Whats Faster Then GTX280 And Cheaper? HD4850x2

[Monkeywoman]

source; http://forum.donanimhaber.com/m_26474492/tm.htm dont know what language to translate from

[xlink]

we know it's going to be a little bit faster.

we also know that AMD's performance graph is horribly skewed since it starts out at 80% and not 0%

[Xello]

:ROTF: I love how they show you the very tip of the whole graph just like NV does :up:

[@@@@]

the 4850 X2 is here maybe some reviewers is already testing the card

and please stop with this kind of marketing just show the performance as it is and let the buyers decide

[Warboy]

what the hell, get these furbared graphs out of here.

[@@@@]

what happened my screen lag for a sec then double posted

@ moderators would it be possible to delete this thanks

[paulhamm]

More bad news for Nvidia, just what they need. They now have 2 parts that beat the best they currently have. Just an ouch that keeps getting bigger.

[Calmatory]

What about the graphs? Nvidia did the very same. :shrug:

[systemviper]

what a bogus graph, :down: they like comparing what is 2 cards against one. why doesn't ati just build a good single card solution, oh yea,
they got the 4870, hmmmm wonder how that compared to the 280gtx...

[mascaras]

yep , already posted here >> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=194822&highlight=4850X2


regards

[xlink]

what a bogus graph, :down: they like comparing what is 2 cards against one. why doesn't ati just build a good single card solution, oh yea,
they got the 4870, hmmmm wonder how that compared to the 280gtx...

what a bogus anology, :down: like comparing a comercially unviable product against one that is. why doesn't nvidia just build an efficient GPU that is of reasonable die size, oh yea,
they got the 9800GTX+, hmmmm wonder how that compared to the 4870...

[FischOderAal]

Well, I don't care. I'd use Multi-GPU-cards only if they'd share the RAM and act like "one" GPU so I don't have to deal with Crossfire. Imo SLI and CF are a dead-end, I rather play with fewer details. kthxbai

What about the graphs? Nvidia did the very same. :shrug:

Right. AMD releases screwed graphs it shall be deleted but for NVIDIA it's OK to do so? :shrug:

what a bogus graph, :down: they like comparing what is 2 cards against one. why doesn't ati just build a good single card solution, oh yea,
they got the 4870, hmmmm wonder how that compared to the 280gtx...

Though I don't like CF your points are not valid. These are two GPUs, yes, but what's wrong with it? I don't remember anyone being so upset as NVIDIA released the 7900GX2 :rolleyes:
See it that way: would you mind if a car has two engines but is faster than another car with only one engine and it consumes quite the same amount of fuel?

[spicypixel]

I dont care whats on the board just as long as its good perf/price ratio. When will people stop caring about architectural differences?

[Monkeywoman]

if ATI wanted to they can just fuse 2 RV770 cores together and call it a "single monolithic solution" but no, its easier and cheaper to take the path they have. nvidia is going to do the same.

[Jowy Atreides]

Someone is bound to do it anyways and I was bored

[ahmad]

what a bogus graph, :down: they like comparing what is 2 cards against one. why doesn't ati just build a good single card solution, oh yea,
they got the 4870, hmmmm wonder how that compared to the 280gtx...

Rofl why are you complaining. Its a single card that runs faster and is cheaper than a gtx280. Does it matter if it is single core or not.. no, because why would I care if I am getting the performance out of it.

Regardless of how the graphs are portrayed, it gives you an estimate of how much faster it is. So in CoD for example, if the gtx280 did 100FPS, this would do 140FPS.

Perhaps we need a howto on XS: "Howto read all performance graphs for dummies". Maybe then people will read and not complain..

[GripS]

wherever did you get such confidential information? :D

[spicypixel]

I think everyones missing the whole $400 price thing... I'm a tad impressed if you account it will drop quite soon.

[systemviper]

Whoooo, I din't expect to get so much replies, and i see what everyone is saying.... But i was just looking at Top single GPU card VS. Top single GPU card, that's about it. But why isn't top vs top a fair comparison? I think that alone is something...

[FischOderAal]

@Monkeywoman: I guess the language is turkish, I don't know for sure though.

Whoooo, I din't expect to get so much replies, and i see what everyone is saying.... But i was just looking at Top single GPU card VS. Top single GPU card, that's about it. But why isn't top vs top a fair comparison? I think that alone is something...

Because GT200 is designed to be High-End, RV770 is Value. Two RV770 are codenamend R700. AMDs way is smarter, as High-End doesn't mean High-Volume. Of course a single-gpu-card is better imho, but especially for AMD not a wise thing to do.

So you're not comparing Top vs Top but Top vs Mainstream. Is that fair? To go with cars again: Porsche 911 vs VW Golf GTI

[systemviper]

Still, it says 2 different marketing directions. I just was looking at top of line vs top of line. Porche vs VW, that is totaly skewed right from the start.

We only have 2 players here, so I still think a Top vs Top is a fair thing to look at. Again I understand the argument "value" but they tried a high end card the 2900 and couldn't even pull it off... So i guess that is why they are going for value.

[paulhamm]

I dont care whats on the board just as long as its good perf/price ratio. When will people stop caring about architectural differences?

Price performance seems great. Kind of like asking when Yankee and Redsox fans will "Just get along" Make yourself a fanboi filter and ignore the stupidity, thats what I did, wonder if I can patent it?

Whoooo, I din't expect to get so much replies, and i see what everyone is saying.... But i was just looking at Top single GPU card VS. Top single GPU card, that's about it. But why isn't top vs top a fair comparison? I think that alone is something...

The graph is clearly marked, all the complaints are just sour grapes. You are correct, it looks to be a great addition to AMDs lineup.

[FischOderAal]

Still, it says 2 different marketing directions. I just was looking at top of line vs top of line. Porche vs VW, that is totaly skewed right from the start.

Allright, allright. Let's just agree to disagree ;) :up:

We only have 2 players here, so I still think a Top vs Top is a fair thing to look at. Again I understand the argument "value" but they tried a high end card the 2900 and couldn't even pull it off... So i guess that is why they are going for value.

The R600 "debacle" might be one reason, yes. But that's not the reason why they are not trying it the NVIDIA-way: make it big. Who knows, perhaps they would've gone the same way even if R600 had been a succes.

RV770 is way smaller, is cheaper to make and I guess that it has better yields (just to play it safe). RV770 (and of course RV670) is the less risky design approach. AMD could've tried to regain the crown with one monolithic GPU, but what for? High-End is not the place where money is made and it's money what AMD needs most, not prestige. Of course it is good to have the performance crown, it is good marketing, but there are more important pros and cons for OEMs and business clients.

Going for price/perf was the only sensible way for AMD and imho the best decision they made for quite some time.

P.S. I hate if-clauses, I never know if they're correct :/

€dith: I didn't mean to offend you! English is not my native language so it might sound harsher than it was meant to be! My apologies :)

[systemviper]

I think the 4850x2 will be a fine card,

I love the 4870x2, i think it's the best single card out there now, but who knows in the future...

I also love the 3870x2, i think that is one of the best deals out there now, you can find them for around 150 and they do 18k in 06 without any overclocking.

[Monkeywoman]

a little on topic and off topic, I JUST BOUGHT A 4850 used FOR 170!! w000t!!! she'll be in my system in about an hour:D

BTW, added to the 4850x2 being released in October; ATI will also have a new driver according to this (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=201471) boost in performance anyone? Nvidias biggest challenge right now are the lawsuits going for it not ATI.

[NaMcO]

Just :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF: @ the graphic

[Junos]

I'm kinda sad that Ati decided to use the same "graph cheat" as Nvidia. They used to do it the fair way when they launched HD4850 and -70 but now they're in the same boat as Nvidia. I'm not especially looking forward to this product, because IMO it's a niche one. I love ATI and all that, but when Nvidia did the same cheat I wasn't happy so why would I let Ati go easier?

[Morais]

*Performance estimate based on data from 2 ATI Radeon HD4850 cards in CF

We might expect a better performance from a single card X2 then

[Morais]

I'm kinda sad that Ati decided to use the same "graph cheat" as Nvidia. They used to do it the fair way when they launched HD4850 and -70 but now they're in the same boat as Nvidia. I'm not especially looking forward to this product, because IMO it's a niche one. I love ATI and all that, but when Nvidia did the same cheat I wasn't happy so why would I let Ati go easier?

The graph is not a cheat.They just know how to manipulate datas and trick fool consumers :rolleyes:

[inCore]

We might expect a better performance from a single card X2 then

I didn't even notice that, that's just a depressing statement. Not as depressing as the scaling of the graphs, which I also fell for, but still depressing.

[jaredpace]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=85151&stc=1&d=1221415484

3dmark Vantage:
gtx280 : 100%
4850x2 : 114%

COD4 dx9 2560 4xAA 8xAF
gtx280 : 100 FPS
4850x2 : 133 FPS

Company of heroes 1920 4xAA 8xAF
gtx280 : 100 FPS
4850x2 : 108 FPS

HL2: episode 2 dx9 2560 8xAA 16xAF
gtx280 : 100 FPS
4850x2 : 130 FPS

World in Conflict 1920 4xAA 16xAF
gtx280 : 100 FPS
4850x2 : 113 FPS

[Monkeywoman]

I didn't even notice that, that's just a depressing statement. Not as depressing as the scaling of the graphs, which I also fell for, but still depressing.

the X2 will be faster, it does have side port too; just not enabled yet...in October though:up:

[Sly Fox]

I wish both companies would stop using stupid skewed graphs.

I think it really shows either a general lack of respect for the customer, "yeah, they won't notice the scale on this graph, our customers are idiots."

Or a lack of honesty in business, "it's OK if we trick people with this, there's nothing wrong with that."

Maybe I'm unique, maybe most people don't care if they "respect" a company, but I think about things like this :rofl:

[villa1n]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=85151&stc=1&d=1221415484

3dmark Vantage:
gtx280 : 100%
4850x2 : 114%

COD4 dx9 2560 4xAA 8xAF
gtx280 : 100 FPS
4850x2 : 133 FPS

Company of heroes 1920 4xAA 8xAF
gtx280 : 100 FPS
4850x2 : 108 FPS

HL2: episode 2 dx9 2560 8xAA 16xAF
gtx280 : 100 FPS
4850x2 : 130 FPS

World in Conflict 1920 4xAA 16xAF
gtx280 : 100 FPS
4850x2 : 113 FPS

Yeah, i mean, the graph lays it out pretty clear, they just focused in on the difference, but the raw numbers show an 8-33% performance increase at high settings over gtx280.
And this single card vs dual card bs needs to end, its like complaining a rotary isnt fair to compare to an inline 4....they both get you to a to b. just like these both play your gfx.

[ghost101]

I wish both companies would stop using stupid skewed graphs.

I think it really shows either a general lack of respect for the customer, "yeah, they won't notice the scale on this graph, our customers are idiots."

Or a lack of honesty in business, "it's OK if we trick people with this, there's nothing wrong with that."

Maybe I'm unique, maybe most people don't care if they "respect" a company, but I think about things like this :rofl:

I agree. Changing the the range of the axes is only necessary when the independent variable is continuous as you can get more detail. What nvidia and AMD do is pointless.

[AliG]

a little on topic and off topic, I JUST BOUGHT A 4850 used FOR 170!! w000t!!! she'll be in my system in about an hour:D

BTW, added to the 4850x2 being released in October; ATI will also have a new driver according to this (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=201471) boost in performance anyone? Nvidias biggest challenge right now are the lawsuits going for it not ATI.

no offense dude, but you got ripped off, the 4850 sells for as low as $140 new

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814261027

not to mention that is a non-reference design that is not only shorter, but has better vrm

[dengyong]

no offense dude, but you got ripped off, the 4850 sells for as low as $140 new

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814261027

not to mention that is a non-reference design that is not only shorter, but has better vrm

You beat me to it. I was about to post the very same thing. :clap:

[hecktic]

But isnt there supposed to be a GTX282 or something in Oct ?

[villa1n]

no offense dude, but you got ripped off, the 4850 sells for as low as $140 new

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814261027

not to mention that is a non-reference design that is not only shorter, but has better vrm

not in canada it doesn't ;)
cheapest if your willing to wait 6 months for your 20$ rebate (http://www.directcanada.com/products/?sku=24790BD4047&vpn=XAE/48500+T352&manufacture=Palit%20Multimedia%20Inc.)

[G0ldBr1ck]

I realy dont understand why so many still spew out the crap about but its 2 cards vs single card. AMD/ATI have been saying that the multi GPU setup is how they have intended to play in the high performance arena for a long time........Way before the performance of NV's single GPU cards and ATI's Single GPU cards were even known. You people act like ATI failed to perform so they had to go multi GPU, Fact is thow that for well over 3 years they have planned to use multi GPU tech to scale threw the difrent market segments.

Botom line is: ATI's high end cards are multi GPU as intended and its gonna continue this way. So like it or not just deal with it. There has been a good bit of leaked info that NV is heading in the same direction as there is a theoretical Performance cap to be had on a Monolithic GPU of a Given size on current Tech.

[villa1n]

I realy dont understand why so many still spew out the crap about but its 2 cards vs single card. AMD/ATI have been saying that the multi GPU setup is how they have intended to play in the high performance arena for a long time........Way before the performance of NV's single GPU cards and ATI's Single GPU cards were even known. You people act like ATI failed to perform so they had to go multi GPU, Fact is thow that for well over 3 years they have planned to use multi GPU tech to scale threw the difrent market segments.

Botom line is: ATI's high end cards are multi GPU as intended and its gonna continue this way. So like it or not just deal with it. There has been a good bit of leaked info that NV is heading in the same direction as there is a theoretical Performance cap to be had on a Monolithic GPU of a Given size on current Tech.

I think the people that fall into the caring about monolithic or dual, are the same people that think when you put lipstick on a pig, its not a pig... :P

[afireinside]

what a bogus graph, :down: they like comparing what is 2 cards against one. why doesn't ati just build a good single card solution, oh yea,
they got the 4870, hmmmm wonder how that compared to the 280gtx...

That's like asking why Intel doesn't build a good quad core solution instead of mashing two dual cores together. Who cares. It's a single PCB and it's fast. That counts as a single card to me.

I don't get the complaining about the graphing. If we're smart enough to put computers together and willing to spend 400+ on a graphics component, aren't we capable of taking two seconds to look at the Y values of the graph instead of comparing the size of the bars like uneducated apes?

[Bo_Fox]

Usually, 40fps on a dual GPU solution does NOT equal 40fps on a single card solution, because of microstuttering. Microstuttering makes it more like 25fps rather than 40fps, almost halving it in most cases.

Microstuttering is no longer noticeable if the game is already doing 80fps, since half of that is 40fps which is already fluid enough that the choppiness is not noticeable anyways. That's why many people do not see microstuttering. Some games do very well with microstuttering so that 40fps feels like 35 fps whereas in other games, it would feel like 22 fps when the counter is actually showing 40fps.

I've had my share of experiences with SLI. It was fun to experience it after all, but I do not miss struggling with all the complicated stuff like driver issues, lack of true triple buffering, Stereo-3D support, etc.. Meh, I'm never going back to a dual-GPU solution for as long as possible! Been there, done that!

[paulhamm]

I think the people that fall into the caring about monolithic or dual, are the same people that think when you put lipstick on a pig, its not a pig... :P

I heard they are supposed to turn into bulldogs. :rofl:

[jaredpace]

NV's high-end card is dual-gpu as well. ;)

[systemviper]

http://walford.ca/images/MSN_Emoticons/ape.gif

[Stevethegreat]

Well, whad'ya know, a two card setup is being compared to one card, talking about a rightful comparison...

My twin 8800GT setup -even- performs better than GTX 280 and costs half that. I don't get what the fuss is about, two cards winning over one is not news for the last two years that CF/SLI has matured. Wake me up when ATI creates a really more powerful card than nVidia's, until then nVidia is still the king, I'm sorry.

[Sly Fox]

Well, whad'ya know, a two card setup is being compared to one card, talking about a rightful comparison...

My twin 8800GT setup -even- performs better than GTX 280 and costs half that. I don't get what the fuss is about, two cards winning over one is not news for the last two years that CF/SLI has matured. Wake me up when ATI creates a really more powerful card than nVidia's, until then nVidia is still the king, I'm sorry.

As far as I can tell, the 4850x2 is most certainly one card and it only takes up (surprise!) one slot.

So by your logic, I guess Intel is cheating by having a quad core because it's "4 cpus."

:rofl:

[[XC] gomeler]

Do Want! Been waiting on these cards, I imagine they'll be just as fast as 4870x2s once you slap tubes on the core :up:

[Swatrecon_]

I have just one thing to say: HELL :banana::banana::banana::banana:IN YEAH.

I'm loving ATI stickin it to Nvidia. They deserve it after the whole G92 escapade.

Also, to those people who are raggin on ATI for this, I don't see the problem. ATI's come up with a smarter, more efficient solution and Nvidia can't cope. Deal with it fanboys.

I'll probably be getting one for Christmas.

[ryboto]

What the hell is wrong with that graph? It's a relative performance graph. It's not exactly perfect, but it gives you a general idea of how the card is going to perform....and what exactly is wrong with the scale? You have nVidia representing 100%, and then you have a bar for the 4850x2 representing performance level above that. Is it so hard to comprehend?

[villa1n]

Well, whad'ya know, a two card setup is being compared to one card, talking about a rightful comparison...

My twin 8800GT setup -even- performs better than GTX 280 and costs half that. I don't get what the fuss is about, two cards winning over one is not news for the last two years that CF/SLI has matured. Wake me up when ATI creates a really more powerful card than nVidia's, until then nVidia is still the king, I'm sorry.

Its not two cards, its 2 gpu's connected on one PCB taking a single SLOT and the fuss is that a SINGLE slot gfx solution is coming out 30$ cheaper than avg gtx 280 price, and looks to perform 8-33% better at high res settings with AA af on.
Your talking about semantics, and i m sorry, I own a Nvidia Dual solution...and it was the king...or are you saying it wasn't..?

[insurgent]

I really like that ATI is keeping their lineup simple these days as opposed to always trying to one-up the competition every time a card loses in a price point.

[G0ldBr1ck]

Well, whad'ya know, a two card setup is being compared to one card, talking about a rightful comparison...

My twin 8800GT setup -even- performs better than GTX 280 and costs half that. I don't get what the fuss is about, two cards winning over one is not news for the last two years that CF/SLI has matured. Wake me up when ATI creates a really more powerful card than nVidia's, until then nVidia is still the king, I'm sorry.

So hard headed! its a single card solution with 2 seperate GPU's, Big deal!
If they would have left these 2 gpu's on one die that would cost allot more and have terable yealds, Then it would be what your saying is a single GPU (but with double the specs...2xshaders...etc..). However insted they decided to to use 2 seperate pieces to acomplish the same thing with better yeilds and lower cost and then people like you rant about it being a cheat. WTH is the difrence other than they kept it affordable? sheeeesh!! :brick:

Oh, and for the sake of testing another members theory (here (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3288864&postcount=41)) if you dont mind I have a question. If you put lipstick on a Pig, would it still be a pig?

[paulhamm]

Oh, and for the sake of testing another members theory (here (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3288864&postcount=41)) if you dont mind I have a question. If you put lipstick on a Pig, would it still be a pig?

I am pretty sure they turn into bulldogs.:rofl:

[Stevethegreat]

The fact that 4850x2 is a single slot card doesn't say much. It can't be CF'd any further to give a performance edge as Quad CF's performance gains are minimal except/if you have a 6GHz CPU at your disposal to feed the huge needs of clockspeed that such setups want. Μost intel mobos nowadays, even mainstream ones, come with a second PCI-E port which would make actually pairing 2 4850s in CF a more economical effort. 4850x2 is just two 4850s in a shiny packing with no -accompanied- practical worth (why one shouldn't have bought two 4850s, two months already, instead?).

The funny fact is that you can still find 8800GTs for $100 each and paring them would give you 90% of the performance in half the cost, talk about ATI's bargains...

[Sly Fox]

The funny fact is that you can still find 8800GTs for $100 each and paring them would give you 90% of the performance in half the cost, talk about ATI's bargains...

4850X2 > 8800 GTS SLI > 8800 GT SLI

And with the 4850X2 you can again, still get a second and then absolutely destroy the dual GTS's even... And you don't have to use an Nvida chipset.

Hmmm... Do I want P45/X38/X48... Or 780/790i... What a hard choice, horrible chipsets, or great ones. Tough.

[Stevethegreat]

4850X2 > 8800 GTS SLI > 8800 GT SLI

And with the 4850X2 you can again, still get a second and then absolutely destroy the dual GTS's even... And you don't have to use an Nvida chipset.

Hmmm... Do I want P45/X38/X48... Or 780/790i... What a hard choice, horrible chipsets, or great ones. Tough.

1) You still get 90% of performance, for HALF the money!!!!

2) No, quad CF has been proven quite inefficient as of yet. You WILL get better performance but not one to worth the extra $400

3) That's not an issue anymore. http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8921&Itemid=37

[afireinside]

Usually, 40fps on a dual GPU solution does NOT equal 40fps on a single card solution, because of microstuttering. Microstuttering makes it more like 25fps rather than 40fps, almost halving it in most cases.

Microstuttering is no longer noticeable if the game is already doing 80fps, since half of that is 40fps which is already fluid enough that the choppiness is not noticeable anyways. That's why many people do not see microstuttering. Some games do very well with microstuttering so that 40fps feels like 35 fps whereas in other games, it would feel like 22 fps when the counter is actually showing 40fps.

I've had my share of experiences with SLI. It was fun to experience it after all, but I do not miss struggling with all the complicated stuff like driver issues, lack of true triple buffering, Stereo-3D support, etc.. Meh, I'm never going back to a dual-GPU solution for as long as possible! Been there, done that!

40 fps sucks, "microstuttering" or not. That's the problem.

[grimREEFER]

this card is only a little faster than the 9800gx2, and i would take a gtx 280 over both of them, although both are technically slightly faster.

[Sly Fox]

Oh well, Nvidia fanboys will be fanboys.

[Swatrecon_]

40 fps sucks, "microstuttering" or not. That's the problem.

microstuttering is virtually non-existent on the 4800 series, iirc.

[dengyong]

85184

[Nasgul]

Hopefully, this will keep driving down the prices.

And now the mid-range cards should have two GPUs.

All mid-range cards should, damn it! It was about time.

More buck for your bang!!!

[systemviper]

you have to love all the new flavors driving down all the prices, we all win there...

[cadaveca]

microstuttering is virtually non-existent on the 4800 series, iirc.

False.

:yepp:


:shrug:

[villa1n]

1) You still get 90% of performance, for HALF the money!!!!
So by proxy... you get 95% the performance of a 280gtx for less than half the money?I don't see what your point is... your grasping at straws... yes. performance and price does not scale linearly... your point?

[Stevethegreat]

So by proxy... you get 95% the performance of a 280gtx for less than half the money?I don't see what your point is... your grasping at straws... yes. performance and price does not scale linearly... your point?

My point is that 280GTX can be SLI'd or even tri-SLI'd giving actual framerate gains because it is a single card, dual cards cannot be paired as easily. I wasn't a big fan of 9800GX2 either, for the same reason, scaling is very bad on quad setups.

Also I'm not in nVidia's payroll thus I don't have to support them blindly, in fact I would be the first to support an ATI product when it starts pouring in the market better products, but this time is not it. ATI 9xxx series was great, from then on they're following, I wanna see some real competition, the one that would make nVidia drop 260's price on sub $200 and 280 at sub $300 priceranges. 4870 is 30% better from a card nVidia released in November 2006 (8800GTX), that's not progress.

[Chickenfeed]

What the hell is wrong with that graph? It's a relative performance graph. It's not exactly perfect, but it gives you a general idea of how the card is going to perform....and what exactly is wrong with the scale? You have nVidia representing 100%, and then you have a bar for the 4850x2 representing performance level above that. Is it so hard to comprehend?

Thank you sir. I swear sometimes...

[v_rr]

4870 is 30% better from a card nVidia released in November 2006 (8800GTX), that's not progress.

Hum?

HD 4870 puts 8800GTX in one pocket. In AA+AF even more.
Also lower-power, cheaper, more technology, DX_10.1, UVD 2.0 and so on....

[G0ldBr1ck]

My point is that 280GTX can be SLI'd or even tri-SLI'd giving actual framerate gains because it is a single card, dual cards cannot be paired as easily. I wasn't a big fan of 9800GX2 either, for the same reason, scaling is very bad on quad setups.

Also I'm not in nVidia's payroll thus I don't have to support them blindly, in fact I would be the first to support an ATI product when it starts pouring in the market better products, but this time is not it. ATI 9xxx series was great, from then on they're following, I wanna see some real competition, the one that would make nVidia drop 260's price on sub $200 and 280 at sub $300 priceranges. 4870 is 30% better from a card nVidia released in November 2006 (8800GTX), that's not progress.

Windows Vista Has a feature among many that is there for stability reasons and it works against any quad GPU efforts. Vista will only allow up to 3 frames to be pre-renderd. Scaling from 1-2 or 2-3 gpu's is fairly good but from 3-4 GPU's requires a diffrent less efficient approach. Its not the GPU's fault or the Drivers fault that quad GPU performance is poor. Its limitations set by the operating systems we use.

And I didnt just pull this out of thin air, it was a statment made by one of ATI's Catalyst devs. in a news letter. The pre-render limit was made due to software devs in the past using ridiculous amounts of prerenderd frames causing stability problems.
http://www.elitebastards.com/hanners/ati/cat83/Slide11_tn.jpg
http://www.elitebastards.com/hanners/ati/cat83/Slide12_tn.jpg

[villa1n]

My point is that 280GTX can be SLI'd or even tri-SLI'd giving actual framerate gains because it is a single card, dual cards cannot be paired as easily. I wasn't a big fan of 9800GX2 either, for the same reason, scaling is very bad on quad setups.

Also I'm not in nVidia's payroll thus I don't have to support them blindly, in fact I would be the first to support an ATI product when it starts pouring in the market better products, but this time is not it. ATI 9xxx series was great, from then on they're following, I wanna see some real competition, the one that would make nVidia drop 260's price on sub $200 and 280 at sub $300 priceranges. 4870 is 30% better from a card nVidia released in November 2006 (8800GTX), that's not progress.

This is supremely relevant to me since i love COD4 (http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-4870-x2-review-crossfire/17) Looks like it scales pretty damn good on the 4870x2 side of things.. so i really don't think you have much of a case...and yes 280gtx sli is in the comparison, getting trounced. Nvidia dropped the ball this time around, ATI has the superior product atm. I dont think you understand how economics work, as nvidia atm cant afford to be selling 260's that low, because that would push all prices down, and ATI does have a card that can push cards that low, the 4870..there are these concepts though.. in marketing, called pricepoints...and another thing called demand, as long as ATI is hitting they re key segments they have no reason to drive prices down and force nvidia to follow, as they would overall make LESS MONEY. Anyways it seems you have your mind set despite numbers, so there isn't much sense it listing more links showing you at high res ATI is owning at the moment.

[Stevethegreat]

Hum?

HD 4870 puts 8800GTX in one pocket. In AA+AF even more.
Also lower-power, cheaper, more technology, DX_10.1, UVD 2.0 and so on....

Power consumption of 4870 is greater than that of 8800GTX.
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/atiradeonhd4870_062408145208/17144.png

Even -nearly- two years after 8800GTX's release that's not very impressive. DX10.1 is obsolete since everyone seems to have made a contract with nVidia not to released DX10.1 games. It costs more than 150% the cost of 8800GTS which has comparable performance to the GTX. It has "free" AA, I can grant you that, but not that much of the revolution that ATI supposedly caused. In tech industry technology traditionally 2-folds in power every 12-18 months. nVidia, continues the trend set by 8800GTX, ATI barely follows. I want to see ATI dominating nVidia for a change...

This is supremely relevant to me since i love COD4 (http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-4870-x2-review-crossfire/17) Looks like it scales pretty damn good on the 4870x2 side of things.. so i really don't think you have much of a case...and yes 280gtx sli is in the comparison, getting trounced. Nvidia dropped the ball this time around, ATI has the superior product atm. I dont think you understand how economics work, as nvidia atm cant afford to be selling 260's that low, because that would push all prices down, and ATI does have a card that can push cards that low, the 4870..there are these concepts though.. in marketing, called pricepoints...and another thing called demand, as long as ATI is hitting they re key segments they have no reason to drive prices down and force nvidia to follow, as they would overall make LESS MONEY. Anyways it seems you have your mind set despite numbers, so there isn't much sense it listing more links showing you at high res ATI is owning at the moment.

COD4 is a case of it's own, now, isn't it? If you read the whole review two nvdia cards are competing pretty damn well, especially if you take in account that they're battling 4 cards from the other rim, also in a far lower power consumption bracket (4870x2 CF power need are astronomical, you need a nuclear plant of your own).

I know that nVidia can't and won't push their prices further down but that's only because ATI is not really "hammering" them as you guys are claiming to happen this time around. I enjoy that ATI is back on its tracks lately, but still it has much to do to become the king of the hill...

[Macadamia]

I smell trolls when I smell straw grasping.

[[cTx]Riggs]

1) You still get 90% of performance, for HALF the money!!!!

2) No, quad CF has been proven quite inefficient as of yet. You WILL get better performance but not one to worth the extra $400

3) That's not an issue anymore. http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8921&Itemid=37

We're talking about now, not November/December. And it still is an issue, what about the people with nvidia chipsets, tylersburg is Intels chipset, with an optional nvidia sli chip.

[[cTx]Riggs]

I wanna see some real competition, the one that would make nVidia drop 260's price on sub $200 and 280 at sub $300 priceranges. 4870 is 30% better from a card nVidia released in November 2006 (8800GTX), that's not progress.

And the 9800GTX was? GTX 260, a card that is the price of a 4870, performs about the same, so you call that progress also?

[jaredpace]

ATI barely follows. I want to see ATI dominating nVidia for a change...


Yo, Ati has two cards faster than anything Nvidia makes. don't be stupid:ROTF:

[Nasgul]

Yo, Ati has two cards faster than anything Nvidia makes

Well, that's "IF" nVidia decides NOT to put more dual GPU video cards. The GX2 is fast and it's only $290 which could give the X2 4850 a run for its money.

Now, that would be something interesting to see, Dual GPU card vs Dual GPU card.

[Stevethegreat]

I smell trolls when I smell straw grasping.
Come on now, I'm not trolling, I'm posting the sources of my arguments throught links while I constantly use rigid logic

We're talking about now, not November/December. And it still is an issue, what about the people with nvidia chipsets, tylersburg is Intels chipset, with an optional nvidia sli chip.

According to that logic 4850x2, is also not out yet. I think we were talking about the immediate future and two months away is not very far, is it? As for those having nVidia chipset they would be better off coupling two 8800GTs and then overclocking them in the performance of 4850x2 (they're pretty oveclockable) and all that for no more than $250.

And the 9800GTX was? GTX 260, a card that is the price of a 4870, performs about the same, so you call that progress also?
g92 was supposed to be a refresh of g80, nothing more nothing less, it was :banana::banana::banana::banana: move of nVidia not put the whole series in the 89xx bracket. GT200 is the new gen and indeed GTX280 is about two times as fast as 8800GTX.

Yo, Ati has two cards faster than anything Nvidia makes. don't be stupid:ROTF:

For now, it has only one, which in fact is two which in fact due to microstutering is not even clear how much more smooth gameplay gives out, while at the same time has twice the power consumption.

To be fair you will have to pair 280GTXs to make a good comparison of who's the king of the hill. If we're talking about absolute performance then it's nVidia through its tri-sli setup, if we're talking about a single gpu setup it's still nvidia through its gt200 series, if we're talking about single slot it's ATI, congratulations you won one of the three categories that one could nominate the best of the generation (but still you lose in the other two).

[Macadamia]

Well, that's "IF" nVidia decides NOT to put more dual GPU video cards. The GX2 is fast and it's only $290 which could give the X2 4850 a run for its money.

Now, that would be something interesting to see, Dual GPU card vs Dual GPU card.

The 3870X2/GX2 is utterly useless for its target market* with the 2*512MB framebuffer. The point of getting dual-GPU cards is to play at 1920+ with AA on. The GX2 can't do that while even the 4870 and 260 can.

The 4850X2 is supposed to make nearly every case in 1920 + AA playable, or for 1600 guys to use edge detect 24x AA in a playable experience. And no, the GX2 also craps out when using SSAA so no argument there.

*Does not include F@H. Aww, it actually still has uses!

[Solus Corvus]

If we're talking about absolute performance then it's nVidia through its tri-sli setup
2x4870x2 stomps Tri-SLI.

[Morais]

...ATI 9xxx series was great, from then on they're following, I wanna see some real competition, the one that would make nVidia drop 260's price on sub $200 and 280 at sub $300 priceranges..

? Cant you remember the launch prices of gt200 series? They were $449 and $649 for 260GTX and 280GTX, respectively.Now we find them at $240 and $425 prices or lower.What do you think that caused this lower prices?

[[cTx]Riggs]

Only in Vantage, does tri sli beat the 4870x2.

[Stevethegreat]

? Cant you remember the launch prices of gt200 series? They were $449 and $649 for 260GTX and 280GTX, respectively.Now we find them at $240 and $425 prices or lower.What do you think that caused this lower prices?
EXACTLY nVidia got arrogant and went on to price their products way too much, they had to become a bit humbler.

But why is it that nVidia still has the pricier single GPU out there? That's right, they're not afraid of ATI enough and that's because ATI has still to show that it can beat nVidia in its own game (single GPUs)

2x4870x2 stomps Tri-SLI.
Only in Vantage, does tri sli beat the 4870x2.

Nothing can be further from the truth.
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=609&pageid=5

[insurgent]

? Cant you remember the launch prices of gt200 series? They were $449 and $649 for 260GTX and 280GTX, respectively.Now we find them at $240 and $425 prices or lower.What do you think that caused this lower prices?

Good luck trying to convince him of anything, they set moving targets and change their reasons just to avoid admitting NV fumbled this round and lost the performance crown.

-dual gpu unfair = check
-microstuttering = check
-physx and cuda = check
-prices not low enough lmao = check

[Solus Corvus]

Nothing can be further from the truth.
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=609&pageid=5
I would trust The Tech Report over Driver Heaven anyday: http://techreport.com/articles.x/15293/1
Stomped in everything except crysis.

[insurgent]

I would trust The Tech Report over Driver Heaven anyday: http://techreport.com/articles.x/15293/1
Stomped in everything except crysis.

Tech Report should use faster CPUs, 3.0GHz just isn't enough for crossfire and sli.

[Stevethegreat]

I would trust The Tech Report over Driver Heaven anyday: http://techreport.com/articles.x/15293/1
Stomped in everything except crysis.

Tech Report is using a 3.0GHz CPU and Driver Heaven a 4.4GHz, that produces the unbelievable divergence of the results of the two. Multi-GPU setups, ESPECIALLY those using 3 or 4 GPUs are being bottlenecked by the CPU's clock-frequency, thus to stretch their legs they need incredibly high CPU clocks. According to Driven Heaven even 4.4GHz was not enough and since this occasion is special I would rather distrust Tech Report's results as they're being skewed by the low CPU clocks.

[Solus Corvus]

Tech Report should use faster CPUs, 3.0GHz just isn't enough for crossfire and sli.

Tech Report is using a 3.0GHz CPU and Driver Heaven a 4.4GHz, that produces the unbelievable divergence of the results of the two. Multi-GPU setups, ESPECIALLY those using 3 or 4 GPUs are being bottlenecked by the CPU's clock-frequency, thus to stretch their legs they need incredibly high CPU clocks. According to Driven Heaven even 4.4GHz was not enough and since this occasion is special I would rather distrust Tech Report's results as they're being skewed by the low CPU clocks.
And yet in the high resolution + AA tests there is still a clear difference in speed. Are you saying that they are still bottlenecked at 2560x1600 but the ATI drivers are just more efficient with the available CPU resources?

[Zaskar]

Does having 2 GPU's reduce the total amount of cards you can have in crossfire like the 9800GX2 only allowed 2 cards total?

If so then these kinda of cards Cant be compared individually, they can only accurately be compared by comparing both examples in their maximum possible SLI/Crossfire setup.

[ahmad]

Nothing can be further from the truth.
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=609&pageid=5

You know why thats a stupid review? Because they only test at 4xAA. That is horrible considering the whole point of a multi-GPU solution is to run super high quality settings, not 4xAA.

Even a 4870 could play all those games at 4xAA and not lag once... Find a better comparison.

On top of this, beta drivers were used for the 4870x2s. On skulltrail. Doesn't get anyworse than that.

[Stevethegreat]

You know why thats a stupid review? Because they only test at 4xAA. That is horrible considering the whole point of a multi-GPU solution is to run super high quality settings, not 4xAA.

Even a 4870 could play all those games at 4xAA and not lag once... Find a better comparison.

On top of this, beta drivers were used for the 4870x2s. On skulltrail. Doesn't get anyworse than that.

In fact Skulltrail should had been the ideal board to compare such ultimate setups as it both supports SLI and CF, but you do have a point that only beta drivers were used for ATI's cards.

Anyhow they still manage to produce -in that review- some kind of scaling whereas in all the other reviews in which 4870x2 CF was tested the performance gains were minimal and the FPS (were) not as impressive as in DH's review, which is to say that the 4.4GHz CPU played a significant role. Since I fail to find any other review out there that uses as a high end CPU, I can only refer to it as being closer to the truth as of yet

[Solus Corvus]

Again as to the tech report tests with a supposedly insufficient CPU:
And yet in the high resolution + AA tests there is still a clear difference in speed. Are you saying that they are still bottlenecked at 2560x1600 but the ATI drivers are just more efficient with the available CPU resources?
So what you are saying is that at high res CF 4870x2 beats Tri-SLI in the TR review because they don't have enough CPU power? Unless you are suggesting the above quote is true for this case - I think your conclusion is rubbish.

[p8ntslinger676]

what the hell, get these furbared graphs out of here.

i find them entertaining...its makes you say "wtf, lol, how the hell does that work?" and then you look over to the side and look at the scale and realize :)

[Stevethegreat]

Again as to the tech report tests with a supposedly insufficient CPU:

So what you are saying is that at high res CF 4870x2 beats Tri-SLI in the TR review because they don't have enough CPU power? Unless you are suggesting the above quote is true for this case - I think your conclusion is rubbish.

I said nothing about the TR review skewing results FOR ATI. All I'm saying is that when you have enough clockspeed results are more clear, there are a lot of things that can happen with insufficient CPU and those take in account the certain peculiarities each card have but that's not what we should test. What's testing about the crown of the GPU arena should be is raw power, unhindered by any "external" influences.

