Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

6850 CF vs gtx 470 sli

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 17, 2011 5:57:26 PM

Hi,Guys.Looking for an upgrade from 5850.I have 2 options gtx 470 sli(used) or 6850 CF (new).Which one should i go for if both cost the same?
Power consumption is not a big problem for me.
Resolution:-1600*900
PSU:-850 tx

More about : 6850 gtx 470 sli

a c 214 U Graphics card
January 17, 2011 6:06:54 PM

Looks at this review(at the bottom of page)..
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6850-6870-cross...

Not much of a difference from a 5850cf compared to each a gtx470sli and a 6850cf.I would stay with your current 5850 and just buy a new one.But to answer your question the 470sli is faster than a 6850cf.
Even if you did go for a 6850 why not a 6870 for $30 more, imo.They are the highest scaling cards when it comes to crossfire.

What's your current CPU&speed?
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 17, 2011 6:28:05 PM

I'd recommend a single card solution. Perhaps a 6970 or 570. I used 470's in SLI for a while. Even giving them an extra slot between them to breath, they were noisy cards, much noisier than 5870's in CF (which should be similar to the 6870's).

I'd recommend adding a 2nd 5850, but if you wanted to start over, then I'd look at a 570 or 6970. 470's in SLI will be less enjoyable than a 5850 CF, unless physX is important to you.

What is the purpose of improving your graphical performance. At your resolution, there isn't much a 5850 won't be able to max out. Is there a particular game you need performance in?
m
0
l
Related resources
January 18, 2011 9:50:01 AM

I will probably be looking to max Shogun 2,Metro 2033,crysis 2(I know no one would be able to max it).I prefer 6850's to 5850 cf due to their better tessellation performance and also less haggle with crossfire with 6850's.
As for the 6870's they would cost me 140$(both) more approx cause i am not from US.
Cpu core i5 750 @ 3.2 ghz
max possible oc on my cpu:-4.2 ghz,stable.
By the way a new 5850 cost about 310$ here.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 18, 2011 12:09:57 PM

What motherboard do you have? Most MB support either SLI or Cf, but not both, Also do you know what the second PCI-e slot will run at? Some MBs only support X16X4 which would NOT be good for either SLI or Crossfire!
m
0
l
January 18, 2011 12:37:22 PM

GTX 470 SLI will be better. 6850's are not in its league but the 6870's are.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 18, 2011 4:24:28 PM

+1 to Purple Stank. Always check out the benchies for the setups you're looking at. As for Metro 2033, 470s in SLI get just about the exact same FPS as 5850s in Crossfire (though they may win out in min FPS). 1920x1200 (or 1080) is what Guru3d focuses it's comparison charts on. Most gamers that are invested in several hundred dollars of high end graphics cards are probably playing at that resolution if not 2560x1600 (which requires a $1,000+ flagship monitor).

At your resolution you don't need a lot of graphics muscle to max games. If you're looking to improve your experience you may want to think about upgrading your monitor first to something with higher resolution (or turn up the resolution on yours if you're able). You'll be surprised at the extra fidelity you'd get moving you to 1920x1200.

Since the pricing where you're located seems to be very high for a 5850, I would select the lowest cost of either 6850cf, 470 sli, or another single 5850. I would find it hard to believe that a 6850 or a 470 would be less expensive than a 5850 no matter the market. Adding another 5850 is most likely the best value upgrade path for you right now!

*6850 only requires 1 6-pin PCI-e connector each, though with your 850w PSU this isn't an issue.
m
0
l
January 18, 2011 4:57:21 PM

My motherboard is p55 GD65 so it supports crossfire as well as sli at 8x/8x.
The price of 5850 has not dropped here from it's launching price while the 6850 are pretty close to the US price.As for the gtx 470 they are costly than both 5850 or 6850 if i buy them new .But as i have mentioned initially that they are used 470's(second hand).
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 18, 2011 6:11:25 PM

after taking in all the posts I would say if a second 5850 is a ripoff then go for the gtx 470s they will be more powerful then dual 6850s but require more power and likely create more heat...
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
January 18, 2011 7:02:43 PM

I still think going with a 5850 is the best soultion.You already have 1 so i don't see the point in throwing it away for some other setup that will only give you a 5-10fps gain.
Wait a couple more weeks and see if the prices drop for the 5850.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 18, 2011 8:00:15 PM

purple stank said:
I still think going with a 5850 is the best soultion.You already have 1 so i don't see the point in throwing it away for some other setup that will only give you a 5-10fps gain.
Wait a couple more weeks and see if the prices drop for the 5850.


the op said the 5850 was overpriced wherever they are from, and I think mentioned they were getting a deal on sli 470s or crossfire 6850s thats the only reason I spoke against the 5850 which is still a good deal here in the US but if it is the same price as when it came out in the ops country then its def not a good deal imo. really there is not a huge difference imo but why pay 2009 prices for older tech.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
January 18, 2011 8:58:27 PM

I know he said that prices are higher for the 5850.But what i'm trying to say is that if he already owns one it seems like a waste to go for a differnt setup if you already have one.
That is why i am saying to wait until the prices drop.Or he could sell his current 5850.I just figured he was was gonna put it in a box and let it sit somewhere,which is what i dread.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 18, 2011 9:02:19 PM

Frankly, at 1600x900, I'd recommend going with a single higher end card. 6950/70 or 570/80.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 18, 2011 9:08:35 PM

yeah I mean either way he goes he will have rock solid performance at 1600X900 and really should just about have great 1600X900 with a single 5850 I would think so... this thread is getting boring... its like the same advice/argument over and over again
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 18, 2011 10:25:34 PM

bystander said:
470's in SLI will be less enjoyable than a 5850 CF, unless physX is important to you.


I agree with all you said but this. That's purely an opinion. And honestly one that makes no sense to me. GTX 470's in SLI (although hot and loud) perform better than 5850's. To me, performance is more enjoyable. :) 

As it is, the OP should probably just buy a second 5850 and Crossfire it. It's cheaper and should perform darn well.

EDIT: Oh.. yeah and at 1600x900... why do you need more than a single ATI 5850? Metro 2033 does look pretty cool maxed out (at 1080p) but it's not that fun. I played it through once and haven't been able to get myself to play through the first mission again yet.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 18, 2011 10:55:31 PM

jerreece said:
I agree with all you said but this. That's purely an opinion. And honestly one that makes no sense to me. GTX 470's in SLI (although hot and loud) perform better than 5850's. To me, performance is more enjoyable. :) 

As it is, the OP should probably just buy a second 5850 and Crossfire it. It's cheaper and should perform darn well.

EDIT: Oh.. yeah and at 1600x900... why do you need more than a single ATI 5850? Metro 2033 does look pretty cool maxed out (at 1080p) but it's not that fun. I played it through once and haven't been able to get myself to play through the first mission again yet.



agreed about the single 5850 and the sli 470s.... 2033 is crap to me, looks darn good but not really a good game by any means imo, graphics don't make everything.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 18, 2011 11:01:16 PM

The reason I don't like the 470's in SLI is due to noise levels. I even had them spaced 3 slots a part, so there was a full slot worth of space between them. When ever full load hit, bam it was like a lawnmower. I've used 5870's in CF before, with the extra space, and it never came anywhere near as loud.

Given that either would max out performance and then some. I'd rule out the 470's.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 18, 2011 11:04:14 PM

^^ fair enough but to me noise level is not that bothersome, that being said a second 5850is the most logical decision bc 6850s in crossfire will be about the same, but the difference is you have to buy two of them....
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
January 19, 2011 12:12:46 AM

^agree
Thats what i've been saying the whole time.
m
0
l
January 19, 2011 12:28:48 AM

Metro2033 and Crysis 2? nVidia card FTW!! Sell your 5850 and grab a GTX570.
m
0
l
January 19, 2011 6:24:17 AM

Thank you all guys for replying.I think some of you guys are confused about the 5850 that i presently own.If i go with 6850 cf or 470 sli then i will sell this 5850 for the price of a new 6850.So i won't lose money on that.And some of you guys are right that 6850 cf vs 5850 cf only have a few frames difference but with 6850 cf is less haggle and they have better tessellation performance too.
m
0
l
January 19, 2011 6:37:55 AM

Both Metro2033 and Crysis2 favor nVidia cards. However, a single GTX470 runs immensely hot not mentioned to two in SLI. Hence, I suggest that you get a single GTX570 or two GTX560.

p.s. GTX560 should be released in a few days.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 19, 2011 3:17:48 PM

andy5174 said:
Both Metro2033 and Crysis2 favor nVidia cards. However, a single GTX470 runs immensely hot not mentioned to two in SLI. Hence, I suggest that you get a single GTX570 or two GTX560.

p.s. GTX560 should be released in a few days.


Where did you see info on Crysis 2 benchmarks comparing cards? Crysis 1, if anything, favors ATI.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2011 3:49:44 PM

andy5174 said:
However, a single GTX470 runs immensely hot not mentioned to two in SLI.


That kind of depends on airflow and cooling ability. A single GTX 470 does indeed run pretty hot. But when I put in a second one I honestly didn't see much difference in my maximum operating temperatures. However, that's because my motherboard allows 3 slots between the cards (there's a single slot space open between them). And I have a pretty large case with good air flow through it.

But, it all comes down to what you consider hot, and what you consider too hot. I just live with the fact that the 470 operates at high temperatures. But Furmark tests haven't pushed my SLI setup any hotter than it did a single 470 (in my particular case & room).
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 19, 2011 4:20:57 PM

jerreece said:
That kind of depends on airflow and cooling ability. A single GTX 470 does indeed run pretty hot. But when I put in a second one I honestly didn't see much difference in my maximum operating temperatures. However, that's because my motherboard allows 3 slots between the cards (there's a single slot space open between them). And I have a pretty large case with good air flow through it.

But, it all comes down to what you consider hot, and what you consider too hot. I just live with the fact that the 470 operates at high temperatures. But Furmark tests haven't pushed my SLI setup any hotter than it did a single 470 (in my particular case & room).


It's not so much the heat issue, as the fan control will prevent it from going beyond it's operating temperature, but the noise levels ramp up pretty darn high as the fans have to maintain it's operating temperature.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
January 19, 2011 4:22:10 PM

+1 to wait for gtx 560.You will see price drops for some/all cards and the gtx560 benchmarks would be intresting to see b4 u make a purcahse
m
0
l
January 19, 2011 4:50:39 PM

For how much time do i have to wait for the 560's and what's their expected price.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2011 5:00:52 PM

i think a week or less but maybe someone else knows for sure?
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 12:50:12 AM

bystander said:
Where did you see info on Crysis 2 benchmarks comparing cards? Crysis 1, if anything, favors ATI.

nVidia cards are much better in handling images especially 3D ones!!

AMD cards usually give a little more fps than comparable nVidia ones because they don't handle each image properly (or more correctly, not as good as nVidia)!!

There was a review in THG showing that even a GTX260 in DX10 generates much better image quality than HD5870 in DX10 and on par with 5870 in DX11.

AMD video cards are cheaper for the same reason as their CPUs. If AMD were better, they would ask more like they did in 2005/2006 CPU market.

You get what you paid for!!
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 12:54:30 AM

andy5174 said:
nVidia cards are much better in handling images especially 3D ones!!

AMD cards usually give a little more fps than comparable nVidia ones because they don't handle each image properly (or more correctly, not as good as nVidia)!!

There was a review in THG showing that even a GTX260 in DX10 generates much better image quality than HD5870 in DX10 and on par with 5870 in DX11.

AMD video cards are cheaper for the same reason as their CPUs. If AMD were better, they would ask more like they did in 2005/2006 CPU market.

You get what you paid for!!


What you wrote had not a thing to do with what you quoted.

You are also wrong on all counts. The only time the image quality is different, is if you don't set the image quality slider in the CCC to the right. It seems Nvidia's control panel default image quality is higher than ATI's default, but they are the same as long as you set them to the same quality.

If the cards are about the same cost FPS compared to FPS. The 2gb cards are a little exception, you pay about $20 extra for the extra ram.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 1:13:04 AM

bystander said:
What you wrote had not a thing to do with what you quoted.

You are also wrong on all counts. The only time the image quality is different, is if you don't set the image quality slider in the CCC to the right. It seems Nvidia's control panel default image quality is higher than ATI's default, but they are the same as long as you set them to the same quality.

If the cards are about the same cost FPS compared to FPS. The 2gb cards are a little exception, you pay about $20 extra for the extra ram.

You don't even know what you talking about.

All your comments is falsehood. Turn all the settings, AA and image quality to highest and you will see how much worse AMD cards would perform.

AMD cards turn all quality down because they have to, in order to generate more fps to trick most buyers who only pay attention on fps.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 1:15:27 AM

BTW, AMD also sets their CPUs to much higher frequency than intel as well to trick the majority who don't know how to OC.

An OCed 760 can easily wipe out any high end Phenom II including X6 in most cases.

@OP:
SLI is much better than CF, so just wait for the 560s.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 1:37:59 AM

andy5174 said:
You don't even know what you talking about.

All your comments is falsehood. Turn all the settings, AA and image quality to highest and you will see how much worse AMD cards would perform.

AMD cards turn all quality down because they have to, in order to generate more fps to trick most buyers who only pay attention on fps.


Here is a test of the two cards you mentioned. The 285 and the 5870.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/09/22/amds_ati_rade...

Who is talking falsehood now?
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 1:45:46 AM

It was DX9 instead of DX10. GTX260 in DX9 generates similar image quality as HD5870 in DX11.

Imagine how much worse HD4870 (which cost about the same as GTX260) would perform in past days.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 1:47:59 AM



Why do you keep quoting the wrong posts?

Next, they didn't mention anything about what is better filtering or not. Only that they looked a little different.

The one I posted actually compares them, and proves the 5870 had more accurate filtering. Although they didn't compare DX9. Another thing that could have played a part in differences, is the guys on THG didn't know the default settings in the CCC was different from those on Nvidia cards at first (they got a bit miffed of the differences in one of their reviews), so it's possible they weren't compared correctly.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 1:50:45 AM

WOW, newer high end 5870's default image quality must be worst than the fkn old mid-range 260.

Gosh! Wrong post, wrong quote, Wrong comment, unfair comparison blah blah blah...

Everything is wrong as long as it doesn't favor AMD.

You win, AMD win. Happy now?
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 1:52:12 AM

andy5174 said:
Gosh! Wrong post, wrong quote, Wrong comment, unfair comparison blah blah blah...

Everything is wrong as long as it doesn't favor AMD.

You win, AMD win. Happy now?


I posted a review that proved the 5870 had better image quality. You posted a post that said they had different image quality.

Use your logic skills and think for yourself.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 1:55:24 AM

Are you blind? Can't even tell the obvious/huge difference from the picture?

WOW, newer high end 5870's default image quality must be worse than the fkn old mid-range 260. How pathetic?!

So I guess 7970's default will also be worse than 460 to achieve a little better fps than GTX5xx, not mentioned to 6850.

Don't even talk about logic when you don't have it.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 2:02:11 AM

andy5174 said:
Are you blind? Can't even tell the obvious/huge difference from the picture?

WOW, newer high end 5870's default image quality must be worst than the fkn old mid-range 260.

So I guess 6970's default is also worse than 460, not mentioned to 6850.


The default settings in the CCC for Catalyst A.I. are set to high rather than high quality. Once slid to high quality, they have similar results.

That image is too small, and not side by side. I can't tell a difference in image quality. I do see a difference in brightness, but brightness is not image quality. That's not much of a comparison. Some will prefer brightness over darker images.

And I have to laugh at your assumption that I feel AMD must always be best, considering I was originally saying they were equal, you were the one making the fanboy like comments that Nvidia did everything better.

As someone who uses both, I don't like the 470's due to noise levels. If you look at my other posts, I often recommend the 570, sometimes I recommend the 6950/70. Sometimes I recommend the 460, sometimes the 6870.

You are the only one who can't see there is balance
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 2:06:55 AM

Much older mid-range GTX260 generates better image quality than much newer high-end HD5870 in DX9.

Use your logic and think what it means and what would happen when comparing the image quality of same generation nVidia and AMD cards.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 2:16:55 AM

andy5174 said:
Much older mid-range GTX260 generates better image quality than much newer high-end HD5870 in DX9.

Use your logic and think what it means and what would happen when comparing the image quality of same generation nVidia and AMD cards.


Again, you didn't provide any thing that showed that. All you showed was there was a difference. I wouldn't mind seeing if there was truth to that, but the only things I have been able to find, says the opposite.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 2:24:00 AM

bystander said:
Again, you didn't provide any thing that showed that. All you showed was there was a difference. I wouldn't mind seeing if there was truth to that, but the only things I have been able to find, says the opposite.

Thanks for making me double post this. We are talking about the "image quality DIFFERENCE", so all I wanted to show is the difference, huge difference!!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/aliens-vs-predator-...

GTX260(DX9) v.s. HD5870(DX9/11)
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 2:25:49 AM

Are you gonna say this is due to much newer high-end 5870's default setting being worse than much older mid-range 260?
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 2:32:57 AM

Again, I can't tell image quality difference. I see brightness differences. Something that you can just adjust. Gamma settings change that as well.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 2:38:02 AM

Only brightness difference?!!

There's 3 pictures in the dynamic image, 260 in DX9, 5870 in DX9 and 5870 in DX11.

Are you only looking at 5870 in DX11 and ignore 5870 in DX9?

Image shape has nothing to do with gamma.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 2:47:39 AM

Like I said, it's small, it's fast, and it doesn't compare image quality side by side. Just because the brightness levels look like the DX11 version, doesn't mean the image quality (texture filtering quality) is better or worse.

What if it should be bright like that?

I play with both, I personally don't see a difference in image quality between the two companies other than AA. ATI has some new AA methods that I like. The 470 has physX.

If I were to choose again, I would not have purchased the 470's (mostly an issue with the noise levels, but also due to MLAA and SSAA). That's based on what I prefer. Obviously others like physX or have other desires.

Anyways, you are obviously a rabid Nvidia fan. I won't waste any more time on this.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 2:50:17 AM

OK, I will separate them for you.

260(DX9) vs 5870(DX9)
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 2:52:59 AM

Want to know how I did it? Simply by pressing the "Print Screen" key twice which you could have done yourself.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 3:07:40 AM

And exactly which is better? The Radeon version appears to show a couple light sources the Nvidia one doesn't. When looking at areas of similar darkness, the quality of the textures looks the same.
m
0
l
!