4870 Benchmarks

CY:G · Jun 11, 2008

This is supposedly the first 4870 benchmark against a 9800GTX

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7854.html

So what do you think?

Castiel · Jun 11, 2008

The only thing I can say is WOW.
But im still going to stick with NVIDIA.

P4-630 · Jun 12, 2008

As they say:

The Radeon HD 4870 whips 9800GTX by a 40% margin, while 4850 outpaces 8800GT with the same number.

AMD evidently planted the stories of 480 shader processors (it's not uncommon for AMD/ATI to plant stuff).

Radeon HD 4850 and 4870
they both sport a whopping 800 shader processors :twitch:

AMD's mainstream chip can do more FLOPS than NVIDIA enthusiast chips, and AMD's coming high-end chips will pack twice the FLOPS...

This is certainly a in NVIDIA's face.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7841.html

Then AMD-ATI supersedes and :nutkick:

NVIDIA

calvary1980 · Jun 12, 2008

it's physically impossible to fit 800 stream processors on a die of that size the technical specifications have been out for an entire month, manufactured and shipped why would they all of a sudden change them from 480 to 800 stream processors? and why is there no AMD link? on top of that someone at XS analyzed the table and the person who created it didn't even use the correct font or spacing.

I also find it hard to believe AMD would create such a blatant benchmark.

- Christine

P4-630 · Jun 12, 2008

Or did they probably mean 800 million transistors....

Anywayz, we will find out very soon

jbunch07 · Jun 12, 2008

trying to figure out what they are benching. that chart is weird. what do the numbers on the left side represent.

generalhoultz · Jun 12, 2008

this benchmark has blew my mind
i have no idea what to expect
the current gen in out for sure
8800gtx/ultra/9800gtx
are nothing compared to these

ASharp · Jun 12, 2008

jbunch07 said:
trying to figure out what they are benching. that chart is weird. what do the numbers on the left side represent.

The numbers basically mean how many times the performance. The 9800 GTX acts as a baseline (as 1x) and the red bar represents the Radeon HD 4870 consistently around 1.4-1.5x the performance of the 9800GTX.

jbunch07 · Jun 12, 2008

ASharp said:
The numbers basically mean how many times the performance. The 9800 GTX acts as a baseline (as 1x) and the red bar represents the Radeon HD 4870 consistently around 1.4-1.5x the performance of the 9800GTX.

oh. ok.
well im not making any speculation until the card is actually out.
but wow if those benchmarks are true!

magibeg · Jun 12, 2008

ASharp said:
The numbers basically mean how many times the performance. The 9800 GTX acts as a baseline (as 1x) and the red bar represents the Radeon HD 4870 consistently around 1.4-1.5x the performance of the 9800GTX.

I feel like I've seen this explanation about 2 dozen times now.

I just want all this speculation to finally end so we can get some hard results and move onto things that really matter. Like facts

sam0t · Jun 12, 2008

If the benchies are true, it would seem that ATI has finally found the sweet spot with their R600 architecture. Performance better, AA fixed, low price and power consumption. What more can a PC gamer want

P4-630 · Jun 12, 2008

The numbers in that chart is probably the fan noise level when playing those games...
As you can see the NVIDIA based card has a constant fanspeed and the noise level stays the same, as for the new ati card has a variable fan speed as you can see...

Faster, hotter, means higher fanspeed..

farlex85 · Jun 12, 2008

So much speculation, so little confirmation, just sit tight guys we're almost there.........

Temps_Riising · Jun 12, 2008

TBH, Shader Processing units dont mean much, for the last 2 years ATI has had considerably more SP's than NVidia and in most cases have trailed painfully behind, ROP's and TMU's are where it's at! If these are legit they are impressive however but of course, impressive with the last generation of NVidia.......cards which are not going to be the HD4000 series competitors does not count for a lot, it's how they perform against NVidia's new offerings that determine if these cards are really going to sell in huge numbers.....everyone knows that in the main, the 9800GTX was in part at least just a bastardisation of the G92.

I do hope finally these nextgen cards from ATI will be more competative and at least be a match for NVidia's new offerings because I like choice and I am sick of the lack of cost effective competative choice but I seem to recall, before the HD3870/3850 and even the 2900XT were released, many people were having very similar conversations so I remain skeptical until these cards hit the shelves.......just my thoughts.

wolf · Jun 12, 2008

as a 9800GTX owner it doesn't inspire me to buy a 4870....

hec 8800GTX/Ultra owners will probably still be really happy with the investments they made 1-2 years ago!

and Temps_rising, i agree, to an extent..... i do believe that ROPS and TMU's count for alot more than others think. like you say, ATI have been packing way more shaders for ages now, but obviously they're not nearly as good if a 16 ROP, 64 shader card (9600GT) gives the 3870 a damn good run for its money. and even with these new specs the texture processing power will still fall behind a G92 8800.

32 ROPS and 240 nvidian SP's coupled to 1024mb with 140 G/bps of bandwidth should tear the ass out of the 4870, as for the X2, we shall see...

but again as many have stated, not many of these "benchmarks" can be trusted, and we are all eagerly awaiting release dates!

-my 2 cents

-Wolf

jbunch07 · Jun 12, 2008

lets not forget that nv shaders are also clocked allot higher than ati shaders.
afaik the new ati cards are going to have faster shaders that can be oced like nv cards and not linked to the gpu core. but then again like ive said before...only time will tell.

HTC · Jun 12, 2008

If the 4850 3D06 and Vantage results i've seen are real (i'm assuming they are), even if the 4870 loses in lower resolutions, it will win in higher and / or with more details, assuming it preforms much the same way the 4850 does.

DaedalusHelios · Jun 12, 2008

To bad all the sources right now can't be trusted. Lets see the hard launch before we say where it fits in the scheme of things.

HTC · Jun 12, 2008

DaedalusHelios said:
To bad all the sources right now can't be trusted. Lets see the hard launch before we say where it fits in the scheme of things.

This is where i based my previous post (google translated).

wolf · Jun 12, 2008

jbunch07 said:
lets not forget that nv shaders are also clocked allot higher than ati shaders.
afaik the new ati cards are going to have faster shaders that can be oced like nv cards and not linked to the gpu core. but then again like ive said before...only time will tell.

quick comparison of 9600GT and HD3870 peak computational power.

775mhz x 320sp x 2 (MADD (2 FLOPs)) = 496 G/Flops

1625mhz x 64 sp x 3 (MADD (2 FLOPs)) + (MUL (1 FLOP)) = 312 G/Flops
1625mhz x 64 sp x 2 (MADD (2 FLOPs)) = 208 G/Flops

so even if you add the MUL process (which is unlikely in all scenarios) the 9600GT still loses BADLY to the 3870 in terms of peak shader arithmetic.

hec it even loses in terms of Peak pixel fill rate AND memory bandwidth

HD3870: 12.4 Gpixels/s and 72.0 GB/s
9600GT: 10.4 Gpixels/s and 57.6 GB/s

so if the HD3870 beats the 9600GT's peak shader arithmetic, Pixel fill rate and Memory bandwidth by 37.1%, 16.2% and 20% respectively, then why does the nvidia card come up very close to par (loses some, wins others) ?

it seems the 3870 has a small (yet present) advantage with no AA, but with AA on, they are so close to each other.....

not to mention this is a 65nm part vs a 55nm......

my answer - Nvidias architecture is more efficient.

took comparative scores from this review: http://www.techspot.com/article/88-geforce-9600gt-versus-radeon-hd3870/

-Wolf

HTC · Jun 12, 2008

wolf said:
quick comparison of 9600GT and HD3870 peak computational power.

775 x 320 x 2 = 496 MADD (2 FLOPs)

1625 x 64 x 3 = 312 (MADD (2 FLOPs) + MUL (1 FLOP))
1625 x 64 x 2 = 208 MADD (2 FLOPs)

so even if you add the MUL process (which is unlikely in all scenarios) the 9600GT still loses BADLY to the 3870 in terms of peak shader arithmetic.

hec it even loses in terms of Peak pixel fill rate AND memory bandwidth

HD3870: 12.4 Gpixels/s and 72.0 GB/s
9600GT: 10.4 Gpixels/s and 57.6 GB/s

so if the HD3870 beats the 9600GT's peak shader arithmetic, Pixel fill rate and Memory bandwidth by 37.1%, 16.2% and 20% respectively, then why does the nvidia card come up very close to par (loses some, wins others) ?

it seems the 3870 has a small (yet present) advantage with no AA, but with AA on, they are so close to each other.....

not to mention this is a 65nm part vs a 55nm......

my answer - Nvidias architecture is more efficient.

took comparative scores from this review: http://www.techspot.com/article/88-geforce-9600gt-versus-radeon-hd3870/

-Wolf

Question: wasn't the 9600 line the one W1zzard found to have a "concealed" OC or something like that? I remember reading something about that!

