So the GTX260 is better than the 4870 now?

Well last post since I don't wanna get banned but you're just one of those high schoolers on the cal forums, and I do forgive you since not everyone knows three 9800gtx beats a single 4870.
 
aZn_plyR said:
Well last post since I don't wanna get banned but you're just one of those high schoolers on the cal forums, and I do forgive you since not everyone knows three 9800gtx beats a single 4870.
Click to expand...

I just graduated from high school 3 months ago but what does that have to do with your amazing power to bend time and the rotation of the planet for your personal use of speeding up graphic cards by simply generating an opinion?

And what the heck is a cal forum?
 
aZn_plyR said:
So is THIS your last post?

And what was the typo anyway? Did you mean to write IMHO instead of IMO? Was that it?

And I'm clearly missing half of my brain for not knowing how one card compares to the other, yup. My IQ is officially below room temperature for that one *sniffle*

So, care to explain how an obvious opinion about card speeds is a typo? You don't see magazine editors saying "my Daewoo is faster than my friends Ferrari, IMO" and then saying it was a typo a month later. Well, you obviously live in a different planet where magazine editors do infact do that, since you can change card speeds with a single thought.

And why does it matter if I'm a kid or not? I'm not the one that claims to be able to change card speeds using opinions.

P.S "LOLUMAD"?
Click to expand...
 
Technically opinions can carry card speeds. Since people's pc are different, one person can do better for a card then another.

Which then if you tell someone who does worse performance then you on the same card, they'll consider it your 'opinion'
 
Zellio2009 said:
Technically opinions can carry card speeds. Since people's pc are different, one person can do better for a card then another.

Which then if you tell someone who does worse performance then you on the same card, they'll consider it your 'opinion'
Click to expand...

shh you're ruining it
 
"shh you're ruining it"

Really? So you get turned on by starting arguments and posting useless comments.

Typo because it should've went after MY OPINION on how the 512mb was a bad buy when the GTX 260 was the same price with better performance. I hope you have that in your head now one last time.

Anything else? I noticed you only dropped in to do a troll job while contributing nothing to the thread but I guess I can't expect much from you, especially on videocards.
 
alg7_munif said:
What really matter is the real world gameplay, not canned benchmarks. I remember when the HD 2900 was getting better in canned benchmarks with newer drivers but in real world gameplay, it doesn't show any difference at all. Since most review sites are using canned benchmarks, I really doubt that a "magic" driver can bring out more real world peformance from a 2 year old graphic architecture, the GT200 is just a larger version of G80.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know what review sites you follow to compare "canned" benchmarks with real world benches but more times than not if performance is noticeably increasing in actual game benches (time demos of real games and not 3dmark) then performance was increased in that game. The only thing that "real world" testing does is add in more variables such as increased AI movement, gun fire, ect. Those added variables do have an effect on how one card performs vs another such has been shown in HardOCP video card reviews so I like it that [H] has stayed with their real world testing.

But that doesn't mean that [H]ard's real world tests are always going to be more right over every other review published by major hardware review sites, even if a lot of them are using what some want to refer to as "canned" benchmarks. Real world testing does do a better job of showing what the game will feel like actually playing it but it has drawbacks that make it's results less accurate and prone to user error.

The biggest problem that lies with real world testing is that it isn't 100% reproducible. All you can do is take a series of averages and go with that number you come up with. Another thing to note is that different levels and areas of a game will show different results and sometimes one card may do better when it didn't in a different part of the game. The other hardware used such as the CPU and motherboard also play a role, especially if you are in any way at all CPU limited during a period when testing.

Here is the latest game review that I see at [H] where they're using the latest ForceWare 80 series drivers to test. It's the game Left 4 Dead which is produced by Valve. A game that ought to probably slightly favor ATI if anyone.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4OSwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

At the highest resolution of 2560x1600 the GTX 260 and 216 core showed identical performance to the 4870 1GB and 512MB cards.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4OSw2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

At 1680x1050 the same holds true except that the ATI cards were able to run a slightly higher effective AA at 24x CF ADAA vs 16XQ TR SSAA with the nVidia cards but I don't know that there's even any noticeable difference at all between those two settings. Also note that the 4870 512MB card had a 6 fps higher average than the 1GB version even though both cards have the same clocks. Just an example of what I was referring to with real world testing having added variables that can slightly skew results.

So in testing like this unless the fps performance difference is into the double digits or your able to play with noticeably higher settings in-game with a specific card then slight fps differences should be ignored even if the ATI card for example came out ahead a few fps in every test.

As far as recommending which is the best card you can't go wrong with either card unless one performs quite a bit better in the specific game you play the most and then that's the card you should definitely get. Oblivion is a game that I would be playing more than others so I'm going to go with nVidia since they have the clear edge. Price though gives the GTX 260 the advantage over the 4870 1GB and 512MB both though so if you want the best high performance for the price the GTX 260 is going to beat the 4870 1GB every day of the week.

My vote says go GREEN! :cool:
 
Well I kind of like both red and green. If you game below 1920x1200, I think the GTX260 is the hands down winner. If you game at 1920x1200 and up, the 4870x2 is the hands down winner. GTX260 core 192 definitely has won the best bang for your buck title over the 4850 though. Image quality seems a lot better on ATI cards as well. I called BS on this, but after switching, it's quite noticeable... so I think that might push people looking for a mid-range card to the 4870 512mb/1GB models instead of the GTX260.
 
I've had both companies cards - ranging from the geforce 4 -> 9800pro -> 6800gt -> x1800 -> 8800gts 320 -> 8800gts 512 -> 8800gt 512 -> 9800gtx -> hd4850 -> gtx 260 -> hd4870 512.

I've always noticed that ATi cards have a definate advantage in terms of image quality. 2D quality alone is always better than nvidia cards. No one ever seems to mention this. 80% or more of my time on the PC is spent looking at the 2D desktop/browsing/videos. It is in this area ATi always wins. Things look much more crisp and vibrant, text even seems easier to read in comparison (gtx260 vs hd4870) Even in games, despite what some reviews show or say, the ATi cards I've had always look better. It's hard to just point out I guess, which is why I rarely bring it up to people. I'd like to believe I'm being objective. Anyhow, just be happy with what you have.
 
I wonder what increase should I get on my 8800gtx with the new drivers which i haven't installed yet as I read a few guys with problems with them :confused:

All the tests I have seen only use the 260 or 280 and mainly new games that I don't have :rolleyes:
 
BM00 said:
I've always noticed that ATi cards have a definate advantage in terms of image quality. 2D quality alone is always better than nvidia cards. No one ever seems to mention this. 80% or more of my time on the PC is spent looking at the 2D desktop/browsing/videos. It is in this area ATi always wins. Things look much more crisp and vibrant, text even seems easier to read in comparison (gtx260 vs hd4870) Even in games, despite what some reviews show or say, the ATi cards I've had always look better. It's hard to just point out I guess, which is why I rarely bring it up to people. I'd like to believe I'm being objective. Anyhow, just be happy with what you have.
Click to expand...

No, you're not being objective, which is why you've made a good decision in not bringing it up. Just because you like the ATI quality defaults better, it doesn't mean NVIDIA's are worse. They just need to be adjusted to your liking. That's why an array of options exist in the control panel...
 
They're both good cards... you won't go wrong either way.

I personally own a Radeon 4870 1gb and I couldn't be happier with it I've always found nVidia's driver support to be very good, and I prefer their user interface for controlling settings over ATi's catalyst control centre.
 
I wouldn't say one is better than the other outside of Crysis and F@H, lol. IQ on the 4870 is a bit better to my eye, but that's just an opinion.
 
CaptainSoble said:
Well I kind of like both red and green. If you game below 1920x1200, I think the GTX260 is the hands down winner. If you game at 1920x1200 and up, the 4870x2 is the hands down winner. GTX260 core 192 definitely has won the best bang for your buck title over the 4850 though. Image quality seems a lot better on ATI cards as well. I called BS on this, but after switching, it's quite noticeable... so I think that might push people looking for a mid-range card to the 4870 512mb/1GB models instead of the GTX260.
Click to expand...

Where is the image quality quite noticeable between ATI and nVidia? Are you talking about 2D? Because it isn't 3D since professional reviewers sit and stare at blown up in-game screen shots side by side trying to show differences between the two and IQ is superb with both brands. I think with 2D the ATI cards are just better configured by default in the drivers and you need to mess with the nVidia drivers to get the same 2D look. I also noticed the 2D difference between ATI and nVidia when switching back and forth between the two but I think most of it is addressable.

Also, I wouldn't say the 4870x2 is the hands down winner for 1920x1200 unless your talking about only having a single card solution. Due to the price of the 4870x2 you can buy 2 or even 3 GTX 260's for the price of one 4870x2 and a two way or three way SLI config is going to easily beat a single 4870x2 unless SLI doesn't perform well in that game.
 
But a SLI system requires an nVidia botherboard or an i7 setup with a x58 board. 3 way SLI requires nVidia chipset period. That's a huge compromise IMO. It's best if we keep this as simple as possible. If you want to throw in multi-card solutions to show nVidia is superior, well we can always add a 2nd 4870 X2 also.

Both sides have advantages and disadvantages, there are so many variables you can introduce into this debate that it would never end. The green team will list all their advantages while the red will list theirs. ATI DOES have the fastest single card out there, sure you can tripple SLI 260's but that can only be done a very small number of motherboards. And anyone who spent the money on a board that can do tripple SLI with the hopes of using it isn't worried much about cost, so to list cost as an advantage when we're talking about high end systems like this is kind of a stretch.
 
Silus said:
No, you're not being objective, which is why you've made a good decision in not bringing it up. Just because you like the ATI quality defaults better, it doesn't mean NVIDIA's are worse. They just need to be adjusted to your liking. That's why an array of options exist in the control panel...
Click to expand...

huh..

I have tried messing around with nVidia Control panel, nothing can really change the texture.

And it is quite noticeable with 3D intensive game, such as Crysis..

Its quite hard to explain how both looks different, but there is one major differences I found is texture blur, especially on the mud ground... nVidia makes it look a bit of blurry, but ATI makes it more sharp and clear..

some people like bit of blurry, some like sharp and clear..

also 2D image color, I have tried to adjust that in nVidia Control panel, but it never works like ATI default....

bottom line, go green, go red, I dont care...

Only pick the one that worth of buying..

I have most of the nVidia product until this round, got myself a 4870 CF..

If nVidia's new card have a huge performance boost compare to their last generation card like what 8800 GTX did, I would love to buy a pair of it right away....

But ATI truly need to work on their driver more... especially on profile....
And the new 8.12 better work out as it says, I really want to see some improvement...
 
I think ***** is better than ***** because of EVIDENCE and if the world doesn't agree with me, I think I might actually die.

I think that pretty much sums it up?
 
burningrave101 said:
Where is the image quality quite noticeable between ATI and nVidia? Are you talking about 2D? Because it isn't 3D since professional reviewers sit and stare at blown up in-game screen shots side by side trying to show differences between the two and IQ is superb with both brands. I think with 2D the ATI cards are just better configured by default in the drivers and you need to mess with the nVidia drivers to get the same 2D look. I also noticed the 2D difference between ATI and nVidia when switching back and forth between the two but I think most of it is addressable.

Also, I wouldn't say the 4870x2 is the hands down winner for 1920x1200 unless your talking about only having a single card solution. Due to the price of the 4870x2 you can buy 2 or even 3 GTX 260's for the price of one 4870x2 and a two way or three way SLI config is going to easily beat a single 4870x2 unless SLI doesn't perform well in that game.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about 2d and 3d quality actually. This is just my opinion going from a gtx260 form a 4870x2. Games seem more vibrant in color and eye popping. Video quality seems a lot better as well. I think there have been arguments that AA on ATI cards is a lot better than Nvidia cards. Not too sure about that though.
 
RamonGTP said:
But a SLI system requires an nVidia botherboard or an i7 setup with a x58 board. 3 way SLI requires nVidia chipset period. That's a huge compromise IMO. It's best if we keep this as simple as possible. If you want to throw in multi-card solutions to show nVidia is superior, well we can always add a 2nd 4870 X2 also.

Both sides have advantages and disadvantages, there are so many variables you can introduce into this debate that it would never end. The green team will list all their advantages while the red will list theirs. ATI DOES have the fastest single card out there, sure you can tripple SLI 260's but that can only be done a very small number of motherboards. And anyone who spent the money on a board that can do tripple SLI with the hopes of using it isn't worried much about cost, so to list cost as an advantage when we're talking about high end systems like this is kind of a stretch.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, you would have to have a SLI enabled motherboard in order to go two way or three way SLI with GTX 260's but I guess I'm mostly looking at it from the standpoint of building a new system vs just upgrading on an older board that doesn't support SLI. I'm looking to build a new i7 setup myself and most all the boards support two way or three way SLI. And I was just trying to show what was the best option per the price point so 2 4870x2's wouldn't even be a question because of the cost. But like you said you have to have a SLI enabled board. And for the cost of a single 4870x2 you could probably just about buy two GTX 260's and a cheap SLI board (not i7 of course) if you did it on eBay with the Live cashback lol.
 
I just recently sold my 4870 512MB for $220 and I'm gonna pick up a GTX260 Core 216 as soon as it drops a bit for the holidays. Reason being: I'm upgrading to a 24" real soon and I dont think 512MB or VRAM will last me very long for future titles, especially since I like to crank up the AA. Also, it would be nice to have PhysX since you never know what titles are gonna take advantage of it (I'm already quite looking forward to Mirrors Edge). Therefore, i decided to sell my 4870 now while its still worth something. I should have just gone with the 260 from the start, but oh well, lesson learned.

My run with the 4870 although short, was terrific. Great card. I'm glad ATI is finally pushing out the 1GB version.
 
Going on Newegg prices the GTX 260 192 core version is down to $210 with a free game (Rainbow Six Vegas 2) vs the cheapest 4870 512MB at $240 with no game. That choice is really easy. You can also grab a 216 core GTX 260 for $240 now and the 1GB 4870 is upwards of $270 and beyond. I just don't see where the 4870 makes sense. AMD is enjoying the large profits they make on their cards, I'm hoping they'll drop the price soon. The competition is great and EVERYONE should THANK AMD for putting out a great card this time around and giving us all WONDERFUL experiences at GREAT PRICES be it in either Nvidia or AMD form.
 
Starcrossed said:
<clears throat> Yes, it is of the utmost importance in my life that ATI makes a competing product. I have been feeling quite ill since the 180 drivers. Life has seemingly lost its meaning.
Click to expand...

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of competition?
 
Silus said:
No, you're not being objective, which is why you've made a good decision in not bringing it up. Just because you like the ATI quality defaults better, it doesn't mean NVIDIA's are worse. They just need to be adjusted to your liking. That's why an array of options exist in the control panel...
Click to expand...

I'm not the only person who thinks ATi image quality is better, far from it. Most people in fact give the nod to IQ always being as good _or_ better than Nvidia. The colors and textures/text are much more brilliant and crisp, it's very apparent to me. No amount of digital vibrance setting / tweaks, etc in the nv control panel could bridge the gap. I guess I'm just a little more sensitive to image quality.

BOTH cards (4870 / gtx260) are great cards and one could never go wrong if the choice is simply between them.
 
i had a 9800 and felt that nvidia is more neutral and natural, although i did like the brilliance of the ATI at times. I hate digital vibrance. I don't remember if it was more crisp, probably. i do know ati has a lot better overscanning, customizable for each resolution. I use my nvidia with my hdtv just fine because i can disable overscanning on my set, thank goodness. before i figured it out, and getting the card to scale, it sucked.
 
BM00 said:
I'm not the only person who thinks ATi image quality is better, far from it. Most people in fact give the nod to IQ always being as good _or_ better than Nvidia. The colors and textures/text are much more brilliant and crisp, it's very apparent to me. No amount of digital vibrance setting / tweaks, etc in the nv control panel could bridge the gap. I guess I'm just a little more sensitive to image quality.

BOTH cards (4870 / gtx260) are great cards and one could never go wrong if the choice is simply between them.
Click to expand...

And I'm one of those people. IQ is very important, especially given some of my hobbies (some CAD tools and 3D Rendering) and your statement continues to not be objective, nor is the statement by those "most people" you mentioned. "Most people" just use the default values, without even touching the settings to adjust them to something they like better, so if the defaults suits them, they'll say that X company's IQ is better than Y company's IQ, based on that alone. Having said that and having used ATI and NVIDIA cards at work and college, they are both exactly the same, once you tweak the settings to your liking.
 
260gtx was always better than the hd 4870

it was the price at first that scared everyone away

now it is a much better deal considering: its cheaper, comes with farcry 2 and a lifetime warrenty on select models
 
If ATi had been more forward thinking, this wouldn't be a discussion if they had started their 4870 line with at least 768MB RAM. That really woulda dented GTX260 sales. But the fact is that ATi wanted to milk the 4870 1GB for a premium price. Not a fan of that decision, but that's "DAAMIT" for you :|
 
Well according to stuff on the net ATI has gained marketshare, and prices for the GTX260 did drop dramatically thanks to the 4870. So when you get that GTX260 you should thank ATI for the bargain price your getting. And I do agree, the GTX260 is a bit better than the 4870 for gaming...but not that much better. 4870 would actually be better for people that want sound through HDMI. For gaming alone though the GTX260 is a bit of a better deal. Now that the 4870 1GB is selling for $250 and below, it's a tough call though. I'd definitely take the 4870 1GB for $250 over the GTX260 w/192 SPs.
 
redbonefish said:
260gtx was always better than the hd 4870

it was the price at first that scared everyone away

now it is a much better deal considering: its cheaper, comes with farcry 2 and a lifetime warrenty on select models
Click to expand...

how is it always better?

benchmark plz? I been using both card for awhile before I sold my GTX 260, 4870 shows a clear lead on gaming experience..

