Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

48xx better than GTX 2xx at AA? Not according to new article

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 12, 2008 4:01:27 AM

In Tom's Hardware's new graphics card article, The Fastest 3D Cards Go Head-To-Head, if you look at the page showing the differences between HD4 series and GTX series, you will see a difference that many other benchmarks are not showing. In fact, it shows the opposite.

Once AA is enabled in 1920, the 4850 drops 82.6 total frames, the 4850 drops 91.7 frames, and the GTX 260 drops a total 49.9 FPS. The GTX 280 drops a total of 33.8 FPS

Don't believe me? See for yourself

Also, with $20 instant savings, $20 Promo Code, and a $40 rebate, the oh-so-expensive GTX 260 drops to around $220 dollars, and increases is Price/Performance ratio to almost equal with the 4850.

More about : 48xx gtx 2xx article

a b U Graphics card
September 12, 2008 4:14:55 AM

No argument from me, but when Nvidia put them for sale at an opening cost of $450 they pretty much screwed themselves. People still think of them as noisy, hot, underperforming, expensive and lackluster cards. It goes to show how reputation DOES count and how bad business practices bite a company on the butt for months if not years.
September 12, 2008 4:22:48 AM

wow you musta looked top an bottom in that article to start a flame war

btw. welcome to the forums
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 12, 2008 4:30:46 AM

A big issue is that they used the Catalyst 8.6 drivers, which don't even officially support the HD 48xx models. Due to that, you can pretty much throw the whole thing out the door. Running hardware without it's intended software (Cat 8.7 or above) for comparison is useless, doesn't show actual performance. That's like saying a remote control car is faster than a Ferrari, when they both using AA batteries, because a Ferrari isn't made to work with batteries, the HD 48xx series isn't made to work with Cat 8.6.
September 12, 2008 4:34:55 AM

Thanks for the welcome!

And the driver that was used for Nvidia had a huge downclocking issue in 3d. So that pretty much evens out the playing field. :) 

Not trying to start a flame war.
September 12, 2008 4:36:57 AM

No, if the Nvidia drivers supported the GTX2xx's and had a problem, that's Nvidia's fault. The lack of proper ATi drivers is a TH problem, proper ATi drivers were out a month+ before the article was posted.
September 12, 2008 4:40:11 AM

Dekasav said:
A big issue is that they used the Catalyst 8.6 drivers


This

The HD4800 series has great AA performance so off the bat it was pretty obvious that something was wrong.

The same article also shows that 8800GTs in SLI are faster than two HD4870s in crossfire @ 1680x1050. What the hell was THG doing?
September 12, 2008 4:40:20 AM

Well, since you (who are surely unbiased) say that it "pretty much evens out the playing field," I believe you. So what if, by all accounts, both GPUs were running with bad/incorrect drivers. Looks like NVidia is still the best in every regard!
September 12, 2008 4:40:23 AM

I am not blaming TH in anyway here.

Just saying that since BOTH drivers used had issues, it should make the playing field pretty even.
September 12, 2008 4:46:48 AM

With the 8.6 drivers Crossfire was barely even operational with these cards, I myself experienced this with two 4850's I used for about 2 days. Performance in games was preety bad/questionable, and my 3dmark scores were quite lower than they are now with 8.7/8.8.

The whole point of that article was to bottleneck them with the CPU, benchmarks on stronger CPU's give the lead to ATI, so I really dont know what the point was in this , or even that Toms Article, besides proving that these Nvidia cards are in 2nd place? The conclusion even gives the 4850 the "winners" title.

Anybody with a respectable system or at least wants to get the full benefit from there $300+ card purchase wont be using a bottlenecking CPU unless they just cant afford it/dont care, and if its the ladder then they dont even apply to this comment.
September 12, 2008 5:10:31 AM

So instead of apples and oranges, lets use a watermelon and a kiwi. They both have a similar shape. That should even out the playing field as well. I think... :??: 
September 12, 2008 11:22:57 AM

LunaticWolf said:
In Tom's Hardware's new graphics card article, The Fastest 3D Cards Go Head-To-Head, if you look at the page showing the differences between HD4 series and GTX series, you will see a difference that many other benchmarks are not showing. In fact, it shows the opposite.

Once AA is enabled in 1920, the 4850 drops 82.6 total frames, the 4850 drops 91.7 frames, and the GTX 260 drops a total 49.9 FPS. The GTX 280 drops a total of 33.8 FPS

Don't believe me? See for yourself

Also, with $20 instant savings, $20 Promo Code, and a $40 rebate, the oh-so-expensive GTX 260 drops to around $220 dollars, and increases is Price/Performance ratio to almost equal with the 4850.


The HD4000 series is superior in every way to the GT200 series, that article was complete bull and annoyed alot of people.
a b U Graphics card
September 12, 2008 11:39:41 AM

The heirarchy of using AA between ATI and nVidia is often misunderstood. ...8xAA on ATI should be compared to 8xQAA on nV, not the 8xAA which is 4xMSAA based CSAA mode
...16xAA on ATI effectively turn the card into single chip card which can do 16xMSAA, since both chips render the same frame with different AA patterns
...16xAA on nV is 4xMSAA based CSAA mode and 16xQAA on nV is 8xMSAA based CSAA mode
Like was said earlier, no one cared or thought highly of that article as it shwoed huge flaws in its findings besides using out of date drivers. They probably dont know the difference between driver settings between nVidia and ATI as well. If you doubt what Im saying about the AA differences, Id suggest you go here http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=49008&page=1... sign up and argue with them. Im sure youll learn alot
September 12, 2008 3:50:43 PM

Where do these first time posters with agendas and promo codes come from?

Will LunticW... read the comments after that article. This community mostly agrees that it was out of date and useless when it was released and two weeks later it is a terrible reference to prove a point.

a b U Graphics card
September 12, 2008 4:12:48 PM

If only those people had their ideas like your nickname heheh
September 12, 2008 4:40:47 PM

spathotan said:
With the 8.6 drivers Crossfire was barely even operational with these cards, I myself experienced this with two 4850's I used for about 2 days. Performance in games was preety bad/questionable, and my 3dmark scores were quite lower than they are now with 8.7/8.8.

The whole point of that article was to bottleneck them with the CPU, benchmarks on stronger CPU's give the lead to ATI, so I really dont know what the point was in this , or even that Toms Article, besides proving that these Nvidia cards are in 2nd place? The conclusion even gives the 4850 the "winners" title.

Anybody with a respectable system or at least wants to get the full benefit from there $300+ card purchase wont be using a bottlenecking CPU unless they just cant afford it/dont care, and if its the ladder then they dont even apply to this comment.


+1

buzzlightbeer said:
The HD4000 series is superior in every way to the GT200 series, that article was complete bull and annoyed alot of people.


+10, I agree with you wholeheartedly

JAYDEEJOHN said:
The heirarchy of using AA between ATI and nVidia is often misunderstood. ...8xAA on ATI should be compared to 8xQAA on nV, not the 8xAA which is 4xMSAA based CSAA mode
...16xAA on ATI effectively turn the card into single chip card which can do 16xMSAA, since both chips render the same frame with different AA patterns
...16xAA on nV is 4xMSAA based CSAA mode and 16xQAA on nV is 8xMSAA based CSAA mode
Like was said earlier, no one cared or thought highly of that article as it shwoed huge flaws in its findings besides using out of date drivers. They probably dont know the difference between driver settings between nVidia and ATI as well. If you doubt what Im saying about the AA differences, Id suggest you go here http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=49008&page=1... sign up and argue with them. Im sure youll learn alot


You reminded me of this long ago and I was about to post until I saw you did it again, brilliant as usual +1

Been a long time since I was left with no arguments to give, since everyone pretty much laid it out in the open.
September 16, 2008 4:44:24 AM

Looks like the new VGA charts support this theory.

:p 
a b U Graphics card
September 16, 2008 5:02:53 AM

No, youre the only one supporting this theory, the chart theoriy has already been disproved. Believe what you want, its ok with us heheh.
September 16, 2008 5:05:46 AM

Me, and the people running Tom's Hardware apparently

:p 

EDIT: Oh, and I will. My $200 GTX260 will speak for itself :p 
a b U Graphics card
September 16, 2008 5:16:27 AM

Go ahead, great card ya got, dont spill any kool aid on it tho
September 16, 2008 5:25:03 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Go ahead, great card ya got, dont spill any kool aid on it tho


Well, you know, It's all a conspiracy! Only Toms hardware only tells the truth. It is the only non-biased review site out there. All the other websites are all ATI-biased, spilling lies into your very souls.

I've got my tin-foil hat on tight! what about you?


[/sarcasm]

[offtopic]Someone should make a youtube video of pouring kool-aid into a running computer. It would be awesome to see the guy pouring it get shocked.
a b U Graphics card
September 16, 2008 5:28:31 AM

That review using outdated drivers and a slow CPU is utter crap. Anyone who takes it as the truth deserves the heartache that follows. Go read a real review from any other reputable site before posting something like this thread.
a b U Graphics card
September 16, 2008 5:42:07 AM

Look, you have your point of view, which is fine. Go here http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/254932-33-what-charts... and see what the consensus has been on these charts. I dont think youre going to convince many people here about things using Toms as a link. We all know how old and poorly done they are, its a shame really, but what can you do? If you could show other links, itd be much more compelling, but as it is, like I said, Toms failed with those 2 big time
September 16, 2008 1:10:47 PM

Oh, I have already read the comments on the charts. And, of course, I am working on other links to "prove" the truth already listed here at Toms. Just haven't found any non-biased review sites. They all seem to favor the ATI's.
September 16, 2008 1:34:03 PM

LunaticWolf said:
Oh, I have already read the comments on the charts. And, of course, I am working on other links to "prove" the truth already listed here at Toms. Just haven't found any non-biased review sites. They all seem to favor the ATI's.



this has to be a joke, and its not because ati cards rock just now, yes all the sites are biased ur right, all the sites are wrong ur clearly deranged
a b U Graphics card
September 16, 2008 1:59:50 PM

rangers said:
this has to be a joke, and its not because ati cards rock just now, yes all the sites are biased ur right, all the sites are wrong ur clearly deranged


lol - That comment made me laugh.

