Help me to get a better card 4870 or 260

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
1) I've never had an issue with my card's heat. I've seen some Nvidia cards go past 100c but somehow those claims are ignored.
2) I do not ever increase my fan speed and my 4870 stays around 85c at full load. It is NOT loud if you leave it alone.

There's entire threads dedicated to 3rd party RV770 cooling.....Don't have to go very far to find them, there's plenty in there who aren't even overclocking that have problems with either heat, noise, or both. And you don't even want to see some of the comments about stock overclocked parts like the Diamond 4870 XOC.

The defective GTX 280 problems have been well covered and considering we've only had 2 instances on these boards, I'd say the problem isn't nearly as widespread as 99.9% of 4800s being 80-90C+ with stock cooling/fan speeds.

3) What games, and specific resolutions and maybe links are you referring to with regard to poor AA performance?

FPS drops in COD4, WoW and QW:ET
Unfortunately reviewers typically do not run substantial gaming/duration benchmarks so such problems will not show up in most reviews. There's no shortage of 512MB 4870s tanking in reviews at 2560 in some titles and settings, however.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but you post a ton of stuff that could be just hot air or misinformation. I have looked at reviews and such and nothing leads me to believe the GTX260 is a better card. That's why I bought my 4870.

As noted in a previous post the card's length may dissuade someone from purchasing it. It did have an impact on my purchase as I would barely be able to fit it and would need to really squeeze.

Hot air would be claiming the 4870 with stock cooling has no heat issues.....

I'm well aware of your preferences and posting tendencies, I'm really surprised its taken you so long to surface since RV770s release.

Ok now, since when does 80c = defective? I notice my card running to 85c and it never crashes or gives artifacts. Non issue.

Anyone running at those resolutions should realize that 512MB cards aren't enough.

And posting tendencies? It's been MONTHS since I've even posted here. I'm just saying that you and others post so much spin on supposed "issues" that it's silly. Yes it IS spin because as others on this forum have stated, the card may run 80c+ but it runs stable anyway.

Originally posted by: Mem

There's entire threads dedicated to 3rd party RV770 cooling.....Don't have to go very far to find them, there's plenty in there who aren't even overclocking that have problems with either heat, noise, or both. And you don't even want to see some of the comments about stock overclocked parts like the Diamond 4870 XOC.

It works both ways plenty of 4870 users that have no problems,personally I don't need to use the fan hack on my unmodded 4870 card,games are very stable and even FURMARK runs fine on both stability and stress test,remember not everybody overclocks,the heat issue is blown out of proportion as always.


I'll let you know if and when I get any problems,personally my 4870 is as stable as the best Nvidia card I have own over the years.

We all know Nvidia cards are perfect right?..Wrong my last Nvidia card gave me more issues then any ATI/AMD card I have own,I won't bother meantioning uninstalling the Nvidia drivers gave me more issues even with Driver Sweeper in safe mode,remember there are Pro's and Con's on both sides even with Nvidia cards.

I agree. Personally my card at 780/1090 runs 100% no problem in every test I can throw at it with stock cooling.

The biggest issue Nvidia has is drivers. Long gaps between releases makes for many issues lingering for longer than necessary.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Ok now, since when does 80c = defective? I notice my card running to 85c and it never crashes or gives artifacts. Non issue.

Anyone running at those resolutions should realize that 512MB cards aren't enough.

And posting tendencies? It's been MONTHS since I've even posted here. I'm just saying that you and others post so much spin on supposed "issues" that it's silly. Yes it IS spin because as others on this forum have stated, the card may run 80c+ but it runs stable anyway.

I never said 80C was defective, however, there are reports of 4800s not being able to run at stock speeds and fan settings. 80C idle with 90+ loads is also apparently uncomfortably high for many who are used to cool, quiet builds....troublesome enough that they would spend $30-50 on additional cooling.

512MB may be enough for lower resolutions without AA, but could be a problem going forward and in some games with AA, which is why I recommended waiting for the 1GB version and new GTX 260 before making a decision.

Its not spin when I've directly linked and referenced very real issues with the 4800 series cards that should be considered when comparing the two cards the OP mentioned. And yes, I can remember more than a few months back, not that I'd need to as you've picked up right where you left off.

Originally posted by: Mem
It works both ways plenty of 4870 users that have no problems,personally I don't need to use the fan hack on my unmodded 4870 card,games are very stable and even FURMARK runs fine on both stability and stress test,remember not everybody overclocks,the heat issue is blown out of proportion as always.


I'll let you know if and when I get any problems,personally my 4870 is as stable as the best Nvidia card I have own over the years.

We all know Nvidia cards are perfect right?..Wrong my last Nvidia card gave me more issues then any ATI/AMD card I have own,I won't bother meantioning uninstalling the Nvidia drivers gave me more issues even with Driver Sweeper in safe mode,remember there are Pro's and Con's on both sides even with Nvidia cards.

Mem, you should disclose your last NV card was a 7-series, so recent experience with NV parts/drivers is a bit dated. I'm not going to deny that driver stability, reliability and support deteriorates over time for older parts with newer driver releases, but I think that's going to hold true whether NV or ATI. Personally I've never had to uninstall NV drivers with the 8 and GTX series, I just install right over the last set. I can certainly say its a more pleasant experience than ATI's installer.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I agree. Personally my card at 780/1090 runs 100% no problem in every test I can throw at it with stock cooling.

The biggest issue Nvidia has is drivers. Long gaps between releases makes for many issues lingering for longer than necessary.

Funny, I averaged at least 1 official driver from Nvidia's site per month with my G80 parts. Yes many were Beta and yes there was a span of 5-6 months between WHQL drivers for G80, but did it matter? No, because the NV Beta's are as good as WHQL without the actual designation and there weren't as many issues to fix after a year of updates. Are there going to be some problems for some users? Of course, just like there are still lingering issues with ATI's monthly WHQL drivers. Again, you don't need to search very far on these forums to find problems (especially now that people are actually buying ATI parts), with the most common resolution being: "Install the [insert last set of Catalyst drivers, Betas or Hot Fixes] and see if that fixes it."

 

[bonecrusher]

THANKS guys for the reply

i had built a rig 5 months ago with a 3870 on it with 22incher it really had some issues like if he update the driver his rig crashes (dont know which driver)

in nvidia other hand i have 8600m gt in my laptop after every driver release man the game play is unbelivible it so good

and had a another doubt i hear people say nvidia is about the aa performance
is it true

this mean i am not a nvidia fanboy i just need to know ati & nvidia card owners comment about their product

 

[Fattysharp]

There are biased people who will try and sell you on the name of the card, instead of the preformance. Be wary of the fanatics adivce

The facts are that the 4870 and gtx260 go toe to toe with each beating the other in a few titles. I find the ati cards are a great deal cheaper in canada, and nvidia cards are cheaper in the states.

Unless you specificly want/need dx10.1 or physX either card will do a great job. I went with the 4870 this gen because I could get it considerably cheaper the 260. if the prices had been reversed, I would have bought the 260. and if the prices were equal, I would have bought the card that works better for the games I play. Which is the 4870 anyways

You can not go wrong with either card. save yourself some cash, and get whatever you can get the better deal on.

 

[Mem]

Mem, you should disclose your last NV card was a 7-series, so recent experience with NV parts/drivers is a bit dated. I'm not going to deny that driver stability, reliability and support deteriorates over time for older parts with newer driver releases, but I think that's going to hold true whether NV or ATI. Personally I've never had to uninstall NV drivers with the 8 and GTX series, I just install right over the last set. I can certainly say its a more pleasant experience than ATI's installer.

chizow I still use an old Sapphire 9700 NP card too,I also have a Nvidia 8600M GT in my Dell laptop which I do use for games now and then,what I'm saying is over the years I have found both Nvidia and ATi drivers to be more or less solid,I'll give the edge to AMD/ATI mainly because of my personal experience with the Nvidia uninstaller recently in Vista x64,(it can't be that hard for Nvidia to make a clean uninstalling program for their drivers).

End of the day everybodys experience will be slightly different regardless of brand etc..

Funny, I averaged at least 1 official driver from Nvidia's site per month with my G80 parts. Yes many were Beta and yes there was a span of 5-6 months between WHQL drivers for G80, but did it matter? No, because the NV Beta's are as good as WHQL without the actual designation and there weren't as many issues to fix after a year of updates.

I prefer monthly official updates rather then beta testing drivers ie Nvidia,so this again is another personal choice,you could argue why don't Nvidia release monthly official updates like AMD,since they have no problems in offering new or improved video cards to combat competition from AMD/ATi (48xx etc).

I do keep my drivers updated on both sides of the fence so base my experience on that.

Choosing a video card nowadays is not always easy,anyway however which way he goes he has a good card.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Ok now, since when does 80c = defective? I notice my card running to 85c and it never crashes or gives artifacts. Non issue.

Anyone running at those resolutions should realize that 512MB cards aren't enough.

