Why is it better?

[max76249]

Can someone please point out to me why the Asus GeForce GTX 285 1024mb is better than the Asus ATI Radeon HD 4890 1GB at a resolution of 1920X1080, that is if it is better, which I'm presuming due to the price.

 

[no_1_dave]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-275-review-test/10
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-275-review-test/12
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-275-review-test/14

The review is of the 275 but it has 285 & 4890 benchies in too

 

[Shocky-FM]

Can someone please point out to me why the Asus GeForce GTX 285 1024mb is better than the Asus ATI Radeon HD 4890 1GB at a resolution of 1920X1080, that is if it is better, which I'm presuming due to the price.

That would be because its faster.

 

[max76249]

OK, so basically it's faster. So then, is there a visible difference between the graphical abilities of the GTX 285 and the HD 4890? In other words, is the extra money for the GTX 285 worth it?

 

[no_1_dave]

OK, so basically it's faster. So then, is there a visible difference between the graphical abilities of the GTX 285 and the HD 4890? In other words, is the extra money for the GTX 285 worth it?

That depends on you as a person and how much money you are willing to spend.
The 285 is faster so can use higher settings then the 4890, but only just, so if you want to spend more & get the best possible then get the 285. If you dont mind sacrificing a little eye candy then go for a 4890 or 275.

 

[max76249]

OK then, so what is better value for money, the HD 4890 or the GTX 275/285?

 

[Shocky-FM]

OK then, so what is better value for money, the HD 4890 or the GTX 275/285?

GTX260

 

[no_1_dave]

GTX260

 

[Trunks9486]

I would either go for the Asus 4890 or a 4870 1GB.

The 4890 asus one is excellent if you plan on overclocking.

The XFX 4870X2 is also a great price and competes with the GTX295 in performance

 

[no_1_dave]

4870?
The 275 & the 260 beat this & are better value for money.

The 4870x2 is an option, almost 295 speeds in some games, in others it isnt so good down to compatibility mainly.

If you're looking to spend as little as possible for good performance then its like this: 260 > 4890 > 275 > 285
Personally though I feel the 275 is worth the £30 over the 4890 because I use photoshop so use the benefit of CUDA

 

[Orangey]

Value wise I think the 4890 has it, the 285 is a nice price though so I would snap it up.

Especially with quite a few new games coming out soon or in the next few months.

 

[Rezident]

OK, so basically it's faster. So then, is there a visible difference between the graphical abilities of the GTX 285 and the HD 4890? In other words, is the extra money for the GTX 285 worth it?

In a word 'no', 4890 is obviously better value.

 

[uv]

Personally though I feel the 275 is worth the £30 over the 4890 because I use photoshop so use the benefit of CUDA

Photoshop doesn't use CUDA. It has GPU acceleration on all graphics cards, including ATI. If you're going to recommend cards for certain features on a major hardware forum, at least do your homework.

 

[Tute]

4870?
The 275 & the 260 beat this & are better value for money.

The 275 yes. The 260 no.

If you're looking to spend as little as possible for good performance then its like this: 260 > 4890 > 275 > 285
Personally though I feel the 275 is worth the £30 over the 4890 because I use photoshop so use the benefit of CUDA

You would pay £30 just to have CUDA? Madness.

 

[reflux]

GPU acceleration in PS is a moot point anyway....oooo, it gives us a nice smooth zoom. As if that's a killer feature.

 

[kylew]

GPU acceleration in PS is a moot point anyway....oooo, it gives us a nice smooth zoom. As if that's a killer feature.

Do you actually use Photoshop? I'm sure anyone that does would dismiss the features GPU acceleration bring.

Also, it's not CUDA, it's openGL so any card almost can use it. My 4850s are usable with Photoshop.

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405745.html

 

[Tute]

Thread necromancy, Kyle.

 

[kylew]

Thread necromancy, Kyle.

 

[kylew]

4870?
The 275 & the 260 beat this & are better value for money.

The 4870x2 is an option, almost 295 speeds in some games, in others it isnt so good down to compatibility mainly.

If you're looking to spend as little as possible for good performance then its like this: 260 > 4890 > 275 > 285
Personally though I feel the 275 is worth the £30 over the 4890 because I use photoshop so use the benefit of CUDA

Take a look at this.

List of tested graphics display cards for Photoshop CS4

nVidia geForce

nVidia 260 GTX 896MB
nVidia 9800 GTX 512MB
nVidia 9600 GT 512MB
nVidia 8800 GTX 768MB
nVidia 8800 GT 512MB
nVidia 8600M 256MB
nVidia 7900 GTX 512MB
nVidia 7900 GS 256MB
nVidia 7800 GTX 256MB
nVidia 7600 256MB
nVidia 6800 256MB
nVidia Quadro

Quadro FX 4600 768 MB
Quadro FX 4500 512MB
Quadro FX 4400 512MB
Quadro FX 3700 512MB
Quadro FX 3500 256MB
Quadro FX 1700 512MB
Quadro FX 1500 256MB
Quadro FX 1400 -128MB
Quadro FX 570 -256MB
Quadro FX 370 256MB
ATI Radeon

ATI Radeon 4850 512 MB
Radeon x3870 x2 512MB
Radeon x2900HD 512MB
ATI Radeon HD 2400 256MB
Radeon x1900XT 512MB
ATI Radeon x1800 - 512MB
Radeon x1800 256MB
ATI Fire GL

ATI Fire GL 7700 512 MB
ATI Fire GL 7600 512 MB
Fire GL V7200 256MB
ATI Fire GL 5600 512MB
Fire GL V3600 256MB
Fire GL 3350 256 MB

 

[arc@css]

The 512bit memory interface on the 285 is partly what separates it from the 275 but unless money is no issue the 275 isn't far behind at all with fps.