PDA

View Full Version : HD 4870 vs GTX 260


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Blacklash
07-04-08, 07:52 PM
To listen to ATi fans you would think the HD 4870 wins 99% of all benches out there now.

From what I have seen @ 1600x or greater-

HD 4870 wins: Assassins Creed, Grid, Oblivion, Bioshock, CoD4, Quake Wars, HL2, STALKER.

GTX 260 wins: Crysis, Lost Planet, WiC, AoC, CoH, Prey, SupCom, UT3, GRAW2, Frontlines: Fuel of War, Mass Effect, FEAR.

That's stock, once you OC both cards the GTX 260 gets more wins.

SH64
07-04-08, 07:55 PM
So it really comes down do what games you prefer .. i'd still give a thumbsup for the 260 for its higher framebuffer.

methimpikehoses
07-04-08, 08:13 PM
Well when the GTX 260 was $400, it was the clear loser. Now, if they all get down to $300, it's MUCH harder to say. Either way, they're both great cards IMO.

Medion
07-04-08, 08:14 PM
So it really comes down do what games you prefer .. i'd still give a thumbsup for the 260 for its higher framebuffer.

Eh, but I prefer the Radeon for it's DX10.1 support. I like to upgrade GPUs every 2-3 years, so I try to find the one that I think will serve me best over that time period, in addition to figuring in IQ, performance, and cost.

Xion X2
07-04-08, 08:40 PM
4870 is on a beta driver, GTX is on an official driver
4870 has a VLIW architecture which is much tougher to code for, thus enhancing the importance of driver maturity
No Catalyst version for 4870 will allow over a 790 overclock, so it's too early to tell how well the card overclocks when it's software-limited
The current driver keeps the fan speed locked so that it doesn't spool up like it should--keeping the card hotter and, again, limiting overclocking potential

I mean, really.. this is a stupid thread at this point in the game. It is far too early to draw an accurate comparison between these cards.

SH64
07-04-08, 08:41 PM
Eh, but I prefer the Radeon for it's DX10.1 support. I like to upgrade GPUs every 2-3 years, so I try to find the one that I think will serve me best over that time period, in addition to figuring in IQ, performance, and cost.
So far DX10.1 hasnt proved itself yet nor there are any games that supports it except AC perhaps (it didnt change much in AC either) , but i see your point.

AthlonXP1800
07-04-08, 08:44 PM
Eh, but I prefer the Radeon for it's DX10.1 support. I like to upgrade GPUs every 2-3 years, so I try to find the one that I think will serve me best over that time period, in addition to figuring in IQ, performance, and cost.

I had Sapphire 4870 installed and played with it for 3 days since last Saturday, noticed IQ was the same as Geforce 8800GTX.

Xion X2
07-04-08, 08:45 PM
So it really comes down do what games you prefer .. i'd still give a thumbsup for the 260 for its higher framebuffer.

Frame-buffer is not all that matters. It is one component that plays a role in memory bandwidth, and the memory bandwidth of the 4870 is a little higher than the 260 due to the GDDR-5.

SH64
07-04-08, 08:52 PM
Frame-buffer is not all that matters. It is one component that plays a role in memory bandwidth, and the memory bandwidth of the 4870 is a little higher than the 260 due to the GDDR-5.
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/skymtl/GPU/PALIT-HD4870/PALITHD4870-61.jpg

Medion
07-04-08, 08:54 PM
So far DX10.1 hasnt proved itself yet nor there are any games that supports it except AC perhaps (it didnt change much in AC either) , but i see your point.

Not yet, but like I said, I do try to get 2-3 years out of my GPU, and DX10.1 support should start trickling in soon.

Xion X2
07-04-08, 08:59 PM
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/skymtl/GPU/PALIT-HD4870/PALITHD4870-61.jpg

SH64, this doesn't prove much since the GT280 has 30-40 GB/s on the 4870 in bandwidth. In fact, it only bolsters the point I was trying to make.

Now if you throw a bench of Crysis up here on a GTX260 that shows the same advantage it would be a different story since they are close in bandwidth. But no--what we see is that the 4870 outperforms the 260 on that game with high details and AA applied. At 1920x1200 and 2xAA, it outperforms the GTX260:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_4850_4870_performance/page11.asp

If frame buffer were all that mattered, this wouldn't be the case.

SH64
07-04-08, 09:08 PM
There is no point of that FS bench since it dosen't show the min.fps

its obvious & logical that the GTX260's min.fps would've been higher if it was in that benchmark i posted (due to its higher Video Memory).

methimpikehoses
07-04-08, 09:26 PM
:fanboy:

SH64
07-04-08, 09:43 PM
:fanboy:
LOL i dont intend to get to that point. both the 260 & the 4870 are great products! :thumbsup:

Xion X2
07-04-08, 09:51 PM
There is no point of that FS bench since it dosen't show the min.fps

Since when does a minimum framerate not factor into an average?

its obvious & logical that the GTX260's min.fps would've been higher if it was in that benchmark i posted (due to its higher Video Memory).

No, it wouldn't, and here's why.

Frame-buffer and overall memory bandwidth have the same effect and are interrelated. In fact, you could think of memory bandwidth as composed of 3 key components:

1) Frame buffer
2) Bus width
3) VRAM speed

Each of these plays a role in boosting peak memory bandwidth to speed up texture loading/streaming.

As of 2007, advanced personal computers and graphics cards use even more combined buses than dual-channel, and combine four (e.g. Mac Pro), five (e.g. nVidia 8800GTS), six (e.g. nVidia 8800GTX) or more sets of 64-bit memory modules and buses to reach 256-bit, 320-bit, 384-bit or greater [b]total memory bandwidth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_bandwidth

The point of the entire exercise of using a large frame buffer is to increase bandwidth, but if a card already has it due to faster VRAM (such as 4870 with GDDR5 instead of GDDR3) then it doesn't need as large a frame buffer. See how the 4870 has just a little higher bandwidth than the 260 does despite the smaller frame buffer:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341

grimreefer
07-04-08, 09:52 PM
they both are pretty similar, slight nod to the 4870 on performance, but the more memory on the gtx 260 makes the 2 cards even in my eyes.

K007
07-04-08, 10:11 PM
well...you have to look at the price as well..

The price on the ati cards make it very attractive...and i wouldn't mind buying a 4870..and then maybe early 2009 upgrade to like the next nvidia gpu refresh...which would be more friendly on your pocket...than say buying a gtx280 and to find out there is like a gtx290...1gb gddr5, die shrink/higher clock/better cooler...

TheANIMAL
07-05-08, 03:32 AM
I would if figures like that appeared, once you get past 60 it doesn't matter anymore.

particleman
07-05-08, 10:09 AM
Yeah, a lot of people have taken the 260/280 bashing too far. The only reason the 4870 over the 260GTX in reviews was because of price. If nVidia has dropped the price to of the 260 to 299 (the same price as the 4870) I would say the 260GTX is the better purchase because of more memory and future games will have larger textures.

And the 280GTX is still the fastest single chip card out there, there is no disputing that.

HYBRID
07-05-08, 10:54 AM
Coming from an 8800GTX which I enjoyed for more than 2 years, I had the Itch for a new card.

So when the 4850 came out I just happen to have changed out my mob for a Maximus Formula Asus board and it was crossfire ready after reading a ton of review I couldn’t help but be compelled by the price vs. performance the card provided.

Also given that it was putting up a great fight against a 280GTX I headed over to BestBuy and the Visiontek 4850 could be had for 149.99 ea. so for 300.00 I got similar result as an 280GTX.

I purchased 2 of them for a little Crossfire action and couldn’t be happier. My purchases are based on best bang for the buck 4850 is just that especially at 300.00 a pair.

Xion X2
07-05-08, 11:06 AM
Of course it factors, but here is how failing to disclose it can skew the end result:

Duke Nukem Never scores(hypothetically)
card 1) min - 15, max - 75, AVG - 45fps
card 2) min - 25, max - 65, AVG - 45fps

Which card would you choose if every game played like the above results? Would you sacrifice 10 min fps for 10 more max?

You're correct to an extent. But how do any of us know that the minimum framerate posted on a benchmark for a certain card wasn't a single instance that lasted a fraction of a second instead of a repeated occurrence?

That's why I think it's better to place more emphasis on an average, because over the course of the benchmark it will factor in the entire range of frames where the minimums took place. This would exclude cases where a driver/card had a certain hiccup that may have caused an abnormal hitch/minimum for a very short time.

k0py
07-05-08, 11:17 AM
Since when does a minimum framerate not factor into an average?



No, it wouldn't, and here's why.

Frame-buffer and overall memory bandwidth have the same effect and are interrelated. In fact, you could think of memory bandwidth as composed of 3 key components:

1) Frame buffer
2) Bus width
3) VRAM speed

Each of these plays a role in boosting peak memory bandwidth to speed up texture loading/streaming.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_bandwidth

The point of the entire exercise of using a large frame buffer is to increase bandwidth, but if a card already has it due to faster VRAM (such as 4870 with GDDR5 instead of GDDR3) then it doesn't need as large a frame buffer. See how the 4870 has just a little higher bandwidth than the 260 does despite the smaller frame buffer:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341

Since when does framebuffer size effect bandwidth? If I have 512mb of ram on a 256bit bus or 256mb ram on a 256bit bus, the bandwidth would be the same. More ram is always better, when trhe gpu is actually powerful enough to make use of it. The gddr5 is not gonna make up for the 4870's short comings in the ram department. High levels of AA, AF and high resolutions require more ram.

Jas28
07-05-08, 11:24 AM
LOL i dont intend to get to that point. both the 260 & the 4870 are great products! :thumbsup:

Exactly! I have only used a 4870, but I would bet the 260 is a nice product as well. I think everyone should be happy that both companies released good products this time around. :)

Xion X2
07-05-08, 11:32 AM
The gddr5 is not gonna make up for the 4870's short comings in the ram department. High levels of AA, AF and high resolutions require more ram.

Then why does the 4870 scale better going from 4 to 8xAA than any other card on the market? If frame buffer were the key component, then you wouldn't see this happening:

G80 and GT200 all have sharp drops in performance when moving up from 4xAA to 8xAA, the RV770 really shines here. In fact, the few tests we did with 8xAA paints the 4870 in a much better light relative to the GTX 280.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=10

Heinz68
07-05-08, 11:55 AM
I believe they BOTH great cards.

We still have about couple NVIDIA fanboys here who didn't get it. The NVIDIA big price reduction only proves the ATI 4000 series are big competition , they sure know better.

I purchased the HD 4870, the price at the time sure was one the reason but the biggest reason was there is not going to be any SLI for Nehalem CPU on the X58, Intel's First Nehalem Chipset.

I like to upgrade to Nehalem by the end off this year, might never have a need for 2 video cards but sure would not like to have that option closed.