Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

reasons for the equal performance between the 4870 and gtx 260 !

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 16, 2008 6:39:23 PM

Why does the gtx 260 perform in par with the 4870 ?! am thinkinf of buying it but still am undecided !
what choice would be better for future games ? (for medium to low res.)

August 16, 2008 6:47:58 PM

Easily the 4870. It performs great for the cost. If you're a fan of upcoming Starcraft2/Diablo3 they're going to be ATI optimized, plus it has DX 10.1 which we're going to see more of real soon.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 7:02:12 PM

texture filled games like crysis i believe run better on nvidia cards. the gtx 260 oc much more. if ur not into oc i would recommend the 4870 because it has a slight edge over the gtx 260 at stock speeds. Both cards r very good.
Related resources
August 16, 2008 7:07:31 PM

invisik said:
texture filled games like crysis i believe run better on nvidia cards. the gtx 260 oc much more. if ur not into oc i would recommend the 4870 because it has a slight edge over the gtx 260 at stock speeds. Both cards r very good.


What proof do you have that the gtx260 can overclock higher than a given 4870? Id like to see a link providing some evidence to this. Everything I've seen points to either being decent overclockers. Its not uncommon for the 4870 core to hit 825 - 850...

Crysis does run better on Nvidia cards. That indeed is true. It is not because of textures, for if it was then the 4870 1gb would receive a huge boost. Crysis is a badly programmed engine that favors Nvidia, much as COD4 is currently favoring ATI 4800 architecture
August 16, 2008 7:12:42 PM

To answer the OP's Question, the 4870 is considered a better choice for futureproofing. Both Agea(Nvidia's physics) and Havok (ATI's Physics) are for eyecandy only when talking about GPU physics. Directx 10.1 will be an important part of DX11, and there have been several games announced that will be utilizing dx 10.1.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 8:07:59 PM

chill fanboy im not insulting the 4870 it can oc but it cant oc more then the gtx260. looking at reviews and forums ppl r able to push the gtx260 much higher then the 4870. the 1gig memory is just overkill i dont think any game will utilize all one gig maybe crysis maxed out at 2560x1080.

sentenced83 once again there both good cards get the cheaper of the two.
=]
August 16, 2008 8:16:34 PM

invisik said:
chill fanboy im not insulting the 4870 it can oc but it cant oc more then the gtx260. looking at reviews and forums ppl r able to push the gtx260 much higher then the 4870. the 1gig memory is just overkill i dont think any game will utilize all one gig maybe crysis maxed out at 2560x1080.

sentenced83 once again there both good cards get the cheaper of the two.
=]


Lol @ me being called a fanboy. Fair enough.

Anyway, I do agree with the 1GB of memory being overkill at the moment. I also agree that both are good cards, and if it weren't for his statement of "which will be better for future games" I'd tell him to go for the GTX260, as it has a better stock cooler, and Nvidia tends to have better warranty's.
August 16, 2008 8:21:44 PM

The cards aren't really on par in my opinion. The 4870 seems to perform better than the 260 in most current games, and is optimized for DX 10.1, so is also more future proof. Only thing is the drivers arent great yet. Id say go with the 4870.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 8:23:25 PM

Ive seen 20% ocees with the 4870. At what point is more actually more?
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 8:31:59 PM

20%%??
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 8:34:49 PM

i was just kidding with the fanboy thing no hard feelings. but ya the 4870 is better but when u oc the gtx 260 since it i believe in runs cooler then the 4870 they come pretty close.
but ya if u go with nvidia get evga or xfx both good brands i prefer evga tho.
ati get visiontek great with there warranty.
best of luck

(sry for double post)
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 9:14:24 PM

i believe they did a volt mod on it. change the voltage or something like that.
August 16, 2008 9:53:05 PM

Everytime I hear someone say "futureproof" I laugh...because that is up to interpretation. Technology is moving so fast right now that there really isn't futureproofing. DirectX 10 vs. 10.1 is not that big of a difference, and there are very few titles above DirectX 9 right now. Most people interpret futureproofing (including computers, TVs, Blu-ray players, etc.) to mean over 2 - 5 years and I think there are few hard core gamers that keep a card that long. In reading through posts most keep their cards for 6 months to a year at most and then jump on Nvidia's or ATIs newest cards as soon as they come out. Depending on your goals and the types of games you play the ATI will probably suit you best, but don't expect even it to last a long time with the amount of competition out there. The leaked Intel brief today is further proof. Everyone was jumping to the conclusion that Nehalem will be so great, although most software today is still written for single-core processors (pre Core2D). That being said by 2010-2011 the possibility of 8-core processors and much better processors that Nehalem will be out. Frustrating...haha..you can't buy anything without it becoming obsolete too fast. I still haven't figured out where people get their money to build completely new systems every year.
August 16, 2008 10:03:33 PM

True enough, I'm half broke, and I *still* have the horrible itch to replace my ailing 1 1/2 year old overclocked X1900AIW. Future proof doesn't mean much when 2 years out there are cards that are 6 times as fast... There was the exception of the x800 not being able to do SM3, and because of that an otherwise excellent card could not handle bioshock
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 10:08:10 PM

steal parents credit card! thats one way to get money lol.
=]
im hoping my rig can handle new games for 2-3yrs.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 10:12:41 PM

Regarding multi threading, Id like to point you to this thread http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/252821-28-glimpse-dif... All these improvements may not come to light as early as wanted. Only when needed will they be here for sure. Im with Ape when he says he doesnt use the term futureproofing, more like forward looking. Its somewhat contradictory saying advancements are moving so fast, yet at the same time saying that DX10.1 wouldnt matter. Forward looking, yes, DX10.1 does matter
August 16, 2008 10:27:25 PM

Meh, I am just now ordering parts to replace my system...which I built in December 2003 (yes, 2003). I did upgrade the video card to a 6600GT, but thats it. Now it is just unbearable, and just finishing my friends new build pushed me over the edge.

Who knows where things will be in 3 years. Maybe PCs will be dead and we will all have to suffer with consoles, or maybe there will be a renaissance and PC gaming will explode with new ideas and technology.
August 16, 2008 10:41:42 PM

OK, to ease your problem i can help you, i have had both cards. one thing i can assure you is that you can overclock the ati 4870 a lot higher than a gtx 260. i was manually able to control the fan speed of my 4870 using a fan controller (take the fan power out of the cards PCB and plug it to a 12v source...its very very loud even at 60%). i was easily able to OC the 4870 from 750 ---> 840 core and the memory went from 900---> 1250 @48C load temp. This overclocking led to a bandwidth increase from 115gb/sec to almost 156gb/sec, this was a Great OC but there were couple of things that kept bothering me; the image quality of the card and the drivers. the 4870 is a great card but i think it lacks the sharping detail of the nvidia cards. A great card but not so good image quality in COD 4,the drivers were also annoying as 4870 kept resetting my OC settings to factory defaults every time i reboot ; that was very annoying and also the reason why i finally decided to return the card to best buy and picked up a bfg gtx 260. The gtx 260 is a good card and a decent overclocker but in no way it can beat the 4870 in the OC department. Although it surpasses the image quality of the 4870, now cod 4 looks sharp and not blurry. i am glad i dont have to constantly OC the card after every reboot thanks to riva tuner. IF ATI fixes the OC and image problems with the 4870 i will gladly sell my gtx 260 and buy ati 4870 again.
i did not use the DRiver OC for 4870 i used another amd software.

my gtx 260 is currently running at 670core---->1400shader----->1200memory
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 10:47:39 PM

Seems I read somewhere the blur could be easily fixed, and I dont remember where, Ive been doing too much reading to remember it all. But there is a simple fix. Not driver related at all, that I do remember
August 16, 2008 10:57:04 PM

i tried fixing the blur problem via refresh rates but nothing worked so i am assuming its a driver problem but then again it could be something else outside my knowledge. :) 
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 11:06:48 PM

