Why does everybody recommend 4870's?

[raybob95]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130441
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121291

These two cards come within $5 of each other.

Now to compare CPUs:

The GTX 260 has 216 Cores, and the 4870 has 800, but they measure it differently, so it really only has 160 NVIDIA-Equivalent cores.
The GTX 260 runs at 675 MHz. And the 4870 runs at 750 Mhz.

Multiply these with the cores, and the NVIDIA wins 145,800 to 120,000.

Now to compare the memory:

The GTX 260 runs at 2304 MHz, with a 448-bit Bandwidth. The 4870 runs at 3600MHz, and 256-bit bandwidth.

Multiply these speeds and widths, and the NVIDIA wins again, 1,032,192 to 921,600.

The GTX 260 has 896MB Memory, and the 4870 has 1024MB Memory.

Multiply the capacities with speeds (Then divide by 1000 to make the number smaller), and the NVIDIA's memory score loses to the 4870, 924,844 to 943,718.4.

So, Recap. The NVIDIA's Memory has roughly 98% of the 4870's potential. The NVIDIA's CPU has roughly 122% of the 4870's potential. Being the same price, it looks to me as if the GTX 260 Core 216 wins.

I don't know a ton about these cards, but from a specs-point of view, the GTX 260 Core 216 wins.

Additional Sources:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/top-10-games-with-radeon-4870-1-gb--geforce-gtx-260-core-216-test/9
http://techgage.com/article/ati_hd_4870_1gb_vs_nvidia_gtx_260216_896mb/7
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1414&pageID=5839
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd4870-1024_10.html#sect0

That last review also shows the GTX OC'd from 675 to 700, yet the 4870 from 750 to 840. Yet the NVIDIA wins over 75% of the time again.

 

[spathotan]

You linked the most expensive 4870 out there.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161268

Also, the 4870 1GB beats the GTX 260 216 usually, and that can also be found for under $200. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102801

Clock speed isnt everything. I figured this was well known by now.

 

[raybob95]

You linked the most expensive 4870 out there.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161268

Also, the 4870 1GB beats the GTX 260 216 usually, and that can also be found for under $200. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102801

Clock speed isnt everything. I figured this was well known by now.

According to the majority of the reviews I've found, the GTX acutually beats the 4870 usually. I also linked one of the most GTX 260 Core 216's out there.

Did I only talk about clock speed in my first post? Self Answer: No, he also talked about Memory Speed, Bandwidth, Capacity, Price, and CPU Cores.

 

[spathotan]

This is a year old argument that has been around the block 150 times.

Its pointless to continue.

 

[raybob95]

This is a year old argument that has been around the block 150 times.

Its pointless to continue.

What? THese cards have changed and gotten a LOT cheaper in the past year. And it's a great time to argue over the GTX 260 Core 216 and 4870 1GB.

 

[rangers]

why you just seem to be an nvidia fanboy with a point to make

 

[raybob95]

why you just seem to be an nvidia fanboy with a point to make

Pretty much. That point would be that the EVGA GTX 260 Core 216 SSC is better than the ATI Radeon HD4870 1GB.

 

[turboflame]

from a specs-point of view

Yeah man, my Pentium 4 is still way faster than these new CPUs coming out. Does your Core i7 run at 3.8Ghz on stock speeds? DIDN'T THINK SO.

Enjoy your crappy CPUs that you have to overclock an insane amount just to touch my 3 year old super CPU.

Me and OP know where it's at, your fancy shmancy "benchmarks" are just a sad way for you to justify your crappy purchase, everybody knows those don't matter one bit.

Here is some more math to help out the OP, the GTX260 has three letters in it's model name while the HD4850 only has two, THAT'S 33% MORE LETTERS. Clearly Nvidia wins.

 

[knotknut]

GTX 260 Core 216
$159.99
and Free Shipping

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127409

 

[BoBz89]

the GTX260 has three letters in it's model name while the HD4850 only has two, THAT'S 33% MORE LETTERS. Clearly Nvidia wins.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=5rL&q=3%2F2&btnG=Search

 

[4745454b]

I was going to say nice, but its a weekend special. Hopefully Nvidia will start releasing some nice sub $200 cards soon.

I would try to point out that while dividing by 5 is only an approximation of "nvidia shaders", and core clock speed only means something if the cores are of the same family, but I doubt it would do any good. I would urge the OP and others reading this to just look at the benchmarks. Yes the GTX260 216 is faster. The GTX260 192 isn't really, which is why the 216 model came out. The reason why people suggest the 4870 is that it comes close to the performance, and is generally cheaper. Why spend an extra $25-75 if something else will give you nearly the same results?

