Unless you've started your weekend early, you have probably realized that both
NVIDIA and
AMD announced new GPUs this morning. Coincidental timing aside, it sure makes things easy for the consumer to eye the respective benchmarks and plan out their next mid-range GPU purchase accordingly. A whole bevy of reviews, tests, graphs and bar charts have hit the web this morning extolling and panning the pros and cons, but without getting too deep in the nitty-gritty, we can sum things up pretty easily with this. NVIDIA's GTX 275 showed performance that placed it perfectly between the
GTX 285 and
GTX 260, and in all but a few off-the-wall tests, it outpaced the ATI Radeon HD 4890 (albeit slightly). Granted, the HD 4890 was called the "fastest, single-GPU powered graphics card AMD has ever produced" by
HotHardware, though apparently even that wasn't enough to help it snag the gold across the board. If you're hungry for more (and you are, trust us), take the rest of the day off and dig in below.
Read - HotHardware GeForce GTX 275 review
Read - HotHardware Radeon HD 4890 review
Read - ExtremeTech GeForce GTX 275 and Radeon HD 4890 review
Read - DailyTech GeForce GTX 275 and Radeon HD 4890 review
Read - X-bit Labs ATI Radeon HD 4890 review
Read - ComputerShopper ATI Radeon HD 4890 review
Read - Guru 3D GeForce GTX 275 review
Read - Guru 3D ATI Radeon HD 4890 review
Read - PCPerspective ATI Radeon HD 4890 review
posted April 2nd 2009 11:26AM
I'm too lazy to read through those, anyone want to sum it up?
Is NVIDIA still the way to go for top performance and ATI for cost-effective performance?
Neither really. Both these cards are value-performance (~$250) and are quite similar. Nvidia has some cute tricks, some that work (Ambient Occlusion, basically a shadowing technique) and some that have potential but have limited application (PhysX, CUDA). I'd say just base it on price, or if you need features exclusive to one platform (either 3D implementation, etc...).
hah, doesn't matter to skyblaze. he just waltzes up to the nearest retailer, slaps down his black card and buys both XD
-however, in direct response to your conondrum fellow gadget lover, upon doing excessive research on both companies (to assist in my decision on purchasing certain notebook computers) many a forum has led me towards the conclusion that ati is currently the leader in performance and graphics capabilities... whether or not it is the more cost effective choice i have not been able to divulge as of yet.. but rest assured darth abe, you really can't go wrong with either device, as they both provide viable solutions to your graphical needs.-
:)
absolute performance, top 5
1. 4890 CF
2. GTX 295
3. GTX 285
4. 4890, GTX 275
5 GTX 260/216
You can argue that 285 SLI is missing from top spot, but considering $$, wattage, it's halfway through its life cycle, and performance is small beans over the nearest competitor, it isn't worth it.
Sweet i just issued an step up from my evga 260 core 216 to the 275. Total cost was 20 dollars. Now if only the waiting line would move faster, im number 36!
ATI rule. NVIDIA is too late
+1
Dang, already obsolete...
Anyone wanna buy a 4870?
NVIDIA GTX GTX + 3D vision = WIN.
By "win" I mean years of permanently being glued to your gaming desktop with no other purpose or function in life.
In that case..............WIN!!!!!!!!
I am soo sick of all the different model numbers and confusion it causes when trying to upgrade you graphic card. You have to spend 1/2 a day just compareing them.
amen
THANK YOU!!
So Nvidia made a card that isn't quite as good as the 295 but better than the 260 yet it still isn't as good as the 4890? Did they really need to make a card that fills the middle ground between the 295 and the 260? Fuck just stick to a basic numbering scheme and get rid of all this fucking G, GT, GTX, XTXGx2CORE2XXXTG what the fuck
...and now they have found a way to resell the same gpu for less and still make a profit. why do we need a GTX 275?
Hello 911!! I need a Wwaaaahhhhhmbulance.
Yeah, you'll definitely need half a day, if your stupid. It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes, that's what those reviews are for, they show how it performs, against the competion.
Now excuse me, I need to run down to the car dealership bitch about how all the cars have LT, GT, RT, LS, GTS, GTX, GTR, M, GTM, GS, ES, LIMITED, SEL, SL next to their names.
ATi rule
letters and first digit is a generation, HD 4 is the latest, before that; HD 3, HD 2, X1, X (roman 10), 9...
the second number is the performance level; 0-4 is entry, 5-7 is mainstream, 8-9 is high end
the last two are like slight modifications using the same chip; can be 30,50,70, and 90, higher is better
nVIDIA rule
look at benchmarks until you are familiar with the card's performance by name
I can't wait for OnLive. No more looking for the perfect hardware, no more installing and buying physical disks, no more Blu-ray or DVD Bull Sh*t, no more buying a console for $300+. It will change the whole industry, not only game consoles are scared by now, but CPU and GPU makers must be so worried. :)
There's still some major faults with it in that I do not want OnLive to completely replace consoles and gaming PCs.
Sometimes the service will go down naturally, but I don't want it to go down after I come back from a hard day of school and work and so can't play any games when I finally have the time to, that would suck. What if I want to play an older game a couple of years down the road and OnLine removes it from their servers? With PC gaming, I don't think they will allow user created levels and mods will they? What about those who live in remote areas who lack broadband internet access, we're going to totally cut them off from gaming then?
Uh, for one thing, where do you think OnLive is going to get the processing power for its server farms, fairies? CPU and GPU makers wouldn't be affected at all. For another thing, OnLive is bullshit; there's no way they can compress a decent quality video feed that fast and have it stream on your side fast enough. The latency is going to suck; the only thing worth playing on it would be turn based strategy games.
Sorry to say, but it's not going to pan out as you think it will.
It's simply NOT feasible with today's tech, and today's infrastructure.
So far, they have only provided controlled demos to a few select people in showroom environments.
What do you fathom will happen when a game like GTA IV comes out that sells like 4 million units within a week?
There's no way that OnLive or our current infrastructure here in the US would be able to accommodate that sort of demand.
Read these articles for a reality check:
GDC: Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article
Going Live: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/going-live_2
Why don't you just get a real life instead?
OnLive claims this could be the end of the console era. If OnLive doesn't implement my suggestions (or something similar), there are several things a console has that make the console more enticing.
1. If Sony, MS and/or Nintendo go out of business, the games are still playable. If OnLive goes out of business you are screwed.
2. If you don't like/get bored/finish many times a console game, you can resell it and get at least some of your money back. If you don't like/get bored/finish many times an OnLive game you purchased you are screwed.
3. If a game is unpopular and discontinued for a console, it doesn't matter, you still have a copy. If a game is unpopular and discontinued from OnLive, you may not be able to play a game you purchased anymore and are screwed.
4. If you don't use a console for a length of time (maybe a vacation or illness), it doesn't matter because it's still there waiting for you and it's not costing any extra money. If you don't use OnLive for a length of time, you are still paying a monthly fee for nothing and are screwed. Even if OnLive lets you cancel for a month, then restart the service, it all gets a bit difficult.
Example: You are going away or hospitalized for 2 weeks.
Do you cancel for that month?
Would you remember?
Is it worth the trouble or do you just chalk it up to a loss?
What if you don't cancel on the correct day? You would probably be charged a full month because you started the service on the 1st but you cancel on the 2nd.
I believe that if OnLive doesn't come up with something to resolve these issues, they will have a difficult time getting people on board and they may go under in a short amount of time.
If the cost is too expensive, it doesn't matter how well it works. Nobody will sign up to find out or even care. It's not like it is a necessary product. In the end it's just video games.
waalllllaahh
i totally agree. you should get the herpes checked out.
According to AnandTech, it's actually 4890 that wins almost all benchmarks, except at 30" resolutions. That's a rather different outcome than mentioned in the summary.
Thanks for the hint: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539&p=23
Anand actually tested cards with games at resolution for "mere mortals" - 1680x1050. At least some of the benchmarketers are getting it...
People should know by now that Engadget summaries don't mean anything. You should always read the linked article(s) for the real news.
Here's a good summary. The 4890 clearly wins at 1920x1200 and lower. At 2560x1600, the two cards are nearly equal, with one of the cards taking the lead depending on the game.
You guys are missing HardOCP's:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYzNiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
The HD 4890 looks nice, but I'm keeping my HD 4850 until the HD 5000 series comes out.
I'm going to get the 4870 or 4890 soon.. My 3870 sometimes lags me a bit in L4D and I can't play at high settings online .. OR ELSE... haha.. Maybe I'll wait for the 5000 series.
Since these cards are so close, is NVIDIA's inclusion of PhysX worth getting it over the ATI?
I don't know about anybody else here but what got me with Nvidia is the constant driver problems I had with their cards. Maybe it was my particular card I had but what i can say is I went from a BSOD on a daily basis with the 8800 to none, ever. I switched to the 4870 and have not had one BSOD since I installed it 8 months ago. Performance is also second to none.
Looks like the 4890 for me. Nvidia burned me twice. Once with their lackluster 780 chipset m/boards. Then again with the 8800 cards.
Just throwing a few more in there:
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/powercolor_hd4890/
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd_4890/
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_gtx_275/
And because of the 3 url limit:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/944/1/
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1539
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1537
(Nice to see ASUS putting some easy voltage tweaking options on a card)
I switched from ATI to NVidia six months ago as a significant upgrade. Wish I hadn't. The NVidia drivers are horrible--I suffer two blue screens a month after none for the two years before then. (Maybe unrelated, but Company of Heroes no longer runs.)
Sounds like the problems I was having. I switched to ATI and don't have any issues (whatsoever) anymore.
I havent been able to get ATI drivers to work on any of my systems since my 9800Pro. I have tried 4 different cards (including a 4890 just yesterday) all have had problems with drivers. Now the newest one may have been due to running Win7 x64, but the 4890 isn't even supported in Catalyst 9.3 yet. You have to edit .inf's just to get it to run, much less perform.
Very nice but my Yamaha receiver RX-V1800 don't accept any newer card than ATI 4670.Screw you ATI.
Hmm.
To each their own. I have never had a positive experience with ATI for gaming cards. All-In-Wonder is very nice though.
Having read all of the reviews seems that the 4890 benefit is availability. And then it is a matter of personal preference. How's that for a fanboy fight?
Physx/CUDA is nice but limited. +nvidia
DX 10.1 is nice but limited. +ati
..both do OpenCL
X58 chipset does crossfire +ati
.. and SLI +nvidia
Performance is basically even at standard gaming resolution: 19x12. Nvidia is better at higher resolutions, ATI at lower (+/- 2-5% depending on the test is not a clear win for either side, sorry fanboys).
BTW: If you really want Physx, just get a 9600gt for physx and use whichever for your render card (oh yeah I run Windows 7 so that just works).
* Disclaimer, I currently have a 45 day year old 2nd gen 260/216. Decision was based on 9 years of experience with ATI and Nvidia. I've been in this since 3dfx, so personal bias makes a difference in how I spend my dollars, but in the recommendations I give.
Man. I totally agree with that. :)
"Personal preference" is what matters. Fanboyism is so "old".