Honestly, I would buy two 4770's and throw them in CF before I'd buy a 4870x2. The 4870x2 really does get toasty, unless you get one with some seriously effective aftermarket cooling. 260's in SLI can get extremely hot as well unless your case has very good airflow. 260's in SLI will perform better, but cost a lot more, and the 4770's so far are overclocking quite well and have much better thermals and WAAAYYYY better power consumption than the 4870x2. Not to mention you save a good chunk of money! Just my two cents. And who can't afford a decent P45 mobo that overclocks like a champ?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
4870 x2 vs 2 gtx 260 Sli/285 ?
- Thread starter Nvidia101
- Start date
- Status
what made you go single? Where you not getting the right fps or case too small? becuase 2 of those outperform the 285 easy.
I just went with 2 of the Evga gtx 260's $185 each after rebates... free game too...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130433
paired with a CM RC-690 case they will run nicely.
Last edited:
You're right and I did go with a smaller case. By going with a smaller case, I only wanted to use one card. I did think about a 4870x or 295 at first but why when I already had 2x 260's. Hence, how I ended up with a 285. I know what I did isn't cost efficient but I'm happy so I didn't mind spending extra $.
grats on your purchase. I went with an EVGA 285 FTW and got a free game too. hehehe.
Wow, this thread is full of nVidia fanboys.
Poor driver support is a common complaint among Nvidia users who haven't had an ATI card in 6-8 years. Im running an Nvidia card right now and I can tell you that I'm not very impressed with the driver support. We'll see when my X2 gets here.
The performance difference is much less that quoted in this thread. A 260 SLI setup and the 4870x2 are pretty much spot on and the +/- 5% isn't going to make a difference in anything, for whichever card performs better in game x or game y.
With the 260 SLI setup you lose the expansion possibilities. You lose 2 more slots compared to the 4870x2 and you aren't able to upgrade to a quad SLI setup. Quadfire is possible with the 4870x2.
That being said, I'm not an ATI fanboy. I have never owned an ATI card but I will soon. I believe te 4870X@ is the proper choice here.
Poor driver support is a common complaint among Nvidia users who haven't had an ATI card in 6-8 years. Im running an Nvidia card right now and I can tell you that I'm not very impressed with the driver support. We'll see when my X2 gets here.
The performance difference is much less that quoted in this thread. A 260 SLI setup and the 4870x2 are pretty much spot on and the +/- 5% isn't going to make a difference in anything, for whichever card performs better in game x or game y.
With the 260 SLI setup you lose the expansion possibilities. You lose 2 more slots compared to the 4870x2 and you aren't able to upgrade to a quad SLI setup. Quadfire is possible with the 4870x2.
That being said, I'm not an ATI fanboy. I have never owned an ATI card but I will soon. I believe te 4870X@ is the proper choice here.
I actually haven't seen too much fanboyism on this particular thread. I think both NV and ATI are really knocking out some solid drivers. The driver complaints appear to be the exception rather than the norm these days. I had zero issues with my 4850's and 4830's. I even have had great luck and performance on my HTPC using a 3450 in hybrid CF with the 780G.
You can't deny how hot the 4870x2 gets, though. PCI express slots willing, I'd rather have two in crossfire or two 260's in SLI than one 4870x2. They just get so fracking hot. That's all that I've really complained about. Like I said, the sweet spot right now is 2x4770 for performance per dollar. You can run it on a very capable and affordable P45 board with an overclocked to the hills C2Q or C2D and beat a 285 in many titles. Fun stuff, if you ask me.
