Originally Posted by zingzong
I will let the benches speak for themselves.
GURU3D is OBVIOUSLY COMPARING 8x ATI AA to 8x CSAA. 8x CSAA on nvidia cards is 4x + 8x coverage. IT IS NOT 8xQ which takes a much larger hit. Its not really a great benchmark to post, since guru3d doesn't indicate what the settings used are. Every other site shows ATI's 8xAA being faster than nvidia's 8xQ AA, which is a direct comparison (8xQ is 8xAA not 4x + 8 which is 8xCSAA)
Secondly, stop posting irrelevant stuff, read the OP's recent reply.
Anyways I never advocated that the 4890 was significantly faster than the GTX 275. I said that it takes less of a hit from 8xAA (it does), and it sometimes performs better in 1)shader-intensive games and 2) newer games that utilize dx10.1 (assasin's creed, clear sky, hawx, anything dx11). Considering its cheaper price that's what I would recommend. Anyways op said he doesnt care about the performance.
OP: One thing I noticed on the 4890 (check to see if this is the case on other 4xxx series ATI cards) is that it includes 7.1 Realtek HD audio on board, so you don't have to pass the signal from the motherboard (I believe?). Not sure if that has an advantage.