Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Why does everybody recommend 4870's?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Gtx
  • Nvidia
  • Memory
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics Cards
March 15, 2009 12:42:12 AM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

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-...
http://techgage.com/article/ati_hd_4870_1gb_vs_nvidia_g...
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1414&pageID=5839
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-h...

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.

More about : recommend 4870

March 15, 2009 12:57:30 AM

spathotan said:
You linked the most expensive 4870 out there.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

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=N82E168...

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. :D 
Related resources
March 15, 2009 12:59:20 AM

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

Its pointless to continue.
March 15, 2009 1:02:23 AM

spathotan said:
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.
March 15, 2009 1:11:42 AM

why you just seem to be an nvidia fanboy with a point to make
March 15, 2009 1:20:49 AM

rangers said:
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. :D 
March 15, 2009 1:26:06 AM

raybob95 said:
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.
a c 224 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
a b } Memory
March 15, 2009 1:40:15 AM

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?
a b U Graphics card
a b } Memory
March 15, 2009 1:55:26 AM

raybob95 said:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

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-...
http://techgage.com/article/ati_hd_4870_1gb_vs_nvidia_g...
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1414&pageID=5839
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-h...

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.
March 15, 2009 2:17:50 AM

If you have an ati crossfire board get ati if you have sli board get nvidia. There problem solved.
March 15, 2009 2:25:54 AM

and i would add that you would have to be retard to buy an nvidia motherboard
March 15, 2009 2:34:03 AM

New i7 boards some offical support sli ;p
March 15, 2009 2:48:45 AM

IzzyCraft said:
New i7 boards some offical support sli ;p


Well that just made the whole thing difficult again.
a b U Graphics card
March 15, 2009 3:03:47 AM

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
March 15, 2009 3:09:48 AM

Dekasav said:
Well that just made the whole thing difficult again.


IzzyCraft said:
New i7 boards some offical support sli ;p

Then buy 2 of each and return which ever is slower LOL.
March 15, 2009 3:35:05 AM

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-Cro...
and then we can all choose based on performance and price, not compatibility.
March 15, 2009 3:40:28 AM

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.
a b U Graphics card
March 15, 2009 12:30:11 PM

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.
March 15, 2009 12:41:51 PM

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?
:) 
a b U Graphics card
March 15, 2009 12:43:59 PM

Whats the bus size ? Maybe thats why the ram size?
March 15, 2009 12:58:38 PM

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.
a b U Graphics card
March 15, 2009 1:13:14 PM

Double the 448 and you have 896. Quad 256= 1gig. Multis of 2 of the bus
March 15, 2009 1:21:14 PM

yes, thats true, but doubtful that 128 Megs could give latency issues even for 448 bit.

Look at the 512 bit 285 GTX, its getting a 2 GB step up, we should see what that does...though I doubt it will do much, it should help with 2560x1600 AA:) 
a b U Graphics card
March 15, 2009 1:25:48 PM

You also have throughput to consider. GDDR5 with a 256 is actually faster as well, and thats with GDDR5 at only 900Mhz, which we will soon see at 1250. Having more doesnt help unless you can move it out, or having 1: a larger bus or 2: a faster ram. Of course the core has to be able to push it all as well, and the game needs to be able to use it as well
a b U Graphics card
March 15, 2009 1:28:52 PM

Ive heard possibly Crysis may gain from this, but very few games/res/settings will actually benefit from that much ram
March 15, 2009 1:29:14 PM

again thats true, but to me it just seems to waste the 260 GTX when compared to the upcoming 4890 (I'm not going to say the 4870), since its Bus Limited.

Though making it 512 bit, would just mean a 280 GTX with lower SPs, which wouldn't justify the cost.

I want to see the GDDR5 potential. If the 285 GTX would've been GDDR5, I think we would've seen things we wouldn't be able to understand:p 
a b U Graphics card
March 15, 2009 1:37:15 PM

Well, from what Ive read, the top nVidia cards arent that BW starved. A lil yes, but nto too much. Theyve balanced pretty well there this time compared to the G9x series. Just look at the AA perf of the G200 vs the G90 series . It has better memory management like ATIs 4xxx series does, not quite as good, but close.
Having said that, it wouldve helped, but it wouldve been more help in cost savings for the company, as the trace lengths on all the various designs that nVidia and its partners do would be vastly reduced in cost, as GDDR5 doesnt require exact trace lengths, as well as the smaller bus and thinner pcbs, meaning less layers because of all those traces. That wouldve made a greater impact in nVidias concerns, our concerns as consumers? Itd help, but it wouldnt be mind blowing
March 15, 2009 1:44:30 PM

GDDR5 dosent need the 512mb Bus, its speed makes up for the small bus size. If they were to slap a 512mb bus on a GDDR5 board it would produce some nice benches though. And yea, I wish my GTX 285 was GDDR5 :( 

Hasnt all this already been discussed before :pt1cable:  Refer to my second post in the thread up top. This thread is pure bait.
a b U Graphics card
March 15, 2009 1:50:38 PM

It has, I was just splainin a few things, such as the multis being required on the bus/ran relationship.
As far as this being a flamer thread, only if you swallow the bait. Some people reading this may not know a few things said here
March 15, 2009 1:51:02 PM

Protip for fanboys: Recommend opposing sides product, get yours cheaper :D 
March 15, 2009 1:52:06 PM

True. But then again their are like 2 threads on this every day on average lol. This reminds me of X1900XTX vs Nvidias catchup card
a b U Graphics card
March 15, 2009 2:13:21 PM

Yea, but sum pepple dint lern sew gude
March 15, 2009 4:51:17 PM

Would that be me? lol

I honestly miss the soft modding days.

I still hope every day that a 9500 pro card would come otu of either company (not performance wise haha).

I soft modded my old 9500 Pro to 9700 pro using omega Drivers in the old days....then I got the 9800 XT and sold the 9700 pro to my cousin:( 
March 15, 2009 4:57:09 PM

I rememeber when the X300 first came out. The performance was mind blowing. Then Nvidia killed it with the 6600GT. My timeline might be a little off but you get the idea :) 
March 15, 2009 5:20:20 PM

I remember the X1800, I was DAMN this card is going placed, not even a couple of months later, X1900 AIW, which matched it then the X1950 XT...and I was crushed, so I sold my X1800 and grabbed a XTX for the same price as an XT because the guy put in the wrong code:D 

The system works:D 
March 15, 2009 5:21:16 PM

turboflame said:
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.


If you remember to add in the rest of the specs, like Intel's HTT, SSE4, The fact that i7's are Quad Core, you would see that from an OVERALL SPECS POINT OF VIEW, the new i7, even with it's lower Clock Speed, CRUSHES your *** Pentium 4.
March 15, 2009 5:23:17 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Whats the bus size ? Maybe thats why the ram size?



Yeah, if you guys had read my original post, it talked about how the NVIDIA's Memory, while slightly smaller, was also slightly faster.
March 15, 2009 5:23:53 PM

........ :heink:  WOOSH!
a b U Graphics card
March 15, 2009 5:24:09 PM

I would always buy ATI over Nvidia when both cards are the same price/performance.

The main reason for that is because I'm not convinced Nvidia can be trusted as much as ATI can be. They have both done some questionable things it's just Nvidia tends to do it a bit more.
March 15, 2009 5:25:26 PM

raybob95 said:
Yeah, if you guys had read my original post, it talked about how the NVIDIA's Memory, while slightly smaller, was also slightly faster.


No, Nvidias memory is not faster than ATI's. The GDDR5 on the 4870/4870X2/4890 is faster than the GDDR3 Nvidia uses.
March 15, 2009 5:28:59 PM

spathotan said:
No, Nvidias memory is not faster than ATI's. The GDDR5 on the 4870/4870X2/4890 is faster than the GDDR3 Nvidia uses.


But it has a bigger bandwidth.

READ MY ORIGINAL POST.

NVIDIA Memory: 1,032,192 bits/sec
ATI Memory: 921,600 bits/sec
March 15, 2009 5:32:54 PM

raybob95 said:
If you remember to add in the rest of the specs, like Intel's HTT, SSE4, The fact that i7's are Quad Core, you would see that from an OVERALL SPECS POINT OF VIEW, the new i7, even with it's lower Clock Speed, CRUSHES your *** Pentium 4.


I'm surprised that you are unable to apply that same logic to graphics cards.
March 15, 2009 5:35:24 PM

Don't you think that for half the bus width as the 260 GTX, it can still almost match....well isn't that impressive?

I just think u have green fever, its very common, and easily caught...My prescription would be Nvidia forums.

Learn to play down the middle little boy

Bye bye now
March 15, 2009 5:35:38 PM

turboflame said:
I'm surprised that you are unable to apply that same logic to graphics cards.


So tell me, specifically. What other SPECS about the graphics cards should I consider or that I forgot to mention? :sarcastic: 
March 15, 2009 5:42:09 PM

raybob95 said:
So tell me, specifically. What other SPECS about the graphics cards should I consider or that I forgot to mention? :sarcastic: 


The architecture.

You can't just randomly add/multiply/divide arbitrary specs in order to accurately measure performance between two entirely different GPUs. This is why you're getting flamed, your topic is completely meaningless.
a b U Graphics card
March 15, 2009 5:42:40 PM

RBE's? TMU's? z fill? Unified vs non unified shader? Pixel fill rate actual vs potential? etc etc
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest