[nextpage title=”Introduction”]
The recently launched Radeon HD 4830 is basically a capped Radeon HD 4850, running at lower clock rates and having less graphics processors available, but offering a far more attractive price tag than its big sister. Does this new video card provide a good cost/benefit ratio like its big sister? Let’s see.
Radeon HD 4830 uses the same architecture of Radeon HD 4850 and Radeon HD 4870, but with 640 graphics processors instead of 800 like these other high-end models. Clocks are also different. While Radeon HD 4850 runs at 625 MHz and accesses its memory at 1 GHz (2 GHz DDR), the new Radeon HD 4830 runs at 575 MHz and accesses its memory at 900 MHz (1.8 GHz DDR).
One very important thing to know is that the first batch of Radeon HD 4830 came with the wrong BIOS installed, which enabled 560 graphics processors instead of all 640 the graphics chip has. According to AMD this problem affected around 400 video cards. The solution to this problem is performing a BIOS upgrade. According to Sapphire, their model does not suffer from this issue. For a more detailed description and correction of this problem, click here.
In our review we will compare Radeon HD 4830 to a myriad of video cards available on the market, including its direct competitor, GeForce 9800 GT. We will talk more about the differences between the new Radeon HD 4830 and all other video cards included in our review in the next page, but before let’s take an in-depth look at the reviewed model from Sapphire.
The first thing that caught our eye 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.
Figure 1: Sapphire Radeon HD 4830.
Figure 2: Sapphire Radeon HD 4830.
Figure 3: Sapphire Radeon HD 4830.
This video card requires the installation of one 6-pin auxiliary power connector.
The reviewed video card has eight 512 Mbit GDDR3 memory chips from Qimonda (HYB18H512321BF-10), making its 512 MB memory. These chips support up to 1 GHz (2 GHz DDR), so there is an 11% 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 4, 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 doesn’t come with any games.
Now let’s compare the Radeon HD 4830 specifications to the specs of all other video cards included in our comparison.
[nextpage title=”More Details”]
To make the comparison between Radeon HD 4830 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 | USD 290 – 310 |
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 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.
- 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 4830.
[nextpage title=”Main Specifications”]
Sapphire Radeon HD 4830 main features are:
- Graphics chip: Radeon HD 4830, running at 575 MHz.
- Memory: 512 MB GDDR3 memory (256-bit interface) from Qimonda (HYB18H512321BF-10), running at 900 MHz (“1.8 GHz”).
- Bus type: PCI Express x16 2.0.
- Connectors: Two 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 and one standard 4-pin peripheral power plug to 6-pin PCI Express auxiliary power plug (PEG) adapter.
- Number of CDs/DVDs that come with this board: One.
- Games that come with this board: None.
- Programs that come with this board: None.
- Minimum Required Power Supply: 450 W.
- More information: https://www.sapphiretech.com
- Average price in the US*: USD 130.00
* Researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review.
[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)
- 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 | 61.10% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 16260 | 49.20% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 16221 | 48.84% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 15623 | 43.36% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 14904 | 36.76% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 14215 | 30.44% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 13701 | 25.72% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 13355 | 22.55% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 12759 | 17.08% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 11842 | 8.66% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 11471 | 5.26% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 10898 | |
Radeon HD 3870 | 10694 | 1.91% |
3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1920×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 17414 | 77.93% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 15547 | 58.85% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 15489 | 58.26% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 15486 | 58.23% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 14215 | 45.24% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 13017 | 33.00% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 12668 | 29.44% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 12206 | 24.72% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 11631 | 18.84% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 10691 | 9.24% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 10253 | 4.76% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 9787 | |
Radeon HD 3870 | 9454 | 3.52% |
3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 2560×1600 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 15920 | 117.84% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 14146 | 93.57% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 13015 | 78.09% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 12315 | 68.51% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 11766 | 61.00% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 10159 | 39.01% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 9894 | 35.39% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 9365 | 28.15% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 8743 | 19.64% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 8077 | 10.52% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 7679 | 5.08% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 7308 | |
Radeon HD 3870 | 6823 | 7.11% |
3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 16260 | 104.71% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 16134 | 103.12% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 13946 | 75.58% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 13900 | 75.00% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 12157 | 53.05% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 11063 | 39.28% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 10617 | 33.66% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 9391 | 18.23% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 8981 | 13.07% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 8881 | 11.81% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 7943 | |
GeForce 9800 GT | 7899 | 0.56% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 6915 | 14.87% |
3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 15489 | 117.88% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 15313 | 115.40% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 13091 | 84.15% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 12213 | 71.80% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 10991 | 54.61% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 10014 | 40.86% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 9450 | 32.93% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 8144 | 14.56% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 7972 | 12.14% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 7811 | 9.87% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 7109 | |
GeForce 9800 GT | 6826 | 4.15% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 6114 | 16.27% |
3DMark06 Professional 1.1.0 – 2560×1600 – High | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 12479 | 139.38% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 12315 | 136.24% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 10893 | 108.96% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 9829 | 88.55% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 8704 | 66.97% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 7550 | 44.83% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 7285 | 39.75% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 6065 | 16.34% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 5896 | 13.10% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 5774 | 10.76% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 5213 | |
GeForce 9800 GT | 5045 | 3.33% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 4319 | 20.70% |
[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 | 177.18% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 8725 | 106.75% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 7695 | 82.35% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 6990 | 65.64% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 6193 | 46.75% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 5898 | 39.76% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 5651 | 33.91% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 4797 | 13.67% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 4499 | 6.61% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 4220 | |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 3805 | 10.91% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 3691 | 14.33% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 2977 | 41.75% |
3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1920×1200 – Performance | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 9472 | 186.94% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 6545 | 98.27% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 6106 | 84.97% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 5379 | 62.95% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 4880 | 47.83% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 4582 | 38.81% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 4336 | 31.35% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 3725 | 12.84% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 3370 | 2.09% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 3301 | |
GeForce 9800 GT | 2951 | 11.86% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 2891 | 14.18% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 2269 | 45.48% |
3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 2560×1600 – Performance | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 5542 | 201.69% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 3549 | 93.20% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 3482 | 89.55% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 2910 | 58.41% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 2728 | 48.50% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 2640 | 43.71% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 2382 | 29.67% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 2050 | 11.59% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 1837 | |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 1815 | 1.21% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 1638 | 12.15% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 1557 | 17.98% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 1244 | 47.67% |
3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1680×1050 – Extreme | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 8405 | 181.86% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 6195 | 107.75% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 6005 | 101.37% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 4858 | 62.91% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 4531 | 51.95% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 4360 | 46.21% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 3567 | 19.62% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 3445 | 15.53% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 3201 | 7.34% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 2982 | |
GeForce 9800 GT | 2741 | 8.79% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 2703 | 10.32% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 1855 | 60.75% |
3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1 – 1920×1200 – Extreme | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 6916 | 194.42% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 4732 | 101.45% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 4415 | 87.95% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 3576 | 52.23% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 3508 | 49.34% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 3490 | 48.57% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 2753 | 17.20% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 2669 | 13.62% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 2399 | 2.13% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 2349 | |
GeForce 9800 GT | 2136 | 9.97% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 2038 | 15.26% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 1439 | 63.24% |
[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 happen 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 | 104.56% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 127.7 | 94.07% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 106.2 | 61.40% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 105.3 | 60.03% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 93.4 | 41.95% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 91.0 | 38.30% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 75.7 | 15.05% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 72.4 | 10.03% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 72.2 | 9.73% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 69.1 | 5.02% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 65.8 | |
GeForce 9800 GT | 61.3 | 7.34% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 43.0 | 53.02% |
Call of Duty 4 – 1920×1200 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 120.6 | 129.28% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 110.7 | 110.46% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 94.5 | 79.66% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 91.7 | 74.33% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 76.4 | 45.25% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 77.1 | 46.58% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 61.3 | 16.54% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 59.1 | 12.36% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 59.5 | 13.12% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 57.7 | 9.70% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 52.6 | |
GeForce 9800 GT | 50.8 | 3.54% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 35.4 | 48.59% |
