Information

Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!



Discussion

Discussion on Article:
Ultimate Heavy-Weight Fight: Radeon HD 4890 CrossFireX vs. GeForce GTX 285 SLI

Started by: Vlad | Date 04/23/09 12:48:53 AM
Comments: 11 | Last Comment:  05/14/09 11:42:51 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-5]

1. 
An excellent review from you guys.I've been waiting for this review for quite a while now... But i have a point to suggest if i could...:
I think that using Adaptive AA on quality for ATI cards vs transparent-Multi-sampling AA for nvidia cards isn't fair for ATI cards, regarding the effectiveness and the demand of those AA settings.This is a qualtiy comparison article from xbitlabs:
[urlhttp://www.xbitlabs.com/a...y_vs_quantity_5.html[/url]




According to this article, "Nvidia's Transparent AA Multi-Sampling hardly does any job at all.ATI's Performance Adaptive AA is clearly better than Nvidia's Transparent AA multi-sampling, but is obviously not as good as Quality Adaptive AA"

And the thing is that i think that using the Q AD_AA for ATI cards hits the performance badly especially in UBISOFT games, like Far Cry 2 and HAWX...Cuz with my single 4870 TOXIC 1G. at 780MHz on my X58 platfrom with a Core I7 at 3.34Ghz, i get in HAWX at 1920 res. on max setts with 4x aa over 40 average fps "vs 27 fps for the 4890 here"....and slighlty over 43fps in
far Cry 2 at the previous setts "vs 44 fps here"...

I think that leaving AA on the Default multi-sampling mode for both cards from ATI and Nvidia would make a better performance comparison...
A response from the reviewer would be greatly appreciated.
0 0 [Posted by: Vlad  | Date: 04/23/09 12:48:53 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
It's a very old article and currently we don't have much time, but we'll try to investigate Quality vs. Performance AAA matter again ASAP.
0 0 [Posted by: Vader@Xbit  | Date: 04/23/09 03:14:36 PM]
Reply
 
Thanks for the response.i think it's very important to test the card on the same/similar IQ setts to to get an accurate performance comparison.

Again many thanks for the great article.

Vladimir.



0 0 [Posted by: Vlad  | Date: 04/25/09 07:50:33 AM]
Reply

2. 
I agree with Vlad regarding AA.

How come in this review single 4890 is 90% times ahead 285? Is it a matter of settings?
0 0 [Posted by: Tuvok  | Date: 04/23/09 04:06:21 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
No you don't.I was taling about the AD-AA on "QUALITY" being more demanding than the TS-MS-AA which barely differs from the MS-AA.
and that's why the 4890 takes big performance hits in Far Cry 2 and HAWX.....

0 0 [Posted by: Vlad  | Date: 04/23/09 12:30:16 PM]
Reply

3. 
Great comparison as usual. Just what I wanted when I bought a couple BFG 285 OCXs for my rig.
0 0 [Posted by: digitalrurouni  | Date: 04/23/09 12:47:47 PM]
Reply

4. 
I have a few suggestions.

1) 1280x1024 is soo 2005. There is no need for it given the power of these cards.

2) I don't think a 4890 was meant to compete with GTX285.

3) Having the cards being tested shown with different shade/colour/highlights on the graph makes it much easier to find them. Otherwise, for every graph, I have to read the names on the left to see which card stands where, which can get tiring.

Great article.
0 0 [Posted by: Mr. BonBon  | Date: 04/26/09 07:41:31 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Curious but 4890 is their top single gpu card. 285 gtx is the other company's top single gpu card. How can they not be meant to compete with each other?
0 0 [Posted by: digitalrurouni  | Date: 04/27/09 07:57:06 AM]
Reply
 
Doesn't matter. You'd have to look at the price to see where each GPU stands.
The cheapest GTX 285 you can find is around $330-340 while the 4890 can be had for $250. That's a big difference and instantly puts the 4890 in a different class.
0 0 [Posted by: Mr. BonBon  | Date: 04/27/09 04:54:10 PM]
Reply
 
That is a fair point. 2 sides to a coin kind of thing ATI is definitely unbeatable in price to performance!
0 0 [Posted by: digitalrurouni  | Date: 04/28/09 07:40:52 AM]
Reply

5. 
Hmm strange i can swear that GTX295 @ 1920 x 1200 Enthusiast (ambush) getting alot
more fps than that..tested many times at that settings i get 32 fps avg.
0 0 [Posted by: psyside  | Date: 05/14/09 11:42:51 AM]
Reply

[1-5]

Back to the Article

Add your Comment