• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Best single card solution for £200

GTX 260 at that res, currently running at 1920x1200 and nothing really challenges it too much with everythign maxxed - get a bit of slow down in Empire Total War naval battles (30fps ish), and I don't include crysis in the that sweeping statement ;).

But currently have mine OCed to 675 (core) 1458 (shader) 2304 (mem) about the same as a stock 285 - granted it will be slower than a 285 but not by much and is less than half the price (£140 OCUK GTX 260).

Also with the default fan setting of 40% I can't hear it and only start to hear it over my case fans (around 25DB) at 60-70%.
 
I'm interested in this as well as my launch day 8800GTX has just died.

Currently looking at either the GTX275 or 4890, with the ATI offering I guess being a bit louder?
 
dokko said:
One thing that really puzzles me is that ATI on paper has the much better card for that price range, what are they doing wrong to make it slow down?

4890 Vs 275

1024mb Vs 896mb
GDDR5 vs GDDR3
GPU Clock: 850mhz Vs 633Mhz
Mem Clock: 3900mhz vs 2268mhz
processing cores: 800 vs 240


Really there should only be one winner but why in testing does the 275 come out on top most of the time? Crackers. :eek:
Click to expand...


1024mb vs 896mb ~ Only 128mb extra, not going to have much of an impact.

GDDR5 vs GDDR3 ~ The 275 has 448bit bus width, whereas the 4890 only has 256bit.

GPU Clock: 850mhz Vs 633Mhz ~ Very different architectures, so it's difficult to compare. Also nvidia shaders work at 1404mhz, independent of the core, whereas ATI shaders and core work at the same frequency (850mhz).

Mem Clock: 3900mhz vs 2268mhz ~ See above.

processing cores: 800 vs 240 ~ See above. Each processing core has a very different setup and nvidia shaders are clocked much higher.
 
but the HD4XXX has GDDR5 so shouldn't that make them faster at higher res? :confused:


can't have best of both worlds LOL
 
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3555&p=1

The article above is a really good one on what you can achieve from a 4890. Does memory and core overclocking and benches core on its own and then both core and memory. Overclocking the gddr 5 allows for the same memory bandwidth as a gtx280 has. Iam not sure this can be done on the gtx275. In all but 2 of the benchmarks the 4890 beats out a gtx285 when overclocked. That in my book is really good performance for the buck.
 
Last edited:
The GTX 260 are ace overclockers, I've had 3 and they have all reached 700mhz core without being to hot or noisy. Nvidia cards always seem to have much more o/c room than ATI.
You would be paying £70 (33%) more for GTX 275 for a small improvement.
 
Neither the GTX275 and or HD4890 are worth buying, save some money and get a GTX260 instead, you won't notice any difference, especially if your overclocking they will all end up around the same performance anyway.
 
Shocky-FM said:
Neither the GTX275 and or HD4890 are worth buying, save some money and get a GTX260 instead, you won't notice any difference, especially if your overclocking they will all end up around the same performance anyway.
Click to expand...

What if you overclock a GTX275 won't that be much faster then a overclocked 260?
 
a reference 4890 which you can find for £180 clocked to 950+ lays the smackdown to the 275 - very impressive cards for the money.

they're different architectures, bigger numbers doesn't automatically mean better results .....i agree with gurusan ...noobs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom