The GTX 260 is faster than 4870

[MR.B]

Yes kids you read that right.


The point of this thread is to warn people about the 4870 drivers on Vista, and to show how a GTX 260 can be faster than even a OC'ed 4870 with a bit of overclocking.
Now before i go further, i know theres a lot of ATI love on here so i might get flamed but i'm only doing this for the sake of others, not because of some bizarre fanboy love for either company who couldn't care less about you and just wants your money.


So heres the story... after purchasing a 4870, i run in to a serious problem with black screen/BSoD due to poor drivers, you can read all about that here. As you can see i'm not the only person with this problem on here and i've tried everything to fix it! neither are the many people moaning about it on AMD's own forums.
Or if you google this "ATIKMDAG Error" problem your'll get a load or results. It's widespread and has apparantly existed since last year, so every single month since then ATI have been releasing broken drivers.
However theres also quite a large percentage of people who have no problems like this at all, so go figure. Infact, chances are if you do get a 4870 you probably wont have this problem, but it's a big enough issue to not be ignored.


So after getting too F'ed off with it crashing when in the middle of doing my work, i ended up arranging for the 4870 to be send back and for a refund (the return costs were covered by the place of purchase as i told them the card was faulty, which is it as i cant use it due to drivers).


Then today my 260 arrived...

And for comparison (if anyones interested) heres a GX2 and 280...

I overclocked the GTX 260 to: 700MHz core, 1470 Shaders, 1270MHz / 2.54GHZ Memory (Defaults : 575MHz, 1242MHz, 999MHz)
The 260 overclocks quite a bit more than the 4870 giving it better overall performance, while my OC on the 260 is high, it's actually average for these cards and my OC is around to what i was expecting to get... (this is partly why i got the 260)



(pasted from my post in another thread) :
ALL tests were done with the cards overclocked to speeds below.

4870 - Overclocked to 820MHz core, 1000MHz / 4GHz Memory - latest 8.7 drivers.
GTX 260 - Overclocked to 700MHz core, 1470 Shaders, 1270MHz / 2.54GHZ Memory - latest 177.41 drivers.
These were the highest 100% stable OC's for each card.

EDIT: Incase it's not obvious, the point of these benches is to show a overclocked GTX 260 can atleast match a overclocked 4870. As the 260's are good clockers.
We all know that with both cards at stock the 4870 is faster.




3Dmark 06 :
OC'd 4870 =
16,750

OC'd GTX 260 =
18,527



3DMark Vantage :
OC'd 4870 =
9,927

OC'd GTX 260 =
10,302

And WITH Nvidia PhysX driver installed it jumps to 11,818



Lightmark :
OC'd 4870 =
345 @ 1280x1024 res

200 @ 2560x1600 res

OC'd GTX 260 =
402 @ 1280x1024

242 @ 2560x1600



Crysis Benchmark :
settings : Very High, 1680x1050, DX10

OC'd 4870 =
25.7 FPS

OC'd GTX 260 =
26.8 FPS



UPDATE: more benches.
I know they're not exactly some of the best benches, but theres no benchmark software that i can find for games like GRID, COD4 and so on...


CS:S Stress Test :
@ 2560x1600, highest settings, 2xAA + 16xAF

OC'd ATI 4870 =
227.7

OC'd GTX 260 =
276.4

@ 1680x1050, highest settings, 4xAA + 16xAF

OC'd ATI 4870 =
289.2

OC'd GTX 260 =
287.5



Devil May Cry :
@ 1600x1000, highest settings, 4xAA

OC'd 4870 =
Scene 1 : 118
Scene 2 : 87
Scene 3 : 150
Scene 4 : 98

OC'd GTX 260 =
Scene 1 : 135
Scene 2 : 90
Scene 3 : 172
Scene 4 : 86



HL2 Episode Two :
@ 1920x1200, highest settings

OC'd 4870 =
Demo 1 = 196.8 FPS
Demo 2 = 169.1 FPS

OC'd GTX 260 =
Demo 1 = 201.4 FPS
Demo 2 = 172.8 FPS



Unreal Tournament 3 : The one game ATI clearly have the lead in.... with numbers anyway. I noticed with the 4870 it had random split second palses, uneven frame output. The GTX 260 looked smoother, even when not pumping out as many frames with AA.

@ 1920x1200, highest settings + 16xAF

OC'd 4870 =
Containment Demo = 127 FPS
Serenity Demo = 126 FPS
Torlan Demo = 125


OC'd GTX 260 =
Containment Demo = 130 FPS
Serenity Demo = 130 FPS
Torlan Demo = 132 FPS

@ same settings with 4xAA

OC'd 4870 =
Containment Demo = 130 FPS
Serenity Demo = 132 FPS
Torlan Demo = 129 FPS

OC'd GTX 260 =
Containment Demo = 82 FPS
Serenity Demo = 73 FPS
Torlan Demo = 75 FPS



Lost Planet :
@ 1600x1200, highest settings, 16xAF + 4xAA

OC'd 4870 =
Would not run with AA enabled...

OC'd GTX 260 =
Snow = 32FPS
Cave = 35FPS




Something worth noting, is that games also load quicker with the GTX 260 due the the extra RAM, i noticed this with my 280 aswell.

Image quality differences between ATI 4xxx series and Nvidia GTX 2xx series :

I've noticed some people saying on these forums that the ATI cards have better image quality - they do not. Countless articles can prove this. When it comes to how things are rendered, AA, and AF, both companies are pretty much equal.
However, i noticed when using ATI the colours and contrast were higher, especially in games, it makes them look more vibrant and stand out more.
This is something that can easily be made to look the same on NV cards - just go into the NV Control Panel and turn up Digital Vibrance and the Contrast setting.

BUT i personaly prefer NV's colours/contrast here, my reason for this is that the contrast is a little too high in games with ATI, on certain games darker details are lost as they disappear into the black, and lighter details are the same as they disappear in to the white because of the higher contrast. To most people i think they will still prefer this anyway, it's like with TV's, i've walked into counltess houses and seen peoples TV's with too high contrast and colour, the average person just likes it this way.

 

[darwin]

Interesting read. I've being dithering what to upgrade to for a while now - this article puts both cards neck and neck. I'm currently considering the 280 if my PSU can handle it but the reliability reports on that card are a little worrying. That's a pretty good overclock you've managed on your 260 - much better than the overclocked versions on offer from BFG, EVGA etc.

 

[willhub]

Its faster in your rig, does not mean to say its faster all together, If I got one I'm pretty certain It would be a downgrade unless I decide to buy all games only with PhysX compatability.

You have to remember too Nvidia has a version of ATIKMDAG Error, NVdisplay or something? its not a Bsod I dont think its its super common apparently and widespread, I was lucky enough to only encounter it like once.

Now I got a decent cooler for this 4870 and no need for fan profiles and a bios that elts me go past 790 all the problems are pretty much sorted. I'm not too keen on CCC, prefered NV control panel more but they seem equal now with problems.

I did remember reading a review that said the GTX260 is faster but the 4870 is faster when it comes down to using AA and msot other reviews show it to be faster. The only main reason that is making me want to move is this PhysX stuff.

I'm also running Windows Vista x64.

 

[kmufc77]

im sure a lot of ppl will diagree with you on this, as the 4870 is rated faster and is better with AA than the GTX 260 and lets face it Nvdia drivers arent brilliant thats when they are released that is.

 

[MR.B]

Its faster in your rig, does not mean to say its faster all together, If I got one I'm pretty certain It would be a downgrade unless I decide to buy all games only with PhysX compatability.

The only thing from my benches that uses NV's PhysX is 3Dmark Vantage. And as you can see even before i installed the PhysX drivers the GTX 260 still scored higher than the 4870. I didn't even have the PhysX drivers installed when benching everything else.

That's a pretty good overclock you've managed on your 260 - much better than the overclocked versions on offer from BFG, EVGA etc.

I'm sure it can go higher too. And it doesn't seem rare for these cards to clock that high either, i did some research before buying and a lot of people are getting over 700MHz core.

 

[RavenXXX2]

So i should ditch all thought of getting a 4870 because the 260 is faster in benchmarks and a little bit faster in the crap that is crysis, ooooooooooooook.

 

[willhub]

The only thing from my benches that uses NV's PhysX is 3Dmark Vantage. And as you can see even before i installed the PhysX drivers the GTX 260 still scored higher than the 4870. I didn't even have the PhysX drivers installed when benching everything else.

Yea I know it scored higher, its a benchmark, a 2900XT scores higher than a GTS640 in 3DMark06 but it did not make it faster in games, simply put, you cant rely on benchmarks to compare which cards are better in games, you can I guess go by 3dmark for a rough quide to if a card is good or not, scores put out by the 4870 and GTX260 are good as they are good cards, but its not relevant to gaming performance.

So i should ditch all thought of getting a 4870 because the 260 is faster in benchmarks and a little bit faster in the crap that is crysis, ooooooooooooook.

Well its not faster in crysis they are equal really, its a mixed boat, for example at 830/1000 I get 26.3fps or something around that at 1680x1050 very high dx10, only 10Mhz higher on the clocks and 10Mhz on the core wont make that difference, that tells you it depends on other things, one thing mainly, the amount of crap running on the OS.

 

[Richdog]

Yes kids you read that right.

The point of this thread is to worn people about the 4870 drivers on Vista

I am indeed worn after reading that.

The 4870 competes with (or at least nips on the heels of) the GTX280 in many games... this has been proved by many independant benchmarks. The GTX260 is often left trailing.

 

[gurusan]

So i should ditch all thought of getting a 4870 because the 260 is faster in benchmarks and a little bit faster in the crap that is crysis, ooooooooooooook.

i think the main reason he switched was because he could not get the 4870 to work properly on his system due to drivers or some unknown compatibility error

 

[MR.B]

im sure a lot of ppl will diagree with you on this, as the 4870 is rated faster and is better with AA than the GTX 260 and lets face it Nvdia drivers arent brilliant thats when they are released that is.

