Discussion of ATI vs Nvidia build quality and other topics

[thilanliyan]

On a a side note, a computer program deduced some laws of physics...that's what we need
http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci.../2009/04/newtonai.html

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: SickBeast


The reviews I have read of the 4890 have it pretty much neck-and-neck with the GTX285, and when overclocked, the 4890 beats it badly. How is that equivalent to NV's 2nd or 3rd best part?

TBH I think that your post is blatant misinformation, Chizow..

More like your post is misinformation. An overclocked 4890 keeps up with a stock 275.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16681

Which puts it behind the 280 & 285.

So at stock that puts the 4890 in 4th place.

OMG, give it up already Wreckage. From your own link:


Far Cry 2 - 4X AA/16X AF - 1680x1050
54.6 FPS - GeForce GTX 285
54.1 FPS - Radeon 4890 OC
51.8 FPS - GeForce GTX 275
48.7 FPS - GeForce GTX 280


Far Cry 2 - 4X AA/16X AF - 1920x1200
50.0 FPS - Radeon 4890 OC
49.7 FPS - GeForce GTX 285
46.8 FPS - GeForce GTX 275
44.7 FPS - GeForce GTX 280

Far Cry 2 - 4X AA/16X AF - 2560x1600
37.8 FPS - GeForce GTX 285
35.9 FPS - GeForce GTX 275
33.8 FPS - GeForce GTX 280
33.1 FPS - Radeon 4890 OC

Left 4 Dead - 4X AA/16X AF - 1680x1050
152.8 FPS - Radeon 4890 OC
139.4 FPS - GeForce GTX 285
137.5 FPS - GeForce GTX 275
129.1 FPS - GeForce GTX 280

Left 4 Dead - 4X AA/16X AF - 1920x1200
131.6 FPS - Radeon 4890 OC
131.3 FPS - GeForce GTX 285
127.2 FPS - GeForce GTX 275
118.9 FPS - GeForce GTX 280

Left 4 Dead - 4X AA/16X AF - 2560x1600
97.8 FPS - GeForce GTX 285
89.6 FPS - GeForce GTX 275
86.3 FPS - GeForce GTX 280
82.6 FPS - Radeon 4890 OC

Call of Duty: World at War - 4X AA/16X AF - 2560x1600
49.2 FPS - GeForce GTX 285
45.1 FPS - GeForce GTX 275
44.0 FPS - GeForce GTX 280
41.4 FPS - Radeon 4890 OC

Fallout 3 - 4X AA/15X AF - 2560x1600
73.3 FPS - GeForce GTX 285
71.4 FPS - Radeon 4890 OC
69.0 FPS - GeForce GTX 275
64.9 FPS - GeForce GTX 280



In the majority of the benchmarks on this site, it would appear the Radeon 4890 OC is the card to buy if you're running any resolution lower than 2560x1600. It's even faster than the GTX 285 in all but one test below 2560x1600!

So the ONLY time a 4890 OC is in 4th place, would be at 2560x1600. Even then, the 4890 OC managed a win against the GTX 275 in Fallout 3.

Maybe you should actually look at the links you provide to "prove" your dubious claims. Or should we simply discount the tests that put ATI above Nvidia and only look at the ones that make Nvidia look good?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: thilan29
Have you considered they NEEDED those extra PCB layers? AFAIK having the 512/448-bit buses means you need more PCB layers. If they make a 256-bit version with GDDR5 and they still keep 12/14 layer PCBs THEN you can say yes they do that to improve quality (but I can guarantee you they wouldn't if it isn't needed).

"One of the reasons is that G92-based cards can be much simpler than G80-based solutions that require expensive and sophisticated 12-layer PCBs"
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...liss8800gt-1024gs.html

So if G80 cards required 12-layer PCBs, I'm willing to bet the newer GTX2XX series cards need it as well. nV is in the business of making money...if they can get away with 10 instead of 12 they'd do it, which is what happened with the 55nm 260.

