't like it we can talk about Canadian prices, but obviously prices vary from country to country.

Show me where the HD4890 Toxic is $80 cheaper than the $240 the GTX275 goes for.  In fact, I'm guessing you can't even show me any HD4890 that is $80 cheaper than the $240 GTX275.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 15, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> 1% is what W1z got on his with stock voltage.  He was able to push it to 1000MHz after upping the voltage, but even at 1000MHz I don't think the HD4890 can compete with an overclocked GTX275...



Most reviews show that a 1000mhz 4890 can equal a stock GTX285 in a couple of things, it loses out a little in many but betters it in a couple, there are plenty of reviews out there of the Sapphire Atomic, so I suppose you could say, for someone that dont overclock, perhaps the high end 4890's with good factory overclocks may just be the better buy, if you overclock perhaps not, again as you mentioned, it's down to cost, would I pay a premium over a GTX275? probably not.  It's the luck of the draw on how these things will overclock out of the box, thing is, before I got this card to compliment my GTX275 which is in my Yorkfield rig, I read 5 reviews on the Toxic, every one got the core to at least 1020mhz, I spose I got lucky at 1050mhz, W1z's sample obviously wasnt so lucky!

The thing is, W1z on his first review of the "standard" 4890 clearly said, when you cut through the initial ATi hype, most 4890's wont actually hit 1000mhz, at least not without lots of ugly volts being put through them and it was clear to me all along that in stock guise a 4890 was a bit slower than a GTX275 which is why I got the 275, but if you can get them to 1000mhz, baring in mind there are no voltage increase options for the 275, then you do have one fast single GPU on your hands, here is one of those reviews of the Atomic at stock 1000mhz and overclocked, mixed results.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd4890_atomic/13.htm


----------



## MrAlex (Jun 15, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> 1% is what W1z got on his with stock voltage.  He was able to push it to 1000MHz after upping the voltage, but even at 1000MHz I don't think the HD4890 can compete with an overclocked GTX275...



OK, how bout the Atomic? Core at 1000MHz and Memory at 4200MHz effective. It competes with the GTX 285 and is CHEAPER than the GTX 285. Hell in the UK, the 4870X2 is cheaper!!



btarunr said:


> GTX 275 wins this round. All this card manages is a 1% overclock (in the review), and ends up providing 1.7% performance boost with it. Compare that to say a Zotac GTX 275 AMP. AMD partners shouldn't be putting in so much of development, only to end up matching a GTX 275 at its stock speed. Spend the same $270 on a Zotac 275 AMP, EVGA 275 SSC, BFG 275 OC2, etc. instead. Or you could give this a look.



Give this a look:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102839&Tpk=Sapphire HD 4890 atomic
Performs on par with GTX 285, cheapest is:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133256


----------



## btarunr (Jun 15, 2009)

I'm yet to read a review that suggests it's as fast as a GTX 285. Even then, it's on par with a stock GTX 285. keyword "stock". For $15 more, you potentially have 15~20% boost with the overclocking headroom of GTX 285.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 15, 2009)

MrAlex said:


> OK, how bout the Atomic? Core at 1000MHz and Memory at 4200MHz effective. It competes with the GTX 285 and is CHEAPER than the GTX 285. Hell in the UK, the 4870X2 is cheaper!!



This review, and discussion thread of the review is not about the Atomic.  I'm talking about the Toxic, and the Toxic only.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 15, 2009)

btarunr said:


> I'm yet to read a review that suggests it's as fast as a GTX 285. Even then, it's on par with a stock GTX 285. keyword "stock". For $15 more, you potentially have 15~20% boost with the overclocking headroom of GTX 285.



I agree, hence you will note my fairly careful wording in my post regarding the 285, however, the key thing is that in most things it beats the GTX275 (but thats probably at stock and the 275 will have more headroom for an OC over an atomic already at 1000mhz) however I would like to test that for myself because I am not so sure, now I have both cards maybe I will when I have a little time, of course I can only test them on the games I play but I am sure that some will say I am the most biased unbiased reviewer of all time!

