ATI RV740 review/preview

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the 9800GTX + is using 512 megs of memory, and the GTS 250 is using 1 gigabyte. Its probably an issue/question of memory latency and memory amount. Specially at 2560.
 
Crysis must be more susceptible to latency then, as Far Cry 2, the only other game that can show a difference with the extra ram, does not have that problem.
 
fellix said:
Looks like the retail SKU is not only running on a cheaper cooler, but there are few omitted SMD components on the power circuit: retail, reference. :???:
Click to expand...

The actual cooler in the reference design just looks big because of the shroud surrounding it.

In essence I think the 3rd party cooling solution does a better job at keeping the heat at bay.
 
I.S.T. said:
Crysis must be more susceptible to latency then, as Far Cry 2, the only other game that can show a difference with the extra ram, does not have that problem.
Click to expand...

Its just a guess at any rate. But I have seen it happen before. With some differently branded GPUs having tighter or looser memory timings. It could also be just an acceptable margin for error. 1 FPS differences can definately fall there as well.
 
Is AMD saving any money by rating the GDDR5 at 800MHz?

HD4890 and HD4770 both seem to have over-clocking headroom. Is this marketing to get reviewers to say these are "budget-enthusiast friendly"?

Jawed
 
There's still large quantity of 4830/4850/4870 boards out there, so I think ATi is careful of not wreck too much havoc in the channel, with one bullet hits them all.
 
So, AMD still isn't controlling memory clocks to minimise idle power usage:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...s-HD-4850-und-Geforce-9800-GT/Reviews/?page=2

Apparently the reason for this result is still the high frequency of the GDDR5 video memory - since the clock speed is not reduced if the card is running in idle mode but stays at 800 MHz. So the chip internal buffers have to run with four times the frequency. If the clock speed is manually set to 450 MHz the power consumption is reduced to slightly above 20 watt.
Click to expand...
Jawed
 
Ebuyer have it up for £75 with free delivery, that's just insane pricing. This card takes the concept of bang for buck to a whole new level. Anyone playing at 1680x1050 or lower need to look no further than this card for £75/$100 you're getting some really incredible performance for your money.

The market has moved on so much in the last 12 months, ATI have been really nailing the price: performance lately, its great for consumers.
 
Nice little card but a bit odd that AMD clocks the memory at only 800Mhz and not 950Mhz (or something like that). Guess they didn't want to make HD 4850 obsolete and it leaves the option of using slower gddr5 memory some vendors seem to sell, despite all cards seen so far seem to be using the 1000Mhz chips.
And I must say, power consumption is a big disappointment. Ok, load power consumption is good, but idle should be much lower. More than a HD 4830 (heck more than a GTX 285!). The reason for this seems to be the gddr5 memory which is neither downclocked nor undervolted at idle (pcgh lowered memory clock presumably without lowering voltage and got 8W less idle power consumption which isn't too shabby). I'd really wish AMD would invest a little more resources to make this downclocking/undervolting gddr5 stuff work (pretty sure it works on the notebooks parts, after all...).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CarstenS
AMD R9 Nano official specs (and later, reviews)
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
30K
Deleted member 13524
D
I
Sandy Bridge review thread.
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
30K
swaaye
S
A
Phenom II reviews
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
18K
John Reynolds
J
Unknown Soldier
AMD Officially Announces 790GX Chipset
Replies
3
Views
3K
ShaidarHaran
S
Back
Top