[nextpage title=”Introduction”]
The new Radeon HD 4850 X2 that is being launched today is simply two Radeon HD 4850 video cards in a single board working in CrossFire mode, being a cheaper option to the Radeon HD 4870 X2, which is the most expensive video card available today, and priced to compete with GeForce GTX 280. How is the performance of Radeon HD 4850 X2 compared to GeForce GTX 280 and other high-end video cards? Does it provide a good cost/benefit ratio? That is what we will see in our review.
On Radeon HD 4850 X2 each GPU has 1 GB GDDR3 memory, so the card has a total of 2 GB – most Radeon HD 4850 models have 512 MB. The clocks and specs are the same.
Two things caught our eye on Sapphire’s model. First was the fact that Sapphire decided to use its own cooler instead of using the infamous standard cooler designed by ATI/AMD, which is heavy and known to heat a lot, increasing the temperature inside your PC. This cooler uses two individual aluminum heatsinks with copper base and an aluminum cover holding the two fans. This makes the card to run cooler, to be lighter and to have a more stylish design.
The second thing was the fact that this is the first video card we’ve seen with four DVI connectors. All other X2-style video cards have only two DVI connectors, just like regular video cards. So you can install up to four video monitors directly to this video card. Keep in mind that multiple monitors only work when you are not playing games, as when the system is in CrossFire mode video is generated on only one of the connectors.
Figure 1: Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2.
Figure 2: Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2.
Figure 3: Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2.
Figure 4: Four video connectors.
[nextpage title=”Introduction (Cont’d)”]
This video card requires the installation of one 6-pin auxiliary power connector and one 8-pin auxiliary power connector. If your power supply doesn’t have these connectors don’t worry: the video card comes with adapters.
Figure 5: Auxiliary power connectors.
In Figure 5, you can see the video card with its cooler removed. As you can see, it uses individual aluminum heatsinks with copper base on the GPUs and aluminum passive heatsinks on the memory chips. Also notice how this video card uses only solid aluminum capacitors, which are the best kind of electrolytic capacitor.
Figure 6: Video card with its cooler removed.
The reviewed video card has eight 1 Gbit GDDR3 memory chips from Samsung (K4J10324QD-HJ1A) around each GPU, making its 1 GB per GPU or 2 GB total. These chips support up to 1 GHz (2 GHz DDR), so there is no margin for you to overclock the memories with them still inside their specs. Of course you can try overclocking them above their labeled maximum clock rate.
In Figure 7, you can see all accessories and CDs/DVDs that come with this video card. With the accessories that come with this card you can convert the video output to VGA, HDMI, component video and composite video, plus the DVI and S-Video connectors already present on the product.
This video card comes with three games inside a DVD called “Ruby ROM 1.1”: Call of Juarez, Dungeon Runners and Stranglehold. Programs that come with this video card include CyberLink DVD Suite (PowerProducer 4, PorwerDirector 5 Express, Power2GO 5.5, Mediashow 3 and trial versions of PowerBackup 2.5, PowerDVD Copy and LabelPrint 2), Cyberlink Power DVD 7, 3DMark Vantage Full, EarthSim and GameShadow.
Now let’s compare the Radeon HD 4850 X2 specifications to the specs of all other video cards included in our comparison.
[nextpage title=”More Details”]
To make the comparison between Radeon HD 4850 X2 and the other video cards we included in this review easier, we compiled the table below comparing the main specs from these cards. If you want to compare the specs of the reviewed video card to any other video card not included in the table below, just take a look at our NVIDIA Chips Comparison Table and on our AMD ATI Chips Comparison Table.
GPU | Core Clock | Shader Clock | Processors | Memory Clock | Memory Interface | Memory Transfer Rate | Memory | Price |
GeForce GTX 280 | 602 MHz | 1,296 MHz | 240 | 1,107 MHz | 512-bit | 141.7 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | USD 405 – 470 |
GeForce GTX 260 | 576 MHz | 1,242 MHz | 192 | 1,000 MHz | 448-bit | 112 GB/s | 896 MB GDDR3 | USD 240 – 310 |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 600 MHz | 1,500 MHz | 128 | 1,000 MHz | 256-bit | 64 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | USD 220 – 285 |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 738 MHz | 1,836 MHz | 128 | 1,100 MHz | 256-bit | 70.4 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR3 | USD 190 – 210 |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 675 MHz | 1,688 MHz | 128 | 1,100 MHz | 256-bit | 70.4 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR3 | USD 148 – 180 |
Palit GeForce 9800 GT 1 GB | 600 MHz | 1.5 GHz | 112 | 900 MHz | 256-bit | 57.6 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | USD 170 |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 750 MHz | 750 MHz | 800 | 900 MHz | 256-bit | 115.2 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR5 | USD 530 – 550 |
Radeon HD 4870 | 750 MHz | 750 MHz | 800 | 900 MHz | 256-bit | 115.2 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR5 | U SD 290 – 310 |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 625 MHz | 625 MHz | 800 | 993 MHz | 256-bit | 63.5 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | USD 419 |
Radeon HD 4850 | 625 MHz | 625 MHz | 800 | 993 MHz | 256-bit | 63.5 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR3 | USD 160 – 200 |
Radeon HD 4830 | 575 MHz | 575 MHz | 640 | 900 MHz | 256-bit | 57.6 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR3 | USD 130 |
Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2 | 857 MHz | 857 MHz | 320 | 927 MHz | 256-bit | 59.3 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR3 | – |
Radeon HD 3870 | 776 MHz | 776 MHz | 320 | 1,125 MHz | 256-bit | 72 GB/s | 512 MB GDDR4 | USD 95 – 150 |
It is important to note that this table reflects the current prices for the listed video cards at Newegg.com, which are lower than the prices we published in other reviews, since prices tend to drop every day.
Some important observations regarding this table:
- All NVIDIA chips are DirectX 10 (Shader 4.0), while all AMD/ATI chips are DirectX 10.1 (Shader 4.1).
- The memory clocks listed are the real memory clock. Memory clocks are often advertised as double the figures presented, numbers known as “DDR clock.” Radeon HD 4870 and Radeon HD 4870 X2 use GDDR5 chips, which transfer four data per clock cycle and thus the “DDR clock” for these video cards is four times the value presented on this table (i.e., 3.6 GHz).
- GeForce 9800 GX2, Radeon HD 3870 X2, Radeon HD 4850 X2 and Radeon HD 4870 X2 have two GPU’s. The numbers on the table represent only one of the chips.
- All video cards included on our review were running at the chip manufacturer default clock configuration (i.e., no overclocking), except Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2. The official core clock for Radeon HD 3870 X2 is 825 MHz, while the official memory clock is 900 MHz. So this card was a little bit overclocked. We couldn’t reduce these clocks to their reference values and since we hadn’t any other Radeon HD 3870 X2 available we included this video card anyway.
- Prices were researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review. The exception was Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2, which price is the suggested price informed by the manufacturer.
- We couldn’t find Sapphire Atomic HD 3870 X2 for sale. This model will be more expensive than cards from other vendors based on the same GPU because it features water cooling. Just for you to have an idea, prices on the regular Radeon 3870 X2 are quoted between USD 160 and USD 275.
Before going to our tests let’s recap the main features from Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2.
[nextpage title=”Main Specifications”]
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 X2 main features are:
- Graphics chip: Two Radeon HD 4850, running at 625 MHz.
- Memory: 2 GB GDDR3 memory (256-bit interface) from Samsung (K4J10324QD-HJ1A), running at 993 MHz (“1.99 GHz”).
- Bus type: PCI Express x16 2.0.
- Connectors: Four DVI (with HDMI support) and one S-Video output (with component video support).
- Video Capture (VIVO): No.
- Cables and adapters that come with this board: S-Video to component video cable, S-video to composite video adapter, DVI-to-VGA adapter, DVI-to-HDMI adapter, CrossFire bridge, one standard 4-pin peripheral power plug to 6-pin PCI Express auxiliary power plug (PEG) adapter and one standard 4-pin peripheral power plug to 8-pin PCI Express auxiliary power plug (PEG) adapter.
- Number of CDs/DVDs that come with this board: Five.
- Games that come with this board: Call of Juarez, Dungeon Runners and Stranglehold (inside “Ruby ROM 1.1” DVD).
- Programs that come with this board: CyberLink DVD Suite (PowerProducer 4, PorwerDirector 5 Express, Power2GO 5.5, Mediashow 3 and trial versions of PowerBackup 2.5, PowerDVD Copy and LabelPrint 2), Cyberlink Power DVD 7,3DMark06 Full, EarthSim and GameShadow.
- Minimum Required Power Supply: 650 W.
- More information: https://www.sapphiretech.com
- Suggested price in the US: USD 419.00
[nextpage title=”How We Tested”]
During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions the only variable was the video card being tested.
Hardware Configuration
- CPU: Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (3.2 GHz, 1,600 MHz FSB, 12 MB L2 memory cache).
- Motherboard: EVGA nForce 790i Ultra SLI (P05 BIOS)
- Memories: Crucial Ballistix PC3-16000 2 GB kit (BL2KIT12864BE2009), running at 2,000 MHz with 9-9-9-28 timings.
- Hard disk drive: Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS (300 GB, SATA-300, 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache).
- Video monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 305T (30” LCD, 2560×1600).
- Power supply: OCZ EliteXStream 1,000 W.
- CPU Cooler: Thermaltake TMG i1
- Optical Drive: LG GSA-H54N
- Desktop video resolution: 2560×1600 @ 60 Hz
Software Configuration
- Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit
- Service Pack 1
Driver Versions
- nForce driver version: 15.17
- AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.5
- AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 8.6 + hotfix (8.501.1.0, 6/21/2008) (Radeon HD 4850, HD 4870)
- AMD/ATI video driver version: 8.520.0.0 (Radeon HD 4870 X2)
- AMD/ATI video driver version: 8.10 (Radeon HD 4830)
- AMD/ATI video driver version: 8.542.0.0 (Radeon HD 4850 X2)
- NVIDIA video driver version: 175.16
- NVIDIA video driver version: 177.34 (GeForce GTX 260, GTX 280)
- NVIDIA video driver version: 177.79 (GeForce 9800 GT, 9800 GTX+)
Software Used
- 3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 + October 2007 Hotfix
- 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1
- Call of Duty 4 – Patch 1.6
- Crysis – Patch 1.2.1 + HardwareOC Crysis Benchmark Tool 1.3.0.0
- Half-Life 2: Episode Two – Patch June 9th 2008 + HardwareOC Half-Life 2 Episode Two Benchmark Tool 1.2.0.0
- Unreal Tournament 3 – Patch 1.2 + HardwareOC UT3 Benchmark Tool 1.2.0.0
Resolutions and Image Quality Settings
Since we were comparing very high-end video cards, we ran all our tests under three 16:10 widescreen high resolutions: 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600. We always tried to run the programs and games in two scenarios for each resolution, one with low image quality settings and then maxing out the image quality settings. The exact configuration we used will be described together with the results of each individual test.
Error Margin
We adopted a 3% error margin; thus, differences below 3% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 3% should be considered as having similar performance.
[nextpage title=”3DMark06 Professional”]
3DMark06 measures Shader 3.0 (i.e., DirectX 9.0c) performance. We run this software under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, first with no image quality enhancements enabled – results we call “low” on the charts and tables below –, then setting 4x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering. See the results below.
3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1680×1050 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 17557 | 4.95% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 16729 | |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 16260 | 2.88% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 16221 | 3.13% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 15623 | 7.08% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 14904 | 12.25% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 14215 | 17.69% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 13701 | 22.10% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 13355 | 25.26% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 12759 | 31.12% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 11842 | 41.27% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 11471 | 45.84% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 10898 | 53.51% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 10694 | 56.43% |
3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1920×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 17414 | 6.87% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 16294 | |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 15547 | 4.80% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 15489 | 5.20% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 15486 | 5.22% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 14215 | 14.63% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 13017 | 25.17% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 12668 | 28.62% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 12206 | 33.49% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 11631 | 40.09% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 10691 | 52.41% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 10253 | 58.92% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 9787 | 66.49% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 9454 | 72.35% |
3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 2560×1600 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 15920 | 12.59% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 14146 | 0.05% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 14140 | |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 13015 | 8.64% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 12315 | 14.82% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 11766 | 20.18% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 10159 | 39.19% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 9894 | 42.91% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 9365 | 50.99% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 8743 | 61.73% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 8077 | 75.06% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 7679 | 84.14% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 7308 | 93.49% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 6823 | 107.24% |
3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 16260 | 8.42% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 16134 | 7.58% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 14997 | |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 13946 | 7.54% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 13900 | 7.89% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 12157 | 23.36% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 11063 | 35.56% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 10617 | 41.25% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 9391 | 59.70% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 8981 | 66.99% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 8881 | 68.87% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 7943 | 88.81% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 7899 | 89.86% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 6915 | 116.88% |
3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 15489 | 12.17% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 15313 | 10.89% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 13809 | |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 13091 | 5.48% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 12213 | 13.07% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 10991 | 25.64% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 10014 | 37.90% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 9450 | 4 6.13% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 8144 | 69.56% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 7972 | 73.22% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 7811 | 76.79% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 7109 | 94.25% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 6826 | 102.30% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 6114 | 125.86% |
