Best single card GTX 280 or ATI 4870x2

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
yes i did

evidently i had to mention it again in answer to a question

What's your point?

Just clarifying, the impression I got was the flashing texture problem was current, so you're saying they were an issue before 8-10, but were fixed?

WoW sucks anyway lol

One part of me wants a 4870x2 because it generally can be and will be faster than the gtx280, another part of me says just get the single card solution and be done, and yet the 3rd part says "don't buy anything you crazy fool...wait for the next cards".

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
yes i did

evidently i had to mention it again in answer to a question

What's your point?

Just clarifying, the impression I got was the flashing texture problem was current, so you're saying they were an issue before 8-10, but were fixed?

WoW sucks anyway lol

One part of me wants a 4870x2 because it generally can be and will be faster than the gtx280, another part of me says just get the single card solution and be done, and yet the 3rd part says "don't buy anything you crazy fool...wait for the next cards".

Well are you *happy* now with your gaming experience? Have you got your new LCD yet?

That is just a HUGE number of people paying to play this game who will likely be pissed about this, and Ben Skywalker has been reporting troubles with ATi and this game for a while.

There are no issues with 4870 generally; just with ATi multi-GPU configurations .. and evidently it happened when the game engine was made over fairly recently.
- ATi did say they would address it with Cat 8-12 .. scheduled in just over a week

i guess the X2 WoW addicts can always disable a core and run it perfectly; or fritz with the settings in the WoW

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
and yet the 3rd part says "don't buy anything you crazy fool...wait for the next cards".

That's the intelligent part of your brain trying to have a say in the matter. Are you telling us that you haven't learned to ignore that part of your brain yet? I thought you were a real hardware enthusiast.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: nRollo

How about weighing in with your thoughts on the on the 4870X2 BFG? It's been posted that "Anyone who cares about anything other than it's framerates should be questioned" in this thread- how do you feel about that?

Well it's no secret I view mult-GPU with disdain. Simply put the GTX280 is a single card, while the 4870 X2 is not. That gives the GTX280 automatic advantages that extend beyond pretty benchmark bars.

Originally posted by: Chizow

but MoH:A runs great on a GTX 280 like all the other UE3.0 games I have. Are you running SS or some combined mode AA? Forced 4xTRMSAA is almost always 60+, usually 80-90 and only drops below 60 when zoomed out from a birds-eye aerial view when parachuting. The game is also very CPU intensive like most other UE3.0 games, so that could be another issue bottlenecking your performance.

In the more demanding maps the framerate can easily drop below 60 FPS at 1920x1440 with 4xAA, especially when zooming through the sniper scope into a thick battle. It?s not a CPU problem as dropping back to 1760x1320 lifts the framerate significantly.

No problems with COD4 or FEAR either with 4xAA. 8800GTX was almost fast enough to prevent drops below 60 in both games.

Again, with respect to CoD 4, try a more demanding map like the snowy forested area near the end of the game. I just played through the whole game again and I could see exactly where the framerate was dropping.

Vanilla Fear is fine, but the expansions are vastly more demanding. Try the starting helicopter crash area in Extraction Point and look at the fires in the building and you?ll see a big framerate hit.

You cannot make any inference about the gameplay from running the built-in benchmark because it doesn?t use any of the new lighting or shadowing the expansions introduced. In vanilla Fear I can do 1920x1440 with 16xAA, while the expansions have to be dropped back to 1760x1320 with 4xAA and still exhibit slowdowns.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
and yet the 3rd part says "don't buy anything you crazy fool...wait for the next cards".

That's the intelligent part of your brain trying to have a say in the matter. Are you telling us that you haven't learned to ignore that part of your brain yet? I thought you were a real hardware enthusiast.

Well, i do want a new card just to have a new card. However, I dunno for certain yet if I "need" one. Yeah, yeah I know...you never actually need anything and always want.

I'll know more tomorrow. When i get my new monitor.

Originally posted by: apoppin
Well are you *happy* now with your gaming experience? Have you got your new LCD yet?

Well, I'm never happy and always want more but there is a limit when it comes to playable vs the old argument "you can't count the frames if you're actually playing the damn game" :laugh:

I should have the new monitor tomorrow, will fire it up and try out my games at 1920x1200 and see where it stands with my limited 512MB card. We shall see. I do think now it'll be purely a judgement call on whether or not having 4xAA is something I deem 100% necessary. I haven't really done much gaming at all at that resolution so I could not make an honest decision now. Obviously more is better, but all I have to go by is screen shots and what I hear from various forums and sites.

 

[VI3L]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: spike99
Thanks for your suggestions... I was leaning towards GTX 280 and I still am due to concerns over possible scaling issues with ATI 4870x2.

It would have been nice to hear from anyone using ATI 4870x2.... and see if they have any scaling issues...