Yeah i'm sure they will. But i'll do more benches soon with AA and see how that goes.

As for NV drivers being poor... lets see, lately i've had a 8800GTX, 9800GX2, GTX 280, 8500GT (lol), and now GTX 260.
... and you know what? out of all the many drivers i've used for these cards, even BETA's i've had ZERO problems.

Now look what happens when i get an ATI card. And i'm far from being the only person with the problems i had. Also had driver problems when i had a 2900 Pro.

How ironic that so many people on here knock NV's drivers...

 

[MR.B]

I am indeed worn after reading that.

The 4870 competes with (or at least nips on the heels of) the GTX280 in many games... this has been proved by many independant benchmarks. The GTX260 is often left trailing.

I've had a 280 and theres no comparison between that and 4870, but what do i know, i've only owned the cards and ran them on a 2560x1600 monitor.

 

[Talrinys]

original post

You probably notice me from the thread about the subject
Good to see that you are happy with your purchase, i'm really considering doing the same. It's a shame cause i felt good supporting AMD again and really like the card itself, but the driver team is unfortunately completely incompetent. I'm probably just gonna get the money back and see what happens with the 55nm versions of the GT200 cards, all i know is that i'm severely disappointed in AMDs ability to deliver :/

 

[gurusan]

dude please edit that quote, it's ridiculously huge

 

[willhub]

Yeah i'm sure they will. But i'll do more benches soon with AA and see how that goes.

As for NV drivers being poor... lets see, lately i've had a 8800GTX, 9800GX2, GTX 280, 8500GT (lol), and now GTX 260.
... and you know what? out of all the many drivers i've used for these cards, even BETA's i've had ZERO problems.

Now look what happens when i get an ATI card. And i'm far from being the only person with the problems i had. Also had driver problems when i had a 2900 Pro.

How ironic that so many people on here knock NV's drivers...

You have had zero problems, you have had loads of problems with ATi drivers, I have had not many problems with ATi drivers allthough I have said they are a POS (CCC), I have also had not many problems with NV drivers. There is a difference there, its different with everyone. When I get problems, I usually uninstall drivers, run driversweeper, defrag, scan for spyware, then re install, if that does not work I will go as far as re installing windows, I usually use ghost buy cba with that atm.

You're basically in the same boat as me with the 2900XT and the GTS640.

Reviews said the 2900XT was faster than the GTS 640, in your case 4870 than the GTX260.

For me, the GTX640 was faster, even with AAm so it should have been the 2900XT was proven rubbish with AA, the ATi drivers where awfull at the time too, maybe the card just does not like your system just like the 2900XT must not have liked mine as some people loved it and the 4870 is great here kicking ass.

And before saying which is faster, you should be trying lower screen res too. For that res you run at I would not use either I'd settle for only a GTX280 or higher.

Games play great, thats what I'm mainly wanting at the moment, but it seems like some people want to change cards just coz of some driver problems.. fair enough if its hardware problems.

 

[Richdog]

You probably notice me from the thread about the subject
Good to see that you are happy with your purchase, i'm really considering doing the same. It's a shame cause i felt good supporting AMD again and really like the card itself, but the driver team is unfortunately completely incompetent. I'm probably just gonna get the money back and see what happens with the 55nm versions of the GT200 cards, all i know is that i'm severely disappointed in AMDs ability to deliver :/

Quoting huge posts with pics without snipping = lose.

 

[Tute]

So you're basing this on benchmarks and problems that only a handful of users seem to have?

I'm not even going to gratify your post with a counter-argument.

 

[Talrinys]

Quoting huge posts with pics without snipping = lose.

Sorry, fixed

dude please edit that quote, it's ridiculously huge

Done

 

[Talrinys]

So you're basing this on benchmarks and problems that only a handful of users seem to have?

I'm not even going to gratify your post with a counter-argument.

A handful = every single user out there with a specific combination of hardware and software, not random crashes but something that is extremely reproducable. I can't even watch a DVD with my 2nd screen plugged in, the signal just dies.

 

[jarvo1]

You have to remember too Nvidia has a version of ATIKMDAG Error, NVdisplay or something? its not a Bsod I dont think its its super common apparently and widespread, I was lucky enough to only encounter it like once.

nvlddmkm.sys.....I was plagued by it all the time with my 8800GTX's, especially when I was pushing them harder than normal. Both ATi and nvidia get these errors but I wouldn't say they are common, it's just a bit unlcky I guess if you do get them.

 

[MR.B]

And before saying which is faster, you should be trying lower screen res too. For that res you run at I would not use either I'd settle for only a GTX280 or higher.

I had a GTX 280... and it died. So i decided to get a 4870 to fill the gap until 4870X2 is out. But because of poor ATI drivers i got the GTX 260, which does handle 2560x1600 very well, almost as well as my 280 did now it's OC'd. This 260 will be bought off me soon anyway from a family member, and if i have trouble with the X2 and ATI drivers, then i'll just get yet another 280.

BTW the above benches were not ran at 2560x1600, 3Dmark ones were at default res (1280x1024), and Crysis was at 1680x1050.