Wow, 480 shaders, very robust. I also see that AMD took the time to add more texture units, and I'm pretty sure they will release a Gddr4 variant of this card, guessing the 4870.

The 4870 is the GDDR5 variant with much higher clock speeds.
And there is also a GDDR5 variant of HD 4850 .

http://fxvideocards.com/VisionTek-Radeon-HD-4850-p-16381.html

800 shaders according to a retailer. :)

ATI planting the 480 shader rumors. Sneaky little devils.

hey i found this http://www.legitreviews.com/article/730/1/ ,http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1470/radeon_hd_4850_in_crossfire_at_4ghz/index.html , http://whatifgaming.com/ati-radeon-hd-4850-review-show-me-the-ruby, ill keep adding more when i find more

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ati-radeon-hd-4850-review-force-3d--powercolor/ ke i like this one but i would like to remind everyone it only has gddr3 when the 4870 come out clocked at 750 and has gddr5 it should be alot fast, it overclocks to at least 700/1150 in this review because thats all the control panel it will let, it beats the 9800gtx in most benches/or the same, except for one

everyone i never owned a ati, exept in my laptop, and im really thinking ati is gonna exactly come out on top with its price/performance ratio

and my last post for now is

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4850/8.html

which i think is the best benchmark, here u go

This card is beaten by the Geforce 9800GTX not to mention the GTX 260 or 280. LoL
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ati-radeon-hd-4850-review-force-3d--powercolor/

ATi has finally made a card , that's very competitive ... two cards actually .
Lol at the fact that I saw these things in a computer shop... 5 days before the official release :O .

How is it possible for this card to compete (and even overtake) the 9800 GTX? Particularly sense this card has almost half the 9800 GTX's texture fill rate and even a little less on it's pixel fill rate... it's paper stats vs it's fps benchmarks listed below aren't making sense to me... can someone please explain?

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=755&p=4

is anyone else using this card and disappointed by it's performance? without the 4800 series catalyst hotfix its completely unusable, with the hotfix it still runs slower than my 3870 (not to mention the nvidia 8800GT). I sure hope the Catalyst 8.7 drivers bring about better performace!

i m using this card nd card performance is awesome.
according to the prise this is a great card.
I can play Crysis smoothly at its very high graphic setting.

@Vaxen7 - This card is faster than the 9800 GTX and about equal with the 9800 GTX .

This card has been out for two months, and no one has given it any ratings? N E 1?

I liked this web, comparing cards etc can make an idea for the card you want to buy, i tought i could compare just the numbers (pixel fill rate etc) on different card, but now i know this Database is completly useless, and confuse the people

25Gt/s HD4800 is supposed to have,(40 TmU) compared to 45Gt/s of GTX200 (80 TMu) But this is completly wrong, Every texture unit have a performance per clock, in GT200 is 15 T/s, so (Texture fill rate= 67Gt/s not 45) and in HD4800 25T/s (Texture fill rate= 65Gt/s)

So HD4000 is superior to GT200 in texturing, but where is weak is in shaders.

Nvidia Has a power of 600/900 Gigaflops in ANY situation, they have amazing eficiency.
While ATI has a maximum power of 1000/1200 Gigaflops, in a variety of situations this number fluctue between 200/240 to 1000/1200Gflops. While 200/240 is very extrange to happen, i would rate it as 600Gflops unit.

The ati HD3800 Was weak in both shaders, and texture units. (16 vs 40) (320 vs 800) with "similar" performance per unit and clock. (G80 vs G92 Happen the same because you cant compare the texture units from both architectures, G80 is not the half as powerfull, as benchmarks and games say)

So please, Stop comparing numbers of thing you dont understand completly, making people thing completly wrong about those cards.

I think this Aprox comparision makes more sense.

Texturing - Shading

HD4850 60 Gt/s 500 Gf/s
HD4870 72 Gt/s 600 Gf/s

GTX260 52 Gt/s 700 Gf/s
GTX280 67 Gt/s 930 Gf/s

8800GT 48 Gt/s 330 Gf/s
HD3870 30 Gt/s 250 Gf/s

hey anyone added the Sapphire HD 4850 512 MB 100245L ?

reviews here http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/HD_4850

ps the cooler looks like they copied intel lol.not that its a bad thing. check the db's/temps

Alot of the stock non ref coolers look like intel stock cooler. I've got a Sapphire HD4850X2 and a Gainward HD4850 and it looks like a intel cooler with the casing removed

Well, I must say that this is an impressive card after upgrading to the 1gb version from a 512mb x800xl an I look forward to the next 2 or 3 years that this thing ought to help me play games throughout

The FLOP/s is clearly not something you should go by when wanting to know how well a card performs. 1000 GFLOP/s and is barely faster then the 8800GTX which is 345 GFLOP/s.

This card is a decent card that wins against a NVIDIA 9600GT or 8800GT, depending on what your needs are. Performance wise it is either on par or just barely above the 9600GT. the downside is that it runs much hotter than the 9600GT, and draws more power. It does however have HDMI audio built in.

Just barely above the 9600GT? Try again. It's on par with the GTS 250, which wastes the 9600 GT any day.

I tested it against my friend's 9600GT on the same computer and same settings in CS:Source & the 4850 comes out about 10-15 fps above. Is the 4850 still able to run modern games??

Well I have the Gigabyte 1GB version of the 4850 and it can run Skyrim on high settings with it and my PC itself is junk, Pentium Dual core @2.5ghz and only 2GB of DDR2 ram. So I say it still holds its own pretty well. It just sucks WAY more power than todays cards.