Qbah
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2005
- 3,754
- 10
- 81
Common sense is also buying a quad over a dual, since eventually games will benefit more from running one to the extent that running on a dual will be a bad experience. Yeah, this is the GPU forum, but the thinking is the same. You got games that already need a quad (like GTA4, FSX, Supreme Commander). And yes, the Radeon will run out of memory sooner than the GTX260. But then we won't run AA at x4. Drop it to x2 or nothing. You have games right now that play better on the 512 card (like GRID, COD4) which means that the time isn't clearly now. And futureproofing in a GPU environment? Please, tell me you're joking. Then again, why buy the 512 card if the 1GB one is just a tad more expensive? Better be safe I'd say. Also, 1GB will last you longer than 896MB... that's common sense.
Since it is you that mentioned the hot deal for the MSI card, wrongly assumed it is for 158$, then added FarCry2 into the mix which was for a different card after all (not mentioning it anywhere else) - it wasn't my assumption. And now we're into 229$? What if the buyer doesn't want to play that game? He still needs to buy it with the bundle that costs 229$. Obviously giving a nice deal into the thread for GTX260 at 178$ was ok, but mentioning a HD4870 for 189$ isn't. Cool...
And chizow:
The GTX260 with 192 shaders is missing there. Can you guarantee that it's not the shaders that added the performance? No, you can't. You got the 8800GTX with 768MB that does worse than a 9800GTX+ even though is has more RAM.
EDIT: It does better at the hardest settings but still is slower than a 512MB HD4870. So my point still stands.
Give it up already...... Why are you in this thread? This thread is about Great pirces on Great hardware, which in fact is the truth. I'm beginning to despise you and your green blood.
You know I would normally jump all over this like a hobo on a ham sammich but.....
I feel like this is a stock dump right before a refresh.
I know if i plunked down 200 bones for one right now the 5xxx series would get hard launched the day after my card was delivered.
That and don't have 200 spare bones right now anyways ;(
I feel like this is a stock dump right before a refresh.
I know if i plunked down 200 bones for one right now the 5xxx series would get hard launched the day after my card was delivered.
That and don't have 200 spare bones right now anyways ;(
LOL, I feel the same way... Happened to me too many times! Then of course, there are times where you hold off and wait, and wait and wait... *chirp chirp* and then are like, WTF and buy it and THEN it hard launches
Hey, I got to thinking to myself, maybe YOU should bite on this right now, so that it will cause a hard launch the next day.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 56
- 91
What would you do if you didn't want that bundled game? Common Sense again Qbah. You'd buy the cheapest one that does not come bundled with the game, which would be the 178.00 card. Why did I have to tell you this? Couldn't you figure this out by yourself?
At this point, your "argument(s)" aren't going anywhere. Now suddenly we have quad cores, 8800GTX and 9800GTX into the mix. Where will it end? The numbers speak for themselves, as Chizow and cmrdredd have pointed out. I think at this point, you can argue all by yourself. Cheers.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
Honestly, that isn't completely fair to mention. It is true that these 192SPs are dropping in price, but they will eventually run out. They do not manufacturer these anymore. The 4870 will still sells and manufacturers both versions of the card, as the GPU's themselves are the same, only the density of the memory has changed. So these low MIR prices are only very temporary. Now, they are still a HOT deal, no doubts here... But if you plan on them being this price indefinitly, I would think again. Pretty soon only the 216SP will be available at the higher price point. Then if you plan on SLI later and are stuck with a 192SP, you may need to find them elsewhere (Ebay, or a higher priced place that still has old stock).
Zap
Elite Member
- Oct 13, 1999
- 22,377
- 7
- 81
What, you uncouth heathens across the pond don't celebrate through consumerism?
These prices are great for the consumer, but terrible for me personally... I've been sitting on a few GTX 260 cards (and a bunch of other hardeware) for over a month because I haven't gotten around to using them yet. Almost like buying stocks. Nevermind, I think I've lost more with stocks.
So much nonsensical ATI bashing in Anandtech Forums these days it's retarded. Why the mods have been lenient I don't know. ATI has beaten Nvidia every generation since the 9700 until the 8800 came out and once again at the current era until the 180 drivers came out, and never once have I seen ATI fanboys bash Nvidia as much as the Nvidia fanboys are bashing ATI right now on the forums. Release one piece of software that makes their cards perform a bit better and (for the first time be worth the price you pay for them)then do nothing but bash ATI and their products before they even have a chance to respond in kind with their own drivers.
All this talk about Far Cry 2 is retarded. The game is pure garbage, not even worth the time someone would spend pirating it, let alone paying for it. Why performance on this title matters at all to you guys, I will never know. ATI cards perform very competitively across the board in pretty much every game, so stop acting like ATI is completely getting trashed. Aside from FC2, ATI drivers are just as good as Nvidia's. Don't pretend that Nvidia never performed poorly or had problems in a game before. All this talk about the GTX280 sometimes beating the 4870X2 is okay, but why is there never any mention of the times when the 4870 512 beats the GTX280? Stop being so damn biased, it's retarded.
You people need to chill out, it's insane. Discuss price vs performance, nothing else. Bashing a company is completely retarded. Trying to say ATI has severe driver problems and that Nvidia doesn't is completely made up BS and nothing more.
All this talk about Far Cry 2 is retarded. The game is pure garbage, not even worth the time someone would spend pirating it, let alone paying for it. Why performance on this title matters at all to you guys, I will never know. ATI cards perform very competitively across the board in pretty much every game, so stop acting like ATI is completely getting trashed. Aside from FC2, ATI drivers are just as good as Nvidia's. Don't pretend that Nvidia never performed poorly or had problems in a game before. All this talk about the GTX280 sometimes beating the 4870X2 is okay, but why is there never any mention of the times when the 4870 512 beats the GTX280? Stop being so damn biased, it's retarded.
You people need to chill out, it's insane. Discuss price vs performance, nothing else. Bashing a company is completely retarded. Trying to say ATI has severe driver problems and that Nvidia doesn't is completely made up BS and nothing more.
bryanW1995
Lifer
- May 22, 2007
- 11,144
- 32
- 91
guys, $160 or so for a gtx 260 is simply stupid. that is a much better deal than a 4870 for $200 or $190. As keys said, they're equivalent cards. Whichever one has the best price when you purchase is the one to get imho.
bryanW1995
Lifer
- May 22, 2007
- 11,144
- 32
- 91
Originally posted by: Qbah
We could argue till we're both blue in the face but won't convince one another
Anyway - holiday time - a win for the customer. A lot of hot deals around. All one has to do is look around. Just wish the prices would drop here in the EU as they do in US...
I have 2 words for you: Qarl's texture pack. uh, 3 words. whatever
I use said texture pack on my 512MB card in Oblivion and the game runs perfectly fine. I do run at 1680x1050 though.
bryanW1995
Lifer
- May 22, 2007
- 11,144
- 32
- 91
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: Qbah
You tend to forget that the extra RAM does squat for the GTX260 in every imaginable valid setting (ie. the Radeon pushing 5FPS compared to 7FPS on the GTX260 doesn't make it a worse card
I don't know, I can imagine a situation where that 512MB VRAM makes the 4870 look very much like one of the lower-end parts with only 512MB VRAM.
PCGH Fallout 3 Review
Even at 1680 and 4xAA there's significant difference between the 512MB 4870 and the 1GB 4870/GTX 260. Translated to actual gameplay, the lack of stuttering and texture swapping will equate to a smoother experience that a simple FPS graph can't really convey. Plenty of other reviews showing this as well, PCGH is great in this regards because they update content so frequently with the newest games, hardware and drivers.
Reading all of these 512mb vs 896 mb arguments makes me wonder if ati really knew exactly how strong they were going to be vs the gt200's. I've always assumed that they were showing 4870 vs 9800gtx and 4850 vs 8800gt because they were trying to throw nvidia off, but this really makes me wonder. If they had truly intended for the 4870 to be a mid-high range card I don't think they would have offered it with 512 mb at all. In most situations at higher resolutions the 1gb 4870 makes a big performance difference. What they should have done instead of the 4870 1gb is make a 4890 (1gb only of course) with, say, 825 mz core and 1100 mem. That could have commanded a true premium and probably would be similar to gtx 280 in both performance and price.
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: Qbah
You tend to forget that the extra RAM does squat for the GTX260 in every imaginable valid setting (ie. the Radeon pushing 5FPS compared to 7FPS on the GTX260 doesn't make it a worse card
I don't know, I can imagine a situation where that 512MB VRAM makes the 4870 look very much like one of the lower-end parts with only 512MB VRAM.
PCGH Fallout 3 Review
Even at 1680 and 4xAA there's significant difference between the 512MB 4870 and the 1GB 4870/GTX 260. Translated to actual gameplay, the lack of stuttering and texture swapping will equate to a smoother experience that a simple FPS graph can't really convey. Plenty of other reviews showing this as well, PCGH is great in this regards because they update content so frequently with the newest games, hardware and drivers.
Reading all of these 512mb vs 896 mb arguments makes me wonder if ati really knew exactly how strong they were going to be vs the gt200's. I've always assumed that they were showing 4870 vs 9800gtx and 4850 vs 8800gt because they were trying to throw nvidia off, but this really makes me wonder. If they had truly intended for the 4870 to be a mid-high range card I don't think they would have offered it with 512 mb at all. In most situations at higher resolutions the 1gb 4870 makes a big performance difference. What they should have done instead of the 4870 1gb is make a 4890 (1gb only of course) with, say, 825 mz core and 1100 mem. That could have commanded a true premium and probably would be similar to gtx 280 in both performance and price.
Nah, I think every card from here on out should be called HD4870.... I kid I kid. You are right though, no reason to have 2 different memory versions of the same card. A different name is warranted. Atleast it's not like the 8800 Fiasco: 8800 GTS 320, 8800 GTS 640, 8800 GTS 640 (112 sp SSC Version), 8800 GTS 512....lol, wtf. Esp, since the performance was so wildly different between the fastest and slowest.
Why are you comparing to the NV parts? I linked that to give you a part to part comparison between the 512MB and 1GB 4870 parts, which are identical in all aspects other than RAM which gives you a direct indication of how VRAM can impact performance.
But here's the comparison you wanted. What you will find is the 512MB is consistently slower than the 1GB part due solely to the difference in VRAM. You will find the GTX 260 scale directly to clockspeed and number of shaders as the amount of VRAM is a non-factor. If there were a version with 448MB RAM then you could make similar comparison to the 4870 512MB/1GB.
GTX 260, c216, 4870 512MB and 1GB compared
I don't think it was by choice really. I think the call to go with only 512MB at launch was due to cost and supply issues with GDDR5. Keep in mind the 4870 wasn't available in volume until a few weeks after the 4850, which held the launch up initially. Then you factor in the insane amount of RAM on the X2 along with the late launch date of the 1GB 4870 and it seems to make more sense as to why they went with only 512MB at launch.
QFT. Tried FC2 and it sucked. A game like Brother's in Arms: Hell's Highway or Fallout 3 (not amazing but pretty good) is worth the time compared to FC2.
Qbah
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2005
- 3,754
- 10
- 81
I'd dish out 10$ more for the Radeon (actually no, I'd go with the 1GB version) if I had to choose between the two because I had nothing but problems with nVidia in the past (no, my problems weren't unique, they were well documented). And frankly I got so much on my head, having to worry about a 300$ investment in something that should by definition relax me is not what I want to do. And paying 10$ more for a peace of mind is very much worth it in my book. It is you that brought up a GTX260 that you can have for less with a crazy combo into a thread about ATi's price cuts - starting about how a GTX260 is a better buy (how does that add up to price cuts for ATi cards?). I replied with prices for ATi cards in an ATi thread (omg how could I?). Then you included RAM... I was just following lead. And since you're a mod (well, not here, but still on ATF) I would assume you know how to stay on-topic. Common sense, RAM - you have to give other examples of those arguments, not just narrow down on one - that was the reason for quads and other GTX's - and that was very much off topic here, but since you started it anyway...
Anyway, I'm done with that part. There's just no way you, as a a member of NFG, can pass up on derailing an ATi thread, lower its importance or value - I'm guessing it's part of your "duties". Have I ever recommended an nVidia card? Sure, multiple times. Will *I* ever buy one again? No. But I know you get problems on both sides in general, I just get them with nVidia cards.
Also, all the derailing and subtle marketing you NFGs do starts to make me dislike this place. It's been so great for the past years (even with the flame wars) but recently every thread that has something positive to say about ATi is immediately jumped by you or nRollo (accompanied by a few followers of the "NFG way") and immediately flooded with nVidia comparisons, things they do better in your opinion, feature lists for nVidia cards (repeated to the letter each time) - is it like a mantra for you guys? Do you have like 10 links to some reviews, 10 features and just pick 3 or 4 for each thread you wish to derail? Sure looks like this from my view.
And chizow:
From the PCGH link we can clearly see that adding RAM to the HD4870 1GB is beneficial in Fallout 3. In that review only. The Firingsquad one has the 512 card beating the 1GB one at 1920x1200 AAx4 in AVG ! And the same min FPS too for both! Not to mention in the whole Firingsquad review the 512MB card trades blows with the 1GB one most of the time. And it is only at 2560x1600 that the 512MB tanks (obviously!). And at AAx8 sometimes. Dude, do you even read the links you post?
And back to PCGH, we see the RAM added performance for the 1GB version. Assuming they didn't mess something up during testing - other reviews don't show that behavior at that res. Neither does my testing (yes, I own Fallout 3). There hasn't been a single moment my 512MB Radeon went to 26 FPS at 1920x1200 AAx4 ! Not to mention 1680x1050 they use. And I've got Fraps running all the time in my games (out of curiosity mostly). And in case you've missed it, we were discussing GTX260 192 vs the 512 HD4870 - we don't know how for the PCGH guys the 192 model performed. And this little piece of information is kinda vital to compare both cards, wouldn't you agree?
EDIT: Correction, running F3 at 1920x1080 on my HDTV. Still, quite a lot higher than 1680x1050.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 56
- 91
"I had nothing but problems with nVidia in the past"
A lot of folks are having nothing but problems with ATI "now". Both vendors have their share of issues, but ATI more so lately with their drivers.
As for how the 192 shader GTX performance you keep mentioning, just check any review that tests the new Big Bang II drivers and see for yourself. The 192 is equal to, or beats the 4870 512 and 1GB models in quite a few games. Mostly the latest releases.
And trading blows in others. Don't believe me? Well, you don't have to.
A lot of folks are having nothing but problems with ATI "now". Both vendors have their share of issues, but ATI more so lately with their drivers.
As for how the 192 shader GTX performance you keep mentioning, just check any review that tests the new Big Bang II drivers and see for yourself. The 192 is equal to, or beats the 4870 512 and 1GB models in quite a few games. Mostly the latest releases.
And trading blows in others. Don't believe me? Well, you don't have to.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter