Radeon 6850 or GTX 4601gb

[RavenXXX2]

You need to change the name in the link I have posted above to get it to work properly due to the stupid blocking of a certain site here.

 

[crackerbear]

^^^
Link doesn't work...

If you look at the URL, you'll see why.

It starts with a H and rhymes with nexus...

Edit: Haha good image RavenXXX2, I like the irony

 

[arknor]

+1 for GTX460 - Cyclone one is nice and clocking well - good price too.
Be carefull on Gigabyte - when Ocing sometimes these cards becoming dead - some issue with VRM heatsink, as I red on other forums.

first ive heard of this.... some brands dont even have VRM heatsinks

 

[An Exception]

If you look at the URL, you'll see why.

It starts with a H and rhymes with nexus...

Edit: Haha good image RavenXXX2, I like the irony

Ah I see, well out of the 12 charts of 4 games at 3 different resolutions, the 6850's beat the 460's in 9 instances and the 460's were fastest in 3?

 

[Marine-RX179]

Ah I see, well out of the 12 charts of 4 games at 3 different resolutions, the 6850's beat the 460's in 9 instances and the 460's were fastest in 3?

6850 is known to be sometimes slightly faster than GTX460 1GB at 2xAA or none; at 4xAA they are mostly on par with each other.
In the "nexus" review, AVP is only running with 2xAA, and Mafia II is only with "AA" (which I don't think is x4), and as for the JC2 results, I find the results questionable as I've seen other reviews which the GTX460 1GB and 6850 on par with each other.

 

[555BUK]

68xx has ~10% less transitors, but requires a ~10% greater clock speed to match a GTX460 1GB. Overclock the 460 to the same speed as 68xx and performance is pretty equal. Most 460's will reach 850MHz (from 675 default) and this will beat a stock 6870 which runs at 900MHz. My vanilla 460 will run 950MHz stable, but I downclock it to 900MHz to keep things nice and cool.

Until voltage tweaking software is released for 68xx, the 460 can match or exceed both (when overclocked). Even after/if the 68xx software arrives, the 6870 may only pull slightly ahead, yet its costs 30% more.

68xx is a good product but both models are ~£30 overpriced.

I believe that a 460 (MSI Cyclone, ASUS DirectCU, or Gigabyte OC) with decent non-reference cooling is the best bet. 6870's are certainly not worth £50 more than the 460, unless you do not intend to overclock.

..plus you get HAWX 2 free (code is worth a tenner on fleabay).

...and in SLI, 460's scale very well too.

....plus NVidia is a consumer friendly company that never tries to dupe the public by using inconsistant product naming strategies. Whatever gave ATI the idea of renaming the 57xx replacement 68xx???

 

[An Exception]

....plus NVidia is a consumer friendly company that never tries to dupe the public by using inconsistant product naming strategies.

Vomit...

Edit:
Nice playful ninja edit.

 

[An Exception]

68xx has ~10% less transitors, but requires a ~10% greater clock speed to match a GTX460 1GB.

How is the above relevant in any way???

Overclock the 460 to the same speed as 68xx and performance is pretty equal. Most 460's will reach 850MHz (from 675 default) and this will beat a stock 6870 which runs at 900MHz. My vanilla 460 will run 950MHz stable, but I downclock it to 900MHz to keep things nice and cool.

My Gigabyte GTX 460 won't go over 800 (at least not stable without artifacts), no matter what voltage I use. If I were buying a 460 now I'd go for the one with the highest stock clocks so I wouldn't have to worry about overclocking it.

 

[MoodyB]

Whatever gave ATI the idea of renaming the 57xx replacement 68xx???

Nobody, because the 68xx card/s aren't replacing the 57xx series.

They are to compete against the Gtx 460 cards, which they do performance wise, but not in pricing... well unless the rumoured NV price increase happens.

The 67xx cards are rumoured to be released in the new year - Feb I think.

 

[Marine-RX179]

How is the above relevant in any way???

Do you notice that Ravenger who you quote said he couldn't get his Gigabyte GTX460 1GB over 800MHz stable without artifacts? So I assume at 800MHz he has no problem, and it is still a 125MHz overclock over stock speed. So are you telling me that you think all 6850 will overclock by at least 125MHz over stock speed 775MHz and reach over 900MHz stable? I simply don't see you argument of 6850 being better in overclocking make any sense. They will always be someone unlucky enough to end up with a weaker core, just like with all the people singing "get a 5850 and overclock to 5870 speed" and some unlucky chaps end up with a 5850 which they could clock to over 800MHz. Whatever cards to you are getting, luck will always be a factor involve in terms of doing good or no so good on overclocking.

 

[An Exception]

^^^
Did you actually read 555BUK's post?

He was talking about the 6870, hence my reply to him...

 

[Marine-RX179]

Nothing really wrong with what he says. What he's saying is not really much different to people saying overclocking 6850 to 6870 speed, or 5850 to 5870 speed. They are all possible, but just not guaranteed every card can do it. And when two cards are same speed, but one is at higher clock than the other, it is only natural that the card with the higher clock would need overclock a bit further on the clock speed to match the the overclock on the card that had a lower stock clock. GTX460 1GB overclock by 20% is 810MHz (135MHz OC), 6850 overclock by 20% is 930MHz (155MHz OC)...when if I had to choose betwen the two cards, I would also consider the possibility of GTX460 1GB reaching 810MHz vs 6850 reaching 930MHz.

