New Radeons pack a punch at under $100

When it introduced its first Radeon HD 4800 graphics cards back in June, AMD selected some pretty aggressive price points. Today, the firm has attacked the mainstream market just as aggressively with a pair of new cards: the Radeon HD 4670 and 4650.

According AMD’s pitch, the 4670 can perform up to twice as fast as Nvidia’s GeForce 9500 GT for close to the same price. The 4670 is launching at $79 with supposedly immediate availability, while the 4650 will follow later this month at $69.

Sapphire’s Radeon HD 4670. Source: Sapphire.

What kind of hardware makes the 4670 allegedly perform so well? AMD’s new GPU has 320 stream processors, a 750MHz core clock speed, a 128-bit memory bus, and 512MB of 1000MHz GDDR3 memory (a 1GB variant is coming later). The 4650 also has 320 SPs, but with lower clock speeds and 512MB of GDDR2 memory. And thanks to TSMC’s 55nm process technology, two cards have power envelopes of less than 60W and 50W, respectively.

The 4670 is already ticking away inside our labs right now, so stay tuned for a full review.

Comments closed
    • firestorm02
    • 12 years ago

    It should be noted that AGP variations have been made avail. to manufactures. Should make a nice upgrade for someone turning an old rig into a HTPC or for those (like myself) clinging onto old 939 systems.

    • fpsduck
    • 12 years ago

    I can smell the change in next TR’s Econobox system guide. 😉

    • Vrock
    • 12 years ago

    For $80 I may pick up a 4670 to replace my old 7800GT. But I’ll wait for the TR review.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 12 years ago

      hopefully they’ll compare it to something older than the likely candidates of 8800GT, 8600GT, and 3850 cards.

        • eckslax
        • 12 years ago

        Yeah, I have a 7800gt and it would be great to see how much of an improvement this new card would be.

      • jobodaho
      • 12 years ago

      I was thinking the same thing, except my current card is a 7600gt. I don’t game a lot, but my card right now can’t output digitally.

        • Xenolith
        • 12 years ago

        Yeah, I have a 2600xt I would like to upgrade. A comparison to that card would be nice.

          • Cyco-Dude
          • 12 years ago

          the 1650xt / 2600xt / 3650 are all comparable in terms of performance from what i’ve been able to gather. so it would be a nice upgrade.

          • toyota
          • 12 years ago

          the 3650 was just a shrunk 2600XT with no performance increase at all. a 4670 is twice as fast as either card.

    • TurtlePerson2
    • 12 years ago

    One of the nice side effects of this (assuming that the performance of these things is where everyone is expecting) is that the nVidia cards will come down in price. I’ve been looking at getting a 9600 GT or a 9800 GT and the price of those cards might drop $20 the day after these come out.

      • toyota
      • 12 years ago

      Nvidia is dropping the 9600gso price to $79.99. they want that to be considered the direct competition for the 4670 instead of the 9500gt. I still think the 4670 would be the better purchase for many people even if it is the same price as the 9600gso. the 4670 is smaller, runs cooler, and doesnt need external power. that makes it perfect for oem comps like HP/Compaq.

    • Rakhmaninov3
    • 12 years ago

    The ATI chick is hot.

      • toyota
      • 12 years ago

      its just the sunglasses…

    • ludi
    • 12 years ago

    That front page picture of Ninja Ruby is freaking me out. I keep expecting her already-overstretched midriff to split, and for intestines the size of angel-hair pasta to come spilling out.

    • moriz
    • 12 years ago

    these will be the OEMs’ wet dream. low cost, low power consumption, and /[

    • PRIME1
    • 12 years ago

    You can get a 9600GT for $79.99 if you don’t mind the rebate.

    §[<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125099<]§

    • thermistor
    • 12 years ago

    #39 and the rest:

    Thanks for the feedback. I *wish* I could have found a couple of 8600GT/3650’s for the kids at such a low, low price, but I’ve been looking for weeks…and this was far and away the best deal to say out of 3450/8500GT-and-below performance. So I bought two already. They work in lower-level resolutions for older games so I am happy enough.

    For myself, back to main topic, I would not buy anything less than the 4850 right now…though the 4670 seems like it would be a compelling sub $80 card.