Too bad he can't do CF!
pcgamer420
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 197
I'm running a 2 year old evga 680i mobo and [email protected]. Recently swapped out 2 evga 8800gtx for 2 evga gtx 260c216. I have to say that SLI is totally legit, I game at 1920x1200 and there is a huge, very noticeable difference between enabling and disabling SLI. My example is simple, I was near the end of Mass Effect when I replaced my trusty old 8800gtx's with the new gtx 260c216 55 nm's and I saw a noticeable drop in performance. At first of course I was like WTF... Until I realized I hadn't yet enabled SLI. So I saw how my sli 8800gtx totally owned one gtx 260. But when I enabled sli... The 260's simply smoked the 8800's. 16xQ, supersampling, AO, you name it, at 1920x1200 the sli 260's rock compared to 8800 gtx. But a single 260 vs sli 8800 was a joke. After I saw this I became a big fan of sli.
Last edited:
Not sure about that. I can tell you two Core 216s will do 9365 in the GPU portion of Vantage @ extreme settings when running @ 655|2100, and will do 10147 GPU @ 702|2260 using extreme settings. That's under Windows 7 with the 185.85 driver.
My Tri-SLi rig using two Core 216 cards with one 192SP card gets 14479 GPU with extreme settings in Vantage.
http://i42.tinypic.com/opr3up.jpg
If I ever install FC2 again. I'll pull a card and bench it for you with two 216s @ 655|2100.
Last edited:
that looks pretty good.
alg7_munif
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 5,862
HD 4870 X2: 1GB effective
SLI GTX 260: 896MB effective.
SLI GTX 260: 896MB effective.
Dangman
Ninja Editor SuperMod
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 46,056
Don't even bother looking up for that kind of info. 3DMark06 is utterly useless as an indication of real world performance.
Dangman
Ninja Editor SuperMod
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 46,056
No, not really. IIRC, the 2900XT had higher 3DMark scores than the 8800GTS 640MB. Yet in actual games, the 2900XT actually came in lower than the 800GTS 640MB and in some cases was equal to the 8800GTS 320MB.
Several other examples of the above happening if you check around.
Not really. A 4870x2 gets higher points in 3dmark06 then a GTX 295, yet the 295 gets better fps in games.
in what game
it really depend on which game you going for will have different result...
they are basically the same performance.....
in what game
it really depend on which game you going for will have different result...
they are basically the same performance.....
well 2x gtx 260's will be will have slightly greater performance over the 4870x2 in all if not most games... but I want to know its 3d06 scores.
in crysis at 1920 x 1200 very high 2x AA im pretty sure the 260's can do 35-40 fps and the 4870 x2 28fps or so.
Last edited:
wth? you sure you have ever use 4870X2 before?
on the setting you have shown its actually about 34ish while GTX 260 SLI have quite similar performance.....push up more AA you will see 4870X2 outperform GTX 260 SLI....
and how can they be faster ? like in what game?
nVidia Flavor game? or ATI flavor game? dont say most game, I can pull out load of game that heavily flavor on each side....they are almost exact the same in term of performance....beside ATI handle AA betters...
im pretty sure it will not outperform the 260's sli on 1920 x 1200 even with 4x AA. In crysis.,
Also in Far cry 2 based on benches 2x 260's core 16 get around 85-90 fps while the x2 gets 75 fps on 1920 X 1200 maxed out settings.
Also in Far cry 2 based on benches 2x 260's core 16 get around 85-90 fps while the x2 gets 75 fps on 1920 X 1200 maxed out settings.
Last edited:
You're right in Crysis. 2x260's will outperform a 4870x2. But you'll never notice the difference between 75 fps and 85 fps in Far Cry 2 at those settings. (See [H]'s testing methodology.) Crysis has generally been more nVidia SLI friendly dollar for dollar. ATI has gained some ground with driver and game updates, but SLI still wins in this case. But you can easily flip this coin to another game such as Grid, where the 4870x2 will make the 260's look pretty silly. It depends on the game. In some situations I'd rather have the 2GB version of the 4850x2 with its improved aftermarket cooling. Either way, if you're really going to overclock, 260's have always been good and stock cooling has always given sizable headroom. I know because I owned one that overclocked amazing with excellent temps to boot. 4870's and 4850's with stock cooling DON'T. They get so freaking hot. I've owned a couple of those, too. If you're going ATI, I recommend doing whatever you can do to get a 40nm part, if you ever want to overclock. There are always exceptions, but the new 4000's are really kicking trash.
