HIS Radeon HD 3870 X2 1 GB

[W1zzard]

it clearly states: ATI: Catalyst 7.11, 3870 X2 tested with Catalyst 8.1 v8.451.2

all ati cards except the 3870 x2 were tested using 7.11

[Hawk1]

Originally Posted by InnocentCriminal

So why is the 7.11 listed in the review?

I think it meant all other (ATI) cards were tested with 7.11, but the x2 used the 8.1.

edit: pwned by W1zz

[InnocentCriminal]

Arrh makes sense.

[Urbklr]

Originally Posted by Lazzer408

Ah here we go. How did I miss this post.

Urbklr if you dont mind, can you run the benchmark at stock clocks vs. 3.44?

Thanks.

Sure thing

[springs113]

for all you guys that post replies based on one outting/showing come on now...i know you all can do better... there are numerous reviews that show better results than the ones i saw on techpowerup..and i do hold techpowerup high in my trust standards so to speak...
but there are certain ways in which the benchmarks are produced and i feel that it could either limit or overhype a cards performance.

[W1zzard]

Originally Posted by springs113

but there are certain ways in which the benchmarks are produced and i feel that it could either limit or overhype a cards performance.

feel free to elaborate

[tkpenalty]

Originally Posted by springs113

for all you guys that post replies based on one outting/showing come on now...i know you all can do better... there are numerous reviews that show better results than the ones i saw on techpowerup..and i do hold techpowerup high in my trust standards so to speak...
but there are certain ways in which the benchmarks are produced and i feel that it could either limit or overhype a cards performance.

Well I feel that other reviews are ignorant in many aspects, compared to our reviewers who do some of the most comprehensive and detailed reviews. Say something about that

[springs113]

in power usage what other methods do you or could you use to calculate the results...
dont get me wrong...i love the article as i can still remember to this day the article that made me jump on the techpowerup bandwagon...and that is the sapphire x800gto2 which i bought because of that article...but anyways...
i really dont understand the way you calculate the difference in overall performance as opposed to the other cards. i have seen other reviews with benchmarks that are different and shows the x2 beating out the ultra in majority of the tests and i know for sure that an ultra beats a gtx anyday...i also take into consideration that even on the same rig no benchmark is going to produce the absolute same result so i give or take a little on performance.

[DOM]

I still wanna know, how come in 3DMark06 its not run with

1600 x 1200, 4x Anti-aliasing, 16x anisotropic filter
2048 x 1536, 4x Anti-aliasing, 16x anisotropic filter ?

[W1zzard]

Originally Posted by DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E

I still wanna know, how come in 3DMark06 its not run with

1600 x 1200, 4x Anti-aliasing, 16x anisotropic filter
2048 x 1536, 4x Anti-aliasing, 16x anisotropic filter ?

it uses HDR. not all cards support HDR+AA

[springs113]

TKPENALTY...i am not jumping on techpowerup as it is my last website that i read everyday mainly because i trust it over everyone else...i also like to put things out, there being that i feel a stupid person is someone that thinks that what they read is acceptable and a smart one is the one that questions why is it acceptable.
so i am not talking fud i just cater to know more, as you and i are not alike so your understanding of one thing might differ from mine and vice-vrsa

[DOM]

Originally Posted by W1zzard

it uses HDR. not all cards support HDR+AA

then why are all the other test done with it ? or 06 is the only one that uses HDR ?

so that means my X1950Xt has HDR

[W1zzard]

corrected the statement that one gpu is not fully loaded. both are indeed getting loaded fully at least in 3dmark06

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by springs113

for all you guys that post replies based on one outting/showing come on now...i know you all can do better... there are numerous reviews that show better results than the ones i saw on techpowerup..and i do hold techpowerup high in my trust standards so to speak...
but there are certain ways in which the benchmarks are produced and i feel that it could either limit or overhype a cards performance.

Were the other reviews you refer to running a C2d faster than 2.33gig by any chance?

