ATI Radeon HD 3870 & 3850: A Return to Competition
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on November 15, 2007 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Pricing and Availability
It wasn't too long ago that every time we reviewed an ATI video card we had to complain about pricing and availability, not to mention that anytime either company released a new graphics card we'd get a friendly reminder email from NVIDIA letting us know how highly it values hard launches and immediate availability. This time around, the tables are turned, and while we still love NVIDIA's GeForce 8800 GT, the fact of the matter is that the pricing and availability of those cards are just not what NVIDIA promised.
Leading up to the day the 8800 GT NDA lifted, you could actually purchase the 8800 GT for as little as $220 from a variety of online vendors. Once the embargo was lifted, the story changed considerably. Prices went from the expected $199 - $249 to a completely unexpected $250 - $300 range. Looking at our own price search engine we see that only Amazon is listing a card available at $249, but it's not in stock, nor are any of the other more expensive 8800 GTs listed.
The cheapest 8800 GT we can find at Newegg.com is $269 for either a XFX or PNY card, but neither are in stock, not to mention that the listed price is still $20 over what NVIDIA told us the maximum would be.
AMD will have you believe that NVIDIA simply can't make the 8800 GT cheap enough, citing die sizes and bill of materials costs. Without access to that sort of information, it's tough for us to verify, and NVIDIA isn't really willing to let us know exactly how much it costs to build one of these things. It's more likely however that NVIDIA didn't produce enough 8800 GTs to meet demand, which is understandable given how fast the part is. As we mentioned in our review of the card, it basically makes NVIDIA's entire product lineup obsolete. We've heard that during launch week, hundreds of thousands of boards were shipped out to add-in board vendors, which should start appearing soon, but at who knows what price.
It simply doesn't matter how good the 8800 GT if you can't buy it, and right now it's just not available. NVIDIA is promising that in the next two weeks we will see an influx of 256MB 8800 GT cards, and more 512MB cards are coming. NVIDIA's recommendation is to hop on a pre-order list if you want one, as new cards are coming in regularly and pre-orders are filled first. We don't know how the 256MB variants will perform, but NVIDIA claims that they will arrive at $179 - $199. Whether or not they will stay that way is another issue entirely.
All this brings us to AMD, and its proposed pricing/availability of the Radeon HD 3870 and 3850. The 3870 is supposed to retail for $219, while the 3850 will carry a $179 price tag. We've already mentioned that neither card is faster than the 8800 GT (we'll get to the numbers momentarily), but if AMD is actually able to hit these price points then the cards are still quite competitive.
We've gotten a lot of information about quantities of boards shipped from various manufacturers and vendors, and here's what we've been able to piece together. While there will be quantities of the 3870 and 3850 available at launch, it doesn't look like there will be any more of these two than there were of 8800 GTs at launch. Production will continue to ramp up and we expect to see multiple hundreds of thousands of cards from both AMD and NVIDIA by the end of this year, whether or not that will be enough to satisfy demand is a different question entirely.
If the supply satiates the demand, then AMD shouldn't have a problem hitting its price points, meaning that the Radeon HD 3870 would actually be a viable alternative to the 8800 GT. You'd have less performance, but it'd be met with a lower price.
Now if AMD can't hit its price points, then none of this matters, we'll be stuck with two GPUs from two different companies that we can't buy. Great.
The TestFor this test, we are using a high end CPU configured with 4GB of DDR2 in an NVIDIA 680i motherboard. While we are unable to make full use of the 4GB of RAM due to the fact that we're running 32-bit Vista, we will be switching to 64-bit within the next few months for graphics. Before we do so we'll have a final article on how performance stacks up between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista, as well as a final look at Windows XP performance.
Our test platform for this article is as follows:
| Test Setup | |
| CPU | Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 |
| Motherboard | NVIDIA 680i SLI ASUS P5K-E (CrossFire) |
| Video Cards | AMD Radeon HD 3870 AMD Radeon HD 3850 AMD Radeon HD 2900 XT AMD Radeon X1950 XTX NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GT |
| Video Drivers | AMD: Catalyst 7.10 NVIDIA: 169.01 |
| Hard Drive | Seagate 7200.9 300GB 8MB 7200RPM |
| RAM | 4x1GB Corsair XMS2 PC2-6400 4-4-4-12 |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
117 Comments
View All Comments
Locut0s - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
Well yes I know but the "cores" that they are using are extremely simplified, more so than I was thinking of. Instead I was thinking of each "core" as being able to perform most if not all of the steps in the rendering pipeline.Guuts - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
I think the simple answer is that in the CPU world, they hit a clockspeed wall due to thermal issues and had to change their design strategy to offer greater performance, which was to go to multiple cores.The GPU makers haven't reached this same wall yet, and it must be cheaper and/or easier to make one high-performing chip than redesigning for multi-GPU boards... though there are some boards that have 2 GPUs on it that act like SLI/Crossfire, but in a single board package.
I'm sure when the GPUs start suffering the same issues, we'll start seeing multi-core graphic cards, and I would assume that nvidia and AMD are already researching and planning for that.
dustinfrazier - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
Going on a year for Nvidia dominance and boy does it feel good. I bought my 8800gtx pair the first day they were available last year and never expected them to dominate this long. God I can't wait to see what comes out next for the enthusiasts. It get the feeling it is gonna rock! I really wanna see what both companies have up their sleeves as I am ready to retire my 8800s.I understand that these latest cards are great for the finances and good energy savers, but what does it matter if they already have a hard time keeping up with current next gen games at reasonable frame rates, 1920x1200 and above? What good does saving money do if all the games you purchase in 08 end up as nothing but a slide show? I guess I just want AMD to release a card that doesn't act like playing Crysis is equivalent to solving the meaning of life. Get on with it. The enthusiasts are ready to buy!
Gholam - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
For the reference, over here in Israel, 8800GT is promised to arrive next week - for approximately $380 + VAT (11.5%). For comparison, 8800GTS 640MB costs a bit over $400+VAT; 8800GTS 320MB used to cost in the low to mid 300s, but they're no longer available. I wonder when will 38xx get here, and at what price...abhaxus - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
let me just say that i love my 8800 gts. however, as a person stuck with a 939 athlon x2 @ 2.5 ghz, and wanting to upgrade to a quad core setup, I've been freaking out lately about what motherboard to buy, and the lack of new video cards has made that very difficult. If the 320mb gts dropped in price in relation to the new GT, I'd buy a 650i/680i board in a heartbeat and just SLI it up. But the fact that no innovation is going on has kept prices too high for too long. I've had this card since march and prices are actually higher now than when I bought it originally.At least intel isn't resting on their laurels the way nvidia has been. I want new cards... so the old ones get cheaper!
also if anyone wants to go really OT with a reply and tell me whether an Asus P5N32 SLI Plus would be a good choice to O/C a Q6600 to about 3.2 ghz and run 2 8800 GTS 320mb cards in SLI... let me know :)
wolfman3k5 - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
No, the P5N32SLI wouldn't be a good choice to overclock a Quad. Neither would be the Striker. The fact of the matter is that both this ASUS boards have a hard time putting out high FSB clock and sustain them with Quad Cores. You either go EVGA 680i (LT) if you want to retain the SLI capability, or I would suggest a P35 or X38 based motherboard.Just my 0.02C.
abhaxus - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
I've read that... but then I've also read on AT and that with current bios releases the asus boards are fine to around 360-400 FSB. I haven't O/C'ed an intel chip since the Celeron 300A so I am pulling my hair out trying to decide if it's worth it to plan for going SLI or just get a P35 board and stay with a single card.Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
<font color=black>abhaxus - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
I apologize for breaking the comments... silly me for mentioning another site :)bupkus - Thursday, November 15, 2007 - link
Just highlight the blank areas with your mouse.Click and drag.