if they cost the same.. 4870 vs. 280 gtx

[hemmy]

Originally posted by: TestedAcorn
4870... Ati offers better support (especially drivers) Nvidia just releases shit betas every week.

Very poor wording IMO

NVIDIA is worse on releasing official drivers, but the ones they do release are better from my experience.

Also, as for the "support" claim that isn't true unless we are ONLY talking about driver releases.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: nRollo
The 4870s are a great deal as well, but this is pretty unheard of pricing for the top of the line single GPU this close to launch, likely a sign of the economic times.

That and generally lower prices of other computer parts. And I still suspect that there was price-fixing going on between ATI and NV in the past. I don't know what happened to the investigation but probably got lost in the middle of ATI-AMD merger (and so did the price-fixing). In the past, these companies were never in price wars. What they engaged instead were PR wars. Even when they had uncompetitive products they somehow managed price parities. If not on the shelf, on paper.

Intel Extreme series (or DDR3, SSD,.. insert your dream machine parts) may be the best of best, but people don't flock to them for obvious reasons. (including yourself) I have no doubt GTX 280 is the single best video card available and I would pick it over 4870 had its price been where 4870's was. Heck, I'd get TWO.

So it's a mixed situation. (economy, competition, and NV's own mistakes) 8800 GTX maintained its price for almost a year after launch. GTX 280's price dropped over 20% within a month. GTX 260 is worse since NV dropped its price even before launch (from $449 to $399), then in a matter of a week out in the retail it lost its value by almost 30% in some instances.

Worst of all is that this price cut is 'semi-official'. It doesn't help AT ALL that price gap between different partners on a same product is as wide as ~$250. (Company A: Overclocked GTX for $699 / Company B: Regular GTX for $599 / Company C: Overclocked GTX for $499, and $40 MIR / ??) That only confuses consumers and gives a sense of uncertainty.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: hemmy
Also, as for the "support" claim that isn't true unless we are ONLY talking about driver releases.

Yup. After all these years I still don't know which brand to buy when it comes to ATI/AMD video cards.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: SteelSix

Originally posted by: taltamir
is ATI still the underdog? they now have cards that outperform nvidia for less money, they have a whole platform, while NV is left out in the cold, they are locking into their own platform, while intel is bringing larrabelalalablee or whatever to fortify their platform.
NV is up in the creek with no escape.

If anything, nvidia is the new underdog.

I keep looking at the 280's power advantages over ATI's winners though. Hell, I was going to CF 4870's until I saw that power graph. I couldn't believe it actually! Talt, you're an expert on power, what's your take when comparing the two in that aspect?

alright.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14990/15

4850 CF - 4850 = idle wattage of 4850 = 55watt idle
4850 total idle wattage - 4850 only idle wattage = bare system wattage = 72 watts
GTX 280 - 72 watts = 50 watts idle.

Load wattages:
4850 CF - 4850 = load wattage of 4850 = 128 watts
4850 total wattage - 4850 wattage = base system wattage in load = 108 watts
Verification: 4850 CF - 108 watts = 256 watts, exactly twice that of a single 4850. The math checks out. Meaning that they measured correctly. (some sites the math does not check out, which means that there was something wrong with their measuring methology).
GTX 280 load - bare system load = GTX only Load = 191 watts in load.

So:
4850: 55 watt idle / 128 watt load
4850 CF: 110 watt idle / 256 watt load
GTX 280: 50 watt idle / 191 watt load

Three scenarios:
1. A person who leaves the system on 24/7/365, idling all the time, plays games 2 hours a day on average (on average including ALL days)
2. A person who uses the system for 10 hours a day for 2d work, and 2 hours a day gaming (me), turns it off for the rest.
3. A person who runs folding at home on both GPU and CPU 24/7/365


4850:
2 hours per day of load: 2 hours/day * 365 days/year * 128 watts * 0.001 KW/watt = 93.44 kwh/year
10 hours per day of idle: 10 hours/day * 365 days/year * 55 watts * 0.001 KW/watt = 200.75 kwh/year
22 hours per day of idle: 22 hours/day * 365 days/year * 55 watts * 0.001 KW/watt = 441.65 kwh/year
24 hours per day of load: 24 hours/day * 365 days/year * 128 watts * 0.001 KW/watt = 1121.28 kwh/year

Scenario 1: 2 hours of play + 22 hours of idle = 93.44 kwh/year + 441.65 kwh/year = 535.09 kwh/year
Scenario 2: 2 hours of play + 10 hours of idle = 93.44 kwh/year + 200.75 kwh/year = 294.19 kwh/year
Scenario 3: 1121.28 kwh/year

4850 CF:
Scenario 1: 1070.18 kwh/year
Scenario 2: 588.38 kwh/year
Scenario 3: 2242.56 kwh/year

280GTX:
2 hours per day of load: 2 hours/day * 365 days/year * 191 watts * 0.001 KW/watt = 139.43 kwh/year
10 hours per day of idle: 10 hours/day * 365 days/year * 50 watts * 0.001 KW/watt = 182.5 kwh/year
22 hours per day of idle: 22 hours/day * 365 days/year * 50 watts * 0.001 KW/watt = 401.5 kwh/year
24 hours per day of load: 24 hours/day * 365 days/year * 191 watts * 0.001 KW/watt = 1673.16 kwh/year

Scenario 1: 2 hours of play + 22 hours of idle = 139.43 kwh/year + 401.5 kwh/year = 540.93 kwh/year
Scenario 2: 2 hours of play + 10 hours of idle = 139.43 kwh/year + 182.5 kwh/year = 321.93 kwh/year
Scenario 3: 1673.16 kwh/year


KWH hours range from 6 cents per KWH to 24 cents per KWH. The average is supposedly 9. In texas we pay 14. (after all the hidden charges and taxas that is).
I will calculate for texas since this is where I live.
I will start with scenario 1 and 3, because they are rare, a common user will be most likely scenario 2, scenario 2 is based on me in real life.

Scenario 1:
4850: 535.09 kwh/year * 0.14$/kwh = 74.9126$/year
4850 CF: 149.8252 $/year
GTX 280: 540.93 kwh/year * 0.14$/kwh = 75.7302 $/year


Scenario 3:
4850: 1121.28 kwh/year * 0.14$/kwh = 156.9792$/year
4850 CF: 313.9584 $/year
GTX 280: 1673.16 kwh/year * 0.14$/kwh = 234.2424 $/year

Scenario 2 @14 cent/KWH (this is me):
4850: 294.19 kwh/year * 0.14$/kwh = 41.1866$/year
4850 CF: 82.3732 $/year
GTX 280: 321.93 kwh/year * 0.14$/kwh = 45.0702 $/year

Scenario 2 @ 7 cent/KWH:
4850: 294.19 kwh/year * 0.07$/kwh = 20.5933$/year
4850 CF: 41.1866 $/year
GTX 280: 321.93 kwh/year * 0.07$/kwh = 22.5351 $/year

Scenario 2 @ 24 cent/KWH:
4850: 294.19 kwh/year * 0.24$/kwh = 70.6056$/year
4850 CF: 141.2112 $/year
GTX 280: 321.93 kwh/year * 0.24$/kwh = 77.2632 $/year


Delta of scenario 2 @ 14 cent/kwh: GTX 280 is 37.303$ per year cheaper than 4850CF per year in direct electricity cost for running the card itself.
Delta of scenario 2 @ 7 cent/kwh: GTX 280 is 18.6515$ per year cheaper then 4850CF per year in direct electricity cost for running the cards themselves.
Delta of scenario 2 @ 24 cent/kwh: GTX 280 is 63.948$ per year cheaper then 4850CF per year in direct electricity cost for running the card itself.

This is under normal operation, not under something crazy like 24/7 operation.

The reason I said in electricity cost per card itself, is because they also generate heat equivalent to an electric heater of a similar wattage, generally speaking, cooling with an AC is extremely inefficient compared to electric heating, it should cost 3 times the listed dollar amounts to cool the room (in the winter, it decreases your heating cost by almost that amount. Or less if you use something other then electricity to heat up your room.

Delta accounting for AC, for me. I cool for about 9 months of the year, i heat up for about 3. (texas is hot as hell, and I have Russian blood). So I cool for 9/12 of the year, aka 0.75, and I heat for 0.25 of the year. It costs 3 times as much to cool.
So it is 0.75 * 3 - 0.25 = 2
I need to add a 1 for the cost of running the card itself in additional to AC savings + cost increase.
End result. total cost for me is 3x the electricity demand of the card alone. It is probably a bit higher still, because electricity costs more money in the summer then in the winter.

But really, no need to get that specific. Lets just take the delta and multiply it by 3.

So for me personally: the GTX would be cheaper then the 4850CF to operate by:
37.303 * 3 = 111.909$/year in electricity for the card and the AC, minus the reduced costs of heating during the winter, not accounting for the price fluctuation of energy during summer and winter (which will make it slightly higher)

Thinking again, it will probably be even higher still.. since I spend 12 hours a day next to the computer, I will feel the heat more strongly, that means that during winter i am less likely to turn on heating, and during summer i am more likely to turn the AC cooling lower, decreasing the temperature in the entire apartment, because I am getting too hot from sitting right next to the heat chucker.

I reduced my overall power consumption by 50$+ a month ever since I started using the computer in my underwear and with the doors to the computer room open wide (for air circulation with the rest of the house) and increasing the house temp by 4 degrees. (during the winter i wear a coat and heavy clothes instead).

 

[Cookie Monster]

Im not sure what to make of this thread.

The GTX280 would be the better by all accounts.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Yeah, this really doesn't make any sense. This is like asking whether you'd choose the GTX260 or the GTX280 if the price were the same on each...or heck, which would you choose if a PCI 5200FX were the same price as a GTX280? Hmm...TOUGH CHOICE!

 

[taltamir]

oops, I seem to have compared the 4850 instead of the 4870. Still... the price difference in electricity is insane, the multi GPU is INSANELY power hungrey and it will cost you significantly.

I made a thread dedicated to it:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2204650&enterthread=y

 

[dadach]

nm

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: taltamir
is ATI still the underdog? they now have cards that outperform nvidia for less money, they have a whole platform, while NV is left out in the cold, they are locking into their own platform, while intel is bringing larrabelalalablee or whatever to fortify their platform.
NV is up in the creek with no escape.

If anything, nvidia is the new underdog.

1. If Intel's Larrabee can give NV problem, it will give AMD problem too

2. Nv the underdog? I would say no. NV hasn't yet migrate to 55nm and has products down the pipeline.

Back in the days, AMD had the K7 CPU kicking Intel's ass around. The K7 was more dominant than then Intel's Core2 is now. Did this dominance translate into anything for AMD? Nope, AMD's market cap has continued to slide since, and is now entering a 5 year low.

Back in the days, ATI and it's 9800 PRO was also dominating anything NV had at the time. The 9800 PRO dominated NV much longer then the 48xx series has so far. Yet since then, NV has marched forward.

I don't think NV will roll over. It will still be hard for ATI to push products in down the pipeline simply because they are in huge debt. ATI will need 2-3 winners in 1-1.5 years in order for it to say it's superior, and I don't see it happening easily with a huge debt.

Bolded is completely false.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Link
I'd get GTX 280 if and only if it's sold at $299 which is the current price of HD 4870.

Did you purchase that CPU in your sig? If so, it is strange that you would pay an extra $450 over a Q9550 for only 170mhz, yet you wouldnt pay anything extra over the 4870 to have a ~10% advantage and the top single card on the planet. At the OC you run, you wouldnt even need an unlocked multi on the 9550 to get there.

The OC potential on the 280 also puts it further ahead.

/ouch

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: allies

Bolded is completely false.

Not really. He's saying the K7 when compared to the P3 was so far above the P3 that it couldn't hold a candle to it. The C2D while better than the AM2 isn't so far above in that regards.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: lopri

Intel Extreme series (or DDR3, SSD,.. insert your dream machine parts) may be the best of best, but people don't flock to them for obvious reasons. (including yourself) I have no doubt GTX 280 is the single best video card available and I would pick it over 4870 had its price been where 4870's was. Heck, I'd get TWO.

The reason for that isn't that I can't afford the CPUs, it's that I see the GPU as the most important part of my PCs. (so I'd have top of the line video whether I was in the group or not)

At home I do my best to only play shooters and surf the web with my computers. My monitor native res is 25X16 and 19X12, so a top shelf CPU won't buy me any performance in the shooters I play. (at least any noticeable performance)