[DOM]

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

Were the other reviews you refer to running a C2d faster than 2.33gig by any chance?

I seen one with a E6850 same card but on vista

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E

I seen one with a E6850 same card but on vista

Yep thought as much.....2 GPU's are gonna need serious CPU power to get the most out of them which is why he may have seen other reviews where the card performed better, W1z reviews on the "average man's kit" as the average man does not overclock and makes up 90% of the worlds graphic card sales.

[springs113]

yes i have seen a couple others that shows better performance of the card...sometimes its just the luck of the draw... as when i first installed crysis i didnt have any problems (vista) then i installed it on my xp machine it would crash like hell...matter of fact it still does...even when i install it on my dual boot amd setup...
and as far as cpu speed and benchmarking goes... i know it makes a difference even in game playing... because i noticeably feel a difference when gaming on my 6420 @ 3.0 than at 2.1 i even notice a difference when gaming on the same proc @ 3.0 when compared to my x2 5200 @ 3.1 and my fps are still better on the intel setup

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by springs113

yes i have seen a couple others that shows better performance of the card...sometimes its just the luck of the draw... as when i first installed crysis i didnt have any problems (vista) then i installed it on my xp machine it would crash like hell...matter of fact it still does...even when i install it on my dual boot amd setup...
and as far as cpu speed and benchmarking goes... i know it makes a difference even in game playing... because i noticeably feel a difference when gaming on my 6420 @ 3.0 than at 2.1 i even notice a difference when gaming on the same proc @ 3.0 when compared to my x2 5200 @ 3.1 and my fps are still better on the intel setup

Yup, see my post above, from what I have seen, and just IMO, if you have a CPU that will only comfortably do say 3Gig you are probably as well off getting a G92 8800GTS and saving some serious money in the process as the performance difference wont be too huge, but now, if you had a quad at 4gig......well this card would eat most things alive.

[springs113]

funny things is that i do have 4 gigs ddr2 800 in both setup ...just waiting for a stinking phenom that is worth my dollars and is not 65nm before i jump to 4 ddr 2 1066

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by Mussels

hey i'm quite optimistic about XP3's service pack

Ya i just hope it brings back Performance Gains like XP SP1a did, SP2 slowed it way down, wish MS would put in DX10 as a bonus

[InnocentCriminal]

Any chance we could get the actual dimensions for the 3870X2 please?!

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by springs113

for all you guys that post replies based on one outting/showing come on now...i know you all can do better... there are numerous reviews that show better results than the ones i saw on techpowerup..and i do hold techpowerup high in my trust standards so to speak...
but there are certain ways in which the benchmarks are produced and i feel that it could either limit or overhype a cards performance.

Tell you what become a Dedicated Reviewer for TPU and give your own review and see how it compares to the Main Boss.

[eidairaman1]

Easy way to fix that is to carefully drill holes near the back of the card (where the heat exits)

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Am I seeing that picture correctly? Is one of the heatsinks made of Aluminum, and the other Copper?

Either way, the second core is going to run warmer than the first because it is being cooled by warmer air.

[eidairaman1]

Originally Posted by BullGod

Well imo this card is a total disappointment. That's why it got an 8. Are you people blind? The performance is crap. It was faster than the other cards only in old games that run at 100 fps plus. Where is the gain in that? You don't need more than 100 fps. You do need more than 30 tho. In most games that go under 100fps it was not the fastest card. So what are you really getting here?

So whats your specs? Or do you have more money than brains?

[springs113]

first off i think i have an understanding with w1zz and my points saying what i say is not only for me but for those who are probably thinking the same...aren't we all entitled to our opinions..
just like you are to criticize anything i say. its apart of life and i welcome it. and i know that w1zz welcomes any comments whether it progressive or detrimental to what he has to say mainly because he is open minded and as well it might just help for him to explain something that he might not have explained the way he probably wanted.