Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which is the best card GTX 280 or HD 4870 for me

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 7, 2008 12:43:03 PM

OK before everyone jumps to the conclusion that the HD 4870 is the better value card... I want to make it clear.

I am looking for a single GPU card option to run my games on a 24 inch monitor.

I am prepared to pay a bit more for a reasonable premium performance. (Performance used to mean something before Ati's 4XXX series)

With this in mind which card should I go for.

I want to this to be subjective because I am about to buy one of these cards... but unsure and dont just want the perspective of Price in mind.

Which one would you buy if you had the money.

Questions to ask

1. Is direct x 10.1 important given it takes roughly 2 years for a game to be developed from the ground up to utilize this. Given that direct x 9 games are almost the same as their counterpart direct x 10 at this stage.

2. GDR 3 or 5.... is this going to be utilised anytime soon

3. Will the more beefy GTX280 memory be crucial for games in the upcoming 6-12months.

4. Which one would OC better

5. Which one is less bug prone

6. Which one is likely to get even better performance with some driver updates...

any suggestions will be appreciated

I just want filter out the price perspective and get an idea on what is the best in my situation....

Please dont mention SLi or Xfire... I hate the idea of both

More about : card gtx 280 4870

July 7, 2008 1:18:36 PM

1. dx10 looks better and probably work faster, but i am not fan of Vista (and never be)
2. diference betwen GDR 3 and 5 is in data throughput and yes it could be ustilised easily with high resolution games.
3. i dont know what you mean
4. 4870 will OC better as its created on smaller technology and 280 is much more hot
5. Hard to say, both cards are on market short time, nvidia having crash/performance problems with some graphic functions used together, ati having worse drivers, but catching up with nvidia.
6. I think ati have more room for increasing performance with better drivers.

I was for loong tim (since ati rage) fan of nvidia, but now i am seriously thinking change mine 8800GTX for 4870x2
July 7, 2008 1:22:32 PM

ashkon52 said:
OK before everyone jumps to the conclusion that the HD 4870 is the better value card... I want to make it clear.

I am looking for a single GPU card option to run my games on a 24 inch monitor.

I am prepared to pay a bit more for a reasonable premium performance. (Performance used to mean something before Ati's 4XXX series)

With this in mind which card should I go for.



Buy a 4870 now, then you can sell it later and upgrade to a 4870x2.




You'll get much better re-sale residuals out of a 4870 than a GX280.
Related resources
July 7, 2008 1:27:19 PM

4870 is almost as fast as the gx280, at half the price (or less).

not a hard choice at all
July 7, 2008 1:29:50 PM

Go with the 4870 or wait for the 4870x2 would be my advice. As iam sure you know the 4870 isnt far behind the gtx280, and the soon to be released 4870x2 will destroy it.

The way i see it is that the 4870 can max out any game at that res other than crysis. However a single gtx280 still wont be able to max it out...it will only give you maybe 5fps more at most. Is that 5fps in one game worth the money...your call.

Or like i said wait for the 4870x2 and get a single pcb card that really might be able to play crysis well at those resolutions (tho still not max it out) .
July 7, 2008 1:32:08 PM

+1 for Amiga500
a b U Graphics card
July 7, 2008 1:33:55 PM

4870 of course. Why pay nearly double for very, very little performance gain?
All the rest it purely conjecture at this point. Neither have been out long enough to base any reasonably good opinions on.
a b U Graphics card
July 7, 2008 1:40:25 PM

Hard to say at this point. Usually youll see great improvements with ATI, but nVidia has been known to have them at times as well. I guess it matters alot about how the cards are set for future games (strengths vs weaknesses), but I find driver improvement overall in ATI's favor. As far as ocing goes, some threads Ive read, the ATI product does a lil better, but thats using hacked bio etc on the ATI cards, so it could/maybe do even better, too early to know for certain. The makeup of the 4870 shows it to handle your res very very well, so memory isnt an issue, as ATI tends to make better use of their memory than does nVidia because of its arch. I believe the 4870 will inch closer to the 280, but probably wont ever "own" it. That being said, the 280 is a slightly better card, but to me, it should also only show a slightly higher cost
July 7, 2008 1:45:44 PM

GTX 280 is outta wack on price don't touch it with a 10 foot cattle prod.
July 7, 2008 1:51:02 PM

lightzy said:
4870 is almost as fast as the gx280, at half the price (or less).

not a hard choice at all

^The simple and correct answer.
July 7, 2008 1:54:19 PM

GTX280 is the best option for you right now.

You seem to already know the answer to the value question is the 4870. You should realize that you are paying $200 more for maybe a 10-20% increase in performance.