EDIT

Found the link: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=53966&highlight=9600

wolf · Jun 12, 2008

my 9600GT shows the same clocks in GPU-Z as in rivatuner monitor, so im not sure....

DarkMatter · Jun 12, 2008

Not too impressive IMO considering they are playing in their field. It fits with the rumors of them being 25% faster than their "competition" (IMO are not competition, they will play in a very different price league, HD4850 should have been compared to the 9800GTX). That's why Nvidia didn't put the settings they used, so people like me can't find/guess the weaknesses and advantages out of the chart:

1- 1920x1200 is the resolution that most people upgrading their card are looking for, but is clearly one where G92 suffers as it was never designed to own in that resolution. Ati cards do well here which is good, but doesn't tell the real overall picture. Especially in the case of the 9800 GT, as people buying into that price segment won't (or shouldn't for their sanity) be looking into such high resolution gaming in the future. Anyhow this is a win in performance for Ati, but I don't know if it will translate to a win in sales. If 9800 GT is a lot closer to the HD4850 at 1680@1050 (G92 can keep well until that resolution, then fails at 1920x1200) and is significantly cheaper, and IMO will be, it could be a better deal for people looking into lower-end performance market.

2- The games. Some are old and others are the ones that favore Ati hardware. Then there's Crysis a game where any new card will look a lot better than any older one at that settings. Before anyone thinks of replying to this point, yes, Nvidia does the same in their benchmarks, but I am not talking about that, I am just explaining why I am not too excited about this one.

3- They have used 8xAF, why not x16 as done lately? It's a bit picky but IMO this is why: previous Ati cards have a problem with texturing power, that based on leaked specs has been carried over the new ones too. Twice the texturing power in a card with twice or more shading power, means the same texturing bottleneck. The higher the AF settings the better for Nvidia cards, and IMO that's why they used 8x instead of the usual x16. The difference would not be more than 5% but every bit counts for marketing purposes.

My 2 cents.

Darkmag · Jun 12, 2008

DarkMatter said:
Not too impressive IMO considering they are playing in their field. It fits with the rumors of them being 25% faster than their "competition" (IMO are not competition, they will play in a very different price league, HD4850 should have been compared to the 9800GTX). That's why Nvidia didn't put the settings they used, so people like me can't find/guess the weaknesses and advantages out of the chart:

1- 1920x1200 is the resolution that most people upgrading their card are looking for, but is clearly one where G92 suffers as it was never designed to own in that resolution. Ati cards do well here which is good, but doesn't tell the real overall picture. Especially in the case of the 9800 GT, as people buying into that price segment won't (or shouldn't for their sanity) be looking into such high resolution gaming in the future. Anyhow this is a win in performance for Ati, but I don't know if it will translate to a win in sales. If 9800 GT is a lot closer to the HD4850 at 1680@1050 (G92 can keep well until that resolution, then fails at 1920x1200) and is significantly cheaper, and IMO will be, it could be a better deal for people looking into lower-end performance market.

2- The games. Some are old and others are the ones that favore Ati hardware. Then there's Crysis a game where any new card will look a lot better than any older one at that settings. Before anyone thinks of replying to this point, yes, Nvidia does the same in their benchmarks, but I am not talking about that, I am just explaining why I am not too excited about this one.

3- They have used 8xAF, why not x16 as done lately? It's a bit picky but IMO this is why: previous Ati cards have a problem with texturing power, that based on leaked specs has been carried over the new ones too. Twice the texturing power in a card with twice or more shading power, means the same texturing bottleneck. The higher the AF settings the better for Nvidia cards, and IMO that's why they used 8x instead of the usual x16. The difference would not be more than 5% but every bit counts for marketing purposes.

My 2 cents.

Well thank you at least now I know your 2 cents aren`t worth much. First of all its rumored 38%-50% faster than current not 25%(Nearly a half the difference)

Games favor ATI?!?! Are you on mad crack? The only gamed optimized for ATI is Call to Juarez. Doom 3 and Quake 4 are both OpenGL and when those games were made it heavily favored nVidia.

And lastly YES YOU ARE BEEN PICKY your looking of any reason to bash this card. if you look hard enough of something you'll find it - English Proverb.

All I want from the next gen is a fast cheap card that can play games at max. Stop been so fanboi-ish if ATI wins good for them if nVidia wins good for them, but I win regardless.

lemonadesoda · Jun 12, 2008

Twice the texturing power in a card with twice or more shading power, means the same texturing bottleneck

Could you explain that further.

Not true, per se. Depends on where you are scaling.

#1. If you "double" the resolution, then yes what you say is true, but
#2. If you keep the resolution the same, and keep "shader settings" the same, ie. FSAA and other "graphics effects", then you in theory "double" the FPS, and then hit the same bottleneck as you say. (But you DID just double up)
#3. If you double the FSAA or add more effects at the same resolution, the bottleneck has now changed completely. You wont be texture limited as before.

System Name	CYGNUS X4
Processor	Intel i7 2600k @ 3.6Ghz
Motherboard	Asus p8p67Pro
Cooling	ThermalRight Ultra 120 Extreme
Memory	2 * 4GB DDR 3 1600MHz = 8GB
Video Card(s)	2 * 6950 2GB In Crossfire and a 3870
Storage	2 * 640 GB WD AAKS in RAID 0
Display(s)	4 * 24" Dell LCDs
Case	Cooler Master Cosmos
Power Supply	Corsair HX650

Processor	Intel i5-3570K @ 3.4Ghz
Motherboard	Asrock LGA1155 Z77 Extreme 4
Cooling	Cooler Master Evo 212
Memory	16GB (4X4) G.Skill Ripjaw 2 DDR3-1600
Video Card(s)	Nvidia gForce GTX 660ti
Storage	1x Samsung 840 EVO 256GB 6Gb/s, 1x WD 500GB 6Gb/s, 1x WD 80GB 3Gb/s
Display(s)	ASUS VH242H Black + 2 HP 2311x 23" LED
Case	Fractal Design R4
Audio Device(s)	Realtek OnBoard Both
Power Supply	Cooler Master 850w
Software	Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit SP1

System Name	AlderLake / Laptop
Processor	Intel i7 12700K P-Cores @ 5Ghz / Intel i3 7100U
Motherboard	Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Master / HP 83A3 (U3E1)
Cooling	Noctua NH-U12A 2 fans + Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut Extreme + 5 case fans / Fan
Memory	32GB DDR5 Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB 6000MHz CL36 / 8GB DDR4 HyperX CL13
Video Card(s)	MSI RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio / Intel HD620
Storage	Samsung 980 Pro 1TB + 970 Evo 500GB + 850 Pro 512GB + 860 Evo 1TB x2 / Samsung 256GB M.2 SSD
Display(s)	23.8" Dell S2417DG 165Hz G-Sync 1440p / 14" 1080p IPS Glossy
Case	Be quiet! Silent Base 600 - Window / HP Pavilion
Audio Device(s)	Panasonic SA-PMX94 / Realtek onboard + B&O speaker system / Harman Kardon Go + Play / Logitech G533
Power Supply	Seasonic Focus Plus Gold 750W / Powerbrick
Mouse	Logitech MX Anywhere 2 Laser wireless / Logitech M330 wireless
Keyboard	RAPOO E9270P Black 5GHz wireless / HP backlit
Software	Windows 11 / Windows 10
Benchmark Scores	Cinebench R23 (Single Core) 1936 @ stock Cinebench R23 (Multi Core) 23006 @ stock

