• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

June 2008: Battleground for PC Graphics - Geforce GTX 200 v Radeon HD 4800

Tenacious-V said:
Yikes dude, you're completely wrong.

Crysis: 1920 x 1200, DX10, All settings on Very High, 4xAA

4850 CF = ~23 fps
GTX280 = ~16 fps
Click to expand...

image033.png


Tom's is showing 26.4 at that res on the 280, Max settings with 4xAA and AF. The 260 is behind the 4850 CF by about 2 fps.

I'd still rather have the one card, no CF scaling issues to worry about.
 
xemumanic said:
Tom's is showing 26.4 at that res on the 280, Max settings with 4xAA and AF. The 260 is behind the 4850 CF by about 2 fps.

I'd still rather have the one card, no CF scaling issues to worry about.
Click to expand...

Toms is also using a 3Ghz C2Q while the ones I posted were on a Phenom @ 3Ghz, which is no challenge to the C2Q. You can't compare them.
 
Tenacious-V said:
Toms is also using a 3Ghz C2Q while the ones I posted were on a Phenom @ 3Ghz, which is no challenge to the C2Q. You can't compare them.
Click to expand...

Well, that makes it definitely moot, it was only by 2fps on the 260, and 3fps on the 280. CPUs didn't make much of a difference.

So I'll revise what I said prior:

IF CUDA and PhysX don't amount to anything, 4850 CF = GTX 260

IF they do become popular, 4850 CF < GTX 260

I'd still rather have the one card, but I never said anything ill of the 4850 CF.

If anything it's neck and neck, no one is beating out anyone like you people are saying.

Also, I tried to find more numbers with AA, but most reviews had it off.

Off to update Firefox.......

http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-3.0&os=win&lang=en-US
 
xemumanic said:
Well, that makes it definitely moot, it was only by 2fps on the 260, and 3fps on the 280. CPUs didn't make much of a difference.

So I'll revise what I said prior:

IF CUDA and PhysX don't amount to anything, 4850 CF = GTX 260

IF they do become popular, 4850 CF < GTX 260

I'd still rather have the one card, but I never said anything ill of the 4850 CF.

If anything it's neck and neck, no one is beating out anyone like you people are saying.

Also, I tried to find more numbers with AA, but most reviews had it off.

Off to update Firefox.......

http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-3.0&os=win&lang=en-US
Click to expand...

Okay, obviously you don't know much about computer systems. Different CPUs, RAM amounts/speeds/types, Chipsets, and a slew of other things can increase or decrease results by a massive margin. This is why when people benchmark videocards they use the exact same system so that they avoid all these issues. But yes, go ahead and disregard all of the examples already in this thread and go on in your happy world.
 
Dude, what are you talking about. There's no evidence to support that 4850 CF < 260 and plenty of evidence against that.
 
xemumanic said:
You ATI fanboys are out of your goddamned minds.

So now requiring 2 cards in CF to outdo one card is a good thing. :lol .
Click to expand...
Look a troll is finally here. :lol

2 cards in CF come for 40% less money and better performance is always welcome.

xemumanic said:
Not only that, there's CUDA and PhysX to consider.
Click to expand...
This shit is so funny, ages back when AMD adopted Folding and other general purpose apps, you trolls were terming them as non-issue. Suddently when Nvidia adopts a similar approach, they are deal breakers. :lol

xemumanic said:
And a GTX260 is $399, so there's no price difference.
Click to expand...
There is a BIG performance difference though. :lol

xemumanic said:
Dropped the price? It wasn't dropped.....all of those other prices we saw were just rumors. Think about it this way, if the rumors were true back then, then the GTX 280 jumped up in price, because I saw $549 and $599 a number of places, if not in this very thread. I was pretty shocked to see the 280 was $649.
Click to expand...
There was a price drop on the 260, see the official slide distributed at Editor's day here: http://resources.vr-zone.com//newspics/May08/30/gtx200-series-price.jpg

xemumanic said:
Put simply, GTX260 > 4850 CF, with far more potential.
Click to expand...
"Put Simply" 4870 > GTX280 with far more potential because it folds faster .. or simply put 3870 has more potential than 8800/9800 .. put simply .. :lol
 
Tenacious-V said:
Okay, obviously you don't know much about computer systems. Different CPUs, RAM amounts/speeds/types, Chipsets, and a slew of other things can increase or decrease results by a massive margin. This is why when people benchmark videocards they use the exact same system so that they avoid all these issues. But yes, go ahead and disregard all of the examples already in this thread and go on in your happy world.
Click to expand...

See, now you're just being petty and insulting. I know full well the differences between the two chips, arch and all. In fact I own a E6850, quite possibly the CPU they used (EDIT: no, its the QX6850, basically the quad version of my chip, same FSB and all. And also, I don't think Crysis takes advantage of quads, so its still moot) But after all that, IT STILL DIDN'T AMOUNT TO JACK SH*T. The numbers didn't vary much at all to write home about.

It's NOT the CPU that's going to make a major difference worth investing in at this level.

4850 CF = GTX 260
 
irfan said:
"Put Simply" 4870 > GTX280 with far more potential because it folds faster .. or simply put 3870 has more potential than 8800/9800 .. put simply .. :lol
Click to expand...

By Tom's own tests, quote: "the BadaBOOM video transcoder and the Folding@Home GeForce beta client, both of which leave the CPU and Radeons in the dust............."
 
xemumanic said:
See, now you're just being petty and insulting. I know full well the differences between the two chips, arch and all. In fact I own a E6850, quite possibly the CPU they used (EDIT: no, its the QX6850, basically the quad version of my chip, same FSB and all. And also, I don't think Crysis takes advantage of quads, so its still moot) But after all that, IT STILL DIDN'T AMOUNT TO JACK SH*T. The numbers didn't vary much at all to write home about.

It's NOT the CPU that's going to make a major difference worth investing in at this level.

4850 CF = GTX 260
Click to expand...

Sure thing buddy.
 
xemumanic said:
By Tom's own tests, quote: "the BadaBOOM video transcoder and the Folding@Home GeForce beta client, both of which leave the CPU and Radeons in the dust............."
Click to expand...

Um, until there is a new Folding client and work units that are optimized for the new Radeons, there isn't a way to make a direct comparison.

Likewise, you would have to compare BadaBOOM to an H.264 encoder that was optimized for the Radeons.

The 1 Teraflop capability of the 48xx cards may be very competitive for tasks like this once harnessed by new and updated applications.
 
Tenacious-V said:
Right, he doesn't quite understand that concept it seems.
Click to expand...

Make all the jokes and insults you want, but how about we remain adults for more than five seconds and deal with the facts at hand? Or maybe you didn't realize there are NO published apples to apples comparisons on the same hardware available? All you have is one blog or whatever with some early unconfirmed numbers. Hell, all I have is one review that actually posted numbers with AA. And I'm upfront with what I have to bring to the table to this discussion. So all that can be done is to take whats been given and base early conclusions on what we already know about the platforms used to test with.

See, I try to be fair and bring up facts, all you kids are doing is being petty. Grow up. Not only that, I've not ONCE said the ATI card isn't any good, far from it.
 
xemumanic said:
Make all the jokes and insults you want, but how about we remain adults for more than five seconds and deal with the facts at hand? Or maybe you didn't realize there are NO published apples to apples comparisons on the same hardware available? All you have is one blog or whatever with some early unconfirmed numbers. All, all I have is one review that actually posted numbers with AA. So all that can be done is to take whats been given and base early conclusions on what we know about the platforms used to test with.

