thank CHRIST. your arguments always degenerate into personal attacks, you might wanna look into this as it makes you sound like an angry angst-ridden teenager. the chart is right there for you to see. the cards are roughly similar, even though the ATi card costs 35 quid less. to quote the article you so helpfully provided: at the time the ATi card cost more, which meant the nvidia card got the nod - things have changed.
This isn't a comment on the graphics cards, this is a comment for you, nowhere did my argument degenerate into anything even vaguely resembling a personal attack, you just hate the fact that someone else has an opinion that's different to yours and the fact that your wrong and i'm right and you can't stand it. Now here's a comment on the graphics issue, and it's clear for all to see the gtx 275 is better than the 4890, it doesn't matter by how much, the thing is the gtx 275 is better than the 4890 and that's a fact.
love it when people dont even realise their own arrogance. perhaps in your own mind you have to justify your purchase somehow. you also seem to place alot on bit-tech recommendations. heres something a bit more recent than your quoted article: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/buyers-guide/2009/11/10/what-hardware-should-i-buy-november-2009/3 theres a distinct lack of an nvidia card there isnt there? there isnt even one in the premium rig. ill leave you with that to ponder. i also loled at this: hypocrite much? you reminded me of this: http://xkcd.com/386/ only ther probably isnt that other person in your case (you see? that was a personal attack, but im ok with it).
I made an observation, if you could read (properly) then you would have read my full responses in this thread and then maybe you wouldn't say stupid things, simple. And how was I being arrogant, I wasn't the one who can't read words when they're altogether, or the one where there has to be 2 line paragraphs just so I can understand what's being said. As for justifying my purchase, I've had the card for several months I don't need to justify it, it justifies itself. And guess what who actually cares (apart from you) whether there is a distinct lack of an NVIDIA card in any of those rigs, so I don't think I'll be pondering anything today, also it's fact that the majority of pc owners prefer NVIDIA over ATI, simple. As for your personal attack it doesn't bother me one bit as I'm clearly more clued up/more knowledgeable than you so you carry this on all you wish, it's between you and your split personality now. See ya
But it was bit-tech who reviewed them both back in April and they quite clearly said (whether it was back then or now) that the gtx 275 is the better card, it doesn't matter if the 4890 is now the best "bang for buck" the gtx 275 is still the better card regardless for many different reasons.
guys, we all need to realise that whatever Ravenheart says is correct, and his opinions are always right
Barndoor, it was Bit-techs review that said the gtx 275 was better than the 4890 and forgive me if i'm wrong (which i'm not ) but the gtx 275 and the 4890 that were reviewed will still be the same as they were 8 months ago, so what bit-techs review said was which is still a fact whether you like it or not.
I think it's safe to say, the 275 and the 4890 are pretty closely matched overall. My 2 pence worth, if you're purely gaming, go for the 4890. It's cheaper and in general gaming performance terms, the differences are nominal. If you plan on gaming and Folding@home, go for the 275 as ATI can't Fold for toffee!!
8 months is a long time in terms of driver improvements - newer drivers can offer better performance on existing cards. my comment about a pre-overclocked 4890 matching the 285 (which costs so much more) was right (looks like im following the trend by quoting a months old article): http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/05/26/sapphire-radeon-hd-4890-1gb-atomic-review/15 i know you wont read the article so i will quote it:
I'd say that, it really comes down to price, if you can find a GTX275 for $200, then by all means take it, but most likely you won't. However there are HD4890s for that price.
Why oh why do you keep rambling on about pre-overclocked 4890's? Which will obviously be faster than a stock 275. When bit-tech did the review it was a standard NOT overclocked 4890 that they reviewed next to the 275 and the 275 was the clear winner, it doesn't matter if it wasn't by much, it was still the winner, that you can't dispute. I mean put a pre-overclocked 275 against a pre-overclocked 4890 and then post back and if the 4890 wins I will gladly concede defeat when it comes to overclocked versions of the cards but we or at least I wasn't talking about overclocked versions was I, I was on about the review bit-tech did and the fact remains that at the time of the review by bit-tech (regardless of it being 8 months ago) the 275 vs the 4890 (none of the two cards being overclocked) won.
oh dear, i think you are the one who cant read. i even quoted the article for you: as for stock speeds, how about a quote from Anand: here is the link to the article for you to read (even though i know you wont because it disagrees with you): http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539&p=23 you always base your argument on the performance of a few games which are well known to favour nvidia. if i wanted i could only ever quote fallout 3 and STALKER:CS scores where the 4890 wins every time.
What are you on about Barndoor? Can't you just give it up, for the last time the gtx 275 is a better card than the 4890 FACT! No gimmicks no pre-overclocked cards, just stock gtx 275 vs stock 4890 = gtx 275 clear winner doesn't matter whether it's by an inch or a mile (or even an 8 month review) a wins a win baby, the gtx 275 = the winner
ah i see where your coming from - if you say it enough times then perhaps it might be true! good luck with that.
Well it is so I don't need How is it not the winner?, and if it's not then the bit-tech review is obviously wrong and all the reviews you linked to are obviously right. To quote this review here at the very end NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 Versus ATI Radeon HD 4890 And the review here RADEON HD 4890 vs. GeForce GTX 275 in the Fallout 3 section of that very benchmark, it clearly shows that it's a 4890 OC <--- Overclocked card that beats the GTX 275 which is NOT Overclocked, and the 4890 OC beats the 275 by what 2fps so obviously that makes the GTX 275 the winner as well, because let's face it the 4890 Overclocked can only beat the GTX 275 @ Stock by the pitiful amount of 2fps (69.0 fps for the gtx 275 against 71.4 fps for the 4890 OC) that says it all.
But those margins quoted work both ways; in the Nvidia friendly Crysis, the 275 is better... by just 2fps. http://techreport.com/articles.x/16681/10 Quite "pitiful" to as you choose to phrase it. And I refer you the 'bang for buck' measure which is relevant. Every peice of hardware tested on this site is judged as to whether it offers value for money. Both cards obviously do, just the 4890 more so. Afterall, those extra 2fps will cost you atleast an extra £50 for the 275 over a 4890.
Just want to mention about FSX which I see is in your list, this is not a simple game like the others where you can chuck the fastest gfx card at it and get faster performance... The game is very much CPU dependant and memory dependant also. I see you have a quad core already which is good as I hear FSX responds better to more cores, but you will need to OC your cpu as 2.66Ghz is a touch too slow, also try to get 4Gb of memory, it runs fine on 2gb, but it will run better with 4gb, especially if you are on vista or win7. (Also if you go 4gb ram then you will need a 64bit OS to use all of it effectively) You can see my rig spec in my sig and I play & love fsx, I have locked the fps at 20... which it more or less sticks to. But if you want maximum gfx settings, max autogen, max traffic, your gonna have to considerably up your rig spec. (i.e. i7, 6gb, top gfx card,)
Well not strictly true, your actually paying an extra £50 for a card that has a 448-bit memory bus compared to the 256-bit memory bus on the 4890, the Pixel Fillrate is less on the 4890, so is the Texture Fillrate, The bandwidth is slightly higher on the gtx 275, 127.0GB/s instead of 124.8 GB/s for the 4890, the memory clock on the gtx 275 is 159 mhz faster on the 275, the shader speed appears to be non existent on the 4890 opposed to the 1404mhz shader speed on the 275, and to top it off the gtx 275 can also be used for folding, so you get a hell of a lot more for the extra £50 than people actually realise.
im sorry but you cant compare RAW facts between the GPUs since they rely on totally different ways of achieving the same performance (give or take) 448-bit memory bus is better than 256-bit AMD one BUTTTTTTT.... to offset this AMD use GDRR5 and nvidia only uses GDDR3 so your mem speed on the AMD one is 975 quad pumped to 3900mhz but the Nvidia card has only 1134 double pumped to 2268 mhz. basically you cant compare them only the result i.e. the FPS or folding if thats your thing. yes a 275 is faster im not arguing about that. so if money isnt a big deal the 275 is the better choice as it offers better performance than the 4890 END OF CHAT. but usually people look to buy the best for their money and a quick price check reveals (ebuyer) 4890 = £135 275 = £164 The 275 is about 17-18% more expensive than the 4890. suppose it depends on if you want to pay that extra for slightly better performance which is dependent on which games you play
