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

[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Redeemed

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]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

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.

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by Redeemed

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

Hey its cool man, good times ahead for all

[brady]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

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]

Originally Posted by brady

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

[brady]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

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]

Originally Posted by nekrosoft13

more then a hair

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

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by brady

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]

Originally Posted by shadow001

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]

Originally Posted by sammy sung

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.