AMD Radeon HD 4670: Ruling from Top to Bottom
by Derek Wilson on September 10, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Radeon HD 4670 vs. Last Year's $200 Offerings: The 3870/3850 Revisited
This is an interesting comparison. We included the 3850 in our 9500 GT article, as it was a fairly popular part that had fallen to $100. This time around we throw in the 3870 in order to see how the reduced clock speed and architectural changes impact performance. Let's take a look at the mayhem.
The 4670 really takes the 3850 to task under Crysis with medium settings. Impressively, the 4670 stays above 30 fps at 1920x1200 and does a fair job of paralleling the performance of the 3870 at about a 10fps deficit after 1280x1024.
Our Enemy Territory benchmark has everything maxed out plus a little 4x antialiasing action. At low res, the 4670 actually leads the pack here. This is quite impressive and is our first inkling that maybe our hope about AA performance will prevail. The increased ROP power of the 4670 might also have an impact here, but either way this isn't a bad showing.
Both the 3870 and 3850 lead the 4670 in Oblivion with ultra high defaults and no AA. The 4670 remains playable up through 1680x1050, which is quite nice. But nothing really interesting happens until we consider what happens when we flick on the AA switch.
With 4xAA and 16xAF enabled, the tables are turned and the 4670 jumps on top. Staying barely playable at 1680x1050 with 4xAA (we'd still recommend dropping back to 1280x1024 though), the 4670 certainly looks to be on pace for delivering mainstream hardware with usable AA for resolutions that really need it while running at high quality settings.
With Age of Conan, 1024x768 is really the highest res we can manage on the 4670 with high quality. The card performs similarly to the 3850 here.
While AoC and GRID are ruled by the 4850 and 4870, the 4670 does lag the 3800 series cards. The game is still incredibly playable at 1280x1024 and we'll have to explore AA in this game a little later on as well.
Last is a look at Crysis with high quality settings (and very high quality shaders). This is a tough benchmark and we only compared the 4670 against the 3870 here. The 4670 can't quite attain playability at 1280x1024 either. Looks like something between medium and high quality would suit the 4670 best.
90 Comments
View All Comments
UNCjigga - Thursday, September 11, 2008 - link
On top of that, the 4650/4670 appears to be the perfect choice for SFF and HTPC builders. The low power requirements and lack of PCIe power connector make it perfect for sub-400 watt power supplies. Other reviews around the web have mentioned that the fan on the reference card is very quiet. I wouldn't be surprised to see a fanless "silent" option for the 4650 soon.I'll probably put one of these in my Shuttle xpc, as it seems more than capable of 720p gaming.
yyrkoon - Thursday, September 11, 2008 - link
I'm with Derrick here, and would rather have an NV 9600GT. That is actually what I own now(an eVGA double slot 9600GT with rear exhaust). It uses about 18W more idle, 20-25W more while gaming, and it is roughly twice as fast as my old 7600GT. Above measured with a kill a watt power monitoring device at the wall.I guess that the better experiences I have had with NV parts,and the fact that I have owned mostly NV parts in my personal systems(since at least the late 90's) has made me at least slightly partial. I must admit that this card does look tempting, and if I had not just bought a 9600GT, I would give it some consideration. One thing for sure though, what ever I bought from this side of the camp *would* have to be made by Sapphire . . .
derek85 - Saturday, September 13, 2008 - link
There is also another factor to consider. HD4670 does not require any external 6/8pin PCIE power connectors, which makes it more ideal for people with older or OEM power supplies. Otherwise I agree with you on this that 9600GT is still a very viable and competitive alternative.scruffypup - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link
The main issue I have,.. you used a price for the 3870 that is about 1 year old now,.. $199 which a casual reader would then infer that the 3870 is a worse price/performance pick,... if you are going to use september 2008 prices for the other cards,.. use September 2008 prices for the 3870 so you can paint the picture on a more level playing field. That adds to the reader's ability to see what price/performance to choose from.Otherwise, my feelings are, at least we have some benchmarks for this card. I am a bit disappointed since it is so pared down from the 4850/4870 in areas, which makes it unable to really compete in some ways with prior generation for similar price.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link
in the text of the article i mention that you can find the 3870 for ~150 ... which reflected the majority of what i saw on google yesterday.today i took a look and i can now find plenty of 3870 hardware for ~$120. which is much closer to the $100 price of the 9600 GT.
But I'd still pick a 9600 GT over a 3870 at those prices, so it really doesn't change the recommendation.
pattycake0147 - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link
Call me blind but I read through the article twice and I didn't once see a $150 price point mentioned for the 3870. If I just missed it point it out to me please.pattycake0147 - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link
While you're at it go ahead and take a look at this. As you mentioned in the article, shop around.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link
I've gone ahead and added a "Current Street Price" line to the table to help put things in perspective. Prices at the time of writing were grabbed from Newegg.kmmatney - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link
Any overclocking potential on this card?AssBall - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link
I would also be interested in this, as my 3850 seems to overclock nicely, and 10% more performance out of a budget card is very nice if you can swing it.