AMD Radeon HD 4830: Affordable Performance And Heavy Competition
by Derek Wilson on October 23, 2008 12:01 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
After all the benchmarks and details, we really aren't sure how to conclude this article; this is a really tough one.
The performance gap at the $120-$130 price range for a target resolution of 1680x1050 between the 9800 GT and the 4830, in practical terms, isn't that much. Both are playable in the majority of games we tested. The exceptions are Age of Conan and Crysis which can get by at 1280x1024 (or with decreased quality settings). While you may get a smoother experience on the AMD card in general, you won't get a significantly more playable experience in most cases in the games we tested.
If the rebates trail off and/or don't favor the NVIDIA part, we've got to lean toward recommending the Radeon HD 4830. AMD's card also supports 8-channel LPCM over HDMI and can handle some games at 1920x1200, making it the cheapest viable option capable of dual purpose use for games and movies on an HDTV and 7.1 surround sound setup. But it's a really close call here.
With RebateFest '08 going on and the possibility to pick up a 9800 GT for about $100, even though it's lower performance, the card is compelling. But being that this is a rebate offer and not the actual street price of the card, that deal may or may not last. If you need to spend $100 on a part, the GeForce 9800 GT is not a bad option, especially if you can find an overclocked part at that price to help close the performance gap.
However, with AMD saying we should expect rebates on their parts as well, that's not even a lock. Honestly, as we always recommend, shop around and look for the best prices. Use our performance data as a guide and the prices you find to make the final decision. Things are changing fast and rebates, sales and other offers can change daily. This time more than any other we've seen has been hugely volatile.
Honestly, now is an amazing time for the consumer. The competition is incredibly fierce and it is entirely possible we'll see the fight heat up even more into the holiday season. It's terrific to see hardware at this price point that can really deliver a great gaming experience at 1680x1050. The fact that AMD and NVIDIA are battling so hard just makes it that much more exciting. Deals, specials and rebates will really need to be your deciding factor for the next couple months. Happy shopping!
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.