However, I don't agree with his claim of "NVidia is a consumer friendly company that never tries to dupe the public by using inconsistant product naming strategies"...it made me lol and thought he must be joking

 

[555BUK]

How is the above relevant in any way???

I gave the "10% less transistors requires 10% more clock speed" comment to show that both technologies (68xx vs 460) are roughly equal. Sure, ATI uses a smaller and cheaper die to obtain similar perfomance but they can only do this by increasing GPU speeds. IMHO, 68xx offers very little WOW! If it could beat GF104 at equal clock speeds with the smaller die then it would indicate true design optimisation and superiority. As it is, it is just a butchered and slightly optimised 58xx.

^^^
Did you actually read 555BUK's post?

He was talking about the 6870, hence my reply to him...

Actually, I was talking about both. Clock for clock the 6870 is only 6-7% faster than the 6850, placing all 3 cards in the same ballpark. Both of the vanilla 460's I have owned have clocked to 900MHz easy. The first would do 930 and the second 950 with voltage tweaks. Anyone with a 460 that cannot do 800MHz with an adequate PSU is plain unlucky. It is my opinion (based upon reviews and personal experience), that the average 460 clocks better in percentage terms than the average 6850. Both of these cards will of course overclock better than the 6870, but the 6850 is hamstrung by using the same technology but also having less shaders to do it with. The 6870 may be 20-30% faster than the 460 at stock, but the former only overclocks by ~10%, whilst the latter does ~30%. Overclocked, they will be very very close.

However, I don't agree with his claim of "NVidia is a consumer friendly company that never tries to dupe the public by using inconsistant product naming strategies"...it made me lol and thought he must be joking

You thinks correctly.


I believe that ATI have been "cleverer" than NVidia with how they have implemented crippling of their lesser cards. ATI cut much less off of the 6850 than NVidia did with the 460 768MB. Lacking memory, bandwidth and shader cores the 768MB 460 is really deprived of horsepower, and cannot possibly compete with 6850. A 6850 can almost be a 6870, but the 768MB 460 cannot compete with the 1GB version.

 

[An Exception]

I gave the "10% less transistors requires 10% more clock speed" comment to show that both technologies (68xx vs 460) are roughly equal. Sure, ATI uses a smaller and cheaper die to obtain similar perfomance but they can only do this by increasing GPU speeds. IMHO, 68xx offers very little WOW! If it could beat GF104 at equal clock speeds with the smaller die then it would indicate true design optimisation and superiority. As it is, it is just a butchered and slightly optimised 58xx.

The above proves your a fanboy or don't genuinely know what your talking about, as you seem to want to compare Apples to Oranges.
The simple and obvious fact is you can't compare transistor count Vs transistor count of two differing architectures, because the transistors for one architecture will have more or less logic and will be different sizes depending on architecture.

The only way you compare performance efficiency between architectures is by comparing mm^2 Vs mm^2.
If you use the correct methods, and compare Apples to Apples then the below quote of yours would be correct in relation to Bart's performance per mm^2...
"it would indicate true design optimisation and superiority"

You thinks correctly.

That's not how it looked before your edit...

I believe that ATI have been "cleverer" than NVidia with how they have implemented crippling of their lesser cards. ATI cut much less off of the 6850 than NVidia did with the 460 768MB. Lacking memory, bandwidth and shader cores the 768MB 460 is really deprived of horsepower, and cannot possibly compete with 6850. A 6850 can almost be a 6870, but the 768MB 460 cannot compete with the 1GB version.

So it had nothing to do with Nvidia getting crappy yields?

 

[555BUK]

That's not how it looked before your edit...

You are WRONG and I urge a mod to check the edits on my first post to confirm this.

Comparing graphics cards in the same category, within the same price range and performing very similarly is never like comparing "apples with oranges". My last 4 cards have been 5750 to 5870 to 5850 (crossfire) to GTX 460 (crossfire and single). You can consider me a fanboy if you like, but I would be one of the first to jump to a new ATI card if it merited it. I will probaly plump for 6950/70 if performance vs price is good.

I will not be goaded into replying to any further comments from you. Lets both be quiet and listen to others opinions.

edit: When I edit I do so to correct my admittedly poor spelling, or to add content. English is not my first language.

 

[An Exception]

You are WRONG and I urge a mod to check the edits on my first post to confirm this.

Are you including the Ninja edit?

Comparing graphics cards in the same category, within the same price range and performing very similarly is never like comparing "apples with oranges".

I will not be goaded into replying to any further comments from you. Lets both be quiet and listen to others opinions.

So why was you trying to compare architecture efficiency by comparing transistor Vs transistor, instead of going by mm^2 Vs mm^2?

My last 4 cards have been 5750 to 5870 to 5850 (crossfire) to GTX 460 (crossfire and single). You can consider me a fanboy if you like, but I would be one of the first to jump to a new ATI card if it merited it. I will probaly plump for 6950/70 if performance vs price is good.

if it could beat GF104 at equal clock speeds with the smaller die then it would indicate true design optimisation and superiority. As it is, it is just a butchered and slightly optimised 58xx.

What's with the emotive and provocative language?
What's even worse is you got it backwards...