ati radeon 4890 vs GeForce gtx 260 core 216

[Rich'[ard]]

the only reason i would even consider the ATI is that my mobo (Giga ep45-ud3p) only supports Xfire and not SLI. i'm still undecided, please help...
is the fan onthe ATI THAT bad? I have 2 -1900 RPM 120mm fans cooling my TRUE so I might not even hear the GPU fan?

doesn't anybody turn up the sound when they're gaming or something?
even with my vacuum cleaner PSU, i can barely hear it when i'm gaming.
whether it's car racing, or FPS i can't hear my PC which is a metre away from me.

i guess it'll get annoying if you're playing something like Assasin's creed or Splinter Cell though.

my solution : turn up your sound system and take the extra bang for you buck that you'll get out of a 4890...don't discard it as a great card just because it's loud.

 

[Amtrak]

Or use headphones.

 

[Niku-Sama]

i do both, turn it up/headphones.

i like the 4890, i'da have one by now if everything wasnt in the crapper so it seems i may be waiting for a 5 series card. but after heavy consideration and being with nvidia and how they have been acting lately i say 4890 because it wont use as much power and it provides more umpf per watt & $$$

 

[freeagent]

id like to see what the new ati cards will do..

but for now im an nvidia fanboy, and you wont catch me running anything amd related until i feel its worth it..

sure the 4890 is cheaper then a 285, but for what you lose in game, you save in your wallet.. thats the tradeoff.

you always get what you pay for

 

[Neuromancer]

4890 really isnt worth the hype. Its just the 4870 Overclocked more stable.

Yes, it is all hype. I mean EVERY 4870 can overclock to 1GHz GPU core on the stock cooler. So just get a 4870



I would get the 4890 though, it's nVidia counterpart is the 275.


Freeagent. You think there is a noticeable gaming difference between a 4890 and 285? I was under the impression that except for benchmarks, pretty much any 75 dollar card will play any game out there. (maybe one or two exceptions for poorly coded games) Yes you might get 100FPS on a 285 vs 75FPS on the 4890 (just pulling numbers out of my ***) but, in game you will not notice that difference.

OP: If this is for gaming only, just look at min FPS on the card you want and the types of game you want to play. When you find one at an acceptable level for what your monitor can handle, Go with that. MAX FPS are usually high enough not to matter at all (except at ridiculous resolutions) and what will be noticeable is min FPS. JMHO


EDIT here is a link to bit tech article IT is actually a 275vs 285 article, but covers the 260/4870 and 4890.

Most games show no appreciable differnce in min FPS, Crysis and fallout3 being the exceptions (crysis is nVidia dominated, Fallout3 ATI dominated)

 

[freeagent]

i actually just game at 60fps, couldnt care less about haveing 500fps

and sure, a 75 dollar card might be able to play a game.. but the real question is how well does it play it? i like to play with 16xaa, af maxed, ambient occlusion enabled, bla bla bla.. but im only at 1680x1050 for the moment.. bigger screen comeing soon

did you mean to link to the stalker part of that review?

 

[Neuromancer]

i actually just game at 60fps, couldnt care less about haveing 500fps

and sure, a 75 dollar card might be able to play a game.. but the real question is how well does it play it? i like to play with 16xaa, af maxed, ambient occlusion enabled, bla bla bla.. but im only at 1680x1050 for the moment.. bigger screen comeing soon

did you mean to link to the stalker part of that review?

LOL nope. I screwed up, will link to first page. Thanks



and that was my point. anything over 60 only matters on high end screens, and than we are talking about spending a lot on GPUs to take advantage of that uber high res, true color display device you use. More than a single 260/4890 etc would use. Minimum FPS is more important, and in that review, damn near every game at 1680x1050 is beyond 60FPS average at any res, and at or above 30 in all but the 2560 AA/AF ultrahigh challenges. Anything over 30FPS min framerates is EXTREMELY gameable.

And BTW, you are running a 295 so shut up



jk

 

[freeagent]

lol

 

[Rich'[ard]]

$75 dollar card would probs play games at max unless at extreme resolutions. but how long will the card last, until you need another upgrade?
i'im in Australia, so prices are different...but i woudln't consider anything lower than a 4770 or the nVidia counterpart.

you won't be able to play games are pretty settings in a few months time lol.
i always thought ATi used more power than nVidia cards...but being me, i'll stick to ATi for now. just don't like nVidia for some reason.

oh yeah, cos i'm still on X38 chipset...so no SLi support

 

[Neuromancer]

$75 dollar card would probs play games at max unless at extreme resolutions. but how long will the card last, until you need another upgrade?
i'im in Australia, so prices are different...but i woudln't consider anything lower than a 4770 or the nVidia counterpart.

you won't be able to play games are pretty settings in a few months time lol.
i always thought ATi used more power than nVidia cards...but being me, i'll stick to ATi for now. just don't like nVidia for some reason.

oh yeah, cos i'm still on X38 chipset...so no SLi support

Yah nVidia has better idle power usage right now. But IIRC they use more at load, so it is a tradeoff. For 90% of users the lower idle usage will be more beneficial if power saving is in your design

 

[JonSimonzi]

I upgraded from a GTX260 Core 216 to a HD 4890. Both are fantastic cards, but I do notice a bit better performance with the 4890.

 

[WorshipMe]

The difference is that ATi and Nvidia count the shaders differently. Counting them the same way as Nvidia, RV770 has 160.