    • UberGerbil
    • 12 years ago

    Nothing passively cooled, though. Alas.

      • indeego
      • 12 years ago

      A few reviews I’m seeing online expect them very soong{<.<}g

        • crose
        • 12 years ago

        yes, give us passively cooled!

      • dragmor
      • 12 years ago

      Powercolour and Gigabyte both have passive cards on the way.

    • swaaye
    • 12 years ago

    A look at the card from TechPowerUp. ATI just nullified NV’s sub-9600 lineup and their own sub-3850 lineup. 🙂
    §[<http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4670/<]§ Eagerly awaiting TR's review!!

    • Bombadil
    • 12 years ago
    • thermistor
    • 12 years ago

    The midrange: The point at which ‘adequate’ performance meets wallet.

    §[<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121082<]§ I searched all the VGA comparos I could and found the 2600XT in a worthy competitor to the 8600GT, and likely the 9500GT. But, after rebate the card above is practically a giveaway. With shipping and everything, and after MIR, the walkaway price is under $30. The card is DX10, has the AVIVO feature, and runs very acceptably. What am I giving up by not choosing the 48xx latest gen lower-midrange card(s) compared to the 2600XT? Anything?

      • Da_Boss
      • 12 years ago

      To be honest? You’re giving up lots.

      To put it bluntly, avoid the 2600XT like the plague. It has very few SPs, awful AA performance, and will not last at all if you are doing any half-serious form of gaming.

      I’d say go for the 4670 for sure. The speed and Image quality improvements are huge over the 2600XT. This is one of the few times where spending twice as much will actually get you twice as much. (maybe more)

      Coming from someone who actually bought one of those things: The 2600XT wasn’t a viable gaming option when it was released and it’s no better now.

      • swaaye
      • 12 years ago

      Yea, what Da Boss said.

      2600XT is and always was trash. The same goes for 3650 and 3450. Everything from ATI that is below the 3850 is not worth your money.

      Today you can get a card for $90 that is 3x faster than a 2600XT. Radeon 3850 is around that price now. 4670 will make everything lower a non-option, IMO. There is so much crowding at the $100 or less price point. Personally, I would go with an IGP for a system that doesn’t game, and a 3850 or better for one that does.

        • Bombadil
        • 12 years ago

        With the possible exception of the HD 2600/36×0 relatively strong performance Crysis. Their poor AA performance in general though make them hard to recommend. A $40 8600GT is a good budget buy for those not willing to spend $80 on a HD 4670.

        • asdsa
        • 12 years ago

        So, 9500gt/8500gt and below are trash (with your analogy) too to be fair. Right?

          • Bombadil
          • 12 years ago

          For $30 I’d take a 2600XT over a 9400GT/8500GT. There is a $51 Palit 8600GTS. I recently got a $17 ($20 + $7 ship – $10 rebate) 7300GT DDR2, but it is even slower than a 780G (and hotter!) 😛

          • KikassAssassin
          • 12 years ago

          If you want to play games on them, yes. Those cards blow for any kind of modern gaming.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 12 years ago

      Well, I’m going to go against what the others have said to a certain extent. If price is the huge overriding concern then it’s hard to argue with a $20 card that has dual DVI outputs, it might even be not bad to pick p as a backup card. However if gaming is a concern at all, beyond really old games, you’d be better off stepping up to something else. It’s always easy to say spend more but in this case the gains would be very big for the additional cost. It looks to be OOS right now anyway so it’s moot anyway.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 12 years ago

    9500GT = 8600GT, right? So twice the performance, in many cases, will still be lower than the 9600GT, which can be had in that same price range, right?

      • flip-mode
      • 12 years ago

      A dude a few desks down just bought a 9500gt. He didn’t know to consult me first. I didn’t have the heart to tell him how much farther just a few bucks more would have taken him.

      But the main point of this reply is to say that these cards will still sell.

      And, if the 4670 is faster than the 3870 then that puts it very very close to as fast as a 9600.

        • A_Pickle
        • 12 years ago

        Ever talk to those people who think they have a sweet gaming system, and then you ask them what they’ve got for graphics, and they say something like, “Two Geforce 8500’s in SLI man. It’s FAAAST.”

          • bthylafh
          • 12 years ago

          Then you try to tell them otherwise, and they think you are full of crap.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 12 years ago

            This is why I don’t discuss PC hardware with people in person.

          • swaaye
          • 12 years ago

          Uhg.

          I used to have a “IT Pro” neighbor like that. He was oh so proud of the FX 5600 Ultra in his desktop and the Radeon 9000 in his super awesome gamer laptop. This was late 2005. He even tried to sell the notebook to me (I had a GeForce 6800 in my notebook at the time.)

          You can just tell with these people that they are a lost cause because they don’t have the intellect to use a search engine, let alone comprehend a good review. That actually also reminds me of people who run around claiming sites are biased.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 12 years ago

    q[<(a 1GB variant is coming later).<]q Why. Seriously, why.

      • DreadCthulhu
      • 12 years ago

      Because some people think more video memory = better, and a fool’s money is just as good as anyone else’s.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 12 years ago

        Well, yea I understand that fools purchase them but what will the price be. It may just be there to make sure every $25 has a product but it’s still sad people buy them.

          • greeny
          • 12 years ago

          I expect the 1GB model will be branded more like 1024MB 1024 being bigger (and therefore BETTER lol) than 512

      • ssidbroadcast
      • 12 years ago

      My sentiments exactly.

      • Mr.Lif
      • 12 years ago

      It may help in crossfire situations. Before you lose it, go check out the tweaktown review involving crossfire with these things. In many cases the buggers are crawling over the 4850 from both performance and price points. (2x 80$ vs. 150$)

      • kvndoom
      • 12 years ago

      Because there will always be someone who has to buy the 512MB Geforce 5200 PCI.

      • eitje
      • 12 years ago

      offically? larger textures. 😛

        • MadManOriginal
        • 12 years ago

        Yea that’s a good one. We know that if there’s that much texture data the rest of the card will choke but Joe Schmoes wouldn’t. as long as theway-too-much-memory editions are close to the next card up maybe they’ll make the right decision.

          • KikassAssassin
          • 12 years ago

          There are a lot of people out there who, when buying video cards, look at the boxes and say, “This one has more megabytes so it must be better,” because they don’t know what to look for in a video card, and the memory is the biggest printed number on the box, so it must be the most important thing, right?

          I’ve helped quite a few not-so-tech savvy people with their computers, and I’ve seen this tendency first hand. People have come to me asking why their new games are running slow, and when I ask them what kind of video card they have, they say, “A 512MB, and that should be fast enough for everything, right?” when it turns out they have an X1650 Pro or something.

            • swaaye
            • 12 years ago

            I can hardly imagine being so ignorant. It must be tranquilizing and dreamy.

            • CB5000
            • 12 years ago

            ignorance is bliss…. 🙂

    • grantmeaname
    • 12 years ago

    320SPs and 750MHz core clock is roughly equivalent to 320SPs and a 775MHz core clock, so the 4670 performs like a 3870, right? (memory bandwidth cut aside, that is)

      • Bombadil
      • 12 years ago

      Actually the 4670 has twice the texture capability of the 3870. Can you say memory bandwidth limited?

      I wonder if this new budget GPU is GDDR5 capable. With enough memory bandwidth it might compete with the 4850 at much lower power usage.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 12 years ago

        I doubt it could compete with only 320 SPs.

          • Bombadil
          • 12 years ago

          In a texturing limited situation a 4670 could be nearly twice as fast as a 3870. Yes, the 4850 still has more texturing and lots more SPs, but I think it is most often bandwidth limited too. The 4850 looks twice as fast as a 4670, which is the bandwidth ratio between the two. My point though is about power use. A 4670 with GDDR5 might perform near a 4850 GDDR3 at half the power.

          The 1GB DDR3 4670 should be killed, and I’d consider a 256 MB GDDR3+ version. A 192 bit bus card with this GPU would have really annoyed nVidia, but I suppose it’s still too odd.

            • marvelous
            • 12 years ago

            4670 has 16 ROP 16TMU 320SP. With gddr5 it will perform more like a 2900xt or 3870. Not 4850 with 16ROP 40TMU and 800SP with 256bit bus.