I dont really care which is the faster as I have both, I just sometimes get a little sick of the bickering


----------



## Easo (Jun 27, 2009)

One question, why Catalyst 9.1? i thought 4890 got support with 9.5 (or was it 9.6). At the time of 9.1 card was still in making.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 27, 2009)

the driver used was 9.5 or 9.6 indeed


----------



## totalz (Jun 29, 2009)

SO, what's the max voltage limit for RV790?


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 29, 2009)

totalz said:


> SO, what's the max voltage limit for RV790?



OCP/OVP kicks in on anything above 1.45V I beleive but you can get around that.  As for absolute max..... I have not yet been stupid enough (or drunk enough) to try 1.5V yet.


----------



## UrbanX (Sep 4, 2009)

Does anyone know anywhere that has this card in stock?  I can't find one anywhere?  Thanks.


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 4, 2009)

UrbanX said:


> Does anyone know anywhere that has this card in stock?  I can't find one anywhere?  Thanks.



That very much depends on where you live really.


----------



## UrbanX (Sep 4, 2009)

Tatty_One said:


> That very much depends on where you live really.



Ah, yes, good point!  Sorry. 

I'm in Merry Old England (UK).


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 4, 2009)

OK, are you talking about the better Toxic or the vaporX?


----------



## UrbanX (Sep 4, 2009)

Tatty_One said:


> OK, are you talking about the better Toxic or the vaporX?



Vapor-X.  I'm looking for some pretty decent power, at a reasonable price (£150-£180), but as quiet as possible.  Happy to take alternate suggestions if this card is no longer available.  Thanks.


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 4, 2009)

UrbanX said:


> Vapor-X.  I'm looking for some pretty decent power, at a reasonable price (£150-£180), but as quiet as possible.  Happy to take alternate suggestions if this card is no longer available.  Thanks.



The toxic is better, it has an IMPROVED VaporX cooling solution (with additional heatpipes) and stocks at 90mhz higher at 960mhz as opposed to the VaporX's 870Mhz

But if you want the VaporX..............

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/prods/Components/Graphics-ATI/ATIHD4890Series/11150-05-231R.html

Or the 2GB version...........

http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/3154069/art/sapphire-technology/radeon-hd4890-vapor-x-2-g.html


----------



## UrbanX (Sep 4, 2009)

Tatty_One said:


> The toxic is better, it has an IMPROVED VaporX cooling solution (with additional heatpipes) and stocks at 90mhz higher at 960mhz as opposed to the VaporX's 870Mhz



Yeah, I'd finally decided to go for the card shown in this review http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/HD_4890_Toxic_Vapor-X/ but can't find anywhere that stocks it.

I saw another comment somewhere else that said it had a really small production run, so I'm thinking it may be impossible to find now.


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 4, 2009)

UrbanX said:


> Yeah, I'd finally decided to go for the card shown in this review http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/HD_4890_Toxic_Vapor-X/ but can't find anywhere that stocks it.
> 
> I saw another comment somewhere else that said it had a really small production run, so I'm thinking it may be impossible to find now.



look at my amended post


----------



## UrbanX (Sep 4, 2009)

Tatty_One said:


> look at my amended post



Wow.  Nice price on the 2Gb version (even if the extra gig isn't supposed to add much).

I think I'll go for that, unless you think the Toxic version is still available anywhere?

Thanks for your help with this.  Much appreciated.


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 4, 2009)

UrbanX said:


> Wow.  Nice price on the 2Gb version (even if the extra gig isn't supposed to add much).
> 
> I think I'll go for that, unless you think the Toxic version is still available anywhere?
> 
> Thanks for your help with this.  Much appreciated.



No, it seems it's not, i have even tried my "secret" suppliers, i got my Toxic which clocks at 1050mhz comfortably for £170 when they were first released   and your welcome!  The VaporX's generally dont clock as well but even at 900 - 950 they will be screaming.  i wouldnt bother with the 2Gig version though unless your gaming at high res as in 19XX or above.  Crysis however may well use more than 1Gig of texture memory.


----------



## UrbanX (Sep 4, 2009)

Tatty_One said:


> No, it seems it's not, i have even tried my "secret" suppliers.



Ah well, you win some, you lose some. 

I think I'll get the 2Gb version as it's only £4 more expensive.

Thanks again Tatty_One.


----------

