The only weakness I can see in the HD 4870 X2 is the lack of CUDA.
So, which would be more important to you?
CUDA or a higher frame rate?
So, which would be more important to you?
CUDA or a higher frame rate?
Poll
CUDA (on say a GTX280) or an HD 4870 X2?
| Cuda | 30% | 30% - 9 | ||||
| Hd 4870 X2 | 70% | 70% - 21 | ||||
| Total: 30 | ||||||
Framerate?
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
X2. Physix will get on AMD's cards too even though they don't have CUDA. And I don't fold that much that I would need its power to calculate complex processing operations. I want my card purely for games, if it comes with an extra then even better. X2 is cheaper and better for gamers.
Great PPD in FAH or framerate?
Meh, I'll go lower end. Not gonna spend 500e in a product that will be less than half of it when the next generation is released
Meh, I'll go lower end. Not gonna spend 500e in a product that will be less than half of it when the next generation is released
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
CUDA definitely. Nowadays I enjoy FAH way more than gaming anyways
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
I enjoy FAH more, too, but I'd still go for the X2. Do we even know how many PPD a 4870X2 will make?max wrote:
CUDA definitely. Nowadays I enjoy FAH way more than gaming anyways
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
On the 3870X2 you could only use 1 GPU and not both afaik. Assuming they fixed that (which I really doubt) I'd guess the 4870X2 would do twice that of the 4870.
2x 2100 = 4200 is way less than the 7000 the 280GTX will do.
EDIT: if you're serious about cuda: 9800GX2 ftw. That card is pure win for cuda
2x 2100 = 4200 is way less than the 7000 the 280GTX will do.
EDIT: if you're serious about cuda: 9800GX2 ftw. That card is pure win for cuda
Last edited by max (2008-08-13 15:38:19)
once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.
I guess I should say what I voted for:
CUDA.
The way I see it, CUDA is big, HUGE big - it opens up the ability to do soooo much more than just PhysX and/or FAH - take for example that thread recently about the $3000-supercomputer-on-a-desktop-using-GPUs - they were processing 3D tomography - which is neither FAH nor PhysX.
Again, it's one of those things, like shaders, where at first they seem not all that great, but then programmers start using them in neat ways, and now no-one would choose a faster but shader-less GPU over one with shaders. Would they?
CUDA.
The way I see it, CUDA is big, HUGE big - it opens up the ability to do soooo much more than just PhysX and/or FAH - take for example that thread recently about the $3000-supercomputer-on-a-desktop-using-GPUs - they were processing 3D tomography - which is neither FAH nor PhysX.
Again, it's one of those things, like shaders, where at first they seem not all that great, but then programmers start using them in neat ways, and now no-one would choose a faster but shader-less GPU over one with shaders. Would they?
ray tracing (eventually)Scorpion0x17 wrote:
no-one would choose a faster but shader-less GPU over one with shaders. Would they?
Last edited by jsnipy (2008-08-13 16:02:25)
If what I've heard is correct, nVidia is helping a guy design drivers for ATI that allow everything since the HD3 series(I think) to use CUDA and do all the same stuff that nVidia cards can.
jsnipy wrote:
ray tracing (eventually)Scorpion0x17 wrote:
no-one would choose a faster but shader-less GPU over one with shaders. Would they?
Not CUDA, PhysX only._j5689_ wrote:
If what I've heard is correct, nVidia is helping a guy design drivers for ATI that allow everything since the HD3 series(I think) to use CUDA and do all the same stuff that nVidia cards can.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
DeathUnlimited wrote:
Not CUDA, PhysX only._j5689_ wrote:
If what I've heard is correct, nVidia is helping a guy design drivers for ATI that allow everything since the HD3 series(I think) to use CUDA and do all the same stuff that nVidia cards can.
On a personal level, I don't use a videocard for much more then games and the occasional video editing. So, CUDA isn't a real big deal to me.
The only thing that matters right now is playing crysis at max specs with good frames.
Cancer is going to have to wait I'm afraid. ATi = WiNNAR
Cancer is going to have to wait I'm afraid. ATi = WiNNAR
But games, I predict, will increasingly use CUDA.Defiance wrote:
On a personal level, I don't use a videocard for much more then games and the occasional video editing. So, CUDA isn't a real big deal to me.
I just soiled myself thinking about CUDA-based raytracing...jsnipy wrote:
ray tracing (eventually)Scorpion0x17 wrote:
no-one would choose a faster but shader-less GPU over one with shaders. Would they?