            • toyota
            • 12 years ago

            are you sure the 4670 doesnt have 8 ROPs? thats what all the graphs say.

            also 16 TMUs would make sense to me too but I believe those are being list as 32 TMUs by most sites.

            §[<http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3405<]§

            • marvelous
            • 12 years ago

            Something is not right because I’ve seen it as 16 ROP 16 TMU for RV730

            • toyota
            • 12 years ago

            well it appears to be just 8 rops so I am not sure where you are getting 16 rops from. also it is 32 texture units even though that sounds odd but I guess DaveBaumann explained it.
            §[<http://www.gpureview.com/Radeon-HD-4670-card-579.html<]§

        • ish718
        • 12 years ago

        They should have thrown a 256bit bus on this or GDDR5…
        I wonder what would cost more, a card with GDDR3 and 256bit bus or a card with GDDR5 and 128bit bus O_O

        Not only does GDDR5 have a higher bandwidth than GDDR3 but it is actually faster in general. For example a HD4870 is faster than a HD4850 even at low resolutions

        So GDDR5 and 128bit bus would be the best option

          • Kurotetsu
          • 12 years ago

          I believe GDDR5 is pretty expensive, so I don’t think it’d be too cost effective to put it on a budget card like this. I do agree that they should’ve thrown on a 256-bit interface. Its still being used because its supposed to be cheap and easy to produce.

            • Bombadil
            • 12 years ago

            I am sure GDDR5 wouldn’t be cost efficient. I’d expect it to cost similar to the 4850, but the energy efficiency would be priceless. 🙂

            A 192 bit bus is likely not cost efficient either. The 4670 seems to perform very close to nVidia’s 96 shader 192 bit cards already.

            AMD has used GDDR4 on previous 128 bit cards (2600XT), so that could also be possible. GDDR4 is available up to 2GHz clockspeed.

          • grantmeaname
          • 12 years ago

          the 4870’s clocked 125MHz higher as well.

        • marvelous
        • 12 years ago

        4670 does not have more texture fillrate than 3870 because TMU are tied down to SP. It’s exactly the same thing as 3870 except it’s on a 128bit bus.

          • Bombadil
          • 12 years ago

          Wrong, the 4670 has twice the texture units of the 3870 (32 compared to 16). It only has 8 less the 48×0 (which has 40.) It is a stripped down 4870 not a 3870 on a 128 bit bus–it has all the AA advantage of the 48x0s.

            • marvelous
            • 12 years ago

            4670 has 16 tmu. To have 32 TMU it has to have 640SP. 4670 has the AA advantage but without the fillrate and memory bandwidth that advantage shrinks.

            • DaveBaumann
            • 12 years ago

            Marvelous, the number of ALU’s per SIMD is configurable. Where as, say, an RV670 has 4 SIMD’s each with 4 textures and 80 SP’s, RV730 is configured differently – it actuall has 8 SIMD’s of 40 SP’s, ergo it has 32 textures.

            • marvelous
            • 12 years ago

            Thanks for clearing it up Dave. Even if this 4670 had gddr5 it would still be slower than 4850. Missing ROP and 20% texture fillrate and 480SP comes to mind

    • Mystic-G
    • 12 years ago

    Anyone know what these cards will be comparable to?

      • Silus
      • 12 years ago

      Their own previous gen cards: HD 3850 and HD 3870 or NVIDIA’s 9600 GSO. 9600 GT is faster.

    • Jigar
    • 12 years ago

    LOL @ the front page pic.

      • fpsduck
      • 12 years ago

      Ruby rulez!

        • Jigar
        • 12 years ago

        You can say ruby is back to take revenge 😉

          • ssidbroadcast
          • 12 years ago

          You know, I bet deep down Ruby longs for a life of domesticity; kids and a loving husband. Maybe she’s just angry?

      • asdsa
      • 12 years ago

      That bald guy symbolizes nvidia’s offerings 😉

        • moriz
        • 12 years ago

        pretty sure the baldy is a chick, but you’re right 😀

    • not@home
    • 12 years ago

    just what i was waiting for, as long as it has hardware decode of HD video.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This