View Single Post
Old 11-26-10, 10:22 PM   #89
It's a wittle baby!
Madpistol's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 4,554
Send a message via AIM to Madpistol
Default Re: GTX 480: Worst GeForce card ever?

Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
The fact remains that with the 5870, the 4870, the 3870, and the 2900XT (the last four generations of ATi "flagship" GPUs) ATi has produced slower GPUs with less image quality enhancing features.
You are correct about the 2900 XT and 3870. For the 4870, you're also right, although it was a great product in its own right and very competitive during its time.

For the 5870, though, you're wrong. The 5870 went uncontested for 6 months before the GTX 480 hit the market, so calling the 5870 slower is controversial if not baseless. It's slower than a product that was released 6 months later for $100 more. Remember that AMD/ATI also has eyefinity. Even if you don't think of it as an asset, it is something that AMD has and Nvidia doesn't.

Also, if we're talking about flagship products, the 5970 was superior to the GTX 480. Less power from a dual chip card than Nvidia's flagship single chip card, and the 5970 was faster too... ouch.

Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
Just the way it is, no way it can be spun any different. It's pretty fitting that AMD purchased them, AMD makes their living producing second tier chips for less. Doesn't mean they're "bad" just means they're not as good- and there's a big difference.

Where the hell do you get off calling AMD's chips second tier? Last I checked, they have a more efficient architecture this generation. No, it doesn't have CUDA or PhysX, but both of those items are proprietary. On top of that, the only reason CUDA is succeeding is because Nvidia is throwing tons of cash at developers. Physx can be considered somewhere between a gimmick and a failure.

The way it is eh? What about the Geforce GT 430? How about the HD 5670 being a completely superior product in every way to the GT 430? (that includes IQ as well as performance... read the reviews) The money in this market is made in the low-end and mid-end segments. Nvidia currently has high-end, both companies are battling in the mid-end market, and AMD is thrashing Nvidia in the low-end. Nvidia has one under performing solution, while AMD has about 6 to 8 cards that perform pretty damn well for the price. To add insult to injury, AMD is getting close to releasing their first "Fusion" based products, and that will add a whole new element to the low-end market; NO MORE VIDEO CARD!!! An AMD GPU will be on the CPU. Where's Nvidia's answer to that one?

Seriously, where do you come up with these fanboy remarks of yours? I would love to figure it out because a lot of it doesn't make sense.

MadPistol's Rig

AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE (RB-C3) @ 4Ghz, 1.425 Vcore, 1.25V NB VID
Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme (w/ Scythe Gentle Typhoon 120mm fan)
Gigabyte UD3H AM3 790GX motherboard
XFX Radeon HD 5870
PNY XLR8 2x2GB CL8 DDR3 1600
G.Skill Ripjaws 2x2GB CL8 DDR3 1600
Soundblaster X-Fi Fatality Titanium
OCZ Vertex II 120GB SSD (OS drive)
Western Digital 500GB Caviar (black)
Western Digital 640GB Blue
Samsung DVD burner
Logitech MX performance mouse
Logitech G15 keyboard
Corsair HX 750-watt Modular PSU
Antec Nine Hundred case
Windows 7 Home Premium x64
ASUS MK241 24" LCD
ACER X241W 24" LCD - RIP
Madpistol is offline   Reply With Quote