is the GTX 260 better than the ATI 4850

[pectin]

I was thinking of getting the ATI 4850 but then saw the price of the GTX 260 only 30+ more... which is better in terms of video encoding, play a little games, CS3, etc..?

 

[exar333]

There are a lot of threads here comparing the GTX 260 with both the 4850 and the 4870 (512 and 1GB flavors).

It would be pretty safe to say that the GTX260 beats the 4850 in most cases, and comes out as a "mixed bag" when compared to the 4870. Right now, if you can get a 260 for at or below 200, it's probably the best deal for a card around that price range. Some do games play better on the 4870, so if these are your game(s), then the 4870 might be a better buy. Dig around the threads here or read some of the AT benches and make your decision. You can't really go all that wrong with any of these cards...

 

[pectin]

I believe both cards are good... I do not want anything more than the 260 though the 280s are better.... come next year or more the GTX 260s and 280s will be entry level again and maybe the 380-390s...8)

 

[JPB]

I dont believe next year the GTX260 and GTX280 will be entry level cards. Maybe a few years from now they may be, but not anytime soon.

Could be higher mid range more than anything, and that even depends on new releases and what they are capable of.

 

[Wreckage]

A GTX 260 is better than a 4870, so it's well worth $30 more than a 4850. A 4850 is closer to a 9800GTX.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
A GTX 260 is better than a 4870, so it's well worth $30 more than a 4850. A 4850 is closer to a 9800GTX.

I really wouldn't say that the GTX260 is better, they are quite close.

I'll use this Nvidia fan site even.

http://www.nvnews.net/articles...es_tested/page_3.shtml

If I use the AT review that doesn't show the numbers you Nvidia guys like (shows the 4870 to be generally faster) then you'll cry foul, so there you go. Nvnews. A factory overclocked GTX260 vs. a stock clocked 4870. They are also using the Nvidia 180.47 drivers that include the speed improvemnts. They are quite close depending on the game/resolution, and in benches that are below 60 FPS (where those extra few FPS count more) the Radeon seems to do a bit better then the GTX260.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

I really wouldn't say that the GTX260 is better, they are quite close.

I'll use this Nvidia fan site even.

Well according to the review you linked:

Based on our test results and other considerations, the EVGA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked wins this shootout. It provided better performance in today's top games under Windows XP and did not exhibit the minor issues that came along with PowerColor Radeon HD 4870 1GB.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

I really wouldn't say that the GTX260 is better, they are quite close.

I'll use this Nvidia fan site even.

Well according to the review you linked:

Based on our test results and other considerations, the EVGA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked wins this shootout. It provided better performance in today's top games under Windows XP and did not exhibit the minor issues that came along with PowerColor Radeon HD 4870 1GB.

That's their opinion. But the nubmers tell the truth. They are pretty much right with each other in performance. They ran into FC2 issues that are well documented. They tested a factory oc vs. a stock speed card. The GTX260 216 superclocked generally seemed to provide better performance when they were well over 60FPS... where it really doesn't matter in those games.

You can spread fud and say one is clearly better if you want, but the rest of us can see they are quite close to equals.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder


You can spread fud and say one is clearly better if you want, but the rest of us can see they are quite close to equals.

How am I spreading FUD by quoting an article YOU linked?

You can check any of the several new reviews using the 180 drivers. They all give the edge to the 260.

http://www.firingsquad.com/har..._gtx_260_black_review/
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=668

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: pectin
I was thinking of getting the ATI 4850 but then saw the price of the GTX 260 only 30+ more... which is better in terms of video encoding, play a little games, CS3, etc..?

Are these US prices? Last time I checked on Newegg, there was about a $60-70 difference between the two (130-140AR vs. 200-210AR).

As for video encoding, I don't know if it'll really matter - odds are your application won't be GPU accelerated, so a faster GPU won't help. It'll make little difference in Photoshop CS3, if memory serves me right. Don't take my word for it, though - things may have changed.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder


You can spread fud and say one is clearly better if you want, but the rest of us can see they are quite close to equals.

How am I spreading FUD by quoting an article YOU linked?

You can check any of the several new reviews using the 180 drivers. They all give the edge to the 260.

http://www.firingsquad.com/har..._gtx_260_black_review/
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=668

Wow, I was skeptical until I read that.

But it's apples/oranges? By that I mean stock speed 4870, and factory overclocked 260? How well does the 4870 overclock?

Any way you look at it, that 260 Black with new drivers really looks like a fast card!

 

[spittledip]

At stock speed the 260 is alot better than a 4850. At stock speeds a 4870 is better than a 260.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder


You can spread fud and say one is clearly better if you want, but the rest of us can see they are quite close to equals.

How am I spreading FUD by quoting an article YOU linked?

You can check any of the several new reviews using the 180 drivers. They all give the edge to the 260.

http://www.firingsquad.com/har..._gtx_260_black_review/
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=668

The fud is saying that a GTX260 is better then a 4870 when they are clearly pretty well equal... if we're talking about the 216 core. The article says that the EVGA GTX260 216 superclocked is better then a stock 4870, not what you said which was "A GTX 260 is better than a 4870". And you could argue with their opinion if you wanted as they trade blows, but the point here is that they are talking about a perticular overclocked from the factory 216 core card vs. your blanket statement that the GTX260 is just better.

 

[chizow]

GTX 260 is a much better buy at this point compared to a 4850 if the difference is only $30.

I'd also give the nod to a GTX 260 at this point over a 512MB 4870 for the same reason given months ago, difference in VRAM. The 512MB part is clearly crippled in newer titles to the point its no longer relevant in discussions in this range. If you're buying new in the $200 to 300 range the only considerations should be GTX 260/260 c216 or 1GB 4870.

 

[Magusigne]

Pectin,

GTX 260. They are both good cards but for a bit more head room the extra VRAM, Physx and cuda I'd say the 30 dollar difference is warrented.

Really they are both awesome cards but at the current pricepoints i'd take the GTX 260 over the 4850 9 times out of 10

 

[Dadofamunky]

I'd agree with that.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: chizow
GTX 260 is a much better buy at this point compared to a 4850 if the difference is only $30.

I'd also give the nod to a GTX 260 at this point over a 512MB 4870 for the same reason given months ago, difference in VRAM. The 512MB part is clearly crippled in newer titles to the point its no longer relevant in discussions in this range. If you're buying new in the $200 to 300 range the only considerations should be GTX 260/260 c216 or 1GB 4870.

I'm not sure if crippled is the correct word, at least not at "normal" resolutions like 1680x1050 or 1280x1024. With my 512mb 4870 at 1680 every new game I have played has gone 50-60+ fps when completely or nearly completely maxed out with the exception of Crysis.

Now, if your talking a higher res then the 1gb is definitely the better buy but don't count out the 512 at a normal res, especially if you can get it for much cheaper.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: chizow
GTX 260 is a much better buy at this point compared to a 4850 if the difference is only $30.

I'd also give the nod to a GTX 260 at this point over a 512MB 4870 for the same reason given months ago, difference in VRAM. The 512MB part is clearly crippled in newer titles to the point its no longer relevant in discussions in this range. If you're buying new in the $200 to 300 range the only considerations should be GTX 260/260 c216 or 1GB 4870.

I'm not sure if crippled is the correct word, at least not at "normal" resolutions like 1680x1050 or 1280x1024. With my 512mb 4870 at 1680 every new game I have played has gone 50-60+ fps when completely or nearly completely maxed out with the exception of Crysis.

Now, if your talking a higher res then the 1gb is definitely the better buy but don't count out the 512 at a normal res, especially if you can get it for much cheaper.

Agreed,personally my 512mb card is fine at 1680x1050 for all the games I play both old and new,so many variables when its comes to how much ram you need on the video card like your settings,res etc...,saying its crippled is something I would only expect a Nvidia salesman to say,but then there are so many people biased in the Video forums nowadays towards Nvidia I rarely post much in here (got sick of the old Nvidia v ATI argument),sad really,yes there is a place for both 512mb and 1GB cards depending on users settings.

 

[BFG10K]

I've reviewed a GTX260+ against a 4850 in a lot of games and overall the nVidia card is significantly faster, usually by about 50%. I would definitely recommend a regular GTX260 over a 4850.

Originally posted by: Mem

saying its crippled is something I would only expect a Nvidia salesman to say,but then there are so many people biased in the Video forums nowadays towards Nvidia I rarely post much in here (got sick of the old Nvidia v ATI argument),sad really,yes there is a place for both 512mb and 1GB cards depending on users settings.

I'm not an nVidia salesman by any stretch of the imagination, but I agree with said comments to a certain extent. The fact is modern games like Crysis will easily tax 512 MB cards even at middling/low settings so it makes much more sense to look at cards with more VRAM. There?s absolutely no way I?d buy a 512 MB 4870 when a 1 GB version is available.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I've reviewed a GTX260+ against a 4850 in a lot of games and overall the nVidia card is significantly faster, usually by about 50%. I would definitely recommend a regular GTX260 over a 4850.

Originally posted by: Mem

saying its crippled is something I would only expect a Nvidia salesman to say,but then there are so many people biased in the Video forums nowadays towards Nvidia I rarely post much in here (got sick of the old Nvidia v ATI argument),sad really,yes there is a place for both 512mb and 1GB cards depending on users settings.

I'm not an nVidia salesman by any stretch of the imagination, but I agree with said comments to a certain extent. The fact is modern games like Crysis will easily tax 512 MB cards even at middling/low settings so it makes much more sense to look at cards with more VRAM. There?s absolutely no way I?d buy a 512 MB 4870 when a 1 GB version is available.

As I said it depends on the users settings and you could argue(like you stated) game in question,btw he did say

play a little games, CS3, etc..?

so again down to the users needs,not everybody plays Crysis or needs high res or even AA/AF.

I did say "yes there is a place for both 512mb and 1GB cards depending on users settings."

So I think we got it all covered.

 

[dguy6789]

+1 for the 512MB 4870 being perfectly fine for modern games at most settings. As long as you don't run 2560x1600 or use extreme amounts of A, 512MB is sufficient for everything at mid range resolutions with all the game's bells and whistles turned on. I run every single game I play at 1680x1050 with maxed out in game settings and Crysis is the only game that has any shot at going below 60fps.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Spike
I'm not sure if crippled is the correct word, at least not at "normal" resolutions like 1680x1050 or 1280x1024. With my 512mb 4870 at 1680 every new game I have played has gone 50-60+ fps when completely or nearly completely maxed out with the exception of Crysis.

Now, if your talking a higher res then the 1gb is definitely the better buy but don't count out the 512 at a normal res, especially if you can get it for much cheaper.

When the 512MB part can't even complete benchmark runs due to horrible stuttering and the 1GB part doesn't have the same problem, I'd call that crippled (eg. Far Cry 2). The instances the 512MB tanks compared to the 1024MB isn't just limited to high resolutions though and overall the benefits of VRAM aren't totally independent of resolution. At lower resolutions you would be more likely to run higher AA to take advantage of additional GPU overhead, which would also make you more susceptible to lack of VRAM.

The issue here is that the 512MB 4870 isn't even cheaper than the vanilla GTX 260, its actually priced closer to the stock GTX 260 c216. In cases where VRAM is an issue, the 4870 isn't in the same league as the 896-1GB parts. In terms of actual gaming experience, you'll be much likely to notice frame rates grinding to a halt compared to FPS that are consistently a few % off. Beyond the benchmarks that substantiate this, you'll consistently see subjective comments from users about the "smoothness" of gameplay with cards with more VRAM.

Originally posted by: Mem
Agreed,personally my 512mb card is fine at 1680x1050 for all the games I play both old and new,so many variables when its comes to how much ram you need on the video card like your settings,res etc...,saying its crippled is something I would only expect a Nvidia salesman to say,but then there are so many people biased in the Video forums nowadays towards Nvidia I rarely post much in here (got sick of the old Nvidia v ATI argument),sad really,yes there is a place for both 512mb and 1GB cards depending on users settings.

512MB might be fine at whatever resolution you play at, but that doesn't discount the fact the 1GB is better. Recommending a 512MB part over one with more VRAM if everything else is similar (price, performance, features, drivers etc.) is simply poor advice. It was poor advice 4 months ago and its even worst advice now that we know how much difference more VRAM can make even at middling resolutions and settings in current games.

For both of you to muse over, then you can decide whether crippled is accurate or not. AT's review shows similar but its impossible to say whether the differences are due to VRAM or their use of archived results.

PCGH 512MB vs 1GB Review, multiple games and resolutions - Make sure to check the VRAM graphs in the picture gallery showing VRAM use exceeding 512MB.

Guru3D 1GB vs 512MB

FiringSquad various cards with AA

There's plenty more 4870 512 vs 1GB reviews out there. You'll find there is no downside to more RAM other than price, but the potential upside is significant when VRAM becomes an issue. In this case, price favors the GTX 260 compared the the 512MB 4870 and c216 compared to the 1GB version, so there really is no reason to mention the 512MB version if buying new in this price range.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Chizow, I played FC2 on my 2900Pro (512MB) and it played very smooth. I had all settings at very high (I think that's as high as it goes on XP) and no AA. Resolution was 1680x1050. If I get a chance I'll bench it just to see what the actual frame rates were, but it was more then playble.

I agree that with the 4870 there is no downside to more ram (well, with the possible exception that if you run a 32bit OS you may lose more system memory) and will give you the ability to go to a higher resolution if you ever upgrade your monitor. If the prices are close there is no reason not to get a 1GB model. If there is a difference in price (right now you can get the 512MB for $215 AR on Newegg, $270 is what I saw for 1GB) then it may be worth it to stick with the 512MB if you know you are not going to upgrade your monitor past a resolution that really takes advantage of the extra memory this video card generation.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: chizow
When the 512MB part can't even complete benchmark runs due to horrible stuttering and the 1GB part doesn't have the same problem, I'd call that crippled (eg. Far Cry 2). The instances the 512MB tanks compared to the 1024MB isn't just limited to high resolutions though and overall the benefits of VRAM aren't totally independent of resolution. At lower resolutions you would be more likely to run higher AA to take advantage of additional GPU overhead, which would also make you more susceptible to lack of VRAM.

The only time I've seen 512MB of video ram be an issue is at 1920x1200 and higher. Even at 1920x1200 you're mostly okay. You may have to cut back from 8x AA, but that's hardly going to kill your gaming experience.

And what "horrible stuttering"? The only thing wrong with ATI and Far Cry 2 right now seems to be related to DX10. Users are reporting that it happens no matter what resolution/options are picked. That has nothing to do with vram size.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: pectin
I was thinking of getting the ATI 4850 but then saw the price of the GTX 260 only 30+ more... which is better in terms of video encoding, play a little games, CS3, etc..?

Where exactly did you see a GTX260 for only $30 more than a 4850? The cheapest 4850 I saw at Newegg was $135 AR while the cheapest GTX260 there was $205. That's a $70 difference.