My gtx 260 vs. my hd 4870

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: chizow
The OP is running a Quad at 3.9GHz, which is most likely why his results don't jive with reviews showcasing slower CPUs. VR-Zone's review has a 4GHz CPU and also shows the GTX 260 convincingly beating the 4870, before any overclocking is considered.

i looked at your link. you are drunk if you interpret those results as the GTX 260 CONVINCINGLY beating the 4870. it is mostly tied with the gtx doing better in a couple games where the 4870 does very well anyways.

good lord.

 

[shangshang]

To the OP,

don't worry about others in here calling you a fake and a shill. Internet heroes around here are a dime a dozen. It's easy to sit behind a keyboard and call people anything they want and asking them for "screenshot proof". It's always amusing hearing lazy arses demanding screenshots when they themselves don't know what to make of them other then looking at what you have on your desktop/background, lol. I appreciate that you're a student, working fulltime, and have to deal with the internet investigators around here. It can be a little like dealing with a girlfriend that never shuts up!

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: shangshang
To the OP,

don't worry about others in here calling you a fake and a shill. Internet heroes around here are a dime a dozen. It's easy to sit behind a keyboard and call people anything they want and asking them for "screenshot proof". It's always amusing hearing lazy arses demanding screenshots when they themselves don't know what to make of them other then looking at what you have on your desktop/background, lol. I appreciate that you're a student, working fulltime, and have to deal with the internet investigators around here. It can be a little like dealing with a girlfriend that never shuts up!

you are the one guy whose trail of evidence quote wise pretty much proves taht you are completely biased and unreliable.

for the OP's sake id avoid backing him up because you are a taint to this discussion.

 

[Shortass]

It's fishy because the benchmarks are obviously cherry picked, and the numbers look ridiculous. Crysis, DX10 1920x1200 he states is 39.23, while our very own anandtech has the gtx 280 only pulling a mere 34.3 fps. This review is a little old, of course, so drivers COULD POTENTIALLY make up a difference, but one this dramatic is a lot to swallow. No information was told about the process in which it was benchmarked and little proof was shown.

As with the majority of the internet, I am a skeptic. At a grand 35 posts, posting extremely favorable results for nVidia (not a single loss, aye?) and showing gains that beat even the more expensive and higher clocked gtx280 it seems fake. If you can go more in depth with your 'review' I would be in love with this crazy kind of performance boost from some OCing and some drivers. Til then, eh.

Crysis benches: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=19

(Halflife 2 episode 2 4xAA 1920x1200 everything maxed
gtx 260 = 155
hd 4870 = 114 (taken from expreview.com sorry did not run the bench, you can add a few fps on for higher core clock of 790/1100)

now episode 2 with 8xAA
gtx 260 = 143
hd 4870 = 104 ( again taken from expreview.com))

Bleh.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: shangshang
To the OP,

don't worry about others in here calling you a fake and a shill. Internet heroes around here are a dime a dozen. It's easy to sit behind a keyboard and call people anything they want and asking them for "screenshot proof". It's always amusing hearing lazy arses demanding screenshots when they themselves don't know what to make of them other then looking at what you have on your desktop/background, lol. I appreciate that you're a student, working fulltime, and have to deal with the internet investigators around here. It can be a little like dealing with a girlfriend that never shuts up!

you are the one guy whose trail of evidence quote wise pretty much proves taht you are completely biased and unreliable.

for the OP's sake id avoid backing him up because you are a taint to this discussion.

I have to agree here, your posts always seem biased towards nV. Try to keep an open mind about things, would you? nV dominated the 3XXX series with their 8 series but now ATI made a comeback on the 4XXX series so let them have their time in the spotlight and hope nV makes a comeback on the next series.

 

[gene57]

I can comment on GTX 260 overclockability.
Yesterday I started testing my new BFG GTX 260 OC card, and I went straight to 702/1458/1188. Rock stable, max temp under load is 66C. I didn't try any higher clock, but I will...
The only benchmark I have for now is 3DMark06, ~16,500 (~6,600 SM2.0, ~7,200 SM3.0, ~5,200 CPU by memory). This is on Abit IP35 Pro, Q6600 3.3GHz (367x9), XP32.

Playing Crysis for one hour or so (2560x1600 noAA, high settings) gave me a very smooth feeling. I will benchmark later.

All in all, for now I love this card.:thumbsup:

 

[Aberforth]

lol All this fanboyism doesn't hold any value, where was this rant when the NV prices were high? ATI did the right thing pricing HD 48XX series correctly so that all of the mainstream users can enjoy games @ high visual quality, at that time NV was raving about how much it costs to make their graphics card. NV doesn't care about customers, they like SLI and High-end users, they do forced engineering to stay ahead, they hire losers to write drivers, they force developers (which is really bad) to make exclusive optimization, their hire stealth marketeers who often rant fest in ATI threads in exchange for those cheap goodies. I've been a long time NV user, my last setup was 8800 GTX SLi.

The above comment was based on my sincere experience with NV I swear to God, now an average customer doesn't look at all these but I do because i do not want to be deluded or tricked into buying a product based purely on cheap marketing.

I am going to try ATi now- to see what their story is.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: gene57
I can comment on GTX 260 overclockability.
Yesterday I started testing my new BFG GTX 260 OC card, and I went straight to 702/1458/1188. Rock stable, max temp under load is 66C. I didn't try any higher clock, but I will...
The only benchmark I have for now is 3DMark06, ~16,500 (~6,600 SM2.0, ~7,200 SM3.0, ~5,200 CPU by memory). This is on Abit IP35 Pro, Q6600 3.3GHz (367x9), XP32.

Playing Crysis for one hour or so (2560x1600 noAA, high settings) gave me a very smooth feeling. I will benchmark later.

All in all, for now I love this card.:thumbsup:

Let me get all of the common red team fanboi responses out of the way here for you:


"Woah, is this part of your Nvidia focus group campaign?"

"Pfft, I doubt you even own a 260"

"I dont know, those results look a little fishy to me, they dont jive with the review @ x.com"

"Every time someone buys a GT200, god kills a puppy"


Enjoy the card

 

[CreasianDevaili]

Originally posted by: chizow
The OP is running a Quad at 3.9GHz, which is most likely why his results don't jive with reviews showcasing slower CPUs. VR-Zone's review has a 4GHz CPU and also shows the GTX 260 convincingly beating the 4870, before any overclocking is considered.

To the OP, I'd just post any SS or bench with a 4870 in it to shut the pundits up. You have to realize most of this audience is biased in favor of AMD/ATI and not only find it incredulous for someone to spend more than $300 on a video card, but to purchase two different cards at that price and compare them.

I dont see the issue with wanting the 4870 screenshots of the FPS he got. It would be like someone here doing a reverse and putting the 4870 always ahead of the 260gtx and giving rounded numbers with no backing. Then saying that they cant bench the 260gtx anymore and only producing 4870 screenshots.

I wasnt one of the ones who said his overclock was fake. I am one of the people posting asking for the Screenshots/fraps of the games he benchmarked so we can also see the min, avg, and max on them.

For someone who would have ran in and done the same if it was in favor of a ATI card, you have some nerve to act as if those of us asking for the "entire picture" are anything but genuine and not based on some green eyed monster.

 

[Shortass]

Originally posted by: gene57
I can comment on GTX 260 overclockability.
Yesterday I started testing my new BFG GTX 260 OC card, and I went straight to 702/1458/1188. Rock stable, max temp under load is 66C. I didn't try any higher clock, but I will...
The only benchmark I have for now is 3DMark06, ~16,500 (~6,600 SM2.0, ~7,200 SM3.0, ~5,200 CPU by memory). This is on Abit IP35 Pro, Q6600 3.3GHz (367x9), XP32.

Playing Crysis for one hour or so (2560x1600 noAA, high settings) gave me a very smooth feeling. I will benchmark later.

All in all, for now I love this card.:thumbsup:

Please do benchmark, and do it well. I'm sure all of us who actually like computers are interested in factual reviews and benches of a heavily OC'd card.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: chizow
The OP is running a Quad at 3.9GHz, which is most likely why his results don't jive with reviews showcasing slower CPUs. VR-Zone's review has a 4GHz CPU and also shows the GTX 260 convincingly beating the 4870, before any overclocking is considered.

i looked at your link. you are drunk if you interpret those results as the GTX 260 CONVINCINGLY beating the 4870. it is mostly tied with the gtx doing better in a couple games where the 4870 does very well anyways.

good lord.

Actually I've said numerous times I considered the parts a wash due to their various strengths and weaknesses. I just thought it was funny how people reacted to the 260 actually winning benches. If you switched the performance graphs for the 4870 and GTX 260 I'm sure you'd see much stronger wording than "convincingly" used.

 

[TaylorTech]

Well it seems to me that VR's review seems to contradict quite a few others I've seen.

Now I'm stuck.

 

[CreasianDevaili]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: chizow
The OP is running a Quad at 3.9GHz, which is most likely why his results don't jive with reviews showcasing slower CPUs. VR-Zone's review has a 4GHz CPU and also shows the GTX 260 convincingly beating the 4870, before any overclocking is considered.

i looked at your link. you are drunk if you interpret those results as the GTX 260 CONVINCINGLY beating the 4870. it is mostly tied with the gtx doing better in a couple games where the 4870 does very well anyways.

good lord.

Actually I've said numerous times I considered the parts a wash due to their various strengths and weaknesses. I just thought it was funny how people reacted to the 260 actually winning benches. If you switched the performance graphs for the 4870 and GTX 260 I'm sure you'd see much stronger wording than "convincingly" used.

Here is a issue I have and why:

I noticed he has ran dx9 and dx10. I noticed he has tried high and very high. He does not list on the 1280x720 very high if he is using dx9 with the hack, or dx10 very high. It can effect things. I ran the crysis timedemo for that resolution, with the xp very high hack, and got back 42fps Average and my 4870 is stock clocks. I also plan to compare them in crossfire as I have crossfirex disabled to run single card benchies atm.

So how do i compare to his? I am missing alot information here. That is my issue.

 

[unr3al]

Originally posted by: nkdesistyle

Originally posted by: unr3al
Even screenshots could still be fake but I am willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt; IF I feel they sufficiently prove what they say.

I seriously dont know why you are so negative, why the hell would I take the time to lie and make it fake, I am no nvidia rep and no one pays me, I do this on my time and I bench all the time, I used to do reviews for one site but I do not do them anymore so it has become a habit, school and work are too much for me, and when I have free time I bench, and I always try to stay up to date with graphic cards and I try both sides, and I am not a fanboy, although I love nvidia partners where you can actually trade up or step up to a better card, that is the only reason I tend to fall on nvidia's side, I am going to trade up to the 55nm gtx 280 if it comes out before 100 days or I will just step up to the gtx 280 regular if I need it.

I really don't see where I am "so negative", sorry if I insulted you; I simply say what I think. I after all said that I am willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt if I saw enough proof. And you proved up. And I give you the benefit of the doubt.

All I want to know, is what are you using on your CPU? My guess is either a TRUE or some other macho cooler. Because regardless of what anyone says, that is a good temp for a 3.9GHz quad. At 3.45GHz my 2.8GHz Celeron reached 58'C with the stock fan (I wasn't under the impression you were using the stock fan) and four casefans!

One more thing, obviously you don't have any shortage in cash; where I live there is at any time a 25% price difference between the HD4870 and the GTX260. For the little there is to gain performance wise I really cannot see why I should pay such a premium over the Radeon.

 

[gene57]

Mmm... I see some tension here.
Anyhow, the only evidence I can post at the moment for my GTX 260 OC is my 3DMark06 score:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=7568404

Have a nice day!

 

[nkdesistyle]

well here is the thing, it is true that with crysis I did not bench with fraps or most other games, but I will do it on my free time, and however those crysis numbers are not bull, I got really good crysis number with hd 4870 at 790/1100 and they were around 4-5fps lower than gtx 260 overclocked on average, I only tested 1280x720 very high and it was indeed under dx 10, and that is the only time very high is playable and it is not even playable at 1680x1020, and I only bench things that are playable becuase other benches are just numbers, you need crossfire or sli, more likly sli because crossfire seems to not scale very well with crysis to play at very high at anything higher than 1280x720.

if it makes someone feel better the hd 4870 smoked my gtx 260 overclocked in rainbow six vegas, by around 25 fps and that was tested with fraps, however gtx 260 was benched through the whole level and hd 4870 was through the first half of the level.

 

[nkdesistyle]

Originally posted by: gene57
Mmm... I see some tension here.
Anyhow, the only evidence I can post at the moment for my GTX 260 OC is my 3DMark06 score:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=7568404

Have a nice day!

stick in a q9450 and oc it to 3.9 you will see those numbers skyrocket. under vista my 3dmark06 score was 1000 points less than what it was under xp. and under vista the gtx 260 oc was about 500 points faster than the hd 4870, and that was run at 840/1100, hd 4870 was not able to sustain those speeds, the core overclock decreased back to 790 for whatever reason, It would not pass artifact testing at anything higher than 790. and about two days earlier it passed furmark and everythig at 820, but it just decreased from there on.

 

[nkdesistyle]

Originally posted by: unr3al

Originally posted by: nkdesistyle

Originally posted by: unr3al
Even screenshots could still be fake but I am willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt; IF I feel they sufficiently prove what they say.

I seriously dont know why you are so negative, why the hell would I take the time to lie and make it fake, I am no nvidia rep and no one pays me, I do this on my time and I bench all the time, I used to do reviews for one site but I do not do them anymore so it has become a habit, school and work are too much for me, and when I have free time I bench, and I always try to stay up to date with graphic cards and I try both sides, and I am not a fanboy, although I love nvidia partners where you can actually trade up or step up to a better card, that is the only reason I tend to fall on nvidia's side, I am going to trade up to the 55nm gtx 280 if it comes out before 100 days or I will just step up to the gtx 280 regular if I need it.

I really don't see where I am "so negative", sorry if I insulted you; I simply say what I think. I after all said that I am willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt if I saw enough proof. And you proved up. And I give you the benefit of the doubt.

All I want to know, is what are you using on your CPU? My guess is either a TRUE or some other macho cooler. Because regardless of what anyone says, that is a good temp for a 3.9GHz quad. At 3.45GHz my 2.8GHz Celeron reached 58'C with the stock fan (I wasn't under the impression you were using the stock fan) and four casefans!

One more thing, obviously you don't have any shortage in cash; where I live there is at any time a 25% price difference between the HD4870 and the GTX260. For the little there is to gain performance wise I really cannot see why I should pay such a premium over the Radeon.

no I paid 299 for my gtx 260 and I paid 309 for my hd 4870, I was going to return it but they charge restocking fee of 44 dollars so I sold it to my cousin for a reasonable price, and I got the gtx 260, why cant we just be civil, this thread is not about showing negative of hd 4870, the only reason I got the gtx 260 is because of trade up, what gives me second thoughts about ati cards is not the quality of the parts but the quality of the AIB partners, and you are very limited in choices and freedom.

I have OC vendetta 2 cooling my q9450 and it takes 1.32v to run at those speeds, and with running small fft's after 15mins the temps are in the 65-67c range with case closed, and 64c with case open, I can post screeshots of that as well if you want.

 

[shangshang]

Originally posted by: nkdesistyle

if it makes someone feel better the hd 4870 smoked my gtx 260 overclocked in rainbow six vegas, by around 15 fps and that was tested with fraps.

thanks for the laugh!

 

[nkdesistyle]

here are the fraps results for hd 4870.


2008-07-14 17:40:39 - FEAR
Frames: 5496 - Time: 55033ms - Avg: 99.867 - Min: 60 - Max: 176

2008-07-14 17:43:46 - XR_3DA stalker bench buildings
Frames: 7252 - Time: 64615ms - Avg: 112.234 - Min: 61 - Max: 378

2008-07-14 17:46:13 - XR_3DA stalker bench short
Frames: 6841 - Time: 63535ms - Avg: 107.672 - Min: 45 - Max: 415

2008-07-15 14:13:51 - LostPlanetDX9
Frames: 7903 - Time: 104469ms - Avg: 75.649 - Min: 24 - Max: 616

2008-07-15 15:05:39 - R6Vegas2_Game
Frames: 110892 - Time: 1200150ms - Avg: 92.398 - Min: 0 - Max: 2264

I did not bench lost planet from the beginning of the performance benchmark so the fps is probably a little higher than the built in benchmark.

rainbow six scores seem a lot better but I only tested that for about for half of the first level and with the gtx I played through the whole level and I got the average of 67,

 

[Zstream]

Lmfao,

No screenshots of the 4870 card, no pictures of either card.

I call say BS for now.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Zstream
Lmfao,

No screenshots of the 4870 card, no pictures of either card.

I call say BS for now.

Thats nice....but with a top-partner 260 available for cheaper than 4870, who cares?

 

[nkdesistyle]

I really dont care anymore what people say, now I have to take pictures of cards to prove myself, I dont think anyone in any other forum ever gets criticized like this if I was to compare these in other threads, I will take pictures of my gtx 260 and I cant for the hd 4870 because I dont have it, but I do have picuters of the benches run on hd 4870, I can post my reciept for hd 4870 which I purchased from mwave.com, and same with the gtx 260, and I am sure people will call that fake too. if you live close to orange county in southern california, pm me and you can come to my house and see the card and run benches on it for yourself.

750/1533/1200 are the bench clocks and the card give no artifacts but for 24/7 usage I actually have decided to run it at 702/1479.

may be it was a mistake to even mention hd 4870 in the comparison thread, and just put up the numbers for gtx 260 overclocked.

 

[uribag]

Originally posted by: chizow
The OP is running a Quad at 3.9GHz, which is most likely why his results don't jive with reviews showcasing slower CPUs. VR-Zone's review has a 4GHz CPU and also shows the GTX 260 convincingly beating the 4870, before any overclocking is considered.

To the OP, I'd just post any SS or bench with a 4870 in it to shut the pundits up. You have to realize most of this audience is biased in favor of AMD/ATI and not only find it incredulous for someone to spend more than $300 on a video card, but to purchase two different cards at that price and compare them.

I don´t understand.
If the 260GTX was being bottlenecked by the CPU, why wasn´t it displaying at least the same fps of the 4870?

 

[TC91]

I would like to thank you nkdesistyle for benching both cards. Regardless of what everyone thinks both of these cards for ~300 are great value and you cant go wrong with either.