4850 vs 2x 4670 in crossfire

Daox · Post by **Daox** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:13 am

What do you guys think about using 2 4670s in crossfire instead of a 4850 for a more power efficient gaming system? Price and performance seem to be pretty close. But the 4670 idles so MUCH lower than the 4850.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:31 pm

Good question! I'd personally wait for the next generation if the 4670 wasn't enough.
I expect the upcoming cards to use less power in idle, at least nVidia. I don't know when they will show up.

A GTX 260 system uses 40 W less than the slower 4850, and I think it's because it's pretty new.
All the 9800 models are just variants of the old 8800 that came in 2006 so I don't expect much from them.

Dual midrange cards is not a good idea in general, but it's a more difficult choice in this situation.
Also remember that CF motherboards cost more.

FartingBob · Post by **FartingBob** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:51 pm

Its almost always better to get the single card. Games are still hit and miss on multi-card scaling. some will show near 100% improvement, others single digits.
I think the power saving of 2 4670's over a single 4850 isnt enough to outweigh the consistancy that the single card setup will bring.

hybrid2d4x4 · Post by **hybrid2d4x4** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:40 pm

^ Good call. It would also be beneficial since your case airflow won't be as compromised with a single card. And with most motherboards, you won't have enough room for a good aftermarket cooler to put on the cards when you have CF/SLI, and even if you do, one will inevitably run hotter than the other since one card's cooler is sandwitched between the 2.

Since you don't seem opposed to CF, if you go for the 4850, you leave an open door to the upgrade path of putting in a 2nd one down the line when the cards are dirt cheap, whereas when you already have 2 lower-end cards to begin with, you lose both when you upgrade. If you go down the CF road, make sure you get a board that puts 2 slots in between the 2 PCI-E x16 ones to better cope with the thermals.

Post by **CA_Steve** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:48 pm

Tweaktown benchmarking

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:26 am

Thanks Steve. That picture pretty much says it all, it's not worth it.

Daox · Post by **Daox** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:31 am

Do you have any other suggestions for a card that idles low, but has reasonable gaming performance? The computer is mainly used for surfing and office type applications, but I do enjoy a game here and there. I've read the 4670 alone is barely enough to play the latest games and was hoping for another option? I read about maybe reflashing a 4850 bios for better idle consumption?

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:12 am

AFAIK, the 4850 doesn't undervolt like it should when in idle, I guess ATI did something wrong there.
That's why I'd personally wait for newer models, or look for non-reference card reviews.

Here's a smaller 4850 for instance, which seems to have a good cooler.
Dunno if it uses less power, but cards like these have a newer design and it's possible that they improve the power consumption, you just have to find info about it.

New BIOS like this? I'd really like to see how much lower the power consumption gets.

Post by **CA_Steve** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:23 am

looks like the next step up in idle power is 30W...
X-Bit Labs

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:54 am

CA_Steve wrote:looks like the next step up in idle power is 30W...
X-Bit Labs

LOL yeah the link in the second post shows similar numbers, ATI simply forgot Powerplay, except in the 4670.

The Palit 4850 I mentioned earlier got reviewed here.
Compared to the reference 4850:

- it's 214 mm, 18 mm shorter
- have a dual slot heatpipe cooler
- improved power circuits with 3 phase power and more MOSFETs
- factory overclocked
- runs at 35Â° C in idle, 61Â° load
- is quieter
- uses less power.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:02 am

I think there are big differences in power consumption between different 4850 SKU's.
This makes no sense!
Anandtech: The 4850 system uses 43 W more in idle than the GTX 260 system.
Bit-Tech: The 4850 and the GTX 260 system uses the same amount of power in idle.

WHY?

Edit: Because Bit-Tech uses different motherboards for ATI and Nvidia.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:02 am

Some info about the upcoming GPU's I talked about, RV770 are the current ones:

Tobias · Post by **Tobias** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:22 am

Mats wrote:I think there are big differences in power consumption between different 4850 SKU's.
This makes no sense!
Anandtech: The 4850 system uses 43 W more in idle than the GTX 260 system.
Bit-Tech: The 4850 and the GTX 260 system uses the same amount of power in idle.

WHY?

Edit: Because Bit-Tech uses different motherboards for ATI and Nvidia.

There is also the question of if the 4850 were undervolting/clocking in idle as it should. From the 4670 thread there are evidence that not all manufacturers implement this.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:32 am

I wonder if the RV740 will show up, does anyone have new info about it?
That would be the card to get for those who think that the 4800 is too hot, and the 4670 is too slow.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:20 pm

RV740 info

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:52 am

the 4830 oc from MSI has a different power setup and costs a bit more. it COULD be the one that underclocks/volts properly?