Processor	Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield L724A629 @ 3.8Ghz 423x9 1.47v
Motherboard	Abit IP-35 Pro Beta 16.B04 (vDroop)
Cooling	6x Scythe S-Flex SFF21F, EK Multi Option 2 Port, dB-1 Compact, Swiftech MCR80, Swiftech Apogee GT
Memory	2x1 OCZ Flex XLC PC-9200 @ 5-5-5-18 1220 2.3v
Video Card(s)	Inno3D Geforce 8800GTS 320
Storage	Western Digital Raptor X 150
Display(s)	Samsung Syncmaster 226BW 22"
Case	Cooler Master RC-690
Audio Device(s)	Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi Xtreme Gamer 7.1
Power Supply	Thermaltake ToughPower 1000

System Name	AlderLake / Laptop
Processor	Intel i7 12700K P-Cores @ 5Ghz / Intel i3 7100U
Motherboard	Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Master / HP 83A3 (U3E1)
Cooling	Noctua NH-U12A 2 fans + Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut Extreme + 5 case fans / Fan
Memory	32GB DDR5 Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB 6000MHz CL36 / 8GB DDR4 HyperX CL13
Video Card(s)	MSI RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio / Intel HD620
Storage	Samsung 980 Pro 1TB + 970 Evo 500GB + 850 Pro 512GB + 860 Evo 1TB x2 / Samsung 256GB M.2 SSD
Display(s)	23.8" Dell S2417DG 165Hz G-Sync 1440p / 14" 1080p IPS Glossy
Case	Be quiet! Silent Base 600 - Window / HP Pavilion
Audio Device(s)	Panasonic SA-PMX94 / Realtek onboard + B&O speaker system / Harman Kardon Go + Play / Logitech G533
Power Supply	Seasonic Focus Plus Gold 750W / Powerbrick
Mouse	Logitech MX Anywhere 2 Laser wireless / Logitech M330 wireless
Keyboard	RAPOO E9270P Black 5GHz wireless / HP backlit
Software	Windows 11 / Windows 10
Benchmark Scores	Cinebench R23 (Single Core) 1936 @ stock Cinebench R23 (Multi Core) 23006 @ stock

4870 Benchmarks

CY:G

New Member

Castiel

P4-630

calvary1980

New Member

P4-630

jbunch07

New Member

generalhoultz

New Member

ASharp

jbunch07

New Member

magibeg

sam0t

New Member

P4-630

farlex85

Temps_Riising

New Member

wolf

Performance Enthusiast

jbunch07

New Member

HTC

DaedalusHelios

HTC

wolf

Performance Enthusiast

HTC

wolf

Performance Enthusiast

DarkMatter

New Member

Darkmag

New Member

lemonadesoda

Processor	i5-2500k
Motherboard	ASRock z68 pro3-m
Cooling	Corsair A70
Memory	Kingston HyperX 8GB 2 x 4GB 1600mhz
Storage	OCZ Agility3 60GB(boot) 2x320GB Raid0(storage)
Display(s)	Samsung 24" 1920x1200
Case	Custom
Power Supply	PC Power and Cooling 750w
Software	Win 7 x64

System Name	Titan
Processor	Intel Xeon E5-2670v2
Motherboard	ASUS Sabertooth X79
Cooling	Corsair H100i
Memory	4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws X 1600MHz
Video Card(s)	ASUS Radeon R9 290 DirectCU II
Storage	Mushkin Reactor 1TB
Display(s)	Dell UltraSharp U2713HM
Case	Corsair Obsidian 650D
Audio Device(s)	Onboard Realtek
Power Supply	Seasonic X-750
Software	Windows 10 Pro

System Name	Not named
Processor	Intel 8700k @ 5Ghz
Motherboard	Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E Gaming
Cooling	DeepCool Assassin II
Memory	16GB DDR4 Corsair LPX 3000mhz CL15
Video Card(s)	Zotac 1080 Ti AMP EXTREME
Storage	Samsung 960 PRO 512GB
Display(s)	24" Dell IPS 1920x1200
Case	Fractal Design R5
Power Supply	Corsair AX760 Watt Fully Modular

Processor	Intel C2D E8400
Motherboard	Gigabyte P35C-DSR9
Cooling	Noctua NH-U12F
Memory	2 x 2GB DDR2 Mushkin 6400+
Video Card(s)	Asus 4850 + Accelero S1
Storage	250GB Hitachi SATA, 320GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA
Display(s)	22" HP w2207
Case	Antec Solo
Audio Device(s)	Integrated Realtek HD audio
Power Supply	Seasonic 600W
Software	XP SP2 + Ubuntu 7.10