And posting tendencies? It's been MONTHS since I've even posted here. I'm just saying that you and others post so much spin on supposed "issues" that it's silly. Yes it IS spin because as others on this forum have stated, the card may run 80c+ but it runs stable anyway.

I never said 80C was defective, however, there are reports of 4800s not being able to run at stock speeds and fan settings. 80C idle with 90+ loads is also apparently uncomfortably high for many who are used to cool, quiet builds....troublesome enough that they would spend $30-50 on additional cooling.

512MB may be enough for lower resolutions without AA, but could be a problem going forward and in some games with AA, which is why I recommended waiting for the 1GB version and new GTX 260 before making a decision.

Its not spin when I've directly linked and referenced very real issues with the 4800 series cards that should be considered when comparing the two cards the OP mentioned. And yes, I can remember more than a few months back, not that I'd need to as you've picked up right where you left off.

Originally posted by: Mem
It works both ways plenty of 4870 users that have no problems,personally I don't need to use the fan hack on my unmodded 4870 card,games are very stable and even FURMARK runs fine on both stability and stress test,remember not everybody overclocks,the heat issue is blown out of proportion as always.


I'll let you know if and when I get any problems,personally my 4870 is as stable as the best Nvidia card I have own over the years.

We all know Nvidia cards are perfect right?..Wrong my last Nvidia card gave me more issues then any ATI/AMD card I have own,I won't bother meantioning uninstalling the Nvidia drivers gave me more issues even with Driver Sweeper in safe mode,remember there are Pro's and Con's on both sides even with Nvidia cards.

Mem, you should disclose your last NV card was a 7-series, so recent experience with NV parts/drivers is a bit dated. I'm not going to deny that driver stability, reliability and support deteriorates over time for older parts with newer driver releases, but I think that's going to hold true whether NV or ATI. Personally I've never had to uninstall NV drivers with the 8 and GTX series, I just install right over the last set. I can certainly say its a more pleasant experience than ATI's installer.

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I agree. Personally my card at 780/1090 runs 100% no problem in every test I can throw at it with stock cooling.

The biggest issue Nvidia has is drivers. Long gaps between releases makes for many issues lingering for longer than necessary.

Funny, I averaged at least 1 official driver from Nvidia's site per month with my G80 parts. Yes many were Beta and yes there was a span of 5-6 months between WHQL drivers for G80, but did it matter? No, because the NV Beta's are as good as WHQL without the actual designation and there weren't as many issues to fix after a year of updates. Are there going to be some problems for some users? Of course, just like there are still lingering issues with ATI's monthly WHQL drivers. Again, you don't need to search very far on these forums to find problems (especially now that people are actually buying ATI parts), with the most common resolution being: "Install the [insert last set of Catalyst drivers, Betas or Hot Fixes] and see if that fixes it."

:roll:

I guess the forum never grew up. What does the past have to do with a current topic? nothing. We forget that there were trolls, shills or whatever you wish to call them who worked on behalf of Nvidia to push marketing in our face. Now we're faced with it again. Physx this and CUDA that. Ignoring different things like card length, power consumption, drivers, performance before overclocking. These are much more important than wondering which new naming scheme will be used. I urge you to stop going after people for what you consider "posting tendencies" which is really just a childish thing to be doing. I thought this forum would have grown more professional about this. I see it's the same fanboyism all over again. For the record, I DID consider the GTX260 to go into my system. However, after looking at reviews, looking at driver releases, not to mention the length of the card that would be a tight squeeze, I decided that I was best served with an HD4870. It's not life or death here...if we don't all buy Nvidia products the world won't end. I don't see what the problem is. I state my opinion and what I did after looking at the options and you call me a fanboy in your "hide in the shadows" sort of way.

Beta drivers aren't a good way to do things IMO. People see beta and say "I'm not going to be guinea pig on this" and they avoid them. Then you get constant complaints about some problem that may have already been addressed but they will not use beta drivers. That's how some people are.

When talking about 512MB cards choking. It depends on what resolution you are using. 4xaa and 1600x1200 is pretty much not going to be an issue. Most games at 1920x1080 can also be used at 4x aa with very little problem. I don't even use AA at 1920x1080 because I don't find it necessary, unless it's a game that is older and thus would get 0fps performance hit from adding it on.

Really though I guess for most people it depends on the price. If you get a spectacular deal on one or the other then go for it.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
:roll:

I guess the forum never grew up. What does the past have to do with a current topic? nothing. We forget that there were trolls, shills or whatever you wish to call them who worked on behalf of Nvidia to push marketing in our face. Now we're faced with it again. Physx this and CUDA that. Ignoring different things like card length, power consumption, drivers, performance before overclocking. These are much more important than wondering which new naming scheme will be used. I urge you to stop going after people for what you consider "posting tendencies" which is really just a childish thing to be doing. I thought this forum would have grown more professional about this. I see it's the same fanboyism all over again. For the record, I DID consider the GTX260 to go into my system. However, after looking at reviews, looking at driver releases, not to mention the length of the card that would be a tight squeeze, I decided that I was best served with an HD4870. It's not life or death here...if we don't all buy Nvidia products the world won't end. I don't see what the problem is. I state my opinion and what I did after looking at the options and you call me a fanboy in your "hide in the shadows" sort of way.

"Going after people"? Right, you took issue with my post and called the issues I brought up into question. I've responded to each in kind as well as the additional issues you've dredged up. I don't need to call anyone fanboys or accuse them of shilling because its natural and expected to have brand preferences. The main difference is the ATI camp seems to love calling people out while feigning neutrality, while the NV focus group members are clearly identified and make for easy targets. I have no problem admitting I prefer NV cards, as they've offered the best part for my needs while ATI has given me no reason to buy any of their products for the last 2 years.

Beta drivers aren't a good way to do things IMO. People see beta and say "I'm not going to be guinea pig on this" and they avoid them. Then you get constant complaints about some problem that may have already been addressed but they will not use beta drivers. That's how some people are.

Well again, that's your opinion. ATI doesn't seem to have a problem with Beta drivers in their driver release model, as its been Beta > WHQL > Hot Fix for quite some time. When people are recommending Beta or Hot Fix drivers, or even previous release drivers instead of the most current WHQLs for specific app fixes, its pretty obvious you're beta testing whether you think so or not and monthly WHQLs aren't having as profound an impact on compatibility and reliablity as you'd think.

When talking about 512MB cards choking. It depends on what resolution you are using. 4xaa and 1600x1200 is pretty much not going to be an issue. Most games at 1920x1080 can also be used at 4x aa with very little problem. I don't even use AA at 1920x1080 because I don't find it necessary, unless it's a game that is older and thus would get 0fps performance hit from adding it on.

But none of that discounts the possibility running high resolutions or high levels of AA at lower resolutions can bring a 512MB card to its knees. I know for certain there are numerous people on this forum who are waiting for the 1GB version specifically avoid this problem. Just because you don't run AA at 1920 doesn't mean someone who does might not have any problems with 512MB. Would you be comfortable guaranteeing the problem doesn't exist? If not, why try sweeping the problem under the rug?

Really though I guess for most people it depends on the price. If you get a spectacular deal on one or the other then go for it.

And I don't have a problem with that, but since the prices have been more or less the same in the US, obviously people are going to look to other factors in determining purchasing decisions.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: MegaWorks

Wreckage Please fix your link.

http://www.hardocp.com/article...U0NCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

Get a factory overclocked 260 and have a much better game play experience than with a 4870. Don't listed to the resident hype machine.

Are you saying we also shouldn't listen to you?
:Q

Good advice.


To the OP, you should know that all these threads do is bring out shouting matches between the fans of either card. The GT260 and the 4870 are so close in price/performance that you might want to start looking at features.

Look at which card is factory O/C'd and who has the best price and warranty. If you are keeping your card a year, you can't go wrong with *either card* at 16x10.

However, if you plan to keep it a couple of years, you should realize that the Radeons do not support PhysX and the Geforce cards do not have DX10.1. AtM, the 260s appear to OC higher and the Radeons have a small advantage with 8xMSAA. At 16x10, the relative amount of vRAM on each card should not make a significant difference.

i currently have 4870/4870x2 and just got - 20 minutes ago! - GTX280; so it will take me a while to formulate an opinion about GeForce vs Radeon advantages of either choice.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: chizow
Well again, that's your opinion. ATI doesn't seem to have a problem with Beta drivers in their driver release model, as its been Beta > WHQL > Hot Fix for quite some time. When people are recommending Beta or Hot Fix drivers, or even previous release drivers instead of the most current WHQLs for specific app fixes, its pretty obvious you're beta testing whether you think so or not and monthly WHQLs aren't having as profound an impact on compatibility and reliablity as you'd think.

Well, I don't think I've seen a large amount of betas from AMD's driver team lately. They don't usually post them up for everyone to just grab off their site though. I used to find them on guru3d linked up, but I've not seen them posted on AMD's site. Hotfix maybe, but no actual beta.

But none of that discounts the possibility running high resolutions or high levels of AA at lower resolutions can bring a 512MB card to its knees. I know for certain there are numerous people on this forum who are waiting for the 1GB version specifically avoid this problem. Just because you don't run AA at 1920 doesn't mean someone who does might not have any problems with 512MB. Would you be comfortable guaranteeing the problem doesn't exist? If not, why try sweeping the problem under the rug?

I didn't say it wasn't a problem but I was pointing out that it's not as much of an issue as people make it out to be. I have run AMD's 24x AA mode on many games and they seem perfectly playable. Nothing that makes me say "this is slow" at all. Forget about crysis (so many people use that to compare everything, I used to) as it really doesn't run well by any means. Playable yes, but not exactly a thrilling experience at high res.

 

[bonecrusher]

I have found two cards are equaly priced not much difference. If i select ati which brand can i go for either gecube or palit. only these brands are avilable

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: bonecrusher
I have found two cards are equaly priced not much difference. If i select ati which brand can i go for either gecube or palit. only these brands are avilable

Both use reference design. What that means is they are the same as the sapphire cards and the ATI reference review samples.

Doesn't matter. If one saves you some money then get that one.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: chizow
But none of that discounts the possibility running high resolutions or high levels of AA at lower resolutions can bring a 512MB card to its knees.

What proof do you have that "high levels of AA at lower resolutions" can cause framerate hits on 512MB cards? The only time I've seen framerates drop on a 512MB card was at 1920x1200 with at least 4x AA. And even then, there were only a couple of titles that exhibited this behavior. It wasn't until 2560x1600 that 512MB was consistently shown to be inadequate.

Originally posted by: chizow
I know for certain there are numerous people on this forum who are waiting for the 1GB version specifically avoid this problem. Just because you don't run AA at 1920 doesn't mean someone who does might not have any problems with 512MB. Would you be comfortable guaranteeing the problem doesn't exist? If not, why try sweeping the problem under the rug?

Nobody is saying the problem doesn't exist or is attempting to hide it. That's just something you came up with. The fact is, it doesn't become an issue until such a high enough resolution with AA applied that the majority of people aren't going to experience it. Those that do game at 1920x1200 with 4x AA and above will need to look at the benchmarks to see if the titles they wish to play exhibit famerate drops with a 512MB 4870. If so, they might be better served purchasing either a GTX260 or a 1GB 4870.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Creig
What proof do you have that "high levels of AA at lower resolutions" can cause framerate hits on 512MB cards? The only time I've seen framerates drop on a 512MB card was at 1920x1200 with at least 4x AA. And even then, there were only a couple of titles that exhibited this behavior. It wasn't until 2560x1600 that 512MB was consistently shown to be inadequate.

My reference was "lower resolutions" relative to 2560, which is the only resolution in benchmarks that shows a noticeable performance decrease. But like my linked thread and similar threads show, frame buffer limit problems exhibit themselves at lower resolutions with high levels of AA.

Nobody is saying the problem doesn't exist or is attempting to hide it. That's just something you came up with. The fact is, it doesn't become an issue until such a high enough resolution with AA applied that the majority of people aren't going to experience it. Those that do game at 1920x1200 with 4x AA and above will need to look at the benchmarks to see if the titles they wish to play exhibit famerate drops with a 512MB 4870. If so, they might be better served purchasing either a GTX260 or a 1GB 4870.

Uh, recap:

3) What games, and specific resolutions and maybe links are you referring to with regard to poor AA performance?

I don't mean to sound harsh, but you post a ton of stuff that could be just hot air or misinformation.

Funny I don't see either you or cmddredd addressing or acknowledging the problem outside of this thread, I only see both of you trying to marginalize the problem as if it doesn't exist and recommending the 512MB 4870 without hesitation. I've even seen a few posters go as far as implying the 4870 with GDDR5 handles memory more efficiently than the GT200 with GDDR3......

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: chizow
My reference was "lower resolutions" relative to 2560, which is the only resolution in benchmarks that shows a noticeable performance decrease. But like my linked thread and similar threads show, frame buffer limit problems exhibit themselves at lower resolutions with high levels of AA.

I guess you can say that any resolution below 2560x1600 is "lower". But when people refer to "lower" resolutions, they usually mean 1600x1200, 1440x900, etc. And as I stated, from what I've seen, there are only a couple of titles at 1920x1200 at 4x AA that exhibit framerate drop that can be attributed to lack of framebuffer.

Originally posted by: chizow
Funny I don't see either you or cmddredd addressing or acknowledging the problem outside of this thread, I only see both of you trying to marginalize the problem as if it doesn't exist and recommending the 512MB 4870 without hesitation. I've even seen a few posters go as far as implying the 4870 with GDDR5 handles memory more efficiently than the GT200 with GDDR3......

I've never posted that 512MB is enough for any resolution with every game. I've said it before and I'll say it again. 512MB appears to be sufficient up to 1920x1200 and most games seem to do at least 4x AA at 1920x1200 before running into performance hits.

As far as the memory efficiency between the GT200 and the 4870, I have no idea. The 4870 does seem to exhibit less framerate falloff the higher the resolution goes, so maybe that's what they're referring to.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Creig
What proof do you have that "high levels of AA at lower resolutions" can cause framerate hits on 512MB cards? The only time I've seen framerates drop on a 512MB card was at 1920x1200 with at least 4x AA. And even then, there were only a couple of titles that exhibited this behavior. It wasn't until 2560x1600 that 512MB was consistently shown to be inadequate.

My reference was "lower resolutions" relative to 2560, which is the only resolution in benchmarks that shows a noticeable performance decrease. But like my linked thread and similar threads show, frame buffer limit problems exhibit themselves at lower resolutions with high levels of AA.

Nobody is saying the problem doesn't exist or is attempting to hide it. That's just something you came up with. The fact is, it doesn't become an issue until such a high enough resolution with AA applied that the majority of people aren't going to experience it. Those that do game at 1920x1200 with 4x AA and above will need to look at the benchmarks to see if the titles they wish to play exhibit famerate drops with a 512MB 4870. If so, they might be better served purchasing either a GTX260 or a 1GB 4870.

Uh, recap:

3) What games, and specific resolutions and maybe links are you referring to with regard to poor AA performance?

I don't mean to sound harsh, but you post a ton of stuff that could be just hot air or misinformation.

Funny I don't see either you or cmddredd addressing or acknowledging the problem outside of this thread, I only see both of you trying to marginalize the problem as if it doesn't exist and recommending the 512MB 4870 without hesitation. I've even seen a few posters go as far as implying the 4870 with GDDR5 handles memory more efficiently than the GT200 with GDDR3......

And how quickly we forget BROKEN GTX parts, poor driver support. etc I have also NEVER said that 512MB was enough for everything. That is your own words, not mine.

What can I expect anyway? you've shown your complete disregard for civility on the internet. :disgust:

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Creig
I guess you can say that any resolution below 2560x1600 is "lower". But when people refer to "lower" resolutions, they usually mean 1600x1200, 1440x900, etc. And as I stated, from what I've seen, there are only a couple of titles at 1920x1200 at 4x AA that exhibit framerate drop that can be attributed to lack of framebuffer.

When reviews are only showing benefit of 512MB or more RAM at 2560 I'd consider that as my high resolution reference point. 1920 with 4x or 8xAA would then be a lower resolution with AA enabled. That doesn't contradict what I wrote at all, but makes it quite obvious you'd rather take issue with my wording than the actual issue of frame buffer limitations at the very resolutions and settings for which the 4870 is being recommended.

I've never posted that 512MB is enough for any resolution with every game. I've said it before and I'll say it again. 512MB appears to be sufficient up to 1920x1200 and most games seem to do at least 4x AA at 1920x1200 before running into performance hits.

So what titles are you having problems with, if any? I'm sure potential buyers would like to know, instead of hearing how 512MB should be enough and how the 4870 doesn't need more RAM because it handles things more efficiently.....

As far as the memory efficiency between the GT200 and the 4870, I have no idea. The 4870 does seem to exhibit less framerate falloff the higher the resolution goes, so maybe that's what they're referring to.

Right up to the point frame rate slows to a crawl and makes things unplayable?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
And how quickly we forget BROKEN GTX parts, poor driver support. etc I have also NEVER said that 512MB was enough for everything. That is your own words, not mine.

I've never once dismissed the GTX overheating problem, but its clearly not as pervasive as the heat problems and stock cooling on ALL 4800 parts. We've also gone over driver support, which again, is clearly subjective. Based on the number of problems with ATI drivers on the front page alone, it'd be ignorant to claim ATI's drivers are any better than Nvidia's. I've never claimed 512MB is enough, I've said the opposite, that more VRAM is certainly a buying point to consider to avoid problems. You asked for proof/examples and got them.

What can I expect anyway? you've shown your complete disregard for civility on the internet. :disgust:

LMAO, ya ok. When you post drivel like "I don't mean to sound harsh, but you post a ton of stuff that could be just hot air or misinformation" I'm not sure what'd you expect in reply. I answered each point and then you followed up with some diatribe about "going after people" and "hiding in the shadows".

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
And how quickly we forget BROKEN GTX parts, poor driver support. etc I have also NEVER said that 512MB was enough for everything. That is your own words, not mine.

I've never once dismissed the GTX overheating problem, but its clearly not as pervasive as the heat problems and stock cooling on ALL 4800 parts. We've also gone over driver support, which again, is clearly subjective. Based on the number of problems with ATI drivers on the front page alone, it'd be ignorant to claim ATI's drivers are any better than Nvidia's. I've never claimed 512MB is enough, I've said the opposite, that more VRAM is certainly a buying point to consider to avoid problems. You asked for proof/examples and got them.

What can I expect anyway? you've shown your complete disregard for civility on the internet. :disgust:

LMAO, ya ok. When you post drivel like "I don't mean to sound harsh, but you post a ton of stuff that could be just hot air or misinformation" I'm not sure what'd you expect in reply. I answered each point and then you followed up with some diatribe about "going after people" and "hiding in the shadows".

You attacked first so you get what you deserve. Yes I was blunt, but civil. I even added the part about not meaning to sound harsh. You? Well, you just go on about "your preference" "your posting tendencies" whatever.

This is exactly why I stopped posting on this forum entirely. Not even gun fanatics are this bad.

 

[sourthings]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
And how quickly we forget BROKEN GTX parts, poor driver support. etc I have also NEVER said that 512MB was enough for everything. That is your own words, not mine.

I've never once dismissed the GTX overheating problem, but its clearly not as pervasive as the heat problems and stock cooling on ALL 4800 parts. We've also gone over driver support, which again, is clearly subjective. Based on the number of problems with ATI drivers on the front page alone, it'd be ignorant to claim ATI's drivers are any better than Nvidia's. I've never claimed 512MB is enough, I've said the opposite, that more VRAM is certainly a buying point to consider to avoid problems. You asked for proof/examples and got them.

What can I expect anyway? you've shown your complete disregard for civility on the internet. :disgust:

LMAO, ya ok. When you post drivel like "I don't mean to sound harsh, but you post a ton of stuff that could be just hot air or misinformation" I'm not sure what'd you expect in reply. I answered each point and then you followed up with some diatribe about "going after people" and "hiding in the shadows".

You attacked first so you get what you deserve. Yes I was blunt, but civil. I even added the part about not meaning to sound harsh. You? Well, you just go on about "your preference" "your posting tendencies" whatever.

This is exactly why I stopped posting on this forum entirely. Not even gun fanatics are this bad.

It's not worth it with this fellow. Whenever the comparison of 4870/4870X2 vs GTX260/280 comes up. He does something akin to a toddler placing their hands over their ears and go la-la-la-la-la.

The majority of reviews show the 4870 against the 260, both at stock clocks, in the majority of games, having the 4870 the victor, at 1920x1200 and down. If you OC the 260 it pulls ahead in some titles, if you OC the 4870, it is again the faster card. In all reviews where the 4870x2 is on any chipset but skulltrail vs the gtx 280, in almost every game the 4870x2 is faster than the gtx 280, and gtx280sli as well. The only exception really is Crysis.

In before FUD, and la-la-la-la.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: sourthings

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
And how quickly we forget BROKEN GTX parts, poor driver support. etc I have also NEVER said that 512MB was enough for everything. That is your own words, not mine.

I've never once dismissed the GTX overheating problem, but its clearly not as pervasive as the heat problems and stock cooling on ALL 4800 parts. We've also gone over driver support, which again, is clearly subjective. Based on the number of problems with ATI drivers on the front page alone, it'd be ignorant to claim ATI's drivers are any better than Nvidia's. I've never claimed 512MB is enough, I've said the opposite, that more VRAM is certainly a buying point to consider to avoid problems. You asked for proof/examples and got them.

What can I expect anyway? you've shown your complete disregard for civility on the internet. :disgust:

LMAO, ya ok. When you post drivel like "I don't mean to sound harsh, but you post a ton of stuff that could be just hot air or misinformation" I'm not sure what'd you expect in reply. I answered each point and then you followed up with some diatribe about "going after people" and "hiding in the shadows".

You attacked first so you get what you deserve. Yes I was blunt, but civil. I even added the part about not meaning to sound harsh. You? Well, you just go on about "your preference" "your posting tendencies" whatever.

This is exactly why I stopped posting on this forum entirely. Not even gun fanatics are this bad.

It's not worth it with this fellow. Whenever the comparison of 4870/4870X2 vs GTX260/280 comes up. He does something akin to a toddler placing their hands over their ears and go la-la-la-la-la.

The majority of reviews show the 4870 against the 260, both at stock clocks, in the majority of games, having the 4870 the victor, at 1920x1200 and down. If you OC the 260 it pulls ahead in some titles, if you OC the 4870, it is again the faster card. In all reviews where the 4870x2 is on any chipset but skulltrail vs the gtx 280, in almost every game the 4870x2 is faster than the gtx 280, and gtx280sli as well. The only exception really is Crysis.

In before FUD, and la-la-la-la.

Crysis...that's another thing. How come it's so buggy? How come it seems to run so bad on everything? I don't get it...

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
You attacked first so you get what you deserve. Yes I was blunt, but civil. I even added the part about not meaning to sound harsh. You? Well, you just go on about "your preference" "your posting tendencies" whatever.

This is exactly why I stopped posting on this forum entirely. Not even gun fanatics are this bad.

BS, if you were interested in being civil you would've waited for replies to your bullet points before saying "you post a ton of stuff that could be just hot air or misinformation". I addressed each bullet and shown they are in fact issues people should be concerned about and not just hot air, unless you were referring to stock cooling on the 4800.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
You attacked first so you get what you deserve. Yes I was blunt, but civil. I even added the part about not meaning to sound harsh. You? Well, you just go on about "your preference" "your posting tendencies" whatever.

This is exactly why I stopped posting on this forum entirely. Not even gun fanatics are this bad.

BS, if you were interested in being civil you would've waited for replies to your bullet points before saying "you post a ton of stuff that could be just hot air or misinformation". I addressed each bullet and shown they are in fact issues people should be concerned about and not just hot air, unless you were referring to stock cooling on the 4800.

You know, you're hopeless. There's no reason for you to complete bash a product. You seem to ignore other facts and only see what you want and read what helps you prove to yourself that your decision was good.

It's the same as when I left. Some people never grow up. /end

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: sourthings
It's not worth it with this fellow. Whenever the comparison of 4870/4870X2 vs GTX260/280 comes up. He does something akin to a toddler placing their hands over their ears and go la-la-la-la-la.

The majority of reviews show the 4870 against the 260, both at stock clocks, in the majority of games, having the 4870 the victor, at 1920x1200 and down. If you OC the 260 it pulls ahead in some titles, if you OC the 4870, it is again the faster card. In all reviews where the 4870x2 is on any chipset but skulltrail vs the gtx 280, in almost every game the 4870x2 is faster than the gtx 280, and gtx280sli as well. The only exception really is Crysis.

In before FUD, and la-la-la-la.

Where am I comparing 4870X2 to GTX 280? I've already shown multiple times GTX 260 and 4870 are close enough at stock that additional considerations should be the deciding factor. There is no doubt an overclocked 260 is faster than an overclocked 4870 when both are pushed to their their maximums as the 260 simply has much more overhead and overclocks to a higher %.

As for FUD....its kind of hard to take anything you say seriously when you claim 40-45FPS in Crysis on Very High on your 4870X2.......but realistically I don't take anything random launch pedestrians with less than 100 posts say with such conviction.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
You know, you're hopeless. There's no reason for you to complete bash a product. You seem to ignore other facts and only see what you want and read what helps you prove to yourself that your decision was good.

It's the same as when I left. Some people never grow up. /end

Childish? Hopeless? Going after people? What a joke. Are you saying the points I brought up in my OP that you had issue with are a problem, or not? Is it misinformation and hot air, or not? If you're going to take issue with points I make and use terms like that you should be ready back up what you say. And how am I completely bashing a product when I'm answering the OP's post about issues I would consider carefully if I were buying using the criteria they put forward?

• 
  If you can wait a few weeks, I'd wait for the new GTX 260 with 216SP and the 1GB 4870 before making a decision. The GTX 260 has better cooling and better overclocking ability by far. There's plenty of threads here and elsewhere describing the 4870 cooler as insufficient and hot or loud when fan speed is increased to compensate for heat. You'll see 4870 owners spending good money for better cooling but there's really no need to with the GTX 260 as the stock cooler is excellent. Also, the 512MB on the 4870 can be a problem with the 4870, as there's been numerous reports of performance tanking over time with AA enabled. The 1GB should alleviate the problem if driver fixes don't.

There it is again. So exactly what is misinformation, unless you're denying the issues exist? I don't need to justify my purchase because I have never second guessed my buy or felt the need to proselytize to others about how great my card is as the benefits are obvious being the fastest single-GPU card available. Many others in my situation have come to similar conclusions and opted for the fastest single-GPU over faster multi-GPU or slightly slower alternatives, so I'm clearly not alone.....