I thought it was a driver setting, which one, as I said , I dont remember
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 11:08:59 PM

how does the 4870 oc more then the gtx260.
the stock speeds r 576/999mhz. i have mine running at 714/1240 and i still can push it much further. i had it at 736/1265 before but the fan got a little to loud for me and i didnt want to stress my psu to much cuz im running it all on a single 500w.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2008 11:39:19 PM

I didnt say more, I said how much more do you need? From what Ive read, you wont get past 736, I think its a bios limatation, cant remember, but thats the wall for many G200s,depending on bios I believe. So yours is a lil over 20%? Good oc, but can be matched by a 4870, as Ive posted. The original 4870s, until certain cards came out, didnt allow for higher oces, but thats changed now. Just like with drivers, theres always constant improvement with these cards, ala the 3870x2's improvements using AA
August 16, 2008 11:46:48 PM

freezed1 said:
OK, to ease your problem i can help you, i have had both cards. one thing i can assure you is that you can overclock the ati 4870 a lot higher than a gtx 260.


i was manually able to control the fan speed of my 4870 using a fan controller (take the fan power out of the cards PCB and plug it to a 12v source...its very very loud even at 60%). i was easily able to OC the 4870 from 750 ---> 840 core and the memory went from 900---> 1250 @48C load temp. This overclocking led to a bandwidth increase from 115gb/sec to almost 156gb/sec, this was a Great OC said:
i was manually able to control the fan speed of my 4870 using a fan controller (take the fan power out of the cards PCB and plug it to a 12v source...its very very loud even at 60%). i was easily able to OC the 4870 from 750 ---> 840 core and the memory went from 900---> 1250 @48C load temp. This overclocking led to a bandwidth increase from 115gb/sec to almost 156gb/sec, this was a Great OC


my gtx 260 is currently running at 670core---->1400shader----->1200memory said:
my gtx 260 is currently running at 670core---->1400shader----->1200memory


I don't totally understand how you can say the 4870 is a better overclocker when by your own admission you were able to get an overall better increase on all of your clocks on the gtx260 except memory, and even your memory OC is respectable.

I use gtx260 SLI, and I run them at 691/1458/1215 clocks which is a pretty substantial OC from the default 576/1242/1000 - and its incredibly stable and I my load temp on these cards doesn't go over 62 degrees at 60% fan speed.

I'm not trying to down on the 4870, and the memory bandwidth increase for GDDR5 overclocking is definitely the best part about OC-ing that card (although I think there is more benefit to this on the 4870x2, given 1gb memory); but i'm just saying that I didn't really understand your post fully.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 12:12:28 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I didnt say more, I said how much more do you need? From what Ive read, you wont get past 736, I think its a bios limatation, cant remember, but thats the wall for many G200s,depending on bios I believe. So yours is a lil over 20%? Good oc, but can be matched by a 4870, as Ive posted. The original 4870s, until certain cards came out, didnt allow for higher oces, but thats changed now. Just like with drivers, theres always constant improvement with these cards, ala the 3870x2's improvements using AA


my apologize i was telling that to freezed1.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 12:15:08 AM

ovaltineplease said:
I don't totally understand how you can say the 4870 is a better overclocker when by your own admission you were able to get an overall better increase on all of your clocks on the gtx260 except memory, and even your memory OC is respectable.

I use gtx260 SLI, and I run them at 691/1458/1215 clocks which is a pretty substantial OC from the default 576/1242/1000 - and its incredibly stable and I my load temp on these cards doesn't go over 62 degrees at 60% fan speed.

I'm not trying to down on the 4870, and the memory bandwidth increase for GDDR5 overclocking is definitely the best part about OC-ing that card (although I think there is more benefit to this on the 4870x2, given 1gb memory); but i'm just saying that I didn't really understand your post fully.


hey im just curious we have similar setups is my 3dmarkvantage score similar to urs.
sry for being off topic.
http://service.futuremark.com/home.action?resultId=3095...
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 12:25:38 AM

Its graphics ram, and having GDDR5 means its faster than GDDR3. It makes up for have a smaller bus .
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 12:26:57 AM

well depends if developers use dx10.1 or not.the gddr5 is the memory thats being used it much faster and efficient then gddr4 and grdd3. using gddr5 increases bandwidth but nvidia increases bandwidth by increasing bit interface.
August 17, 2008 3:21:24 AM

invisik said:
how does the 4870 oc more then the gtx260.
the stock speeds r 576/999mhz. i have mine running at 714/1240 and i still can push it much further. i had it at 736/1265 before but the fan got a little to loud for me and i didnt want to stress my psu to much cuz im running it all on a single 500w.


the GTX 260 has 1240 x 2 memory speed
the 4870 runs stock at 900 x 4 memory speed......i overclocked mine to 1250 x 4......which yields a higher nemory than 1240 x 2
August 17, 2008 3:26:42 AM

see the thing is that ddr 5 can overclock a lot higher then ddr 3 memory modules
in nvidia gtx 260 cards the memory speed is doubled...for example
1240 memory is actually 1240 x 2 MHz
In the ati 4870 the memory speed is multiplied by 4, so we have 1250 x 4
nvidia = 448 bit = 1240 x 2 = 2480 Mhz
Ati = 256 bit = 1250 x 4 = 5000 Mhz
little clear maybe?
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 3:31:46 AM

oh okay looking at the perspective i guess it makes sense. so would u say oc the 4870 ull gain more performance then the gtx260 because of the gddr5 is quad pumped ex.900 x 4 = 3600mhz it gains more of a boost?
August 17, 2008 3:39:53 AM

invisik said:
oh okay looking at the perspective i guess it makes sense. so would u say oc the 4870 ull gain more performance then the gtx260 because of the gddr5 is quad pumped ex.900 x 4 = 3600mhz it gains more of a boost?


This is quite true, but its a bit tainted by the higher latencies on DDR5, so its not *as* big of a gain. Its still a considerable boost though.

Source: http://people.overclockers.ru/CoHE/record8

Scroll down on it to see the diminishing returns of taking the memory higher. Also observe that as you approach GDDR3 speeds, latencies are pretty killer...
August 17, 2008 3:42:39 AM

freezed1 said:
see the thing is that ddr 5 can overclock a lot higher then ddr 3 memory modules
in nvidia gtx 260 cards the memory speed is doubled...for example
1240 memory is actually 1240 x 2 MHz
In the ati 4870 the memory speed is multiplied by 4, so we have 1250 x 4
nvidia = 448 bit = 1240 x 2 = 2480 Mhz
Ati = 256 bit = 1250 x 4 = 5000 Mhz
little clear maybe?


While its not difficult to understand this, I am curious as to how much real-world benefit there is to this without 1GB of memory

As I said before, I would imagine the 4870x2 benefits quite well from overclocking the RAM clock - but I had a suspicion that 512mb models of the 4870 wouldn't see much improvement.

I bet there would be nice gains on a 1GB 4870 though if they happen to get it on the market.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 3:44:23 AM

oh im sorry. heres my score.
3DMark Score
P18906 3DMarks
CPU Score
30677
Graphics Score
16762
August 17, 2008 4:06:11 AM

i have no clue on the 512mb vs 1gb ram bandwidth. i am amusing that higher ram plus bus will help get stable rates. :) ...extra ram does help but if the bus is not present then you have to use raw power to get some frames. :) 
August 17, 2008 4:12:26 AM

freezed1 said:
i have no clue on the 512mb vs 1gb ram bandwidth. i am amusing that higher ram plus bus will help get stable rates. :) ...extra ram does help but if the bus is not present then you have to use raw power to get some frames. :) 



I was actually under the impression that the opposite was true: having an enormous bus is nice, but... well, think of like rolling a quarter down a hallway - that was the relation which I was trying to establish, I am unclear as to how much benefit there is from having a fat pipe with a relatively medium amount of RAM.

Just to clarify, I know that you need to have an appropriately sized bandwidth in order to properly utilize a frame buffer - I just am trying to confirm that there is a relative hardcap on the benefit of that.
August 17, 2008 4:45:50 AM

if you want to futureproof ....

go buy a xbox360 or ps3....

atleast then you'll know any game you buy will run with out a problem.

but forgot it if you want a pc
August 17, 2008 5:31:50 AM

freezed1 said:
see the thing is that ddr 5 can overclock a lot higher then ddr 3 memory modules
in nvidia gtx 260 cards the memory speed is doubled...for example
1240 memory is actually 1240 x 2 MHz
In the ati 4870 the memory speed is multiplied by 4, so we have 1250 x 4
nvidia = 448 bit = 1240 x 2 = 2480 Mhz
Ati = 256 bit = 1250 x 4 = 5000 Mhz
little clear maybe?


Mhz don't mean much. You also have to take the bit rate times the effective speed.
Nvidia: 2480 x 448 = 1,111,040 M/bits per second
AMD: 5000 x 256 = 1,280,000 M/bits per second

So really they are pretty close.

M/bit = Megabit. Because 1mhz is 1 million cycles, so 1 million bits per cycle per connection. Nvidia has 448 vs. AMD's 256 connections .
August 17, 2008 6:07:31 AM

invisik said:
chill fanboy im not insulting the 4870 it can oc but it cant oc more then the gtx260. looking at reviews and forums ppl r able to push the gtx260 much higher then the 4870. the 1gig memory is just overkill i dont think any game will utilize all one gig maybe crysis maxed out at 2560x1080.

sentenced83 once again there both good cards get the cheaper of the two.
=]

I remember several games i play at 1600x1200 eating more then 768MB mine 8800GTX have.
If there is not enough memory on graphic card it will use part of system memory for its purposes but it have huge impact on performance.
Most of games will not use it in most cases, but if there is lots of eye candy and objects in game it spice graphic memory usage up. FSAA is another thingy that use hella lot of memory if turned on.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2008 6:17:27 AM

derek2006 said:
Mhz don't mean much. You also have to take the bit rate times the effective speed.
Nvidia: 2480 x 448 = 1,111,040 M/bits per second
AMD: 5000 x 256 = 1,280,000 M/bits per second

So really they are pretty close.

M/bit = Megabit. Because 1mhz is 1 million cycles, so 1 million bits per cycle per connection. Nvidia has 448 vs. AMD's 256 connections .

Yep, though it could be argued that ATI's method is a better way to go. A lot of the GT200's monstrous die has to do with the 448 (or 512 in the case of the 280) bit bus.
August 17, 2008 3:46:46 PM

mikeynavy1976 said:
Everytime I hear someone say "futureproof" I laugh...because that is up to interpretation. Technology is moving so fast right now that there really isn't futureproofing. DirectX 10 vs. 10.1 is not that big of a difference, and there are very few titles above DirectX 9 right now. Most people interpret futureproofing (including computers, TVs, Blu-ray players, etc.) to mean over 2 - 5 years and I think there are few hard core gamers that keep a card that long. In reading through posts most keep their cards for 6 months to a year at most and then jump on Nvidia's or ATIs newest cards as soon as they come out. Depending on your goals and the types of games you play the ATI will probably suit you best, but don't expect even it to last a long time with the amount of competition out there. The leaked Intel brief today is further proof. Everyone was jumping to the conclusion that Nehalem will be so great, although most software today is still written for single-core processors (pre Core2D). That being said by 2010-2011 the possibility of 8-core processors and much better processors that Nehalem will be out. Frustrating...haha..you can't buy anything without it becoming obsolete too fast. I still haven't figured out where people get their money to build completely new systems every year.


Right on Mikey.
August 17, 2008 11:05:07 PM

if you don't mind another option. i saw an evga 9800gx2 on newegg for about 280 dollars retail. That is a damn good price for a card that can keep up with the gtx 280, i would recommend buying the ati 4870 x2 but its very costly at the moment.
here's the link
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
these days you can pick up Ati or nvidia cards and be happy with it. :) 
August 18, 2008 8:51:05 PM

i wanted to get it , and asked eVGA about which card to get and the customer care advised me to get the gtx 260 over the gx2 !! although its really tempting :( 
August 19, 2008 1:08:04 AM

well you should wait maybe a week or so, because the prices might drop more.
!