Radeon HD 4870 X2: Four Cards Compared

Features
By
published

3D Performance At 1920x1200

Swipe to scroll horizontally
1920x1200 0AAfpsPercent
HIS HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) OC 8.10 QX@3.67784.2240.3
Radeon HD 4870 X2 4CF (4x1024 MB) 8.10 QX@3.67783.3240.0
MSI HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) OC 8.10 QX@3.67782.3239.7
Asus HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) Top OC 8.10 QX@3.67778.9238.6
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 8.10 QX@3.67778.8238.6
Sapphire HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) OC 8.10 QX@3.67773.1236.9
HIS HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) 8.10 QX@3.67768.8235.5
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 180.42 QX@3.67731.5224.1
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 180.42 QX@3.67730.8223.9
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 8.10 QX@3.67724.4221.9
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 180.42 QX@3.67717.3219.8
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 180.42 QX@3.67687.1210.5
Radeon HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) 8.9 QX@3.67683.7209.5
Radeon HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) 8.9 E85@3.8651.7199.7
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 8.10 QX@3.67616.7188.9
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 180.42 QX@3.67614.8188.4
Radeon HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) 8.9 X68@3.47600.6184.0
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 177.39 X68@2.93593.5181.8
GeForce 9800 GTX+ (512 MB) 180.42 QX@3.67575.3176.3
Radeon HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) 8.9 X68@2.93555.2170.1
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 177.39 X68@2.93553.1169.5
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 8.6 X68@2.93550.4168.6
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 177.39 X68@2.93547.8167.8
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 8.6 X68@2.93545.2167.0
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 177.39 X68@2.93545.1167.0
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 175.16 X68@2.93531.8162.9
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 8.10 QX@3.67528.0161.8
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 8.6 X68@2.93523.1160.3
GeForce 9800 GTX+ (512 MB) 180.42 X68@2.93521.3159.7
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 8.6 X68@2.93485.4148.7
Radeon HD 4670 (512 MB) 8.10 X68@2.93326.4100.0

Swipe to scroll horizontally
1920x1200 with AAfpsPercent
Radeon HD 4870 X2 4CF (4x1024 MB) 8.10 QX@3.67879.4351.8
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 180.42 QX@3.67785.4314.2
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 180.42 QX@3.67759.5303.8
Asus HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) Top OC 8.10 QX@3.67719.8287.9
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 8.10 QX@3.67719.4287.8
MSI HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) OC 8.10 QX@3.67718.9287.6
HIS HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) OC 8.10 QX@3.67716.1286.4
HIS HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) 8.10 QX@3.67712.7285.1
Sapphire HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) OC 8.10 QX@3.67704.7281.9
Radeon HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) 8.9 QX@3.67646.5258.6
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 8.10 QX@3.67636.0254.4
Radeon HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) 8.9 E85@3.8635.2254.1
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 180.42 QX@3.67624.5249.8
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 180.42 QX@3.67609.3243.7
GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) 177.39 X68@2.93605.6242.2
Radeon HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) 8.9 X68@3.47601.8240.7
GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) 177.39 X68@2.93582.7233.1
Radeon HD 4870 X2 (2x1024 MB) 8.9 X68@2.93563.7225.5
GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) 177.39 X68@2.93559.7223.9
Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) 8.6 X68@2.93557.5223.0
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 180.42 QX@3.67552.8221.1
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 8.10 QX@3.67507.5203.0
GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) 177.39 X68@2.93495.2198.1
Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) 8.6 X68@2.93487.9195.2
GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) 175.16 X68@2.93468.8187.5
Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) 8.6 X68@2.93467.8187.1
GeForce 9800 GTX+ (512 MB) 180.42 QX@3.67438.8175.5
GeForce 9800 GTX+ (512 MB) 180.42 X68@2.93429.7171.9
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 8.10 QX@3.67404.2161.7
Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) 8.6 X68@2.93393.7157.5
Radeon HD 4670 (512 MB) 8.10 X68@2.93250.0100.0

TOPICS
Tino Kreiss
79 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Not only do we have four super-fast Radeon HD 4870 X2s to test, but also a list of 31 other graphics configurations including CrossFire and SLI setups. If you're in the market for AMD's fastest card available, you'll want to see this.

    Radeon HD 4870 X2: Four Cards Compared : Read more
    Reply
  • neiroatopelcc
    "Because of accessories and price, Sapphire is our best-buy recommendation."
    One slight warning about sapphire though. If you have problems, don't expect their support team to help you before you've solved the problem yourself!

    I made a ticket regarding some issues with my 4870 on august 7th, and received a reply on the 26th of september! That's 46 days to address an error they simply stated would go away with a bios upgrade from their homepage!

    As for the article, I actually liked the detailed driver errors they encountered. Not that I liked the errors themselves, but I liked them being explained. Usually you just read 'after spending some hours resolving driver errors ....' without getting any wiser.
    Reply
  • Pei-chen
    Wow, AMD cards consume power like a Detroit SUV. I like Nvidia GTX 2xx series’ Toyota Prius like efficiency at idle.
    Reply
  • ilovebarny
    Why didnt they use the GTX260 Core 216? its like way better than the regular GTX260. And i just read yesterday that Nvidia was only going to make GTX260 Core 216 now. http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10497&Itemid=1
    Reply
  • ilovebarny
    And i wish they had SLI'ed the 9800GTX+.
    Reply
  • Chizops
    Why didn't they try using core i7 (extreme maybe)
    Reply
  • enforcer22
    Pei-chenWow, AMD cards consume power like a Detroit SUV. I like Nvidia GTX 2xx series’ Toyota Prius like efficiency at idle.

    Hmm your right. Power house vs crippled mouse.. yeah your analagy sucked im sure mine did to but all i saw from what you typed was i like weak stuff dont give me more power.
    Reply
  • bdollar
    seems to me if you are going to be comparing the highest end cards and even crossfire them for 4x you would have the highest resolution as one of the options. i would think people considering going x2 in crossfire would consider a 30" screen.

    don't get me wrong, i liked the article but would have liked to have seen the resolution spectrum hit the top.
    Reply
  • It's nice to see the 9800GX2 included in the tests. I was considering the 4870x2 due to all the rave reviews but they never had the comparison like this against my current 9800GX2. I won't be getting new card anytime soon it seems. Thanks.
    Reply
  • cleeve
    Wow, tons of info there, Tino. Nicely done!
    Reply