ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2 First Benchmarks

[Wile E]

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

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

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

 

[springs113]

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

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

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

 

[Wile E]

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

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

 

[imperialreign]

Are you crazy?!?!?

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

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

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

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

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





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

 

[zOaib]

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

 

[TheGuruStud]

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

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

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

So, basically, my eyes function too fast I guess

 

[WarEagleAU]

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

 

[phanbuey]

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

So, basically, my eyes function too fast I guess

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

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

 

[mdm-adph]

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

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

 

[asb2106]

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

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

 

[Deleted member 24505]

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

 

[asb2106]

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

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

 

[imperialreign]

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

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

 

[Mussels]

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

 

[asb2106]

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

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

 

[Mussels]

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

 

[asb2106]

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

 

[niko084]

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

So, basically, my eyes function too fast I guess

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

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

 

[niko084]

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


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

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

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

 

[Mussels]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[TheGuruStud]

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

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

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

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

 

[Mussels]

another link from the same source.

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

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

 

[niko084]

another link from the same source.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[twicksisted]

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

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

 

[asb2106]

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

do you have the samsung 245bw??