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

[Leyawiin]

I understand Oguy31's point. There are so many thread splitting hairs over the HD 4850/9800 GTX+ (GTX 250), HD 4870/GTX 260, HD 4830/9800 GT, X2 4850/GTX 285, HD 4870 X2/GTX 295 when there isn't a dime's worth of difference on the vast majority of systems out there. Its like my old man arguing with our neighbor back in the day over which was better - Ford (dad) or Chevy (neighbor). Kind of silly.

Nvidia and ATI, for all intents and purposes, are about the same these days when like classes are actually compared. Who the hell is going to notice 3 or 4 FPS more in a game between one or the other unless you're some obsessive individual who spends more time eyeing FRAPS in the top corner than actually enjoying the game.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Eh, there's a pretty damn big difference between an HD4850-class video card and a GTX285-class video card in many, many games. There's also a huge difference between the same GTX285-class cards to the HD4870X2-class cards. Now just think of the difference between an HD4850-class and GTX295-class. There would be a noticeable difference in playability in a lot of games. A lot. Like all of the ones I mentioned.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Eh, there's a pretty damn big difference between an HD4850-class video card and a GTX285-class video card in many, many games. There's also a huge difference between the same GTX285-class cards to the HD4870X2-class cards. Now just think of the difference between an HD4850-class and GTX295-class. There would be a noticeable difference in playability in a lot of games. A lot. Like all of the ones I mentioned.

Oh absolutely there is a huge difference, and there is a market for the extremely powerful cards. My point was more on the common resolution(s).


When someone says "What should I get, 285 for 4870 1GB?", but they forget to mention they are playing on mom's 17 inch Dell @ 1024X, they are throwing away money on a GPU that could be used to get a decent monitor.

@ cuside: nice finds, I am going to look at them. The WaW one seems to show that with 4X AA, the damn 8800GTX is near the top, which we all know is not in the same class as the other cards.

Wierd results at lower resolutions. The results are all too close together until you click on 8X AA, then cards start pulling away.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yea that is why I tried to keep out the G92 core. I should have left the 4850 out was well, it might have taken longer for someone to get it.

I am impressed with the 4850x2 on Far Cry 2 in that bench you linked...that seems to be one of the games where there actually is a difference on a 22".

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Eh, there's a pretty damn big difference between an HD4850-class video card and a GTX285-class video card in many, many games. There's also a huge difference between the same GTX285-class cards to the HD4870X2-class cards. Now just think of the difference between an HD4850-class and GTX295-class. There would be a noticeable difference in playability in a lot of games. A lot. Like all of the ones I mentioned.

Oh absolutely there is a huge difference, and there is a market for the extremely powerful cards. My point was more on the common resolution(s).


When someone says "What should I get, 285 for 4870 1GB?", but they forget to mention they are playing on mom's 17 inch Dell @ 1024X, they are throwing away money on a GPU that could be used to get a decent monitor.

@ cuside: nice finds, I am going to look at them. The WaW one seems to show that with 4X AA, the damn 8800GTX is near the top, which we all know is not in the same class as the other cards.

Wierd results at lower resolutions. The results are all too close together until you click on 8X AA, then cards start pulling away.

You forget that 17" 1280x1024 is a more demanding than 19" 1440x900 .. and 1650x1080 is not that far from 1600x1200
-i guess it was like taking candy from a baby, the way you set up your "challenge"


anyway ... if you max out DX10 setting for Clear Sky at 16x10, a GTX280 is still gonna struggle with it .. otoh a 4850 or a 9800GTX will *die* on it
- big difference

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Eh, there's a pretty damn big difference between an HD4850-class video card and a GTX285-class video card in many, many games. There's also a huge difference between the same GTX285-class cards to the HD4870X2-class cards. Now just think of the difference between an HD4850-class and GTX295-class. There would be a noticeable difference in playability in a lot of games. A lot. Like all of the ones I mentioned.

Oh absolutely there is a huge difference, and there is a market for the extremely powerful cards. My point was more on the common resolution(s).


When someone says "What should I get, 285 for 4870 1GB?", but they forget to mention they are playing on mom's 17 inch Dell @ 1024X, they are throwing away money on a GPU that could be used to get a decent monitor.

@ cuside: nice finds, I am going to look at them. The WaW one seems to show that with 4X AA, the damn 8800GTX is near the top, which we all know is not in the same class as the other cards.

Wierd results at lower resolutions. The results are all too close together until you click on 8X AA, then cards start pulling away.

Holy crap... I must be blind because I totally did not see those links for different resolutions above the graphs. And I was wondering why such a pretty good site was only testing at one setting.

And WaW has, across various benchmarks, favored Nvidia hardware. I can only conclude the 8800GTX's success is probably (or partially) due to its memory bandwidth advantage over the sibling 9800GTX/GTS250. Doesn't the 8800GTX also have more ROPs, which would also explain how it overtakes the 9800GTX at 8xAA?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 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 =)

Do I get paid too?? :Q :laugh:

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: 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.

Yea that is why I tried to keep out the G92 core. I should have left the 4850 out was well, it might have taken longer for someone to get it.

I am impressed with the 4850x2 on Far Cry 2 in that bench you linked...that seems to be one of the games where there actually is a difference on a 22".

For the record I understand what you're getting at and infact agree with you. Some people will look at some benches where card x gets 43FPS in a said game and card y gets 46FPS then touts that manufacturers card as if it is soem kind of holy savior. I believe you should obviously look at performance, but really go by price and the extras you get (warranty/software/etc.). That's why I have a 4870 instead of an Nvidia card this round. At the time I bought this card the GTx260's were still more money and there really isn't any performance gap for my resolution. The fact is both companies make very good card, they go about it in slightly diferent ways to get that performance, but so long as they're competitive and priced right who cares.

I have to put a bit of a disclaimer here, I have bad discs in my back... many bad discs. The doctor said that the amount of damage I have to my discs is rather impressive... in a bad way. Anyway, I typed this up while pretty hopped up on Valium and oxycodone. I'm no stranger to opiate based pain meds, but benzos are new to me and benzos in combination with my oxy is taking me places. Lazy, lazy places where I melt into my chair. Anyway, I think my reply made sense. If not, please forgive me. I'm about to play some AoC, I see myself dying often, my coordination is not quite what it normally is. Well, let's hope I don't become the next Zane Johnson... <-- One for the Off Topic guys.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: 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.

Yea that is why I tried to keep out the G92 core. I should have left the 4850 out was well, it might have taken longer for someone to get it.

I am impressed with the 4850x2 on Far Cry 2 in that bench you linked...that seems to be one of the games where there actually is a difference on a 22".

For the record I understand what you're getting at and infact agree with you. Some people will look at some benches where card x gets 43FPS in a said game and card y gets 46FPS then touts that manufacturers card as if it is soem kind of holy savior. I believe you should obviously look at performance, but really go by price and the extras you get (warranty/software/etc.). That's why I have a 4870 instead of an Nvidia card this round. At the time I bought this card the GTx260's were still more money and there really isn't any performance gap for my resolution. The fact is both companies make very good card, they go about it in slightly diferent ways to get that performance, but so long as they're competitive and priced right who cares.

I have to put a bit of a disclaimer here, I have bad discs in my back... many bad discs. The doctor said that the amount of damage I have to my discs is rather impressive... in a bad way. Anyway, I typed this up while pretty hopped up on Valium and oxycodone. I'm no stranger to opiate based pain meds, but benzos are new to me and benzos in combination with my oxy is taking me places. Lazy, lazy places where I melt into my chair. Anyway, I think my reply made sense. If not, please forgive me. I'm about to play some AoC, I see myself dying often, my coordination is not quite what it normally is. Well, let's hope I don't become the next Zane Johnson... <-- One for the Off Topic guys.

i understand what you are saying and also what the OP meant to do

unfortunately he did not really think it thru and made it way too easy


have you considered acupuncture?
- i have herniated neck disks and i am OFF pain meds because of TCM
[traditional Chinese medicine]

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Grooveriding
If you're a monitor enthusiast, your monitor will be the most expensive part of your computer.

There, just had to fix that for you, new guy.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 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 =)

Do I get paid too?? :Q :laugh:

why would you get paid?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

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.

I have to strongly disagree. Many "enthusiasts" don't have or don't want to spend the $$ on an expensive monitor.

You can buy a 22" monitor for, say, $200. That is more than a good cpu, more than a good motherboard, more than 2 good hdd's, etc.

Also, most people do NOT have a 22" res (typically 1680x1050) monitor. In fact, according to the latest Steam survey, only 16.50% of participants use a 1680x1050 res.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

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.

I have to strongly disagree. Many "enthusiasts" don't have or don't want to spend the $$ on an expensive monitor.

You can buy a 22" monitor for, say, $200. That is more than a good cpu, more than a good motherboard, more than 2 good hdd's, etc.

Also, most people do NOT have a 22" res (typically 1680x1050) monitor. In fact, according to the latest Steam survey, only 16.50% of participants use a 1680x1050 res.

For the record I use a 22" monitor and think it's pretty much the best bang for the buck for a decent sized monitor. I see 17" widescreens for $99 here and there, but I woudl imagine gaming or even web browsing would be down right painful in such a small space. I'm really looking forward to a 24" monitor one of these days. I have no data to back this up, this is just how it is in my head more or less, but I still look at 24" as a 'big' monitor, an enthusiast part. I'm looking forward to 1200 verticle pixels, the 1080P monitors that are 1920x1080 don't excite me, that's just 30 more verticle lines of pixels than I have now. I guess we'll see how 512MB of video memory handles 1920x1200 soon enough.

My 52" Samsung LCD TV is 1080P, and my 4870 has HDMI out. If only I had a wireless mouse and keyboard, I imagine games would look absolutely beautiful on my TV.

 

[Jabbernyx]

Originally posted by: Grooveriding
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.

Not really. My E6600 cost more than my Asus VH242H ($225 from the egg). However, my vid card does cost a lot less (4850 for $100 last year)