GTX 280 vs 5870: Confusing Results

[Shark974]

Crysis does run better on NVIDIA cards GENERALLY speaking. Again 3 Geforce GTX 280's in 3-Way SLI handed my 4870 X2 CrossfireX setup it's ass in that game. As for their being no reason to buy a Geforce GTX 280 or 285, I don't think that's quite so clear cut. I know that in my case when I bought my Geforce GTX 280's the 4870 hadn't even come out yet much less the 4890. So while the 4890 may be a great choice today or the day it was released, the Geforce GTX 280 has been out there for more than a year now.



I don't know about the OP but again when I bought mine, the 4870 wasn't even out yet. The Geforce GTX 280 was a huge improvement in Age of Conan and Crysis for me. (It was better in Call of Duty 4 thanks to how badly the 9800GX2's did AA and AF at 2560x1600.)



Well not everyone has the same setup or is in the same situation as you. I run a 30" LCD and I need all the power I can get. For me that's usually CrossfireX or 3-Way/Quad-SLI or bust. I've never found any single card that was able to give me the all the max details combined with high levels of AA and AF in every game at 2560x1600. Even if they did within a short time more demanding titles will be released that will change that.

Honestly I was more mocking the OP, he was making this big deal how 5870 wasnt worth it because his card runs most games at 60 anyway. Yet I'm sure he paid $500 or something for his 280 back in the day when the same logic could have been appplied to it at the time (I remember a lot of people talking about not upgrading from 8800GT because it ran everything fine)

BTW, his points are fine, but I suspect fanboyism is why he is bringing them up now. Myself, well I'm CPU limited on a Q6600 anyway, but even if I wasnt I think I'd stick with my 4890 anyway it truly does run everything fine, even Crysis.

But, independent benchmarks do show the 5870 is 40-50% faster in Crysis (and otherwise), and it is DX 11, so there is cause to buy it imo. Not too mention, PC gaming has been mostly based on easy to run console ports for 2+ years now, it's hardly anything new that just came along this week with 5870. Anyway, the gearheads literally buy card for faster 3D marks and the like, so I think the "no games need it" argument will never hold much sway with them. The sad truth is it isn't about the games for many.

 

[SixtyWattMan]

ITT: nvidia fan boys try to soften the blow?

 

[Dan_D]

Honestly I was more mocking the OP, he was making this big deal how 5870 wasnt worth it because his card runs most games at 60 anyway. Yet I'm sure he paid $500 or something for his 280 back in the day when the same logic could have been appplied to it at the time (I remember a lot of people talking about not upgrading from 8800GT because it ran everything fine)

If the OP wants to upgrade then he should do it. If not then he shouldn't worry about it. If you already have a Geforce GTX 280 or a similar performing card then I can see how it might be hard to justify the $400 on a shiny new 5870.

I paid $650 for my first two Geforce GTX 280's. I got them within the first 72 hours they were available. I barely missed the $100 rebate BFG offered shortly after the prices were dropped when the 4870's were released at $400.00. So I paid full price for those bastards. A couple of months later when a driver update enabled 3-Way SLI support for the Intel D5400XS motherboard I added a third card to the mix. That one I picked up for about $379.99 as I recall.

They were and still are great cards. The 5870 is newer, cheaper and better in virtually every conceivable way. That's to be expected, they are brand new and fairly high end. I'm looking to upgrade but I'm looking toward the 5870 X2 CrossfireX setup or a 3-Way / Quad-SLI GT300 setup. I'm going to try and wait to see what NVIDIA has to offer before buying anything. That is unless AMD beats them to the punch with the 5870 X2. If that happens then I suspect I may have to go with AMD this round.

 

[shansoft]

I paid $650 for my first two Geforce GTX 280's. I got them within the first 72 hours they were available. I barely missed the $100 rebate BFG offered shortly after the prices were dropped when the 4870's were released at $400.00. So I paid full price for those bastards. A couple of months later when a driver update enabled 3-Way SLI support for the Intel D5400XS motherboard I added a third card to the mix. That one I picked up for about $379.99 as I recall.

nice to see a skulltrail owner, I was going to buy one but I gave up, couldn't find a place that have reasonable price until these days..

 

[Robin B]

So why dosent the 5870 beat the 4870x2 in every game, it should have the power to do so ?

 

[shansoft]

So why dosent the 5870 beat the 4870x2 in every game, it should have the power to do so ?

fresh driver...ATi's fresh driver never fully release the potential of their new card...gotta wait

 

[truffle00]

Honestly I was more mocking the OP, he was making this big deal how 5870 wasnt worth it because his card runs most games at 60 anyway. Yet I'm sure he paid $500 or something for his 280 back in the day when the same logic could have been appplied to it at the time (I remember a lot of people talking about not upgrading from 8800GT because it ran everything fine)

And that really was the most idiotic thing that he could have said. He said his card ran things at 60 fps. He said he doesn't care if a card can run at more than 60 fps, because he uses vsync. Well then what the hell, why post a thread if you're getting the performance you want and don't want more, unless you're just trolling?

 

[Dan_D]

nice to see a skulltrail owner, I was going to buy one but I gave up, couldn't find a place that have reasonable price until these days..

Well reasonable prices and Skulltrail never did go together. I still have it but I don't game on it anymore. It's now my Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise RTM server. It's running VM's, Active Directory, etc.

 

[Mozex]

Well, I get that, and I see how it benefits NVIDIA (or said card company). But how does the game company benefit from picking a side? Isn't it somewhat like the NFL selling the exclusive license to Madden? Now all those 2K fans will be pissy for the next 10 years.

I'm not sure, but I assume the card manufactures pay the game devs/publishers to put their branding on the product. The dev/publisher must assume they'll make more from the advertising than they lose from alienating people who prefer the competitor's product.

Does the fact that Sony is the "official television of the NFL" stop you from watching games on a Panasonic set? I don't think consumers are generally alienated by this type of marketing.