4870 or GTX 260 ?

The last time I checked you could get a 4870 512mb for about $180 on newegg. The 4870 512mb is pretty much faster than the GTX 260 vanilla in just about every game.

The 4870 1GB and the GTX 260 216 is a different story. The 216 is faster than the 4870 1GB sometimes, and the 4870 1GB is faster than the 216 in others. It's a toss-up and you can't go wrong with either of those cards.

It all boils down to what you like, the 4870 512mb is faster than the GTX260 vanilla and they are around the same price. If you absolutely have to have Nvidia get a GTX260v, if you want what's best I'd recommend the 4870 512mb.
 
With the performance of the cards being so close, you might want to simply make your choice based on what you currently feel more comfortable with: ATI or Nvidia. In other words, what's your personal gut feeling on driver reliability, game compatibility, etc.

Personally, I'd recommned the GTX 260 and especially the latest model. I haven't seen one post where someone regretted their 260 purchase. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've seen a single post where the person wasn't thrilled with the card. I can't say the same for the 4870.

But both cards are excellent and you can't go wrong with either pick.
 
If you want to buy a HD4870, get the 1GB version because HD4870 needs more than 512MB to reach its full performance.
 
GTX 260, both are evenly matched until you factor in Overclocking, Nvidia walks away from the ATI. Most sites can't coax ANYTHING out of the ATI as far as overclocking.
 
TheBlueChanell said:
The 4870 512mb is pretty much faster than the GTX 260 vanilla in just about every game.
Click to expand...

The only time the 4870 512mb was faster than the 260 vanilla is when using 8xAA, and that changed with the big bang drivers. The vanilla 260 is only 4-5 FPS slower than the core 216 version, so that pretty much makes the 4870 512mb the worst of the bunch.
 
Hecktec said:
The only time the 4870 512mb was faster than the 260 vanilla is when using 8xAA, and that changed with the big bang drivers. The vanilla 260 is only 4-5 FPS slower than the core 216 version, so that pretty much makes the 4870 512mb the worst of the bunch.
Click to expand...

Have you read any current reviews of the 4870 512mb with the 8.12's?
 
I just picked up a GTX260-216 from Newegg this week to replace my 8800GTS, going to install it tonight. Any recommended drivers I should get for this card? WHQL or Beta?
 
BugginOuT said:
I just picked up a GTX260-216 from Newegg this week to replace my 8800GTS, going to install it tonight. Any recommended drivers I should get for this card? WHQL or Beta?
Click to expand...

Try the latest WHQL first. If you have problems with them, try the latest Betas.
 
Just to throw my two cents in here.

I had been using an ATI 4870 512MB for a few months now, well since about August. I just bought an XFX GTX260 Black Edition the other day and the difference is HUGE!. I don't mean a few frames more here and there. I mean Fallout3 went from a stutter-fest to smooth as butter. I was also able to increase the AA from 2x to 4x at 1920x1080 and it was still smooth, with no stutters and fast framerates on my GTX260.

That's not to say the 4870 is not a good card, it is. I used it for months and had little-to-no problems with it. I will go ahead and say that I do prefer Nvidia's drivers to ATI's though. Just a personal preference.... well, that and after installing 8.12 Catalysts my system would BSOD on boot about 75% of the time.... :\
 
kraken0698 said:
Just to throw my two cents in here.

I had been using an ATI 4870 512MB for a few months now, well since about August. I just bought an XFX GTX260 Black Edition the other day and the difference is HUGE!. I don't mean a few frames more here and there. I mean Fallout3 went from a stutter-fest to smooth as butter. I was also able to increase the AA from 2x to 4x at 1920x1080 and it was still smooth, with no stutters and fast framerates on my GTX260.

That's not to say the 4870 is not a good card, it is. I used it for months and had little-to-no problems with it. I will go ahead and say that I do prefer Nvidia's drivers to ATI's though. Just a personal preference.... well, that and after installing 8.12 Catalysts my system would BSOD on boot about 75% of the time.... :\
Click to expand...
clearly a driver problem or some other system componenet problem that didnt like the ATI card, even though you say its not a driver. 2 cards are pretty much identical in power, issue is on your end.
 
iGrooCk said:
clearly a driver problem or some other system componenet problem that didnt like the ATI card, even though you say its not a driver. 2 cards are pretty much identical in power, issue is on your end.
Click to expand...

Somehow, I knew this was going to be said. The BSODs did not start UNTIL I installed the 8.12 cats (not the betas). The BSODs have since gone away since uninstalling the ATI software and going to Nvidia's drivers. This is all on XP 64bit, which I just did a clean install of a month or so ago.

As for performance, I stick to what I said. For me, The XFX GTX260 is a noticeable improvement, an upgrade even, from the 4870/512MB card. Others may have differing experiences and opinions, this is just my observation.
 
rex67 said:
4850
Click to expand...

Not to take out anything from the intention of the post but while not answering the question it's a good bang for the buck. On topic though I'd probably go with the 4870 :)
ecstatic.gif
eeek.gif
 
iGrooCk said:
clearly a driver problem or some other system componenet problem that didnt like the ATI card, even though you say its not a driver. 2 cards are pretty much identical in power, issue is on your end.
Click to expand...

No, more like 4870 512mb was Ati biggest rip on the unsuspecting customers over the summer. Not enough ram to back the arch power at higher res thus the lag and stutter fests the guy was experiencing in Fallout 3.
 
kraken0698 said:
Just to throw my two cents in here.

I had been using an ATI 4870 512MB for a few months now, well since about August. I just bought an XFX GTX260 Black Edition the other day and the difference is HUGE!. I don't mean a few frames more here and there. I mean Fallout3 went from a stutter-fest to smooth as butter. I was also able to increase the AA from 2x to 4x at 1920x1080 and it was still smooth, with no stutters and fast framerates on my GTX260.

That's not to say the 4870 is not a good card, it is. I used it for months and had little-to-no problems with it. I will go ahead and say that I do prefer Nvidia's drivers to ATI's though. Just a personal preference.... well, that and after installing 8.12 Catalysts my system would BSOD on boot about 75% of the time.... :\
Click to expand...

Good to know. I'm just making the jump from CRT to 1920x1080 and my 9600GT won't keep up, so I'm shopping for a new card. I don't give a shit about all the Nvidia vs ATI crap, I just want to know which card works best for the cheapest; minimum frames per second is also my number one concern. I don't want to mess with driver updates every week, I want to install the card and play games.
 
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU3MSwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4Nyw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU5Niw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU2NCwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4OSw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Lower min framerate or not, the games are playable at those settings. You don't need to mess with the driver if you don't want to, a newer driver would probably just give a better performance, it's not like you can't play the game with an older driver.
 
I'd go with nVidia simply because their vendors are leaps and bounds better than ATI. Maybe XFX will change that if you're willing to wait.
 
alg7_munif said:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU3MSwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4Nyw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU5Niw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU2NCwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4OSw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Lower min framerate or not, the games are playable at those settings. You don't need to mess with the driver if you don't want to, a newer driver would probably just give a better performance, it's not like you can't play the game with an older driver.
Click to expand...

They all look pretty even to me. It looks like Fallout just poops in the mouth of all the new cards. That's what I was playing yesterday to see how the 9600GT would keep up. I left everything on high, as it had been, but cranked up the resolution on the crt to 1900x1400 or something like that. I didn't make an excel spreadsheet or anything, but with Fraps it looked like the fps would dip down into the high 20's and peak in the low 60's, with an average in the high 30's/low 40's. It looked like shit, choppy as hell, and that's not far off of what they were getting in the review. Mind you, my 9600GT has a pretty impressive overclock, we're talking retard strength.
 
drifterx37 said:
They all look pretty even to me. It looks like Fallout just poops in the mouth of all the new cards. That's what I was playing yesterday to see how the 9600GT would keep up. I left everything on high as it has been, but cranked up the resolution on the crt to 1900x1400 or something like that. I didn't make an excel spreadsheet or anything, but it looked like the fps would dip down into the high 20's and peak in the low 60's, with an average in the high 30's/low 40's. It looked like shit, choppy as hell, and that's not far off of what they were getting in the review. Mind you, my 9600GT has a pretty impressive overclock.
Click to expand...