Whether they need the extra PCB layers or not is irrelevant to proving superior build quality. But those 12/14 layer PCBs clearly aren't necessary as they were scaled back to cut costs on GT200b parts, as this link clearly shows:

Nvidia Dramatically Changes Approach to High-End Graphics Card Business

A good example of Nvidia keeping build quality high even when it was unnecessary was the original 9800GTX, which used Nvidia's high-end PCB reference on a part that was only clocked 25MHz faster than the G92 8800GTS, which used a lower quality mid-range PCB. Clearly an example of overkill build quality, but the overclocking results clearly demonstrated the extra build quality wasn't wasted as that part hit nearly 2000MHz shaders and ~800MHz core clocks.

See Cookie Monster's post above...ATI uses higher quality components and it seems moreso than nV at the moment. Don't get me wrong I think both companies make some fine cards...but you can't prove one is higher quality than the other unless you have specific engineering knowledge of the cards.

Nah, ATI actually went to cheaper non-reference parts on their 4870 long before Nvidia's switch with GT200b, again, because of Nvidia's restrictions outlined in the story above. Just run a search and you'll clearly see pictures of 4870s without the Volterra VRMs, cheaper mosfets and generic inductors.

Another statement you can't possibly back up unless you have intimate engineering knowledge of the components used and within what tolerances, safety margins, etc they are operating.

Why would I have to prove any of that or have intimate knowledge when the proof is in the pudding? 55nm GTX 260, 285 and now 275s based on non-reference designs with "cheaper" build quality and components overclock as high if not higher than their 65nm reference brothers. Sure the smaller GPU process contributes to the higher clocks, but the lower board quality certainly isn't hurting their performance and clock frequencies, which clearly shows the more expensive 12 and 14 layer PCBs were overkill and just a result of Nvidia's high emphasis on build quality.

That's not what you stated in your original post where you listed your "reasons for superiority". You made a blanket statement which is false. They've gone back and forth in performance before and both companies have made mistakes (ie. R300 vs FX series or G80 vs R600).

Uh, no its not false statement, I said Nvidia is clearly superior when it comes to performance, which is absolutely true. Its true now, and it was certainly more true for most of the past few years when ATI wasn't competitive. Only recently has ATI become competitive again with the RV770 and its fastest part now is still only 2nd or 3rd fastest overall. Historically Nvidia and ATI have gone back and forth but again, you can line up every part from the first Riva/Geforce or Rage/Radeon and Nvidia has produced the better part compared to ATI more often than not. I know its hard for some of you to understand, but outside of this forum (and Rage3D and AMDZone) people actually buy the better video cards when given the choice.

 

[SickBeast]

People actually tend to buy the best card for the money. If the top performer is overpriced, then too bad, most people will buy the 2nd best card if it's a better deal.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Creig
It's even faster than the GTX 285 in all but one test!

LMAO W-T-F. Seriously, I think I know why some people around here think AMD parts are better. They simply don't know how to read benchmarks. Your own results show the GTX 285 winning in 5/8 benches. How is that all but one test? LOL.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Creig
It's even faster than the GTX 285 in all but one test!

LMAO W-T-F. Seriously, I think I know why some people around here think AMD parts are better. They simply don't know how to read benchmarks. Your own results show the GTX 285 winning in 5/8 benches. How is that all but one test? LOL.

All but one test below 2560x1600. I edited my post prior to you posting this one because I figured you or Wreckage would glom onto it and intentionally misunderstand it.


And I was right.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I like Nvidia cards at the moment. I had a 4870 and then a GTX280 and now a GTX295(step-up card). I feel the Nvidia cards offer more features that are innovative at this point in time. Cuda, Physx, and now Ambient Occlusion if you want to use that.

Either way I'd be fine, but I find Nvidia to be much more supported when it comes to actual games especially with multi-GPU situations with a few minor exceptions.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Creig
All but one test below 2560x1600. I edited my post prior to you posting this one because I figured you or Wreckage would glom onto it and intentionally misunderstand it.


And I was right.

Uh ya, from someone who only a few posts made the following statement:

Originally posted by: Creig
Maybe you should actually look at the links you provide to "prove" your dubious claims. Or should we simply discount the tests that put ATI above Nvidia and only look at the ones that make Nvidia look good?

