PowerColor HD4870 512MB PCI-E

Call of Duty 4 & BIOSHOCK Results

Call Of Duty 4
 
Call of Duty 4 is a stunning DirectX 9.0c based game that really looks awesome and has a very full feature set. With lots of advanced lighting, smoke and water effects, the game has excellent explosions along with fast gameplay. Using the in-built Call Of Duty features, a 10-minute long gameplay demo was recorded and replayed on each of the GPU's using the /timedemo command a total of 5 times. The highest and lowest FPS results were then removed, with an average being calculated from the remaining 3 results.
 
Call of Duty 4 - FPS
 
Call of Duty 4 - Cost Per Frame
 
Sitting just 10fps behind the GTX280 and 4fps behind the GTX260 at a resolution of 1280x1024, the HD4870 shows that is certainly a good choice for the low-resolution gamer. However, once the resolution is increased to 1900x1200 the HD4870 - even at overclocked settings, isn't able to keep up with the numbers pushed out by the GTX200 series.
 
Moving these results over to our CPF scale reinforces our findings. At 1280x1024 the HD4870 works out to be around £0.20 cheaper than the GTX260, but once the resolution is increased to 1900x1200, the GTX260 actually makes up for its slightly higher price by producing some decent fps figures which bring the CPF value of the card to £0.05 below the HD4870.
 
 
BIOSHOCK
 
BioShock is a recent FPS shooter by 2K games. Based on the UT3 engine, it has a large amount of advanced DirectX techniques including excellent water rendering and superb lighting and smoke techniques. All results were recorded using F.R.A.P.S with a total of 5 identical runs through the same area of the game. The highest and lowest results were then removed, with an average being calculated from the remaining 3 results.
 
BIOSHOCK - FPS
 
BIOSHOCK - CPF
 
BIOSHOCK shows the ATI cards some serious love with the HD4870 actually coming within 0.5fps of the GTX280 at 1900x1200. Things get even better for the card when our overclocked settings are applied, with the 4870 managing a 2FPS advantage over the GTX280 and an 8fps advantage over the GTX260.
 
For obvious reasons this translates extremely well for the HD4870 when placed on the CPF scale, with the card managing to come in a full £0.40 cheaper per frame than the GTX260 at 1900x1200 and £0.22 cheaper at 1280x1024.
«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next»

Most Recent Comments

24-07-2008, 06:35:06

JN
"High performance without the high price tag? We take a look at PowerColor's HD4870 to see how it fairs against the green teams GTX260."

http://www.overclock3d.net/gfx/artic...104656679s.jpg

PowerColor HD4870 512MB PCI-EQuote

24-07-2008, 06:58:40

Rastalovich
I`m a little supprized in that this card was pushed as being AMD`s answer to the GTX280, and the ensuing arguement about the price of the 2 was that the nVidia are having a laugh.

Looking at this review, it`s an overly obvious competitor for the GTX260 - which is fine, and the pricing is -£20 or so to nVidia, which kinda puts a difference perspective on things.

The 280 being that much more.. well yeah ok it happens to be the better card out of the 4 without "competition" (used loosely here), and the trend here is "pfft we`ll charge whatever we like for it" - just look at Intel with it`s cpus that compare to the AMD cpus and those that are beyond comparison.

In terms of loosely labeling that there is no competition.. well that`s kind of a misleading statement today. All 4 of the cards reviewed will not be held back in any way by games u throw at it in comparison to each other. The distinction is that on paper some to 10,20,30, whatever frames more than the other - the other already doing awesome frames. And the looks.. all 4 will give u an immensely pleasing experience.

This for me is where the OC3D cost per frame blows many reviews out of the water. There has been need for a change in review styles. Benchmarking doesn`t mean what it used to, in terms of gaming, perhaps bracketing only. Quality of picture is very hard to put over, other than u have to accept that they`ll all output at the same quality-standard. So what`s left is what u pay for them...

The strong arguement in addition to this is the screen sizes, and I think this may get more of a question as monitors get cheaper and standard resolutions get bigger. 20-22" widescreens mainly operate at 1680x1050 - this is almost being the norm for me. 24" above can be the same, with quality models offering the higher resolutions again. There`s even larger monitors out there being used where perhaps 24" was in the past.

With these thoughts in mind, the size of monitor vS the cost of the cards vS the capability of the card at the standard resolution u want - u should pick out of the 4. Smaller resolution, 17/19" square - 4850 will be fine, 24"+ u may chose the 280 and be able to afford it considering what u already purchased.

It`s sad that performance isn`t the stickler for selection - but having `quality` become a replacement for it isn`t wholey a bad thing.

Great review again btw.

PS. need more bumpff, when will manufacturers learn that graphic cards and mobos need to be accompanied with misc bumpff! Don`t care too much what it is, but c`mon.Quote

24-07-2008, 07:34:54

Acid90
Isn't there 8.7 catalyst drivers out now, apprently this gives an increase in peformance.Quote
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.