4870 on way back...

[Duke]

24xAA is a bit pointless if you ask me - especially with wide screen resolutions like 1680x1050 upwards.

 

[Rroff]

I always use 4x - yeah if you stop and compare 16+ side by side with 4x it looks a tiny bit nicer especially on distant thin objects - but when your actually moving about and playing you just don't notice it...

 

[DarkMatter]

i see no point in over 4xAA. the comparisons ive found on the internet i just feel are pretty anal... considering the performance decrease from enabling 8x+ AA. At lower resolutions like 13x8 AA really helps but at 19x12... i feel its pretty much wasted.

But ofc thats my own oppion.

 

[thegoonden]

Thought so LOL



Actually, high AA is gorgeous in racing games, it's amazing to see such clear detail at such distance (with full blast AF of course), and without it the barriers and fences, and particularly the track edge white line, sort of distract my eye or something.


4x or 8x is fine in FPS's and even less in strategy, but I DO adore setting the daftest practical settings in driving games.

I just suspected the ATI fundamentalists considered 4x "high", seems I was right.


BTW, my eyesight's awful and I can see difference in the higher modes, in fact I sometimes wonder if it's because I'm so long sighted that aliasing bothers me so much more than it bugs other people. (I'm even trying to figure out if there are any media players that can do AA, because sitting 6 feet away I can see a right wiggly looking race track edge, right now as it happens.

 

[GoRedwings19]

Well what you have to consider is that ati cards seem to favour MS AA. So they can do high amounts of MS AA if you require it.

 

[thegoonden]

What about SSAA, can they do that?

 

[Dr_Fartypants]

What about SSAA, can they do that?

Yes, but using shader power, which obviously takes away from general GPU performance significantly.

 

[thegoonden]

Yes, but using shader power, which obviously takes away from general GPU performance significantly.

What about relative to an 8800?
Some games run fine up to 32xSSAA for me (others just break completely), so I'd need the ATI to be much better than that for over 200 quid really.


If they can only do 16xMSAA, then I may as well save my money as everything I play can already do 60fps with that turned on, except crysis (as usual) and Bioshock.

Just seen that 2xNvidia cards can offer 64x in SLI......can 2xATI's do something simillar?



I hate to bang on about this, but can you imagine how miffed I would be to offload 200-300 for a 1GB 4870, and find it runs worse that my current ancient card with medium to high AA?


I don't think "a bunch of ATI fundamentalists told me it was great and it's not" is a valid reason for a refund, so I want to be sure. Googling for "4870 performance at 24x" yields no worthy results I can see. (that's assuming 24x is the SS mode, which now I think about it, I do seem to remember seeing mentioned on the 4850 I was playing with).

It's basically the only thing that is driving me to upgrade, the thought of the same perf I have now but with higher IQ.



EDIT: this is so hard for me because I had a terrible time with my lastr ATI card, have used NV since and wasn't exactly knocked out by the 4850 user experience (many of the things that drove me nuts on my 9800pro are STILL there.....eg....reseting the display every time you hit apply in CCC.....moving the mouse back to the screen scentre.....the ocassional black screened boot and so on). I HATE the thought of a 280GTX, too hot, too power hungry, so I need cajoling to make the fina move to ATI.

The reason I keep referring to ATI "fundies" is just that, while I do not see the bugs on NV that would drive Them crackers, they do not see the ATI things that may make me put an axe through the card either.

APologies if the EDIT is full of typos, can't read what I'm typing, Opera hates the edit page and I have to put it into user mode, which gives me light blue on white as my colours....UGG (it gets those from the system).

 

[Shocky-FM]

This is the problem for 8800GTX users, these cards just don't offer big improvements in the games that matter and in the games they do, the extra performance was never really needed, like COD4 for example.

The only card thats going to really provide an improvment big enough to impress is a GTX280 or 9800GX2.

 

[thegoonden]

This is the problem for 8800GTX users, these cards just don't offer big improvements in the games that matter and in the games they do, the extra performance was never really needed, like COD4 for example.

The only card thats going to really provide an improvment big enough to impress is a GTX280 or 9800GX2.

Couldn't give a monkey's about more FPS really, but same FPS with higher IQ, I'd pay for.

I just don't like the idea of the 280.....too hot, too greedy, and I feel NV should not be rewarded with my money, owing to their shameful gouging at launch.

GX2=SLI=useless (until proper drivers which make the two GPU's transparent are released).

 

[Shocky-FM]

I just don't like the idea of the 280.....too hot,

It's not that hot, mine loads at around 75-80C at load in Crysis and at idle around 45C, allot better then my 8800GTX which really does output allot of heat, it's actually cooler then the 8800GTX, 9800GX2, 4870 and 4850.

But still users like to stread allot of fud about the GTX280, and allot of users tend to beleive it without ever trying one for themselfs.

 

[Final8y]

Has the custom AA changed on the 4800 series because i can do 32xAA on the 3870's.

 

[thegoonden]

It's not that hot, mine loads at around 75-80C at load in Crysis and at idle around 45C, allot better then my 8800GTX which really does output allot of heat, it's actually cooler then the 8800GTX, 9800GX2, 4870 and 4850.

But still users like to stread allot of fud about the GTX280, and allot of users tend to beleive it without ever trying one for themselfs.

That's interesting.
I take it the power consumption figures are nonsense as well then?
(obviously if it draws 1.5-2 times the power of the GTX is must output that much more heat).
I know the core temp's nothing to worry about, it was just the amount of heat it creates overall I was on about, I should have been more specific.

Like I said, I'm against one as "punishment" for NV really
But the ATI users seem to think 4x AA is high and apparently dodge questions about higher values, so I dunno what to think.

Sometimes I think I want to do a 4870 just so I don't have to listen to their shrieking any more
I detest the flakiness of ATI drivers (4 years since my last ATI and the current drivers are just as bonkers), so that's why I'm trying to find out if the card will make it worth the pain and hassle.

(apparently though, some people are saying windows doesn't support changing the display adaptor without a re-install, if that's the case, Nvidia it will be I'm afraid. I'd rather eat half rotted earthworms that re-install DOSxp again).

 

[thegoonden]

Has the custom AA changed on the 4800 series because i can do 32xAA on the 3870's.

Not sure myself. 24x was all I could see in CCC (4850 of course), that was changing the drop down to "big tent" or whatever the highest option is, that gave the slider a max postision of 24x. I think I have also seen it quoted as 24x in specs.
I do not know my way round CCC at all of course.


If you've tested 32x on the 3870 (approx the equiv of what? an 8800GTS?), what's it like? Total slideshow? does it depend on the game (like the 8800GTX I have depends.....some games are still pulling in and around 60fps with it at 32x at 1920x1200, others simply fill their undies and do 0.2FPS), or does it fly along with minimal impact, in support of the general opinion that ATI's take a significantly smaller FPS hit with high AA (not withstanding my previous comments that some folks think 4x is high and 8x is pointless).

Is this two 3870's in xfire? Seen mention that 2xNv's in SLI can combine AA and give 64x, might be the 3870 only does 16 when left on it's own (implying that 2x4870's could do 48x Wooohooo).



I SERIOUSLY appreciate all your help and advice here, all of you. I'm just trying to avoid slinging 2-300 quid on a card that will be worse or no better than what I have.

 

[Final8y]

Not sure myself. 24x was all I could see in CCC (4850 of course), that was changing the drop down to "big tent" or whatever the highest option is, that gave the slider a max postision of 24x. I think I have also seen it quoted as 24x in specs.
I do not know my way round CCC at all of course.


If you've tested 32x on the 3870 (approx the equiv of what? an 8800GTS?), what's it like? Total slideshow? does it depend on the game (like the 8800GTX I have depends.....some games are still pulling in and around 60fps with it at 32x at 1920x1200, others simply fill their undies and do 0.2FPS), or does it fly along with minimal impact, in support of the general opinion that ATI's take a significantly smaller FPS hit with high AA (not withstanding my previous comments that some folks think 4x is high and 8x is pointless).

Is this two 3870's in xfire? Seen mention that 2xNv's in SLI can combine AA and give 64x, might be the 3870 only does 16 when left on it's own (implying that 2x4870's could do 48x Wooohooo).



I SERIOUSLY appreciate all your help and advice here, all of you. I'm just trying to avoid slinging 2-300 quid on a card that will be worse or no better than what I have.

Ill do some playing at 1920xx1200 & i totally agree with you that some racing games need more AA than other types of games.
Edit: just disabled Crossfire & CCC is only showing X24 AA max.

 

[thegoonden]

Ill do some playing at 1920xx1200 & i totally agree with you that some racing games need more AA than other types of games.
Edit: just disabled Crossfire & CCC is only showing X24 AA max.

Thank $DEITY there's someone here who doesn't think I've totally lost me marbles then

I notice someone has posted a thread about IQ and AA on the 48's.....off to soak that up now.

 

[Shocky-FM]

That's interesting.
I take it the power consumption figures are nonsense as well then?
(obviously if it draws 1.5-2 times the power of the GTX is must output that much more heat).
I know the core temp's nothing to worry about, it was just the amount of heat it creates overall I was on about, I should have been more specific.
.

Better cooler, I have a 120mm fan sucking air out above the PCIe slot, the 8800GTX dumps allot more heat into your case then a GTX280 does.

 

[thegoonden]

Better cooler, I have a 120mm fan sucking air out above the PCIe slot, the 8800GTX dumps allot more heat into your case then a GTX280 does.

Useful info.

And it's worth adding to that, that the ATI's COOK your case, because their default fan speed is so low, a 4850, actually gets so hot it can burn you. Obviously the 4850 vents it's cooler exhaust back into the case whereas the 4870 vents externally like the NV's we're talking about......but if it's fan is still as slow, then the card body will be radiating hot-ness like made into the case.

I've sort of got a mental list of ticks for an against cards, and the 280's getting a couple more "for"s recently and ATI a couple of "against"s (the two biggest being some bug involving changing monitors that a gent's been posting about, and also the whole "reinstall DOSxp" business).

Not buying either for a couple of weeks of course, so plenty of time to make an informed decision (and yet more time thereafter to have that nagging feeling I went the wrong way )

 

[Diggsy]

There's generally no need at all to reinstall XP when switching from one card to another, so long as you do it properly and uninstall all the old drivers before uninstalling the old card, then clean with driver sweeper or similar, then finally install the new card and new drivers.

I have switched several times from nVidia to ATi and back again and never had an issue with drivers.

With regards to heat output, I can tell you that my system temps were almost identical between the GTX and 4870, so I would say the idea of the 4870 dumping a lot of heat into the case isn't quite correct, or at least it's not really any more than the GTX.

What did really bug me about the 4870 was the noise from it's fan. At boot and upon loading Windows, it is so loud, it almost makes you jump. Then when stressed, the fan noise is much the same as the GTX, but of a different, much more irritating pitch.

I have no idea why ATi chose the fan type that they did, except to assume that they were covering all bases, in case someone stuffed their card into a very cramped, very hot case.

Were it not for the fan issues, I *may* have kept the 4870, even though it's performance wasn't a great advantage over what I have.

I only hope that on the next round of cards one of the manufacturers (come on HIS, this is your speciality!) develops their own custom cooling solution, because the OEM ones are not that great.

 

[thegoonden]

See, now that makes sense.....I consider windows a dribbling special needs case, and even I'd grant it enough credit that it could change a card. It's just that everytime anyone reports anything less than wonderfulness about a 48nn, there's always someone here who comes rushing in and blames it on nvidia drivers (paranoid much? LOL).

TBH, I was assuming the 4870 would be radiating heat into the case because the 4850 was actually painful to the touch. I found that a little worrying. Although I'd normally not give 1 second of brain time to core temps being high, the amount of heat-soak into the card in general made me wonder.
I guess the shrouded cooler on the 70 helps combat that a bit.

I dunno at all now, the IQ article seems to suggest the ATI is better and more efficient at low AA like 4x and 8x, but they only test the 16Q mode on an nvidia, which they say is not quite so nice as the 24x on the ATI....but they avoid using any of the SS modes on the Nv, which seems an odd omission. Given that the artlicle seems aimed as sales droids, on the subject of "how to shift ATI cards", it may be that using 32SSAA on the nv would've looked bad for the 48nn.....OR of course, maybe they only tested things that are enabled by default in the drivers. It also says that many of the AA modes don't work in VIsta (technically it states they do not work in Dx10, but that's the same thing as vista uses Dx10 only...or DXdiag's reading false info out, it only states DX10 as available).

Me heart says "get an ATI, NV have been greedy and arogant, plus more money to ATI=better future cards from them, and less money to Nv=more competitive products from them soon", my head is however starting to say "GTX280 is a better card, with which you are familliar in general, and seems to work better and with less issues".


I just hope that by the time I've got the cash, I've made up my mind, and in the right direction. I can't help feeling, as I alluded to above, that whichever I buy, I was always feel it was the wrong one.....a near pathological versions of "the grass is always greener....".