Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

a new GFX 260 or ATI 4870 in my PCIe-X16 slot?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 5, 2008 7:27:42 PM

So I have a VERY old Video card in my fairly updated system (as of last year) I need to replace the Old 6800 Ultra that's in my case. Since getting a 24in Samsung 245T for xmas the 1920-1200 resolution has been maxing out this card I have and Its time to upgrade
.
The main question is does the PCIe x16 slot in the Mobo really limit the performance of these new PCIe 2.0 cards? So I need to upgrade to a Mobo with a 2.0 slot? Is putting one of these cards in my PCIe x16 slot a waste?
Mainly I am doing alot of high res Photo Editing, Light Multimedia but have been limited by my Card on the HD and high Res multimedia. Light gaming.

Any suggestions are appreciated.
Here are the specs to my system

Intel QX6700 Quad Extreme
Intel Mobo 965LT 1066 bus
4 gigs DDR2-800
Samsung 245T 1920x1200
EVGA 6800 Ultra
150GB WD Raptor
July 5, 2008 7:34:35 PM

there is no difference in performance

4850 if you want to spent a little more go for 4870
Related resources
July 5, 2008 7:44:31 PM

PCIE 2.0 is only going to make a difference with a very quick card setup...ie 9800gx2 ....4870 crossfire or perhaps a single gtx280. Even then you wont lose much with only PCIE 1X.

I would get the 4870 for that resolution.
a c 236 U Graphics card
July 5, 2008 7:53:41 PM

There were some tests done with different cards in pcie 1 and 2 slots. There was a minor difference, but it was so small as to be not noticeable. I can't remember the link. Pick the card you want without that particular consideration.
July 5, 2008 8:09:01 PM

HD 4870 BEST PICK :) 
a c 91 U Graphics card
July 5, 2008 8:25:25 PM

Go for the 260. It has a larger memory interface. I OWN a 4870. They're not as badass as everybody says. They are good....... but
July 5, 2008 8:32:38 PM

What i like about the ATI is its 512mb vs 8XX MB for the Nvidia, You would think I would go for the one with the high amount of memory but all that does it allocate less to my O/S and other programs as windows limits total memory with the 32bit XP Pro and the 4 gigs I have in my case gets knocked back to about 3 gigs or less. And if the 512mb in the ATI performs as well or better then the Nvidia then why sacrifice memory allocation from the rest of my system?

Thanks for the tips guys. I am leaning towards the ATI for the cumulative benefits as stated.
July 5, 2008 8:42:21 PM

Games in the future are memory interface hungry, so GTX200 serie from NV will own 4800 series
a b U Graphics card
July 5, 2008 9:25:31 PM

concrum said:
Games in the future are memory interface hungry, so GTX200 serie from NV will own 4800 series



Concrum...is there a way that you can prove this? If you have a way to know this for sure, I would love to know as well. Thanks for the help.
a b U Graphics card
July 5, 2008 9:45:53 PM

From the benchmarks I've seen so far, including Tom's Hardware's review of the 4870, I'd lean that direction.

They're saying the 4870 is cheaper, and out performs the 260.

Although, either one of them will seam like a Ferarri compared to your old 6800 Ultra. lol

Ironically, I've got a couple 6800's laying on my desk right now if anyone likes vintage hardware. ;) 
July 5, 2008 9:54:33 PM

4870... this has been asked several times this week :p 

July 5, 2008 9:59:18 PM

Isn't ATI 48xx card ahead in inclusion of HD, HDMI, and RayTracing capabilities? Or do I have to go read more? I think those are simply INCLUDED now - am I right?
If so, that might mean an upgrade for your capabilities re year-old mobo?
July 5, 2008 10:07:50 PM

concrum said:
Games in the future are memory interface hungry, so GTX200 serie from NV will own 4800 series


see don't listen to concrum as he trolls alot,

The GDDR5 will of set the loss in actualy memeory amount btw, well in this situtaion yes, the gtx260 is not superior to the 4870...

check the benchmarks they are everywhere now....

silly silly concrum, wilst thou ever learn?
July 5, 2008 10:09:48 PM

jerreece said:
From the benchmarks I've seen so far, including Tom's Hardware's review of the 4870, I'd lean that direction.

They're saying the 4870 is cheaper, and out performs the 260.

Although, either one of them will seam like a Ferarri compared to your old 6800 Ultra. lol

Ironically, I've got a couple 6800's laying on my desk right now if anyone likes vintage hardware. ;) 


I've got a 680GT which has been flashed to the ultra speeds it still is an amazing card, well for odler games anyways like CS:S, DOD:S, HL2, doom3, u know the oldies but goldies!
July 5, 2008 10:25:19 PM

I bought the 6800 Ultra when my Mobo needed to be upgraded to a PCIe slot from an old AGP MOBO, now I thought i might have to upgrade the Mobo again for the PCIe 2.0 but it seems i dont have to.
As for the 6800 Ultra, it has served me well for the last 4 years. Its seriously shown its age since upgrading my Monitor to a 24in 1920x1200 otherwise it can still handle games on CRT type resolutions.

I have some vintage ATI cards as well Frozen! Hows an ATI 9800 Pro sound? AGP 8x baby! Its only like 7 years old. but sits on a shelf next to my Old P4 3.4 and Old Mobos.
July 5, 2008 11:07:36 PM

I have looked at getting a 26" monitor, belive it or not the GTX 280 was beat by the 9800GTX GX2 at the higher resolutions and had the best performance. It's really is going to depend on what size display you are using. A single 4870 won't get allot of performance on a 26" monitor compaired to a GTX 280.
July 5, 2008 11:14:22 PM

26in is an odd size, 24in at 1920x1200 is what i am after, the best Card at this resolution is what i want. I think I will order the ATI tonight unless someone can convince me why i should consider the Nvidia GTX 260 for some other reason then they like Nvidia
July 5, 2008 11:17:03 PM

4870 is the better buy right now - that alone is good enough reason to get it unless you intend to use dual cards and you already own a good SLI motherboard
July 5, 2008 11:17:48 PM

4870 for a 24"
a c 236 U Graphics card
July 5, 2008 11:40:15 PM

24" and 26" are the same 1920x1200 as far as the vga card is concerned. Just different pixel sizes.
July 5, 2008 11:49:12 PM

ATI Visiontek 4870 Just ordered and should arrive next week sometime, thanks for the comments and tips. Will let you know how I like it once its up and running
July 6, 2008 12:22:36 AM

geofelt said:
24" and 26" are the same 1920x1200 as far as the vga card is concerned. Just different pixel sizes.


It is the same resolution. no doubt having Dx10.1 on the 4850, 4870 is a plus. But the scaling was different with the cards with current drivers. I was looking at a Soyo 26" cheap at 372.00. benchmarks from that reviewer dude below. (sorry if Toms did a similer side by side for a 26").




http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...



a b U Graphics card
July 6, 2008 12:52:49 AM

concrum said:
Games in the future are memory interface hungry, so GTX200 serie from NV will own 4800 series

Dude, its time to show up and put up. Give us a few links to show what you mean. Your threadcrapping is getting annoying. Show us proofs, not opinions. We already know your opinions as youve managed to crap on so many decent threads and yet you only offer your opinion. Cmon, show us. Id love to have a completely different idea as to how gfx cards work, so show me. Id love to see you prove to me having a wider bus that runs twice as slow or slower is faster than one thats half as wide, but more than twice as fast. I love to learn. Show me. Did I miss something all these years, or is this only your opinion? Show me
a c 91 U Graphics card
July 6, 2008 1:14:00 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Dude, its time to show up and put up. Give us a few links to show what you mean. Your threadcrapping is getting annoying. Show us proofs, not opinions. We already know your opinions as youve managed to crap on so many decent threads and yet you only offer your opinion. Cmon, show us. Id love to have a completely different idea as to how gfx cards work, so show me. Id love to see you prove to me having a wider bus that runs twice as slow or slower is faster than one thats half as wide, but more than twice as fast. I love to learn. Show me. Did I miss something all these years, or is this only your opinion? Show me



Here, read this. I find it really hard to believe that all you people that know so much about everything can't even tell when it's in your face. The 256bit memory interface is CRAP!. The only reason we keep seeing it is so the video card manufacturers can keep the prices reasonable. In today's trying times when money is tight, it seems to make economic sense for them. Extremely unfortunate for the few of us that expect to be able to play the newest games with everything cranked up.

http://www.yougamers.com/articles/13801_video_ram_-_how...
a b U Graphics card
July 6, 2008 1:22:55 AM

How many reviews do you need showing the 2xGTX or the 4870 at high res?
July 6, 2008 1:37:48 AM

One more month and then the 4870 X2 comes out for all us with SLI boards.
July 6, 2008 1:45:44 AM

swifty_morgan said:
Here, read this. I find it really hard to believe that all you people that know so much about everything can't even tell when it's in your face. The 256bit memory interface is CRAP!. The only reason we keep seeing it is so the video card manufacturers can keep the prices reasonable. In today's trying times when money is tight, it seems to make economic sense for them. Extremely unfortunate for the few of us that expect to be able to play the newest games with everything cranked up.

http://www.yougamers.com/articles/13801_video_ram_-_how...


This Article states exactly what i was concerned about. The High GPU memory cutting into the available System memory, So on a 32 bit system you don't really want a high amount of GPU memory. Actually doesn't benefit current systems to go overboard with GPU memory if you don't get significant gains. It may actually be a detriment to current 32 bit systems performance over a lower amount of faster memory. So the GDDR5 int he 4780 has a significant benefit besides being faster.
Theoretically it makes for a more stable system. At least that's what the article points to. Good find.
a b U Graphics card
July 6, 2008 1:50:22 AM

Heres the thing about BW. Yes its important, but currently, we dont have a gpu that can fully use a 512bit bus. Is the 4870 pushing the limits of the 256 bus? Its close, but so far, its enough, and will be for awhile. Using a 512 bus and GDDR5 will be a much cheaper solution than going with GDDR3, not having to worry about wire lengths, but still exspensive with all the extra connects. Id say we are 1 to 3 gens away from a 512 bit bus for full performance, but at this point, we still safe. Remember, GDDR5 goes alot faster than 3600Mhz
a b U Graphics card
July 6, 2008 1:52:30 AM

Memory management is an nVidia weak point. ATI cards manage memory much better. Its all in the arch, not just how much memory you have
July 6, 2008 2:23:44 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Memory management is an nVidia weak point. ATI cards manage memory much better. Its all in the arch, not just how much memory you have


Absolutely Jay! In this case and its been years since we could say that AMD/ATI have taken center stage and put up the best configuration of GPU hardware available and for the foreseeable future. I have always liked Nvidia for its Drivers and the last few years their ability to out perform ATI. But right now the Day belongs to ATI for various reasons and I think it may be on top for a while.
My First card was an ATI because it was the best card for the money at the time. Next was Nvidia and now another ATI.
I am not a Fanboy of a particular Brand. I go with whatever is the all around best at the time that meets my needs.
Maybe its why i drive an Imported car. Sure its not Blindly American of me. But I value the money I make and if my own local manufacturers aren't giving me the best for my money then i will give it to those who earn it.
:hello: 

July 6, 2008 2:35:26 AM

For future use the 4xxx is the better value, It supports directx 10.1 that Nvidia going to include in thier next gen card and aparently it is suposably going to boast performance up by alot once it is suported by games ect.
a b U Graphics card
July 6, 2008 2:42:51 AM

Well, its been said, a revolution is only 1 paycheck (or not) away
July 6, 2008 3:34:35 AM

swifty_morgan said:
Here, read this. I find it really hard to believe that all you people that know so much about everything can't even tell when it's in your face. The 256bit memory interface is CRAP!. The only reason we keep seeing it is so the video card manufacturers can keep the prices reasonable. In today's trying times when money is tight, it seems to make economic sense for them. Extremely unfortunate for the few of us that expect to be able to play the newest games with everything cranked up.

http://www.yougamers.com/articles/13801_video_ram_-_how...


firs of all swiftly_morgan, if that is your real name *cough* St. Morgana Feta *cough* [inside joke, so far I don't even know where that rabbit hole goes!]

You do know that the GDDR5 helps to offset the fact that it is only a 256-bit bus, right??? If you check the benchmarks yes check all 53 thousand, You will clearly see the 4870 keeping pace if not beating the 260 all day long.... Clearly that has something to do with Ati's memory management, you claim to know sooo much well how would it be soooo superior if it was getting beaten in the majority of the tests? huh? huh?

Exactly, now stop the fanboy crap b/c this is getting old, You are allowed to have your opinion as long as you want but when it comes to facts don't even try to skew them as that is not kosher my friend, simply not kosher, kapeish?
July 6, 2008 3:46:27 AM

Eh, I wouldn't really call it better memory management; they just picked up on newer technology first. Its not like Nvidia couldn't release a gddr5 card with a 256 bit bus down the road once gddr5 is in a better supply state.

Anyways, the simple way I understood it is this; AMD's cards need less memory because of how their AA is handled with stream processors, and Nvidia's cards need more memory because they use a sort of antialiasing processor which needs that additional memory not just for texture memory, but also for room to do the AA.

I guess you could go into more details on the technical specifics of it; but long story short the way the two cards do AA is totally different and thats why AMD doesn't need as much physical memory to get the same performance. Instead of getting more RAM and using an AA processor like Nvidia does, they get more stream processors which could likely be considered the faster and more technologically sophisticated method.

Maybe that does count as "better memory management", but I do feel that is something of a blanket statement unless you really get into the specifics of how/why they have better memory management. Likewise it would be like saying "Nvidia has better stream processor management" or something equally as silly just because they use less SPUs to do the same sort of calculation.

We already know that AMD is selling a lot of products including GPUs at a profit loss to increase market share - while this is good for consumers i'm not necessarily convinced yet that either way is 100% more cost effective at least on the production level. My knowledge of gpu production at the factory level is just far too limited to make an educated comment on that.
a b U Graphics card
July 6, 2008 4:11:52 AM

If that wasnt the case, better memory management, then the 4850 wouldnt be able to pull away from the 9800GTX in higher res, or higher filters right?
July 6, 2008 4:24:21 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
If that wasnt the case, better memory management, then the 4850 wouldnt be able to pull away from the 9800GTX in higher res, or higher filters right?



Huh? I just talked about this.

Nvidia's architecture and antialiasing processing necessitates additional memory/width bus in order to achieve higher AA performance - hence gtx260/280 having higher width bus/memory. Will Nvidia always do things this way? I couldn't tell you, I don't work for Nvidia's RnD.

AMD's architecture works totally different and requires additional stream processors instead of additional memory, you know this. Does that mean its better memory management or better processing technology - it has to be one or the other and I always read this as AMD having a better processing technology and needing less memory was simply a side-effect of that, and not really the main focus of the architecture.
July 6, 2008 4:32:59 AM

9800pro man that was a pretty sweet card, I sued to have the x800 pro, b/c i got it pretty cheap at the time for like $165, SO i was like sure why not, I ended up selling that card a few years later for like $195, :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
July 6, 2008 4:35:13 AM

I used a 9800 PRO for years, that was possible one of the best graphics cards I ever bought.
July 6, 2008 4:35:50 AM

ovaltineplease said:
Eh, I wouldn't really call it better memory management; they just picked up on newer technology first. Its not like Nvidia couldn't release a gddr5 card with a 256 bit bus down the road once gddr5 is in a better supply state.

Anyways, the simple way I understood it is this; AMD's cards need less memory because of how their AA is handled with stream processors, and Nvidia's cards need more memory because they use a sort of antialiasing processor which needs that additional memory not just for texture memory, but also for room to do the AA.

I guess you could go into more details on the technical specifics of it; but long story short the way the two cards do AA is totally different and thats why AMD doesn't need as much physical memory to get the same performance. Instead of getting more RAM and using an AA processor like Nvidia does, they get more stream processors which could likely be considered the faster and more technologically sophisticated method.

Maybe that does count as "better memory management", but I do feel that is something of a blanket statement unless you really get into the specifics of how/why they have better memory management. Likewise it would be like saying "Nvidia has better stream processor management" or something equally as silly just because they use less SPUs to do the same sort of calculation.

We already know that AMD is selling a lot of products including GPUs at a profit loss to increase market share - while this is good for consumers i'm not necessarily convinced yet that either way is 100% more cost effective at least on the production level. My knowledge of gpu production at the factory level is just far too limited to make an educated comment on that.


so hey ovaltine, Nvidia doesn't simply choose to put higher frequency memory on their cards, at this point they simply can't b/c of signal interference or something but somebody in a tomshadware article or anandtech clearly defined why Nvidia is stuck using GDDR3, they cannot move to GDDR4 or 5 b/c their arc. does not allow them too at the moment, so yes better memory management does have something to do w/ it.
July 6, 2008 4:37:20 AM

ovaltineplease said:
I used a 9800 PRO for years, that was possible one of the best graphics cards I ever bought.


I strongly concur b/c that card could handle steam/valve games for a very long time, simply amazing....
July 6, 2008 4:41:00 AM

On the flip side though, doesn't that just mean that AMD adopted a new arch sooner?

Look at the 3800 series, they used the exact same technology as the 4800 series - but they failed at AA because while the processing technology was better, they didn't have enough parallel processors to use it properly.

So really, AMD has had more than their fair share of screwups; you can say Nvidia was "stuck" with GDDR3 because of the arch and maybe thats true and maybe we won't see them adopt GDDR5 until next spring's architecture.

I guess what i'm saying is that sticking with GDDR3 has gotten Nvidia pretty far, while experimenting with new technology and releasing untested products has put AMD seriously in the financial hole.

Thankfully the 4800 series is 110% successful technology, so AMD definitely has figured out the proper direction of their GPUs.

Now what I would find interesting is if Nvidia's next architecture goes through the same growing pains as the 3800s did. It could happen, heh.
a b U Graphics card
July 6, 2008 4:45:33 AM

That was true of GDDR4, probly not so with GDDR5. To OTP ,Yea sorry, its just that it can be constued that as memory management also. It is a more effective way of managing memory, since it does do better with the same or less (lower speeds), but 6 to 1, half dozen...
July 6, 2008 4:50:17 AM

ovaltineplease said:
On the flip side though, doesn't that just mean that AMD adopted a new arch sooner?

Look at the 3800 series, they used the exact same technology as the 4800 series - but they failed at AA because while the processing technology was better, they didn't have enough parallel processors to use it properly.

So really, AMD has had more than their fair share of screwups; you can say Nvidia was "stuck" with GDDR3 because of the arch and maybe thats true and maybe we won't see them adopt GDDR5 until next spring's architecture.

I guess what i'm saying is that sticking with GDDR3 has gotten Nvidia pretty far, while experimenting with new technology and releasing untested products has put AMD seriously in the financial hole.

Thankfully the 4800 series is 110% successful technology, so AMD definitely has figured out the proper direction of their GPUs.

Now what I would find interesting is if Nvidia's next architecture goes through the same growing pains as the 3800s did. It could happen, heh.


Well you gotta break some eggs in order to make an omlet, son.

Sometimes you just gotta burn while you learn, u know?

Nvidia had some good times though with that 8 series, a good 2-3 years, right? Even know the 28GTX still beats it in raw perfromance, obviously the 4870x2 will change this, but still one could say that nvidia has the performance crown for those who have more money than sense at this point, no?
July 6, 2008 4:50:41 AM

Getting back to that though, is using GDDR5 and 800 SPUs the most cost effective board for the company itself? Thats what i'm really unclear about.

We know that AMD has released some pretty great price/performance GPUs this time around - but as I said before we also know that AMD is quoted as selling their products at a profit loss for market share right? So this is why I guess its hard for me to really take a stand on what is better/more effective because selling the products at a loss can really skew that perception.

Then again, as of Monday Nvidia could very well be jumping on the "selling at a loss" bandwagon with their price cuts, lol. So I guess neither of them will likely be any better off in that regard.
July 6, 2008 4:56:19 AM

FrozenGpu said:
Well you gotta break some eggs in order to make an omlet, son.

Sometimes you just gotta burn while you learn, u know?


Sure, but we're talking about millions of dollars and the success/failure of a company as whole. AMD has a great deal of ground to catch up and 1 GPU release is not going to dig them out of the pit they are in right now. The problem is that while some companies might burn a couple dishes on the way to their cooking greatness, AMD burned way too many and that is the crux of my point that you quoted.


Nvidia had some good times though with that 8 series, a good 2-3 years, right? Even know the 28GTX still beats it in raw perfromance, obviously the 4870x2 will change this, but still one could say that nvidia has the performance crown for those who have more money than sense at this point, no? said:
Nvidia had some good times though with that 8 series, a good 2-3 years, right? Even know the 28GTX still beats it in raw perfromance, obviously the 4870x2 will change this, but still one could say that nvidia has the performance crown for those who have more money than sense at this point, no?


If all you look at is FPS numbers and charts it will seem that way; but from personal experience I have to say gtx200 is a very solid gpu series; in terms of gameplay performance its very, very consistant and smooth.

I don't have any experience with 4800 series cards yet to form an educated opinion on them - however I do have an AMD 4850 on order for my second PC right now, so i'll get to play with it a bit soon in both of my rigs and see how I feel about their gameplay performance too.
July 6, 2008 5:05:26 AM

swifty_morgan said:
Who ever called me a fan boy............ do you read sign language ?

bout the 256bit ring bus........ati changed it......... good read. If you look through the article you'll find it on the 3rd or 4th page I think.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_4850_487...


Sorry ddin't mena toc all you one, i thought you were somebody else, but surely you have read up on why nvidia can't use any higher frequencies right?

it's not that big of a deal, it will hurt nvidia in the long run but its not hurting them as much right now anyways, so why not keep using it, eh?
a b U Graphics card
July 6, 2008 5:19:09 AM

Its been shown that ATIs current makeup, shaders, no ring bus etc means they pack much more on die than before, Id say that yes, its much more economical as it stands now vs the 3xxx series
July 7, 2008 2:27:59 AM

Had to buy another Power supply to give it the 2-6 pin connectors the HD 4870 requires. Looks like my Budget card cost me a 100 more bucks for an adequate PSU.
!