GTX 280 vs. 4870 1gb

[doctorhorrible]

Hello! I'm building a system and I'm wondering which card I should buy for 1280x1024 - the BFG Tech GTX 280 or the 4870 1GB. Before you jump to your answer (4870), look at what I'd like to do:

Crysis, 4xAA, 8xAF, All High/Gamer

I would like that to go as close to 60fps as possible. Would getting the GTX 280 give me a significant boost for that? Also, if you could estimate (no benchmarks, please, real world gaming estimate), what do you think I'd get on both of those cards playing Crysis with those settings? Thank you!

 

[Zecow]

There is still someone out there who cares about Crysis??
A game that consumes that much resource and is not that spectacular shouldn't even be in the market.

At that resolution... you're not even stressing the GPU as much... but more your CPU.

This might give you more info:

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU1OCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

 

[bosshoss]

ZeCow read my mind. That's a pretty low resolution for a 4870 or gtx280. A 4850 would probably be your best bet. At that resolution your CPU will be the biggest bottleneck no doubt. Some specs of your machine would help...

 

[doctorhorrible]

Crysis...I find it to be a good game. Anyhow.

Thank you for your reply. If my resolution is low enough that a 4870 can pull off 40-60fps, I'll be happy. CPU is not a problem. I am running a Core i7.

Edit (here are my specs):

Intel Core i7 920
Asus P6T Deluxe
3GB G-Skill DDR3 1333 triple-channel RAM
PCP&C 750W continuous PSU - 60A@12v

 

[bosshoss]

Nope. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-v1-21,747.html Even with a core i7 I'd imagine you hover around 37fps MAX with AA and AF enabled.

 

[doctorhorrible]

So if I go with a GTX 280, will I at least get in the 50-60s? If not, and it won't be much improvement, I won't bother and I'll just CF or SLI down the road.

 

[bosshoss]

With a 4870 or 280 you won't see hardly any difference between the two. The CPU works alot harder at lower resolutions instead of the graphics cards doing most of the work. At higher resolutions you offload more work to the GPU. With a machine like that, it's kinda a shame not to be gaming at LEAST at 1680x1050.

 

[Zecow]

:O an i7 and 1280x1024... hmmmm

Anything below 1680x1050 will focus more on the CPU - As much as you sqeeze out of your CPU, you wouldn't gain much..a few FPS, but not dramatic (few, as in... very little) . If you want to push your FPS, then the GPU will have to assist, but for that to happen, you need to increase your resolution.

 

[cjl]

Actually, with the desired settings and a core i7, the bottleneck will be entirely on the GPU, mainly because Crysis, even at 1280x1024, at full settings with 8xAA, is quite a load for any graphics card. I'd say that a 4870 would work great for that, and should probably get a playable framerate even with AA.

 

[doctorhorrible]

So if I play at a non-CPU-bound resolution (I.E. on my 1080p TV downstairs), the 280 would be significantly better? I'll probably shoot for the 4870 for now (until I get my 1900x1200 monitor this May).

 

[dieseldre2k]

Nope. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-v1-21,747.html Even with a core i7 I'd imagine you hover around 37fps MAX with AA and AF enabled.

actually that's crysis at just high (not very high) and w/o AA and trilinear. this is the correct link with all eye candy on and very high quality: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-v1-21,756.html

looks like ur going to have to aim pretty high to get playable fps even at that resolution.

 

[magicbullet]

:O an i7 and 1280x1024... hmmmm

same idea..............................you know what we mean.

 

[deanbug]

Crysis...I find it to be a good game. Anyhow.

Thank you for your reply. If my resolution is low enough that a 4870 can pull off 40-60fps, I'll be happy. CPU is not a problem. I am running a Core i7.

To me it seems like he already knew the answer but wanted everyone to know he had a GX280 and an I7. $$$ on his mind...

 

[Zecow]

To me it seems like he already knew the answer but wanted everyone to know he had a GX280 and an I7. $$$ on his mind...

^ LOL :lol: (Dont forget his HDTV 'downstairs')

To be honest, I didn't find Crysis meeting up with the hype. AI and the targeting sucks... The first 30 mins was cool with the graphics and the destructible environment... after that.. its just same **** different game... Bad Company gave a new meaning to desctructible environment ... oh well, back to Farcry 2...

 

[outlw6669]

The GTX 280 will be a little faster than the 4870 1Gb.
In Crysis at 1280x1024 with no AA/AF, high quality and very high shaders the GTX wins by about 2 FPS.
Nothing can run Crysis Very High with 16xAF and 8xAA at 60FPS even at your low resolution.
Luckily for you, Crysis is perfectly playable without AA in the 25-30FPS range.

From Anandtech's 4870 1Gb Review.

 

[rangers]

:O an i7 and 1280x1024... hmmmm

Anything below 1680x1050 will focus more on the CPU - As much as you sqeeze out of your CPU, you wouldn't gain much..a few FPS, but not dramatic (few, as in... very little) . If you want to push your FPS, then the GPU will have to assist, but for that to happen, you need to increase your resolution.

you can also increase the eye candy, that will stretch the gpu also

 

[BlakHart]

So many crysis haters out there lol. I thought it was a good game, especially since I got it for $20 on a weekend special.

That Anandtech review shows them using high settings and very high shaders. I never thought of doing that. I use all very high settings and get 20-30fps with my 48701gb @1680x1050. I hate it when it drop in the low 20's. Maybe I'll switch the settings next time if it doesn't look to different. I've played through this game 5 times already and it never gets old for me. I fight a battle differently everytime...so fun.

 

[outlw6669]

It is not that Crysis is a bad game.
It was just way over hyped and turned out to be decent at best.
The biggest issue people have with it is the total lack of optimisations, the artificial disabling of 'DX10 only' features in Xp and it's DRM.
I, for one, rather enjoyed it and will likely purchase the sequels.
That being said, HL2 and other games have much, much better story lines and acting.

 

[doctorhorrible]

Thank you everyone who submitted a helpful reply - I am going with either a 4870 1gb or a GTX 260 core 216 for now.

 

[L1qu1d]

the 4870 1 gig isn't in the 280s Category, its in the 260 GTX SP 216, both of which are slower than the 280 GTX. As it stand, the 280 GTX is the strongest GPU out on the market.

Would I take a 280 GTX over a 4870 if I didn't have sli? No I would've gotten the 4870 1 gig, since its much cheaper, and doesn't really show its loss in performance for the massive price gap.

 

[doctorhorrible]

Alright! I have decided on the GTX 260 core 216 due to the fact that I much prefer Nvidia and BFG (vs. ATI and Sapphire). Nvidia has superior drivers and chipsets and SLI scales much better if I ever get a bigger monitor.

 

[cjl]

Nvidia may have better drivers (it's debatable), but without a doubt, Nvidia has worse chipsets than Intel.

 

[doctorhorrible]

...Intel makes good graphics chipsets? Or do you mean ATI? The only Intel GPU I've heard of is in my MacBook as integrated graphics. Nvidia chipsets, I find to be better. I have a lot of trouble with ATI chipsets and especially Sapphire boards and coolers. Especially in Ubuntu - fglrx failed and Nvidia runs 10x faster, esp. in GLXgears.

 

[cjl]

Graphics chipsets? No. If you're using a dedicated graphics card though, the graphics capability of a chipset is irrelevant. The Intel chipsets run cooler, overclock higher, and are more stable than Nvidia chipsets.

 

[L1qu1d]

NOt anymore lol seeign as they switched to intel for the i7s