4xAA get both similar performance, CF scale very well in Crysis, its not just SLI, but Quad CFX....pew....don't know what to say there....
over 4xAA which is 8xAA you start seeing a gap between 4870X2 and GTX 260 SLI..
and no, they both run similar on my test...
also, there is another trusty source on this...
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU5OSw2LCw=
at the same time, GTX 260 SLI cant do that...
and no, GTX 295 only a little bit behind GTX 260 SLI, they are essentially the same...
i think the 260's core 216 will handle 8x AA similar to the X2. but then still who plays crysis at 8x with 23+ fps.....
Dangman
Ninja Editor SuperMod
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 46,056
Totally missed this part. Guess this thread can be closed now since you ALREADY bought the cards.
Oh and HD4870X2 outperforms the GTX 260 SLI by a very very very slight margin (results will not be that different at 1920x1200) in FC2:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3517&p=10
In addition, the HD4870X2 can be had for the same price as the two GTX260 cards you bought:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150349
Dangman
Ninja Editor SuperMod
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 46,056
How so?
first off check the {H} one with the 295 gtx at 2560x1600 showing an easy 53+ over this ones 40 in far cry 2 at almost same settings
Second 2x gtx 260's get alot More then 59 fps in far cry 2 at 1920. The review is very misleading.
I guess I will stop replying to you anymore since your account name says everything
but before that, let me tell you something..
go use FRAPS and go into game, play for awhile, record the fps, record into excel make a graph out..
you will soon sees around 44-50fps average is what it suppose to have...
if you think [H] article/reviews are inaccurate, why are you even here?
PS: its "THAN" not "THEN", kids these days need to learn the differences between both word.
Even with core 216's I have not yet seen an example where two 260's in SLI beat one 295. In benchmarks they did with the 196 shader model, the 295 very consistently placed right where it should, about halfway in between two 280's in SLI and two 260's in SLI. Even with the extra shader cores, the 295 still has a little more raw power under the hood.
The only way I've been able to test this is to compare my GTX 260 Core 216 to a single core of my 295 (SLI disabled.) The single 295 core did outperform the core 216 by decent margin, but they were still very close. Most wouldn't notice the difference in gameplay, and I was only able to quantify it realistically with benchmarks. The 3DMark06 for example was about 800 or so marks higher on the single core of the 295 quite consistently.
That said, the value is certainly in the 260's favor now. The only reason I have a 295 is because of trade-up. It was cheaper to trade up (I even kept my rebate value) than to buy a second 260, and the 295 still beats two 260's handily in power consumption at load and idle. But were prices then what they are now it would've been quite cheaper to go with a second 260 core 216 instead.
I sold my GTX 260 SLI setup already, so I couldn't do the test right now...
but awhile back, it actually shows GTX 260 SLI outperform GTX 295 but a very small fps in some case..
overall it doesn't really affect the game play, and most gameplay they have parallel performance... the reason why its slightly faster I believe is due to mature of driver..rest I couldn't think of any......
Here's some results for you at the higher graphic detail settings and at 1920x1200:
Left 4 Dead
1920x1200 Max Detail
GTX 260 216's SLI: 102.7
GTX 295: 105.5
4870x2: 99.6
Fallout 3
1920x1200 Max Detail
216's SLI: 78.5
GTX 295: 79.1
4870x2: 78.9
Far Cry 2
1920x1200 Ultra High
216's SLI: 66.9
GTX 295: 67.1
4870x2: 63.4
Crysis
1920x1200 Very High
216's SLI: 38.5
GTX 295: 40.5
4870x2: 34.1
Taken from Bit Tech. I didn't put Grid in there, but like I said earlier, the 4870x2 kicks nVidia's butt in that game. In all four of these games - except FA3 - the 295 wins, and the 216's in SLI come in second at 1920x1200. I think most of those results are with AA on, as well.
