How are there still should I buy 260 or 4870 threads still?

[deerhunter716]

All you have to do is read the reviews and it's the easiest decision to be made. Sure the 260 wins "some" benchmarks; but loses most of the time to the 260. Then when you turn on AA and the eye candy it's not even close.

Just baffles me IF people read the reviews and still have to ask... and to boot the 4870 IS cheaper and outperforms it. I mean it is the biggest no-brainer answer. I could see it if you are debating 280 vs. 4870 but it's not even close with the 260 and turning on the eye candy.

 

[nitromullet]

If all you do is go by the reviews, I could see how it would baffle you. However, some people are interested in knowing what a review site that benches the same 5 or 6 games as all the other review sites at standard AA settings doesn't tell you.

Having owned both a GTX 260 and an HD 4870, I can tell you from personal experience that in the end the differences between the two cards are actually pretty minuscule in most cases, and I'd honestly be hard pressed to recommend one over the other at the same price.

For me, I opted to go with the GTX 280 over either of the two because both the GTX 260 and 280 were stronger in the games I play. AA performance with my preferred eye candy in WoW was better with the GTX cards. Crysis also runs a bit better with the GTX 260, and noticeably better with the GTX 280 (Yes, I do still play Crysis, and I'm planning on getting Warhead). If your main game is COD4 I could see how you'd probably want to go with a 4870.

btw...

The cheapest GTX 260 on NE right now is $244.99 AMIR ($254.99 BMIR), and the cheapest 4870 on NE right now is $254.99 AMIR ($284.99 BMIR).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...60&bop=And&Order=PRICE

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...70&bop=And&Order=PRICE

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
All you have to do is read the reviews and it's the easiest decision to be made. Sure the 260 wins "some" benchmarks; but loses most of the time to the 260. Then when you turn on AA and the eye candy it's not even close.

Just baffles me IF people read the reviews and still have to ask... and to boot the 4870 IS cheaper and outperforms it. I mean it is the biggest no-brainer answer. I could see it if you are debating 280 vs. 4870 but it's not even close with the 260 and turning on the eye candy.

Where have you been? The 260 can be cheaper if you look.....and then it comes down to preference. NV is trying to cutinto the 4XXX sales by taking a very thin margin or a loss now on GT200. And if you look around, it seems to be working.

 

[wolf2009]

ya, i'm considering Evga gtx260 for $225, coz its cheaper than 4870 and performs equally well and i like nvidia drivers better than ati's . I have owned Hd4850 and 9600GT.

What is holding me back is the stock cooler on 260. I am waiting for a palit HD4850 or 70.

 

[IlllI]

simple: because some people are too lazy to do the research themselves so they ask other people for answers

 

[DaveSimmons]

You forgot to check current prices before posting this.

At $250 the GTX 260 becomes a decent choice, especially if you prefer nvidia, run linux or don't want to mess with the fixes for the 4870 fan speed problem.

My 4870 has been flawless for gaming with a fan fix catalyst profile, but since I haven't flashed the BIOS my minimum core is still 500 MHz when just running in 2D. The extra heat and fan noise is annoying when not gaming.

 

[Bateluer]

Some people are die hard Nvidia fans just as some people are diehard ATI fans.

Incidentally, ATI's drivers have been superior to Nvidia's for the last few years on the Windows platform. This was very apparent with the 8800 driver fiascos. Even ATI's linux drivers have made major progress in the last 12 months, partly because of ATI's fglrx drivers receiving a great deal of work and partly because ATI opened up their documentation to the open source community, spawning viable open source drivers for Radeon cards. Given that ATI's still fighting the stigma that their windows drivers are inferior to Nvidia, its probably going to take even longer for them to shake the linux driver stigma.

 

[Leon]

and to boot the 4870 IS cheaper and outperforms it.

GTX 260 is $229 AR at Newegg, look at Hot Deals section.

 

[praesto]

Well apparently to some people, 250 is cheaper than 229 Q.o. Oh wait it has something to do with quantum mechanics, right?..right?

 

[AzN]

It's a viable option since the price drop. Personally I would go with GTX260 just because it has more vram and possibly push a little further if were to spend $250 - $300.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Leon

and to boot the 4870 IS cheaper and outperforms it.

GTX 260 is $229 AR at Newegg, look at Hot Deals section.

It's not anymore. That deal expired.

 

[fierydemise]

I said this in another thread, the two cards are basically dead even with each other, unless you are really wedded to one of the cards just get the one thats cheaper when you decide to buy.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
All you have to do is read the reviews and it's the easiest decision to be made. Sure the 260 wins "some" benchmarks; but loses most of the time to the 260. Then when you turn on AA and the eye candy it's not even close.

Just baffles me IF people read the reviews and still have to ask... and to boot the 4870 IS cheaper and outperforms it. I mean it is the biggest no-brainer answer. I could see it if you are debating 280 vs. 4870 but it's not even close with the 260 and turning on the eye candy.

yes, the GTX260 looses most benchmarks in average FPS, but it wins most in MINIMUM FPS.
Also it wins at the 2560x1600 resolution due to having more ram (although not too many people game on a monitor bigger then 24 inches).

And it is currently CHEAPER.
it also runs cooler and takes 50 watt less in both idle and load... which is MORE then 50$ a year in electricity costs.

 

[shangshang]

The cards are equal, until you factor in overclocking, then the 260 starts to edge ahead.

And I suspect 8-9 out of 10 guys browsing any "enthusiast" forums will going to overclock their cards. After all, that's what enthusiasts do! They don't buy a card and leave it alone.

 

[JPB]

I can say this. I myself is one of the *BIGGEST* ATI fans I know of. But at the same time, I am so tempted to purchase the Asus GTX260.

I won't deny it....its an awesome card. As is the HD 4870.

I *ONLY* considered the HD 4870 until I seen the new prices of the GTX 260's and me being a ATI fan or not....the Asus GTX260 just may get the nod.

 

[shangshang]

Originally posted by: taltamir
... and takes 50 watt less in both idle and load... which is MORE then 50$ a year in electricity costs.

Thanks for point that out! Many people completely ignore the concept of "cost of ownership". So overall, it's quite cheaper to own the GT260.

 

[JPB]

Hopefully within a short period of time, I will be upgrading my entire rig.

I game on a 40' Samsung LCD @ 1920x1080.

Honestly....which of the two cards here would be better for that ?

The Asus GTX 260 or the Asus HD 4870 ?

 

[shangshang]

Originally posted by: JPB
Hopefully within a short period of time, I will be upgrading my entire rig.

I game on a 40' Samsung LCD @ 1920x1080.

Honestly....which of the two cards here would be better for that ?

The Asus GTX 260 or the Asus HD 4870 ?

You sig says you have the 4870 already. Just keep it. Don't bother with the 260.

 

[JPB]

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: JPB
Hopefully within a short period of time, I will be upgrading my entire rig.

I game on a 40' Samsung LCD @ 1920x1080.

Honestly....which of the two cards here would be better for that ?

The Asus GTX 260 or the Asus HD 4870 ?

You sig says you have the 4870 already. Just keep it. Don't bother with the 260.

No no. I don't have it yet. My sig is my *soon* to be added components. Thats why im considering the GTX 260 now.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: taltamir
... and takes 50 watt less in both idle and load... which is MORE then 50$ a year in electricity costs.

Thanks for point that out! Many people completely ignore the concept of "cost of ownership". So overall, it's quite cheaper to own the GT260.

I'm guessing the idle difference is only a temporary advantage, from the reference 4870 BIOS limiting the minimum core clock to 500 MHz instead of ~160.

 

[fierydemise]

Originally posted by: taltamir
yes, the GTX260 looses most benchmarks in average FPS, but it wins most in MINIMUM FPS.
Also it wins at the 2560x1600 resolution due to having more ram (although not too many people game on a monitor bigger then 24 inches).

And it is currently CHEAPER.
it also runs cooler and takes 50 watt less in both idle and load... which is MORE then 50$ a year in electricity costs.

With the exception of Lost Planet where the HD4870 gets destroyed for the most part the wins you are talking about are +/- a couple FPS, well within the margin of error on "real world testing" which will never be able to exactly duplicate a given test run. Also look at AT's review at load the HD4870 only draws 16 watts more, the idle power draw is a major issue and in all likelihood one that will be fixed in the near future.

EDIT: spelling

 

[Grinja]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
You forgot to check current prices before posting this.

At $250 the GTX 260 becomes a decent choice, especially if you prefer nvidia, run linux or don't want to mess with the fixes for the 4870 fan speed problem.

My 4870 has been flawless for gaming with a fan fix catalyst profile, but since I haven't flashed the BIOS my minimum core is still 500 MHz when just running in 2D. The extra heat and fan noise is annoying when not gaming.

I have to agree with the noise. When gaming it really does'nt bother me to run at 35% fan speed but outside of games that's a bit much.
I run at 28% fan speed in 2d mode which is fine but it is definately the loudest compent in my rig...

 

[deerhunter716]

Well I see 4870's on new egg right now for $255 and the cheapest 260 is $255 so NOT cheaper that is for sure. Like I said in my original post when you turn ON FULL AA and all the eye candy the 4870 blows the 260 out of the water and it is not close. When the AA is turned OFF and the extras that is when you see them neck and neck. So again I game at 1920 x 1200 and it is a no brainer to go with the 4870 even if they are the same price today. The reason is same cost; BUT better performance WITH AA turned on.

Hmm, look at the these reviews and the 4870 priced the same beats the 260 by >10% in MOST games benched at 1920 x 1200; just about dead even at 2560x1600; BUT who the hell games at that resolution, lol There are not many who game at 1920x1200. Like I said look at the #'s WITH AA and the 4870 wins a hell of a lot more than it loses. So no brainer like I said

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=14

 

[ViRGE]

Not many people game at 1920x1200? That's the common resolution for 24"-27" LCDs, which are quite popular right now. Out of people buying or having recently purchased new monitors, you're going to have a lot of people gaming at 1920x1200.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
So no brainer like I said

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=14

Maybe if you repeat that enough, people will buy it.