ATI xf 4830 slaps NV 280 around

[Nemesis 1]

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16300

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16300

Your title is misleading, and the review of very limited use.

They test only 4 games, and the the 4830XF wins at two of them. (and one of the games is Grid, that we all know favors ATi cards for whatever reason)

Since when is a tie a win, let alone "slapping around"?

We could go into several other issues here, but I think anyone who believes your inflammatory post should probably buy the 4830XF and find out for themselves if such a rig provides a similar gaming experience to a GTX280.

 

[nerp]

Maybe in a price/performance aspect?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: nerp
Maybe in a price/performance aspect?

Nope, and I'd say the same thing about 9600GT Sli, even though it likely beats a GTX280 in a couple scenarios.

Scaling is variable, a couple best case scenarios do not an ownership experience make.

Microstuttering is much more prevalent the lower the framerate gets, and guess what happens when you multi GPU low end GPUs? More time spent at low framerates wondering why you average is high enough but it's not running smooth.

 

[Skunkwourk]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16300

Your title is misleading, and the review of very limited use.

They test only 4 games, and the the 4830XF wins at two of them. (and one of the games is Grid, that we all know favors ATi cards for whatever reason)

Since when is a tie a win, let alone "slapping around"?

We could go into several other issues here, but I think anyone who believes your inflammatory post should probably buy the 4830XF and find out for themselves if such a rig provides a similar gaming experience to a GTX280.

isn't that still a win?

 

[Termie]

I'd have to say it looks like 4830CF is about equivalent to the 260 OCX MAX (core 216?). With the cost of two 4830s approaching the cost of a 260 core 216, I'd go with the latter for consistent results. But very interesting nonetheless.

But I'm following nRollo's advice in other threads...I'm waiting for something new!

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: m0mentary

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16300

Your title is misleading, and the review of very limited use.

They test only 4 games, and the the 4830XF wins at two of them. (and one of the games is Grid, that we all know favors ATi cards for whatever reason)

Since when is a tie a win, let alone "slapping around"?

We could go into several other issues here, but I think anyone who believes your inflammatory post should probably buy the 4830XF and find out for themselves if such a rig provides a similar gaming experience to a GTX280.

isn't that still a win?

Rollo give me a break . Misleading did I hear ha say? Hardly better performance at half the cost . You can compare to anything ya want . It wins 2 out of 4 at 1/2 the cost nothing misleading . Don't know why tho protest so . NV would never mislead people would they rollo? Take the high ground here rollo. You can have a mod change title I don't care.

 

[AmberClad]

Folks, let's keep the discussion on the video cards, not individual posters.

- AmberClad

 

[Keysplayr]

Until reviewers start posting minimum framerates, and actual gameplay "feel", I'm going to ignore them.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Until reviewers start posting minimum framerates, and actual gameplay "feel", I'm going to ignore them.

:thumbsup:

Minimum frame rates is always what I want to see and is the only thing I will ever look for.

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Until reviewers start posting minimum framerates, and actual gameplay "feel", I'm going to ignore them.

:thumbsup:

Minimum frame rates is always what I want to see and is the only thing I will ever look for.

Not that minimum framerates aren't important, but they're just as useless taken alone as average framerates taken alone.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Until reviewers start posting minimum framerates, and actual gameplay "feel", I'm going to ignore them.

:thumbsup:

Minimum frame rates is always what I want to see and is the only thing I will ever look for.

Not that minimum framerates aren't important, but they're just as useless taken alone as average framerates taken alone.

That's true, but if the minimum framerate is acceptable across the board, then the average/maximum framerate is almost irrelevant outside of Epeen 9.0

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Until reviewers start posting minimum framerates, and actual gameplay "feel", I'm going to ignore them.

:thumbsup:

Minimum frame rates is always what I want to see and is the only thing I will ever look for.

Not that minimum framerates aren't important, but they're just as useless taken alone as average framerates taken alone.

I disagree. Minimum framerate is what is most important in a game. If the minimum framerate stays above water, your game experience will be that much better. If your minimum spends some time under water, your game experience could be somewhat annoying.

I don't see how you think knowing minimum framerate in a given bench could possibly be useless. It's MOST useful. More so than average/maximum by any stretch.

Knowing the very "worst" a card will do in a given game is far more useful than knowing how high the framerate can go while looking into a clear sky.

 

[CP5670]

More information is always better, but I would much rather know the minimum framerate alone than the average framerate alone. It gives a better indication of what is happening during the big fights, when you need the performance the most.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: CP5670
More information is always better, but I would much rather know the minimum framerate alone than the average framerate alone. It gives a better indication of what is happening during the big fights, when you need the performance the most.

Agree.

More info is always better. In this particular case, minimum framerate alone would tell the tale, as you say. Actually, minimum framerate, and a report on how the game "feels". As in smooth, choppy, hitching, etc.... I do appreciate those kind of comments when reading a review article. Much like N7 did with his 4870X2 GTX280 commentary/comparison.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: CP5670
More information is always better, but I would much rather know the minimum framerate alone than the average framerate alone. It gives a better indication of what is happening during the big fights, when you need the performance the most.

I also agree with this. Doesn't matter if a game on my rig benchmarks at 180FPS. If it dips down to 10FPS in big fragfests, then it is lag and is bad for my gaming experience.

 

[Leyawiin]

The thread title is a bit over the top (slight reek of fanboyism). You could SLI any of the Nvidia boards listed there and they would "smack the HD 4380 around" as well. The real test of the cards power is that little red bar on the far left of the graphs. Its a good card, but the test comparison (cards completely in a different performance category) makes no sense. The card should have been compared to the HD 4670, 9600 GT, 9800 GT, 9800 GTX+ and HD 4850, both in single card and dual, to give a better idea how it stacks up against its competition and the next price point up.

 

[CrystalBay]

I agree minimums and stutter should be the new focus of all new craphics , benchmark reviews...

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: CP5670
More information is always better, but I would much rather know the minimum framerate alone than the average framerate alone. It gives a better indication of what is happening during the big fights, when you need the performance the most.

Agree.

More info is always better. In this particular case, minimum framerate alone would tell the tale, as you say. Actually, minimum framerate, and a report on how the game "feels". As in smooth, choppy, hitching, etc.... I do appreciate those kind of comments when reading a review article. Much like N7 did with his 4870X2 GTX280 commentary/comparison.

I prefer to stay away from the "feel" comments, they hold no weight. Completely at the mercy of the reviewer's bias.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Rollo give me a break . Misleading did I hear ha say? Hardly better performance at half the cost . You can compare to anything ya want . It wins 2 out of 4 at 1/2 the cost nothing misleading . Don't know why tho protest so . NV would never mislead people would they rollo? Take the high ground here rollo. You can have a mod change title I don't care.

You heard me say "misleading" in regard to the title of the thread.

People probably entered the thread and went to the link expecting to see some sort of decisive victory for the xf 4830, and it didn't even win the majority of benchmarks in the review.

What NV does is not my concern, I just think the forums should be a place where accurate information is exchanged.

The review itself is far too limited to draw any conclusions about the products in question at all, too few benches (4? LOL) and too little info provided with the 4 benches.

Keys is on the money for this review- minimum framerates are the key to this whole "question". (as if anyone considering a GTX280 would actually buy a xf 4830 or say 8600GT SLi instead)

Have you ever used Crossfire or SLi Nemesis?

The reason people still buy high end cards, and or multi GPU with high end, is you're always better off achieving a level of performance with a single card when possible.

1. Scaling in games is highly variable. So while a low end multi GPU rig might be fine for a game that scales near 100% like FEAR, it can be bad news on a game with much lower scaling like Crysis.

2. Again depending on the game, the minimum fps can go lower, and fps in general can be more erratic with multi, The balancing of load then comes into play and the game stutters as the frames are rendered at uneven intervals.

3. Things like AA and Vsynch don't always work as consistently with multi GPU.

4. With Crossfire, you have to wait for ATi to write profiles for your game, or hope renaming the executable or forcing one AFR mode works.

Hope this helps Nemesis, but as far as the post goes, I don't think anyone on this forum would seriously consider a XF 4830 rig over a GTX280 (or HD4870/GTX260 for that matter) based on the information presented in that review.

(no matter how inaccurate the title of the thread is)

Cheers! :beer:

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: CP5670
More information is always better, but I would much rather know the minimum framerate alone than the average framerate alone. It gives a better indication of what is happening during the big fights, when you need the performance the most.

Agree.

More info is always better. In this particular case, minimum framerate alone would tell the tale, as you say. Actually, minimum framerate, and a report on how the game "feels". As in smooth, choppy, hitching, etc.... I do appreciate those kind of comments when reading a review article. Much like N7 did with his 4870X2 GTX280 commentary/comparison.

I prefer to stay away from the "feel" comments, they hold no weight. Completely at the mercy of the reviewer's bias.

If they're biased, what business do they have benching and reviewing for web sites in the first place? How do you know they don't falsify numbers? By your logic, there should exist zero benchmarks because of undetectability of bias.

 

[Lightning983]

That was an OK review... even though i don't really like SLI/crossfire i must say i liked seeing such a cheap solution being equal or better than nVidia's flagship 280

It might not scale well everywhere, but some people looking for cheap solutions and specific games will probably be interested.

 

[nitromullet]

I'm surprised as to how well the 4830 compares to the 4850, and how well 4830CF compares to a single 4870 (wins 4 out of 4 across all resolutions). IMO, the real slap around in this review is ATI's own more expensive cards.

The NV cards compare quite favorably. 1) The GTX 280 is still overall the performance leader, albiet at a cost. 2) The GTX 260 is competitive, and at $200 AMIR it's even a tad bit cheaper them the 4830CF setup, and doesn't require a dual PEG slot motherboard.

 

[schneiderguy]

We already knew two 8800gt class cards get more framerates than a GTX280 (9800gx2 anyone?), however that doesn't mean they will be smoother in gameplay.

Compare the GTX280 and 9800gx2 in this video. Even though the 9800gx2 gets a higher framerate it doesn't look as smooth... even compared to the 4870 which is getting 10fps less in the first part of the video, the single card looks smoother.

 

[SSChevy2001]

4830CF should be compared to 9800GT SLI not the GTX280

http://www.driverheaven.net/re...?reviewid=654&pageid=5