Far Cry2 scaling issue

10% scaling for the 4870X2, 30% for the SLi.

Neither is what I'd call great scaling, but at least the SLi offers scaling you can notice.

Bah, This link is good if your just going to run on an engine optimized for Nvidia only lol.

4870x2 IS the fastest single card on the planet, period.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: apoppin
so what are you asking, nitromullet?

i prefer to play with CF-X3. With maxed out CF filtering at 19x12; something no single GPU can touch and there is Zero Microstutter then.
--What is so difficult to understand about that?

Nothing difficult at all, except that I was under the impression we were discussing GTX 280 vs. 4870 X2 ("Topic: Best single card GTX 280 or ATI 4870x2"), and not 3-way setups vs single cards.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: VI3L

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: spike99
Thanks for your suggestions... I was leaning towards GTX 280 and I still am due to concerns over possible scaling issues with ATI 4870x2.

It would have been nice to hear from anyone using ATI 4870x2.... and see if they have any scaling issues...

Far Cry2 scaling issue

10% scaling for the 4870X2, 30% for the SLi.

Neither is what I'd call great scaling, but at least the SLi offers scaling you can notice.

Bah, This link is good if your just going to run on an engine optimized for Nvidia only lol.

4870x2 IS the fastest single card on the planet, period.

Bah, my post answered the question.

 

[VI3L]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: VI3L

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: spike99
Thanks for your suggestions... I was leaning towards GTX 280 and I still am due to concerns over possible scaling issues with ATI 4870x2.

It would have been nice to hear from anyone using ATI 4870x2.... and see if they have any scaling issues...

Far Cry2 scaling issue

10% scaling for the 4870X2, 30% for the SLi.

Neither is what I'd call great scaling, but at least the SLi offers scaling you can notice.

Bah, This link is good if your just going to run on an engine optimized for Nvidia only lol.

4870x2 IS the fastest single card on the planet, period.

Bah, my post answered the question.

Haha did you just get off on that?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: apoppin
so what are you asking, nitromullet?

i prefer to play with CF-X3. With maxed out CF filtering at 19x12; something no single GPU can touch and there is Zero Microstutter then.
--What is so difficult to understand about that?

Nothing difficult at all, except that I was under the impression we were discussing GTX 280 vs. 4870 X2 ("Topic: Best single card GTX 280 or ATI 4870x2"), and not 3-way setups vs single cards.

.. and i prefer X2 to GTX

mostly

now you started by challenging what i wrote

How exactly is the 4870 X2 providing you with a better experience than the GTX 280 in these games?

The CoJ benchmarks are about the only ones that substantiate your claim.

. . . and i pointed out other games and benchmarks that do shore up my claim; the ones you missed or ignored like FC2, QW:ET, STALKER: Clear Sky as well as GRID where the X2 runs the GTX off the track!
- and don't forget Crysis: Warhead

these are current games i play

Because you also mentioned the "way you play" .. in response, i pointed out that i actually PREFER to play with CF-3; strict discussion notwithstanding


mostly

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: apoppin
. . . and i pointed out other games and benchmarks that do shore up my claim; the ones you missed or ignored

I'm not going to ask you questions about your own benchmarks when they support your claim because your claim makes sense...

My point is that you said that the GTX 280 didn't meet your needs at 1920x1200 in Lost Planet, STALKER, and CoJ (among others); and a few pages later you posted your own benchmarks that showed the GTX meeting or slightly beating the 4870 X2 in STALKER and LP... I don't think it's out of line to raise a question about that.

 

[Kyanzes]

Check HardOCP's reviews. Take a look at the minimum FPS values. Then go and buy the GTX280 I actually WANTED to convince myself to buy a 4870 or a 4870X2. I simply couldn't. I admit the 4870X2 has some serious rocketfuel on board but there's only one thing I'm interested in: consistent min FPS. The new ATI cards simply CANNOT provide that. I'm talking about 1920x1200 gaming, mind you. Then again why the heck would anyone buy an X2 to play at 1280x1024 or something. I didn't want to spend $450 on a GTX280 but the fact is that minimum FPS (compared to the X2 in same scenarios) is better and more consistent most of the time. There are games where the X2 has significant lead. That doesn't mean however that the game would be unplayable with a GTX280. The other reason I finally went with the GTX280: drivers. Forums are ridden with ATI driver issues. At least that's what I have been personally experiencing.

Edit: btw while I don't like NVIDIA's control panel very much, theirs at least loads. Whereas I remember how long the ATI control panel sucked, failed to load, couldn't make it work. Because it has to look shiny. Who cares about usefulness? It has to shine!!! It has to look uber! Since then they surely have fixed this (haven't they???) though. When people say on the forums: "come on, performance will be better, it's just a question of driver optimalisation, you'll see..." and stuff like that, I ask myself: "Do I really have to listen to this BS?"

