Thats cool. but what dose the power consumption look like for the CF setup look like ? is it higher than a single 4850 ? if so you could just overclock a 4850 and still be on top right ?

HD 4670 cards don't have those 6-pin PCI-E power connectors, at least all those reference design card pictures that surfaced showed it didn't. Should give you a slight idea about its power draw.

what about price will it be cheaper?

my (extremely) educated guess is 150w total system draw average under load. ie. insert those numbers into our vga review power consumption graphs

That's just 2W over that of the HD 2600 XT. Impressive :)

MilkyWaywhat about price will it be cheaper?

i would like to know this as well

I bet two HD4670's will cost more than a single HD4850 too. I don't know why this news is so surprising every time it is reported every generation.

newtekie1I bet two HD4670's will cost more than a single HD4850 too. I don't know why this news is so surprising every time it is reported every generation.

well if it costs less, consumes less power and outpreforms wouldnt it be the better option to go ? just need to get an actual price point for it

W1zzardmy (extremely) educated guess is 150w total system draw average under load. ie. insert those numbers into our vga review power consumption graphs

thats probably a little too less for a crossfire setup of those cards .

But whats the point of crossfire of these cards ?

One will cost not less than $100, crossfire will be more than $200 . HD4850 can be had for $150 .

Then there are the crossfire issues with games, and microstuttering issue .

Arrakis+9well if it costs less, consumes less power and outpreforms wouldnt it be the better option to go ? just need to get an actual price point for it

And that argument is made every generation, the problem is that I have yet to see a situation where it costs less, consumes less power, and outperforms.

Usually, it consumes more power, and costs more. This might be the rare exception, but until I see pricing information, I'm not holding my breath.

wolf2009thats probably a little too less for a crossfire setup of those cards .

But whats the point of crossfire of these cards ?

One will cost not less than $100, crossfire will be more than $200 . HD4850 can be had for $150 .

Then there are the crossfire issues with games, and microstuttering issue .

I've never understood those who choose to go that path as well. Other than the cool factor of having dual video cards, there's no benefit to using two cheaper cards to barely beat a single faster card.

Oh ya well....www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej0tItNqItc

CDdude55Oh ya well....www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej0tItNqItc

rofl, "improve the rates of my frame, 3dmark scores are insane, SLI is the name" :roll:

CDdude55Oh ya well....www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej0tItNqItc

How do you find videos like that ? all day browsing youtube ?

wolf2009How do you find videos like that ? all day browsing youtube ?

It's a pretty old video, it was the 1st place winner in a contest about Nvidia's SLI, Which is pretty sad.

Hmh, so 2x4670=9800GTX+. I'm getting one of those 55nm:s to play with for my birthday. Although I think that the crossfire setup will lose in real games, but interesting never the less.

Probably cheaper than 1xnvidia and would consume less power and I'd have a crossfire ready motherboard.. Oh well, they'll take a while to get to market :)

Haha, that video is hillarious.

@newtekie1, I Agree. ITs not a huge gain either and it shows how good the architecture is. Ive not seen many instances, if any, where its cheaper, less power and better overall, myself.

initial slides and other leaked information said the 4670 was rated at 60w, so that would mean that crossfire would be about the same if not a bit higher than the 4850. But then again that same slide said it would have a clock speed of 750mhz and 320 shaders, but the only way to explain these figures with the specs we know already would be if the pixel and texture fillrate were more important in these benchmarks than shader operations p/s. 2x RV730 used in the 4670 would equate to 8+8 ROPs, 32+32 TMUs, and 320+320 SP, vs 16 ROPs, 40 TMUs, and 800 SP on the RV770. At 750 mhz the pixel and texture fillrates would be higher, but the shader ops/s would still be slower at about 480,000 MOperations/s vs 500,000 MOperations/s on the 4850 at 625mhz.

The biggest question would be cost, as the cheapest 4850 on egg is $155 with rebates, call it $170-$180 typical selling price. So at $80 each, 2x 4670 would be a good show, but any more and you would be better off with a single HD 4850 since you don't have to worry about crossfire scaling, compatibility, or driver issues that might kill performance of a crossfire set up. But still, sub $100 price wouldnt be unthinkable, that would put the 4670 right against the 9600GT in pricing and still leave room for that rumored "RV770 LE" with 480 shaders to fill that gap between the 4670 and 4850.

LOL! That is so true for HD gamers. I mean, I'm fine enough at 1024x768 when things get demanding but I guess ASUS might try to make things cheaper so that everyone is satisfied. As for me, I will be waiting for the AMD cards to drop by at 45nm to say hello! I'm fine with my HD 3870!

newtekie1And that argument is made every generation, the problem is that I have yet to see a situation where it costs less, consumes less power, and outperforms.

Usually, it consumes more power, and costs more. This might be the rare exception, but until I see pricing information, I'm not holding my breath.

6600GT SLI, out preformed the 6800GT, lower power, and lower cost once both cards settled in for the long hual, same with the 7600GT SLI also.

The 6600GT @ 140 was cheaper than a 6800GT @ 300 even in SLI by 20 bucks.

The 7600GT SLI could tie a 7950GT and was cheaper ocne they fell to 120 compared to the 280-320 asked for the 7950GT.

It has happened.

Still its better to get a single powerful card and get another when the need arises

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBKSLS2XDbk&feature=related

I still prefer a powerful card vs. two weak ones. Two fails do make a right in this case, but not really.

wickermaninitial slides and other leaked information said the 4670 was rated at 60w, so that would mean that crossfire would be about the same if not a bit higher than the 4850. But then again that same slide said it would have a clock speed of 750mhz and 320 shaders, but the only way to explain these figures with the specs we know already would be if the pixel and texture fillrate were more important in these benchmarks than shader operations p/s. 2x RV730 used in the 4670 would equate to 8+8 ROPs, 32+32 TMUs, and 320+320 SP, vs 16 ROPs, 40 TMUs, and 800 SP on the RV770. At 750 mhz the pixel and texture fillrates would be higher, but the shader ops/s would still be slower at about 480,000 MOperations/s vs 500,000 MOperations/s on the 4850 at 625mhz.

The biggest question would be cost, as the cheapest 4850 on egg is $155 with rebates, call it $170-$180 typical selling price. So at $80 each, 2x 4670 would be a good show, but any more and you would be better off with a single HD 4850 since you don't have to worry about crossfire scaling, compatibility, or driver issues that might kill performance of a crossfire set up. But still, sub $100 price wouldnt be unthinkable, that would put the 4670 right against the 9600GT in pricing and still leave room for that rumored "RV770 LE" with 480 shaders to fill that gap between the 4670 and 4850.

you seem to be forgetting the price of a crossfire mobo :rolleyes:

Scrizzyou seem to be forgetting the price of a crossfire mobo :rolleyes:

most intel mobos with dual pci express support x fire

maybe we see 4670 in the laptops in the future, cool it is beat 9800gt too , only still one think the price