HD4xxx VS GTx XXX, Which did you buy?

Which card did you purchase for your primary gaming machine?

  • ATI HD4xxx Series

    Votes: 159 44.8%

  • nVidia GeForce GTx2xx Series

    Votes: 113 31.8%

  • Both, I started with nVidia, then went ATi afterwards

    Votes: 21 5.9%

  • Both, I started with ATi, then went nVidia afterwards

    Votes: 23 6.5%

  • I didn't upgrade to either brand this series!

    Votes: 39 11.0%
  • Total voters
    355
I started with a 4870 512MB on a 1680x1050. When I got my 30", I also grabbed a GTX295 to go with it. Both cards have been great, but I will dump this GTX295 for the next card from either camp as long as it has similar performance but uses much less power.
 
GTX280.

Top single card at the time I bought. Hell... it's still pretty damn close.

Of course, I did buy before the 48xx series was a gleam in an enthusiast's eye.
 
I sold my 8800GTX and got a GTX280 the first day it came out. It was a real POS. I was an NVidia fan since the first day they got into business...

I then made the switch to a 4870X2 a couple of weeks after that, and never looked back. :) Never had a single problem with every drivers iteration since then. It was working so good, that I got a 4870 1GB to go Tri-Crossfire around 5 months ago.

I'm gaming at 2560X1600, and I'm really happy with ATI. I don't even remember the last time I got a BSOD or any freezing in a game, since I didn't had any problems in the last 5 months! Rock stable.

I'm now waiting to switch for the 58xxX2, and probably Tri-Crossfire again. :)
 
upgraded from PNY GeForce 7900GS to Sapphire Radeon HD 4870X2

never had an issue with either, and wish I could've kept the 7900GS around doing something (love the card, it just doesn't have the guts for anything over ~1280x1024 anymore)
 
I keep seeing people knock the GTX 275 when, at the ~$200 pricepoint, reviews exhaustively show that it generally outperforms the 4890.

In all honesty, it looks quite similar to the AMD vs. Intel battle in the processor market right now. NV has the performance crown, but ATI has more solutions in the lower-end market. Although really the 260 and 4870 are evenly matched, the 250 and 4850, the 275 and 4890 as well.
 
pigwalk said:
For all the guys who went 48xx instead of gtx2xx, just wondering why?
Click to expand...

Because some of us didn't want to pay $500? for a gtx260 and $650 for a gtx280.

I got my 4870 512 the week it was released, and it's still performing like a champ.
 
krameriffic said:
I keep seeing people knock the GTX 275 when, at the ~$200 pricepoint, reviews exhaustively show that it generally outperforms the 4890.

In all honesty, it looks quite similar to the AMD vs. Intel battle in the processor market right now. NV has the performance crown, but ATI has more solutions in the lower-end market. Although really the 260 and 4870 are evenly matched, the 250 and 4850, the 275 and 4890 as well.
Click to expand...

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/944/15/

That site looks like the 4890 and 275 trade blows back and forth... not exactly "exhaustively outperformed"

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/01/08/bfgtech_geforce_gtx_295/11

and hardOCP says that the 295 vs HD4870X2 are trading blows more often then not.

I would say this is the first generation of graphics cards that there was not a clear cut winner.
 
risqu3 said:
Because some of us didn't want to pay $500? for a gtx260 and $650 for a gtx280.
Click to expand...

I guess the scene when they both first came out is >ALOT< different than right now. I couldn't imagine 500 for my gtx260. The 159 I paid however 2 days ago wasn't bad.
 
RADEoN said:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/944/15/

That site looks like the 4890 and 275 trade blows back and forth... not exactly "exhaustively outperformed"

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/01/08/bfgtech_geforce_gtx_295/11

and hardOCP says that the 295 vs HD4870X2 are trading blows more often then not.

I would say this is the first generation of graphics cards that there was not a clear cut winner.
Click to expand...

I didn't say exhaustively outperformed, I said exhaustively showed, as in after looking at probably in excess of 30 reviews of the card, the majority put the GTX 275 ahead of the HD4890. Not by much, not in all games, but generally ahead. Somebody in this thread even said the 4870 outperforms the 275, which is blatant misinformation.
 
Battl3fr0nt said:
Now, the HD 4870 is about the same as Nvidias GTX 275 and in some cases faster..
Click to expand...

You mean HD4890? 4870... i highly doubt that.

It's no surprise that this generation more people went with ATI, they delivered and kept the prices low which is what they needed to do to get some of that market share back. Congrats ATI, you did a hell of a job.
 
GibsonEX said:
You mean HD4890? 4870... i highly doubt that.

It's no surprise that this generation more people went with ATI, they delivered and kept the prices low which is what they needed to do to get some of that market share back. Congrats ATI, you did a hell of a job.
Click to expand...

It would be quite a problem for nV if ATI could ever fix their drivers/fix their reputation of poor drivers.
 
RADEoN said:
It would be quite a problem for nV if ATI could ever fix their drivers/fix their reputation of poor drivers.
Click to expand...

Heat + Noise is the main reason I stayed away. I still have nightmares of my old x1800xt stock cooler....

and more nightmares when I replaced the cooler with an accelero and all the heat dumped in my case made my CPU fan run full tilt all the time......
 
krameriffic said:
I didn't say exhaustively outperformed, I said exhaustively showed, as in after looking at probably in excess of 30 reviews of the card, the majority put the GTX 275 ahead of the HD4890. Not by much, not in all games, but generally ahead. Somebody in this thread even said the 4870 outperforms the 275, which is blatant misinformation.
Click to expand...

when did 275 outperform 4890 in majority?

if you used both card, you definitely wont be saying that..

I been testing lots of card, I have to say they both run par to each other in most case..

in some case its 275 leading, in some case is 4890 leading... it depend on what games you play... and the word "majority" does not even apply here.. since we all know ATI sucks at running benchmark tool.. this is a well known problem...
that is also the reason why I trust [H] Review than any other site, since they actually record fps in game experience than some time run demo....
 
pigwalk said:
I was between the 4870 1gb and GTX 260 216 55. In the end the 4870 only really had price going for it, the 260 seems to be close or faster in most benches, runs cooler, uses less power and is quieter than the 4870. Choice was easy, bought the 260 yesterday and I'm LOVING it.
Click to expand...
sadly with that 2.5 Opty cpu you arent even coming close to fully utilizing that gtx260 especially if you are playing below 1920. the difference between using my 192sp gtx260 with my 2.6 X2 and E8500 is quite large even at 1920.
 
Last edited:
eVGA GTX 275. it was on sale for about $200 a month ago.

got it mainly for power consumption benefits over the 4890.

well worth it, no regrets.
 
Shopping around for 4850 because i got dirt cheap crossfire board from newegg. Also really cant beat the price/performance of ATI cards.
 
The nVidia mobile gpu debacle has left a very bitter taste in my mouth, along with Dell's terrible management of the whole situation. I probably won't be buying from either for a long time.
Went from 7800gt -> 4870 1gb. Price was also a big plus for AMD, although I wish it didn't run so hot.
 
Bought an original GTX260 back when the competition was the 512mb 4870 for the same price. Upgraded to a 4870X2 when I found a secondhand one locally for a good price.
 
cannondale06 said:
sadly with that 2.5 Opty cpu you arent even coming close to fully utilizing that gtx260 especially if you are playing below 1920. the difference between using my 192sp gtx260 with my 2.6 X2 and E8500 is quite large even at 1920.
Click to expand...

Guess I should update the sig eh :D
 
Got a Visiontek 4850 512mb for $160 at BB due to them releasing them early and getting in on 25% off deal that was supposed to expire before the 4800 series cards released.

Upgraded to a XFX GTX 260 Core 216 when Newegg had a combo deal that included the card, a 640BG Seagate HDD and a 4GB OCZ Rally Thumb Drive for $209 AR.

I went with 4850 for the price/preformance and with the 260 I was actually only looking for another HDD for my HTPC but saw the deal and couldn't pass it up.
 
Well i am trying ati and i dislike it, No physics :( or i heard they had some buy they were crappy. I am going back to nvidia and getting a 260
 
jvz555 said:
Well i am trying ati and i dislike it, No physics :( or i heard they had some buy they were crappy. I am going back to nvidia and getting a 260
Click to expand...

no PhysX? or "Physics"?

PhysX already prove itself worthless, other better physics engine out there use CPU instead... so dont even consider on that part..

also, "you heard they were crappy" or "you have feel its crappy" .. and whys that..?

I am interest on why people switch between brand when they both runs really well... :rolleyes:
 
shansoft said:
no PhysX? or "Physics"?

PhysX already prove itself worthless, other better physics engine out there use CPU instead... so dont even consider on that part..

also, "you heard they were crappy" or "you have feel its crappy" .. and whys that..?

I am interest on why people switch between brand when they both runs really well... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

my bad yes physx, and idk it just that a felt nvidia run better. It fells like this ati card is missing something
 
4850 512MB. Bought it at launch for just under $200.. now they're selling for like $90. Oh well, glad I didn't buy a GTX280 for $599 or I would have "lost" like $350 instead of only $100 :p
 
jvz555 said:
my bad yes physx, and idk it just that a felt nvidia run better. It fells like this ati card is missing something
Click to expand...

In terms of sheer speed a 260 is very comparable. The only situations when you will see much of an improvement are where you are framebuffer-limited or it is a title that heavily favours GT200 hardware (and lower performance when it favours RV770 architecture). I have both cards in Core2 systems and found very similar performance at 1680x1050 - the main reasons the 260 is in my main rig are the larger framebuffer and the fact it overclocks like a champ with watercooling. Had I got the 260 as an upgrade from the 4870......well, I'd be bloody disappointed. If PhysX, F@H or CUDA are really important to you (personally I couldn't give a rats ass at this point in time) then it may be a worthwhile purchase.
 
jvz555 said:
my bad yes physx, and idk it just that a felt nvidia run better. It fells like this ati card is missing something
Click to expand...

that is the thing, feel like and actual experience is different..

since you run with 512MB VRAM, I understand what is your situation for been "not that good", same goes to me when I had a small VRAM in 4870, but I was amaze after getting a 1GB after that ..... :p
 
Which would be a wise upgrade?

4870 or 4890?

My resolution is 1980 x 1080
 
If you're paying any more than ~$130 for a 4870 1GB, it's not really worth it. The 4890 really is a beast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top