Which card to buy,4870X2 or GTX295?

[kylew]

Did you have any other top card to measure its performance against? Try to configure a multi-monitor setup or your hdtv with a vga...

I have crossfired 4850s with 3 sreens connected to them. I've not had any issues with it, very easy to set up and swap between 3 screens and 2 screens (one is a 1080p TV).

Why would anyone use VGA to connected an HDTV really? You aren't going to get the best picture quality or audio over HDMI unless they've got a really old TV with only VGA.

So I've covered two of your situations. The third? Well we all know how the 295 performs, if you're seeing signifiantly better performance you're either not using a 4870X2 and lying that you are or user error (what a surprise) is a factor in it not working properly, or you're purposefully choosing games that the 295 excells in as definitive proof of its performance lead.

 

[Duran]

I have crossfired 4850s with 3 sreens connected to them. I've not had any issues with it, very easy to set up and swap between 3 screens and 2 screens (one is a 1080p TV).

Why would anyone use VGA to connected an HDTV really? You aren't going to get the best picture quality or audio over HDMI unless they've got a really old TV with only VGA.

So I've covered two of your situations. The third? Well we all know how the 295 performs, if you're seeing signifiantly better performance you're either not using a 4870X2 and lying that you are or user error (what a surprise) is a factor in it not working properly, or you're purposefully choosing games that the 295 excells in as definitive proof of its performance lead.

because if you use hdmi the fonts become messed up, contrast ratios sky rocket etc. you can connect your tv with hdmi only if you are going to use it for movies. for any other task vga is still the king. HDTV makers put the vga connection there for a reason.

I found the 4870x2 slightly faster than the gtx 280 in some games and slightly slower in a couple of others. On the other hand the gtx 295 was a vast improvement across the board. Crossfire was running fine. user error? come on its not exactly rocket science to swap and benchmark graphics cards and as an IT expert i'm quite passionate with computers and hardware.

 

[layte]

I found the 4870x2 slightly faster than the gtx 280 in some games and slightly slower in a couple of others. On the other hand the gtx 295 was a vast improvement across the board. Crossfire was running fine. user error? come on its not exactly rocket science to swap and benchmark graphics cards and as an IT expert i'm quite passionate with computers and hardware.

Judging by your impressive showing of yourself in this thread, it would appear to be a task harder than you make out.

As usual, such a loaded thread degenerates into people with experiance and the proof to back what they say up (as shown by w3bbo's informative post). And staring them down, the fanboys with agenda's who just have to prove to themselves that they are correct and damnation to anybody who dares to disagree.

Before I sign off, I'll just mention that I pipe a HDMI signal into my Pioneer 5090 and I have yet to notice any of these 'issues' you happen to mention. Oh and most HDTV's on the market will only accept a maximum 1280x1024 signal over the analogue VGA interface, probably due to VGA splitting being much easier for display and presentation uses. Where I work the meeting rooms all have VGA ports so we can attach our laptops into the projectors and HDTV panels, seeing as many more laptops have VGA rather than HDMI/DVI connectors. As an 'IT expert' I'm sure you were already well aware of this.


Now for ***** and giggles I'll answer the OP; Get the 295 if money is no object, the X2 if value is more of a concern, especially so seeing as we will get new architectures later in the year. Buying a £350+ graphics card may not look like such a wise decision in a few months.

 

[wombraider]

What's all this about Micro stuttering on the 4870 x2.. I had this with my 8800gtx sli setup and Is damn right annoying.

Does the lower fps of the gtx 285 outweigh the annoyance of micro stuttering of the 4870 x2?

Opinions please..

Im using a q6600 and gaming at 1920 x 1200 all the way, so what would be the best for me to achieve a smooth frame rate.

I went (8800GTX) -> GTX280 -> 4870x2 -> GTX280

The 4870x2 frame rate was too inconsistant and the gtx280 gives me a smoother game.

 

[kylew]

because if you use hdmi the fonts become messed up, contrast ratios sky rocket etc. you can connect your tv with hdmi only if you are going to use it for movies. for any other task vga is still the king. HDTV makers put the vga connection there for a reason.

I found the 4870x2 slightly faster than the gtx 280 in some games and slightly slower in a couple of others. On the other hand the gtx 295 was a vast improvement across the board. Crossfire was running fine. user error? come on its not exactly rocket science to swap and benchmark graphics cards and as an IT expert i'm quite passionate with computers and hardware.

No, HDMI is better quality than VGA on my TV, or are you going to tell me it isn't?

How can you even suggest that with a straight face? HDMI is the same as DVI and we all know DVI gives a nicer sharper image than VGA.

Using my TV as a monitor is pretty nice. Fonts/text is nice and sharp and the image is extremely crisp.

So, if the GTX 280 is faster than a 4870X2, how is the HD 4890 faster than a GTX280?

Seriously you need to learn the concept of differing opinions. If a GTX280 is faster than a 4870X2 in your use then you're doing it wrong.

My 4850s in crossfire are faster than a GTX280 by a fair amount.

You doing it wrong isn't an accurate representation of the hardware.

 

[kylew]

You are truly an ati funboy the 4890 is not faster than a GTX280. In fact the 4890 is a bit slower that the GTX275.

How am I a funboy? I've never touched fake tan in my life!

Bearing in mind the GTX275 is considered to be faster than the GTX280.

 

[Tute]

You are truly an ati funboy the 4890 is not faster than a GTX280. In fact the 4890 is a bit slower that the GTX275.

Anandtech would disagree.

On a pure performance level the 4890 and GTX 275 trade blows at different resolutions. The 4890 tends to look better at lower resolutions while the GTX 275 is more competitive at high resolutions. At 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200 the 4890 is nearly undefeated. At 2560 x 1600, it seems to be pretty much a wash between the two cards.

And from the graphs the two cards seem to come out as an even match. So it comes down to price really, and that's where the 4890 excels.

 

[TheRealDeal]

I went (8800GTX) -> GTX280 -> 4870x2 -> GTX280

The 4870x2 frame rate was too inconsistant and the gtx280 gives me a smoother game.

I see this post from you constant but you had the x2 if i remember correctly when the drivers were not so great around october november last year. The driver support in games is vastly improved in all games. Back then the x2 was a little faster than a gtx280 now it blows it away to the point where it can compete with a gtx295 which is close to being gtx280sli. Sorry but your opiion from back then no longer means nothing as everything has improved to the point that there is no longer the complaints you used to have.

 

[Shocky-FM]

Given my current experience with the 4870X2 the GTX295 get my recommendation.

Having nothing to problems with my 4870X2, support are telling me re-install windows... Year old windows iinstall, ended by an ATI card. Oh joy..

 

[TheRealDeal]

This seems to be a common complaint these days when switching from nvidia to ati. Many people say that its easy just swap cards and drivers but a lot of people have the problem and are forced to do a fresh install to solve the problem. Only experience i had was my mate brought his 8800gtx when my 1900xtx bit the bullet swapped the card in no problem for a few days the 3870 came and swapped the 8800 to the 3870 with no problems. For me a full reinstall of windows is the only thing that makes me sure that the card is at fault as so many faults can be related to other problems.

 

[Duran]

Judging by your impressive showing of yourself in this thread, it would appear to be a task harder than you make out.

As usual, such a loaded thread degenerates into people with experiance and the proof to back what they say up (as shown by w3bbo's informative post). And staring them down, the fanboys with agenda's who just have to prove to themselves that they are correct and damnation to anybody who dares to disagree.

Before I sign off, I'll just mention that I pipe a HDMI signal into my Pioneer 5090 and I have yet to notice any of these 'issues' you happen to mention. Oh and most HDTV's on the market will only accept a maximum 1280x1024 signal over the analogue VGA interface, probably due to VGA splitting being much easier for display and presentation uses. Where I work the meeting rooms all have VGA ports so we can attach our laptops into the projectors and HDTV panels, seeing as many more laptops have VGA rather than HDMI/DVI connectors. As an 'IT expert' I'm sure you were already well aware of this.


Now for ***** and giggles I'll answer the OP; Get the 295 if money is no object, the X2 if value is more of a concern, especially so seeing as we will get new architectures later in the year. Buying a £350+ graphics card may not look like such a wise decision in a few months.

well I'll ignore the rest as most of them are non-sense, irrelevant and out of topic but did you sit at a 2 feet distance from your kuro? of course not, thats why you dont know what i'm talking about. I'm using a 32" 1080p hdtv as a monitor along with a 22" traditional monitor. try to do that with hdmi and your vision will degrade in a matter of weeks... btw, care to point me any informative post on this thread?

You wrote a little wall of text without really saying anything and at best your post can be considered as spam.

No, HDMI is better quality than VGA on my TV, or are you going to tell me it isn't?

How can you even suggest that with a straight face? HDMI is the same as DVI and we all know DVI gives a nicer sharper image than VGA.

Using my TV as a monitor is pretty nice. Fonts/text is nice and sharp and the image is extremely crisp.

So, if the GTX 280 is faster than a 4870X2, how is the HD 4890 faster than a GTX280?

Seriously you need to learn the concept of differing opinions. If a GTX280 is faster than a 4870X2 in your use then you're doing it wrong.

My 4850s in crossfire are faster than a GTX280 by a fair amount.

You doing it wrong isn't an accurate representation of the hardware.

buy one and see for yourself, instead of going blindly by reviews. in a couple of games ati crawls, coincidentally these games are not included on benchmarks... thats ati for u.

 

[wombraider]

I see this post from you constant but you had the x2 if i remember correctly when the drivers were not so great around october november last year. The driver support in games is vastly improved in all games. Back then the x2 was a little faster than a gtx280 now it blows it away to the point where it can compete with a gtx295 which is close to being gtx280sli. Sorry but your opiion from back then no longer means nothing as everything has improved to the point that there is no longer the complaints you used to have.

Thanks for the input , I had it over christmas until mid Jan ( just under 28days)
But I dont play the latest and greatest games ( the ones they optimise drivers for) so my performance in games was based on what I play.
Such as arma , il-2 , lock-on , silent hunter 3 , DCS black shark and sins of a solar empire.
Iam not alone in having consistancy probs with the 4870x2 check post by the other who tried the card out.

I assume you didnt like your gtx280 (too slow) and got rid of it in favour of the 4870x2 you now own ?

 

[uv]

I'm using a 32" 1080p hdtv as a monitor along with a 22" traditional monitor. try to do that with hdmi and your vision will degrade in a matter of weeks...

Rofl.

I have exactly the same setup resolution-wise, and you're talking crap.

VGA at 1920 is horrific and blurry, 1080p requires DVI/HDMI to look clear.
Before I had DVI/HDMI cable, I tried using a VGA cable, and almost went blind.

 

[Duran]

Rofl.

I have exactly the same setup resolution-wise, and you're talking crap.

VGA at 1920 is horrific and blurry, 1080p requires DVI/HDMI to look clear.
Before I had DVI/HDMI cable, I tried using a VGA cable, and almost went blind.

Rofl!

I have exactly the same setup resolution-wise, and you're talking crap.

HDMI for a pc monitor is horrific. Before i had a VGA cable, I tried HDMI and DVI/HDMI and almost went blind.

P.S see I can post like you as well.

 

[reflux]

My 24'' HP monitor is on VGA at the moment because the HDMI is broken. Picture is flickery and not as good quality as it used to be using digital. HDMI gave a noticeably better picture.

I cannot see how HDMI on a PC monitor can give a poor quality signal; all it is is DVI with audio support, and DVI was specifically designed for monitors.

 

[Duran]

My 24'' HP is on VGA at the moment because the HDMI is broken. Picture is flickery and not as good quality as it used to be using digital. HDMI gave a noticeably better picture.

Well then it must vary between TVs. this is not the point though, we went out of topic. the point is that with a dvi + vga setup ati gave me lots of problems. thats all.

 

[kylew]

well I'll ignore the rest as most of them are non-sense, irrelevant and out of topic but did you sit at a 2 feet distance from your kuro? of course not, thats why you dont know what i'm talking about. I'm using a 32" 1080p hdtv as a monitor along with a 22" traditional monitor. try to do that with hdmi and your vision will degrade in a matter of weeks... btw, care to point me any informative post on this thread?

You wrote a little wall of text without really saying anything and at best your post can be considered as spam.


buy one and see for yourself, instead of going blindly by reviews. in a couple of games ati crawls, coincidentally these games are not included on benchmarks... thats ati for u.

So, I should listen to you and not reviews?

My 4850s are a lot faster than a GTX280, that's enough for me to know a 4870X2 is going to be even faster still.

Why should I listen to you when my experience shows me you're talking crap?

This isn't an ATi versus nvidia thing at all. It's a common sense versus irrational behavior.

It just happens to be that you're an nvidia fanboy, disagreeing with any sort of fanboy makes them think you're a fanboy of the company they hate.

It's fact that nvidia have a staple benchmark suite of games they artificially excell in. ATi have games they artificially excell in too, they aren't realistic representations of actual performance.

When on average hardware performs the same, then you know any massive gains for no apparent reason aren't real gains.

Artificial gains are seen in games such as dead space. Real gains are in games such as Assassin's Creed with the DX10.1 performance boosts.

The worst thing is is that you're lying to yourself. It's no one else's fault that you can't get your hardware to work properly, so instead of admitting defeat, which you obviously won't do you'll talk poo and fantasy and make things up.

 

[kylew]

Rofl!

I have exactly the same setup resolution-wise, and you're talking crap.

HDMI for a pc monitor is horrific. Before i had a VGA cable, I tried HDMI and DVI/HDMI and almost went blind.

P.S see I can post like you as well.

What the hell? You're getting a bit creepy now...

 

[FrenchTart]

Rofl!

I have exactly the same setup resolution-wise, and you're talking crap.

HDMI for a pc monitor is horrific. Before i had a VGA cable, I tried HDMI and DVI/HDMI and almost went blind.

P.S see I can post like you as well.

I've got a 24" 1920x1200 monitor and a 40" 1080p LCD TV. VGA isn't suitable for either of them, so I've no idea what you're talking about.

Most LCD TV's VGA input doesn't even *support* 1080p. Read your TV's manual.

 

[95thrifles]

did you sit at a 2 feet distance from your kuro? of course not, thats why you dont know what i'm talking about. I'm using a 32" 1080p hdtv as a monitor along with a 22" traditional monitor. try to do that with hdmi and your vision will degrade in a matter of weeks...

I may be reading this wrong but to me it reads that you sit 2 feet away from a 32" monitor, I think thats your problem rather than what brand of card or quality of cable youre using