3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 2560×1600 – High | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 12479 | 14.97% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 12315 | 13.46% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 10893 | 0.36% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 10854 | |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 9829 | 10.43% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 8704 | 24.70% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 7550 | 43.76% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 7285 | 48.99% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 6065 | 78.96% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 5896 | 84.09% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 5774 | 87.98% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 5213 | 108.21% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 5045 | 115.14% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 4319 | 151.31% |
[nextpage title=”3DMark Vantage Professional”]
3DMark Vantage is the latest addition to the 3DMark series, measuring Shader 4.0 (i.e., DirectX 10) performance and supporting PhysX, a programming interface developed by Ageia (now part of NVIDIA) to transfer physics calculations from the system CPU to the video card GPU in order to increase performance. Mechanical physics is the basis for calculations about the interaction of objects. For example, if you shoot, what exactly will happen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? Notice that we didn’t upgrade the PhysX to the latest version, which would make the physics calculations for CPU Test 2 to be made by the GPU instead of the CPU on NVIDIA video cards (since we aren’t considering CPU or 3DMark scores this change wouldn’t produce any increase in our results anyway).
We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600. First we used the “Performance” profile, and then we used the “Extreme” profile (basically enabling anti-aliasing at 4x, anisotropic filtering at 16x, and putting all detail settings at their maximum or “extreme” value. The combination of 2560×1600 resolution with extreme settings didn’t produce reliable results according to the program, so we aren’t going to add them here. The results being compared are the “GPU Scores” achieved by each video card.
3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1680×1050 – Performance | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 11697 | 45.30% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 8725 | 8.39% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 8050 | |
GeForce GTX 280 | 7695 | 4.61% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 6990 | 15.16% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 6193 | 29.99% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 5898 | 36.49% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 5651 | 42.45% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 4797 | 67.81% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 4499 | 78.93% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 4220 | 90.76% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 3805 | 111.56% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 3691 | 118.10% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 2977 | 170.41% |
3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1920×1200 – Performance | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 9472 | 49.05% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 6545 | 2.99% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 6355 | |
GeForce GTX 280 | 6106 | 4.08% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 5379 | 18.14% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 4880 | 30.23% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 4582 | 38.69% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 4336 | 46.56% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 3725 | 70.60% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 3370 | 88.58% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 3301 | 92.52% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 2951 | 115.35% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 2891 | 119.82% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 2269 | 180.08% |
3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 2560×1600 – Performance | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 5542 | 32.05% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 4197 | |
GeForce GTX 280 | 3549 | 18.26% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 3482 | 20.53% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 2910 | 44.23% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 2728 | 53.85% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 2640 | 58.98% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 2382 | 76.20% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 2050 | 104.73% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 1837 | 128.47% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 1815 | 131.24% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 1638 | 156.23% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 1557 | 169.56% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 1244 | 237.38% |
3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1680×1050 – Extreme |
Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 8405 | 22.54% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 6859 | |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 6195 | 10.72% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 6005 | 14.22% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 4858 | 41.19% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 4531 | 51.38% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 4360 | 57.32% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 3567 | 92.29% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 3445 | 99.10% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 3201 | 114.28% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 2982 | 130.01% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 2741 | 150.24% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 2703 | 153.76% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 1855 | 269.76% |
3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1920×1200 – Extreme | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 6916 | 24.52% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 5554 | |
GeForce GTX 280 | 4732 | 17.37% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 4415 | 25.80% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 3576 | 55.31% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 3508 | 58.32% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 3490 | 59.14% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 2753 | 101.74% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 2669 | 108.09% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 2399 | 131.51% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 2349 | 136.44% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 2136 | 160.02% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 2038 | 172.52% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 1439 | 285.96% |
[nextpage title=”Call of Duty 4″]
Call of Duty 4 is a DirectX 9 game implementing high-dynamic range (HDR) and its own physics engine, which is used to calculate how objects interact. For example, if you shoot, what exactly will hapen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? It gives a more realistic experience to the user.
We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, maxing out all image quality controls (i.e., everything was put on the maximum values on the Graphics and Texture menus). We used the game internal benchmarking feature, running a demo provided by NVIDIA called “wetwork.” We are putting this demo for downloading here if you want to run your own benchmarks. The game was updated to version 1.6. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.
Call of Duty 4 – 1680×1050 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 134.6 | 12.17% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 127.7 | 6.42% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 120.0 | |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 106.2 | 12.99% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 105.3 | 13.96% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 93.4 | 28.48% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 91.0 | 31.87% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 75.7 | 58.52% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 72.4 | 65.75% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 72.2 | 66.20% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 69.1 | 73.66% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 65.8 | 82.37% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 61.3 | 95.76% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 43.0 | 179.07% |
Call of Duty 4 – 1920×1200 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 120.6 | 14.10% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 110.7 | 4.73% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 105.7 | |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 94.5 | 11.85% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 91.7 | 15.27% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 77.1 | 37.09% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 76.4 | 38.35% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 61.3 | 72.43% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 59.5 | 77.65% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 59.1 | 78.85% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 57.7 | 83.19% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 52.6 | 100.95% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 50.8 | 108.07% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 35.4 | 198.59% |
Call of Duty 4 – 2560×1600 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 83.8 | 18.87% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 74.3 | 5.39% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 70.5 | |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 64.8 | 8.80% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 64.8 | 8.80% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 53.5 | 31.78% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 48.1 | 46.57% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 40.6 | 73.65% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 39.7 | 77.58% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 38.3 | 84.07% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 36.7 | 92.10% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 33.4 | 111.08% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 33.3 | 111.71% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 22.4 | 214.73% |
[nextpage title=”Crysis”]
Crysis is a very heavy DirectX 10 game. We updated this game to version 1.2.1 and used the HOC Crysis Benchmarking Utility to help us collecting data. Since we don’t think the default demo based on the island map stresses the video card the way we want, we used the HOC core demo available with the abovementioned utility. We ran this demo under three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680x
1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, first with image quality set to “low” and then with image quality set to “high.” Since all video cards achieved a number of frames per second below 10 at 2560×1600 with image details set to “high,” we are not including this test as the results aren’t reliable. We ran each test twice and discarded the first result, as usually the first run achieves a lower score compared to the subsequent runs since the game loses time loading files. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.
Crysis 1.2.1 – 1680×1050 – Low | Score | Difference |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 125 | 8.70% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 125 | 8.70% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 120 | 4.35% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 115 | |
Radeon HD 4870 | 101 | 13.86% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 99 | 16.16% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 91 | 26.37% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 91 | 26.37% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 84 | 36.90% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 84 | 36.90% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 75 | 53.33% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 75 | 53.33% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 74 | 55.41% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 71 | 61.97% |
Crysis 1.2.1 – 1920×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 119 | 3.48% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 115 | 0.00% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 115 | |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 108 | 6.48% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 84 | 36.90% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 83 | 38.55% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 76 | 51.32% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 76 | 51.32% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 69 | 66.67% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 67 | 71.64% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 63 | 82.54% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 61 | 88.52% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 61 | 88.52% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 58 | 98.28% |
Crysis 1.2.1 – 2560×1600 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 103 | 19.77% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 95 | 10.47% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 86 | |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 71 | 21.13% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 53 | 62.26% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 52 | 65.38% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 49 | 75.51% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 49 | 75.51% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 44 | 95.45% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 43 | 100.00% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 42 | 104.76% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 39 | 120.51% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 38 | 126.32% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 35 | 145.71% |
Crysis 1.2.1 – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 57 | 21.28% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 47 | |
GeForce GTX 280 | 42 | 11.90% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 37 | 27.03% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 32 | 46.88% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 29 | 62.07% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 29 | 62.07% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 29 | 62.07% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 28 | 67.86% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 26 | 80.77% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 25 | 88.00% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 25 | 88.00% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 25 | 88.00% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 19 | 147.37% |
Crysis 1.2.1 – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 47 | 20.51% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 39 | |
GeForce GTX 280 | 34 | 14.71% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 30 | 30.00% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 26 | 50.00% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 23 | 69.57% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 23 | 69.57% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 22 | 77.27% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 21 | 85.71% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 21 | 85.71% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 20 | 95.00% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 20 | 95.00% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 20 | 95.00% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 16 | 143.75% |
[nextpage title=”Unreal Tournament 3″]
Unreal Tournament 3 is the latest installment from this famous first person shooter franchise, supporting DirectX 10 graphics when installed on Windows Vista with a DX10 compatible card. We upgraded Unreal Tournament 3 to version 1.2 and benchmarked it with the help of HOC UT3 benchmarking utility using the “Containment” demo, maxing out image quality settings (image quality at “high” and anisotropic filtering at x16). It is important to note that we haven’t applied the PhysX mod to this game, which would transfer PhysX processing from the
CPU to the GPU on NVIDIA cards. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.
Unreal Tournament 3 – 1680×1050 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 112 | 14.29% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 108 | 10.20% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 106 | 8.16% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 104 | 6.12% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 104 | 6.12% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 104 | 6.12% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 98 | |
Radeon HD 4850 | 96 | 2.08% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 96 | 2.08% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 95 | 3.16% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 89 | 10.11% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 84 | 16.67% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 83 | 18.07% |
Unreal Tournament 3 – 1920×1200 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 108 | 11.34% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 106 | 9.28% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 103 | 6.19% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 98 | 1.03% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 97 | |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 95 | 2.11% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 94 | 3.19% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 91 | 6.59% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 89 | 8.99% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 82 | 18.29% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 80 | 21.25% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 78 | 24.36% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 75 | 29.33% |
Unreal Tournament 3 – 2560×1600 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 92 | 3.37% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 92 | 3.37% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 91 | 2.25% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 89 | |
Radeon HD 4870 | 78 | 14.10% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 76 | 17.11% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 63 | 41.27% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 62 | 43.55% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 60 | 48.33% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 53 | 67.92% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 52 | 71.15% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 51 | 74.51% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 47 | 89.36% |
[nextpage title=”Half-Life 2: Episode Two”]
Half-Life 2 is a popular franchise and we benchmark the video cards using Episode Two with the aid of HOC Half-Life 2 Episode Two benchmarking utility using the “HOC Demo 1” provided by this program. We ran the game in three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, under two scenarios. First with quality set to maximum, bilinear filtering and anti-aliasing set to x0. This configuration we are calling “low” on the charts and tables below. Then we maxed out image quality settings, enabling x16 anisotropic filtering and 16xQCS anti-aliasing. This configuration we are calling “high” on our charts and tables. We updated the game up to the June 9th 2008 patch. The results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each card.
Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 1680×1050 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 | 170.0 | 6.25% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 164.9 | 3.06% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 160.4 | 0.25% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 160.0 | 0.00% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 160.0 | 0.00% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 160.0 | |
Radeon HD 4830 | 159.0 | 0.63% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 157.0 | 1.91% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 156.3 | 2.37% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 156.0 | 2.56% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 153.8 | 4.03% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 151.0 | 5.96% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 145.7 | 9.81% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 136.8 | 16.96% |
Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 1920×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 | 165.0 | 3.77% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 159.0 | |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 158.0 | 0.63% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 156.7 | 1.47% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 156.3 | 1.73% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 155.0 | 2.58% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 153.0 | 3.92% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 149.8 | 6.14% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 149.0 | 6.71% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 146.9 | 8.24% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 143.0 | 11.19% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 138.0 | 15.22% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 135.2 | 17.60% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 120.1 | 32.39% |
Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 2560×1600 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 156.0 | 4.70% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 149.0 | |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 147.0 | 1.36% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 145.1 | 2.69% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 130.6 | 14.09% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 129.7 | 14.88% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 124.0 | 20.16% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 119.0 | 25.21% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 117.0 | 27.35% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 107.9 | 38.09% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 96.0 | 55.21% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 93.9 | 58.68% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 84.0 | 77.38% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 72.8 | 104.67% |
Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 158.0 | |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 157.0 | 0.64% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 145.0 | 8.97% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 144.0 | 9.72% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 137.9 | 14.58% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 126.1 | 25.30% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 125.4 | 26.00% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 121.0 | 30.58% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 116.2 | 35.97% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 101.0 | 56.44% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 94.0 | 68.09% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 89.3 | 76.93% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 80.0 | 97.50% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 68.3 | 131.33% |
Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 157.0 | 3.29% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 152.0 | |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 131.0 | 16.03% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 124.0 | 22.58% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 116.3 | 30.70% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 111.1 | 36.81% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 106.5 | 42.72% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 101.0 | 50.50% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 97.2 | 56.38% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 85.0 | 78.82% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 74.0 | 105.41% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 70.3 | 116.22% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 63.0 | 141.27% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 56.8 | 167.61% |
Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 2560×1600 – High | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 130.0 | 20.37% |
Radeon HD 4850 X2 | 108.0 | |
Radeon HD 4870 | 75.0 | 44.00% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 71.3 | 51.47% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 61.0 | 77.05% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 58.4 | 84.93% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 51.0 | 111.76% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 50.6 | 113.44% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 46.0 | 134.78% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 39.0 | 176.92% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 37.5 | 188.00% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 36.0 | 200.00% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 35.5 | 204.23% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 34.9 | 209.46% |
[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
As expected, Radeon HD 4850 X2 achieved a performance level between Radeon HD 4870 and Radeon HD 4870 X2 and being faster than GeForce GTX 280. Since Radeon HD 4850 X2 and GeForce GTX 280 cost the same thing if you are saving money to buy a GTX 280 you may want to change your mind towards the new Radeon HD 4850 X2, which is today our recommendation on the very high-end segment. The only problem is, of course, price (remember that besides the cost of the video card you also need a video monitor capable of running resolutions like 1920×1200 or 2560×1600, otherwise buying a card like this doesn’t make sense). If you are an average user looking for a high-end video card with the best cost/benefit ratio, our recommendation stands with the regular Radeon HD 4850, which costs less than a half and will produce a performance that is considerable very high for most users.
Talking specifically about Sapphire’s model, we loved the fact that Sapphire decided to use its own cooler (very stylish, by the way) instead of using ATI’s reference model, which is heavy and heats a lot. We also liked the fact that this card comes with four video outputs instead of just two as usual.
You can see detailed numbers comparing Radeon HD 4850 X2 with all current high-end video cards available on the market today in the previous pages. Below we present a quick summary comparing Radeon HD 4850 X2 to the regular HD 4850, to HD 4870 and to GeForce GTX 280.
Compared to Radeon HD 4850, the new HD 4850 X2 was up to 105% faster (more than 100% is possible because the regular HD 4850 has 512 MB memory, while X2 has 2x 1 GB). The difference in performance on 3DMark06 was between 41% and 84%, on 3DMark Vantage was between 68% and 105%, on Call of Duty 4 was between 66% and 92%, on Crysis was between 37% and 100%, on Unreal Tournament 3 it was up to 48% and on Half-Life 2: Episode Two was between 36% and 85% when we maxed out image quality settings (with no image enhancements enabled, performance difference varied a lot depending on the resolution, at 1680×1050 we saw HD 4850 being actually 3% faster than X2, but X2 being 6% faster at 1920×1200; at 2560×1600 X2 was 59% faster).
Compared to Radeon HD 4870, the new Radeon HD 4850 X2 was up to 62% faster. Partial results are like this: between 18% and 44% faster on 3DMark06, between 30% and 59% faster on 3DMark Vantage, between 28% and 47% faster on Call of Duty 4, between 14% and 62% faster on Crysis and between 10% and 44% faster on Half-Life 2: Episode Two with image quality enhancements maxed out. We only saw a significant performance on Unreal Tournament 3 at 2560×1600, where Radeon HD 4850 X2 was 14% faster.
And finally compared to
its main competitor, GeForce GTX 280, Radeon HD 4850 X2 was between 12% and 26% faster on 3DMark06, between 4% and 18% faster on 3DMark Vantage and between 77% and 204% faster on Half-Life 2: Episode Two with image quality enhancements maxed out (with image quality settings disabled both cards achieved the same performance). On Unreal Tournament 3 we only saw a significant performance difference at 2560×1600, where Radeon HD 4850 X2 was 43% faster.
The only time GeForce GTX 280 was faster than Radeon HD 4850 X2 was on Crysis with low image quality settings at 1680×1050 (9% faster). At 1920×1200 both cards achieved the same performance and at 2560×1600 Radeon HD 4870 X2 was 10% faster. With image quality set at “high” Radeon HD 4850 X2 was between 12% and 15% faster.
Leave a Reply