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

[havuk]

pretty simple, if they where the same price which would you choose between the 4870 and 280 gtx?

 

[AmberClad]

Which price are we talking about?

1) If both were priced at the same price as the 4870 ($299) -- GTX280, no question.
2) If both were priced at the same price as the GTX280 ($499 to $650), neither.

 

[JPB]

Originally posted by: havuk
pretty simple, ONLY if they where the same price which would you choose between the 4870 and 280 gtx?

:thumbsup:

 

[taltamir]

the GTX 280 hands down because it is the more powerful card.

The 4870 performs similarly to the GTX260.Not to the GTX280.

 

[shangshang]

C'mon is this even a debate! Hell I'm willing to bet guys would jump all over the GT280 if it's $50 over the 4870. It's when it's $100+ over that guys are debating.

 

[Link]

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

 

[chizow]

If price is the same GTX 280 hands-down. 4870 is still better with performance/value for a single-card GPU, but after this latest round of price cuts I'd say GTX 280 is better than 2x 4870 in terms of performance and price. 4870X2 at $499 will be interesting for sure, as well as perhaps a 1GB 4870 in the $350-400 range (somewhere between a GTX 260 and 280).

 

[OCGuy]

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.

 

[taltamir]

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.

This is the second post I saw from you in as many minutes which made me say "Oh SNAP!"

You my friend... are simply that good!

 

[humanure]

definitely the 280 if both are $299

 

[unr3al]

Stupid question, kinda. No offense to OP. But how on earth could it be a valid question?? nVidia would have losses left, right and center if they priced the 280 at those levels... :shocked:

 

[havuk]

Originally posted by: unr3al
Stupid question, kinda. No offense to OP. But how on earth could it be a valid question?? nVidia would have losses left, right and center if they priced the 280 at those levels...

No offense taken! i have read countless threads about both cards with the 280 being 16% more powerful but more expensive and the 4870 being close behind in benchmarks but $200+ less than the 280 so I thought I'd throw price out the window and see what people would choose

 

[DaveSimmons]

If the GTX 280 was selling at $350 last week I'd definitely have bought it instead of a $310 4870. I might even have paid a little more, say $375, but the closer to $400 the less likely for me.

If the GTX 260 was selling at $250 I might have bought it instead of the 4870, but probably not since it's a weaker card.

 

[ajaidevsingh]

4870 is grart due to the DX 10.1 that new Nvidia cards will show up and also their memory controller seems great and not to mention the Media function!!


GTX 280 has a good lead on performance and it has DABABOOM "Which i have loved these past few days on my friends rig" and it has PsyX...!!

Bottom line:- Amd will have Havok soon and maybe even have something like DABABOOM or whatever for video converting!! GTX 280 is the better if you get both at the same price tag but not if there is $50-$100 headroom.

Just to give an idea 2x4850's cost - $320-$330 "After Rebate" and if the GTX 280 does not come around that its not worth it!!!

 

[TestedAcorn]

4870... Ati offers better support (especially drivers) Nvidia just releases shit betas every week.

 

[unr3al]

I would have bought the ATi... Just cos I like hanging out with the underdog; don't ask... Besides that, the GTX280 is also a gargantuan card!

 

[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.

 

[Hauk]

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?

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: unr3al
Stupid question, kinda. No offense to OP. But how on earth could it be a valid question?? nVidia would have losses left, right and center if they priced the 280 at those levels... :shocked:

Losses? Loss of profit maybe, but certainly not loss of market share . Aside from a couple of ATI fanboys, I think all of us here would want one at that price. That MSI firesale at ZZF ($460), was decent (good, even), but still $100 too rich for my blood.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

It's been a long time since I made those Excel graphs but if I am right, it is normal to pay 2x% extra for x% extra performance in the GPU world i.e. paying 40% extra for 20% extra performance. At the same price, I would go for the GTX280 in a heartbeat. But the card for my needs is actually the 4850.

What I'd like to know is at what price does the 9800GTX become a better option than the 4850 (according to you guys)?

 

[Wreckage]

Actually the recent sale on the 260 made it a better buy than the 4870.

The 280 is the best card available, it just does not have the best price available.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: AmberClad

Originally posted by: unr3al
Stupid question, kinda. No offense to OP. But how on earth could it be a valid question?? nVidia would have losses left, right and center if they priced the 280 at those levels... :shocked:

Losses? Loss of profit maybe, but certainly not loss of market share . Aside from a couple of ATI fanboys, I think all of us here would want one at that price. That MSI firesale at ZZF ($460), was decent (good, even), but still $100 too rich for my blood.

When you can get the overall best video card available for $460, that is fairly unbelievable IMO.

There have not been "best of best" prices like that available in a LONG time- even 6800Ultra and X800XT PE were above that at launch.

It may seem like a lot in these days where ATi is trying to win back some marketshare by selling below 9700Pro prices from 2002, but when you consider you're getting a 1GB 512bit card that outperforms all other single GPUs, that price is amazing. (and I would say that if I was sitting on the board of directors at AMD, not just as NVIDIA focus group)

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.

 

[cubeless]

/* grasps chest and stumbles backwards */ it's the big one, 'lisbet, it's the big one!!!

i have to agree with rollo...

but then i personally would never spend that much and will settle for the incredible price performance of the 4850...

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: AmberClad

Originally posted by: unr3al
Stupid question, kinda. No offense to OP. But how on earth could it be a valid question?? nVidia would have losses left, right and center if they priced the 280 at those levels... :shocked:

Losses? Loss of profit maybe, but certainly not loss of market share . Aside from a couple of ATI fanboys, I think all of us here would want one at that price. That MSI firesale at ZZF ($460), was decent (good, even), but still $100 too rich for my blood.

When you can get the overall best video card available for $460, that is fairly unbelievable IMO.

There have not been "best of best" prices like that available in a LONG time- even 6800Ultra and X800XT PE were above that at launch.

It may seem like a lot in these days where ATi is trying to win back some marketshare by selling below 9700Pro prices from 2002, but when you consider you're getting a 1GB 512bit card that outperforms all other single GPUs, that price is amazing. (and I would say that if I was sitting on the board of directors at AMD, not just as NVIDIA focus group)

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.

Geforce 256 DDR - $299
Geforce 2 GTS - $299
Geforce 2 Ultra - $399
Geforce 3 Ti 500 - $399
Geforce 4 Ti 4600 - $399
Geforce 5800 Ultra - $399
Geforce 5900 Ultra - $499 (Kidding me!)
Geforce 6800 Ultra - $499
Geforce 7800 GTX - $599 (Kidding me!)
Geforce 8800 GTX - $599 (You got you moneys worth on this one)
Geforce 8800 Ultra - $699

I am sure I missed some cards that were released, but it seems like nVidia made a bold move in three at least three launches.

Taking 299.99 and factoring in infaltion at a modest 5%, I decided to see what a top end card should retail for, which is $487.03 after 10 years. I think nVidia has been getting greedy. I wouldn't mind paying $499 at this point for a very high end card, one worthy to replace the previous generation. But it does sort of irritate me knowing that nVidia released this card at $649 hoping that AMD would not have anything to compete with and just milking us. If the 280 GTX released at $499, like it should have, I'd probably have purchased one. But ATI received my money this round. Maybe nVidia can come back with an even faster card, for $499 or less... If not, see ya nVidia.

 

[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.