• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

3870XT 512 v 8800GT 512

helmutcheese said:
Dave he is saying that, the comment means the ATI card will slow down rally bad with AA. (I assume your reading it backwards).

No idea what game but I get a RES like 1024x768 or less.
Click to expand...

Eh? I was saying that the 2900xt used to suffer when aa was added and i read that the 3870 has the same problem. Did you read what i said wrong?

Or are you talking about the 8AA thing, didn't he say that the 3870 beats the GT when 8aa is added in some game.
 
I thought you did not understand the comment about the hooker and the new ATI card with AA.

" Aww i never noticed they didn't have AA, that would explain it. Doesn't tjhe 3870 still have the same weakness the 2900xt has to aa. i remember reading in a nother review actually that nvida still whipes the floor when it comes to aa being added. Cant remember where though so i cant support it, think it may have been one of the earlyer reviews. "

You did not seem to know there was no AA on but it wont matter, it will only beat the ATI more with AA on.

Then you asked a question bellow it. (in bold) :)
 
helmutcheese said:
I thought you did not understand the comment about the hooker and the new ATI card with AA.

" Aww i never noticed they didn't have AA, that would explain it. Doesn't tjhe 3870 still have the same weakness the 2900xt has to aa. i remember reading in a nother review actually that nvida still whipes the floor when it comes to aa being added. Cant remember where though so i cant support it, think it may have been one of the earlyer reviews. "

You did not seem to know there was no AA on but it wont matter, it will only beat the ATI more with AA on.

Then you asked a question bellow it. (in bold) :)
Click to expand...

No, i just didn't notice there wasn't any AA on the benchmarks he posted while claimng they were so similar in performance.
 
LoadsaMoney said:
I said it was GTX performance, which it is, as last i knew a couple of frames or so slower means absolute bugger all. :)

Oh look my GT is about 4x frames slower than the GTX here in this game, oh look only 6x in this one, and in this one its only 2x, jesus its getting obliterated :eek:, its nowhere ******* near GTX performance, wish id lashed out £300 on that now instead of £160 on this heap of ***** of a GT. :mad:



Look at when the x1950 XTX came out, everyone was saying to buy the much x1900 XTX's for the same performance, even though the x1950 XTX was a couple or so frames faster.

fact is the GT is around the GTX performance, all reviews show this, the 3870 is around 2900 XT performance, same in some, couple of frames faster in some, all reviews show this, Gibbo even said the 3870 was around 2900 XT performance, now last time i saw, the 2900 XT was getting trounced of the GTX, so what miracles have the driver team pulled off then, if now your saying the 2900 XT is GTX performance, as it clearly must be now if its around GT performance, as the GT is GTX performance, so that would make the 3870 GTX performance to, but it clearly isn't from the reviews ive seen, its nowhere near the GTX.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry and I don't mean to start an argument but @ 1920x1200 + AA&AF it's still GTX>GT, nothing is going to change that, it's clear the rivarly between GTX and GT owners is'nt going to stop anytime soon on these forums but GT users have to accept that the GTX is still the more powerful card and when o/c'd can't be touched by the GT, if you research into it it goes beyound average frame rates, the GTX goes ahead quite far on minimum frame rates on quite a few games which I feel is more important.
 
Last edited:
the site is german, but graphs are understandable. There are far more reviews of many games, resolutions and AA/AF settinsg than over reviews I've seen. Some of the games they test at 8xAA/16xAF and on those games the 3870 is ~20% faster than the GT at 1600x1200 (inc Oblivion, and at playable frame rates for example).

At 1600x1200 4xAA/16xAF they have the GT as 8% faster overall, but maybe that's because they test many games, old and new, and not just Crysis, Lost Planet, Call of Juarez and WiC :)

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/2007/test_ati_radeon_hd_3870_rv670/28/
 
Randell said:
the site is german, but graphs are understandable. There are far more reviews of many games, resolutions and AA/AF settinsg than over reviews I've seen. Some of the games they test at 8xAA/16xAF and on those games the 3870 is ~20% faster than the GT at 1600x1200 (inc Oblivion, and at playable frame rates for example).

At 1600x1200 4xAA/16xAF they have the GT as 8% faster overall, but maybe that's because they test many games, old and new, and not just Crysis, Lost Planet, Call of Juarez and WiC :)

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/2007/test_ati_radeon_hd_3870_rv670/28/
Click to expand...

So the 3870 is 20% faster then the GT now huh.... right

And the GT is only 8% faster after all those benchmarks i showed showing gaps of 20-35% some near 40%. Ok then.


And your results that you seem to love even though they show up to 36% gap between GT and 3870 dont agree with those results.

I know its only 4xaa and not the af but the AF doesn't have anywhere near as big difference as the AF and those results dont add up.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3151&p=6

Further more i know this review probably has earlyer drivers but they get 56fps with the GT with 4x AA 8x AF on toms hardware.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/geforce_8800_gt/page9.html


O and your saying its faster in crysis, lost planet? MMM

English results dissagree:

8igdave said:
Sounds more like you cant afford a GT therefore think all of us are just putting the 3870 down because we can. Perhaps its because we would rather the extra framse the GT gives?

MMM 1 review with figures showing a 40% difference in oblivion as well.

How about some other benchmarks?

(the xxx version is a factory overclocked 8800GT and is what the 8800GT would do if it was overclocked pritty much, but you can ignore that if it makes you feel any better about how good the 3870 is)

COD4:

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/3870-XXX/COD4.php

GOW (Is capped at 63 hence why the GTs are at 63 but the 3870 doesn't even make it to that and its likely the 8800GT would go faster then 63)

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/3870-XXX/gow.php

World in conflict:

As far as im consered the difference between 33 and 45 is the difference between makign a game playerble or not:

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/3870-XXX/wic.php


Crysis:

Thats about 40% difference i beleive:

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/3870-XXX/crysis.php

Lost planet:

Almost 30% difference

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/3870-XXX/lostplanet.php


Might as well add in overclocked xxx GT vs overclocked 3870 is roughly 25-30% difference in crysis:

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/3870-XXX/faster.php
Click to expand...

8igdave said:
O i got some more for you:

Far cry:

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=703&p=3

140fps vs 97 fps tahts a huge difference. Fear however shows little difference but thast because it relys a lot on the hard drive and cpu.

Stalker and supreme comander:

Obiously not supreme comander as its cpu based but stalker once again shows a big difference:

125 fps vs 94 fps

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=703&p=5
Click to expand...


Enough, fed up of arguing this with you. First you claim they are neck and neck, then 15% difference now your claiming the 3870 is actually faster by 20%. Sorry but i cant be bothered in arguing this any more. Beleive what you want.
 
Last edited:
well I was fed up with you, but you were asking where I saw the 3870 is faster than the GT at 8xAA, I show you, you misquote me (yet again) then get huffy. LMAO
 
My ZX Spectrum Microdrive is faster than your Commodore 64 Tape player.

Seriously, they're both good graphics cards, and you shouldn't lose sleep over what are fairly trivial differences.
 
caff said:
Seriously, they're both good graphics cards, and you shouldn't lose sleep over what are fairly trivial differences.
Click to expand...

you know I totally agree, and I have never said the GT isn't a good card (quote clearly its a great card) or worth buying, but I'm jumped on, misquoted and attacked for no real reason, I'm just trying to show my reasoning. Even though every point I've made is ignored or for some reason isn't valid :confused:
 
Yup, same. Have seen some reviews that show up poor performance of AA/AF on the GT compared to the 3870. But, and this is a "but...", this seems only to be in selected benches, and is not the overall picture from what I've seen.

The GT seems to be faster in general, and in some cases that margin appears to be significant. Oh, and has anyone seen a 3870 at 1ghz yet? I've seen figures for an 8800gt at 850mhz on the core (and a huge shader overclock as well). The fps was actually not that impressive in crysis, I was very surprised (given that the results were in 1280*1024). On very high + x4 aa it only managed 24fps on average *eek*. So basically.. next generation please :D

For whatever the reasons are, the gt is still the better bang for buck card out there compared to the 3870. If you can afford it, go for it, if not then settle for the 3870.

Matthew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom