ATI Sapphire HD 4870 X2 2GB PCI-E 2.0 - TWO GIG DDR 5 MEMORY!!! £345.54 DELIVERED through QUIDCO - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Wow, better priced than the Nvidia 280 GTX, with TWO GIG DDR 5 of memory. A monster of a card i'm sure you will agree!!!

Ordered one for my customer, they only have 9 left.




Description:

The SAPPHIRE HD 4870 X2 is implemented on a single ATX format PCI-Express card, with a fan assisted cooler making it a standard dual-slot configuration. This solution will have immediate appeal to performance users with only a single PCI-Express slot available. On a suitable PCI Express Gen 2.0 CrossFireX mainboard it is also possible to use two SAPPHIRE HD 4870 X2 cards in CrossFireX mode to provide even higher levels of performance.

The SAPPHIRE HD 4870 X2 incorporates the latest ATI Avivo HD Technology for enhanced Video display and features a second generation built in UVD (Unified Video decoder) for the hardware accelerated decoding of Blu-ray and HD DVD content for both VC-1 and H.264 codecs, as well as mpeg files, reducing CPU loading to a minimum. The SAPPHIRE HD 4870 X2 is HDCP ready and is compatible with the latest High Definition displays.

Technical Details:
Chipset ATI RADEON® HD4870
Connectivity 2 x Dual Link DVI-I / HDTV
Cooling Fan
Crossfire master Yes
Device type Graphics adapter
Direct x support OpenGL 2.0, DirectX 10
Gpu speed 750 MHz
Interface type PCI Express 2.0 (x16)
Memory 2 GB
Memory bus 256 bit
Memory clock 3600 MHz
Memory type GDDR5
Deal Tags:
More From Aria PC:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
original77 Avatar
8y, 3m agoFound 8 years, 3 months ago
Options

All Comments

(42) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
wow!!! never knew that 2Gb graphic card are out now. Excellent. now I need to find a PC to fit it.
#2
if you have an sli mobo with two pci-e 2.0 both at 16x then your much better off getting two single 4870's, even with them having 1gig less memory

eg. the intel x38 mobos
#3
once the new driver comes out these should kick ass :thumbsup:
#4
I doubt you’d see any performance increase with the extra RAM although if you have a 30” TFT you MAY see some benefit.
I could be wrong in this case but cards with uber amounts of RAM are usually a waste of time and aimed at the techno illiterate.
So don’t all rush out and buy one without doing due diligence. :)
#5
wonder if this card will run crysis on max, i doubt it still :)
#6
Agharta
I doubt you’d see any performance increase with the extra RAM although if you have a 30” TFT you MAY see some benefit.
I could be wrong in this case but cards with uber amounts of RAM are usually a waste of time and aimed at the techno illiterate.
So don’t all rush out and buy one without doing due diligence. :)


yeh true, thats why when way back they brought out 512mb cards and they were never used, then they stopped making them for a while and just stuck with 256mb cards, i think a couple of games may use 512mb now, but not 2 gig thats for sure.
#7
The only problem with a 2GB gfx card, is that with a 32Bit operating can only cope with 4GB RAM in total (inc Graphics Cards). In reality its more like 3.5GB. With the Card taking 2GB, that doesn't leave a lot for actual PC Memory. 64Bit Windows has compatibility problems and drivers can be a pain - so you have to make your choice.

I have 4Gb installed, but 32Bit Windows XP can not address it all.
#8
original77
Wow, better priced than the Nvidia 280 GTX

You can buy a GTX 280 for much less than this; Overclockers have a Gainward version for £253 plus shipping – LINK.

The GTX 280 consumes about 55W less at idle than the 4870 X2 1GB and 150W less at load according to Techreport.
Anadtech have the difference at 90W/139W so either way it’s a brute of a card.
If you have a recent nVIDIA motherboard that supports HybridPower the difference will be even more dramatic at idle. The 2GB version will consume even more power.

For people that have their PC on 24/7 the difference in running costs starts to get significant. Every 1W difference at idle means roughly an extra £1 per year on your bill and with energy costs rising this will only go up. So you could be looking at as much as an extra £100 per year to run this card. :w00t:
#9
This card creams most of the competition performance wise. Good price for what it is, a new release top end card, so should be warmer than this. I guess it's the usual dullards that don't understand graphics cards and think "but I can get one for £30 from eBuyer".......or maybe just the ones that think system memory and the graphics cards on-board memory are the same thing, sigh.
#10
megalomaniac
This card creams most of the competition performance wise.

Surely the HD 4870 X2 creams all the competition if you exclude multi-card setups!

As impressive as it is I’d recommend saving your money, electricity bill and the planet by buying a GTX 280. Go Green.
#11
kevinmc666
if you have an sli mobo with two pci-e 2.0 both at 16x then your much better off getting two single 4870's, even with them having 1gig less memory

eg. the intel x38 mobos


Crossfire, not SLi, these are from ATI/AMD not NVidia.
#12
Gordon Bell
The only problem with a 2GB gfx card, is that with a 32Bit operating can only cope with 4GB RAM in total (inc Graphics Cards). In reality its more like 3.5GB. With the Card taking 2GB, that doesn't leave a lot for actual PC Memory. 64Bit Windows has compatibility problems and drivers can be a pain - so you have to make your choice.

I have 4Gb installed, but 32Bit Windows XP can not address it all.


Exactly. When cards with 1gb/2gb memory become more common I can see it forcing a shift to 64bit Windows, finally.
#13
voted cold.. available on ebuyer for £344.95 delivered without quidco hassle!!!
#14
kevinmc666
if you have an sli mobo with two pci-e 2.0 both at 16x then your much better off getting two single 4870's, even with them having 1gig less memory

eg. the intel x38 mobos


Firstly i think u mean a crossfire mobo... also this card is much better, upto 30% more efficient than two 4870 in crossfire!!! the benchmarks prove it!!
#15
Daytrader
wonder if this card will run crysis on max, i doubt it still :)


yes it does crysis and in full!!! in fact as of today it is the MOST POWERFUL SINGLE slot GFX card in production!!!
#16
Seriously though, would anyone actually buy this?
Considering there are no longer that many games worth forking out the price of two xbox 360's.

Just seems a little crazy with that in mind. Just my opinion.

I can only really think of Crysis, but you still don't have to buy a card with this much power.
#17
its wayyyyy too expensive for a graphics card, and i would rather go with ebuyer.

i dont need these graphics card. ultra high end is always useless, it costs loads more, and when it comes into use with with those specs, there are new graphics cards that do the same/better for less the half the price.
#18
unileeds
yes it does crysis and in full!!! in fact as of today it is the MOST POWERFUL SINGLE slot GFX card in production!!!


its the most power single gfx card... it covers 2 slots so it DUAL slot not SINGLE slot :p
#19
Agharta
Surely the HD 4870 X2 creams all the competition if you exclude multi-card setups!

As impressive as it is I’d recommend saving your money, electricity bill and the planet by buying a GTX 280. Go Green.


That requires shelling out on multiple cards and having an SLi/Crossfire compatible motherboard though. The X2 is a dual GPU board, it IS mutli-card performance from a single card so from that perspective it's actually very green :whistling:.
#20
Gordon Bell
The only problem with a 2GB gfx card, is that with a 32Bit operating can only cope with 4GB RAM in total (inc Graphics Cards). In reality its more like 3.5GB. With the Card taking 2GB, that doesn't leave a lot for actual PC Memory. 64Bit Windows has compatibility problems and drivers can be a pain - so you have to make your choice.

I have 4Gb installed, but 32Bit Windows XP can not address it all.


Spence1115
Exactly. When cards with 1gb/2gb memory become more common I can see it forcing a shift to 64bit Windows, finally.


2Gb for a graphics card is actually quite a good idea these days, with techniques like Carmacks mega textures and the increasing popularity of GPGPU (NVIDIA + PhysX anyone...) it's about the right time for more memory on graphics cards. I'd also like to see some decent low level caching going on, but that's a whole other story. :thumbsup:
#21
droitwichdosser
its the most power single gfx card... it covers 2 slots so it DUAL slot not SINGLE slot :p


yeah i knew that was coming.. actually if you have a crossfire mobo, usually the 2 PCI-Ex16 sots are'nt next to each other... so nope its still is a single slot card, as it fits in one 1 PCI-Ex16 slot. It might cover an additional PCI slot, or PCI-E slot.. but hell.. wen you have £400 to spend on gfx...do u really care!! And because u can get two of these and xfire them, you have roughly (and i mean roughly so dont tear my head off) 4.8tera flops processing power!!
#22
megalomaniac

Sorry, but I disagree.

Actually, when it comes to VRAM and motherboard RAM, 32bit Windows addresses it using the same addresses.

Having already owned a 1GB card, I know of this problem as I did a search on it. The fact that some of the RAM is on a graphics card is irrelevant, the machine still needs allocate an address to it.

Turning off Paging will could render the machine unstable, should the 4Gb actually get used. Not worth the extra 0.5GB.

I'm also aware of the 'hack' to allow extend the RAM for one program from 2GB to 3GB (also can cause problems).
#23
Agharta
Surely the HD 4870 X2 creams all the competition if you exclude multi-card setups!
As impressive as it is I’d recommend saving your money, electricity bill and the planet by buying a GTX 280. Go Green.


megalomaniac
That requires shelling out on multiple cards and having an SLi/Crossfire compatible motherboard though. The X2 is a dual GPU board, it IS mutli-card performance from a single card so from that perspective it's actually very green.

You seem to have lost the plot here as we are both talking about single socket cards neither of which requires a motherboard supporting SLI or Crossfire. :thinking:
This card can hardly be described as green; did you actually look at the power data for this card? It’s a power hog and very inefficient compared to the GTX 280. It has better performance than the GTX 280 but in most cases the differences are irrelevant so the extra cost and power consumption makes this a waste of time IMO.
#24
Agharta
You seem to have lost the plot here as we are both talking about single socket cards neither of which requires a motherboard supporting SLI or Crossfire. :thinking:
This card can hardly be described as green; did you actually look at the power data for this card? It’s a power hog and very inefficient compared to the GTX 280. It has better performance than the GTX 280 but in most cases the differences are irrelevant so the extra cost and power consumption makes this a waste of time IMO.


To beat the X2 performance wise you need a high end SLi/Crossfire setup, fact.

Twice the cards = twice the power consumption. Therefore it's greener than those in the same way that the GTX 280 is greener than the X2, i.e. it's less powerful but it's more energy efficient, right?

Therefore it's not as simple as the GTX280 being greener. I'm not disputing that it is, just that it's not that cut and dry. While you're entitled to your opinion you really can't say it's a "waste of time", for those who want SLi/Crossfire performance from a single card this will be the bees knees.
#25
megalomaniac
To beat the X2 performance wise you need a high end SLi/Crossfire setup, fact.
Twice the cards = twice the power consumption. Therefore it's greener than those in the same way that the GTX 280 is greener than the X2, i.e. it's less powerful but it's more energy efficient, right?
Therefore it's not as simple as the GTX280 being greener. I'm not disputing that it is, just that it's not that cut and dry. While you're entitled to your opinion you really can't say it's a "waste of time", for those who want SLi/Crossfire performance from a single card this will be the bees knees.

The top dog VGA cards are usually over-priced and consume too much power and this one is par for the course. The performance advantage over the GTX 280 is just not SIGNIFICANT enough to recommend this at current prices and the appalling power consumption is another black mark.
#26
Agharta
The top dog VGA cards are usually over-priced and consume too much power and this one is par for the course.


Now that I agree with :thumbsup:
#27
megalomaniac
Now that I agree with :thumbsup:


well you'd be hard pressed to find a technology that isint overpriced when its introduced! the apple iphone is a prime example, and nearly 10yrs of IT histore to ssupport this. The fact is that to get comparable performance as offered by the 4870X2 you would need 2 Nvidia cards, which would be more power hungry. It would be wise to compare like to like.

What you are saying is like comparing a Ferrari to say a Subaru Impreza!! Both are fast, but have different appeals!! And regarding significant performance... ask that to the guy who bites the dust in a drag race!!!

Yes you do have a valid point, my money, i wont spend on this card till prices stabalise!! But thats what I said about the 3850, then the 4850 came, and now this.. and me.. well I am still stuck with my X1600GT with the thought "these card are overpriced, I will wait for the price to stabalise"... lol.. !!
#28
kevinmc666;2738527
if you have an sli mobo with two pci-e 2.0 both at 16x then your much better off getting two single 4870's, even with them having 1gig less memory

eg. the intel x38 mobos

I should just point out that you won't be able to run two HD4870's in an SLI motherboard. SLI is NVidia technology. Not ATI :)
#29
Daytrader;2738797
yeh true, thats why when way back they brought out 512mb cards and they were never used, then they stopped making them for a while and just stuck with 256mb cards, i think a couple of games may use 512mb now, but not 2 gig thats for sure.

That's pure carap. When they started making 512mb cards it was a nice performance boost. Memory on graphics cards is comparitively cheap so the difference between a 256mb and 512mb card with the same GPU will be fairly close in price.
#30
Gordon Bell;2738823
T 64Bit Windows has compatibility problems and drivers can be a pain - so you have to make your choice.

Load of carap. Vista x64 words great. Drivers are solid now. Perhaps you're thinking about when it was launched or about XP64 which is a bag of carap.
#31
Agharta;2739582
Surely the HD 4870 X2 creams all the competition if you exclude multi-card setups!

As impressive as it is I’d recommend saving your money, electricity bill and the planet by buying a GTX 280. Go Green.

The GTX 280 is slower though.....
#32
megalomaniac;2743671
Sigh, please please please learn the difference between a graphics cards VRAM, RAM and Windows system memory before posting "know it all" comments like that as fact. The amount of memory on your graphics card has absolutely no bearing on system memory, unless it's onboard graphics built into your motherboard. Even then it has no effect on how much memory Windows can actually address, it just uses some of it.

32-bit Windows can address 4Gb of memory period, the reason for your 3.5Gb of RAM figure is because the Windows memory address space includes paging files. Turn off paging and 32-bit Windows will use all 4Gb of RAM.

Besides 2Gb for a graphics card is actually quite a good idea these days, with techniques like Carmacks mega textures and the increasing popularity of GPGPU (NVIDIA + PhysX anyone...) it's about the right time for more memory on graphics cards. I'd also like to see some decent low level caching going on, but that's a whole other story. :thumbsup:

That's not actually true. The RAM on your graphics card is actually counted. Most people with a 256mb card get 3.5gb of 4gb of RAM showing up in a 32 bit OS. Before I went to Vista x64 I was getting 3.33gb because of my 512mb graphics card. The RAM on your graphics card is most certainly counted.
#33
owais;2742614
its wayyyyy too expensive for a graphics card, and i would rather go with ebuyer.

i dont need these graphics card. ultra high end is always useless, it costs loads more, and when it comes into use with with those specs, there are new graphics cards that do the same/better for less the half the price.

This graphics card is for people running 24"+ screens at 1920*1200 and not your average joe. It'll be a year and a half or more before anything which your average joe will buy will match this for performance.
#34
Utterly pointless thread?:whistling:
#35
cheapskate58;2773467
Utterly pointless thread?:whistling:

Why is it pointless? Because you don't understand/like/need the product? What a fool. If you don't understand what people are talking about then go to another thread.
#36
megalomaniac;2775945
I refer you to my overly long/boring post above explaining exactly why it's not, it was true many years ago in the days before AGP but not anymore.

Aperture is what's counted now but actual on-board memory is most certainly not. Now, depending on system settings, it may happen that your aperture size is the same in some cases (although it shouldn't be as that's exactly what the aperture system is designed to avoid!), but that's not the same thing at all.

I also think you'll find that's most of that missing RAM was for paging files. :thumbsup:

No, you're not right. If you look all over the net everyone is saying the same thing, that graphics memory is counted. Aperture isn't something that applies to PCI-express cards anyway. Only AGP.
So how does this mysterious memory on the graphics card get addressed by the system if it's not included in the memory addressed by the operating system? Answer. It is addressed by the OS and it is counted in the 4gb cap......
#37
megalomaniac;2777868
Yeah because we all believe everything we read on the net, right??? :whistling: lol. Seriously though, while I'm sure they're clever guys and all it is a pretty common misconception, but that's because it's a hugely complex subject.

There is an aperture with PCIe, only it's dynamic not fixed as with AGP, it's bi-directional and unlike the AGP aperture the user has no control over it. Unless you know a fair bit about graphics card architecture and memory management then most wouldn't even know it was there without being told. There are many variations on the PCIe aperture (often with "added value" features and called Hyper memory, TurboCache or similar), but the principal is the same. The aperture was created originally to prevent the problem of VRAM sucking up system address space, these days it also allows rapid transfer between the two and allows graphics cards to ship with less RAM as system memory can be used for overflow. Without that then you'd be right, and over 10 years ago you'd have been right, but not any more. While the graphics card itself is addressed just like any other expansion card, VRAM is NOT addressed directly by the OS. Graphics cards have their own processors which are perfectly capable of addressing their own memory without any interference from the system. Data is passed to and from the graphics card via the aperture. You cannot directly write to a memory location in VRAM for exactly this reason, you can only write something somewhere, whereas with system memory you can write to specific locations if you're feeling so inclined and have the programming skills to do so.

There is a known problem (which I assume is what's confusing you, and "everyone" "all over the net" apparently), whereby applications (typically DirectX apps such as games) keep a full copy of VRAM in System memory, which eats away at the Windows virtual address space. But that's bad coding which is not the same issue.

Anyway, as much fun as it is, I can't argue all day long. You either believe me or you don't, but unless you're an ATI or NVIDIA engineer then I'll remain convinced I am correct. :thumbsup:

Yes and Microsoft don't know what they're on about clearly? :whistling:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

For example, if you have a video card that has 256 MB of onboard memory, that memory must be mapped within the first 4 GB of address space. If 4 GB of system memory is already installed, part of that address space must be reserved by the graphics memory mapping. Graphics memory mapping overwrites a part of the system memory. These conditions reduce the total amount of system memory that is available to the operating system.


Now do you believe me?

P.S I'm not surprised with the amount of heat next to your name that you don't know what you're talking about. It's par for the course on this site.....
#38
megalomaniac;2778209
*Bangs head against wall*. That's a consumer article, it's not that simple. By your argument onboard graphics with the same amount of RAM allocated as a graphics card has VRAM would steal the same amount of Windows address space. But that's just not the case. I remember reading an intel White paper (can't remember the name) on the subject a while back where they compared onboard, PCi and PCIe video solutions and the PCIe system showed by far the most available memory.

Anyway, as you're so fond of Microsoft articles: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105/en-us which is the solution (included in SP1) to that particular Vista cock up. Now this is just returning to the way XP did things (ish Vista still eats up a lot more memory keeping copies of things XP didn't). i.e. NOT setting aside virtual memory for every VRAM location "As long as this virtual address range remains unused, no physical memory is allocated for it." - i.e. dynamic like I said, but still more than XP did.

My god that's nothing to do with it. This is the amount of memory that shows up in the OS. Just as a test I went and put 2gb of memory in the wifes PC (bringing it up to 4gb) with 32 bit Vista and identical hardware except for the graphics card which is 256mb as opposed to my 512 mb card and wouldn't you know there's a difference of ~200mb in memory showing up in Vista compared to what used to show up in Vista before I went to Vista x64. Funny that considering my graphics card has 256mb more memory. It's exactly how it should be, exactly how Microsoft says it should be, exactly how most people on the net say it should be and strangely it flies in the face of your "logic"

So what if it's a "consumer" article? What does that have to do with it?

Here's a prime example of how it works in practice
http://www.vista-xp.co.uk/forums/hardware-operating-problems/9109-help-xp-doesnt-see-all-my-memory.html
4gb of addressing space
- 2 x 1gb for 2 1gb graphics cards.
=2gb - 255mb for addressing physics card
=1.75gb left over for system memory.

Stop disagreeing with what everyone on the net says and what Microsoft says as well.
#39
megalomaniac
[epic masses of wrongness]


Dude, I should really point a couple of things out for you. First, if you're going to have a go at people, you'd damn well better be able to back yourself up as being right. Otherwise, you begin to look rather foolish.

Second, there's two claims you make here. First is that 32bit Windows can address all 4GB of system memory if the page file is disabled. This is simply not true. And, yes, I can back this up with my own testing, which reveals quite conclusively that you are utterly, utterly wrong.

Thirdly, yes, video card memory is indeed handled by the system. Yes, you do lose system memory, as the 32bit architecture of your system (not just your OS, the system itself) is forced to sacrifice its 4bn addresses to VRAM over system RAM. Source 1, source 2, source 3.

Lastly, the difference between an idiot and someone who's just made a mistake is that someone who's just made a mistake is capable of admitting that they're wrong. I'm not saying you're an idiot. I've read a lot of your posts, and you generally seem quite sharp. You're totally, totally, totally wrong on this one though, so just be a man, and admit it.
#40
dxx
Second, there's two claims you make here. First is that 32bit Windows can address all 4GB of system memory if the page file is disabled. This is simply not true. And, yes, I can back this up with my own testing, which reveals quite conclusively that you are utterly, utterly wrong.


You're right, but I did say that was over simplifying matters somewhat and expanded on that later. There are little bits stolen by allsorts of things but a fair chunk is often page files.

dxx
Lastly, the difference between an idiot and someone who's just made a mistake is that someone who's just made a mistake is capable of admitting that they're wrong. I'm not saying you're an idiot. I've read a lot of your posts, and you generally seem quite sharp. You're totally, totally, totally wrong on this one though, so just be a man, and admit it.


I must admit you guys have got me thinking and maybe I am reading it wrong, but looking back over it I'm coming to the same conclusions:
a) It would be a stupid thing to do things that way - not that being a stupid thing to do ever stopped Microsoft.......and it is monumentally stupid to continue doing so in Vista now 4Gb RAM is so common. - This is not a 32-bit computing limitation (other OS's manage ok) it's a 32-bit Windows limitation caused by the way MS has handled addressing.
b) The numbers don't add up, it's never an exact amount matching the VRAM.
c) I can't find any actual technical documentation on this, only forum posts, which are not always the most reliable sources, and Microsoft consumer articles, which never give the full story.
d) Surely there should be some warning in NVIDIA/ATI's documentation about cards with lots of VRAM eating up memory on 32-bit systems with 4Gb RAM? Which is not an uncommon situation these days. Particularly with this card, two of them in a crossfire config would kill Windows (doubt it would even boot) if it maps the whole lot into memory, even just the one card would cripple Vista given all the other things that steal addresses and Vista's greedy RAM needs.
e) What the hell is the graphics aperture for if not to solve issues like this by only allocating a subset of the addresses needed to fully address VRAM?
f) Surely this problem negates one of the main advantages of having a dedicated GPU, i.e. it frees up system memory for other things instead of stealing resources like on-board graphics does.

It just doesn't sit right with me, maybe I'm missing something. It would be nice if I could find some proper technical documentation on it to prove it one way or the other, but I guess I'll the weight of opinion's with you guys so in the interests of this not going on forever I'll have to take it on the chin and concede this one. :thumbsup:

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!