But high resolution/AA does shows the limit of what 512MB can do..

1G 4870 will take back the lead on high resolution/AA .....

For single GPU solution and high-end, I recommend GTX 280 if you have the cash..


To Skrying:

the cheapest 4870 512 is 194 USD, I have no idea how you find the cheapest is 240..
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121276

Green Fantasy Eye Filter? :rolleyes:
 
shansoft said:
how is it always better?

benchmark plz? I been using both card for awhile before I sold my GTX 260, 4870 shows a clear lead on gaming experience..
Click to expand...

And in what way does the 4870 show a clear lead on gaming experience? Because reviews being posted by online reviewers which are regarded with more experience than most tell a different story.

With the new ForceWare 180 drivers you won't find an ATI 4870 1GB that's better than this XFX GTX core 216 clocked at 666Mhz on the core except in maybe a couple ATI dominated games. It's going for $249.99 AR right now at Newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150330&Tpk=xfx black 260

Here is a review of it here:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/xfx_geforce_gtx_260_black_review/page8.asp

You'll notice it's out ahead in every game by a good margin.
 
those tests are biased towards nvidia there are several other sites who only tested same games that nvidia suggested (same 5 games) even with that except dead space there is mostly 2 3 fps difference
 
eric66 said:
those tests are biased towards nvidia there are several other sites who only tested same games that nvidia suggested (same 5 games) even with that except dead space there is mostly 2 3 fps difference
Click to expand...

Well provide links to these other unbiased reviews including the XFX GTX 260 black edition then. There is more than 2 or 3 fps difference between this version and the 4870 1GB in a lot of games because it's core is clocked at 666Mhz and memory 1150Mhz. It's in the range of reference GTX 280 performance.

Something also to keep in mind is that the GTX 260 is cooler, quieter, and consumes less power than the 4870.
 
why are you comparing black edition with normal 4870 1 gb i was talking about stock clocked one
 
eric66 said:
why are you comparing black edition with normal 4870 1 gb i was talking about stock clocked one
Click to expand...

You're welcome to compare it to an overclocked 4870 1 gb version if you can find one retail. There's no reason not to take into account things like overclock performance when it comes factory clocked that way. A 4870 and GTX 260 won't both overclock the same from reference design speeds.
 
burningrave101 said:
And in what way does the 4870 show a clear lead on gaming experience? Because reviews being posted by online reviewers which are regarded with more experience than most tell a different story.

With the new ForceWare 180 drivers you won't find an ATI 4870 1GB that's better than this XFX GTX core 216 clocked at 666Mhz on the core except in maybe a couple ATI dominated games. It's going for $249.99 AR right now at Newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150330&Tpk=xfx black 260

Here is a review of it here:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/xfx_geforce_gtx_260_black_review/page8.asp

You'll notice it's out ahead in every game by a good margin.
Click to expand...

I just bought the XFX black edition GTX 260 today for the above price from newegg.. I'll be upgrading from a 8800GTS 640mb card.. Hope I will be happy with my new purchase. I know its already a decent O/C from the factory but since this is [H], I am interested in finding a reference "clock/scale chart" for this card.. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
 
burningrave101 said:
You're welcome to compare it to an overclocked 4870 1 gb version if you can find one retail. There's no reason not to take into account things like overclock performance when it comes factory clocked that way. A 4870 and GTX 260 won't both overclock the same from reference design speeds.
Click to expand...
there is pcs+ version that is clocked to 800 mhz but there aren't any tests with newer drivers and about that big bang drivers unless you cherry pick games those drivers aren't that big improvement which nvidia wants us to believe to here you go anand review without those 5 games :

'NVIDIA promised between some pretty significant performance gains with this driver, but the caveat is that the performance gains are only with certain hardware on certain games with certain settings. Obviously we didn't have the time or energy to test every permutation of everything. In fact, we just did a brief run down of a few games using the GTX 260 so that we could get a taste of what to expect in the general case.
For the most part, performance we are seeing stayed stable. Oblivion saw a decrease in performance which is certainly worth noting. We could spend our time looking for where the performance gains come from, but looking at our highest quality tests at a decent resolution with a card targeted at gamers across 5 games and seeing nothing really doesn't impress us.'

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3462&p=4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top