Call of Duty 4 – 2560×1600 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 83.8 | 150.90% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 74.3 | 122.46% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 64.8 | 94.01% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 64.8 | 94.01% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 53.5 | 60.18% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 48.1 | 44.01% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 40.6 | 21.56% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 39.7 | 18.86% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 38.3 | 14.67% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 36.7 | 9.88% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 33.4 | |
GeForce 9800 GT | 33.3 | 0.30% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 22.4 | 49.11% |
[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, 1680×1050, 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 | 68.92% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 125 | 68.92% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 120 | 62.16% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 101 | 36.49% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 99 | 33.78% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 91 | 22.97% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 91 | 22.97% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 84 | 13.51% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 84 | 13.51% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 75 | 1.35% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 75 | 1.35% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 74 | |
Radeon HD 3870 | 71 | 4.23% |
Crysis 1.2.1 – 1920×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 119 | 95.08% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 115 | 88.52% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 108 | 77.05% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 84 | 37.70% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 83 | 36.07% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 76 | 24.59% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 76 | 24.59% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 69 | 13.11% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 67 | 9.84% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 63 | 3.28% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 61 | 0.00% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 61 | |
Radeon HD 3870 | 58 | 5.17% |
Crysis 1.2.1 – 2560×1600 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 103 | 171.05% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 95 | 150.00% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 71 | 86.84% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 53 | 39.47% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 52 | 36.84% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 49 | 28.95% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 49 | 28.95% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 44 | 15.79% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 43 | 13.16% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 42 | 10.53% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 39 | 2.63% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 38 | |
Radeon HD 3870 | 35 | 8.57% |
Crysis 1.2.1 – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 57 | 128.00% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 42 | 68.00% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 37 | 48.00% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 32 | 28.00% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 29 | 16.00% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 29 | 16.00% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 29 | 16.00% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 28 | 12.00% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 26 | 4.00% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 25 | 0.00% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 25 | 0.00% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 25 | |
Radeon HD 3870 | 19 | 31.58% |
Crysis 1.2.1 – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 47 | 135.00% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 34 | 70.00% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 30 | 50.00% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 26 | 30.00% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 23 | 15.00% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 23 | 15.00% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 22 | 10.00% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 21 | 5.00% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 21 | 5.00% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 20 | 0.00% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 20 | 0.00% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 20 | |
Radeon HD 3870 | 16 | 25.00% |
[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 | 25.84% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 108 | 21.35% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 106 | 19.10% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 104 | 16.85% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 104 | 16.85% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 104 | 16.85% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 96 | 7.87% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 96 | 7.87% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 95 | 6.74% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 89 | |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 84 | 5.95% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 83 | 7.23% |
Unreal Tournament 3 – 1920×1200 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 108 | 31.71% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 106 | 29.27% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 103 | 25.61% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 98 | 19.51% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 95 | 15.85% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 94 | 14.63% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 91 | 10.98% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 89 | 8.54% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 82 | |
GeForce 9800 GT | 80 | 2.50% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 78 | 5.13% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 75 | 9.33% |
Unreal Tournament 3 – 2560×1600 – Maximum | Score | Difference |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 92 | 73.58% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 92 | 73.58% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 91 | 71.70% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 78 | 47.17% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 76 | 43.40% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 63 | 18.87% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 62 | 16.98% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 60 | 13.21% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 53 | |
GeForce 9800 GT | 52 | 1.92% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 51 | 3.92% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 47 | 12.77% |
[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 | 6.92% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 164.9 | 3.71% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 160.4 | 0.88% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 160.0 | 0.63% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 160.0 | 0.63% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 159.0 | |
GeForce GTX 260 | 157.0 | 1.27% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 156.3 | 1.73% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 156.0 | 1.92% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 153.8 | 3.38% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 151.0 | 5.30% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 145.7 | 9.13% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 136.8 | 16.23% |
Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 1920×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 | 165.0 | 19.57% |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 158.0 | 14.49% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 156.7 | 13.55% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 156.3 | 13.26% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 155.0 | 12.32% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 153.0 | 10.87% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 149.8 | 8.55% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 149.0 | 7.97% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 146.9 | 6.45% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 143.0 | 3.62% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 138.0 | |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 135.2 | 2.07% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 120.1 | 14.90% |
Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 2560×1600 – Low | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 156.0 | 85.71% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 147.0 | 75.00% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 145.1 | 72.74% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 130.6 | 55.48% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 129.7 | 54.40% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 124.0 | 47.62% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 119.0 | 41.67% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 117.0 | 39.29% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 107.9 | 28.45% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 96.0 | 14.29% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 93.9 | 11.79% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 84.0 | |
Radeon HD 3870 | 72.8 | 15.38% |
Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 1680×1050 – High | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 157.0 | 55.45% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 145.0 | 43.56% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 144.0 | 42.57% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 137.9 | 36.53% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 126.1 | 24.85% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 125.4 | 24.16% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 121.0 | 19.80% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 116.2 | 15.05% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 101.0 | |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 94.0 | 7.45% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 89.3 | 13.10% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 80.0 | 26.25% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 68.3 | 47.88% |
Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 1920×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 157.0 | 84.71% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 131.0 | 54.12% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 124.0 | 45.88% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 116.3 | 36.82% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 111.1 | 30.71% |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 106.5 | 25.29% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 101.0 | 18.82% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 97.2 | 14.35% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 85.0 | |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 74.0 | 14.86% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 70.3 | 20.91% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 63.0 | 34.92% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 56.8 | 49.65% |
Half-Life 2: Episode Two – 2560×1600 – High | Score | Difference |
Radeon HD 4870 X2 | 130.0 | 154.90% |
Radeon HD 4870 | 75.0 | 47.06% |
GeForce 9800 GTX | 71.3 | 39.80% |
GeForce GTX 260 | 61.0 | 19.61% |
Radeon HD 4850 | 58.4 | 14.51% |
Radeon HD 4830 | 51.0 | |
Sapphire Atomic Radeon HD 3870 X2 | 50.6 | 0.79% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI | 46.0 | 10.87% |
GeForce 9800 GTX+ | 39.0 | 30.77% |
GeForce 9800 GX2 | 37.5 | 36.00% |
GeForce 9800 GT | 36.0 | 41.67% |
GeForce GTX 280 | 35.5 | 43.66% |
Radeon HD 3870 | 34.9 | 46.13% |
[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
Let’s first compare Radeon HD 4830 to its main competitor, GeForce 9800 GT, as both can be found on the same price range (USD 130). Both cards achieved the same performance level on Crysis, with Radeon HD 4830 being between 9% and 14% faster on 3DMark Vantage, up to 7% faster on Call of Duty 4 and between 26% and 41% faster on Half-Life 2: Episode Two with image quality enhancements maxed out. GeForce 9800 GT was up to 5% faster on 3DMark06, up to 7% faster on Unreal Tournament 3 and between 4% and 14% faster on Half-Life 2: Episode Two with image quality enhancements disabled.
As you can see, we have a technical tie, because which card is faster will depend on the game, resolution and image quality settings you play, with Radeon HD 4830 having a slight advantage on DirectX 10 games.
We decided to compare it to GeForce 9800 GTX, as this model from NVIDIA can be found at USD 150, not being a far more expensive video card. Except on 3DMark Vantage, where Radeon HD 4830 was between 10% and 18% faster than GeForce 9800 GTX, this card from NVIDIA was faster than Radeon HD 4830, being up to 20% faster on 3DMark06, up to 15% faster on Call of Duty 4, up to 16% faster on Crysis, up to 74% faster on Unreal Tournament 3 and up to 40% faster on Half-Life 2: Episode Two.
Then we have the natural question: by how much is Radeon HD 4850 faster than the new Radeon HD 4830? The big sister was up to 17% faster. On 3DMark06 it was up to 13% faster, on 3DMark Vantage it was up to 17% faster, on Call of Duty 4 it was up to 12% faster, on Crysis it was up to 16% faster, on Unreal Tournament it was up to 13% faster and on Half-Life 2: Episode Two it was up to 15% faster.
Now we have to think in terms of cost/benefit ratio. Radeon HD 4850 – which is a video card that we highly recommend to users looking for a high-end performance at a very affordable price – is at least 23% more expensive than the new Radeon HD 4830, but it doesn’t bring a 23% performance increase over the reviewed card.
That said, Radeon HD 4830 (and GeForce 9800 GT, we most remember) provides a good cost/benefit ratio for users looking for a video card on the USD 130 range that will provide an excellent performance for this price point. Of course if you can afford a Radeon HD 4850, go for it. But if you are a mainstream user that likes to play but doesn’t want to spend a lot of money on a video card, Radeon HD 4830 is a good option.
As mentioned, Radeon HD 4830 is a technical tie with GeForce 9800 GT, so basically your choice will be based on the games, resolutions and image quality settings you use (see our results) and your personal preference for ATI or NVIDIA brands (unless you want to run Folding at Home; in this case GeForce 9800 GT is a better option, see here why).
Talking specifically about Sapphire’s model, we loved the fact that Sapphire decided to use its own cooler instead of using ATI’s reference model, which is heavy and heats a lot.
Leave a Reply