You'd think they'd take extra care to make sure their analysis would be accurate, as not to be confused with any "dubious claims". But you might want to make another edit, as your analysis is still wrong, as you clearly forgot to include:

Crysis Warhead - "Gamer"- 1920x1200
38.7 FPS - GeForce GTX 285
36.8 FPS - GeForce GTX 275
34.8 FPS - Radeon 4890 OC
34.5 FPS - GeForce GTX 280

If you edit your post real quick you can still get it in before anyone else notices, we wouldn't want people to think you purposefully discounted the tests that put Nvidia above ATI and only look at the ones that make ATI look good.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: chizow
Whether they need the extra PCB layers or not is irrelevant to proving superior build quality. But those 12/14 layer PCBs clearly aren't necessary as they were scaled back to cut costs on GT200b parts, as this link clearly shows:

It very much IS relevant. The memory chips on the 55nm 260, 275 and 285 are only on one side now so this could have led to the decrease in PCB layers...not necessarily that they were overkill.

Nah, ATI actually went to cheaper non-reference parts on their 4870 long before Nvidia's switch with GT200b, again, because of Nvidia's restrictions outlined in the story above. Just run a search and you'll clearly see pictures of 4870s without the Volterra VRMs, cheaper mosfets and generic inductors.

So ATI's cards also used components that could be deemed "overkill" since they could be using cheaper components and not fail in droves. Thanks.

Sure the smaller GPU process contributes to the higher clocks, but the lower board quality certainly isn't hurting their performance and clock frequencies, which clearly shows the more expensive 12 and 14 layer PCBs were overkill and just a result of Nvidia's high emphasis on build quality.

See 1st response. If they were needed (for the original 260 and 280) to begin with then your statement isn't accurate.

In terms of quality...you have absolutely no shred of real proof that nVidia produces higher quality cards yet you state it as fact (much the same as nRollo did) and if you don't have any REAL proof then spout all you want...there's no point in continuing to debate that. Armchair engineering must be fun.

Historically Nvidia and ATI have gone back and forth but again, you can line up every part from the first Riva/Geforce or Rage/Radeon and Nvidia has produced the better part compared to ATI more often than not. I know its hard for some of you to understand, but outside of this forum (and Rage3D and AMDZone) people actually buy the better video cards when given the choice.

I'm not even gonna bother with that one. You must have only started buying video cards since G80 came out.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Creig

OMG, give it up already Wreckage. From your own link:

Stop twisting words.

From my own link.....

Remember, the 4890 OC card we tested costs $265, and if anything, it was an almost exact match for our stock-clocked GeForce GTX.

Now they are using an overclocked card. I said "at stock", I am assuming you know what that means.

Just in case. If the overclocked 4890 is an exact match for a stock 275, then a stock 4890 would be slower. Thus that would place it behind a 275, 280 and 285.

Guru3D used a stock 4890 and as you can see the 275 is ahead.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-gtx-275-review-test/1

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Wreckage


Guru3D used a stock 4890 and as you can see the 275 is ahead.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-gtx-275-review-test/1

Yes, Wreckage, GTX 275 wins in the guru3d review, but 4890 wins on Anandtech's review and you can search for different reviews and see that the balance is tilted in some games for 275, in others for 4890 and so on. Making a conclusion out of these, I'd say that both cards are equal. You can't say for sure that gtx 275 is faster hands down, because it just isn't.

 

[AmberClad]

I've moved those posts that were heading off track into a general ATI vs Nvidia debate from the "Your Take on PhysX" thread into this one.

 

[Keysplayr]

It's a PhysX thread hammerheads!!! (Post from "Your take on PhysX" thread)

But anyway, here are the final thoughts/conclusions from each review.

PCPerspective: "Final Thoughts

Both the AMD Radeon HD 4890 1GB card and the GeForce GTX 275 896MB from NVIDIA are welcome additions to the GPU market and I think it?s difficult to pick a complete and final winner in the debate. Both cards perform very similarly, with perhaps a slight performance lead to the GTX 275 896MB card in a few games even though the Radeon HD 4890 did see a better performance INCREASE over the lower priced card in the lineup. Yes, AMD seems to be pushing the engineering side of things with the RV790 while NVIDIA is more pushing product and marketing, but in the end, a graphics card can only be judged on overall gaming experience. In this case, both are pretty equally matched. "

Guru3d: "Bottom line: the GeForce GTX 275 is a very attractive card to purchase. You have the full 240 Shader processors at your disposal helping you out when that extra little bite is needed. The product is priced really fair and will unleash an awesome lot of gaming pleasure on your PC. While I'm not saying the GTX 275 is a very much needed product, it definitely is a much welcomed one."

Extremetech: "In general, we think ATI was too conservative with this part. Instead of giving a lot of headroom for board vendors to offer substantially overclocked cards, it should have made the default clock speed 900?925MHz, which would have made it a better competitor to the GTX 275. "

HardOCP: "Performance-wise, the Radeon HD 4890 and the GeForce GTX 275 are well-matched competitors. The biggest difference right now is that you can actually buy the HD 4890 for less money, but you will have to wait a few days for the GTX 275. We are planning to do more exhaustive evaluations of the GTX 275 in the near future, so you will definitely want to stay tuned for that."

Firingsquad: "In the head-to-head battle between Radeon 4890 and GeForce GTX 275, the 4890 manages to eke out ahead, but it?s definitely a close race. The 4890 manages to outpace the GeForce GTX 275 in Far Cry 2, H.A.W.X., and Crysis, while the GeForce GTX 275 reigns supreme in Call of Duty 4, and STALKER: Clear Sky. Left 4 Dead and Dawn of War 2 are basically a draw. With the exception of H.A.W.X. for ATI, and CoD 4 for NVIDIA, neither card really pulls away from the other though, considering the margin of error in Dawn of War 2, we can?t really call that title, and even the results in Far Cry 2 and Crysis are generally within a few frames per second of each other: unless you?re running benchmarks with FRAPs or some other tool in the background, you?d hardly notice the difference between either card for the most part."

Anandtech: "At the same time, there are other questions, like that of availability. With these parts performing so similarly, and price being pretty well equal, the fact that AMD parts can be bought starting today and we have to wait for the NVIDIA parts is an advantage for AMD. However, we have to factor in the fact that AMD driver support doesn't have the best track record as of late for new game titles. Add in the fact that NVIDIA's developer relations seem more effective than AMD's could mean more titles that run better on NVIDIA hardware in the future. So what to go with? Really it depends on what resolutions you're targeting and what the prices end up being. If you've got a 30" display then either card will work, it's just up to your preference and the items we talked about earlier. If you've got a 24" or smaller display (1920x1200 or below), then the Radeon HD 4890 is the card for you."

PCgameshardware: "All in all the Geforce GTX 275 is on the same level as the HD 4890. It is about 10 percent faster than the GTX 260-216 and quieter than the Radeon HD 4890. The Geforce benefits from Nvidia's new 185 driver series. How much will be explained in a separate driver review later today. The recommended retail price for the GTX 275 is 239 Euros several Nvidia partner shops already offer the card for this price, although the first shipments of the GTX 275 have been rather small. Nvidia plans broad availability for April 14. "

Hexus: "HEXUS.net scores products out of 100%, taking into account technology, implementation, stability, performance, value, customer care and desirability. A score for an average-rated product is a meaningful ?50%?, and not ?90%?, which is common practice for a great many other publications.
We consider any product score above '50%' as a safe buy. The higher the score, the higher the recommendation from HEXUS to buy. Simple, straightforward buying advice.
The rating is given in relation to the category the component competes in, therefore the card is evaluated with respect to our 'mid-range components' criteria.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 896MB 74%
ATI (Sapphire) Radeon HD 4890 XT 1,024MB 72%
ATI (XFX) Radeon HD 4890 OC XXX 1,024MB69%"

Driverheaven:
"XFX Radeon 4890 1GB
A few months ago XFX entered the ATI marketplace with a range of Radeon 4000 series products and while the hardware was impressive we commented at the time that the overall package was a little rough around the edges. We hoped with this launch that XFX had time to refine their ATI products and it is clear with the 4890 XXX that they have. The product arrives in a very stylish box with all the cables and connectors an enthusiast would require. They supply a high quality free game with the bundle and the card is the fastest 4890 we have tested thanks to an increased core speed over the other reference models tested today. At this point there really is nothing in the 4890 market to beat the XFX XXX, though you will pay a premium for such an impressive product.

"GeForce GTX 275
It is clear from the performance figures achieved by the GTX 275 that it is a very desirable product. Throughout our testing the card was often leading the pack and regularly produced higher minimum framerates than the competition. CUDA/GPU computing continues to impress us and new additions such as vReveal detail just how useful and flexible the GeForce GPU can be. The one issue we found with the card was a reasonably high load temperature but we expect this to be resolved with retail cards.

Providing Nvidia and their partners can bring this card to market in a timely manner and at the price level indicated to us they should have a very popular product on their hands and one that it is hard not to recommend."

LegitReviews: "Legit Bottom Line: This battle is too close to call, but that doesn't matter as the consumer wins no matter which card they pick."

HardwareCanucks: "We can talk all we want about the GTX 275?s performance versus the GTX 285 but its real competition is suposed to be the HD 4890. When we look at the hard numbers, they seem to tell an intersting story: Out of 19 tests at 1680 resolution, the GTX 275 wins 10, at 1920 it wins 9 and it blows the HD 4890 out of the water by winning 16 of 19 tests at 2560 resolution. Even if we took its DX10.1 wins into consideration, the HD 4890 still manages to loose to the GTX 275 in 32 of 57 in-game benchmarks. What this tells us is that performance between the two cards is quite close under 30" resolution but the GTX 275 is almost unbeatable at extreme resolutions. What actually shocked us the most was how it was able to trounce the 1GB-equipped HD 4890 at ultra high resolutions. All in all, it seems the determining factor between these two cards will be price."

Bit-Tech:

"For ATI to deliver more performance to trump Nvidia's GTX 275 (let's just leave the GTX 285 to wither and die, shall we?) ATI will have to push the clock speeds even higher, producing an even hotter, more expensive and probably louder card. Either that, or it'll have to look into a re-vamped HD 4850 X2 card based on a pair of RV790 GPUs (likely downclocked and with the GDDR3 memory controller enabled).

As it stands, the GTX 275 with the ForceWare 185.65 beta driver is the clear choice, despite those PowerColor HD 4890 cards for £210 inc. VAT."

Nvidia GeForce GTX 275 896MB

* Performance * 8/10

* Features * 8/10

* Value * 9/10

* Overall * 9/10


ATI Radeon HD 4890 1GB

* Performance * 7/10

* Features * 7/10

* Value * 8/10

* Overall * 8/10

----------------------------------------------------

So it's fairly simple guys, there in black and white. Cards are too close to call, with the GTX275 usually getting the recommendation for purchase.

I really don't know what you guys are arguing about. it's all here. Read it.
Enjoy.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Creig

OMG, give it up already Wreckage. From your own link:

Stop twisting words.

From my own link.....

Stop twisting which words? You mean these?

Originally posted by: Wreckage
More like your post is misinformation. An overclocked 4890 keeps up with a stock 275.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16681

Which puts it behind the 280 & 285.

So at stock that puts the 4890 in 4th place.

You said, "An overclocked 4890 keeps up with a stock 275.", "Which puts it behind the 280 & 285" and gave that link to techreport as if it were somehow proof. So I posted the actual results of their tests which show otherwise. The 4890 OC was faster than even the GTX 285 in all tests lower than 2560x1600 except in Far Cry 2 at 1680x1050 where it lost to the GTX 285 by 0.5 FPS.

So at 2560x1600, yes, the 4890 OC is behind the 285, 280 and 275. But at 1920x1200 and 1680x1050, the 4890 OC is faster than all three GeForce cards except in FC2 at 1680x1050 where it lost by 0.5 FPS to the GTX 285.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Creig

OMG, give it up already Wreckage. From your own link:

Stop twisting words.

From my own link.....

Stop twisting which words? You mean these?

Originally posted by: Wreckage
More like your post is misinformation. An overclocked 4890 keeps up with a stock 275.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16681

Which puts it behind the 280 & 285.

So at stock that puts the 4890 in 4th place.

You said, "An overclocked 4890 keeps up with a stock 275.", "Which puts it behind the 280 & 285" and gave that link to techreport as if it were somehow proof. So I posted the actual results of their tests which show otherwise. The 4890 OC was faster than even the GTX 285 in all tests lower than 2560x1600 except in Far Cry 2 at 1680x1050 where it lost to the GTX 285 by 0.5 FPS.

So at 2560x1600, yes, the 4890 OC is behind the 285, 280 and 275. But at 1920x1200 and 1680x1050, the 4890 OC is faster than all three GeForce cards except in FC2 at 1680x1050 where it lost by 0.5 FPS to the GTX 285.

What does this really matter anyway Creig, Wreckage? Is it that important to you guys? Just read the final conclustions I posted from each review site. These cards are too close to call. They both encroach on stock GTX280/285 on many occasions. If there are any I missed, please link it and I'll add them. Take a step back guys, and realize your argument is kind of senseless. IMHO.

 

[error8]

Stupid post. Deleted. Sorry.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
What does this really matter anyway Creig, Wreckage? Is it that important to you guys? Just read the final conclustions I posted from each review site. These cards are too close to call. They both encroach on stock GTX280/285 on many occasions. If there are any I missed, please link it and I'll add them. Take a step back guys, and realize your argument is kind of senseless. IMHO.

Oh, I totally agree Keys. I personally believe a stock 4890 and the GTX 275 are pretty much neck and neck. It looks like we have another 4870 vs GTX 260 battle shaping up all over again.

It's only when Wreckage comes out saying things like, "An overclocked 4890 keeps up with a stock 275...Which puts it behind the 280 & 285." and "So at stock that puts the 4890 in 4th place." that somebody needs to step in and correct him.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
What does this really matter anyway Creig, Wreckage? Is it that important to you guys? Just read the final conclustions I posted from each review site. These cards are too close to call. They both encroach on stock GTX280/285 on many occasions. If there are any I missed, please link it and I'll add them. Take a step back guys, and realize your argument is kind of senseless. IMHO.

Oh, I totally agree Keys. I personally believe a stock 4890 and the GTX 275 are pretty much neck and neck. It looks like we have another 4870 vs GTX 260 battle shaping up all over again.

It's only when Wreckage comes out saying things like, "An overclocked 4890 keeps up with a stock 275...Which puts it behind the 280 & 285." and "So at stock that puts the 4890 in 4th place." that somebody needs to step in and correct him.

Ok, so maybe then try to avoid reviews that use overclocked models from either camp. Might be hard to find, but when one is o/c'd and the other is not, it kind of renders the whole review bogus. again IMHO.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr


Ok, so maybe then try to avoid reviews that use overclocked models from either camp. Might be hard to find, but when one is o/c'd and the other is not, it kind of renders the whole review bogus. again IMHO.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-gtx-275-review-test/1

Already linked it. Both cards @ stock. 275 is clearly ahead.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: thilan29
It very much IS relevant. The memory chips on the 55nm 260, 275 and 285 are only on one side now so this could have led to the decrease in PCB layers...not necessarily that they were overkill.

No, its really irrelevant. If I have a board in one hand with 12 layers, and another in the other with 8 layers, the one with 12 would clearly have better build quality regardless whether those layers were needed or not. I can do the same with any motherboard on the market right now, UD3P vs. UD5P vs. BloodMoneyEATERZ IV, the more expensive boards with more layers will have noticeably higher build quality, even if they perform similarly.

As for the memory chips necessitating the extra PCB layers, again, provably false as the RAM chips were never on the back side of the 8800GTX or 9800GTX which used the same high-end reference board.