It will yield you the following:
- faster card
- more memory (though less efficient)
- stable drivers with many games tailored to nvidia cards.

You pay the price with:
- higher energy consumption and greater heat output
- no DX10.1 (truly shameful)
- the stigma of ignorant people telling you "you should have got a 4870" and then in a month or two "you should have got a 4870x2", to which you will need to repeatedly explain "they weren't available when I got my card" or "I had the money, so I wanted the faster card".

If you want to buy the GTX280 and have the money, then just buy it - it is an AWESOME card.

I have a 24" monitor, but it would appear less cash. I am thinking of getting the 4850 or waiting to save some more and get the 4870. The reason being, the 4870 is that little bit more future proof. It has the buffer to allow performance at 1920x1200 in upcoming releases.

If price wasn't an issue, I would be waiting another month and buying the 4870x2 (which will dominate everything else available).
July 7, 2008 2:06:37 PM

+1 hamster wheel
July 7, 2008 2:12:27 PM

xrodney said:
1. dx10 looks better and probably work faster, but i am not fan of Vista (and never be)
2. diference betwen GDR 3 and 5 is in data throughput and yes it could be ustilised easily with high resolution games.
3. i dont know what you mean
4. 4870 will OC better as its created on smaller technology and 280 is much more hot
5. Hard to say, both cards are on market short time, nvidia having crash/performance problems with some graphic functions used together, ati having worse drivers, but catching up with nvidia.
6. I think ati have more room for increasing performance with better drivers.

I was for loong tim (since ati rage) fan of nvidia, but now i am seriously thinking change mine 8800GTX for 4870x2



2. the difference between gddr3 and gddr5 is more architectual at this point, its more or less irrelevant to a buying decision

3. gtx200 series use more memory because of architecture, it is similar performance to the AMD solution for all intensive purposes

4. the 4870 does not OC any better, the OC of the gtx280 is very good and it has an excellent stock cooler - this is not to say the 4870 is a bad OC-er as long as you are willing to do softmods to drivers or buy an aftermarket cooler, but the 4870 has buggy software out of the box.

5. Nvidia's nv.dll errors are typically caused by users overclocking their video cards far past /reasonable/ limits, this is not an Nvidia problem this is end-user tomfoolery. I've actually never owned a single Nvidia card that was crash prone, and I overclocked every one of them quite a bit, but never higher than a top factory OC. On the AMD side of things, their drivers are getting much better than before, its certainly become a priority for them.

I had to pull these out and respond to them because they were more opinion than fact.



Oh, and my opinion of which card to get if you want to spend money?

GTX280 or wait for the 4870x2 to see if it has higher performance than the gtx280. There is no point in buying a 4870 if you are willing to go higher on the performance scale - so my recommendation is to wait until the 4870x2 is out.
a b U Graphics card
July 7, 2008 2:28:09 PM

I disagree that its similar for memory usage, as has been shown, you get more out of the ATI arch with less memory. Being as theres only one oc tool for the 4870s, and I havnt seen the results from using it yet, its too early to say, but like I said, at this point, Ive seen higher %'s on ATI using software mods. And thats the facts as Ive seen them
July 7, 2008 2:46:08 PM

I would definitly suggest waiting for the 4870X2, as two 4870 are already beating the 280 in some benchmarks, wait and see, worse that can happen is a price drop on the gtx 280
July 7, 2008 2:49:43 PM

So there isn't enough data to form a fact on that, so its irrelevant. He asked about the real documented performance, not the theoretical performance that maybe or maybe not coming.

You can argue about the architecture all you want but you're really deviating off topic.
July 7, 2008 2:51:05 PM

jonyb222 said:
I would definitly suggest waiting for the 4870X2, as two 4870 are already beating the 280 in some benchmarks, wait and see, worse that can happen is a price drop on the gtx 280



The 4870 does not beat the gtx280 in any benchmark where both company's use their best AA technology in their drivers.

Running tests without AA or with 3 year old games are nothing but fluff tests to make one card or the other look better in a limited situation.
July 7, 2008 2:53:42 PM

These are ALL insightful answers and should provide enough to make a decision.

I think the 280 is at MAX a $399 card, if not $379 or even $349. Unless priced accordingly, I am not sure why anyone would buy one (although I am sure some will). The argument that "I have to go 280 since my board won't do Crossfire" becomes a red herring since few will also have the 1000-1200 watt PSU reportedly necessary for SLI'd 280s.

Unless you need one NOW, I would wait just a couple more weeks to: 1) see what the 4870x2 looks like/does to 4870 pricing; 2) see what progress is made on drivers/bio/heat issues; and 3) see what kind of performance is gained with new factory OC/heatsink models. For example, some are now hitting: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

Good luck!
July 7, 2008 2:56:06 PM

gtx280 is fine at 499$; if you don't want the top performing Nvidia card then you simply buy something else - i've said this before: the higher you go on the performance scale the less your dollar value means, and its always been that way.

Now here is where things get tricky: with AMD's proposed "advanced crossfire interconnect" that they are implimenting on the 4870x2 the question begs to be asked: "Will the 4870x2 outperform the 4870 Crossfire?" Because this would be the first time a high end gpu actually outperformed a combination of lower end gpus - at least in my memory.
July 7, 2008 3:04:56 PM

ovaltineplease said:
The 4870 does not beat the gtx280 in any benchmark where both company's use their best AA technology in their drivers.

Running tests without AA or with 3 year old games are nothing but fluff tests to make one card or the other look better in a limited situation.


I dunno, judging by this, i'd be willing to bet 2 4870 would beat it, so the 4870X2 might do pretty good... (given the fact that crysis may or may not scale well.)
Also neither company have their "best" AA tech out, that'll come with new drivers



*Edit* Though it is true the results are different in many games

a b U Graphics card
July 7, 2008 3:08:04 PM

It is said to be 15% faster at least. Thats from AMD. I cant find the link, but its true. Anything is worth what you want it to be worth, if youre willing to buy it. Comparable worth is something totally different. And we are talking comparisons here are we not? Theyre both high end, both gfx cards etc.
July 7, 2008 3:12:22 PM

ashkon52 said:

I am looking for a single GPU card option to run my games on a 24 inch monitor.


Another question.


Does your mobo have a single PCI-E slot or 2?

What is the chipset?
July 7, 2008 3:14:39 PM

jonyb222 said:
I dunno, judging by this, i'd be willing to bet 2 4870 would beat it, so the 4870X2 might do pretty good... (given the fact that crysis may or may not scale well.)
Also neither company have their "best" AA tech out, that'll come with new drivers

http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/K/114968/original/crysis1.png

*Edit* Though it is true the results are different in many games



Its already been shown that 2, 4870s in Crossfire are capable of outperforming a gtx280 by a small margin; and this is absolutely nothing unusual jonyb222 as we have seen this numerous times already with 8800 GTS g92 gpus in SLI beating out the 9800 GX2

Or crossfired 3870s beating out the 3870x2, etc

You don't buy a top end GPU with the expectation of performance per dollar; if anything i'd say you buy a top end gpu with the "buy one, get one later" approach in mind.

Look, I wouldn't recommend a gtx280 to anyone unless they were willing to throw cost considerations out the window; but that still doesn't mean to say that the 4870 can beat it in any benchmark that isn't pure fluff. Crysis is a good example, but also you have to compare things like UT3 with 16Q AA on a GTX280 vs UT3 with 24x CSAA on an AMD 4870
July 7, 2008 3:25:58 PM

ovaltineplease said:
Now here is where things get tricky: with AMD's proposed "advanced crossfire interconnect" that they are implimenting on the 4870x2 the question begs to be asked: "Will the 4870x2 outperform the 4870 Crossfire?"



I would very much expect the 4870x2 to hammer the 4870 in games where traditional crossfire has not scaled well.

In games like COD4, where crossfire has virtually perfect scaling, the x2 may be a bit slower due to throttling for heat.



The R700 is designed to exchange data much earlier along the drawing process than crossfire (or SLI) - which will result in it being much more akin to 1 GPU consisting of 2 dies than 2 GPUs of 2 dies on 1 card.



The best anology I have is, R700 is more like pukka SMP or PVM - the card is told to draw a frame, and it uses the two GPUs in parallel for the whole series of calcs, whereas R680 is a conventional AFR/Scissors/checker approach to SLI/Crossfire.

So R700 has 1600 SPUs, not 800x2 SPUs. If you get my meaning.
July 7, 2008 3:26:36 PM

Wait for the G200b. It will probably be highly clocked, say a core around 800MHz. It'll also be significantly cooler and less expensive. The X2 looks also to be a great contester but I'm sure the G200b will be faster. Then again, these are just speculations.
Wait and see but do NOT buy a new GPU today...

/Andreas
July 7, 2008 3:40:43 PM

ovaltineplease said:
Its already been shown that 2, 4870s in Crossfire are capable of outperforming a gtx280 by a small margin; and this is absolutely nothing unusual jonyb222 as we have seen this numerous times already with 8800 GTS g92 gpus in SLI beating out the 9800 GX2

Or crossfired 3870s beating out the 3870x2, etc

You don't buy a top end GPU with the expectation of performance per dollar; if anything i'd say you buy a top end gpu with the "buy one, get one later" approach in mind.

Look, I wouldn't recommend a gtx280 to anyone unless they were willing to throw cost considerations out the window; but that still doesn't mean to say that the 4870 can beat it in any benchmark that isn't pure fluff. Crysis is a good example, but also you have to compare things like UT3 with 16Q AA on a GTX280 vs UT3 with 24x CSAA on an AMD 4870


Looking back it seems I misunderstood the point you were trying to put accross.

I'm not denying the 280 is a good card but I believe the 4870X2 will be a good contender none the less, we'll just have to see when the benchmarks come out on Crysis and UT3 :D 
July 7, 2008 3:49:51 PM

If it doesn't have to be a single GPU card then I'd really suggest waiting a bit longer for the 4870X2. Micro-stuttering has (supposedly) been fixed in this card.

The GTX280 offers the best performance of the two cards, but there's just no way I'd spend $200 more for what basically amounts to a 10-15% increase in performance. If and when the 280 gets dropped to under $400 I'd consider it.

Until then the 4870 offers the best value. It easily overclocks to the maximum allowed by the CCC right now (790/1100) and I'm sure new drivers will remove that barrier. Drivers have actually been really decent this time around (a nice change from the way ATI's drivers used to be at release), with only the fan speed issue really sticking out as a problem for me. And that can be fixed with a little creative profile work in the CCC. This fan speed problem is also why a lot of reviews didn't get much of an overclock out of the card, without upping the fan speed to something reasonable (like 30-45%) it just gets too hot to hold a good OC.
July 7, 2008 5:46:09 PM

ovaltineplease said:
The 4870 does not beat the gtx280 in any benchmark where both company's use their best AA technology in their drivers.

Running tests without AA or with 3 year old games are nothing but fluff tests to make one card or the other look better in a limited situation.


It sure doesn't,but crossfire them and they bury the 280. If i was the OP and had money to burn for the fastest card i'd get the overpriced leafblower,otherwise i'd get the 4870.
July 7, 2008 6:14:19 PM

And I think that the 4870 is a waste of money, and if you want a high performance gpu then you should go with the 4870x2 if you are that in love with AMD, lol

Telling people that the 4870 is going to outperform the gtx280 is rapidly becoming common misinformation. It really doesn't, and the higher you go with the IQ settings on a gtx280 the more dramatic the difference becomes.

There is absolutely nothing unusual about 2 4870s outperforming a single gpu - this has been par norm of the course for years. Stop acting like its some brilliant conclusion that you came to because we've all seen this before.

Guess what, 2x gtx260s also "BURY!" (lol!) the gtx280; ALERT THE PRESSES!! Furthermore with the gtx260s rapidly getting price dropped to 300$, they are quite comparable to the 4870s as far as dual gpu situations go at the 600$ price point.
July 7, 2008 9:26:01 PM

ovaltineplease said:
And I think that the 4870 is a waste of money, and if you want a high performance gpu then you should go with the 4870x2 if you are that in love with AMD, lol

Hello i'm s0ur, I've been owning high-end gfx cards since the geforce3 (no, not the Ti 500, before that), I've been checking reviews since before that, and I think that you are a sad fanboy.

ovaltineplease said:

Telling people that the 4870 is going to outperform the gtx280 is rapidly becoming common misinformation. It really doesn't, and the higher you go with the IQ settings on a gtx280 the more dramatic the difference becomes.

Nobody said the 4870 outperforms the GTX280, except maybe some even more sad fanboys.
I've seen otherwise on 8xAA charts, link plz.

ovaltineplease said:

There is absolutely nothing unusual about 2 4870s outperforming a single gpu - this has been par norm of the course for years. Stop acting like its some brilliant conclusion that you came to because we've all seen this before.

Guess what, 2x gtx260s also "BURY!" (lol!) the gtx280; ALERT THE PRESSES!! Furthermore with the gtx260s rapidly getting price dropped to 300$, they are quite comparable to the 4870s as far as dual gpu situations go at the 600$ price point.

1. a)They outperform it for the same price, offering 1GB of memory and latest technology at the same time.
b)The OP is not interested in XF or SLI.
2. 350$.

@OP: Wasting your money now is not worth it, not for the HD4870, not for the GTX280. If you are in a relative hurry for a highend, like me, wait a few weeks for the 4870x2, check reviews. If it isn't good, go for the GTX280 ($450-$500). If you are not in a hurry though, wait until nVidia pops its new chips, it'll happen earlier than you think it will, they are desperate to give an answer.

PS: to fanboy: I bet I've spent more money on nV cards than you, still I'm not half as sad. stop trolling.
July 7, 2008 9:34:33 PM

s0ur said:
1. a)They outperform it for the same price, offering 1GB of memory and latest technology at the same time.


Any credibility that you might've had went out the window when you said that.

b)The OP is not interested in XF or SLI. said:
b)The OP is not interested in XF or SLI.


I wasn't addressing the OP, I was addressing the individual who posted immediately above me; think before you start mashing your keyboard next time. Do you have tunnel vision?

Calling me a fanboy is pretty hilarious; but misquoting the **** out of my post and taking it out of context just makes you look like a complete moron.
July 7, 2008 10:23:44 PM

ovaltineplease said:
Any credibility that you might've had went out the window when you said that.

*yawn* En contraire to any dual cards at the same price outperforming the gtx280 *yawn*, or well, till 2-3 days ago.

ovaltineplease said:

I wasn't addressing the OP, I was addressing the individual who posted immediately above me; think before you start mashing your keyboard next time. Do you have tunnel vision?

Calling me a fanboy is pretty hilarious; but misquoting the **** out of my post and taking it out of context just makes you look like a complete moron.

I found it annoying when the last 5 threads I read I get you praising your GTX260 SLI build, I had to take action. Don't get too offensive now.
July 7, 2008 11:24:42 PM

s0ur said:
*yawn* En contraire to any dual cards at the same price outperforming the gtx280 *yawn*, or well, till 2-3 days ago.


I found it annoying when the last 5 threads I read I get you praising your GTX260 SLI build, I had to take action. Don't get too offensive now.



And you can't find a thread for me praising 4850, 4850 crossfire and the potential of the 4870x2?

You just see what you want to see, run along now.
July 8, 2008 12:13:07 AM

Personalkly, if I had the money, I'd still probably go for the 4870 over the GTX 280. Preliminary benchmarks I see suggest that AMD has started to fix their problem with AA sapping performance... And I always use AA. Likewise, I just don't like the idea of a single one of my PC's components burning well over 200 watts of power. Likewise, I feel that as games get progressively more shader-heavy, AMD's cards will stand up a bit better to the test of time, as they hold a higher shader-to-texture performance ratio than nVidia's cards, with 20 stream processors for every TMU (800 vs. 40) compared to only 3 SPs per TMU for nVidia. (240 vs. 80) This seemed to show with previous generations of cards, where the Radeon 9700/800 series made the GeForce FX 5800/59xx series progressively more laughable as time went on, and similarly how the Radeon X8xxs holds a better edge over the GeForce 6800 now then when they first came out. Given that I don't buy new hardware but once every few years, that's something that matters to me. :p 

ashkon52 said:
Questions to ask

  • DirectX 10.1 matters pretty much nothing, just as, in reality, DirectX 10 matters rather little; only a few games support it, and DX 10 modes look not a whole lot improved over the DX 9 modes avaiable for most games today. It'll likely be years before it's required; it was 4 years before DX 9 was required, for instance. (2002, with the release of DX9 itself and the Radeon 9700pro, to 2006, with the release of Oblivion)
  • The type of memory ITSELF is as irrelevant a number as the memory interface. In the end, it simply boils down to how they contribute to the memory bandwidth, as measured in GB/sec. In the end, both cards have well over 100 GB/sec, they just take two different routes to it; the GTX 280 opts to go with a pretty typical 2200MHz effective clock, (the high-end of what's possible with GDDR3) but multiplies it by a 512-bit interface. The 4870 stays with a 256-bit interface, but cranks the effective memory clock to 3600MHz, a speed previous impossible until the advent of GDDR5. Either way, both cards have vastly higher memory bandwidth than their predecessors like the 9800GTX and 3870, which relied on GDDR3 speeds on a 256-bit interface. And this increased bandwidth will show an effect as you crank up the resolution and enable the AA; those settings create an exponential increase in strain on the bandwith. Of course, as the math works out, the GTX 280 does hold a bit of an edge, (140.8 GB/sec to 115.2 GB/sec, a 22% increase) though both are still rather high.
  • I'm highly doubtful that 1024MB of memory will really prove to be all that improtant in the near future like that. It's possible to make use of it through heavy modding (such as for Oblivion) but in most games, 512MB is really all that they'd call for, even at 24" resolutions, it seems.
  • The 4870 would OC better, hands-down. The GTX 280 represents clock speeds set at their absolute highest; GDDR3 wasn't really meant to surpass 2.0GHz, and its massive 24x24mm die runs stupidly hot and is strained for power. On the flip side, the 4870's GDDR5 is largely untested, and AMD took an extremely conservative route to clock it at the slowest speed it was designed for; testing by manufacturers have produced chips possible to hit or pass 4.8GHz, and apparently card owners have reported good results with the memory they have. Additionally, the GPU itself is also much smaller, cooler, and seemingly conservatively-clocked. As an additional plus, the card is rated at 150 watts or so, yet has two 6-pin plugs... Technically, that second plus is normally going to be almost entirely unused. (since the card's slot and each plug provide up to ~75 watts apiece)
  • I'm not quite certain which is less bug-prone at the moment... Clearly, early on, both are going to have bugs relating to their drivers. Whatever record either company had with their graphics drivers can be thrown out the window at this point. However, as I hear, while some are having compatability issues with the GTX 280, most of the 4870's issues seem to deal with control of the fan, which is a less serious issue, so I MIGHT give this one to the 4870... Though I'd note that I don't really have all the information here.
  • In this case, I'd LIKELY judge that the Radeon card is likely to see more improvement through driver updates than the GeForce, since the GTX 280, largely, seems to be an extension of the G80/G92, while AMD appears to have done some more serious overhauling for the RV770, so it's more liable that there are more kinks to iron out first.
    July 8, 2008 12:18:55 AM

    ^^ what he said :p 
    July 8, 2008 1:46:36 AM

    Quote:
    OK before everyone jumps to the conclusion that the HD 4870 is the better value card... I want to make it clear.

    I am looking for a single GPU card option to run my games on a 24 inch monitor.

    I am prepared to pay a bit more for a reasonable premium performance. (Performance used to mean something before Ati's 4XXX series)

    With this in mind which card should I go for.

    I want to this to be subjective because I am about to buy one of these cards... but unsure and dont just want the perspective of Price in mind.

    Which one would you buy if you had the money.


    In response to the OP and the other posts, I believe that if the OP were to buy the best overall graphics card in terms of performance out right now, he should buy the GTX 280. He specifically he said he is disregarding price. Yes, the GTX 280 runs hotter, wastes more energy... so what? Why does that make the 4870 a better card? The GTX 280 runs fine. In terms of pure benchmarks, the GTX 280 clearly beats all other cards MOST of the time. You can argue value all you want, but at this moment his best option for what he wants is the GTX 280. Not that I advocate that (I think waiting for the 4870x2 would be prudent), but I am just stating a fact. And I want to say that in no way am I an Nvidia fanboy, I plan on upgrading to the 4870x2 if benchmarks indicate it is worth it.

    Sidenote: price does not always reflect value, it reflects the market. Nvidia knows that at $500 the GTX 280 cannot compete in value with the $300 4870, yet they did not lower the price to $400 because they believe through their research that people (i.e. the market) would buy enough GTX 280's at $500. I think it's stupid to say that something is overpriced, because if it were truly overpriced and nobody was buying it, then any (smart) company would lower the price to compensate in a short amount of time. So I guess the point of this little rant is that price and value are not the same thing, and price does not have to depend on value. End rant.
    July 8, 2008 1:50:11 AM

    jcorqian said:
    And I want to say that in no way am I an Nvidia fanboy, I plan on upgrading to the 4870x2 if benchmarks indicate it is worth it.



    NOOO! IMPOSSIBLE Unless you are felating AMD's graphics department bukakke style there is no way you aren't an Nvidia fanboy!!!!1111oneoneeleven
    July 8, 2008 4:12:38 AM

    ovaltineplease said:
    The 4870 does not beat the gtx280 in any benchmark where both company's use their best AA technology in their drivers.

    Running tests without AA or with 3 year old games are nothing but fluff tests to make one card or the other look better in a limited situation.



    I think you misread what the poster said. The poster said (2) two 4870's beating the GTX 280.a 4870~300...GTX 280~almost twice the price for not even close to twice the performance. A single GTX280 beats a 4870 but at the cost of a few hundred dollars. That doesn't sound like a very sound investment considering Nvidia is already planning on a new revision that will probably come sooner with the 4870X2 coming out.

    I recommend the 4870 if you don't plan to upgrade for awhile. If you want the best performance wait for the 4870x2. The GTX 280 can only get cheaper.
    July 8, 2008 4:53:43 AM

    jcorqian said:
    He specifically he said he is disregarding price.

    No, they very clearly didn't. They said "I am prepared to pay a bit more for a reasonable premium performance." Though the wording is a little awkward, I feel that their meaning is clear, as emphasized by the word "REASONABLE." In other words, while "bang for the buck" isn't their main goal, they don't sound like they'd pay half again as much for a 5-10% increase in performance.

    jcorqian said:
    Yes, the GTX 280 runs hotter, wastes more energy... so what? Why does that make the 4870 a better card?

