looking for comments...

[cm123]

have (at no cost) option of GTX 280 or HD 4870 - my goal is Call of Duty 4 at 1680 x 1050 with everything maxed (best looks) and yet get the best min. and averg. frame rates on XP Pro system...

not at all interested in dual cards (and again these have no cost to me, so no matters one costs ton more than the other) so which one card would you guys all pick and your comments/thoughts?

 

[geoffry]

If it costs nothing I would go for the GTX 280.

 

[HOOfan 1]

at that resolution, it doesn't matter...both will max the game out and keep you well over 30FPS

Originally posted by: geoffry
If it costs nothing I would go for the GTX 280.

 

[OCGuy]

No potential for flame wars here folks!


Anyway, the 280 is the clear winner in this poll. However, if you wanted to skew the results to ATi, you could do 280 V 4870X2.

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1
at that resolution, it doesn't matter...both will max the game out and keep you well over 30FPS

Originally posted by: geoffry
If it costs nothing I would go for the GTX 280.

in part what makes we favor the HD 4870 - I've always felt (I know many disagree) that ATI has just a bit better looking graphics during game play...

I may pair (4870) it with AMD 9850 CPU/AMD 790FX MB (Intel has enough sales already - really only for lan and online cod4 anyways -

 

[Denithor]

If it's no cost (or no cost difference) go with the GTX 280.

CoD4: GTX 280 is fastest single-GPU card

4870 comes close (CoD4 favors ATi architecture, apparently) but is about 10% slower than the GTX at 1920x1200 & 4xAA.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Denithor
If it's no cost (or no cost difference) go with the GTX 280.

CoD4: GTX 280 is fastest single-GPU card

4870 comes close (CoD4 favors ATi architecture, apparently) but is about 10% slower than the GTX at 1920x1200 & 4xAA.

Yea, but at 1680x1050 either one will provide identical game play. I'd go with whichever one gives you what you feel are better drivers. Which ever card manufacturer you feel gives you better extras (warranty, bundled software, etc).

 

[Wreckage]

Either card would be fine at that resolution, although the edge would still go to the 280 as it has consistently better minimum frame rates.

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: Denithor
If it's no cost (or no cost difference) go with the GTX 280.

CoD4: GTX 280 is fastest single-GPU card

4870 comes close (CoD4 favors ATi architecture, apparently) but is about 10% slower than the GTX at 1920x1200 & 4xAA.

at lower res of 1680 x 1050 and with xp x86 (32 bit) - GTX 280 still single fastest with everything cranked up?

would be very curious to see benchmarks/review still with GTX 280 and HD 4870 performance in XP...

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: cm123

Originally posted by: Denithor
If it's no cost (or no cost difference) go with the GTX 280.

CoD4: GTX 280 is fastest single-GPU card

4870 comes close (CoD4 favors ATi architecture, apparently) but is about 10% slower than the GTX at 1920x1200 & 4xAA.

at lower res of 1680 x 1050 and with xp x86 (32 bit) - GTX 280 still single fastest with everything cranked up?

would be very curious to see benchmarks/review still with GTX 280 and HD 4870 performance in XP...

From the linked benchmarks, it appears the 4870 is faster at the resolution the OP wants to play at. I'll bet the gap would widen too if you wanted to crank the AA up more.

Will you ever resell these cards? If so the GTX 280 would probably have a better resale value. Higher heat production and power consumption would go to the GTX 280 although operating temps might be a bit higher on the 4870. If you plan on playing any other games besides COD4 the odds are in favor of the GTX although the 4870 isn't far behind.

Just my .02.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Both of those cards aren't even in the same playing field. Well like everyone says the GTX280 is the better choice.

I guess the unused horsepower (since the 1680x1050 is pretty low res for such cards) can be used for something more than 4xAA.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: cm123

Originally posted by: Denithor
If it's no cost (or no cost difference) go with the GTX 280.

CoD4: GTX 280 is fastest single-GPU card

4870 comes close (CoD4 favors ATi architecture, apparently) but is about 10% slower than the GTX at 1920x1200 & 4xAA.

at lower res of 1680 x 1050 and with xp x86 (32 bit) - GTX 280 still single fastest with everything cranked up?

would be very curious to see benchmarks/review still with GTX 280 and HD 4870 performance in XP...

From the linked benchmarks, it appears the 4870 is faster at the resolution the OP wants to play at. I'll bet the gap would widen too if you wanted to crank the AA up more.

Will you ever resell these cards? If so the GTX 280 would probably have a better resale value. Higher heat production and power consumption would go to the GTX 280 although operating temps might be a bit higher on the 4870. If you plan on playing any other games besides COD4 the odds are in favor of the GTX although the 4870 isn't far behind.

Just my .02.

Yea, looking at the graph on the AT bench, at 1680x1050 the 4870 is actually faster then the GTX280 in COD4. But, both are well over 90FPS average, you won't see any difference. That was always my issue with the GTX280, Nvidia tried to price it as it was the absolute fastest card money could buy when in reality it was the fastest card more often then not, but certainly not always. Anyway, either is fine for that game at that res and then some.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

there's a difference between 'no cost' and 'money is not an issue', if there's some really weird situation where you can get either card for the same amount, then yes, get the GTX 280. However I have a hard time believing that's the situation...in a case of money not being an issue, its one where you'd consider one over the other despite costs but because of performance. However, at 1680x1050 its a crapshoot, and either card will do, so I'd go with the cheaper one because it just isn't worth it to throw money away if it isn't going to do anything for you...of course if money really wasn't an issue, I'd be upgrading my monitor first to go along with the more expensive and powerful card.

 

[TC91]

gtx 280, its a faster card overall and now is about 400bucks or so (usd / cad)

 

[nonameo]

Unless power consumption is an issue, I'd just get the 280.

 

[taltamir]

shouldn't you be comparing the 4870 and the 260 which are equally priced? (well, the GTX260 is slightly cheaper)

EDIT: ok i noticed you said at no cost... the 280 then...

Or actually, get the 280, sell it on ebay, and then buy a 260 (or a 4870).

I bet most people who answered 4870 didn't see the "at no cost" part.