Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    363

    Default

    @Michael: will we ever see a "Linux VGA Chart" at Phoronix ? ( like guru3d.com VGA Chart )

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Licaon View Post
    @Michael: will we ever see a "Linux VGA Chart" at Phoronix ? ( like guru3d.com VGA Chart )
    That ultimately will come through the Phoronix Test Suite.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Why are the scores of the 3750 and the 4850 exactly the same all the time? How is such a level of constancy between two different cards of two different generations possible? I don't understand.

    I'm also not really impressed by the ``Enemy Territory: Quake Wars'' results because also in that case the 4850 scores exactly the same as the 3750, so I'm hoping the performance of the 48xx series will rise for that game too (I was a bit surprised that the developers mentioned that this score was what they expected).

    Anyway: I agree with the conclusion, it is wonderful to see launch day Linux support and given the fact that AMD is working very hard on the Linux drivers, it will probably only improve.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heiko View Post
    Why are the scores of the 3750 and the 4850 exactly the same all the time? How is such a level of constancy between two different cards of two different generations possible? I don't understand.

    I'm also not really impressed by the ``Enemy Territory: Quake Wars'' results because also in that case the 4850 scores exactly the same as the 3750, so I'm hoping the performance of the 48xx series will rise for that game too (I was a bit surprised that the developers mentioned that this score was what they expected).

    Anyway: I agree with the conclusion, it is wonderful to see launch day Linux support and given the fact that AMD is working very hard on the Linux drivers, it will probably only improve.
    New results coming out next week show a much greater performance delta (and the 4850/4870 pulling the lead over the 9800GTX) next week with various AA / AF levels.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Out of interest for the people on this thread.. A couple of questions...

    1. What is the optimal framerate for game play (Maximum - 100+, or 50-100)
    2. How important is Image Quality (AA/AF)? If the framerate acceptable, is it the way to go?
    3. How important is resolution? Is bigger really better?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mtippett View Post
    Out of interest for the people on this thread.. A couple of questions...

    1. What is the optimal framerate for game play (Maximum - 100+, or 50-100)
    2. How important is Image Quality (AA/AF)? If the framerate acceptable, is it the way to go?
    3. How important is resolution? Is bigger really better?
    1. Depends on the game. For First Person Shooters anything above 100fps is optimal; the absolute minimal I'm willing to tolerate for pleasant gameplay is 30fps. For something like Strategy titles and top-down RPGs 20fps is acceptable.
    2. Both AA and AF are very important to me. I always set AF to x16, since anything below is just not worth it (in terms of IQ). AA I can go for x2 while at high resolutions, but x4 is preferable.
    3. Bigger is better for me.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Melcar View Post
    1. Depends on the game. For First Person Shooters anything above 100fps is optimal; the absolute minimal I'm willing to tolerate for pleasant gameplay is 30fps. For something like Strategy titles and top-down RPGs 20fps is acceptable.
    Okay, so realistically something ranging from your screen refresh rate to around 100 is a good target.

    2. Both AA and AF are very important to me. I always set AF to x16, since anything below is just not worth it (in terms of IQ). AA I can go for x2 while at high resolutions, but x4 is preferable.
    So for a FPS, you will adjust IQ settings (in game or in the drivers control panel), to keep it around the 100 fps mark. So any of the cards in the ATI Radeon HD 4850 review would be considered a suitable card at the default IQ settings... But you would make your decision on the performance with high IQ.

    3. Bigger is better for me.
    Most reviewers under Windows tend to review high end cards at 2560x1600 to see some level of differentation in the products. Is this resolution too high to be relevant, or should we look at that to see a spread in the hardware.

    Quote Originally Posted by michael
    New results coming out next week show a much greater performance delta (and the 4850/4870 pulling the lead over the 9800GTX) next week with various AA / AF levels.
    And yes, I do know what Michael is referring to in his tease quoted above.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mtippett View Post
    Okay, so realistically something ranging from your screen refresh rate to around 100 is a good target.

    Yes

    So for a FPS, you will adjust IQ settings (in game or in the drivers control panel), to keep it around the 100 fps mark. So any of the cards in the ATI Radeon HD 4850 review would be considered a suitable card at the default IQ settings... But you would make your decision on the performance with high IQ.
    I like to play with all the eye candy to the max if I can, but yes, I usually adjust IQ settings to get the desired effect. Which, by the way, I really miss being able to set profiles in the CCC; I really hope the feature can be implemented sometime in the future.

    Most reviewers under Windows tend to review high end cards at 2560x1600 to see some level of differentation in the products. Is this resolution too high to be relevant, or should we look at that to see a spread in the hardware.
    My current max resolution is 1680x1050, so I usually focus on the performance levels for that particular setting. Anything higher is irrelevant for me when it comes to trying to decide between cards (that is, until I get a bigger monitor ).

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    222

    Default

    I'm wondering if the driver currently treats the HD4870 like a v670 card limiting performance to about the same level.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,579

    Default

    I think we're just CPU and driver limited -- it seems crazy that the card isn't working hard at 1920x1080 but that's probably what's happening.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •