ATI Radeon HD 3870 & 3850: A Return to Competition
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on November 15, 2007 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
Without a doubt, AMD is back in the graphics game. When the Radeon HD 2900 XT launched, we couldn't be more surprised at how poorly the product did. The lack of competition allowed NVIDIA to sit back and relax as the orders for more 8800-based product kept on flowing in. While the Radeon HD 3870 isn't faster than the GeForce 8800 GT, if AMD can hit its price point, it is a viable alternative if you're looking to save money.
AMD is in a lot of trouble however if the 8800 GT pricing/availability problem does get worked out; the 8800 GT does offer better performance-per-watt and better performance in general, at the same price the decision is clear, but luckily for AMD the two don't appear to be selling at the same price.
The Radeon HD 3850 is a bit slower than its more expensive sibling and as such ends up being tremendous competition for current mid-range cards like the GeForce 8600 GTS or Radeon HD 2600 XT. We only compared it to the 8600 GTS in this review, but the 3850 similarly obsoletes the 2600 XT.
Both cards from AMD are quite competitive today, but the balance of competition could easily shift depending on pricing and availability of either these cards or their competition. If AMD can't deliver on the prices it is so adamant about meeting, it loses serious cool points. Similarly, if NVIDIA can get enough 8800 GTs in the market, or if the 256MB version actually hits at $179 - $199, AMD would be in a lot of trouble.
Today the Radeon 3870 seems like a nice, albeit slower, alternative to the 8800 GT. But it's difficult to make a thorough recommendation without knowing how the 256MB 8800 GT will stack up and where it'll be priced. Given how the 8800 GTs sold out, if you're truly interested in the 3870 pick one up now, but if you're like us and want to carefully weigh all options - wait a couple of weeks and see what happens with the 8800 GT 256MB.
There is one more point to discuss, and that is: what happens to the high end GPU market? AMD is talking about sticking two 3800 GPUs on a single card and NVIDIA has been very quiet about its next-generation high end GPU plans, but with games like Crysis and Gears of War out on the PC, it'd be nice to actually advantage peak performance as well as affordable performance. What we do like about these new affordable GPUs is that they finally leave us with a feeling that you're getting something for your money, whereas mid-range GPUs of recent history seemed to just give you mediocre performance while lightening your wallet a lot more than they should.
While this may seem like a blip in an otherwise very profit-centric product lineup, we'd love to see similar performance revolutions at other price points in the graphics market. Give us a $100 graphics card that's actually worth something, and maybe we'll end up seeing a resurgence in PC gaming after all.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
117 Comments
View All Comments
Locut0s - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
Well yes I know but the "cores" that they are using are extremely simplified, more so than I was thinking of. Instead I was thinking of each "core" as being able to perform most if not all of the steps in the rendering pipeline.Guuts - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
I think the simple answer is that in the CPU world, they hit a clockspeed wall due to thermal issues and had to change their design strategy to offer greater performance, which was to go to multiple cores.The GPU makers haven't reached this same wall yet, and it must be cheaper and/or easier to make one high-performing chip than redesigning for multi-GPU boards... though there are some boards that have 2 GPUs on it that act like SLI/Crossfire, but in a single board package.
I'm sure when the GPUs start suffering the same issues, we'll start seeing multi-core graphic cards, and I would assume that nvidia and AMD are already researching and planning for that.
dustinfrazier - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
Going on a year for Nvidia dominance and boy does it feel good. I bought my 8800gtx pair the first day they were available last year and never expected them to dominate this long. God I can't wait to see what comes out next for the enthusiasts. It get the feeling it is gonna rock! I really wanna see what both companies have up their sleeves as I am ready to retire my 8800s.I understand that these latest cards are great for the finances and good energy savers, but what does it matter if they already have a hard time keeping up with current next gen games at reasonable frame rates, 1920x1200 and above? What good does saving money do if all the games you purchase in 08 end up as nothing but a slide show? I guess I just want AMD to release a card that doesn't act like playing Crysis is equivalent to solving the meaning of life. Get on with it. The enthusiasts are ready to buy!
Gholam - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
For the reference, over here in Israel, 8800GT is promised to arrive next week - for approximately $380 + VAT (11.5%). For comparison, 8800GTS 640MB costs a bit over $400+VAT; 8800GTS 320MB used to cost in the low to mid 300s, but they're no longer available. I wonder when will 38xx get here, and at what price...abhaxus - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
let me just say that i love my 8800 gts. however, as a person stuck with a 939 athlon x2 @ 2.5 ghz, and wanting to upgrade to a quad core setup, I've been freaking out lately about what motherboard to buy, and the lack of new video cards has made that very difficult. If the 320mb gts dropped in price in relation to the new GT, I'd buy a 650i/680i board in a heartbeat and just SLI it up. But the fact that no innovation is going on has kept prices too high for too long. I've had this card since march and prices are actually higher now than when I bought it originally.At least intel isn't resting on their laurels the way nvidia has been. I want new cards... so the old ones get cheaper!
also if anyone wants to go really OT with a reply and tell me whether an Asus P5N32 SLI Plus would be a good choice to O/C a Q6600 to about 3.2 ghz and run 2 8800 GTS 320mb cards in SLI... let me know :)
wolfman3k5 - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
No, the P5N32SLI wouldn't be a good choice to overclock a Quad. Neither would be the Striker. The fact of the matter is that both this ASUS boards have a hard time putting out high FSB clock and sustain them with Quad Cores. You either go EVGA 680i (LT) if you want to retain the SLI capability, or I would suggest a P35 or X38 based motherboard.Just my 0.02C.
abhaxus - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
I've read that... but then I've also read on AT and that with current bios releases the asus boards are fine to around 360-400 FSB. I haven't O/C'ed an intel chip since the Celeron 300A so I am pulling my hair out trying to decide if it's worth it to plan for going SLI or just get a P35 board and stay with a single card.Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
<font color=black>abhaxus - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
I apologize for breaking the comments... silly me for mentioning another site :)bupkus - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
Just highlight the blank areas with your mouse.Click and drag.