Has ATI jsut destroyed the green team?

TheCenturion · 22 Sep 2008 at 21:44

Is it me, or if you're buying a new graphics card, ATI are just full of it? Because at below 1680, a 4850 seems the way to go, at 1680 a 4870 seems a good choice, @1920 a 4870 or x2 are apparently adequate, and at 2560 the 4870x2 or maybe 2 of them are good. Nvidia doesn't get a look in unless you already have their chipset and a green card, wanting another to go sli. also, under 2560, is more than one card necessary?

Is all of the above true? correct me if I'm wrong

kppanic · 22 Sep 2008 at 21:46

I like my 4850 at 1680x1050, thank you very much.

Rroff · 22 Sep 2008 at 21:51

I like 2x 8800GT even when playing at 1440x900.

The 9800GX2 is still a very competitive GPU tho price needs to come down and it has limited future.

260GTX would be a killer GPU if they dropped the price £20-30. But the 280 just isn't the powerhouse at higher resolutions that it should be...

Only way I see nVidia getting back in the game right now is if they can rush out some die-shrunk 260 cores with 216 sp for another GX2 card - at a lower price than the 4870X2...

titaniumx3 · 22 Sep 2008 at 21:53

I think this time round it's just a lot more balanced, i.e. quite a few games go on the ATI side, while others go towards Nvidia, but most importantly, both ATI and Nvidia will give you great performance whatever game your playing.

Chimerical · 22 Sep 2008 at 21:56

I honestly don't know why people wax lyrical about the 4870X2. At the end of the day its no different to the 9800GX2, is just as (or more) hot running, cost about the same on release (correct me on this) and will still suffer from micro-stutter and incompatibilities in certain games. So it has a faster interconnect, so what? Doesn't make it £350 worth of speed though.

People seem to worship that card. I'd rather have a GTX280 for a 24" screen as it'll run everything anyway. (Yes, yes, I know that price has risen recently).

elpedro · 22 Sep 2008 at 22:02

Received my 4870 today which replace my 8800GT - massive improvement!

w3bbo · 22 Sep 2008 at 22:03

No doubting the fastest card out atm is the 4870x2 but lets be honest, NV still have the fastet single GPU, stick two of the 55nm versions together and you have a 4870x2 killer.

I'm glad to see ATI back on top. I just hope it isn't too short lived as its never nice to see one side dominate, it's bad for progression (see Intel vs AMD).

gareth170 · 22 Sep 2008 at 22:12

my 4850 works fine at 1920x1080

LoadsaMoney · 22 Sep 2008 at 22:14

Chimerical said:
I honestly don't know why people wax lyrical about the 4870X2. At the end of the day its no different to the 9800GX2,

Yes it is, its not 2x cards stuck together with one having its PCI-E connector sawn off.

Chimerical · 22 Sep 2008 at 22:18

LoadsaMoney said:
Yes it is, its not 2x cards stuck together with one having its PCI-E connector sawn off.

So? Still works in Crossfire. Still costs £350. Better tech means nothing. R600 proved that. Still overheats.

kylew · 22 Sep 2008 at 22:20

anant_shah94 said:
Is it me, or if you're buying a new graphics card, ATI are just full of it? Because at below 1680, a 4850 seems the way to go, at 1680 a 4870 seems a good choice, @1920 a 4870 or x2 are apparently adequate, and at 2560 the 4870x2 or maybe 2 of them are good. Nvidia doesn't get a look in unless you already have their chipset and a green card, wanting another to go sli. also, under 2560, is more than one card necessary?

Is all of the above true? correct me if I'm wrong

your scale is a bit off there.

A 4850 is more than good enough for 1920x1200 and can hold its own very well at 2560. The 4870 isn't 'that' much faster really and in my opinon not worth the extra until GRRD5 starts showing more benefits.

I've been running games at 1920x1200 since I had a 2900XT and that was good enough to run most of my games at max with some AA, then I had a 3870X2 which was even better and now a couple of 4850s in crossfire.

Sometimes I feel like 4850 crossfire is a bit overkill half the time as a single 4850 will run almost everything I've got at max with max AA and AF too, a second 4850 just makes everything faster which I don't notice most of the time since it's already plenty fast enough.

Not to say I'm disappointed though, because I'm not, I'm really happy with them and I know I'll be playing the latest games maxed out for a while.

Craig321 · 22 Sep 2008 at 22:20

anant_shah94 said:
Is it me, or if you're buying a new graphics card, ATI are just full of it? Because at below 1680, a 4850 seems the way to go, at 1680 a 4870 seems a good choice, @1920 a 4870 or x2 are apparently adequate, and at 2560 the 4870x2 or maybe 2 of them are good. Nvidia doesn't get a look in unless you already have their chipset and a green card, wanting another to go sli. also, under 2560, is more than one card necessary?

Is all of the above true? correct me if I'm wrong

ATI(AMD) have won this round of graphic cards, they had to make up for their loss in CPU sales after all

If I was to get a new graphic card now I would also get a 4870x2 (running at 1920x1200 here). I've had bad experiences with past Nvidia cards as well as bad experiences with the drivers. My brother's 4870 hasn't had a single problem.

I know it's not one of the reason why Nvidia aren't selling as many cards at the moment, but they really need to provide a small, light driver package that includes nothing but the drivers... just like ATI do. I think having the Nvidia control panel is a bit of an overkill if you're not going to use it.

All ATI need to do now is to make the 4870 underclock itself when it's idle to keep it nice and cool :cool:

easyrider · 22 Sep 2008 at 22:34

Its great to see relatively low priced top end cards like the 4870.

Shocky-FM · 22 Sep 2008 at 22:35

titaniumx3 said:
I think this time round it's just a lot more balanced, i.e. quite a few games go on the ATI side, while others go towards Nvidia, but most importantly, both ATI and Nvidia will give you great performance whatever game your playing.

Yep, basically it's HD4850/9800GTX+, HD4870/GTX260, 9800GX2/GTX280 (no kidding) and then HD4870X2 out there by itself,

ATI have the fastest card available but nvidia have the fastest single gpu based card which counts for allot so I see things as fairly even and as a result we are benefiting with low prices.

Dark_Angel · 22 Sep 2008 at 22:35

kppanic said:
I like my 4850 at 1680x1050, thank you very much.

Mine plays everything so far at full at 1920x1200... crysis is the exception, but plays pretty damn well in DX9 mode.

Cod 4 runs at 60FPS, with max in game AA and AF, 1920x1200 and everything maxed, as does all my other games.

Running on a Q6600 with 4GB of ram.

easyrider · 22 Sep 2008 at 22:37

Shocky-FM said:
ATI have the fastest card available but nvidia have the fastest single gpu based card which counts for allot so I see things as fairly even and as a result we are benefiting with low prices.

The X2 is one PCB so in essence its a single card.Oh and it only uses one slot.

Hutch · 22 Sep 2008 at 22:39

Im happy with my 280gtx. im even happier I bought it before the prices went up hugely

londonbairn · 22 Sep 2008 at 22:51

easyrider said:
The X2 is one PCB so in essence its a single card.Oh and it only uses one slot.

Exactly, it's the same principle as processors, the fastest CPU is the fastest CPU wether it has 2,4 or 128 cores, just like a GPU. I don't get why people amend this basic criteria. It's like me going around saying I have the fastest graphics card if you exclude every other card :-D

Shocky-FM · 22 Sep 2008 at 23:09

easyrider said:
The X2 is one PCB so in essence its a single card.Oh and it only uses one slot.

I never said it wasnt, it's still using two GPU's though and depends on crossfire so it's not a single GPU based card like the GTX280 is obviously.

rafster said:
Exactly, it's the same principle as processors, the fastest CPU is the fastest CPU wether it has 2,4 or 128 cores, just like a GPU. I don't get why people amend this basic criteria. It's like me going around saying I have the fastest graphics card if you exclude every other card

Simalar but not the same, but I do look forward to true multicore GPU's though.

Final8y · 22 Sep 2008 at 23:23

Shocky-FM said:
Simalar but not the same, but I do look forward to true multicore GPU's though.

If you understood how a GPU works then you would know there would be no point at all to doing that & your only bases for that idea is of what you know of CPU's which is apples to oranges.
Basically it would be like taking the gpu from the 280 & chopping it into 4 cores & you will end up with the same power as before anyway & you will need sli between the cores still & Vram for each core with the tech at this present time.