4870 1gb @ £110 vs 4890 @ £146 vs 260GTX @ £134 - my brain hurts

craptakular · 12 Jun 2009 at 21:19

Hi,

ok reading this article at Phoronix. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_radeon_hd4890&num=1

It says

Simply put, the Radeon HD 4890 is designed to be AMD's fastest single-GPU graphics card, and at $250 or less it is made to be affordable and compete with the more expensive NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285. Compared to the Radeon HD 4870, the Radeon HD 4890 most notably has its core clock frequency increased by 100MHz (a 13% increase) and its GDDR5 memory increased by 75MHz (an 8% increase). The number of ROPs and texture units remains the same.

So basically the 4890 isn't worth the extra £35? As a 4870 can be overclocked to the same level. Is this right?

What about the 260GTX, it will run ace under linux and still be as good as a 4890 for windows games, this statement currect?

elpedro · 12 Jun 2009 at 21:27

Oxy said:
So basically the 4890 isn't worth the extra £35? As a 4870 can be overclocked to the same level. Is this right?

What about the 260GTX, it will run ace under linux and still be as good as a 4890 for windows games, this statement currect?

Nope, the 4890 isn't an RV770 chip with higher clock speeds, its the same tech just re-designed and called the RV790 - so they are not the same. The reason for the redesign was to allow for higher clock speeds, as the 4870s are pretty poor compared to the GT200 Nvidia cards at overclocking.

I believe the highest factory OC 4870 was at 775MHz core speed, currently the 4890 is being sold with a 1000MHz core speed.

Put simply, the 4870 is still a good card but isn't capable of matching the 4890's speed or overclocking ability. £35 extra is damn good value for the 4890 in my opinion when you think the price difference between the GTX 275 and 285 is around £55 and they DO have the same GPU with 240 cores, only the 275 has a slightly smaller memory interface and less RAM.

Oxy said:
What about the 260GTX, it will run ace under linux and still be as good as a 4890 for windows games, this statement currect?

The 4890's competiton is the GTX 275, the 4890 is generally faster than the GTX 260.

Lightnix · 12 Jun 2009 at 21:31

You can't get to 1GHz on the 4870, the average is about 830-840MHz on the 4870 I believe (I think it's less than that on some of the Sapphire cards). In contrast 1GHz is a reasonably common overclock on the 4890 because it uses a slightly revised core capable of higher clock speeds.

Rroff · 12 Jun 2009 at 21:35

Lightnix said:
You can't get to 1GHz on the 4870, the average is about 830-840MHz on the 4870 I believe (I think it's less than that on some of the Sapphire cards). In contrast 1GHz is a reasonably common overclock on the 4890 because it uses a slightly revised core capable of higher clock speeds.

This

1gig on the 4890 puts it in a very good performance position - especially when combined with the current prices.

Big.Wayne · 12 Jun 2009 at 21:36

Hey Oxy,

I'm on the upgrade bandwagon also and been looking at the same selection as yourself!

The Radeon HD4870 1GB looks like a great choice for the money but the Radeon HD4890 does seem a bit better!

If I am to believe the reviews and marketing info then the HD4890 seems to have more robust circuitary and power components, runs on slightly less power and also runs cooler! :cool:

Personally I think the HD4890 is starting to edge it now the prices have dropped below £150, that's a lot of card for a fair price, what you think!

drunkenmaster · 12 Jun 2009 at 21:45

ITs not certain, its just a complete guess, but dx11 is likely to hit pretty big end of year and considering the performance benefits expected I can't see any big name title not using it. Theres a very very decent chance that come next year almost every single game under dx11(with almost certainly support for dx10.1 with it) will gain a nice fat performance boost from ATi cards.

personally I wouldn't buy Nvidia right now because value/performance theres not a lot Nvidia can do right now, sure the 295 is faster, but its ludicrously more expensive than a 4870x2, (can you even get a 4870x2 and a 48701gb for less?).

THe 4870 1gb is stupidly cheap, the 4890 is faster, you won't get that close to its clock speeds on a 4870, but that doesn't mean its significantly slower. Its a tough call, if you can afford it without much issue I'd get the 4890, because, why not. If you're completely strapped for cash and want to spend as little as possible, go with the 4870.

Clairvoyant · 12 Jun 2009 at 21:46

So many of us in the same boat.

Shame more of the 4890s are not cheaper. lol We can wait and wait or buy now. aarrggghhhh

craptakular · 12 Jun 2009 at 21:53

Big.Wayne said:
Hey Oxy,

I'm on the upgrade bandwagon also and been looking at the same selection as yourself!

The Radeon HD4870 1GB looks like a great choice for the money but the Radeon HD4890 does seem a bit better!

If I am to believe the reviews and marketing info then the HD4890 seems to have more robust circuitary and power components, runs on slightly less power and also runs cooler!

Personally I think the HD4890 is starting to edge it now the prices have dropped below £150, that's a lot of card for a fair price, what you think!

linux support is as big a thing for me as windows games. ATI, have improved linux drivers but they still aint in the same league as nvidia's linux drivers so far.

This is my main concern. Maybe I should not worry to much about linux for the next 12 months (while I do my PGCE course) then I can fiddle with linux after I am a teacher!

The 4890 seems the better buy for games, I just like fiddling with linux you see hehe... although I won't have much time for that over next 12 months. So maybe the 4890 should be bought now just to give me 12-18 months worth of gaming with my current hardware, my psu will not work with a 4870 x 2 so thats ruled out!

ArcAneTSGK · 12 Jun 2009 at 22:00

IMO - get the GTX 260 or a 4870, to have a great performance option that bridges the gap between now, and Windows 7/DX11.

But don't start buying the DX11 cards until there are actually DX11 games etc...

Clairvoyant · 12 Jun 2009 at 22:01

ArcAne151 said:
IMO - get the GTX 260 or a 4870, to have a great performance option that bridges the gap between now, and Windows 7/DX11.

But don't start buying the DX11 cards until there are actually DX11 games etc...

Remeber the 1st Dx10 cards. lol

By the time Dx11 games are out, i would guess you will be close to 2nd gen cards.

Big.Wayne · 12 Jun 2009 at 22:41

I think what is being implied about DX11 cards is that they will *tear* through DX10 games!

Similar to how the nVidia 8800GTX was a big hoo-haa DX10 GPU its real strength appears to have been how great it was with DX9.0 heh!

Rroff · 12 Jun 2009 at 22:50

I personally wouldn't buy an ATI card for DX11 support - based purely on their past record...

Look at the results in DX10 titles when the 2900 came out i.e. features supported in lost planet, ETQW, etc. - the 8800GTX was rendering everything fine for the most part and it took ATI another 6 months and another hardware revision to get upto speed.

craptakular · 12 Jun 2009 at 22:57

I think dx 11 is way off my mind tbh. I just want summit that will last me 12-18 months for arma 2, cod6 & americas army 3.

Cant see me buying anything else until BF 3 comes out. Unless I haven't heard of a big release or summit???

Seems I cant go wrong with a 260 or a 4890, either is a good buy right?

Clairvoyant · 12 Jun 2009 at 22:58

Well we have the weekend to think about what to buy. As the earliest delivery is tues, so monday ordering. (as long as they have stocks) lol

Big.Wayne · 12 Jun 2009 at 22:58

Rroff said:
I personally wouldn't buy an ATI card for DX11 support - based purely on their past record...

Rroff you sound like a fanboy!

But if you wanna have a little grumble then please go right ahead and get it off your chest, before you do though consider how affordable a high quality GPU is today (ATI or nVidia) . . . . and I think it's fair to say AMD/ATI are doing a damn fine job! :cool:

craptakular · 12 Jun 2009 at 23:02

Clairvoyant said:
Well we have the weekend to think about what to buy. As the earliest delivery is tues, so monday ordering. (as long as they have stocks) lol

i'm leaning towards the 260 i think. gonna try find some benchies.

TheRealDeal · 12 Jun 2009 at 23:08

ArcAne151 said:
IMO - get the GTX 260 or a 4870, to have a great performance option that bridges the gap between now, and Windows 7/DX11.

But don't start buying the DX11 cards until there are actually DX11 games etc...

More like when dx11 cards come out don't buy 1 expecting loads of dx11 games. Buy 1 because it will run all the current crop of games faster than any other card.

Why would you not buy a dx11 card until dx11 games are out surely if you want an upgrade and a really fast card then buy the latest round of cards if you have the money. I have a dx10.1 card and have never even played a dx10/10.1 game on my system.

queamin · 12 Jun 2009 at 23:11

I don't think the 260 is worth £24 more than the 4870 1gb if i were thinking of spending 134 on a 260 i would get the 4890 for £12 more.

ArcAneTSGK · 12 Jun 2009 at 23:15

TheRealDeal said:
More like when dx11 cards come out don't buy 1 expecting loads of dx11 games. Buy 1 because it will run all the current crop of games faster than any other card.

Why would you not buy a dx11 card until dx11 games are out surely if you want an upgrade and a really fast card then buy the latest round of cards if you have the money. I have a dx10.1 card and have never even played a dx10/10.1 game on my system.

I meant get a new card now for a good price that will play every game that is out at good frame rates, and then keep some cash back for when the DX11 cards are not at steep prices. Not everyone has the money to upgrade everytime something new comes out. and DX11 card will tear through DX10 games.

I just saw the price of the XFX 4890. I decide i will buy this tomorrow instead, only £10 more than the GTX 260 i was going to but and runs faster.

Rroff · 12 Jun 2009 at 23:21

Big.Wayne said:
Rroff you sound like a fanboy!

But if you wanna have a little grumble then please go right ahead and get it off your chest, before you do though consider how affordable a high quality GPU is today (ATI or nVidia) . . . . and I think it's fair to say AMD/ATI are doing a damn fine job!

I don't think current ATI cards are bad at all as such... I just find it mildly amusing how quickly the past is forgotten.

Anyhow as I get attacked for the mildest of ATI sentiments, however justified or not they may be, I thought I might as well go the whole hog.