XFX ATI 4000 Series Round Up
Test Setup & System Analysis
Published: 14th April 2009 | Source: XFX | Price: £130 - £330 |
Test Setup
To ensure that all reviews on Overclock3D are fair, consistent and unbiased, a standard set of hardware and software is used whenever possible during the comparative testing of two or more products. The configurations used in this review can be seen below:
CPU: Intel Nehalem i7 920 Skt1366 2.66GHz (@3.8 Ghz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte EX58-UD5
Memory: 3x2GB Corsair DDR3 1600mhz @ 8-8-8-24
HD : Hitachi Deskstar 7k160 7200rpm 80GB
GPU:XFX HD4850 XXX. XFX HD4870 XXX, XFX HD4890 XXX, XFX HD4870x2
Graphics Drivers: Supplied by Asus
PSU: Gigabyte ODIN 1200w
To guarantee a broad range of results, the following benchmark utilities were used:
• 3DMark 05
• 3DMark 06
• 3DMark Vantage
3D Games
• Crysis
• Far Cry 2
• Oblivion
• Race drive: GRID
• Call of Duty IV
• Unreal Tournament III
Power Consumption
Power consumption was measured at the socket using a plug-in mains power and energy monitor. Because of this, the readings below are of the total system, not just the GPU. Idle readings were taken after 5 minutes in Windows. Load readings were taken during a run of Furmark.
Temperatures were taken at the factory clocked speed during idle in Windows and after 10 minutes of running Furmark with settings maxed out (2560x1600 8xMSAA). Ambient temperatures were taken with a household thermometer. As we use an open test bench setup consideration should be given to the fact that the temperatures would likely increase further in a closed case environment.
With all of the cards overclocking extremely well you have to wonder why ATI do not increase the relative thresholds of the Catalyst Control Centre. I am confident all of the cards would overclock further but save using Rivatuner or another external application, this is not possible with the current CAT 9.3 drivers with the included CCC and overdrive option. Still, this is a 'n00b' friendly option and will certainly cut down on the amount of RMA's though overheating, burnt out cards because of over zealous overclocking.
After returning the cards back to their stock state I then proceeded to run our standard set of graphics tests to evaluate the performance against on another. I also compared the cards on a 'Cost Per Frame' basis to better help prospective buyers to see how much they are getting for their money (calculated with UK Sterling - prices correct at the time of writing).
Let's see how the cards got on...
Most Recent Comments
Awesome round up.
Seems like that the 4850 would be a good choice.

All you need now is the 4890x2 to finish off the 48xx series


|
Originally Posted by name='zak4994'
Ah finally.
Awesome round up. Seems like that the 4850 would be a good choice. |
|
Originally Posted by name='AntiHeroUK'
Great round up Rich. That must have taken a lot of work to put it all together
![]() All you need now is the 4890x2 to finish off the 48xx series ![]() |
|
Originally Posted by name='prosser13'
Oh wow - great roundup, really nice work
![]() |

|
Originally Posted by name='w3bbo'
Will crossfired 4890's suffice for now?
|

Good to see some up to date figures. Just look at the CoD results. The X2 is quite a few frames over doubling the 4870 FPS.. Drivers and memory obviously helping but at least the theoretical power has actually happened in one game.
|
Originally Posted by name='AntiHeroUK'
Great round up Rich. That must have taken a lot of work to put it all together
![]() All you need now is the 4890x2 to finish off the 48xx series ![]() |

Nice roundup though, interesting results on the 4890
Just a little typo on the first page, the spec table has two "Max Resolution Analog Vertical" rows with different values. but no "Max Resolution Digital Vertical" row.


I've been out of the loop for a bit too long..
The 4870 is on a par with the GTX260 thereabouts, The 4890 is on a par with GTX275 and the 4870x2 is on a par with GTX295. Hope this helps.










http://www.overclock3d.net/gfx/artic...194913658l.jpg
Full review HERE