    One could argue that overclocking capability could be a deciding factor if end-result performance is valued above all else... And in that case, the 4870 does have a a strong argument in its favor, given that the GTX 280 generally can't be overclocked much by the end-user by comparison, and the 4870, at stock, already stands within striking distance. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it was demonstrated that at their typical overclock ceilings, the 4870 could consistently edge out the GTX 280.

    jcorqian said:
    Sidenote: price does not always reflect value, it reflects the market. Nvidia knows that at $500 the GTX 280 cannot compete in value with the $300 4870, yet they did not lower the price to $400 because they believe through their research that people (i.e. the market) would buy enough GTX 280's at $500.

    Actually, I feel that part of the reason for not dropping the price more is that they risk losing money on each card. Though concrete evidence hasn't presented itself (it pretty much never does) what's been seen points to saying that the GTX 280 is very probably the costliest-to-make video card in history, thanks to what are believed to be abysmal yields for nVidia, clearly a side-effect of producing what is KNOWN to be the largest processor die ever fabricated.

    If nVidia dropped the card's price to be price-competitive with AMD's, I'm fairly positive that they (or their board partners) would actually be not recovering their costs to produce each card. Already, it seems that their push to lower prices has started alienating their own partners, as they're effectively saying, "You're not allowed to make a profit here."

    jcorqian said:
    I think it's stupid to say that something is overpriced, because if it were truly overpriced and nobody was buying it, then any (smart) company would lower the price to compensate in a short amount of time.

    By that logic, then everything is at the right price, because it's at the price that it's at, and SOMEBODY out there had bought it. :pt1cable: 
    July 8, 2008 4:56:05 AM

    personally I would wait a few weeks for the 1GB model of the HD 4870 at that resolution.
    July 8, 2008 11:04:44 AM

    one-shot said:
    I think you misread what the poster said. The poster said (2) two 4870's beating the GTX 280.a 4870~300...GTX 280~almost twice the price for not even close to twice the performance. A single GTX280 beats a 4870 but at the cost of a few hundred dollars. That doesn't sound like a very sound investment considering Nvidia is already planning on a new revision that will probably come sooner with the 4870X2 coming out.

    I recommend the 4870 if you don't plan to upgrade for awhile. If you want the best performance wait for the 4870x2. The GTX 280 can only get cheaper.



    I've already been down this road in this very thread like 3 times, look; 2 9800 GTX's outperform a single gtx280 in pure avg framerates for 200$ cheaper. It makes it look even less of what it is.

    2 8800 GTS outperformed a 9800 GX2 for 150-200$ cheaper

    2 HD 3870s outperformed a HD 3870x2 for 150$ cheaper

    I could go on, but there is absolutely nothing unusual about 2 gpus matching/outperforming 1 gpu for cheaper. That doesn't make it any less "sound" of an investment - because this is simply "the nature of the beast" when it comes to purchasing GPUs, and its been that way for a long bloody time. If you want the high end you buy the high end, if you want to get a deal then you get a deal. But Crossfire and SLI arrays have their own drawbacks too, typically additional power consumption/heat production over a single card, driver support issues and potential microstuttering.

    I've already said this before in this exact thread; I refuse to recommend the purchase of a gtx280 unless money is not a concern and you're willing to sacrifice price/performance for pure performance.

    But seriously, people you need to stop taking my posts out of context just because I see the merit in something!
    July 8, 2008 11:15:00 AM

    doomsdaydave11 said:
    personally I would wait a few weeks for the 1GB model of the HD 4870 at that resolution.

    Or the 2GB HD4870X2 :ouch: 
    July 9, 2008 12:09:17 AM

    In response to nottheking:

    I took the OP's post basically as "what is the straight up best card out right now." I certainly am not arguing that there aren't better value cards out there.

    As for the OC argument, I have yet to see any concrete evidence that a ceiling OC'd 4870 will consistently outperform a ceiling OC'd 280.

    I understand what you are saying about alienating the partners and horrible yields, but that doesn't mean that Nvidia couldn't have sold them for less money. My point is that Nvidia can go as low as they have to on the cards, because selling them for less is better than not selling any at all. Unless they scrap the 280 period (and they won't because they won't have a competing product), Nvidia and the partners will lose more money not selling any 280s then selling them at a reduced price. Nvidia and their board partners' business does not solely depend on the ultra-high end (its probably just a fairly small portion), so I think both could recover from a lower priced 280. Nvidia will price the card at whatever price they think the market is willing to buy, and that happens to be $500.

    "By that logic, then everything is at the right price, because it's at the price that it's at, and SOMEBODY out there had bought it."

    Can you tell I'm a supporter of the efficient markets theory haha? I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I'm not saying "somebody" out there bought it, I'm saying that products are priced at the price a company thinks is most beneficial to itself, and if they are not, then the company will compensate that price as soon as possible.

    Of course, this is just what I happen to believe.
    July 9, 2008 1:48:54 PM

    ovaltineplease said:
    2. the difference between gddr3 and gddr5 is more architectual at this point, its more or less irrelevant to a buying decision


    diference betwen gdr3 and gdr5 is in bandwith, it maybe doesnt matter on low resolutions but it become importand as you resolution, texture quality and AA goes up.

    ovaltineplease said:

    4. the 4870 does not OC any better, the OC of the gtx280 is very good and it has an excellent stock cooler - this is not to say the 4870 is a bad OC-er as long as you are willing to do softmods to drivers or buy an aftermarket cooler, but the 4870 has buggy software out of the box.


    55nm proces itself generate less heat then older proces used on 280 and 4870 also have only 45% die size comparable to 280 and its fact that 4870 is running on lower temperature then 280. Ofcourse you can run stock cooler (at high rpm and noice if oveclocking) or use better cooler or even water cooling.

    ovaltineplease said:

    5. Nvidia's nv.dll errors are typically caused by users overclocking their video cards far past /reasonable/ limits, this is not an Nvidia problem this is end-user tomfoolery. I've actually never owned a single Nvidia card that was crash prone, and I overclocked every one of them quite a bit, but never higher than a top factory OC. On the AMD side of things, their drivers are getting much better than before, its certainly become a priority for them.


    You dont know what are you talking about here.
    7xxx, 8xxx and i think even 9xxx generation caused serious problems in dozens games if you enable some settings (i think it have to do something with lighting but i dont remember exactly). With it enabled it make scenec more beautifull and realistic, but also caused realy poor performance or even crash of game. EVE online is one of titles i can remember right now. Ati didnt have this problem.
    July 9, 2008 2:07:58 PM

    xrodney said:
    theamazingrock said:
    2. the difference between gddr3 and gddr5 is more architectual at this point, its more or less irrelevant to a buying decision
    diference betwen gdr3 and gdr5 is in bandwith, it maybe doesnt matter on low resolutions but it become importand as you resolution, texture quality and AA goes up.

    Unless you can tell the difference between 2GHz GDDR3 on a 512 bit bus and 4GHz GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus then it is irrelevant in a buying decision.
    July 9, 2008 2:21:16 PM

    homerdog said:
    diference betwen gdr3 and gdr5 is in bandwith, it maybe doesnt matter on low resolutions but it become importand as you resolution, texture quality and AA goes up.[/msgquoted said:

    Unless you can tell the difference between 2GHz GDDR3 on a 512 bit bus and 4GHz GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus then it is irrelevant in a buying decision.]diference betwen gdr3 and gdr5 is in bandwith, it maybe doesnt matter on low resolutions but it become importand as you resolution, texture quality and AA goes up.

    Unless you can tell the difference between 2GHz GDDR3 on a 512 bit bus and 4GHz GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus then it is irrelevant in a buying decision.


    He was probly talking about the difference between GDDR3 and GDDR5 when they're on the same bus speed

    Nvidia has a small advantage in speed at the moment, though supposedly the GDDR5 can go much higher than it is currently (which is something like it's slowest possible speed) so ATI and partners will probly make it go faster eventually (Nvidia is already pushing the limits of GDDR3)

    *edit* Fixed the quote
    July 9, 2008 2:22:26 PM

    ^Um, I didn't write that...
    July 9, 2008 2:41:37 PM

    Fixed
    July 9, 2008 2:55:33 PM

    jonyb222 said:
    Unless you can tell the difference between 2GHz GDDR3 on a 512 bit bus and 4GHz GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus then it is irrelevant in a buying decision.


    He was probly talking about the difference between GDDR3 and GDDR5 when they're on the same bus speed

    Nvidia has a small advantage in speed at the moment, though supposedly the GDDR5 can go much higher than it is currently (which is something like it's slowest possible speed) so ATI and partners will probly make it go faster eventually (Nvidia is already pushing the limits of GDDR3)

    *edit* Fixed the quote[/quotemsg]

    Exactly.
    You can either go with wider bus on GDR3 or same bus on GDR5, both choices increase throughput of memory.
    And its entirely relevant for ATI as they use both GDR3 and GDR on 256b bus.
    So you must consider both wide of bus and memory type used, they are both relevant for overal memory performance.
    !