System Name	Aquarium
Processor	Ryzen 9 7950x
Motherboard	ROG Strix X670-E
Cooling	Lian Li Galahead 360 AIO
Memory	2x16gb Flare X5 Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR5-6000 PC5-48000
Video Card(s)	Asus RTX 3060
Storage	2TB WD SN850X Black NVMe, 500GB Samsung 970 NVMe
Display(s)	Gigabyte 32" IPS 144Hz
Case	Hyte Y60
Power Supply	Corsair RMx 850
Software	Win 11 Pro/ PopOS!

Processor	E8500 @ 4.75gig....E8200 @ 4.4gig
Motherboard	Gigabyte x38T DQ6 and EVGA 790i Ultra
Cooling	TRUE and lots of 120mm fans
Memory	2GB OCZ DDR3 1600mhz 7-7-7-18
Video Card(s)	Inno3D 512MB 8800GTS G92 @ 835/2087/1075
Storage	Western Digital 500gb 32MB cache SATA II
Display(s)	Samsung SyncMaster 205BW 20" TFT on DVi
Case	Antec 900
Audio Device(s)	XiFi Xtreme Gamer/Audigy 4
Power Supply	Tagan 800W U33 2ForceLL
Software	XP Home SP3 and Vista 32bit Home Premium dual boot
Benchmark Scores	Don't Bench....too busy gaming!

System Name	MightyX
Processor	Ryzen 5800X3D
Motherboard	Gigabyte X570 I Aorus Pro WiFi
Cooling	Scythe Fuma 2
Memory	32GB DDR4 3600 CL16
Video Card(s)	Asus TUF RTX3080 Deshrouded
Storage	WD Black SN850X 2TB
Display(s)	LG 42C2 4K OLED
Case	Coolermaster NR200P
Audio Device(s)	LG SN5Y / Focal Clear
Power Supply	Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse	Corsair Dark Core RBG Pro SE
Keyboard	Glorious GMMK Compact w/pudding
VR HMD	Meta Quest 3
Software	case populated with Artic P12's
Benchmark Scores	4k120 OLED Gsync bliss

System Name	HTC's System
Processor	Ryzen 5 2600X
Motherboard	Asrock Taichi X370
Cooling	NH-C14, with the AM4 mounting kit
Memory	G.Skill Kit 16GB DDR4 F4 - 3200 C16D - 16 GTZB
Video Card(s)	Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 480 OC 4 GB
Storage	1 Samsung NVMe 960 EVO 250 GB + 1 3.5" Seagate IronWolf Pro 6TB 7200RPM 256MB SATA III
Display(s)	LG 27UD58
Case	Fractal Design Define R6 USB-C
Audio Device(s)	Onboard
Power Supply	Corsair TX 850M 80+ Gold
Mouse	Razer Deathadder Elite
Software	Ubuntu 19.04 LTS

System Name	Cosmos F1000
Processor	i9-9900k
Motherboard	Gigabyte Z370XP SLI, BIOS 15a
Cooling	Corsair H100i, Panaflo's on case
Memory	XPG GAMMIX D30 2x16GB DDR4 3200 CL16
Video Card(s)	EVGA RTX 2080 ti
Storage	1TB 960 Pro, 2TB Samsung 850 Pro, 4TB WD Hard Drive
Display(s)	ASUS ROG SWIFT PG278Q 27"
Case	CM Cosmos 1000
Audio Device(s)	logitech 5.1 system (midrange quality)
Power Supply	CORSAIR HXi HX1000i 1000watt
Mouse	G400s Logitech
Keyboard	K65 RGB Corsair Tenkeyless Cherry Red MX
Software	Win10 Pro, Win7 x64 Professional

Processor	Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard	Asus P5Q-E
Cooling	Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory	4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s)	GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage	74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s)	HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case	Antec p180
Audio Device(s)	Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply	700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software	Windows XP

System Name	ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor	Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory	2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s)	HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s)	2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s)	Audigy 2
Software	Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.