And I think I found my next video card upgrade. Have been either waiting for the 4850 to drop a bit more, or something to come out between the 4670 and 4850 to come out, and this one hits exactly where I figured it would. Nipping at the heels of the 9800gtx in a few benchies there, and at the Res that matters for me 1680x1050. This looks like something I can pair with my 3870 toxic edition till I can afford a full on 4850 or 4870. Then if I wanted to I can get rid of the 3870 and run Xfire with the 4830 and 4850.
From the other article: "At idle our entire testbed (Intel G45 + Core 2 Quad Q9450) used only 67W with the Radeon HD 4670." Note that this article uses QX9770 and 790i, among other differences.
I had no idea that different chipsets (or mobos) and cpus could result in such a dramatic difference in power consumption. I sure want my computer to consume as little as possible when I am not using it.
More importantly, all your previous reviews show roughly a 40+ idle and load watt difference between the 4850 and 4870, yet this review has it down to 3-4 watts at both. Was there a problem with 4870 power consumption that has now been fixed?
And now these 4850 and 4870 numbers show a wider margin again. With a different testbed I'd expect different numbers, but the relative difference on the same testbed should be the same. These numbers are more in line with AT's other 4850/70 power numbers. The original article's numbers need to be explained.
I believe that was one of the issues with previous Catalyst drivers: for some reason the power saving stuff wasn't working on 4870. It's good to see that finally addressed.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
56 Comments
View All Comments
nirolf - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
That low core/mem looks promising. It would be interesting to see if you can get close to 4850 with some tweaking.Mathos - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
And I think I found my next video card upgrade. Have been either waiting for the 4850 to drop a bit more, or something to come out between the 4670 and 4850 to come out, and this one hits exactly where I figured it would. Nipping at the heels of the 9800gtx in a few benchies there, and at the Res that matters for me 1680x1050. This looks like something I can pair with my 3870 toxic edition till I can afford a full on 4850 or 4870. Then if I wanted to I can get rid of the 3870 and run Xfire with the 4830 and 4850.DXRick - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
The charts for power consumption are totally different (show a lot more consumption, especially at idle) than the charts done for the 4670 article: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3405...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3405...JarredWalton - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
From the other article: "At idle our entire testbed (Intel G45 + Core 2 Quad Q9450) used only 67W with the Radeon HD 4670." Note that this article uses QX9770 and 790i, among other differences.DXRick - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
I had no idea that different chipsets (or mobos) and cpus could result in such a dramatic difference in power consumption. I sure want my computer to consume as little as possible when I am not using it.Are there any other articles here about this?
Thanks!
strikeback03 - Monday, October 27, 2008 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.a...">http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.a...Jovec - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
More importantly, all your previous reviews show roughly a 40+ idle and load watt difference between the 4850 and 4870, yet this review has it down to 3-4 watts at both. Was there a problem with 4870 power consumption that has now been fixed?Jovec - Saturday, October 25, 2008 - link
And now these 4850 and 4870 numbers show a wider margin again. With a different testbed I'd expect different numbers, but the relative difference on the same testbed should be the same. These numbers are more in line with AT's other 4850/70 power numbers. The original article's numbers need to be explained.JarredWalton - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
I believe that was one of the issues with previous Catalyst drivers: for some reason the power saving stuff wasn't working on 4870. It's good to see that finally addressed.Jovec - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
Seems likely for idle numbers, but I'd be curious what power saving can be done under load.