Trying to decide to go with GTX 260 (216) or HD 4870 1GB

bovinda

Senior member
Nov 26, 2004
692
0
0
I know there are a ton of GTX 260 vs. HD4870 threads, but I'm thinking specifically for (right now) playing Oblivion, probably with a reduced version of Qarl's texture pack, at 1920x1200. Which card would you go with?

On one hand, AT's recent review says that the 4870 is slightly better for almost all games...except Oblivion (and Assasin's Creed). On the other hand, I feel like I see a ton of threads saying that the (XFX version in particular) GTX 260 is at least as good if not better overall. Then AT says that the most recent NVidia drivers (release 180) crippled Oblivion performance by like 7-8%, even though they helped with other games.

Opinions are much appreciated, since they both seem to be comparable in cost, and I don't know enough to do a more technical comparison. (And since I'm trying to study for finals right now at the same time. :) )

If other hardware matters, I'm using a Q6600 (non-OC'd) with 4 GB RAM on Vista 64, 650W Corsair PSU.
 

NoSoup4You

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2007
1,253
6
81
Go with whichever's your preference, or whichever's cheapest. GTX 260 (192 core) is tempting for only $209 at newegg. But any GTX 260/4870 will play Oblivion with maxed out settings (Qarl included) so no worries.
 

bovinda

Senior member
Nov 26, 2004
692
0
0
In that case, this deal over in the Hot Deals forum for a 4870 for $180 seems really good then, doesn't it? Any reason I shouldn't jump on this?
 

Leyawiin

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2008
3,204
52
91
It has just 512MB VRAM and Oblivion with a texture pack with fill that up quickly - especially at your resolution. If you go ATI get a 1GB model.

I have the most recent 180.48 drivers for my EVGA GTX 260 "FTW" Edition and Oblivion is one of my most played games. I fired it up last night for the first time since upgrade the drivers and out of curiosity I maxed every quality option and slider save for "shadows on self". I bumped up AA to 16X and AF to 16X. Basically, as high as it could go (I game at 1680x1050, CPU is an X2 6400+ on Win XP). The game in the Great Forest was very smooth. Just the usual zone loading hitches, but those were quick and light. If those drivers were supposed to have hurt Nvidia performance in Oblivion I'm not seeing it. Its running better than ever with the highest settings possible - something I wasn't able to do before. Anyway, a 3 FPS drop in Oblivion has to be taken with a grain of salt (the decrease noted by AT in their look at the new drivers). There are no static benchmarks that can truly measure FPS in that game consistently. Its all FRAPS running around a loop. Hard to get an exact FPS - only a general performance idea.

Considering all the rumblings (warranted or not) about ATI driver issues in many games I would go with that very nice XFX GTX 260 Black Edition myself ($279.99/$249.99 after MIR at Newegg). Oblivion is thought to be a more Nvidia friendly title (since the 8800 series and with the exception of the HD 4870 X2 of course) and ATI 4000 series have been known to be prone to micro-stuttering in that game (and more stuttering in Oblivion is the last thing you would want).
 

Sentry2

Senior member
Mar 21, 2005
820
0
0
I'd go with a GTX 260+. My X2(and ccc) has been giving me quite a few headache's lately. To be fair though a 1GB 4870 might be just fine since you take multi-gpu problems out of the equation. I would just go with the cheapest 260(core 216) that you can find. I prefer eVGA. I can't say enough good things about their customer service. Then you could always step up to a 280 within 90 days if you feel you need more. There isn't a big difference though between a 280 and a 260+.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Thinking about this will give you a headache. Flip a coin and go and either way you'll be good. I don't know about AA turned up and all, but I haven't played much at 1900x1200 so I don't know if AA is a big deal at that rez, sure it can't hurt if you can afford it with enough horsepower.
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,009
417
126
As others have said, flip a coin between a GTX 260+ and a 1GB 4870, either will get the job done. Personally, I went with the 260+, but that is just me.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
I would most definitely go with the 4870 for the 1GB of ram. I'm just starting to notice it now in video games, can't play WoW with the settings maxed anymore-- they've vastly increased the view distance and while I get full FPS when the data is in the Vram, if I swing the camera around it hitches. This is the first game, there will be more to follow I'm sure.
 

Leyawiin

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2008
3,204
52
91
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I would most definitely go with the 4870 for the 1GB of ram. I'm just starting to notice it now in video games, can't play WoW with the settings maxed anymore-- they've vastly increased the view distance and while I get full FPS when the data is in the Vram, if I swing the camera around it hitches. This is the first game, there will be more to follow I'm sure.

The Wrath changes to WoW are more of a CPU issue than GPU. People with GTX 280s and HD 4870 X2s are reporting exactly what you describe. I get it as well when those two new options are maxed. Seems kind of bizarre Blizzard would make changes like that to a game that historically was very easy on hardware.

Also, theres little if any difference between 896MB and 1GB of VRAM. Both of those cards are more or less equal in capacity.
 

nosfe

Senior member
Aug 8, 2007
424
0
0
why is it bad as long as you have the older options still available? do you feel bad for not being able to brag that you've got all settings on max? its the same thing with crysis, so what if you can play it only on medium? does it look really that bad on medium?
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
Originally posted by: Leyawiin
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I would most definitely go with the 4870 for the 1GB of ram. I'm just starting to notice it now in video games, can't play WoW with the settings maxed anymore-- they've vastly increased the view distance and while I get full FPS when the data is in the Vram, if I swing the camera around it hitches. This is the first game, there will be more to follow I'm sure.

The Wrath changes to WoW are more of a CPU issue than GPU. People with GTX 280s and HD 4870 X2s are reporting exactly what you describe. I get it as well when those two new options are maxed. Seems kind of bizarre Blizzard would make changes like that to a game that historically was very easy on hardware.

Also, theres little if any difference between 896MB and 1GB of VRAM. Both of those cards are more or less equal in capacity.

My CPU is never pegged at 100% though, in task manager Wow.exe is only 49-53%, so...
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Originally posted by: nosfe
why is it bad as long as you have the older options still available? do you feel bad for not being able to brag that you've got all settings on max? its the same thing with crysis, so what if you can play it only on medium? does it look really that bad on medium?



After playing with everything maxed, yes it does lol. Now I am only currently at 1280x1024, but still.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Leyawiin
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I would most definitely go with the 4870 for the 1GB of ram. I'm just starting to notice it now in video games, can't play WoW with the settings maxed anymore-- they've vastly increased the view distance and while I get full FPS when the data is in the Vram, if I swing the camera around it hitches. This is the first game, there will be more to follow I'm sure.

The Wrath changes to WoW are more of a CPU issue than GPU. People with GTX 280s and HD 4870 X2s are reporting exactly what you describe. I get it as well when those two new options are maxed. Seems kind of bizarre Blizzard would make changes like that to a game that historically was very easy on hardware.

Also, theres little if any difference between 896MB and 1GB of VRAM. Both of those cards are more or less equal in capacity.

My CPU is never pegged at 100% though, in task manager Wow.exe is only 49-53%, so...

Your GPU isn't being taxed like Crysis though.
 

bovinda

Senior member
Nov 26, 2004
692
0
0
Thanks for all the suggestions guys! I ended up going with an XFX GTX 260 (216c) black edition, as per Leyawiin's suggestion. Hopefully I'll be happy with it. Appreciate all the feedback!
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,009
417
126
Originally posted by: soccerballtux

My CPU is never pegged at 100% though, in task manager Wow.exe is only 49-53%, so...

You also probably have a dual core CPU in which case a game like WoW being only single threaded will only ever occupy 1 of the two cores (thus 49-50% usage), and anything else that the operating system is doing (memory management, date/time, network processing, keyboard/mouse processing), will cause that extra 3-4% that you see from time to time to go over 50% usage... Newer games like Crysis are multi-threaded, meaning they will use up multiple cores in computers which have multiple CPU cores.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
Originally posted by: Fallen Kell
Originally posted by: soccerballtux

My CPU is never pegged at 100% though, in task manager Wow.exe is only 49-53%, so...

You also probably have a dual core CPU in which case a game like WoW being only single threaded will only ever occupy 1 of the two cores (thus 49-50% usage), and anything else that the operating system is doing (memory management, date/time, network processing, keyboard/mouse processing), will cause that extra 3-4% that you see from time to time to go over 50% usage... Newer games like Crysis are multi-threaded, meaning they will use up multiple cores in computers which have multiple CPU cores.

Wow is multi-threaded now, they implemented this way back in 2.whatever.