Originally posted by: chizow
Anandtech 4890 vs. GTX 275
PCGH 4890 vs. GTX 275
Looks to be pretty close with reviews giving a slight edge to the GTX 275. Looks like the big difference with this launch however is that AMD has finally put some substantial overclocking headroom into their high-end part. This doesn't change the overall performance landscape of course, as GT200 and especially GT200b have been capable of similar % overclocks since launch. The other benefit is that the 4890 is available now, the GTX 275 sounds like limited availability until the 2nd week of April.
Originally posted by: chizow
Anandtech 4890 vs. GTX 275
PCGH 4890 vs. GTX 275
Looks to be pretty close with reviews giving a slight edge to the GTX 275. Looks like the big difference with this launch however is that AMD has finally put some substantial overclocking headroom into their high-end part. This doesn't change the overall performance landscape of course, as GT200 and especially GT200b have been capable of similar % overclocks since launch. The other benefit is that the 4890 is available now, the GTX 275 sounds like limited availability until the 2nd week of April.
Originally posted by: error8
Final Core Overclock: 1Ghz
Final Memory Overclock: 1200Mhz (4800Mhz effective) Hardware canucks really squeezed the ddr5 here. Almost 5 ghz! That's the fastest memory speed on the planet for a video card.
It makes me wonder if this card can be clocked higher, since all of the reviewers have used only catalyst, which is limited to 1 ghz.
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: error8
Final Core Overclock: 1Ghz
Final Memory Overclock: 1200Mhz (4800Mhz effective) Hardware canucks really squeezed the ddr5 here. Almost 5 ghz! That's the fastest memory speed on the planet for a video card.
It makes me wonder if this card can be clocked higher, since all of the reviewers have used only catalyst, which is limited to 1 ghz.
I feel so inadequate with 875MHz on my 4870.
Originally posted by: error8
What can I say with my amazing 815 mhz on stock volts and with 825 mhz at 1.3 V?
875 is fantastic for a 4870. Are you sure it's stable?
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: error8
What can I say with my amazing 815 mhz on stock volts and with 825 mhz at 1.3 V?
875 is fantastic for a 4870. Are you sure it's stable?
I've played Crysis Warhead and benched regular Crysis at those speeds and it was fine. I didn't try anything else. My main problem is VRM temps (since the core is watercooled but the VRMs are not)...I need about 1.35v to get to 875 and at those voltages the VRMs get to almost 90C whereas at stock voltages it barely breaks 70C so for 24/7 I run stock voltage and keep it at 800/1000 (can do 830 at stock).
Originally posted by: error8
I thought you did 875mhz on stock volts.
Better power delivery would certainly help, but its all going to start with chip leakage, heat and max frequency. I doubt we'll see too much difference in board design other than minor downgrades in VRM, PWM, maybe RAM rating similar to what is on current 4870s. However, I still think it'll be enough to come closer to max 4890 OC rather than max 4870 OC due to the updated chips.Originally posted by: error8
Interesting point. However, the higher oc potential of 4890, might be more dependent to its superior power delivery system. Stable currents, voltages, might provide the extra clocks so, by putting the same RV790 chip into a 4870 PCB, would probably do nothing to the oc potential of the card. Unless maybe, ATi will start selling underclocked 4890s as 4870s. It has happened before with X2900XT, but mainly to clear stocks though.
And I'm sure you took into account the clockspeed differences between the parts as well. Oh wait, no you didn't, expecting that level of acumen from you is completely unrealitic.Originally posted by: Azn
Comparing this to GTX 280 it looks like GTX 275 is a slightly faster than GTX 280 with less ROP. :laugh:
That's strange, certainly not the impression I got from the EVGA forums. Seems 1500+ on the shader and 1300+ memory clocks are guaranteed on the GTX 285. 700 on the core maybe, but given I've seen factory OC'd models at 720MHz along with numerous reports of 750MHz being relatively easy due to the decreased power consumption and higher shader clocks on the 285.Originally posted by: Grooveriding
There is not much OC room on 285s at all. Very little actually, unless you pay for a factory OC one, and then there is not much more available on those. Most people see 50mhz on the core at best on a 285.
Originally posted by: chizow
And I'm sure you took into account the clockspeed differences between the parts as well. Oh wait, no you didn't, expecting that level of acumen from you is completely unrealitic.Originally posted by: Azn
Comparing this to GTX 280 it looks like GTX 275 is a slightly faster than GTX 280 with less ROP. :laugh:
Rofl, I'm not sure what reviews you're looking at but the GTX 280 is still faster in most of them. In any case, its obvious you're having trouble interpreting the data, so take a look again:Originally posted by: Azn
Didn't you say ROP makes the most difference? Now any fool can recognize ROP isn't the most important aspect of these cards which I've been saying from your ever failing arguments. I've always said SP and Texture fillrate did....
Simple math will prove this but then you wouldn't be chizow. :laugh:
GTX280
pixel fillrate 19264
texture fillr 48160
933 GFLOP
GTX275
pixel fillrate 17724
texture fill 50640
1010GFLOP
So which card is faster? :laugh:
Originally posted by: chizow
Rofl, I'm not sure what reviews you're looking at but the GTX 280 is still faster in most of them. In any case, its obvious you're having trouble interpreting the data, so take a look again:Originally posted by: Azn
Didn't you say ROP makes the most difference? Now any fool can recognize ROP isn't the most important aspect of these cards which I've been saying from your ever failing arguments. I've always said SP and Texture fillrate did....
Simple math will prove this but then you wouldn't be chizow. :laugh:
GTX280
pixel fillrate 19264
texture fillr 48160
933 GFLOP
GTX275
pixel fillrate 17724
texture fill 50640
1010GFLOP
So which card is faster? :laugh:
1. GTX280 | 2. GTX 275
ROP fillrate
19264 - 17724 = +8%
GFLOPs
933 - 1010 = -8%
Tex fillrate
48,160 - 50,640 = -5%
The GTX 280 is actually theoretically slower in the 2 areas you claimed made the most difference, yet the GTX 280 is still as fast or faster. How is that Azn? If shader performance and Texture fillrate were more important, how is it the GTX 280 is deficient compared to the GTX 275 in both of those areas, yet still performs as fast or faster than the GTX 275? It should lose by at least 5-8% if what you have said is true and that ROPs don't matter, right?
Yes, as fast or faster, meaning its at least as fast but often faster. So Azn, how is it that the two aspects you claimed had a greater impact don't result in the 275 being at least 5-8% faster than GTX 280 across the board when the difference in ROP fillrate is only 8%? Bandwidth difference is irrelevant as I've never claimed it had a significant impact until it becomes a bottleneck, especially on GT200 parts which have plenty of bandwidth. What do you think happens if you clock both cards at the same speeds if the GTX 280 is still the faster part, despite trailing the GTX 275 in both TMU and Shader performance?Originally posted by: Azn
Fast or faster? ROFL... What? :laugh:
GTX285 is faster than GTX 275 but not GTX280. On par but majority of games goes to GTX 275.
You say 2 aspects but I see GTX 280 being faster in 2 aspects as well. You are forgetting bandwidth that has whole lot to do with AA benches yet GTX 275 still able to beat GTX 280 even with AA.
GTX 280
141.7 GB/s
GTX 275
127 GB/s
Originally posted by: Azn
GTX285 is faster than GTX 275 but not GTX280.
Now any fool can recognize ROP isn't the most important aspect of these cards which I've been saying from your ever failing arguments. I've always said SP and Texture fillrate did....
Simple math will prove this but then you wouldn't be chizow. :laugh:
Azn, stop trying to bait Chizow into an altercation. That topic has been rehashed many times and never goes anywhere except to derail the thread.Originally posted by: Azn
Comparing this to GTX 280 it looks like GTX 275 is a slightly faster than GTX 280 with less ROP. :laugh:
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Azn, stop trying to bait Chizow into an altercation. That topic has been rehashed many times and never goes anywhere except to derail the thread.
This thread is about the discussion of GTX275 reviews. If you want to discuss old architecture arguments like ROP vs texture vs shader, start a new thread.
Video Mod BFG10K.
Originally posted by: chizow
Yes, as fast or faster, meaning its at least as fast but often faster. So Azn, how is it that the two aspects you claimed had a greater impact don't result in the 275 being at least 5-8% faster than GTX 280 across the board when the difference in ROP fillrate is only 8%? Bandwidth difference is irrelevant as I've never claimed it had a significant impact until it becomes a bottleneck, especially on GT200 parts which have plenty of bandwidth. What do you think happens if you clock both cards at the same speeds if the GTX 280 is still the faster part, despite trailing the GTX 275 in both TMU and Shader performance?Originally posted by: Azn
Fast or faster? ROFL... What? :laugh:
GTX285 is faster than GTX 275 but not GTX280. On par but majority of games goes to GTX 275.
You say 2 aspects but I see GTX 280 being faster in 2 aspects as well. You are forgetting bandwidth that has whole lot to do with AA benches yet GTX 275 still able to beat GTX 280 even with AA.
GTX 280
141.7 GB/s
GTX 275
127 GB/s
Originally posted by: chizow
Yep, just use the radio buttons at the top to see diff resolutions. They changed the format a few weeks ago. PCGH is actually one of the best reviews as it shows the 4870 and 4890 scale identically with clockspeed, clearly showing no enhancements or shader optimizations, clockspeed bumps for the increased performance by clocking a 4870 to 850MHz. It would've been nice if they did a similar comparison for a GTX 260 @ 633Mhz (GTX 275 clocks) or a GTX 275 @ 648 (GTX 285 clocks).Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: coldpower27
PCGH review is it worthwhile at all? it's 12x10 Resolutions....
There are two buttons you can press at the upper part of the charts, where is written "1920X1200 " and "1680X1050".
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: chizow
Anandtech 4890 vs. GTX 275
PCGH 4890 vs. GTX 275
Looks to be pretty close with reviews giving a slight edge to the GTX 275. Looks like the big difference with this launch however is that AMD has finally put some substantial overclocking headroom into their high-end part. This doesn't change the overall performance landscape of course, as GT200 and especially GT200b have been capable of similar % overclocks since launch. The other benefit is that the 4890 is available now, the GTX 275 sounds like limited availability until the 2nd week of April.
Comparing this to GTX 280 it looks like GTX 275 is a slightly faster than GTX 280 with less ROP. :laugh:
Azn, stop trying to bait Chizow into an altercation. That topic has been rehashed many times and never goes anywhere except to derail the thread.
This thread is about the discussion of GTX275 reviews. If you want to discuss old architecture arguments like ROP vs texture vs shader, start a new thread.
Video Mod BFG10K.
It looks like New egg has added $20 rebate (today) to their various HD4980 cards while the GTX 275 is still priced at 259.99.
I guess that means GTX 275 generally came out on top with respect to reveiews huh?
AT benches? Is this a joke? The AT benches that show the GTX 275 leading by <1 FPS difference in all but a single benchmark where the GTX 275 also beats the GTX 285? I'd say <1 FPS difference is hardly conclusive. Not to mention the GTX 280 wins by much more than that where it pulls away.Originally posted by: Azn
Faster like? Like Anand's benches? How about Firingsquad? Shall we go on? What does GTX 280 beat GTX 275 in? I can't name a single benchmark.
I;ll tell you what GTX 275 beat GTX 280 in...
Age of Conan
COD WAW
Crysis
Fallout3
Far Cry 2
Left 4 dead
GRID
The whole anand's benches show GTX 275 beating GTX 280 in all of their benchmarks they tested.
Rofl, yes, the same benches where I had to drop bandwidth by 30% to see a 3% drop in performance. So what are you saying now? That bandwidth is more important than SP and TMU? You can't have it both ways. The fact the 275 does perform similarly to the 280 despite its decreased bandwidth proves bandwidth isn't the greatest bottleneck on GT200 parts.Right... bandwidth doesn't make any difference long as it's not bottleneck like when you tested your GTX 280 by lowering memory clocks that had dramatic impact in minimum frame rates 20 odd percentage and lowered average fps by 5% or so.
No, it wouldn't, it'd show exactly how much difference those additional 4 ROPs yielded. The most accurate test would be clocking all the parts the same, GTX 260, 275, 280/285 and then seeing what differences yielded the biggest difference based on the actual hardware, not clockspeeds. Your 275 example doesn't tell us anything we didn't know already when we saw overclocked GTX 260s coming close to GTX 280 performance months and months ago. :laugh:Down clocking the GTX 275 to GTX 280 levels would be defeating the purpose of our arguments. But you knew that.
Which review? I just glanced over a few and didn't see any such conclusions. If that were the case and the 4890 was faster than the 4870 clock for clock, I would've expected more sites to pick up on it. The ones that have commented have said the opposite though, saying there is no difference in performance, clock for clock.Originally posted by: bryanW1995
that's odd, I just looked at another review that consistently showed faster performance for 4890 @ 4870 speeds and slower performance for 4870 at 4890 speeds. Maybe these guys just guessed...
Originally posted by: chizow
AT benches? Is this a joke? The AT benches that show the GTX 275 leading by <1 FPS difference in all but a single benchmark where the GTX 275 also beats the GTX 285? I'd say <1 FPS difference is hardly conclusive. Not to mention the GTX 280 wins by much more than that where it pulls away.Originally posted by: Azn
Faster like? Like Anand's benches? How about Firingsquad? Shall we go on? What does GTX 280 beat GTX 275 in? I can't name a single benchmark.
I;ll tell you what GTX 275 beat GTX 280 in...
Age of Conan
COD WAW
Crysis
Fallout3
Far Cry 2
Left 4 dead
GRID
The whole anand's benches show GTX 275 beating GTX 280 in all of their benchmarks they tested.
Rofl, yes, the same benches where I had to drop bandwidth by 30% to see a 3% drop in performance. So what are you saying now? That bandwidth is more important than SP and TMU? You can't have it both ways. The fact the 275 does perform similarly to the 280 despite its decreased bandwidth proves bandwidth isn't the greatest bottleneck on GT200 parts.Right... bandwidth doesn't make any difference long as it's not bottleneck like when you tested your GTX 280 by lowering memory clocks that had dramatic impact in minimum frame rates 20 odd percentage and lowered average fps by 5% or so.
No, it wouldn't, it'd show exactly how much difference those additional 4 ROPs yielded. The most accurate test would be clocking all the parts the same, GTX 260, 275, 280/285 and then seeing what differences yielded the biggest difference based on the actual hardware, not clockspeeds. Your 275 example doesn't tell us anything we didn't know already when we saw overclocked GTX 260s coming close to GTX 280 performance months and months ago. :laugh:Down clocking the GTX 275 to GTX 280 levels would be defeating the purpose of our arguments. But you knew that.
It has nothing to do with my GTX 280, I'm well aware its not the fastest GPU anymore; that was clearly obvious when the 285 launched. If I cared that much I'd just pay the $50-75 difference it would cost to upgrade it.Originally posted by: Pugnate
Dude I know you have a GTX280... but seriously, you are making yourself look like an ass here. The GTX275 beat the GTX280 quite obviously.
Originally posted by: chizow
Anandtech 4890 vs. GTX 275
PCGH 4890 vs. GTX 275
Looks to be pretty close with reviews giving a slight edge to the GTX 275. Looks like the big difference with this launch however is that AMD has finally put some substantial overclocking headroom into their high-end part. This doesn't change the overall performance landscape of course, as GT200 and especially GT200b have been capable of similar % overclocks since launch. The other benefit is that the 4890 is available now, the GTX 275 sounds like limited availability until the 2nd week of April.