Justifying A GeForce GTX 275

[BelligerentBill]

Originally Posted by pakotlar

Sure it is.

And 4890 OC is a standard ATI SKU, like the XTX was vs the XT. Here's the official line:
"AMD classifies any Radeon HD 4890 card clocked at 900MHz or better as separate product, dubbed the "Radeon HD 4890 OC," although clock speeds on those cards will vary." http://techreport.com/articles.x/16681

Arguing that you "may" be able to overclock the 275 to speeds that beat the 1ghz ATI card is really besides the point. Unless you can buy an overclocked model that beats a 1ghz ATI sku, its really pointless.
Maxed out 275 vs. a maxed out 4890 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3575&p=7






As for overclocking a 275 GTX significantly past the point in this review, I doubt it. You may hit ~720 core, or 1700 on the shaders, buts thats what, +2%. Memory is tapped. My GTX 285, for what its worth, maxes out 702/1600/2.7ghz for stability under Furmark, and the consensus from 275/285 owners is that GT200b is pretty much tapped out at ~ 700 core, unless you're volt-modding.

And like I said, 4890's are cheaper. You can pick one up for $180 on newegg right now, and I've seen as low as $150 recently after rebate.

Anyways this is a pointless debate. I've given my recommendation, it wasn't directed at you, nor do you have an argument about anything I've said. You're just trying to show me up since the last time you refuted something you didn't understand, and this isn't really the place for that.

It must be noted that these tests are run at 1920x1600. At this point you're entering into territory where GDDR5 will consistently outperform GDDR3. Considering the 4890 has to be clocked so high to achieve this given it's theoretical memory bandwidth the value isn't as great as it appears to be. Not to mention that most people do not have a display that is capable of this resolution (most have 1440x900 and 1680x1050). If you're into buying high end monitors with your high end hardware, you're not going to hang onto a GTX 2xx or ATI 48xx long anyways.

[zingzong]

Originally Posted by pakotlar

Arguing that you "may" be able to overclock the 275 to speeds that beat the 1ghz ATI card is really besides the point.

Oh ok but its ok to compare a overclocked HD 4890 to a non overclocked GTX 275? ROTF. You are one sad sad person.

I dont care if the HD 4890 is overclocked from the factory or by the user, in any case if your going to compare cards in this manner then you should expect both of them to be compared in their overclocked forms.

[zingzong]

I will let the benches speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by BelligerentBill

It must be noted that these tests are run at 1920x1600. At this point you're entering into territory where GDDR5 will consistently outperform GDDR3. Considering the 4890 has to be clocked so high to achieve this given it's theoretical memory bandwidth the value isn't as great as it appears to be. Not to mention that most people do not have a display that is capable of this resolution (most have 1440x900 and 1680x1050). If you're into buying high end monitors with your high end hardware, you're not going to hang onto a GTX 2xx or ATI 48xx long anyways.

That's not true, both 275 and 285 have more bandwidth than the 4890



at a frequnecy of 1.2 ghz, that's 116GB *1.23 or 142.68. That's less than the 285 at stock, and more than the 275 by only 11GB/s (at default). at the overclocked speeds 275 has more bandwidth.

And I chose 1920 because I thought people would complain that anything lower wouldnt be a gaming res. I you look at the 1680 results, you'll see that they're better, more in favor for ATI.

Originally Posted by zingzong

Oh ok but its ok to compare a overclocked HD 4890 to a non overclocked GTX 275? ROTF. You are one sad sad person.

I dont care if the HD 4890 is overclocked from the factory or by the user, in any case if your going to compare cards in this manner then you should expect both of them to be compared in their overclocked forms.

Did you read my post? Christ man it's like arguing with a wall. THEY WERE BOTH OVERCLOCKED. The only difference is one comes like that at stock, and is both warrantied and authorized by ATI to run at that speed (minus maybe a little on the ram), whereas the 275 is not. No one makes air 275's at the speed in anand's review. Why don't we compare cards you can actually buy under warranty and at the same price?

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.

[rionio]

Originally Posted by pakotlar

GURU3D is OBVIOUSLY COMPARING 8x ATI AA to 8x CSAA. 8x CSAA.

And you are obviously in denial, why dont you hop over to Guru3d.com and email Hilbert himself, he will tell you first hand that he is using in game AA settings for the games that support it in those test.

For games such as mass effect where AA must be forced Gilbert makes sure to use the same quality of AA for each card via the CP.

I dont know where you have been living for the last few months but Nvidia has made huge and I mean huge gains in the AA department, they are no longer behind in this area like they were when the 4870 first hit the market.

The one thing ATI does do better than Nvidia however is transparency AA, I will give them that much.

[rionio]

Originally Posted by pakotlar

Secondly, stop posting irrelevant stuff

You should start taking your own advice.

[BelligerentBill]

This thread is really nothing more than a place for fanboi's to duke it out and should probably be locked now.

Besides, this is nvnews and anything ATI related is simply gibberish

Originally Posted by BelligerentBill

This thread is really nothing more than a place for fanboi's to duke it out and should probably be locked now.

Besides, this is nvnews and anything ATI related is simply gibberish

Haha, I love the headexplode its so badass.

Well I want to hear back from the op if the HDMI stuff I drew up for him would help. I didn't realize he wasn't interested in a higher end gaming card.

[gstanford]

Originally Posted by BelligerentBill

Besides, this is nvnews and anything ATI related is simply gibberish

Exactly. Not only is this nvnews, not rage3d, but this is the GTX200 sub-forum, not the other graphics cards forum. I certainly don't recall the OP asking for advice on radeons, but rather on GTX 275's.

[seeker]

pakotlar,

I would have responded sooner, but for some reason, I never received notification of most of the posts since my last post, and I'm now trying to digest the info that you posted earlier. That's not easy...not because you did post clearly enough, but because this is an area that's new to me.

I had to dig the brother of the video card installed out of the closet to give it a closer look. It appears that this is one that doesn't have any SPDIF or RCA connectors. The only I/Os on the card are the x16 PCIe, SLI, Dual DVI-I and S-Video. Here is a link for reference:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130071

The title of the ad says that it is HDCP, which if I understand, just means that it will transmit encrypted signals, but not necessarily audio signals. Actually, all that I'm interested in is video, not audio, because I already have a sound card going to my 5.1 speakers.

Everything that I thought that I understood was that all that I need was to adapt the connection to the video card to a HDMI cable to connect to the HDMI connector on the monitor. Here is a link to the monitor:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...406&CatId=4420

But, this doesn't work. With a DVI-DVI connection I get a good display, but with a DVI-HDMI connection I get a black screen. The reason that this is an issue is because I now want another monitor for a dual display. I guess that I could connect the second monitor in the same fashion as I did the first, but I have a $50 dollar DVI-HDMI cable collecting dust in the closet that I really would like to use.

If Acer is right that I can't connect the video card to the monitor with this cable, then I would like to understand what purpose is there in monitor even having an HDMI connector? unless it is strictly for connecting some other device besides a PC, and I would also like to know why they even sell a DVI-HDMI cable, if there is no practical use for it?