I think he was talking about Nasgul, but they're the same. Worse actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
Printable View
I think he was talking about Nasgul, but they're the same. Worse actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
my response to all this. remeber that the 4870x2 came out in august 08
My comments: test more games where the x2 wins and you will get a better qualitative comparison.... It's really hard to read these reivews but at the least they are a very biased site: in the mirrors edge chart they switched the 1920x1200 295 results with the 2560x1600 this made it look like the 295 won by hundreds of FPS in the second test when it really did not.
Code:4870x2 v2 295:
WAW:
1) 59-87-168 vs 69-102-151 verdict: 295 (14.5+14.7-10.1)/3 = 6.3 pts
2) 43-68-111 vs 49-88-131 verdict: 295 (12.2+22.7+15.2)/3 = 17 pts
CrysisWarhead:
1) 26-45-61 vs 21-44-58 verdict: 4870x2 (19.2+2.2+4.9)/3 = 8.8
2) 18-30-39 vs 13-29-36 verdict: 4870x2 (27.7+3.3+7.6)/3 = 12.9
FC2:
1) 53-71-95 vs 41-63-83 verdict: 4870x2 (22.6+11.2+12.6)/3 = 15.5
2) 3-9-49 vs 6-16-37 verdict: niether card has playable frames
GRID:
1) 114-145-168 vs 81-110-140 verdict: 4870x2 (28.9+24.1+16.6)/3 = 23.2 pts
2) 84-107-139 vs 63-85-107 verdict: 4870x2 (25+20.5+23)/3 = 22.8
GTAIV
1) 18-36-70 vs 34-43-70 verdict: 295 (47+16.2+0)/3 = 21
2) 15-37-62 vs 27-39-58 verdict: 295 (44+5.1-6.4) = 14.2
L4D
1) 90-135-211 vs 85-138-203 verdict: 4870x2 (5.5-2.1+3.8)/3 = 2.4
2) 60-87-133 vs 39-98-176 verdict: (35-11.2-24)/3 = 0 pts for either TIE
LPC:
1) 32-52-76 vs 34-68-103 verdict: 295 (5.8+23.5+26.2)/3 = 18.5
2) 18-31-46 vs 13-41-62 verdict: 295 (-27+24+25.8)/3 = 7.6 pts
Tombraider (CF not working)
295 wins
WIC:
1) 78-93-119 vs 84-104-123 verdict: 295 (7%+10.5%+3.2%)/3= 6.9pts
2) 55-64-83 vs 56-70 84 verdict: 295 (1.7%+8%+1.1%)/3= 3.6pts
ME:
1) 86-129-189 vs 103-141-192 verdict: 295 (16.5+8.5+1.5)/3 = 8.8
2) 58-85-117 vs 83-108-140 verdict: 295 (30.1+21.2+16.4)/3 = 22.6
SCORE:
Qualitative-
4870x2: 85.4/6 = 14.23 %
295: 126.5/10 = 12.65 %
this tells us that the 295 wins in more games than the 4870x2,
but the 295 wins by less when it wins
I didnt bother with tombraider.... I don't really want to get into this.
when Its fixed by drivers the 4870x2 will do fine, if you wanna argue with me about it go ahead
I dont care and who plays tombraider anyway.
huh well I guess I might as well have not done all that work....
I read it. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG
The 295 is a pretty big let down IMO. It would be a really solid contender. If it came out forever and a half ago...
It's a little bit hard to tout minor wins in some games when you've made your loyal fanbase wait that long... I suspect most people feel they should have just gotten an X2 by now. I know I would personally.
Only thing I can really say about the 295, is that maybe the drivers are better. People with certain configs still seem to have an awful lot of problems with ATI. And I can certainly say my 3870X2 did not work well one bit.
But that's getting into sheer guesswork as I have not personally used either card.
man id return my 295 and just swap out and get a 4870x2 but i dont know if its worth it, i mean i did get my 295 for 400 bucks ;)
Even if it were exactly the same performance (i.e. no gains) it's "more valuable"... PhysX, Folding, option for Stereo3d, some would argue better drivers/cp, and it's not much later behind the 4870x2 than the 9800GX2 was behind the 3870x2... not sure what the problem is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
You're paying for an experience, not just 1 fps anymore.
Thanks for taking the time Snipe.
Reasons like that are why I bought a 4870x2 about a week ago.
And IMO it won't be long until decent driver support for the GTX295 is dropped, or was it just my imagination that as soon as the GTX280 was released nVidia seemed to stop caring about the 9800GX2?
Fair enough. Those features don't matter much to me, but I can certainly undertstand. Folding especially, if that's your forte.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
I suppose I had just hoped the 295 would be more ground breaking FPS wise.
Catalyst 9.1 WHQL Benchmark Review @PCGH
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...chmark_review/Quote:
Catalyst 9.1 WHQL benchmark review: Introduction
With a noticeable delay AMD released the Catalyst 9.1 WHQL on January 29. As usually the package of CCC (Catalyst control Center) and drivers is available for download in versions for Windows XP and Windows Vista.
Although the 9.1 is a WHQL certified driver, which had to pass Microsoft's quality tests, it still contains the AF Bug known from the 8.12 Hotfix - the problem is also mentioned in the Release Notes. But they don't list the D3D10 workload optimizations for multi-core processors which have also been introduced with the 8.12 Hotfix. Our benchmark results on the next page reveal how fast the Catalyst 9.1 WHQL is compared to the 8.12 Hotfix and the 8.12 WHQL.
GTX295 vs HD4870 X2
Source: Hardware-infos
The 295 is a winner! :)
ASUS Extreme AH4870X2 TOP vs GTX295 with Catalyst 9.1
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=809Quote:
Today we are checking out the overclocked ASUS Extreme AH4870X2 TOP graphics card, designed to squeeze even more performance out of the Radeon HD 4870 X2. In doing so we find that ASUS has made a hot operating product even hotter, pushing temperatures through the roof! Meanwhile, their non-overclocked base model Radeon HD 4870 X2 receives a much improved cooler, which does not make a whole lot of sense...................
my test: http://pctuning.tyden.cz/index.php?o...2576&Itemid=44
no major improvements from 8.12 ...