DH is the only review that I have found using a 4.4 GHz CPU, clearing any doubts that the CPU played any role in promoting any peculiarities that its card use to deal with insufficient CPU or -in fact- any downsides that each GPU have when dealing with lower clockspeeds. ATI seems to deal with per CPU clock performance better than nVidia when dealing multi-GPU setups and in fact they HAD to as they are the one with the one-slotted multi-GPUs out right now.

Even so this doesn't make ATI cards any more potent, as in "the best possible performance that its setup can get". All external influences aside, nVidia seems to win, with one card less -even...

[ahmad]

If a man sees a dog and tells you thats a cat, you cannot argue with him and win.

[eleeter]

If a man sees a dog and tells you thats a cat, you cannot argue with him and win.

:ROTF:

[C.Ron7aldo]

look guys its like this GTX260>HD4850 but HD4870~=GTX260 Then again GTX280>HD4870 but HD4870x2>HD4850x2>GTX280 thats only cause Nvidia haven't built a GX2 yet Can they build a GX2 and get the performance crown back? yes they can But will they build it? depends on the market and the cost of the product.

Imho i think the best way and the lowest cost + the best price they can offer for customers is get the new refresh from GTX260 overclock it a little bit and make it a GX2 that way it will beet the HD4870x2 by little bit cause last i checked SLI scale slightly better then crossfire with the majority of games. and they will sell it for 550$ same as the HD4870x2.
and get the crown again easy as pay But will that make the customers happy i don't know :S

P.S: way to go ATI i love the price war ;)

[exhausted mule]

if nvidia make a gx2 version of the gtx280 how much will it cost? 900$?

imho i think whatever card up to about 600 is reasonable. I dont care if its 6 dies on one pcb or if one is blue and the other is pink.


performance is performance and comparing price vs performance, in my opinion, is the best way to compare 2 cards.

[C.Ron7aldo]

if nvidia make a gx2 version of the gtx280 how much will it cost? 900$?

:confused::confused: did you even read my post? i was talking about the GTX260:rolleyes:

[exhausted mule]

:confused::confused: did you even read my post? i was talking about the GTX260:rolleyes:


no

but that was a general comment either way :up:

[villa1n]

Nothing can be further from the truth.
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=609&pageid=5

So you cherry pick a review, that doesn't max out AA.... if your going to spend 8k on a computer... your gonna wanna play with 8AA not 4... wtf would be the point. Nvidia loses fps with AA, i think is the point... because this time around, ATI did it better. In most things, aside vantage, it is ATI coming out on top for the time being. and yes 3.0ghz vs 4.4ghz is cpu limiting, but i think it was the AA that was doing the killing, not the cpu.

[Stevethegreat]

So you cherry pick a review, that doesn't max out AA.... if your going to spend 8k on a computer... your gonna wanna play with 8AA not 4... wtf would be the point. Nvidia loses fps with AA, i think is the point... because this time around, ATI did it better. In most things, aside vantage, it is ATI coming out on top for the time being. and yes 3.0ghz vs 4.4ghz is cpu limiting, but i think it was the AA that was doing the killing, not the cpu.

Vantage uses 4xAA at extreme settings, that's why.

In most things under 2560x1600 more than 8xAA is a waste, you can't even see the difference, in fact most probably 4xAA would suffice. ATI this time around pulled AA spectacularly well and showed the way of how AA should be handled, but apart from that it's still a weaker card. You can have 32xAA under 2560x1600 but what's the point, bragging rights? Besides a tri-sli setup is the only one than can actually play Crysis on very high, and in fact Crysis is the only game that needs so much firepower, for all other games a twin card setup would be more than enough. Hell my puny 8800GT SLI is enough for most games at 19x12...

[insurgent]

"The 4800s handle AA spectacularly well but it's still the weaker card"

You see, you won't convince guys like this, what's the point? An exercise in futility.

[LightSpeed]

ATI 9xxx series was great, from then on they're following

:shrug:


x850PE>>>>>6800Ultra
x1950xtx>>>>7900GTX

:yepp:

[Stevethegreat]

"The 4800s handle AA spectacularly well but it's still the weaker card"

You see, you won't convince guys like this, what's the point? An exercise in futility.

Firstly, why should one convince another? That's not the point of the conversation, the point of a discussion is to converse ideas.

Secondly, I have reasons to believe that shader heavy operations are more important for realistic graphics than absurdly straight lines. I do believe that Crysis w/t AA -even- look one generation above CoD4 even if CoD is under 64xAA and 2560x1600. The fact that one card can calculate shader-heavy, colour-balancing graphics better is lot more admirable than the other that straights lines...

You see my reasons, I can't see yours, and certainly to say that others' arguments are shallow is a non-argument in itself, no?

[insurgent]

Firstly, why should one convince another? That's not the point of the conversation, the point of a discussion is to converse ideas.

Secondly, I have reasons to believe that shader heavy operations are more important for realistic graphics than absurdly straight lines. I do believe that Crysis w/t AA -even- look one generation above CoD4 even if CoD is under 64xAA and 2560x1600. The fact that one card can calculate shader-heavy, colour-balancing graphics better is lot more admirable than the other that straights lines...

You see my reasons, I can't see yours, and certainly to say that others' arguments are shallow is a non-argument in itself, no?

So you're not trying to convince anyone of your BS and we're just.. uhh.. arguing for the sake of argument. Proves my point, it's pointless. Oh wait, we're not arguing, we're "conversing" although our arguments are shallow... woooooo!

[Stevethegreat]

So you're not trying to convince anyone of your BS and we're just.. uhh.. arguing for the sake of argument. Proves my point, it's pointless. Oh wait, we're not arguing, we're "conversing" although our arguments are shallow... woooooo!

It's never pointless to say the truth, I didn't "just" argue, I brought points, I enlightened you.

[Solus Corvus]

Even so this doesn't make ATI cards any more potent, as in "the best possible performance that its setup can get". All external influences aside, nVidia seems to win, with one card less -even...
With one more card not one less. Tri-SLI is three cards, CF 4870x2 is 2 cards.

Basically what you are implying is that the low CPU clock in the TR review is an external factor that you think made the GTX280 lose. I think that is clearly false. If you were to increase the clocks in the TR review test setup the GTX280 scores wouldn't somehow shoot past the 4870x2. That is just wishful thinking. You haven't even shown that the cards are CPU bound at 2560x1600 - you can see what CPU bound looks like by looking at the lower res tests and the graphs are nothing alike.

Secondly, I have reasons to believe that shader heavy operations are more important for realistic graphics than absurdly straight lines. I do believe that Crysis w/t AA -even- look one generation above CoD4 even if CoD is under 64xAA and 2560x1600. The fact that one card can calculate shader-heavy, colour-balancing graphics better is lot more admirable than the other that straights lines...
I agree that shaders are what's important. But from my perspective the 4870x2 has much more shader power AND AA power. I realize that you will argue the crysis scores on this point but I contend that crysis is a corner case, the 4870x2 is much faster in most other games that make heavy use of shaders.

[insurgent]

Firstly, why should one convince another? That's not the point of the conversation, the point of a discussion is to converse ideas.

I didn't "just" argue, I brought points, I enlightened you.

:ROTF: and :ROTF::ROTF::ROTF: for enlightening me.

[TWY]

May I enquire how many of you run 30-inch LCDs?

[largon]

Multi-GPU = me not interested.

[cegras]

Firstly, why should one convince another? That's not the point of the conversation, the point of a discussion is to converse ideas.

Secondly, I have reasons to believe that shader heavy operations are more important for realistic graphics than absurdly straight lines. I do believe that Crysis w/t AA -even- look one generation above CoD4 even if CoD is under 64xAA and 2560x1600. The fact that one card can calculate shader-heavy, colour-balancing graphics better is lot more admirable than the other that straights lines...

You see my reasons, I can't see yours, and certainly to say that others' arguments are shallow is a non-argument in itself, no?

Let's lay down two facts here. (or three)

a) ATI's architecture is far more efficient at post processing (AA/AF) than nvidia. This is a fact. The 4870X2, according to [H], gets 'free' 8xAA on Age of Conan. Whatever that game is. Some MMO, or something.

b) TWIMTBP

c) Ignoring AA capabilities, ATI's and nvidia's offerings pretty much perform the same. The only thing left for you is to do your research, see what is cheaper, and buy it.

Considering that under normal conditions (according to ncix), I can find a 4850 that is cheaper than a GTX 280 and 260, but which (according to benchmarks by Tech Report) performs very closely or sometimes just as well, why are you trying to convince anyone to not buy ATI?

[Stevethegreat]

Basically what you are implying is that the low CPU clock in the TR review is an external factor that you think made the GTX280 lose. I think that is clearly false. If you were to increase the clocks in the TR review test setup the GTX280 scores wouldn't somehow shoot past the 4870x2. That is just wishful thinking. You haven't even shown that the cards are CPU bound at 2560x1600 - you can see what CPU bound looks like by looking at the lower res tests and the graphs are nothing alike.
While I can't speak for the number that TR produces for the 4870x2, I can safely that the 280's SLI numbers are TOO low and with nothing else to blame I can only see that the clockspeed indeed made some magic there. The numbers I saw for the tri-Sli 280 setup were similar to those that DH produced, of course they were also produced on a 4.5GHz CPU (e8400), as such I HAVE to conclude that tri-sli is incredibly more powerful, under a strong CPU, than what I've seen on TR as I have two sources to affirm that

With one more card not one less. Tri-SLI is three cards, CF 4870x2 is 2 cards.


Strange, I was sure that even ATI themselves would call 2 x 4870x2 as quad crossifire, which implies 4 cards, and 4 is a greater number than three, no? They even scale EXACTLY like a four card crossfire setup, also suspect, don't you think?


I agree that shaders are what's important. But from my perspective the 4870x2 has much more shader power AND AA power. I realize that you will argue the crysis scores on this point but I contend that crysis is a corner case, the 4870x2 is much faster in most other games that make heavy use of shaders.

ATI cards carry 160 scalar 5-way SPs, GTX280 carries 240 SPs, that would imply that nVidia incorporates more shader power than ATI, no? Also in shader heavy -AA aside- operations, nVidia overperforms. If GTX280 was costing around $300 now there would be no argument to begin with, things would had been far clearer...

[Stevethegreat]

Let's lay down two facts here. (or three)

a) ATI's architecture is far more efficient at post processing (AA/AF) than nvidia. This is a fact. The 4870X2, according to [H], gets 'free' 8xAA on Age of Conan. Whatever that game is. Some MMO, or something.

b) TWIMTBP

c) Ignoring AA capabilities, ATI's and nvidia's offerings pretty much perform the same. The only thing left for you is to do your research, see what is cheaper, and buy it.

Considering that under normal conditions (according to ncix), I can find a 4850 that is cheaper than a GTX 280 and 260, but which (according to benchmarks by Tech Report) performs very closely or sometimes just as well, why are you trying to convince anyone to not buy ATI?

a) Right on the money, nothing to disagree there

b) Still nVidia's bullying is part of the game and you have to take into account when you're choosing a GFX card.

c) HD4850 is equivalent to 9800 GTX, HD4870 is equivalent to GTX260, GTX280 is faster than all.

d) According to nowadays' prices I would argue that a single ATI card is a better deal, but their twin solutions are overpriced, and you'd be better off with pairing a couple of the -little- slower nVidias. Also if one wants the best thing out there -money aside- he would be better off with nVidia's tri-sli, as it would play all ATI's games PLUS the TWIMTBP ones.

No mystery there things are simple, ATI has to do a lot more to cut nVidia's bullying -on the industry- off, just because people on these boards rushed to give ATI the crown things doesn't have to be as such on the market and nVidia will continue holding the gaming industry by the ba**s...

[Macadamia]

Us giving ATI the crown?

Nuh-uh. See German videocard topsellers. I added the Japanese charts too:

(http://geizhals.at/deutschland/?o=8)

[LowRun]

Strange, I was sure that even ATI themselves would call 2 x 4870x2 as quad crossifire, which implies 4 cards, and 4 is a greater number than three, no? They even scale EXACTLY like a four card crossfire setup, also suspect, don't you think?




So i guess in your eyes skulltrail is a dual mobo setup because it have two cpus. Seriously your arguments are pathetic, if you can't get a simple fact like 4870X2 is a single card then i understand why you would call your flawed logic "rigid logic" :rolleyes:

[[cTx]Riggs]

Yes, but what about pairing a lower end ati card? Like the 4850.

[systemviper]

still if you look at it and compare gpu to gpu, forget about how many gpu's you can fit on pcb, forget about sli or crossfire, nvidia has the more powerfull gpu, hands down. in pure gpu power, the 280 has no equal. so in a world where someone is looking for the single most powerfull gpu,
BAM it;s the gtx 280

[Stevethegreat]

So i guess in your eyes skulltrail is a dual mobo setup because it have two cpus. Seriously your arguments are pathetic, if you can't get a simple fact like 4870X2 is a single card then i understand why you would call your flawed logic "rigid logic" :rolleyes:

If something scales as if it had 4 GPUs, if it actually HAS 4 GPUs, and also makes you unable to put more GPUs on the mix (as 4 GPUs are the limit of crossfire) then it does make a difference how we would call the setup. In skulltrail's case it doesn't since it's a case of its own. The fact that ATI put 2 GPUs in one card had practical consequences, you can't CF more than two such cards. That's very much NOT the case with GTX280 since it's a single card. It seems that my logic reigns supreme once again, as I'm not the one failing to see that issue is NOT in the semantics.

nVidia has the more powerful setup you can possibly make (tri-SLI), the most powerful single GPU, but you people claim somehow that it ceded the crown of performance. I can see it ceding the cost crown (even there things are not clear), but you want to convince yourselves that ATI dominates, which evidently enough is very much NOT the case. It's not like that GT200 is the new FX series, they are impressive chips, R700 is also impressive, just not as impressive and for some reason you fail to see that.

[generics_user]

still if you look at it and compare gpu to gpu, forget about how many gpu's you can fit on pcb, forget about sli or crossfire, nvidia has the more powerfull gpu, hands down. in pure gpu power, the 280 has no equal. so in a world where someone is looking for the single most powerfull gpu,
BAM it;s the gtx 280

still you don't buy a gpu, you buy a card

and if you take a look at the complete cards nvidia has NO card that's better than AMD ones in the same price ranges (0-500$) just like amd had no chance 1 year ago

nvidia had its nice years with the G80 cards but these are over, ati is back on the top like they were from 11/2002-11/2006 :shrug:

[systemviper]

still you don't buy a gpu, you buy a card

and if you take a look at the complete cards nvidia has NO card that's better than AMD ones in the same price ranges (0-500$) just like amd had no chance 1 year ago

nvidia had its nice years with the G80 cards but these are over, ati is back on the top like they were from 11/2002-11/2006 :shrug:

I disagree, you do buy a GPU, isn't that what the card is built around???? My point is on a one for one gpu basis, ati is not on top. what happens when NV come out with there version of the 2x, if it is made of of more powerful GPU's which they are on top with, then.....

Plus some people don' like dual GPU's and think that with micro-stuttering they want a one gpu solution, and in that case, it's nvidia that has the better solution. I like both companies and have both cards, but when it comes to a single gpu solution, like the 8800ultra years, nvidia has no equal.

[Hell Hound]

Until Nvidia stop this twimtbp,its off with there head.They are the ones cheating not ATI.talk about dual vs single all you want.

[C.Ron7aldo]

I disagree, you do buy a GPU, isn't that what the card is built around???? My point is on a one for one gpu basis, ati is not on top. what happens when NV come out with there version of the 2x, if it is made of of more powerful GPU's which they are on top with, then.....

Plus some people don' like dual GPU's and think that with micro-stuttering they want a one gpu solution, and in that case, it's nvidia that has the better solution. I like both companies and have both cards, but when it comes to a single gpu solution, like the 8800ultra years, nvidia has no equal.

i agree but yo gotta admit ATi is more successful now. And it made thing more easier for us customers. and like i said before if nvida want the crown back all they gonna have to do is make the new gtx260 GX2 as in duel card.

[Morais]

hd4870 >260GTX ATM, so nV needs a 280gx2 to take the lead back.

[Hell Hound]

TWIMTBP is holding the market back.How can you grow when 90% of the games are hack jobs.:down:

[C.Ron7aldo]

hd4870 >260GTX ATM, so nV needs a 280gx2 to take the lead back.

the HD4870 is not that far away from gtx260 heck there even some games that the GTX260 beats the HD4870 lets say that the HD4870 is 8% faster then gtx260 the new GTX260 suppose to be 10% faster then the old one with a lite bit higher default clock so if Nvidia decided to make it duel then they will have performance crown and they can sell it cheaper then the HD4870:rolleyes:

[Vinas]

I think the 4850x2 will be a fine card,

I love the 4870x2, i think it's the best single card out there now, but who knows in the future...

I also love the 3870x2, i think that is one of the best deals out there now, you can find them for around 150 and they do 18k in 06 without any overclocking. Couldn't agree more. The days of Nvidia have passed for me, ever since I upgraded to the 3870x2 from my 8800GTX.

Next upgrade path with be two 4850x2's without a doubt. To beat it, people would need to spend some serious money with Nvidia. Probably like $2400 vs $800. lulz

[Morais]

...they will have performance crown and they can sell it cheaper then the HD4870:rolleyes:

Even costing $50 more ? :rolleyes:

[Junos]

Link (http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=609&pageid=14)however I still feel the Skulltrail board has some minor issues with the ATI cards, something we noticed at launch with the last Radeon series.

The problems we experienced with Catalyst driver installation, black screens and signals being lost as well as a few BSOD's on reboot would make me feel, that although some of these issues are down to the beta drivers, that the two platforms are perhaps still not fully working as they should, to be fair however, generally the 4870 X2's worked well with Skulltrail. Obviously some of the performance blame will be placed at Skulltrail's feet, after all its a specialist low volume system and in the grand scheme of things, ATI will certainly not be putting much focus into optimising for it. Hmm.. You should check fully the review you post. Even Driverheaven agrees that there are problems with Skulltrail + Radeons.

[Dami3n]

the HD4870 is not that far away from gtx260 heck there even some games that the GTX260 beats the HD4870 lets say that the HD4870 is 8% faster then gtx260 the new GTX260 suppose to be 10% faster then the old one with a lite bit higher default clock so if Nvidia decided to make it duel then they will have performance crown and they can sell it cheaper then the HD4870:rolleyes:

Nvidia cant sell it cheaper. Its a big chip in a high cost pcb vs small chip in cheap pcb. There is no price-war if Ati wants.

[jas420221]

LOL @ the propganda on the 3rd slide... last I checked the 4850 and 9800gtx+ traded punches. That slide has it pegged ahead. With that in mind, it has the 4850 barely ahead of a card it *shouldnt even be competing against* (single card).

Im sure its a great card...but...man, I havent seen this much propoganda since the nazi's dropped fliers all over britain and france.... ;)

[waver_01]

the HD4870 is not that far away from gtx260 heck there even some games that the GTX260 beats the HD4870 lets say that the HD4870 is 8% faster then gtx260 the new GTX260 suppose to be 10% faster then the old one with a lite bit higher default clock so if Nvidia decided to make it duel then they will have performance crown and they can sell it cheaper then the HD4870:rolleyes:

well if you look at the recent benchmarks you'll see the 216sp one is only 5% faster than the original 192sp one. And when you turn on 8xAA both get beaten pretty badly by the HD 4870

[Hell Hound]

Then we drop 5870 a little sooner,and crush your 260GX2,<---CRUSHED.LOL:rofl:

[C.Ron7aldo]

Nvidia cant sell it cheaper. Its a big chip in a high cost pcb vs small chip in cheap pcb. There is no price-war if Ati wants.

last time i checked nvidia had so much extra cash then AMD i think they can afford to lose some in a price war with AMD

LOL @ the propganda on the 3rd slide... last I checked the 4850 and 9800gtx+ traded punches. That slide has it pegged ahead. With that in mind, it has the 4850 barely ahead of a card it *shouldnt even be competing against* (single card).

Im sure its a great card...but...man, I havent seen this much propoganda since the nazi's dropped fliers all over britain and france.... ;)

i agree:rolleyes:

well if you look at the recent benchmarks you'll see the 216sp one is only 5% faster than the original 192sp one. And when you turn on 8xAA both get beaten pretty badly by the HD 4870

thees are not legit benchmarks wait for the real reviews

Then we drop 5870 a little sooner,and crush your 260GX2,<---CRUSHED.LOL:rofl:

dude its not my company or yours so please drop the (we and your)

[LagunaX]

When's this damn card coming out so I can buy it, lol?

[Hell Hound]

Dude,we you I mine ours there's and all that.What!!!!!!!

[Solus Corvus]

While I can't speak for the number that TR produces for the 4870x2, I can safely that the 280's SLI numbers are TOO low and with nothing else to blame I can only see that the clockspeed indeed made some magic there. The numbers I saw for the tri-Sli 280 setup were similar to those that DH produced, of course they were also produced on a 4.5GHz CPU (e8400), as such I HAVE to conclude that tri-sli is incredibly more powerful, under a strong CPU, than what I've seen on TR as I have two sources to affirm that
That may be the case. But the 4870x2 numbers look nothing like they should. That could be anything from their odd selection of drivers to motherboard compatibility issues. Like I said, I don't trust DH's testing methodology, at least in this review.

Strange, I was sure that even ATI themselves would call 2 x 4870x2 as quad crossifire, which implies 4 cards, and 4 is a greater number than three, no? They even scale EXACTLY like a four card crossfire setup, also suspect, don't you think?
Quad Crossfire clearly refers to the number of GPUs not the number of cards.

The fact is that if I have a motherboard with three physical 16x slots and I use 2x4870x2 I would still have room for my areca raid card. If I had Tri-SLI, I wouldn't.

ATI cards carry 160 scalar 5-way SPs, GTX280 carries 240 SPs, that would imply that nVidia incorporates more shader power than ATI, no? Also in shader heavy -AA aside- operations, nVidia overperforms. If GTX280 was costing around $300 now there would be no argument to begin with, things would had been far clearer...
Wrong. The 4870x2 (and 4850x2 for that matter) has 320 5-way SPs.

[cegras]

Well, technically ATi has 800 SP.

But then again;

- Their definition of a SP differs by company
- ATi's SP can only do one trig operation per block of 5. So I'm not really sure how trig intensive shader operations are. In fact, I'm really sure how the whole pizzazz works.

[Caparroz]

Wrong. The 4870x2 (and 4850x2 for that matter) has 320 5-way SPs.

Wrong. It's really 160 5 way SPs. 800/5=160. Anyway, that doesn't matter. ATI owns Nvidia right now...:stick: :p:

[nfm]

Whats Faster Than GTX280 And Cheaper Than HD4850X2? OCed 260GTX :D.

[cadaveca]

Wrong. It's really 160 5 way SPs. 800/5=160.



...per gpu... So, actually, he's right.

[tajoh111]

To answer the title question.

The 9800gx2

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=29030&vpn=01G%2DP3%2DN891%2DAR&manufacture=eVGA&promoid=1074

299.00

It probaly competes pretty well with the 3850 x2 as well(also 100 dollars cheaper).

[Solus Corvus]

Wrong. It's really 160 5 way SPs. 800/5=160. Anyway, that doesn't matter. ATI owns Nvidia right now...:stick: :p:
A 4870 does, but I am talking about a 4870x2.

[Dami3n]

last time i checked nvidia had so much extra cash then AMD i think they can afford to lose some in a price war with AMD


Check again:up:, nvidia must spend that extra cash fixing their problems with laptop gpus and more. Isn´t a good time for lose money.

[ahmad]

To answer the title question.

The 9800gx2

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=29030&vpn=01G%2DP3%2DN891%2DAR&manufacture=eVGA&promoid=1074

299.00

It probaly competes pretty well with the 3850 x2 as well(also 100 dollars cheaper).

Probably, but the 4850CF wipes the floor with it:

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_ati_radeon_4870_x2_performance_review/

Thats the 9800GTX+ in SLI, which should be more powerful than that 9800GX2.

EDIT: $310 instant discount :rofl:. But you would be right. For $300 that is quite a deal...

Check again:up:, nvidia must spend that extra cash fixing their problems with laptop gpus and more. Isn´t a good time for lose money.

I didn't know there was a good time to lose money :rofl:

[Dami3n]

I didn't know there was a good time to lose money :rofl:

Following C.Ron7aldo´s theory, if you make vgas and your opponent kick your ass, is a good time to lose some money if you have extra cash.

PD-Only if you have extra cash :D.

[C.Ron7aldo]

I didn't know there was a good time to lose money :rofl:

Following C.Ron7aldo´s theory, if you make vgas and your opponent kick your ass, is a good time to lose some money if you have extra cash.

PD-Only if you have extra cash :D.

isn't that what Intel did wen they went to price war with AMD? but then again Nvidia is not as big as intel but can go down this road for some time i'm gussing longer then AMD.

[paulhamm]

LOL @ the propganda on the 3rd slide... last I checked the 4850 and 9800gtx+ traded punches. That slide has it pegged ahead. With that in mind, it has the 4850 barely ahead of a card it *shouldnt even be competing against* (single card).

Im sure its a great card...but...man, I havent seen this much propoganda since the nazi's dropped fliers all over britain and france.... ;)

I agree that the 4850 and 9800gtx+ are natural prey for each other. I would like to point out that the drivers for the rv770 chip are new and performance gains are coming. On the other hand the g92 and its variants have had their drivers polished about a brightly as I would expect them to be. Depending on the benchies that the PR bunnies cherry picked. The slide is actually accurate. That being said I always take marketing drivel with a serious side of scepticism.

the HD4870 is not that far away from gtx260 heck there even some games that the GTX260 beats the HD4870 lets say that the HD4870 is 8% faster then gtx260 the new GTX260 suppose to be 10% faster then the old one with a lite bit higher default clock so if Nvidia decided to make it duel then they will have performance crown and they can sell it cheaper then the HD4870:rolleyes:


thees are not legit benchmarks wait for the real reviews

Seems you did a fine job of panning yourself on this one. I find it rather disingenuous to claim a wag of a performance number for your own use. But then claim pre NDA benches as non legit because they do not fit your desired conclusion.

[C.Ron7aldo]

Seems you did a fine job of panning yourself on this one. I find it rather disingenuous to claim a wag of a performance number for your own use. But then claim pre NDA benches as non legit because they do not fit your desired conclusion.

we are discussing stuff from the future so only time will tell my friend.
But if you can prove that thees benchmarks are legit and Nvidia will not release a GX2 soon then there will be another discussion a one when i will probably admit that i was wrong.:)

[Caparroz]

A 4870 does, but I am talking about a 4870x2.

Oh, sorry... :slap:

It's funny some people say out of the blue Nvidia will release a cheap GX2 card with some speed bump and it'll trounce ATI. W/e... I can say ATI will release a single slot 12 GPU card with a 1000% speed bump to counter that. Those are fantasy products. Nvidia said nothing about a GX2 card. It's just wishful thinking.

The 4850X2 do exist, it will be launched soon, it will be cheaper than a gtx280 and it will be faster than it in the majority of benchmarks based on what we know of what a pair of 4850s is capable of.

And if Nvidia releases a GX2 card that's reasonably priced and faster than ATI's offerings thats great. In fact, a gtx260 based is a great idea but that just do not exist.

[halo112358]

Someone is bound to do it anyways and I was bored

Now all you have to do is coerce those into log scale for teh lulz.

[Dami3n]

I think nvidia can´t make a decent dual gpu card(at last gt200 based). Is a massive chip with a expensive 512bit pcb. To do a cheap gx2 card they need to jump to 40nm.

[jaredpace]

Nothing can be further from the truth.
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=609&pageid=5

or the other truth:
http://techreport.com/r.x/radeon-hd-4870-x2/hl2-2560.gif

:ROTF:

It's never pointless to say the truth, I I enlightened you.

:rolleyes:

Hhahahah The longer that the R700 vs. GT200 battle rages on in the forums, the more money ati makes, and the more nvidia loses. This is building strength, finances, reputation, clientbase, fanbase, etc. for ATI. NV has no answer because the 2560 8xAA benches have already shown R700 to be faster than GTX280 SLI, and you can't dual chip/dual pcb a gt200 because of it's current power draw - even with die shrink. NV is :banana::banana::banana::banana:ed because everyone will be purchasing the more affordable sensible Rv770 solutions. Luckily nv had previously saturated the market with so many low-mid solutions that now that they are price-cutting the 9800/9600/8xxx midrange, they are able to clean their 65nm inventory, and make some cash. SLI being only NV compatible with 775 was a big mistake - money wise. Otherwise there would be a lot of people with two 60$ 9600gt's in their intel rigs - definitely making a cut into ati's marketshare with the rv770.

Things didn't pan out the way they should have for nvidia, but hey they've been raping us for the last 3 years anyway. 600 products based off one core, price-segment dominance, driver updates, physx, nvision, the battle of intel have all been good decisions. Gautiness & hubris with the super-mono-core gt200, and proprietary usage of sli were pretty dumb long run decisions. Welcome the days of dual gpu nvidia solutions & sli on intel chipsets, everybody. Captain Insane-o won't want to be trailing for long, so get ready for new 40nm Nv core tech/ board strategy to compete with Ati's 5 step program: r600, r700, r800, r900, r1k.

[Seraphiel]

I think nvidia can´t make a decent dual gpu card(at last gt200 based). Is a massive chip with a expensive 512bit pcb. To do a cheap gx2 card they need to jump to 40nm.

Perhaps Nvidia would just use 256bit controller + GDDR5 along with 55nm shrink, and that may be enough. Just speculation and they know best themselves, of course.

I love ATI now a days for their HD 48xx series. Suprised the hell out of me, and is the most posetive thing to me since the G80.

[Stevethegreat]

Wrong. The 4870x2 (and 4850x2 for that matter) has 320 5-way SPs.

I meant per card. If we're to add up the SPs in the best possible setup, it would be (4x160) for ATI and (3x240) for nVidia. nVidia would still have more dedicated power for shader calculation and it would come in a 3 GPU package which -also- ensures better scaling than a 4-gpu setup

or the other truth:
http://techreport.com/r.x/radeon-hd-4870-x2/hl2-2560.gif

:ROTF:



:rolleyes:

Hhahahah The longer that the R700 vs. GT200 battle rages on in the forums, the more money ati makes, and the more nvidia loses. This is building strength, finances, reputation, clientbase, fanbase, etc. for ATI. NV has no answer because the 2560 8xAA benches have already shown R700 to be faster than GTX280 SLI, and you can't dual chip/dual pcb a gt200 because of it's current power draw - even with die shrink. NV is :banana::banana::banana::banana:ed because everyone will be purchasing the more affordable sensible Rv770 solutions. Luckily nv had previously saturated the market with so many low-mid solutions that now that they are price-cutting the 9800/9600/8xxx midrange, they are able to clean their 65nm inventory, and make some cash. SLI being only NV compatible with 775 was a big mistake - money wise. Otherwise there would be a lot of people with two 60$ 9600gt's in their intel rigs - definitely making a cut into ati's marketshare with the rv770.

Things didn't pan out the way they should have for nvidia, but hey they've been raping us for the last 3 years anyway. 600 products based off one core, price-segment dominance, driver updates, physx, nvision, the battle of intel have all been good decisions. Gautiness & hubris with the super-mono-core gt200, and proprietary usage of sli were pretty dumb long run decisions. Welcome the days of dual gpu nvidia solutions & sli on intel chipsets, everybody. Captain Insane-o won't want to be trailing at all, so get ready for new 40nm Nv core tech/ board strategy to compete with Ati's 5 step plan: r600, r700, r800, r900, r1k.

I'm not posting here to offer you comic relief I'm afraid, but to give you my witness experience.

Actually I had the chance to test -quite meticulously- tri-sli in a 4.5GHz system and the results were nothing than what TR suggests. HL2 Ep2, is a great example of this as it is a "trademark" game for bench purposes. My results under equivalent settings that you have in your gif were average -around- 200FPS which is an incredible 2.7x scaling (I was getting around 75FPS on the original 280) which is very much NOT what TR shows (in fact it shows a ridiculous 1.7x scaling which can't be further from the truth) while DH's numbers are a lot closer to mine. In fact the tri-SLI setup had an astounding 2x-2.9(!)x scaling performance, showing that nVidia finally matured their drivers regarding SLI. Also the tri-SLI was the only setup that could game Crysis smoothly (>60FPS) @ VH 19x12, EXACTLY what DH suggested and what TR didn't. In fact TR shows a ridiculous 1.5x scaling between single and three cards while the actual scaling is 2.5x, this can't be an accident, scaling is continuously misrepresented on the TR review and this can't be anything more than the low CPU power, or maybe problems they may had with their setup.

You say that ATI scales under the SAME conditions, but that's to be expected ATI actually worked out CPU bottlenecks quite well this time around and they're commendable for that and nVidia didn't, BUT THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT UNDER THE BEST POSSIBLE CONDITIONS NV IS STILL LEADING. That's my point, now you may pick and choose between your favorite benchs but things don't change, ATI has great AA handling and better scaling on low clocks and that's about it, NV continues with the performance crown.

As for ATI winning customer base, that's to be expected, as the mid-range of the GFX is being occupied (and dominated) by ATI and that's where most money is. I would be the first to recommend an ATI card if you are to spare around 200usd, but this doesn't suggest that ATI took the performance crown from nV, it suggests that it dominates the most populous range of pricing and THAT was my whole point. 2 Years now nV produces the fastest GPU you can find out there, if they lose THAT crown then we're bound to see a real competitive battle. nV is still a giant in the GFX market, don't underestimate it, and as long as you don't hit their prestige by producing the best performing GPU, they will continue acting as if they have the upper hand -like they do now- knowing full well that they can release a GX2 anytime they want (through shrinkage of the manufacturing process), only they take their sweet time as long as they know that ATI has to wind up to arcane magic to compete on the high end (twin cards).

[Hell Hound]

Sound like a conspiracy,you get the high end,and I take midrange.The 5 series should be released early.Microstutter hopefully will be gone.Q,would 2 8x pce-i slots bottleneck or what?:shrug:

[[XC] gomeler]

Has anyone even heard of one of these cards being produced? I was told from an intelligent source that there's a good chance this card will receive very little attention due to the small margins for AIBs.

[Sly Fox]

SLI being only NV compatible with 775 was a big mistake - money wise. Otherwise there would be a lot of people with two 60$ 9600gt's in their intel rigs - definitely making a cut into ati's marketshare with the rv770.

Couldn't agree more. I've thought SO many times, "if only I could actually use damn SLI, then I'd get another GTS and be good to go..." Nvidia doesn't realize that at least for customers like myself, I have absolutely 0 intention of buying a new motherboard downgrade just to use SLI. I'd rather just live without it until they open it up to Intel chipsets.

[NaMcO]

I still wonder what's beyond 60fps...I mean with vsync on.

[cegras]

I meant per card. If we're to add up the SPs in the best possible setup, it would be (4x160) for ATI and (3x240) for nVidia. nVidia would still have more dedicated power for shader calculation and it would come in a 3 GPU package which -also- ensures better scaling than a 4-gpu setup



I'm not posting here to offer you comic relief I'm afraid, but to give you my witness experience.

Actually I had the chance to test -quite meticulously- tri-sli in a 4.5GHz system and the results were nothing than what TR suggests. HL2 Ep2, is a great example of this as it is a "trademark" game for bench purposes. My results under equivalent settings that you have in your gif were average -around- 200FPS which is an incredible 2.7x scaling (I was getting around 75FPS on the original 280) which is very much NOT what TR shows (in fact it shows a ridiculous 1.7x scaling which can't be further from the truth) while DH's numbers are a lot closer to mine. In fact the tri-SLI setup had an astounding 2x-2.9(!)x scaling performance, showing that nVidia finally matured their drivers regarding SLI. Also the tri-SLI was the only setup that could game Crysis smoothly (>60FPS) @ VH 19x12, EXACTLY what DH suggested and what TR didn't. In fact TR shows a ridiculous 1.5x scaling between single and three cards while the actual scaling is 2.5x, this can't be an accident, scaling is continuously misrepresented on the TR review and this can't be anything more than the low CPU power, or maybe problems they may had with their setup.

You say that ATI scales under the SAME conditions, but that's to be expected ATI actually worked out CPU bottlenecks quite well this time around and they're commendable for that and nVidia didn't, BUT THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT UNDER THE BEST POSSIBLE CONDITIONS NV IS STILL LEADING. That's my point, now you may pick and choose between your favorite benchs but things don't change, ATI has great AA handling and better scaling on low clocks and that's about it, NV continues with the performance crown.

As for ATI winning customer base, that's to be expected, as the mid-range of the GFX is being occupied (and dominated) by ATI and that's where most money is. I would be the first to recommend an ATI card if you are to spare around 200usd, but this doesn't suggest that ATI took the performance crown from nV, it suggests that it dominates the most populous range of pricing and THAT was my whole point. 2 Years now nV produces the fastest GPU you can find out there, if they lose THAT crown then we're bound to see a real competitive battle. nV is still a giant in the GFX market, don't underestimate it, and as long as you don't hit their prestige by producing the best performing GPU, they will continue acting as if they have the upper hand -like they do now- knowing full well that they can release a GX2 anytime they want (through shrinkage of the manufacturing process), only they take their sweet time as long as they know that ATI has to wind up to arcane magic to compete on the high end (twin cards).

Two things:

Half Life 2 is an OLD game. Any hardware out there with some threshold of minimum performance will scale linearly when applied to it.

Was this on Episode 2 (Orange Box engine) or the original Source engine?

[Solus Corvus]

I meant per card.
I mean per card too. GPUs are not cards. Cards are what the GPUs go on.

If we're to add up the SPs in the best possible setup, it would be (4x160) for ATI and (3x240) for nVidia. nVidia would still have more dedicated power for shader calculation and it would come in a 3 GPU package which -also- ensures better scaling than a 4-gpu setup
You are right. In the worst possible scenario for ATI the Tri-SLI has more shader power available then CF 4870x2.

The ATI shader processors can process up to 5 operations per cycle. If you are purposely writing code to run poorly on the ATI architecture then maybe you can keep it down to one operation per cycle. But if the ATI shaders can, on average, process at least two operations per cycle then their shader power already outstrips Tri-SLI - and at 5 per cycle it decimates the nV combo. Go ahead and calculate the number of shader operations per second including clock differences. You will see that in every case but the worst possible for ATI (a corner case) the CF 4870x2 has more shader operations per second.


I'm not posting here to offer you comic relief I'm afraid, but to give you my witness experience.
I'm not going to dispute your experience. But you refuse to accept ours that the DH review isn't indicative of the 4870x2 side of things.