The OP is obviously an Nvidia fanboy that can't accept the truth. The current Nvidia cards are certainly not bad cards, but ATI currently offers more bang for your buck. I have no preference one way or the other. I just buy what's best at the time.

So all the other sites are pro-ATI just because their tests show ATI is currently a better value? :heink:  If you want to take Tom's screwed up results as the truth and disregard all the other sites who actually tested these cards, go ahead. Just don't try to push your insanity on others. It's sure not hard for someone who knows anything about computers to see the fatal flaws in Tom's latest GPU review.
September 16, 2008 2:52:30 PM

Looks to me like he's just flamebaiting. He's blatantly disregarded everything anyone's said. Because, as everyone knows, you should use the oldest drivers possible. I'm still on CAT 4.0
September 16, 2008 3:12:50 PM

CAT 4.0 there waaay better than 8.6, that reminds me, got to install old drivers
September 16, 2008 3:13:47 PM

shortstuff_mt said:
but ATI currently offers more bang for your buck.


Actually, that is something I can prove wrong.

When your getting a GTX 260 for $200. Its price/performance ratio matches with the Raedon 4850.


And just so you guys know, I seriously considered the 4850 for a while, but once I was able to get a 260 for so little, my mind was made. Plus, eVGA is the best graphics card company ever, and their step-up program is amazing!

So technically, I am not an Nvidia fanboy, More of an eVGA fanboy.
September 16, 2008 3:30:10 PM

the step up program only works if nvidia are top dog, otherwise its a step up from crud to more crud
September 16, 2008 4:11:50 PM

rangers said:
the step up program only works if nvidia are top dog, otherwise its a step up from crud to more crud


Lets also not forget that CUDA is the future of video game programming.
September 16, 2008 5:29:16 PM

CUDA is just marketing, the only thing its good at is folding and video encoding and cards from both company's can do that

so whats ur point
September 16, 2008 8:42:30 PM

I'm going with the GTX 260 FTW simply because I hear that WAR (Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning) is having driver issues with the 48xx series and I am also a fan of EVGA.

I also saw this review which seems to indicate that the GTX 260 FTW can be pushed further than the factory OC settings pretty easily, and the Powercolor 4870 only beat it in 6 out of 32 tests.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/evga_gtx260/
September 16, 2008 8:54:51 PM

benjaminm580 said:
I'm going with the GTX 260 FTW simply because I hear that WAR (Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning) is having driver issues with the 48xx series and I am also a fan of EVGA.

I also saw this review which seems to indicate that the GTX 260 FTW can be pushed further than the factory OC settings pretty easily, and the Powercolor 4870 only beat it in 6 out of 32 tests.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/evga_gtx260/



some are getting near 900MHz on the 4870 with out extra volts, so i think ATI has left some head room
September 16, 2008 10:05:39 PM

Many of the new benchmarks showing off the amazing 260 216 also seem to support my theory that the other reviews were spilling lies into your very soul.

Check this thread: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/254994-33-nvidia-core...

The 3 posted benches have very many instances where the regular 260 outperforms the 4870 with AA at high res, and yes, the CAT 8.7/8.8 were used.
a b U Graphics card
September 16, 2008 11:27:44 PM

Ya know what I wonder? Its not whether the supposed new G260216editionletsgiveitanothergoftwoctopedition will ever ever come in 55nm, but whenever nVidia does come around to 55nm, will they ever have just a G260 at that process?
September 16, 2008 11:41:02 PM

It does look like a good card, [H] had it beating the 4870 and Anand had it losing so it appears competitive. Seriously though Nvidia needs to cough up some green at the name store.

Soon we'll have : gtx260, gtx260 216 core and gtx260 216 core 55nm. Pitty the poor schmucks who didn't burn an hour reading reviews today and buy the wrong version at the wrong price.
September 16, 2008 11:44:43 PM

benjaminm580 said:
I'm going with the GTX 260 FTW simply because I hear that WAR (Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning) is having driver issues with the 48xx series and I am also a fan of EVGA.

I also saw this review which seems to indicate that the GTX 260 FTW can be pushed further than the factory OC settings pretty easily, and the Powercolor 4870 only beat it in 6 out of 32 tests.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/evga_gtx260/


Been in beta and im in live right now (pre order head start). Running a 4870 my FPS is maxed with "highest" settings. Thats not saying much since the graphics in this game completely blow at any resolution, you could run this game at respectable settings with an ATI X300. Bottom line is I havnt had any issues what-so-ever.
!