Will Radeon HD 4870 turn up the heat on the GTX 280?

[brady]

QFT. These people that jump up and down for a 80% increase when it's still under ~40 FPS are just ignorant. I don't care what the increase percentage is if it's still not "playable" to me.

This doesn't hold true for very many other games but Crysis really is extremely playable at lower FPS. Maybe I'll capture some video off of my HDTV, but unless the counter is up you really can't tell the game is running in the 20's. I played the whole the game through at 1366x768 on my HDTV, VH, DX10 x64 and I was shocked to fine, when I enabled the fps counter, that my fps sometimes dipped down to 19fps. I just couldn't tell and it seemed just fine to me.

[zer0]

This doesn't hold true for very many other games but Crysis really is extremely playable at lower FPS. Maybe I'll capture some video off of my HDTV, but unless the counter is up you really can't tell the game is running in the 20's. I played the whole the game through at 1366x768 on my HDTV, VH, DX10 x64 and I was shocked to fine, when I enabled the fps counter, that my fps sometimes dipped down to 19fps. I just couldn't tell and it seemed just fine to me.

thats because crysis uses motion blur between frames, thats why the low framerate is not noticeable.

[pizzaguy]

C'mon now,16 FPS still sucks and using the 60% value to make it sound better is just damage control.....By personal experience,anything below 30 FPS as an absolute minimum value sucks for gameplay smoothness,especially in fast paced games like first person shooters.


It is pointless to even try to have a discussion with you as you miss the point entirely time and time again.

[pizzaguy]

QFT. These people that jump up and down for a 80% increase when it's still under ~40 FPS are just ignorant. I don't care what the increase percentage is if it's still not "playable" to me.

mailman2 just shut up already, your constant parading around talking about how much the GTX 280 sucks and everything else is getting old.

[pizzaguy]

, when I enabled the fps counter, that my fps sometimes dipped down to 19fps. I just couldn't tell and it seemed just fine to me.

Come on now.............. 19fps and you could not tell? rotf.

[pizzaguy]

thats because crysis uses motion blur between frames, thats why the low framerate is not noticeable.

This is complete bs. Sure the motion blur will help smooth things out to a certain point but I know I can at least tell when crysis is under 30fps much less 19fps. Some of you guys are really starting to crack me up.

[hell_of_doom227]

Crysis needs minimum of 25-30FPS. Why? The game looks so natural and close to reality that it almost matches to what our eyes see when we watch dvd-movie where fps is bestween 24 to 30 depending of the format. Running 40-60 FPS this game is :D

[shadow001]

It is pointless to even try to have a discussion with you as you miss the point entirely time and time again.


All i'm saying is that while it's better than with previous setups,it's still not good enough to boast that as an advantage that matters in real terms....

It's about objectivity in the end,so stating at that 6 FPS difference is a night and day difference when we're talking about a 10 versus 16 FPS minimum FPS value is deceptive at best.

[mullet]

It depends on the person, I would go to my buddy's house and he was playing COD2 on his older system the tearing and 35 to 45 FPS were driving me nuts. I have to have 60FPS min so a badass card 1680x1050 on a 22" is fine by me with all the settings jacked up like the pizzadiliveryguy stated.

[shadow001]

It depends on the person, I would go to my buddy's house and he was playing COD2 on his older system the tearing and 35 to 45 FPS were driving me nuts. I have to have 60FPS min so a badass card 1680x1050 on a 22" is fine by me with all the settings jacked up like the pizzadiliveryguy stated.



In that case,quite true since we're talking about FPS numbers above 30 FPS and from that point upwards,it really is down to personal preference if you want it higher or not.


But while a minimum of 10 FPS completely sucks for the 9800GX2,a 16FPS minimum at the same settings with the 280GTX only sucks slightly less,but it's still too low no matter what anyone's personal preferance may be,and that's my point.

[pizzaguy]

But while a minimum of 10 FPS completely sucks for the 9800GX2,a 16FPS minimum at the same settings with the 280GTX only sucks slightly less,but it's still too low no matter what anyone's personal preferance may be,and that's my point.



Why are you picking and choosing with this benchmark? all you talk about is the min fps but fail to realize that the GTX 280 is averaging 20 more FPS than the GX2.

The average is what counts the most since thats where you will spend the majority of your time and the last time I checked 27fps to 47fps is a pretty big difference.

Yes a min 16fps is nothing to write home about but there will be plenty of scenarios in other games to where the GX2 is falling below that critical 30fps point while the GTX 280 will be able to stay above it.

Bottom line the GTX 280 offers the smoothest gaming experience possible right now and thats what makes it the current best choice despite its high price.

[spajdr]

Well im finding crysis to be somewhat nearly as i wanted to be playable with two 280 GTX in SLI :)

[shadow001]

Why are you picking and choosing with this benchmark? all you talk about is the min fps but fail to realize that the GTX 280 is averaging 20 more FPS than the GX2.

The average is what counts the most since thats where you will spend the majority of your time and the last time I checked 27fps to 47fps is a pretty big difference.

Yes a min 16fps is nothing to write home about but there will be plenty of scenarios in other games to where the GX2 is falling below that critical 30fps point while the GTX 280 will be able to stay above it.

Bottom line the GTX 280 offers the smoothest gaming experience possible right now and thats what makes it the current best choice despite its high price.


Wich is why i posted that Hard OCP review that shows minimum frame rates across multiple games,and it all cases,every single one of them,it shows the GTX280 dipping in the mid twenties and even mid teens in all of them....some of the SLI setups are doing better in terms of minimum FPS,sometimes staying above 30 FPS.


Even so,the site declared the card as the fastest single GPU out there,but even though it is a single GPU,avoids the variable performance scaling issues with multi GPU's,and potential micro stuttering and having to worry with driver profiles for SLI operation,it's 1.4 billion transistors,80 texture units,512 bit memory bus and 140 GB of memory bandwith and 32 ROPS can't avoid hitting those low peaks.


And when you also consider that the 9800GTX+ that has just been released,can be overclocked to well over 800 Mhz on the GPU,and the memory can clock up to 2.4 Ghz(1.2 Ghz actual),and an SLI setup like that costs just over 400$ and can be quite a lot faster than a 9800GX2 or the GTX280 in several games,the decision is very hard to make.


Me personally,i'd check for performance results on specific games i play most often between those 2 particular setups and go from there,as it wouldn't be a GTX280 win by default if i owned an SLI capable motherboard,but that's just me.

[Redeemed]

Why are you picking and choosing with this benchmark? all you talk about is the min fps but fail to realize that the GTX 280 is averaging 20 more FPS than the GX2.

The average is what counts the most since thats where you will spend the majority of your time and the last time I checked 27fps to 47fps is a pretty big difference.

Yes a min 16fps is nothing to write home about but there will be plenty of scenarios in other games to where the GX2 is falling below that critical 30fps point while the GTX 280 will be able to stay above it.

Bottom line the GTX 280 offers the smoothest gaming experience possible right now and thats what makes it the current best choice despite its high price.

What you're assuming is people's wallets are infinitely full- which is not true. I cannot afford a single GTX280... let alone two of them. Yet if I want that same level of performance what are my options? Well, I could go with a single 4870X2 that'll net me near identical performance for around $150 less. The *only* real advantage the GTX280 has at this point is that it's a single card. But that advantage isn't worth $150 IMO. That $150 will instead pay for the next two week's gas. :p

Price/performance the GTX280 and 260 lose. Brute performance alone, they win. I've already stated this and I'll never deny it. The GTX280 are the performance champs, primarily in high-res and hi-AA and AF scenerios. But their price isn't justified. If you can afford 'em, then pick up three of them and enjoy being able to play everything out there 100% maxed. That capability really isn't worth the price tag that comes with it for me though. ;)

[pizzaguy]

What you're assuming is people's wallets are infinitely full- which is not true.

Redeemed I never once stated anything even remotely that these cards were affordable for the majority and I have even said a few times myself that they were very expensive. I myself would like to get one but I am not paying $650 for a video card.

I have simply stated that for those who want the best single GPU then this is the one granted you pay a premium for it.


ATI will certainly give nvidia a good run this time in the bang for buck performance, no doubt.

[Redeemed]

Redeemed I never once stated anything even remotely that these cards were affordable for the majority and I have even said a few times myself that they were very expensive. I myself would like to get one but I am not paying $650 for a video card.

I have simply stated that for those who want the best single GPU then this is the one granted you pay a premium for it.


ATI will certainly give nvidia a good run this time in the bang for buck performance, no doubt.

Oh. Seems you and I agree then. I apologise, my mistake. :( :o

[pizzaguy]

Oh. Seems you and I agree then. I apologise, my mistake. :( :o

Hey its cool man, good times ahead for all :)

[brady]

Come on now.............. 19fps and you could not tell? rotf.

You can roll all over the floor if you want. I'm an intelligent individual with pretty good eye sight and Crysis just didn't look like a choppy mess when I saw dips into the high teens. Gameplay seemed smooth and there's simply a positive difference between Crysis at 19fps and, say, COD4 at 19fps. I feel like you're trying to imply that I'm somehow less intelligent or observant than you?

[pizzaguy]

You can roll all over the floor if you want. I'm an intelligent individual with pretty good eye sight and Crysis just didn't look like a choppy mess when I saw dips into the high teens. Gameplay seemed smooth and there's simply a positive difference between Crysis at 19fps and, say, COD4 at 19fps. I feel like you're trying to imply that I'm somehow less intelligent or observant than you?

Dont be so sensitive. Yes Crysis is smoother than most other games at a lower FPS but you have to draw the line somewhere and to say you cannot tell when it hits 19fps is just ludicrous.

To me Crysis is smooth at the 30fps mark but I can clearly tell the difference when it drops to 24 or less FPS and I never stated that you were less intelligent or observant than me but I do think that you are in a state of denial.

Its just funny the lengths that some of you guys will take to make yourself happy with this crappy coded POS.

[Toss3]

Tom's Hardware takes a first look at the 4870 (http://translate.google.fi/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomshardware.com%2Fcn %2F398%2Cnews-398.html&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

:D

[brady]

Dont be so sensitive. Yes Crysis is smoother than most other games at a lower FPS but you have to draw the line somewhere and to say you cannot tell when it hits 19fps is just ludicrous.

I should be more clear because I think the language I'm using is sloppy and causing a problem. I don't actually think that 19fps is indistinguishable from 30fps. There's a visual difference for sure. However, 19fps in Crysis is playable because it satisfies two conditions. It conveys the perception of motion and it does not suffer from significant flicker such that my perception of motion is not fluid. In other words I have a satisfactory perception of fluid motion while playing Crysis even when the fps reach 19 or so.

To me Crysis is smooth at the 30fps mark but I can clearly tell the difference when it drops to 24 or less FPS and I never stated that you were less intelligent or observant than me but I do think that you are in a state of denial.

I'm assuming you mean that I'm in a state of denial with respect to not being able to tell my fps are lower than 30. I've corrected that such that what I mean to say is that I can tell when my fps are below around 30 or so but I've also made clarifications to the effect that even though I can detect, without the fps counter, that my fps are below 30 or so, that doesn't ruin the game play or visual experience. So long as I'm above some other value, which obviously is lower than 19, I still feel I am being "appeared to" (to borrow a term from philosophy) "fluidly" as the motion goes.

I don't care what my fps are in and of themselves. It just doesn't matter to me. What I'm concerned about is whether I see fluid motion. If I perceive fluid motion at 15fps then anything above that is nice and I might even be able to detect when I'm getting 60fps, but it doesn't affect my entertainment experience.

As I said I played Crysis all the way through at 1366x768 in DX10, all settings VH. I enjoyed the game a lot. Very, very infrequently do I recall perceiving motion that didn't appear fluid and it only happened for mere seconds at a time. The overall experience was great and as a piece of entertainment I was just as satisfied with the visual presentation as I was when I watch a movie.

Its just funny the lengths that some of you guys will take to make yourself happy with this crappy coded POS.

I'm certainly going through lengths to make an explanation of my experience and to clarify my meaning. Nevertheless I don't have to go to any lengths, whatever, to "make [myself] happy" with Crysis. I just simply am.

[Zapablast05]

more then a hair ;)

Fine, a patch of hair. At least it's not a giant bald spot behind the GTX280.

[pizzaguy]

I should be more clear because I think the language I'm using is sloppy and causing a problem. I don't actually think that 19fps is indistinguishable from 30fps. There's a visual difference for sure. However, 19fps in Crysis is playable because it satisfies two conditions. It conveys the perception of motion and it does not suffer from significant flicker such that my perception of motion is not fluid. In other words I have a satisfactory perception of fluid motion while playing Crysis even when the fps reach 19 or so.



I'm assuming you mean that I'm in a state of denial with respect to not being able to tell my fps are lower than 30. I've corrected that such that what I mean to say is that I can tell when my fps are below around 30 or so but I've also made clarifications to the effect that even though I can detect, without the fps counter, that my fps are below 30 or so, that doesn't ruin the game play or visual experience. So long as I'm above some other value, which obviously is lower than 19, I still feel I am being "appeared to" (to borrow a term from philosophy) "fluidly" as the motion goes.

I don't care what my fps are in and of themselves. It just doesn't matter to me. What I'm concerned about is whether I see fluid motion. If I perceive fluid motion at 15fps then anything above that is nice and I might even be able to detect when I'm getting 60fps, but it doesn't affect my entertainment experience.

As I said I played Crysis all the way through at 1366x768 in DX10, all settings VH. I enjoyed the game a lot. Very, very infrequently do I recall perceiving motion that didn't appear fluid and it only happened for mere seconds at a time. The overall experience was great and as a piece of entertainment I was just as satisfied with the visual presentation as I was when I watch a movie.



I'm certainly going through lengths to make an explanation of my experience and to clarify my meaning. Nevertheless I don't have to go to any lengths, whatever, to "make [myself] happy" with Crysis. I just simply am.



LOL, forget it.

[sammy sung]

I'm no fan myself,but at least they do record min/average/max FPS values and have those graphs for each card,and they show both the GTX280 and multi GPU setups behaving much the same for the most part thru the entire run.

Cant say i like their bench-methods much,i think they can be very misleading as people completly forget the fact that the detail settings differ for all the cards.I would rather see tests wich uses the same AA&AF settings for all the cards instead of dropping details on the lesser cards to keep the fps at a playable level.

[Amuro]

Cant say i like their bench-methods much,i think they can be very misleading as people completly forget the fact that the detail settings differ for all the cards.I would rather see tests wich uses the same AA&AF settings for all the cards instead of dropping details on the lesser cards to keep the fps at a playable level.
There's an apples to apples comparison toward the end of the review where they did just that.