See, I try to be fair and bring up facts, all you kids are doing is being petty. Grow up. Not only that, I've not ONCE said the ATI card isn't any good, far from it.
Click to expand...
Actually, you've used less facts, given that you haven't gotten any 4850 CF benchmarks... You do realize that, right? You may call our 4850 CF benchmarks dubious for whatever reason (though, you'll have to explain that one.)
 
zoku88 said:
Actually, you've used less facts, given that you haven't gotten any 4850 CF benchmarks... You do realize that, right? You may call our 4850 CF benchmarks dubious for whatever reason (though, you'll have to explain that one.)
Click to expand...

I haven't gotten any? There AREN'T any but that one. No confirmed numbers from any reputable sites exist at all. Just that one forum post.
 
xemumanic said:
Make all the jokes and insults you want, but how about we remain adults for more than five seconds and deal with the facts at hand? Or maybe you didn't realize there are NO published apples to apples comparisons on the same hardware available? All you have is one blog or whatever with some early unconfirmed numbers. Hell, all I have is one review that actually posted numbers with AA. And I'm upfront with what I have to bring to the table to this discussion. So all that can be done is to take whats been given and base early conclusions on what we already know about the platforms used to test with.

See, I try to be fair and bring up facts, all you kids are doing is being petty. Grow up. Not only that, I've not ONCE said the ATI card isn't any good, far from it.
Click to expand...

Right, except what I posted was apples to apples, and you tossed in the orange and suddenly declared CF4850 < GTX260 with no basis at all. :lol

Go take a nap or something.
 
xemumanic said:
By Tom's own tests, quote: "the BadaBOOM video transcoder and the Folding@Home GeForce beta client, both of which leave the CPU and Radeons in the dust............."
Click to expand...
Media transcoding feature has been present in AMD/ATI GPUs for the past 3+ years and suddenly is a feature now. :lol :lol

Also Tom's is comparing RV670, let them test RV770 first and then come back to post here .. :D

Are you from AEG? If not, then stop having a meltdown. :lol
 
xemumanic said:
I haven't gotten any? There AREN'T any but that one. No confirmed numbers from any reputable sites exist at all. Just that one forum post.
Click to expand...
But with picture evidence with him having it. He's using the same tools as the 'professionals' use.

Furthermore, if you say that the benchmark isn't reputable, then you still can't make a comparison between the 260 and 4850 CF because then there would be no 4850 CF data. Case in point, sir.
 
bathala said:
and yet u come to a conclusion
Click to expand...

Yes, I do, based on what we know now, and the fact that it still requires *2* of these cards to equal one 260. And that is strictly a matter of opinion.

But it doesn't matter what I say, I'm sure all you fanboys would tear into it anyway.
 
xemumanic said:
Yes, I do, based on what we know now, and the fact that it still requires *2* of these cards to equal one 260. And that is strictly a matter of opinion.

But it doesn't matter what I say, I'm sure all you fanboys would tear into it anyway.
Click to expand...
According to you, we know almost nothing. Which means, making any judgment would be absolutely stupid. And you still have no explained why that benchmark is disreputable...

You're the only one displaying fanboyish qualities atm, btw. Just want you to be aware of that. You've basically been supporting your ideas with worthless conjecture...
 
xemumanic said:
But it doesn't matter what I say, I'm sure all you fanboys would tear into it anyway.
Click to expand...

great i don't even have a graphic card. (integrated Nvidia graphic on desktop)
I'm a fanboy already. really shows ur immaturity.

anyone who argues with you is a fanboy.
 
xemumanic said:
And that is strictly a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...
He played the opinion card guys, we cant touch him now. :o

Same way some people believed that the 2900XT was a better buy because of all its potential and claimed it was a matter of opinion.
 
Here's a little snippet from the end of the TweakTown's GTX280 review.

The other thing I have to say before I wrap this all up is that I’ve tested the HD 4850, and I’ve tested it in Crossfire. Now, if I hadn’t tested those cards I may have been more impressed with the GTX 280, but I have. I’ve seen the performance figures the cards put out. We also know the price on a pair of HD 4850s is going to be under $600 AUD, while the new GTX 280 in stock form seems to be launching at the absolute cheapest in Australia in the low $700 AUD area. Ouch.
Click to expand...

