Once and for all...someone please show me with a published bench

[OCGuy]

I think it is safe to say that most enthusiasts game 1680X1050, with some above and some below, all with some AA. ( Please argue with this if you disagree, im just saying 22" seems to be the norm)

If ANYONE HERE can show me where owning one over the other on the following list makes a noticeable difference on a 22 inch monitor or below, they will have a fresh $25 paypal within 24 hours.*

By noticeable difference, I mean from "not playable" FPS to "playable" FPS. Going from 100 FPS to 150 FPS is not a gain, to say the least. Maybe on E-peen, but not in reality. Minimum framerates are allowed.

4850
4870 512
GTX260
4870 1GB
GTX260 Core 216
GTX280
GTX285
4870X2
GTX295
(Soon to add 275+4970 to this list, although too early to say for sure)



Although I have been accused of an nV bias, you can also find in my posts that I think they are all the same at this point for most people. nV is considered at the top right now, so this would obviously be no benefit to them by proving everything is the same. Besides the fact that I have had a beer tonight, I just think it is silly how close everything is right now.



* First one to show me a difference from a published benchmark. Published = website, magazine, etc. I am not saying it isnt possible, I am saying I am genuinly interested

 

[LOUISSSSS]

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...omparison,2007-13.html

5th chart down it shows 1680x1050 4xAA 8xAF High Quality Crysis

the 4850 512mb gets 17.6 FPS (barely playable in crysis)
the gtx280 1gb gets 29.1 FPS (very playable in crysis)

there, you see a jump from the 4850 to the gtx280 (both cards of which you've listed) from not playable to playable in crysis.

now wheres my paypal =)

 

[BFG10K]

Ocguy31, my prediction is that you will lose a lot of money here, very quickly.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...omparison,2007-17.html

5th chart down it shows 1680x1050 4xAA Game AF Ultra Quality Mass Effect

the 4850 512mb gets 32.4 FPS
the gtx280 1gb gets 85.6 FPS

while 32.4 fps might be minimally playable in Mass Effect (although not by gamers standards, which is what we're talking about right, the gtx280 should get buttery smooth FPS (85.6)

 

[BFG10K]

LOUISSSSS just earned fifty bucks in six minutes.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Ocguy31, my prediction is that you will lose a lot of money here, very quickly.

Aha....disclaimer at the bottom says First so I am covered.

The only problem with Louis' bench is that he is including AF, where I think most people have no idea what it is and did not include it. However, if the consensus is that he is correct, I will keep my word on the paypal.

The point of this thread was to spur discussion on how retarded most of us are (me included) for debating about what is better than what, when most of us do not game on 26" monitors. We are mostly at a stalemate at this point, yet we are all willing to spend hours talking about 10-20% gains when it means from going 65FPS - 75 FPS. Bring on the new chips!

 

[LOUISSSSS]

i think i covered everything you've asked for which was:

*published = website = tomshardware
*1680x1050 comparison
*some AA
*you did not mention any requests about AF, so that must be up to the person searching for the benchmarks.
*within 24 hours

 

[LOUISSSSS]

*both benchmarks (far cry & mass effect) shows gains of more than 20% between the two cards

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
i think i covered everything you've asked for which was:

*published = website = tomshardware
*1680x1050 comparison
*some AA
*you did not mention any requests about AF, so that must be up to the person searching for the benchmarks.
*within 24 hours

Damn, I was hoping to have more discussion on this topic before I paid out! I should have left out that 4850! But, I am a man of my word, if you PM me your paypal email, I will settle it. Most people seem to think 32 FPS is playable though.... correct me if im wrong.


The 17-30 FPS is what I was looking for, but it still proves my point

 

[LOUISSSSS]

ygpm

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
ygpm

Done. But you get brownie points for leaving the 4850 off of there and still showing it

 

[LOUISSSSS]

i only work that hard for bets =)

 

[LOUISSSSS]

http://xtreview.com/review227.htm

10th comparison chart

STALKER SC Max FPS 1680x1050

4870 512mb gets 85.7 fps
4870x2 2x1gb gets 161 fps

100% increase in performance, and this is at MAX FPS, keep in mind the 4870 will probably be below 85.7 99% of the time, more like 60-70fps while the 4870x2 should also be below 161 more like 130fps.

and the difference between 60-70 and 130fps is pretty big. (please none of that my lcd can't display more than 60fps due to refresh rate crap please)

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
http://xtreview.com/review227.htm

10th comparison chart

STALKER SC Max FPS 1680x1050

4870 512mb gets 85.7 fps
4870x2 2x1gb gets 161 fps

100% increase in performance, and this is at MAX FPS, keep in mind the 4870 will probably be below 85.7 99% of the time, more like 60-70fps while the 4870x2 should also be below 161 more like 130fps.

and the difference between 60-70 and 130fps is pretty big. (please none of that my lcd can't display more than 60fps due to refresh rate crap please)

Well, that would not have qualified, because 60 FPS is absolutely playable. 130FPS is just overkill.....

 

[nosfe]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Well, that would not have qualified, because 60 FPS is absolutely playable. 130FPS is just overkill.....

where are the "min fps is the most important" guys when you need them?

 

[LOUISSSSS]

Originally posted by: nosfe

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Well, that would not have qualified, because 60 FPS is absolutely playable. 130FPS is just overkill.....

where are the "min fps is the most important" guys when you need them?

min fps isn't a deal breaker for me if my video card would drop down to 30fps for a split second when 99% of the time i'm hovering around 100fps. that's very fine with me

 

[crazylegs]

Hehe nice way to get a discussion started, wish i'd seen this post 1st

I think the point your driving at is absolutely correct, atm we are incredibly lucky yo be over flowing with high performance, good value, mid-range GPUs.

We seem to be in one of those awesome phases where software has not kept up with hardware (or more correctly hardware is just such good value) and all games (minus Crysis perhaps....) are actually playable for the 'average' gamer!

 

[Grooveriding]

I can't agree that 22" is an 'enthusiast' resolution. It's a normal resolution that most people have, even non-gamers, even 24" now is fairly normal, since most lcd makers now are making their 24" monitors with TN panels. So now even 24" is cheap.

An enthusiast monitor is 30" or possibly a high quality IPS/PVA 24" monitor. 22" is pretty middling these days.

If you're a PC enthusiast, your monitor will be the most expensive part of your computer. If you own a 22", it's definitely not.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS

Originally posted by: nosfe

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Well, that would not have qualified, because 60 FPS is absolutely playable. 130FPS is just overkill.....

where are the "min fps is the most important" guys when you need them?

min fps isn't a deal breaker for me if my video card would drop down to 30fps for a split second when 99% of the time i'm hovering around 100fps. that's very fine with me

Its that 1% of the time that gets you killed!

I understand what you're saying, but more often then not the minimum or close to it occurs more often then 1% of the time...and it usually happens during the most action oriented moments in the a game.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Oguy31
We are mostly at a stalemate at this point, yet we are all willing to spend hours talking about 10-20% gains when it means from going 65FPS - 75 FPS. Bring on the new chips!

That's why I tend to stay away from the performance arguments unless the difference makes it, as you said, playable or not.

 

[bryanW1995]

I don't have any fancy charts to back me up, but I can say without reservation that going from a 4850 to a gtx 260 core 216 makes a huge difference, even at 14x9. I mostly play titan quest right now (everything 100% maxed obviously). I used to have lots of slowdowns during major firefights, now I get nothing at all. Also, and this might be a bit nitpicky, but the title screen used to take a few seconds to load and wasn't quite smooth. I didn't realize that until using the gtx 260 last night for the first time and seeing the screen load in no time. I don't have fraps but I suspect that it went from about 30-40 fps to 60-70.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

All I have to say is, "Wow."

Crysis
Far Cry 2
Stalker CS
Fallout 3 w/mod*
HL2: E2 w/mod (look at minimum frames)*
Left 4 Dead (minimum frames)*
Crysis Warhead*
Prince of Persia (minimum frames)*


These meet your criteria. But I don't like how you make the cut-off 30 fps for playability. I can immediately spot the difference in framerate when cards are averaging in the 30-60 range, such that if I had the capability to run 50 fps over 35 fps I would most certainly do so and be much, much happier (look at the links below for games of this example type for my criteria). Over 60 doesn't matter too much unless I'm playing a competitive game, like Counter-Strike, where I can definitely notice a difference in how the game plays at 60 fps than it does at 100+ fps. Although I haven't played it, I hear COD4's multiplayer is very well-recieved by those who manager higher framerates. But I won't list results for games that do go over 60 fps with your criteria as the HD4850 for the cutoff.

World in Conflict
Call of Juarez
Call of Duty WaW*
Dawn of War 2*
Mirror's Edge (minimum frames)*
Mass Effect*
Frontline Fuel of War and GRAW 2*
Stalker SoC*
Rainbow Six Vegas*
Lost Planet Colonies*
PT Boats Knights of the Sea*
Unreal Tournament 3 (minimum frames)*
Tom Clancy's HAWX (DX10 and DX10 w/AA)*

My Criteria:
-If the HD4850/GTS250 gets anywhere over 60 fps, game not posted even if a GTX295 is getting 2-3 times the frames. Anything below 60 is posted.
-1680x1050 (or 1600x1200) resolution
-up to 4xAA, up to 16xAF
-Published source with link.
-Games are not posted more than once over multiple sources, since most sources show similar results. No need to cluter my findings.

I'll be sure to add more as I come across them. And I also won't post the same game twice, as many sites show pretty consistent results and utilize many of the same games in their latest benchmarks. I'll also admit the results would shrink if we didn't include the HD4850, but they would also grow again if I found/used results with the 4870X2, GTX295, and 4850X2 (which you left off the list). Lastly I'll try to ignore games that just have major issues with one type (brand or multi-GPU problems) of card. For example, looks like Red Alert 3 loves Radeons and hates Geforces.

Edit: * means included after editing!

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: Grooveriding
I can't agree that 22" is an 'enthusiast' resolution. It's a normal resolution that most people have, even non-gamers, even 24" now is fairly normal, since most lcd makers now are making their 24" monitors with TN panels. So now even 24" is cheap.

An enthusiast monitor is 30" or possibly a high quality IPS/PVA 24" monitor. 22" is pretty middling these days.

If you're a PC enthusiast, your monitor will be the most expensive part of your computer. If you own a 22", it's definitely not.

My 20" (not even 22") is the most expensive part of my computer

It will be even after I upgrade my graphics card soon

 

[SlowSpyder]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3523&p=6

FC2 - GTS250 gets a barely playable 20.8FPS. The 4870 512 scores 31.3FPS and the GTX260 216 scores 33.4FPS. It's too bad the 48701GB wasn't in there too, it very well may have matched or even exceeded the GTX260 216. But I would imagine the difference between 20FPS and 30+FPS is quite noticable.

 

[apoppin]

Yes .. i sure can .. there are many places where there are huge differences

in fact i test ALL 13 of my games in my benchmark suite - at 19x12 and 16x10 with 4xAA/16xAF

CrossFireX-3 sometimes even makes a practical difference over 4870X-2 [but that is *rare*]

heck, my latest review shows [this is a little different but related - to illustrate *extremes* - q9550 at 3.4 Ghz is PLAYABLE at 16x10 with 4870x2 - and UNplayable with the exact same setup and an e8600 at 4.25 Ghz