The Official Graphics Card and PC gaming Thread

Wow! If only for the story...I have got to play this game! I found myself quite mesmerized by this video! It was quite possibly one of the most beautiful things ive ever seen!!!
Final Fantasy X???Music by Lisa Gerrard, as opposed to Enya. IT IS NOT ENYA!!!
Though I like ENYA quite a bit. Dont take that the wrong way.

 

Omega, see my post in the what are you listening to now thread...

Rubix: Remember, that is the bit-tech review, which is the least favourable, to get a bigger picture, look closely at the other reviews, especially the HardOCP one (the one with figures, not graphs), as they in my mind are the most accurate testers at the moment.

 

While I do like hardocp myself, the fact that they go for maximum in game settings achievable isn't really helpful to me when the res is at 2560x1600. The gtx275 may win by a few fps at this res, but I'm more interested in 1920x1200, where most reviews I have read show closer margins between the two cards. Still waiting for the CF/Sli comparison though
And I know what you mean about some people being biased... I think it was an Anandtech review I was reading.. the 4890 smashed the gtx275 in absolutely everything which I'm pretty sure is total BS.

 

I've been ignoring Anandtech for ages, their reviews are ridiculous. On the plus side, you've got more benchmarks coming soon from other sites to take a peek at. Once again, no SLI benches, but nVidia did not send out multiple review samples, so it would be up to the review site to buy another card to test that fact. They weren't out for real release when most of the benchmarks were being recorded.

 

*Sigh* Guess I will have to wait a little while for some truly helpful reviews. Gut instinct I'd probably get the 275's (I've always liked nvidia) but I didn't even know they existed when I found out about the 4890, so I'd kinda decided on the radeons already. And I know crossfire is a hell of a lot better than it used to be, whereas sli has sort of stayed the same.. so it's really a tough one. Lol.

 

There are plenty of GTX285 benchmarks knocking around, and one of the ones I'm currently graphing includes GTX285 SLI, the GTX295, GTX295 Quad SLI, the HD4870X2, HD4890 and GTX275 (singular). As long as you don't surpass the GTX275's memory capability (if you do, you'll see it in the GTX295 results dropping like a stone as well), I think you'll have a fair idea of what GTX275 SLI will achieve by directly comparing the GTX285 SLI results to the GTX285, and subbing the numbers from the GTX275 in, if you see what I mean. There are three major titles currently out there that screw ATI cards, especially in dual mode. Unfortunately, since they're also some of the most demanding and most popular, they are the ones almost always used in benchmarks. On that basis, ATI get a bit of a raw deal when it comes to benches. This time round though, things are looking good for SLI, it must be said. Stick around for the benchmark I upload, I will add some simulated GTX275 SLI results on theory I suggested.

(The three games were Crysis/Crysis Warhead, Far Cry 2, and Call of Duty: World At War)

 

True champion. You sir, are the most helpful person on this website. No offence to anyone else of course

Edit: Oh, and while you're here.. any opinions on the DFI DK-X58-T3EH6? It's way cheaper than the gigabyte extreme I was planning on, and I read a forum-based review where a dude said he got his i7 920 to 4.0ghz with way lower voltages than on the gigabyte board.. plus gigabyte boards are ugly - dfi black pcb ftw.

 

The most expensive of the DFI boards, I can't remember if it's that one or not, has wide slot spacing for full 16x bandwidth dual graphics. That in my mind is the best board to go for, for i7. The only hesitation I have is that DFI boards are VERY intolerant of components, for instance they're the only board manufacturer that won't accept engineering sample graphics cards.

 

The enthusiast one is the UT T3EH8 - its like $150 more and the only differences I could spot were bad ones.. lack of optical audio connection, and the ugly heatsink off the PWM.. other than that I'm pretty sure the two boards are identical, and as such both have the wider spaced slots. Oh, does that mean regular sli/cf connectors won't reach?

 

You know, I hadn't even considered that. It's a real possibility.

 

I guess it would be incredibly retarded on DFI's part if they designed a board specifically for better SLI/CF and then the connectors can't reach... lol. Most CF setups I've seen have those bendy connectors that look like they are a bit longer than they need to be?

 

They are for double slot, but they're stretched to the limit for triple slot (standard). As a result, Quad slot such as on the DFI x58 boards, and indeed they won't reach. Not sure how you go about getting bigger ones...

The TechGage benchmark is now written up, just graphing it and adding the simulated results. I've omitted the Mirrors Edge results as they use very outdated drivers in the test and there is no crossfire profile with them for Mirrors Edge. I've also omitted NFS:Undercover as I don't really think it matters to most people. Will add later if I'm wrong on that.

 

The bundled accessories only comes with one CF connector.. don't you need two? I mean, I know they come with the cards themselves, but surely they won't be the long ones..

Edit: and thanks for the card benchmarks you're doing up

I found a picture of crossfire on the dfi board here.

Looks like the cards are in the top and bottom slots, as you can see the cmos battery in the middle which is next to the central 16x slot. So it must reach somehow?

 

No, only one if you're using cards. Two if you're using three cards.
The bridge you see there is not the standard one supplied with the cards. I can only assume it is supplied with the board. If it, all is well with the world.

TechGage Benchmark

Average Frame Rate Graph:
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6351/techgageave.gif
Minimum Frame Rate Graph:
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6113/techgagemin.gif


Also, for the lulz, PCFormat's benchmark (Just to show how little effort some sites put in)
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1310/pcformatbenchmark.gif

Lastly, LegitReviews' Benchmark:
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/736/legitreviews.gif

 

Lol indeed, 3 games on 3 cards - that must have been a hard review to do. /s

So your simulated gtx275 sli results fare alot better than the simulated 4890x2?

 

Again Sam, great graphs to put it in perspective. You are indeed the most helpful, knowledgeable, and the best poster in the hardware forums. You are a great asset to Afterdawn and one of the reasons I've stayed so long

The 4890 and GTX275 are looking to both be awesome cards. I just recommended a 4890 to a friend looking for the fastest single core ATi card. He loves it

And on review sites. I personally like HardOCP and Anandtech. They seem relatively unbiased...

 

Across 3 of the 4 titles they are, yes, but look what those 3 titles are - Far Cry 2, Crysis Warhead and Call of Duty:World at War, the very three titles that ATI cards always fall down on. Realistically though I am tempted to say GTX275 SLI will be the better option this point. If they do ever make an HD4890X2 though, that on its own will work out the better value product. As things stand right now though, needing to use two cards regardless, and them being identically priced, for those who will be using i7, I think it's time nvidia were back in the limelight.

Estuansis: Thanks very much for the complimet. Coming from a member as wise as yourself, that's high praise indeed.
I wouldn't necessarily criticise Anandtech for bias per se, more that they've published a few dubious results in the past, the coolers one being the most obvious. HardOCP results have always impressed me, for one because they take 2560x1600 the most seriously of all the test sites, but also due to the comprehensive way they analyse their data. Unfortunately, as was pointed out, this does leave more common ground less covered, and realistically, 1920x1200 is these cards' area of expertise. 2560 should really be left to the multi-GPU setups. That said, the GTX275 on a few occasions is stealing the title of fastest single GPU card off the GTX285, which costs 50% more. I don't forsee the GTX285 sticking around very long.

 

That's the kind of honest opinion I'm looking for. And the decision is - GTX275 Sli Too right nvidia need some share of the spotlight, ever since the 4870 came out nvidia has been pretty crap. Now I have to wait a week or so for some more brands to come out.. at the moment it's only Palit lol.

 

I have no qualms with Palit as a manufacturer, but the best of the nvidia bunch in my mind are XFX and BFG. Since the Geforce 8 series, nvidia's hardware has actually improved. The sudden rise of ATI was a bit of a shock to the system for nvidia though and is perhaps what prompted the further complexity of their already hideous product naming system. The only reason nvidia products have not sold well is that they were overpriced. With the GTX275 at least, that looks like it's coming to an end. Right now, you're likely to find a GTX275 cheaper than an HD4890. Due to the closeness of competition outside the three main whoring games though, if ATI were to cut the cost of the HD4890 below the £200 mark by any significant margin, it'd be a more difficult decision. One thing I do question is the GTX275's alarmingly high load power usage, and high temperatures. I am beginning to wonder if they are actually now second best on the heat/noise front. No big deal for 90% of gamers, but those who go for the top cooling and/or silencing route may find ATi the preferred choice for that. Shame about the idle consumption though, that's something the Radeons are particularly poor for this generation.

 

And I bet in my beautiful country they will cost 20 bucks more per card. Lol.