9600GT and GTX 260 or HD 4870 is like night and day. 9600GT only has 64 Unified Shaders, GTX 260 has 192 Shaders and the faster version has 216 Shaders.

At stock the 9600GT has a slightly higher clock speed, unless your 9600GT has more than twice the stock clock speed, the 9600GT is nowhere near the GTX 260 or HD 4870.

Btw if you read [H] reviews, you will know that they will play the games at the most GPU intensive part of the games. The FPS shown in the reviews are the worst case scenario in the games, you will probably get a higher FPS at a different part of the game.
 
I have to say that I am impressed with the GTX260

On my 8800GTS(640MB), I was only able to run COD4 @ 10280x1024 with no AA/AF. The game would stutter, if I try to increase.

Now I can go to my native of 1920x1200 with 2x AA/AF and averaging above 60FPS. Haven't found the sweet spot yet, still messing around with the settings.
 
alg7_munif said:
9600GT and GTX 260 or HD 4870 is like night and day. 9600GT only has 64 Unified Shaders, GTX 260 has 192 Shaders and the faster version has 216 Shaders.

At stock the 9600GT has a slightly higher clock speed, unless your 9600GT has more than twice the stock clock speed, the 9600GT is nowhere near the GTX 260 or HD 4870.

Btw if you read [H] reviews, you will know that they will play the games at the most GPU intensive part of the games. The FPS shown in the reviews are the worst case scenario in the games, you will probably get a higher FPS at a different part of the game.
Click to expand...

Well the 9600GT is on Craigslist already, so I've got to make a decision.

I don't really read reviews too often. I can't afford to be buying new stuff twice a month like some of these kids, so staying on top of the latest and greatest doesn't really matter to me.
 
Scarby Jones said:
Is the 512mb 4870 that bad?
Click to expand...

Not really, it is just that the lower memory is really holding the card back. You won't notice it if you don't use a high resolution display but with high resolutions and a high amount of AA, the HD 4870 1GB will start pulling itself away from the 512MB.
 
alg7_munif said:
Not really, it is just that the lower memory is really holding the card back. You won't notice it if you don't use a high resolution display but with high resolutions and a high amount of AA, the HD 4870 1GB will start pulling itself away from the 512MB.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply... not trying to take away from the OP on the thread or something just a little worried. I was trying to build a cheap gaming rig for my nephew and put in the 4870 512mb card. I know he isn't going to be using some crazy display yet. And I thought it would be better choice for the price I got than a 9800GT.
 
Scarby Jones said:
Thanks for the reply... not trying to take away from the OP on the thread or something just a little worried. I was trying to build a cheap gaming rig for my nephew and put in the 4870 512mb card. I know he isn't going to be using some crazy display yet. And I thought it would be better choice for the price I got than a 9800GT.
Click to expand...

I think it would be much better :D
 
I bought the 4870 1GB, but I might exchange it for a GTX 260 216. Nvidia partners seem to have better perks (step-up, lifetime warranty, bundled Far Cry 2)...
 
greens said:
Yes it does.
Click to expand...

no it doesnt. Look at the charts not at the tables. The tables somtimes give minimum values that arnt on the charts. In fraps when you start recording you usually have a 1-2sec delay where you drop to 1 or 2 fps.

svelte said:
I bought the 4870 1GB, but I might exchange it for a GTX 260 216. Nvidia partners seem to have better perks (step-up, lifetime warranty, bundled Far Cry 2)...
Click to expand...

this. ATI board partners are of vastly inferior quality in comparison to Nvidia board partners.

All thats about to end though, XFX has signed with AMD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top