HD 4870 vs GTX 260

[Blacklash]

Originally Posted by radeonred

If you dont mind I will run some test for you tomorrow, I just wanna game right now before I go to bed.

Enjoy your gaming, and rest well when you retire.

[hemmy]

Originally Posted by Medion

I call shens on those benchmarks. The 4870 is NOT slower than the 8800GTX. Also, every test I've seen shows the 4870's power draw as less than the GTX260. Either you're doing something wrong, or you fabricated that test.

Everything you read has been wrong then, because the 4870 draws more power than the GTX 260, and less than the 280

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

Filters. This was discussed at B3D.com. The 4850/4870 have more filters than the 260/280 does and thus take less of a hit going from 4x to 8x. It is filters that caused the R6xx line to tank when movin from 2x to 4x AA where as the G80/G92 suffered little to no hit. Nvidia left the filters alone going from G80/G92 to G200 where as ATI increased theirs a great deal going from R6xx to R7xx.

I'm not saying there aren't other factors; I'm sure that architecture plays into it. But if frame-buffer were a limitation with 4870, then you still wouldn't see such a small performance drop-off in going from 4-8xAA at high resolutions. It would take more of a hit since AA eats up VRAM.

From the very few benches I've seen, however, it looks like 2560x1600 may cause some issues. That shouldn't concern the majority of the population who don't have those monitors.

[ASUSEN7900GTX]

if i had the money to tamper with the card and a TH T-RAD2 i would go as hig h as a PC HD4870 can go some say 4870 can go beyond 900core that is huge

but i don´t have the money to burn this baby just to get those extra fps

[radeonred]

Originally Posted by ASUSEN7900GTX

if i had the money to tamper with the card and a TH T-RAD2 i would go as hig h as a PC HD4870 can go some say 4870 can go beyond 900core that is huge

but i don´t have the money to burn this baby just to get those extra fps

All it takes is a good aftermarket cooler and a little common sense on monitoring your temps and you should not have to worry about burning it up.

I know that once ATI tool comes around I will not have an issue going higher than 900mhz since I am almost there now on stock VC.

[Xion X2]

This chip sounds similar to the 2900XT in terms of overclocking ability. I was able to go from 740-->875 on my XT before ATI Tool came out w/ the voltage adjustment. Then I went up to 920 with it.

[radeonred]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

This chip sounds similar to the 2900XT in terms of overclocking ability. I was able to go from 740-->875 on my XT before ATI Tool came out w/ the voltage adjustment. Then I went up to 920 with it.

Yeah I really do not think that 950 will be much of a problem after a voltage jump along with a nice aftermarket cooler.

Say......do you know of a good after market cooler for the 4870?

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

I'm not saying there aren't other factors; I'm sure that architecture plays into it. But if frame-buffer were a limitation with 4870, then you still wouldn't see such a small performance drop-off in going from 4-8xAA at high resolutions. It would take more of a hit since AA eats up VRAM.

From the very few benches I've seen, however, it looks like 2560x1600 may cause some issues. That shouldn't concern the majority of the population who don't have those monitors.

Head on over and browse the forum, you'll find the thread on it. Jawed and a few others who know the designs of both cards and their short comings and strengths all agree that it is the number of filters used in applying AA. ATI has more than Nvidia this round where as last round, Nvidia had way more than ATI. It is these filters, lack there of, that cause the X600, R670 and R680 to all tank going from 2x to 4x AA. It only got worse with 8xAA. Nvidia on the other hand left their numbers the same since G80 which is why they killed the R6xx line in AA, but is now losing when you go above 4x.

[radeonred]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

Head on over and browse the forum, you'll find the thread on it. Jawed and a few others who know the designs of both cards and their short comings and strengths all agree that it is the number of filters used in applying AA. ATI has more than Nvidia this round where as last round, Nvidia had way more than ATI. It is these filters, lack there of, that cause the X600, R670 and R680 to all tank going from 2x to 4x AA. It only got worse with 8xAA. Nvidia on the other hand left their numbers the same since G80 which is why they killed the R6xx line in AA, but is now losing when you go above 4x.

Well whatever the case may be I love this cards performance at 8XAA.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

You also say that the 260 is a better overall performer. Well show me a single game where the 260 cranks out performance equal to or better as GTX280. You won't find one, whereas you'll find the 4870 doing it on many occasions.

What kind of point is that? If the GTX260 performed the same as the GTX280, there wouldn't be a lot of reason for the GTX280 to exist.

The interesting thing about the HD4870 is everyone regards it as a bit better than the GTX260, but that's not necessarily the case for the high res gamer.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=14
GTX260 edges HD4870 at 25X16 COD4.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=17
GTX260 edges HD4870 at The Witcher 25X16.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=19
GTX260 beats the HD4870 at every res on Oblivion, including 25X16.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14990/10
GTX260 edges HD4870 at ET:QW at 25X16.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14990/10
GTX260 edges HD4870 at 25X16 HL2:EP2.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page8.asp
GTX260 wins the two playable resolutions of Lost Planet.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page9.asp
GTX260 beats HD4870 at every resolution at COH.

So the HD4870 superiority is largely a myth- sure it wins more than it loses at lower resolutions, but both cards are more than playable at those so it's sort of a hollow victory.

Don't even want to go into the "4870 often equals the GTX280" stuff- because the HD4870 is clearly the inferior card.

[K007]

Originally Posted by abtomat74

Last year many people were exclaiming how they don't care about AA anymore at resolutions above 16x12 or 19x12...now some of you guys are yearning for EIGHT xAA at those incredibly high reses? Why?

The point those people made last year was you didn't "need" ANY, now they "need" 8? LOL.

Monitors got bigger....need some aa on those jagies.

[Blacklash]

Originally Posted by abtomat74

Last year many people were exclaiming how they don't care about AA anymore at resolutions above 16x12 or 19x12...now some of you guys are yearning for EIGHT xAA at those incredibly high reses? Why?

The point those people made last year was you didn't "need" ANY, now they "need" 8? LOL.

Don't worry ATi fans will be along to explain to you why we don't need any AA in Bioshock since their cards can't currently do it in that title.