BF2S Forums Graphics cards.

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

So, this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gami … A,801.html

Apparently, according to that the GTX 260 is better or quite similar to the 4870.

I can get a 4870 for $354 and a 260 for $355

So whats with the Ati obession, everyone makes out that they are infinitely better atm, but not really?

I have a 4870, and it's been awesome so far.

But ati is cheaper? Is the difference between the 4850 and 4870 big?

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

I can get a 4870 for $354 and a 260 for $355

Thanks for reading.

Well he said cheaper, which it is. He didn't say by how much. However there are two charts on tomshardware.com about the HD4870 vs the GTX260, one says (thats yours) that the GTX 260 overall is better, but an earlier article (this one: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/rad … ,1964.htmlactually showed that the HD4870 was better than the GTX 260.

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

Good to hear.

What I am questioning though, is not whether the 4870 is any good, but why everyone claims nvidia is so horrible atm. They both seem fairly competitive to me.

It's because when they came out the 4870 was right on the heels of the GTX 280 and the 260 was like $150 more than a 4870.  Eventhough the prices are right now, the stigma attached to the whole thing is hard to shake, so many people who suggest 4870s to begin with, will stick to it. 

The original GTX 260 has reached it's end of life, and the core 216 manages to outpace the 4870 consistently (atleast the 512mb version).  It's kind of a six and half a dozen thing at the moment.  Imo, the whole ATi > Nvidia thing that has went on stems from the original price issues.  Hard for people to forget such a blatent rip off.  Also, ATi seem to have increased there prices since there selling them about as fast as they can build them.

Nvidia have some 55nm parts arriving, well, now actually, or during this month.  I'd hold out for them, at the very least they will push down the price of the current stuff and you may even manage a GTX 280 depending on how ATi respond with there own price cuts.

Martyn

I've not compared them side by side, but from what t'internet tells me, they very similar cards in a highly competitive market place.

The whole "buy this" or "buy that" that you see posted here by countless people, is imo, pure fanboyism.

All other things being equal, the nVidia card is the better card.

Why?

CUDA.

But only due to CUDA. If you've no want or need of CUDA, then it really doesn't matter which you go with. In fact I'd probably decide it based on what motherboard you have (if that makes a difference at all, if not, then you're back in the "it don't make a difference" boat)...

They are just about equal, 4870 winning most games by a little and maybe suffering a little less from ultra high resolutions and AA / AF (1GB version at least). It all comes down to:
- Price: Whicherver you get cheaper.
- Preferences: If you happen to like one of the brands more.
- CUDA: If you need CUDA, you need Nvidia.
- Drivers: ATI drivers seem to be working a tad better, then again there are lots of stories of them bugging in Vista 64-bit.
- Your motherboard: Silly to get ATI on SLI board / Nvidia on CF board.

Last edited by DeathUnlimited (2008-11-18 12:15:03)

Drivers. Ive always had good luck with ATI drivers, but the minute I got nVidia cards I got a poo-load of issues. (different PCs, its not a driver conflict).

And buying ATI will help fuel GPU wars