DH Review: XFX 8800 GS XXX / Sapphire HD 3850

Zardon · Feb 12, 2008, 12:20 PM

Read The Review Here
__________________________

Having the fastest graphics card on the market is a real PR coup for any manufacturer, but the real business comes from the mainstream sector. Enthusiast gamers will purchase the graphics card that gives them the best performance and features for their budget. Brand loyalty is not as prevalent in this area and from generation to generation it is the best value for money card which sells the most units.

With the recent release of the Radeon 3850 and GeForce 8800 GS there is a new battle taking place for consumers with a budget of £100-£140 and today we have two such cards on our test bench, the XFX 8800 GS XXX 384Mb and the Sapphire 3850 256Mb. Which deserves your money?

BlueMak · Feb 12, 2008, 12:53 PM

guys, we can see the cd keys of the radeon's bundled software. Delete this message whenever you want.

BlueMak · Feb 12, 2008, 12:59 PM

Nice hardware review as always from you guys.
How do these cards compare in performance with a plain 8800GTS 640mb?

Zelig · Feb 12, 2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueMak

Nice hardware review as always from you guys.
How do these cards compare in performance with a plain 8800GTS 640mb?

Somewhat slower, the 8800GTS 640MB is close in performance to the HD3870.

ElfjeTwaalfje · Feb 12, 2008, 01:47 PM

I would say the review is flawed. How would the 8800 compare to the HD3850 with 512Mb? Since you are using relative high res, several other reviews show that with the games used the amount of onboar[COLOR=Black]d RAM does count. Your HIS HD3850 review show significant improved FPS, and I would argue not only by the slightly highre clocks.[/COLOR]

geraldmango · Feb 12, 2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElfjeTwaalfje

I would say the review is flawed. How would the 8800 compare to the HD3850 with 512Mb? Since you are using relative high res, several other reviews show that with the games used the amount of onboar[COLOR=black]d RAM does count. Your HIS HD3850 review show significant improved FPS, and I would argue not only by the slightly highre clocks.[/COLOR]

why are you using different colours on your text? really hard to read on different themes.

Ok so let me clarify your point. you are saying the review is flawed because one of the cards has more onboard memory. right? (256v384).

So you then say give one of the cards 512 meg of ram? so 384v512?

Weird logic there man, makes absolutely no sense. The cheaper card got the higher award, cause even though it was slightly outperformed, it cost less. Thats how I see it anyway.

***Veridian3*** · Feb 12, 2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElfjeTwaalfje

I would say the review is flawed. How would the 8800 compare to the HD3850 with 512Mb? Since you are using relative high res, several other reviews show that with the games used the amount of onboar[COLOR=Black]d RAM does count. Your HIS HD3850 review show significant improved FPS, and I would argue not only by the slightly highre clocks.[/COLOR]

I wouldn't say the review is flawed, the point was to compare the 256mb 3850 to the GS, comparing the 512mb 3850 to the GS is a completely different article for another time.

Alex · Feb 12, 2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElfjeTwaalfje

I would say the review is flawed. How would the 8800 compare to the HD3850 with 512Mb? Since you are using relative high res, several other reviews show that with the games used the amount of onboar[COLOR=black]d RAM does count. Your HIS HD3850 review show significant improved FPS, and I would argue not only by the slightly highre clocks.[/COLOR]

I would say your response is flawed. Did you even read the review?

The card you are attempting to defend actually came out TOP in the review because it could keep up with the 8800 for the majority of the time while costing less. The awards would verify this on the last page. They even compared the 8800 to a 3870 which only costs a few dollars more and the 3870 beat it.

Before you post, think or even better read the article you are commenting on.

LukeK · Feb 12, 2008, 02:10 PM

good review. if they dropped the price of the XXX card it might make a bit more sense. maybe 20 quid.

humonous · Feb 12, 2008, 02:16 PM

lol.

anyway, interesting review comparing two similarly priced cards. I think the review could be classed as unfair if the more expensive card walked away with the performance, but it didn't. Which shows that sometimes you can save a few dollars for something with similar performance, especially if you like the alternative hardware platform better.

Unfortunately I hate ATI driver software so it immediately means I have no interest in the 3850, 3870, or 3870 X2 (or turbo mega MAXX x2 if they ever make it).

My point? the review certainly has merits, the more expensive hardware loses out because the performance differences dont seem to justify the cost. That said I would still opt for the Nvidia solution as they have drivers that dont die every 5 minutes.

brutusmaximus · Feb 12, 2008, 02:23 PM

glad to see im not the only one then. I don't care what ATI bring out. until they kill the mess that is "Catalyst Control Center", or "Critically Crap Cockedupsoftware" as I like to call it. Resource hogging, life sucking POS!

As for the elf dude, here is a tip man, don't be such a smug git if you aren't the brightest. The review has merit for being published. Why? it shows performance for people who are interested in the cards. If the review was a 3870 X2 again a 8600, then sure, no point, but the price difference between these cards is about $20, so thats all that matters. The fact the cheaper Sapphire ATI card did so well, even with the crap CCC behind it, is pretty impressive.

