![ati radeon tm hd 4850 vs amd radeon r7 m260 ati radeon tm hd 4850 vs amd radeon r7 m260](https://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2013/11/AMD-Never-Settle-BF4-2.png)
- ATI RADEON TM HD 4850 VS AMD RADEON R7 M260 FULL
- ATI RADEON TM HD 4850 VS AMD RADEON R7 M260 SOFTWARE
- ATI RADEON TM HD 4850 VS AMD RADEON R7 M260 FREE
I asked an Asus representative about this and he informed us that indeed the reference cooler isn’t sufficient for reliable performance when the card is overclocked so retail versions of the T.O.P. During Race Driver: GRID testing the card would regularly crash out and we eventually had to abandon testing with the Asus card. However, the Asus card, which was fine for most of our testing, didn’t fare so well. Not that we experienced any stability problems, at least with Powercolor’s card.
ATI RADEON TM HD 4850 VS AMD RADEON R7 M260 SOFTWARE
While this seems to make sense, ATI obviously never tried to swap out one of these cards after an extended gaming session because, my god, they get hot! Even ATI’s own Overdrive software reports that the cards are running at 80 degrees Celsius and above. This means ATI has been able to use a single slot cooler for its reference design, which both cards we’re looking at today have utilised.
ATI RADEON TM HD 4850 VS AMD RADEON R7 M260 FREE
Neither include any free games or other software but considering the approximately £120 asking price this is hardly surprising.Īs a result of the cut down clock and memory speeds the cards consume less power and consequently kick out less heat than HD 4870. This understandably means the Asus card will cost a little more but the choice is there if you want a tad more performance.īoth cards come with the exact same bundle that includes converters for DVI-to-HDMI, DVI-to-VGA, S-video to composite, and S-video to component as well as a CrossfireX connector. range, which means it comes overclocked to 680MHz(core) and 2,100MHz(memory) straight out of the box. Powercolor’s card is running stock clocks while Asus’ is from its T.O.P. However, when it comes to the card itself there are some significant differences.Īsus and Powercolor were the first board partners to get cards to us for review. There’s nothing more to say about the architecture of HD 4850 that hasn’t already been said in our in-depth HD 4870 review. However, the core clock speed has been reduced by 17 per cent and memory speed by 45 per cent, which should result in a performance differential that sits somewhere within that percentage range – exactly what the difference will be will differ from game to game.Īnd that really is it. So, in essence you still get 800 stream processors, 40 texture address/ filtering units, and 16 ROPs, as well as the 256-bit wide memory interface – although the memory chips themselves are GDDR3 instead of the GDDR5 seen on the HD 4870. The differences are confined to clock speed and memory configuration.
ATI RADEON TM HD 4850 VS AMD RADEON R7 M260 FULL
In fact, unlike the nVidia GTX 260, which uses the same chip as the GTX 280 but with a few sections disabled, the HD 4850 uses the full extent of RV770. Like its more expensive sibling, the ATI HD 4850 is based on ATI’s new RV770 chip. Still, there are many of us that would balk at the idea of spending nearly £200 on a graphics card, regardless of how fast it is, which is where the ATI HD 4850 comes in. It isn’t quite the fastest graphics card you can buy – that honour goes to nVidia’s GTX 280 – but it performs very well and comes in at a quite phenomenal price. It makes the review look like it was done by kindergarteners.You may have gathered over the last couple of weeks that we really like the ATI HD 4870. Lastly, please get those annoying gigantonormous screenies out of the review. You're giving high weights to resolutions that only a fraction of a percentage point of dedicated gamers can utilize (and those wouldn't bother with a single GPU). It just throws off averages, as people aren't going to run this game at 7fps! If there's no card in the lineup that gets close to 30fps in a certain test, just move on! Save it for the quad crossfire or triple sli tests or something. Secondly, why in the world are you including tests that don't fit the definition of "playable" on any card in your test lineup (Crysis 2560x1600). why throw in results of 0 across the board for the 4850? You just corrupted your data and made the final fps averages meaningless, which is the thing people were generally interested in. If you attribute your 4850 test crashing due to your motherboard. not a burned out overclocked Asus motherboard. First off, this should be a review of graphics cards. No offense, Fedy Abi-Chahla and Florian Charpentier, and thanks for the hard work, but I think the article should be revised a bit.