According to Bit-Tech's review, which appears quite solid in methodology, the following statements are incorrect:
"Oh and HD4870X2 outperforms the GTX 260 SLI by a very very very slight margin (results will not be that different at 1920x1200) in FC2"
The 4870x2 doesn't beat either nVidia solution at 1920 or 2560.
"260's would perform better then 295." "GTX 295 only a little bit behind GTX 260 SLI, they are essentially the same."
They are essentially the same, varying by no more than 3-4fps usually, but the 295 is not behind at all. It's ahead.
Now this:
"3DMark06 is utterly useless as an indication of real world performance."
This is getting truer and truer with newer games. It is still a reasonable indicator for performance of a lot of older games, but what the heck older game won't run maxed at 1920 on any of these cards!?
I could've put more 4870x2 favoring games like Grid and Conan, but you need to figure out which games you're going to play the most. Most of the games I play generally score a tad higher on nVidia hardware (per dollar spent.) But if the tables were turned I would have no qualms about getting an ATI card. I've been the proud owner of 4850's and 4830's, and I continue to run some of their lesser parts in rigs other than my primary one. It's sooooo SUBJECTIVE.
Left 4 Dead
1920x1200 Max Detail
GTX 260 216's SLI: 102.7
GTX 295: 105.5
4870x2: 99.6
Fallout 3
1920x1200 Max Detail
216's SLI: 78.5
GTX 295: 79.1
4870x2: 78.9
Far Cry 2
1920x1200 Ultra High
216's SLI: 66.9
GTX 295: 67.1
4870x2: 63.4
Crysis
1920x1200 Very High
216's SLI: 38.5
GTX 295: 40.5
4870x2: 34.1
Taken from Bit Tech. I didn't put Grid in there, but like I said earlier, the 4870x2 kicks nVidia's butt in that game. In all four of these games - except FA3 - the 295 wins, and the 216's in SLI come in second at 1920x1200. I think most of those results are with AA on, as well.
According to Bit-Tech's review, which appears quite solid in methodology, the following statements are incorrect:
"Oh and HD4870X2 outperforms the GTX 260 SLI by a very very very slight margin (results will not be that different at 1920x1200) in FC2"
The 4870x2 doesn't beat either nVidia solution at 1920 or 2560.
"260's would perform better then 295." "GTX 295 only a little bit behind GTX 260 SLI, they are essentially the same."
They are essentially the same, varying by no more than 3-4fps usually, but the 295 is not behind at all. It's ahead.
Now this:
"3DMark06 is utterly useless as an indication of real world performance."
This is getting truer and truer with newer games. It is still a reasonable indicator for performance of a lot of older games, but what the heck older game won't run maxed at 1920 on any of these cards!?
I could've put more 4870x2 favoring games like Grid and Conan, but you need to figure out which games you're going to play the most. Most of the games I play generally score a tad higher on nVidia hardware (per dollar spent.) But if the tables were turned I would have no qualms about getting an ATI card. I've been the proud owner of 4850's and 4830's, and I continue to run some of their lesser parts in rigs other than my primary one. It's sooooo SUBJECTIVE.
eh...their review doesn't make sense to me, not just lack of actual benchmark..
they actually just run the benchmark tool instead, totally inaccurate....
such as Crysis one, those fps are not average fps ....
GTX 295 could be slightly faster than GTX 260 SLI now after several driver updates, but too bad I don't have a GTX 260 SLI to test right now..
Nvidia101, no you won't. You made this thread with expectations of it being a blowout favoring the GeForce cards, and this thread went the exact same way your other one did, which is you asking a question, then arguing with everybody's answers.
Dangman
Ninja Editor SuperMod
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 46,056
- Status