**Mousey** · Feb 12, 2008, 09:10 PM

I only run my HD3850 at 1280x1024 (if that sometimes) and i get framerates i'd call awesome, so i'm still happy with my purchase

swimtech · Feb 12, 2008, 10:04 PM

Great review Veridian3, though the performance of the cards reviewed could be classed as positively pedestrian in comparison to some setups

!

However - I really enjoy walking, and a card of this class will likely be my companion in the near future. I've gained some solid insight and appreciate the added perspective you've given to me and others looking into this window of the cards priced from 170-230, or so...

ElfjeTwaalfje · Feb 13, 2008, 09:20 PM

Ok let me rephrase/explain since "flawed" brings on the emotions.

My point is not that it is a bad review, hey we are on driverheaven, right. The point I want to make is that today you can not compare GPU cores that easely since on board RAM counts more than ever before with the games used at the resolutions used. 256 Mb onboard RAM is considered by many to little for modern games at modern settings. So how does a core by core with same amounts of ram compare. And yes there are more factors to consider, but lets start by making the obvious equal.

For those pointing me to "did you even read the review": 11 games tested, 7 of them showed higher FPS for the XFX and 4 where considered equal. Is this 7 times XFX due to the core, the ram or the card design? I do agree on the considerations Zardon makes when evaluating each game, since FPS is not all there is to it. I would go for smooth gameplay over FPS (to a limit of course).

I would like to point you to www-dot-yougamers-dot-com. They had an article about video ram usage: Video RAM - How much do you realy need?

I hope all is in single color now ;-)

Alex · Feb 13, 2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElfjeTwaalfje

Ok let me rephrase/explain since "flawed" brings on the emotions.

Yes, flawed means, the review is at fault. so its not just emotionally wrong, its wrong.

Quote:

My point is not that it is a bad review, hey we are on driverheaven, right. The point I want to make is that today you can not compare GPU cores that easely since on board RAM counts more than ever before with the games used at the resolutions used. 256 Mb onboard RAM is considered by many to little for modern games at modern settings. So how does a core by core with same amounts of ram compare. And yes there are more factors to consider, but lets start by making the obvious equal.

Its a review of video cards, the package someone would buy, not "cores". Your initial argument was to actually give the ATI more ram than the Nvidia card, so how is that equal? Your logic is really flawed here. You state that for a totally true and equal comparison both cards should have exactly the same memory, then state that one of the cards should have more (read your first post).

Quote:

For those pointing me to "did you even read the review": 11 games tested, 7 of them showed higher FPS for the XFX and 4 where considered equal. Is this 7 times XFX due to the core, the ram or the card design?

Who knows? in fact, I might even say who cares? the kid buying it on a limited budget who wants to know which card performs better in the game he plays? All that matters is price, and thats what the review is about. These cards are almost equally priced.

Quote:

I do agree on the considerations Zardon makes when evaluating each game, since FPS is not all there is to it. I would go for smooth gameplay over FPS (to a limit of course).

Good ! although Veridian3 was the reviewer.

Quote:

I would like to point you to www-dot-yougamers-dot-com. They had an article about video ram usage: Video RAM - How much do you realy need?

I hope all is in single color now ;-)

Not really, because I honestly have no idea where you are coming from, apart from the point you are claiming that the review is flawed in that the two cards compared in the same price bracket have different amounts of memory. I get your point but I don't think its relevant in this review at all. Its all about the benjamins baby. After all would we compare a 512 meg card at 150 bucks to a 512 meg card at 300 bucks? Nope. As for you gamers, that isnt a hardware site, its a pretty average gaming site owned by futuremark, who own 3dmark, one of the most useless gaming tests in 2008.

Zardon · Feb 13, 2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElfjeTwaalfje

The point I want to make is that today you can not compare GPU cores that easely since on board RAM counts more than ever before with the games used at the resolutions used.

Great point, and one for an editorial on core architecture, not on a graphics card review. Our reviews are real world analysis of a product a consumer (you guys) would go out and buy and this is how we review them. The audience these cards are directed to, want to know how the cards will perform in the games they are playing as well as testing high definition video playback. That is the point of this particular review.

ElfjeTwaalfje · Feb 14, 2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zardon

Great point, and one for an editorial on core architecture, not on a graphics card review. Our reviews are real world analysis of a product a consumer (you guys) would go out and buy and this is how we review them. The audience these cards are directed to, want to know how the cards will perform in the games they are playing as well as testing high definition video playback. That is the point of this particular review.

I must say this is basicaly the only reply I can relate to.

I thought that testing was the art of comparing while keeping all other variables identical. And yes then you can start disecting this and show me wrong. I still hope that you understand the intend of my reply. Done.

Sorry Veridian3 to don't give you the deserved credit.

Luckely the guys/girls at LegionHardware did a comparison between two identcal HD3850 cards in an identical test environment with the only difference the onboard ram. And see, they did not find any significant difference between the 256 and 512 cards. Makes you wonder.

Feb 12, 2008, 12:20 PM	#1
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	DH Review: XFX 8800 GS XXX / Sapphire HD 3850 Read The Review Here __________________________ Having the fastest graphics card on the market is a real PR coup for any manufacturer, but the real business comes from the mainstream sector. Enthusiast gamers will purchase the graphics card that gives them the best performance and features for their budget. Brand loyalty is not as prevalent in this area and from generation to generation it is the best value for money card which sells the most units. With the recent release of the Radeon 3850 and GeForce 8800 GS there is a new battle taking place for consumers with a budget of £100-£140 and today we have two such cards on our test bench, the XFX 8800 GS XXX 384Mb and the Sapphire 3850 256Mb. Which deserves your money?

Feb 12, 2008, 12:53 PM	#2
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 13,465 Rep Power: 349 System Specs	guys, we can see the cd keys of the radeon's bundled software. Delete this message whenever you want. __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*

Feb 12, 2008, 12:59 PM	#3
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 13,465 Rep Power: 349 System Specs	Nice hardware review as always from you guys. How do these cards compare in performance with a plain 8800GTS 640mb? __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*

Feb 12, 2008, 01:47 PM	#5
ElfjeTwaalfje DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 13 Rep Power: 0	Flawed review I would say the review is flawed. How would the 8800 compare to the HD3850 with 512Mb? Since you are using relative high res, several other reviews show that with the games used the amount of onboar[COLOR=Black]d RAM does count. Your HIS HD3850 review show significant improved FPS, and I would argue not only by the slightly highre clocks.[/COLOR]

Feb 12, 2008, 02:23 PM	#11
brutusmaximus DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 520 Rep Power: 76	glad to see im not the only one then. I don't care what ATI bring out. until they kill the mess that is "Catalyst Control Center", or "Critically Crap Cockedupsoftware" as I like to call it. Resource hogging, life sucking POS! As for the elf dude, here is a tip man, don't be such a smug git if you aren't the brightest. The review has merit for being published. Why? it shows performance for people who are interested in the cards. If the review was a 3870 X2 again a 8600, then sure, no point, but the price difference between these cards is about $20, so thats all that matters. The fact the cheaper Sapphire ATI card did so well, even with the crap CCC behind it, is pretty impressive. __________________

Feb 12, 2008, 02:10 PM	#9
LukeK DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 158 Rep Power: 61	good review. if they dropped the price of the XXX card it might make a bit more sense. maybe 20 quid.

Feb 12, 2008, 02:16 PM	#10
humonous DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 164 Rep Power: 0	lol. anyway, interesting review comparing two similarly priced cards. I think the review could be classed as unfair if the more expensive card walked away with the performance, but it didn't. Which shows that sometimes you can save a few dollars for something with similar performance, especially if you like the alternative hardware platform better. Unfortunately I hate ATI driver software so it immediately means I have no interest in the 3850, 3870, or 3870 X2 (or turbo mega MAXX x2 if they ever make it). My point? the review certainly has merits, the more expensive hardware loses out because the performance differences dont seem to justify the cost. That said I would still opt for the Nvidia solution as they have drivers that dont die every 5 minutes.

Feb 12, 2008, 09:10 PM	#12
Mousey Synth's Long Lost Bro Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Web Design Hell Posts: 7,189 Rep Power: 245 System Specs	I only run my HD3850 at 1280x1024 (if that sometimes) and i get framerates i'd call awesome, so i'm still happy with my purchase __________________

Feb 12, 2008, 10:04 PM	#13
swimtech HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,040 Rep Power: 124 System Specs	Great review Veridian3, though the performance of the cards reviewed could be classed as positively pedestrian in comparison to some setups ! However - I really enjoy walking, and a card of this class will likely be my companion in the near future. I've gained some solid insight and appreciate the added perspective you've given to me and others looking into this window of the cards priced from 170-230, or so... __________________ It's not so much getting your way that matters or not - what matters is how you go about getting it.

Feb 13, 2008, 09:20 PM	#14
ElfjeTwaalfje DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 13 Rep Power: 0	Ok let me rephrase/explain since "flawed" brings on the emotions. My point is not that it is a bad review, hey we are on driverheaven, right. The point I want to make is that today you can not compare GPU cores that easely since on board RAM counts more than ever before with the games used at the resolutions used. 256 Mb onboard RAM is considered by many to little for modern games at modern settings. So how does a core by core with same amounts of ram compare. And yes there are more factors to consider, but lets start by making the obvious equal. For those pointing me to "did you even read the review": 11 games tested, 7 of them showed higher FPS for the XFX and 4 where considered equal. Is this 7 times XFX due to the core, the ram or the card design? I do agree on the considerations Zardon makes when evaluating each game, since FPS is not all there is to it. I would go for smooth gameplay over FPS (to a limit of course). I would like to point you to www-dot-yougamers-dot-com. They had an article about video ram usage: Video RAM - How much do you realy need? I hope all is in single color now ;-)