But I forgot, we're all fanboys and CF4850s < GTX260.
 
zoku88 said:
According to you, we know almost nothing. Which means, making any judgment would be absolutely stupid. And you still have no explained why that benchmark is disreputable...

You're the only one displaying fanboyish qualities atm, btw. Just want you to be aware of that. You've basically been supporting your ideas with worthless conjecture...
Click to expand...

#1 Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that benchmark is disreputable, it seems pretty well done. I said its not from a reputable site, and I should have used the word mainstream instead, that was my error.

#2 We do know almost nothing. I like how you people try to use this fact when it suits you, and don't when it doesn't. First its apples to apples, then it isn't, then you can't make any logical assumptions based on the facts at hand. And then none of them are because you don't agree. Twisting my words all along to make it fit.

Whatever, its still 2 cards in CF vs a single card, which means you need a mobo that supports that, and CF doesn't work equally well in every game.
 
xemumanic said:
Yes, I do, based on what we know now, and the fact that it still requires *2* of these cards to equal one 260. And that is strictly a matter of opinion.

But it doesn't matter what I say, I'm sure all you fanboys would tear into it anyway.
Click to expand...

Wait so you complain we have no evidence, yet on that lack of evidence you seem 100% confident in your claim? These posters on Beyond3D and Xtremesystems are reputable members of the community, they're as reliable as any PC hardware site is going to be (perhaps moreso, as they don't have to keep advertisers happy) so it doesn't seem wise to 100% put it aside. We're not talking about one guy on a forum, but a building pattern of information and prelimanary benchmarks all pointing the same way. Not 100% conclusive, but strong evidence nonetheless, and ALL of it points in the exact opposite way of the view you seem to be stuck with.

Edit: You do know this is ATI's budget card right? Its not suppose to compete with the GTX 260, it costs half the price. ATI have the 4870 and 4870X2 to compete against the GTX 260 and GTX 280, but the fact that their lowest performing card is showing such tremendous performance means that their other solutions (which DO NOT require a crossfire motherboard) look like being very competitve with Nvidia's offerings. Oh, and they're also look like coming in at around $100 cheaper than their Nvidia counterparts. THAT'S why people are excited, ATI are delivering what we value most, "bang per buck". A $650 GTX 280 just doesn't offer that vital quality.

Oh, and throwing around the fanboy accusation when you're the only poster out of three huge internet communities arguing one way doesn't seem like the most wise move imo.
 
xemumanic said:
#1 Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that benchmark is disreputable, it seems pretty well done. I said its not from a reputable site, and I should have used the word mainstream instead, that was my error.

#2 We do know almost nothing. I like how you people try to use this fact when it suits you, and don't when it doesn't. First its apples to apples, then it isn't, then you can't make any logical assumptions based on the facts at hand. And then none of them are because you don't agree. Twisting my words all along to make it fit.

Whatever, its still 2 cards in CF vs a single card, which means you need a mobo that supports that, and CF doesn't work equally well in every game.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing, you're ignoring it. If you truly thought it is reputable, you would take it as evidence against your case.

If you don't ignore it, all of the necessary facts are on the table, it performs better. End of story.
 
Pretty conclusive proof of the 4850's greatness from a mainstream sight here:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1467/how_nvidia_stuffed_the_gtx_280/index.html

TweakTown said:


"The GTX 280 is slower than a pair of CrossFired 4850s for the most part; it’s also $250 AUD dearer. The price on the HD 4850 in AUD is around $250, so $500 for a pair while the GTX 280 is starting at $750. So, a pair of 4850s isn’t enough to drag me away from my consoles, but the 4870s should if the 4850 is anything to go by. The best thing about them however is that the value these cards will offer is nothing short of astonishing."

Knowing the results on the HD 4850 has completely changed my outlook on the GTX 280. At the moment, a lot of review websites have compared the GTX 280 to the 9800 GX2 and they see the performance being similar with a single core, then they see the new technology that’s implemented into the card and find it all to be pretty amazing. Performance talks though, and if these people had seen the HD 4850 run in CrossFire, I don’t doubt that their opinion on the cards would have likely changed."
Click to expand...
 
Rur0ni said:
I believe X38, X48, and P45 support 2x16 2.0 slots. Not 100% sure on P45 though, I think it depends on the board configuration.
Click to expand...

So if you have 2 x 16 2.0 slots, you can do crossfire?
 
Joe Shlabotnik said:
Did anyone who managed to place an order with Amazon get a shipping notification yet? My order hasn't been cancelled yet, but my card hasn't been charged yet either. :(

Sad panda.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine the Amazon orders will ship early next week. If you don't get one elsewhere, I'd hang onto that order, because you aren't likely to beat $199.99 shipped.
 
Cheeto said:
Any site selling the 4850, or did I miss my only chance? :(
Click to expand...
u missed it. Amazon has one and one of its seller then Buy.com has one
I held off all three because of shipping.
I should have just gotten the amazon

beermonkey@tehbias said:
I'd imagine the Amazon orders will ship early next week. If you don't get one elsewhere, I'd hang onto that order, because you aren't likely to beat $199.99 shipped.
Click to expand...
yup, I just bought Corsair 520w from amazon $112 (free shipping) compared to newegg
 
Cheeto said:
Any site selling the 4850, or did I miss my only chance? :(
Click to expand...


Buy.com had them this past weekend for $199 - $10 Google checkout + $5.49 2 day shipping.

Its now showing that its currently unavailable from the manufacturer. They must have sold out pretty quickly - or they put them on sale early by mistake. Either way, glad I got my order in and it shipped yesterday.
 
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1467/how_nvidia_stuffed_the_gtx_280/index.html

...

As frustrated at NVIDIA as I am, who has really annoyed me is ATI. The fact that the NDA has been pushed back is just killing me. Knowing the results on the HD 4850 has completely changed my outlook on the GTX 280. At the moment, a lot of review websites have compared the GTX 280 to the 9800 GX2 and they see the performance being similar with a single core, then they see the new technology that’s implemented into the card and find it all to be pretty amazing. Performance talks though, and if these people had seen the HD 4850 run in CrossFire, I don’t doubt that their opinion on the cards would have likely changed.
Click to expand...
 
xemumanic said:
Well, that makes it definitely moot, it was only by 2fps on the 260, and 3fps on the 280. CPUs didn't make much of a difference.

So I'll revise what I said prior:

IF CUDA and PhysX don't amount to anything, 4850 CF = GTX 260

IF they do become popular, 4850 CF < GTX 260

I'd still rather have the one card, but I never said anything ill of the 4850 CF.

If anything it's neck and neck, no one is beating out anyone like you people are saying.

Also, I tried to find more numbers with AA, but most reviews had it off.

Off to update Firefox.......

http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-3.0&os=win&lang=en-US
Click to expand...

:lol CF 4850>GTX280. Its almost confirmed. Wait for a driver update, but right now, the GTX280 sucks.
 
ATI DEFENSE FORCE ASEMBLE!

One more time... we are going to celebrate!

RubyBG.jpg

crysis4xaaql2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The PC Gaming Show returns June 7
Event Platform 
4
70
Jinzo Prime replied
AC Black Flag PC specs and console graphics modes detailed
15
407
viveks86 replied
Death Stranding 2: On the Beach - PC Vs PS5 Graphics Comparison
Analysis Trailer Platform 
12
763
dgrdsv replied
[VideoCardz] Nvidia to add Linux support for GeForce Now
20
721
IbizaPocholo replied
China Reportedly Blocks NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D v2 Imports
News Hardware 
0
64
winjer replied
Top Bottom