So ATI's cards also used components that could be deemed "overkill" since they could be using cheaper components and not fail in droves. Thanks.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean Nvidia boards don't have higher build quality overall, as I've already outlined with PCB and cooling.

See 1st response. If they were needed (for the original 260 and 280) to begin with then your statement isn't accurate.

But its obvious they weren't needed, if it were subsequent designs would need to provide similar build quality in order to sustain that level of performance. Instead we see higher performing parts with less PCB layers.

In terms of quality...you have absolutely no shred of real proof that nVidia produces higher quality cards yet you state it as fact (much the same as nRollo did) and if you don't have any REAL proof then spout all you want...there's no point in continuing to debate that. Armchair engineering must be fun.

LMAO, I've already given two undisputable examples of higher build quality: 1) Cooler and 2) # of PCB layers. Its a fact, both of these features on high-end Nvidia parts have historically surpassed the quality of what was found on ATI parts.

I'm not even gonna bother with that one. You must have only started buying video cards since G80 came out.

And you must've only started buying video cards since R300 came out? I guess you forgot how ATI was uncompetitive for years prior to R300, and only became a serious contender in the GPU market through the acquisition of ArtX and their original GPU IP and designs (which led to R200, R300). So yes, after R300 you have 3-4 years of performance crown swapping, sandwiched by similar extended periods before and after where they were clearly running 2nd, often trailing the competition badly.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
What does this really matter anyway Creig, Wreckage? Is it that important to you guys? Just read the final conclustions I posted from each review site. These cards are too close to call. They both encroach on stock GTX280/285 on many occasions. If there are any I missed, please link it and I'll add them. Take a step back guys, and realize your argument is kind of senseless. IMHO.

I wouldn't call it totally senseless, I mean you have people like SickBeast who actually think the 4890 is on par with the GTX 285, rather than the 275 as every review shows. Clearing up misinformation is never senseless, IMHO.

 

[Keysplayr]

Still don't get why you guys are going on and on about this subject. GTX275 and 4890 are a dead heat trading blows. Why isn't this conclusion good enough for some of you? Why go on and on about such piddling differences betwee these two cards? From a gaming standpoint they are so close to each other that they could almost be reviewing the same card against itself. That's gaming. IMHO the G200 series has a lot more to offer over the 4xxx series in terms of features and crunching horsepower. That is where the higher value of the GTX275 becomes apparent. At least to non ATI fans. IMHO.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Still don't get why you guys are going on and on about this subject. GTX275 and 4890 are a dead heat trading blows. Why isn't this conclusion good enough for some of you? Why go on and on about such piddling differences betwee these two cards? From a gaming standpoint they are so close to each other that they could almost be reviewing the same card against itself. That's gaming. IMHO the G200 series has a lot more to offer over the 4xxx series in terms of features and crunching horsepower. That is where the higher value of the GTX275 becomes apparent. At least to non ATI fans. IMHO.

I pretty much agree with this, as chizow stated I was merely clearing up SickBeast's ridiculous statements.

 

[chizow]

Oh I agree on the performance level, I was just pointing out its not unnecessary or totally senseless to emphasize it, as I was accused of spreading "blatant misinformation" by claiming similar based on the very same reviews you linked.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Keysplayr


Ok, so maybe then try to avoid reviews that use overclocked models from either camp. Might be hard to find, but when one is o/c'd and the other is not, it kind of renders the whole review bogus. again IMHO.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-gtx-275-review-test/1

Already linked it. Both cards @ stock. 275 is clearly ahead.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539

Both cards @ stock. 4890 clearly ahead at 1680x1050 & 1920x1200. GTX 275 ahead at 2560x1600. Which is exactly what I said in an above post and which mirrors what was posted in your original techreport link.

The 4890, basically a tweaked and overclocked 4870, does improve performance over the 4870 1GB and puts up good competition for the GTX 275. On a pure performance level the 4890 and GTX 275 trade blows at different resolutions. The 4890 tends to look better at lower resolutions while the GTX 275 is more competitive at high resolutions. At 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200 the 4890 is nearly undefeated. At 2560 x 1600, it seems to be pretty much a wash between the two cards.