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Kyanzes
Check HardOCP's reviews. Take a look at the minimum FPS values. Then go and buy the GTX280 I actually WANTED to convince myself to buy a 4870 or a 4870X2. I simply couldn't. I admit the 4870X2 has some serious rocketfuel on board but there's only one thing I'm interested in: consistent min FPS. The new ATI cards simply CANNOT provide that. I'm talking about 1920x1200 gaming, mind you. Then again why the heck would anyone buy an X2 to play at 1280x1024 or something. I didn't want to spend $450 on a GTX280 but the fact is that minimum FPS (compared to the X2 in same scenarios) is better and more consistent most of the time. There are games where the X2 has significant lead. That doesn't mean however that the game would be unplayable with a GTX280. The other reason I finally went with the GTX280: drivers. Forums are ridden with ATI driver issues. At least that's what I have been personally experiencing.

I guess it depends on the reviews you read. Xbitlabs had a recent review that showed the X2 getting better minimum frames in a variety of games.

 

[CP5670]

If you're talking about this review, some of their scores look odd to me since I get much better performance at similar settings (at least in GRID and ME, the two games I have from that list). This is especially strange since it's usually the other way around. Benchmarks often heavily overstate the actual gameplay feel since they only cover a tiny part of the entire game.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: apoppin
. . . and i pointed out other games and benchmarks that do shore up my claim; the ones you missed or ignored

I'm not going to ask you questions about your own benchmarks when they support your claim because your claim makes sense...

My point is that you said that the GTX 280 didn't meet your needs at 1920x1200 in Lost Planet, STALKER, and CoJ (among others); and a few pages later you posted your own benchmarks that showed the GTX meeting or slightly beating the 4870 X2 in STALKER and LP... I don't think it's out of line to raise a question about that.

Well, maybe he wanted MORE than the GTX280 could give. It doesn't matter if the 4870x2 was a bit slower, if he wasn't even happy with the GTX280 that tells you something...you need GTX280 SLI or CFx3

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: CP5670
If you're talking about this review, some of their scores look odd to me since I get much better performance at similar settings (at least in GRID and ME, the two games I have from that list). This is especially strange since it's usually the other way around. Benchmarks often heavily overstate the actual gameplay feel since they only cover a tiny part of the entire game.

They're running 3Ghz C2D CPU. You're on 3.6Ghz. 600Mhz can be a healthy bump for games that still need some CPU muscle. They also are using 178.xxx drivers for their Nvidia card(s).

It really depends on the game. hardocp's recent articles compare highest playable settings for the games they benchmark. Sometimes the GTX280 tops out at 1920x1200 8xAA 16xAF as the resolution that provides the best experience in terms of graphics vs performance(min 30fps max 49fps avg 39.9fps). The 4870x2 can play the same game (far cry 2) at 2560x1600 4xAA 16xAF with a mim of 36fps max of 62 and avg of 50fps. http://hardocp.com/images/arti...3240eUpt0YZFkZ_3_2.gif

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CP5670
If you're talking about this review, some of their scores look odd to me since I get much better performance at similar settings (at least in GRID and ME, the two games I have from that list). This is especially strange since it's usually the other way around. Benchmarks often heavily overstate the actual gameplay feel since they only cover a tiny part of the entire game.

They're running 3Ghz C2D CPU. You're on 3.6Ghz. 600Mhz can be a healthy bump for games that still need some CPU muscle. They also are using 178.xxx drivers for their Nvidia card(s).

It really depends on the game. hardocp's recent articles compare highest playable settings for the games they benchmark. Sometimes the GTX280 tops out at 1920x1200 8xAA 16xAF as the resolution that provides the best experience in terms of graphics vs performance(min 30fps max 49fps avg 39.9fps). The 4870x2 can play the same game (far cry 2) at 2560x1600 4xAA 16xAF with a mim of 36fps max of 62 and avg of 50fps. http://hardocp.com/images/arti...3240eUpt0YZFkZ_3_2.gif

I don't think it would be that big a jump. I completed GRID with 1600x1200 4x/16x and don't think the framerate ever fell below 50, and it stayed over 70 probably 90% of the time. ME doesn't perform well in general, but it still stayed above 30fps at all times in the intense areas (in most maps it was constant 75+), at the same settings. This was on the 178 and 179 drivers.

I'm usually the first to complain that games perform badly when the benchmarks say they should be great, so something seems to be wrong there.

I don't bother with the H reviews at all, as their idea of "playable" never matches up with mine.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: apoppin
. . . and i pointed out other games and benchmarks that do shore up my claim; the ones you missed or ignored

I'm not going to ask you questions about your own benchmarks when they support your claim because your claim makes sense...

My point is that you said that the GTX 280 didn't meet your needs at 1920x1200 in Lost Planet, STALKER, and CoJ (among others); and a few pages later you posted your own benchmarks that showed the GTX meeting or slightly beating the 4870 X2 in STALKER and LP... I don't think it's out of line to raise a question about that.

i do not feel a GTX280 is really sufficient for 19x12 the way i like it

.. and, right now Cat 8-11 is screwed up with CoJ
- but only at 19x12

.. so i am investigating

.. and it goes back and forth; generally i get smoother game play with my games with X2 .. yet i play most of my games with CF-x3 to take advantage of the extra filtering i can use

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: CP5670

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CP5670
If you're talking about this review, some of their scores look odd to me since I get much better performance at similar settings (at least in GRID and ME, the two games I have from that list). This is especially strange since it's usually the other way around. Benchmarks often heavily overstate the actual gameplay feel since they only cover a tiny part of the entire game.

They're running 3Ghz C2D CPU. You're on 3.6Ghz. 600Mhz can be a healthy bump for games that still need some CPU muscle. They also are using 178.xxx drivers for their Nvidia card(s).

It really depends on the game. hardocp's recent articles compare highest playable settings for the games they benchmark. Sometimes the GTX280 tops out at 1920x1200 8xAA 16xAF as the resolution that provides the best experience in terms of graphics vs performance(min 30fps max 49fps avg 39.9fps). The 4870x2 can play the same game (far cry 2) at 2560x1600 4xAA 16xAF with a mim of 36fps max of 62 and avg of 50fps. http://hardocp.com/images/arti...3240eUpt0YZFkZ_3_2.gif

I don't think it would be that big a jump. I completed GRID with 1600x1200 4x/16x and don't think the framerate ever fell below 50, and it stayed over 70 probably 90% of the time. ME doesn't perform well in general, but it still stayed above 30fps at all times in the intense areas (in most maps it was constant 75+), at the same settings. This was on the 178 and 179 drivers.

I'm usually the first to complain that games perform badly when the benchmarks say they should be great, so something seems to be wrong there.

I don't bother with the H reviews at all, as their idea of "playable" never matches up with mine.

Playable is generally never letting the game drop below a spot where the gameplay suffers needlessly. Otherwise they turn it all up. It varies by game.

 

[berky]

edit

 

[Tempered81]

Dude!

GTX 280 > 4870

4870x2 > GTX 280

GTX295 > 4870x2

Period

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
Dude!

GTX 280 > 4870

4870x2 > GTX 280

GTX295 > 4870x2

Period

LOL- if you're like me and a fan of multi-GPU this pretty much says it.

 

[AdamK47]

The GTX295 is still dual cards. It just happens to have a single slot connector. The card is made up of two seperate PCBs with a GPU on each. The two GTX 280s in my system are a more elegant solution compared to this sandwich card IMO. The 4870X2 is a far better design compared to the GTX295.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: AdamK47
The GTX295 is still dual cards. It just happens to have a single slot connector. The card is made up of two seperate PCBs with a GPU on each. The two GTX 280s in my system are a more elegant solution compared to this sandwich card IMO. The 4870X2 is a far better design compared to the GTX295.

I've seen this "more elegant" and "better design" put forward many times.

Can you please explain what benefits the 4870X2's design provides the end user over the design of the design of the GTX295?

 

[dust]

Lol. Give it time with the "design". I thought the topic was for performance only .

I just like both of them. Used to go with Nvidia until ATI came out with the 4800 series and these are just better than their Nvidia opponents. Does Nvidia settle with this? No. They will probably come up with something a lot better than any other card. And so is ATI.

I guess the solution is to buy the best that there is out there regardless of the brand and keep pushing the two companies to release better counterparts. Both have problems with drivers and the problems are cleared step by step by the new driver releases. What I did notice though was that ATI is having higher max in FPS right now and often reach lower FPS at minimum than Nvidia. It seems that 280 handles the games better or at least some of them since it offers min/max FPS closer to the average. But I think this is also a question of the game engine being optimized for one or the other. If the vast majority favors Nvidia now and you do mostly gaming than there's your answer.

I would personally like to have both of them in separate systems since I also like to play a lot and some of the games play better on X2 whilst the others are better on 280. I would then see where to install what.

Regarding the price I don't believe the 3++$ versus 4++$ is obviously better. Yes it's a smaller hole in the budget but with only 100-150$ extra you get a dual gpu which you can use with or without CF. You could have two 280's as well but I guess the price would go beyond 600$. Therefore you should actually compare the last price with the X2 price, or the new 295 price if you are balancing the performance. Let's not forget the temps also, with two cards it may get nasty inside the case without a proper air flow, which may require additional investment.

Solution? I would go with the X2 for the moment or wait until some tests are done on 295 to see the price/gain ratio.