• 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.

Which one?

I'd go for the Nvidia option everytime. Reasons :- It generally outperforms the 4890, it'll be quieter especially doing day to day desktop tasks, you have physics built in, the drivers are generally better imo (and yes I've had cards from both the red and the green team before anyone starts), there's CUDA, better minimum framerates, it's just as overclockable as the ATi, and at that price it really is a steal...........I think that's all for now:D
 
+1 for the 4890, theyre apprantly one of the most OCable cards ever, personally Id doubt the 275 would get near it (clocking wise), and yeah its £20 cheaper, has better warranty and comes with goodies (HAWX and battleforge)
 
95thrifles said:
personally Id doubt the 275 would get near it (clocking wise)
Click to expand...

People are generally getting around 950Mhz stable overclocks on the ATi, which is an overclock of 100Mhz on the standard core speed.

You'd be quite unlucky if the Nvidia didn't do 733Mhz stable on the core, so again a 100Mhz increase on the standard core speed.

The same goes for the memory, So very similar overclocks on both cards, giving you very similar performance increases on both cards. So can you explain to me why you think the GTX 275 would not get near it clocking wise?

You do realise that ATi and Nvidia do not use the same GPU architecture, don't you :confused: it's not all about core and memory speeds in Mhz, and it's also not down to how many shaders processors each card has.

Sorry for the rant 95trifles, but there seems to be a bit of a common misconception on these boards recently, where people seem to think that just because the ATi cards have higher clock speeds that automatically makes them better. This is most definately not the case and the fact that ATi's use of shaders processors is not as good as Nvidia's, means they have to go for the higher clock speeds, use of DRR5 memory etc just to try and keep up.

At the end of the day the op only needs to have a look at some proper benchmarks to find out which card is faster.
 
Last edited:
coupe69 said:
I'd go for the Nvidia option everytime. Reasons :- It generally outperforms the 4890, it'll be quieter especially doing day to day desktop tasks, you have physics built in, the drivers are generally better imo (and yes I've had cards from both the red and the green team before anyone starts), there's CUDA, better minimum framerates, it's just as overclockable as the ATi, and at that price it really is a steal...........I think that's all for now:D
Click to expand...

The 4890 is dead quite during "day to day" tasks, the fan only becomes loud during intense 3D activities such as furmakr and crysis.

PhysX is still a gimmick to be honest, unlike DX10.1 on ATI cards which at least is starting to show some substantial performance benefits in a few games.

Nvidia drivers are probably more functional (e.g. game profiles) but theres nothing wrong with ATI drivers either; been using Catalyst drivers seen the 9800pro days and have yet to encounter any major issues.

CUDA is a plus, but it doesn't really affect general gaming.

Minimum framerates? I thinks thats more of a relic from when the 512mb 4870s were first released. The 1gb cards since then, along with all the driver updates have made this a non issue.
 
950 stable on a 4890 is usually before people use programs to up the voltage and then you are talking upwards of 1ghz for some. Theres even a 4890pcs version coming from powercolor with 1010mhz core at stock clocks so yea the 4890 does have a good bit more head room than the gtx275 for overclocking. Also reports around the net are that the gtx275 is not that good an overclocker. You would also be very unlucky if the gddr 5 on the 4890 only gave you an extra 100mhz.

The higher minimum fps is just something that gets passed around these days with no substance. Just like nv cards perform better in crysis which used to be true which no longer is.
 
yeah I wasnt implying that 950 on the 4890 is better than 750 on the 275, I am aware of the different architectures, but yeah theres reports of the 4890 doing 1050-1100 without too much trouble, that is what I was meaning
 
95thrifles said:
yeah I wasnt implying that 950 on the 4890 is better than 750 on the 275, I am aware of the different architectures, but yeah theres reports of the 4890 doing 1050-1100 without too much trouble, that is what I was meaning
Click to expand...

Sorry my mistake then, having not had an ATi since a 3870 briefly, it appears I maybe slightly out of touch :) I'd still go for the Nvidia tho :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom