Well.. I'd be worried about the temps of the ATi card, and the fact that they have poor over clocking potential. I can see the logic in buying what is essentially already 2 cards in one for the same money as the 280, but I've read reviews f this thing idling at over 80 degrees!! Add that to your water cooling loop and it's also gotta hit your CPU temps as well. Call me stupid of you want, but I'd go for a 280 and just work harder to get a second one later
I understand that and agree completely. I guess my point was, if you want a true 1:1 return of performance:cost, you would never be looking at even a single GTX 260, let alone two. Anyone interested in a 4870 X2, GTX 260 x2 or a GTX 280 are looking for the ability to rock any game at insane levels of resolution. For me, I am going to be playing at 1920x1080 on a 50" plasma. I really want a 4870 X2, although on this screen I most likely won't be able to tell the difference in GTX 280 or 260 or even a single 4870... I have a tough time in getting the 20 ounce prime rib when I'm already ordering the 16 ouncer. May not be able to finish it tonight, but you better believe it's gonna taste good for lunch tomorrow.
There you all go and throw me back into confusion lol yes i will only have a 24" screen but i will be using it to play movies on a 32" TV and maybe game on it a little if i can bear the neck strain to look up all the time. i fully agree that the anything higher than a 4870 1gb is getting alot less for my money but if im gonna spend £1500+ on a new rig im gonna go the full whack and not cheap out on anything, i post what im buying over the next few weeks post xmas. Asus P6T Deluxe Intel Core i7 920 6GB PC3-12800 and 1 of the graphic cards mentioned. I want to remain free of the fan boy nonsense just stick to the facts. to sum it up, i be gaming on a 24" and watching movie and a wee bit of gaming on a 32" TV So i need a card that can do this and do it well, if im gonna fork out loads of cash im gonna want to do it all to the max
I generally prefer ATI cards and have just bought a 1GB 4850. However from those three cards I'd go for the GX280 as it's the only single GPU card and therefore you need not have to worry about sli/xfire support. I hear in the forums that GTA4 is xfire compatible but isn't yet SLI compatible for example. Personally, I wouldn't spend that much on a GPU myself and therefore I'd probably recommend a 1GB 4870, but that's a different matter and not the question asked!
i do keep learning towards the gtx 280 being the only true fast single card. My oringal plan was a 4780 1gb but after seeing how much my total build came to i can afford a bigger graphics card. Its a shame no new high end cards are being released any time soon.
get the 280gtx don't see how gaming on a 32inch tv comes into the equations as its res will be les then your monitor 4870x2 will outperform 280 IF the driver supports the game, if not your will be getting performance of a single 4870 out of the X2 which the 280 will stomp on depend on the game IMO get the 280GTX, single powerful card and no worries about SLI/Crossfire etc alternatively if the drawbacks of sli/crossfire don't bother you give the below a read http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-graphics,2086-5.html then go buy two 4850x2's, give me one and feel good about being charitible to humble lesser gamers
the whole sli/crossfire support thing does bother me quite a bit i thought the gtx 280 beat a single 4780 in everything? just not always by miles? Been awhile since i seen benchmarks between 2 thou. i been running a 5 year old rig and finally get to upgrade, so i am being charitable to a humble lesser gamer. me
Where are you getting this from? What I've been reading on bit-tech suggests the opposite. Just pointing out I have neither card, and have no loyalty to either manufacturer, but I'll probably end up buying one or the other, so I guess I'm just interested.
if i remember correctly, the 4870 is cheaper and on most things is faster, its just runs hotter and is dearer to run. i think i might go with plan b buy a 4870 1gb and then buy a second when i can afford as i be buying a few bits here and there on paydays
http://techgage.com/article/ati_hd_4870_1gb_vs_nvidia_gtx_260216_896mb/ I don't care for ATI or Nvidia, AMD or Intel, at the end of the day all they care about is profits. All I'm worried about is best bang for my buck ie overclocking headroom, running cool and quiet and IMO GTX 260 is just that for 1920/1200 gaming, HD4850 for 1680/1050.
ah thats where you get your pricing, im from the UK and the 4870 is still cheaper over here. performance all comes down to what game your playing and overclocked or not. i keep trying to convince myself i need the best of the best but i fail miserably everytime. im gonna leave buying the graphics card to last and see what prices are like then.
may i point out that the GTX280 is massively underclocked, its stock speed is 602mhz but it can be upped alot, over on XS forum people are hitting 700Mhz on the core and are then thinking of watercooling. Its been a while since i clocked mine up as i only play RD:GRID on the weekends, hence no need for speed! hehe! GTX280 still the single fastest GPU core on average at high res.
well not underclocked but i know what you mean. GTX280 is the fasted single GPU core but its only -£50 cheaper then the 4870x2 which kicks its arse on anything it has support for, i believe bit tech have on had 1 game the 4870x2 still has problems with. makes choosing extremely hard
Just looked at the poll results 60%+ for the 4870x2 whats interesting thou each of the 3 graphic options had 1 moderator vote on them. i guess the 4870x2 is more popular just for the fact it can be the fastest one of out the lot.
A damn sight more expensive at scan powercooler 4870x2 just below £350 two 260 216's £214 for a single one so £428 in total. £80 difference to be honest im slowly drifting down the road of 1 4870 and then adding another one to it at a later date. The gtx 280 is all well and good but its still priced terribly compared to a 4870 which isnt to far behind it.
I'm also looking for a 50" Plasma TV for some "cinema" size gaming. I'm thinking the 4850 is better value than the 4870. This is mainly because they both run all games at 1920x1080, and both have HDMI cable. The performance difference is not huge either. At 1920x1200 running COD 4: 4850 57 fps 4870 69 fps The only problem is with crysis at 1920x1200 at very high graphics: 4850 14.9 fps average - as low as 13 fps 4870 18.5 fps average - as low as 15 fps 4870x2 24.6 fps average - as low as 17 fps I'm told that the human eye works at 25 fps... so anything above that won't matter too much. As for Crysis, all these cards work at less than the desired 25 fps (4870x2 is the arguable exception). As for price: 4850 £120 4870 (1Gb) £205 4870x2 £380. On performance, the 4870 is about 20% better than 4850 - for about 80% extra price. So it seems the best value for money gfx card atm is the 4850 (according to bit-tech as well). This is why I'm thinking of doing CrossFire just when 4850 becomes a wee bit old for the latest games. It seems to me as the "logical" thing to do. Guys, you might also want to check this out (2 X 4870x2 in crossfire - compared to the rest): http://techreport.com/articles.x/15293/4
i would rather not go crossfire/sli at all. think i posted further up that i be getting myself a new 24" screen and using the 32" TV when i want to get neck ached and just for the whole bigger is better thing.