 

[turboflame]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=5rL&q=3%2F2&btnG=Search

ಠ_ಠ

 

[cjl]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130441
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121291

These two cards come within $5 of each other.

Now to compare CPUs:

The GTX 260 has 216 Cores, and the 4870 has 800, but they measure it differently, so it really only has 160 NVIDIA-Equivalent cores.
The GTX 260 runs at 675 MHz. And the 4870 runs at 750 Mhz.

Multiply these with the cores, and the NVIDIA wins 145,800 to 120,000.

Now to compare the memory:

The GTX 260 runs at 2304 MHz, with a 448-bit Bandwidth. The 4870 runs at 3600MHz, and 256-bit bandwidth.

Multiply these speeds and widths, and the NVIDIA wins again, 1,032,192 to 921,600.

The GTX 260 has 896MB Memory, and the 4870 has 1024MB Memory.

Multiply the capacities with speeds (Then divide by 1000 to make the number smaller), and the NVIDIA's memory score loses to the 4870, 924,844 to 943,718.4.

So, Recap. The NVIDIA's Memory has roughly 98% of the 4870's potential. The NVIDIA's CPU has roughly 122% of the 4870's potential. Being the same price, it looks to me as if the GTX 260 Core 216 wins.

I don't know a ton about these cards, but from a specs-point of view, the GTX 260 Core 216 wins.

Additional Sources:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/top-10-games-with-radeon-4870-1-gb--geforce-gtx-260-core-216-test/9
http://techgage.com/article/ati_hd_4870_1gb_vs_nvidia_gtx_260216_896mb/7
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1414&pageID=5839
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd4870-1024_10.html#sect0

That last review also shows the GTX OC'd from 675 to 700, yet the 4870 from 750 to 840. Yet the NVIDIA wins over 75% of the time again.

All of your "calculations" are garbage. You can't just arbitrarily say that 160 Nvidia SPs=800 ATI SPs. It doesn't work that way. Sure, there are rough estimates, but there isn't a direct equivalency. For one, the ratio of various components of the core is different between the ATI and Nvidia designs. You have to look at benchmarks, in which the 4870 1GB keeps up with the GTX 260 216 almost 100% of the time, and even beats it in a number of games. Basically, the 4870 is just as fast, and usually a bit cheaper. That is why it is recommended.

 

[chef7734]

If you have an ati crossfire board get ati if you have sli board get nvidia. There problem solved.

 

[rangers]

and i would add that you would have to be retard to buy an nvidia motherboard

 

[IzzyCraft]

New i7 boards some offical support sli ;p

 

[Dekasav]

New i7 boards some offical support sli ;p

Well that just made the whole thing difficult again.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

As ThunderMan would say, its evile Intels fault. I would suggest for the OP to go here http://forum.beyond3d.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43
Start there, ask lots of questions, dont be a fanboy, and youll get answers and learn something

 

[chef7734]

Well that just made the whole thing difficult again.

New i7 boards some offical support sli ;p

Then buy 2 of each and return which ever is slower LOL.

 

[boudy]

Look, the cards are roughly the same. If your a nvidia fanboy, you are obviously going to pick the GTX 260, but if you are a fan of ATI (and their wonderful GPUs lol) the you are obviously going to pick the 4870. Its all going to come down to a matter of preference, since the cards are so close in performance.

The fact that core i7 boards support SLI is extremely dumb. Hopefully, ASROCK will get this out to the public soon,
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ASRock-Motherboard-CrossFireX-SLI,7171.html
and then we can all choose based on performance and price, not compatibility.

 

[spathotan]

Thats a nice board by ASrock, why do you say its dumb? You would rather pay a premium for these features?

ASRock also has one of the better X58 boards.

 

[invisik]

Both great cards. Performs on par with each other. Both have there weakness and strengths choose based on games you play where either the gtx260 or 4870 shines.

 

[L1qu1d]

this was bound to term into a fire

Its recommend for 3 reasons:

A) Generally cheaper
B) For none i7 using users, the Nvidia boards can be a pain (though I haven't had problems with my new board, but my old Striker 2 was terrible).
C) Because 1 gig vs 893 for the same or less money, does that seem fair?

How greedy was Nvidia to place less than 1024 RAM...how much could that have cost?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Whats the bus size ? Maybe thats why the ram size?

 

[L1qu1d]

bus size on the 260 is 448 bit I beleive, and the 4870 256 with GDDR5 + 1 gig, which both can do 1 gig, so i don't know why the 260 is stuck with 896 or w.e amount.