GeForce GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4890 Part5

Last but not least, Company of Heroes: Tales of Valor,
the gap is merely 3.5%






The gap opens to 5% with 4xAA & 16xAF.

You can see from the result that both cards perform at a similar level, with the GeForce GTX260+ edges out by a small margin in most games. Given both cards are selling at the same price, the Nvidia card definitely makes a better choice.



Part 1: Introduction & Specification
Part 2: Test Setup
Part 3: 3Dmark & Call of Duty 5
Part 4: NSF:Undercover & FarCry2
Part 5: COH: Tales of Valor

GeForce GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4890 Part4

Need For Speed: Undercover, again no significant difference between the two.






The GTX260+ almost achieved what is known as "free AA",
while the HD4890 suffered a 12.6% drop in frame rate.








Moving on to the first DX10 game benchmark, FarCry2,
HD 4890 performs much better than its counterpart.





The gap maintained after switching on AA & AF.



Part 1: Introduction & Specification
Part 2: Test Setup
Part 3: 3Dmark & Call of Duty 5
Part 4: NSF:Undercover & FarCry2
Part 5: COH: Tales of Valor

GeForce GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4890 Part3

Benchmark Result




3Dmark Vantage (Performance),
where GTX260+ leads by 1717 points or 16%,
thanks to its support for PhysX technology.






3Dmark06 running at its default 1280x1024,
shows that both cards are on par.






Moving on to Call of Duty 5, running at 1920x1200 0xAA 0xAF,
GTX260+ is merely 2fps faster, no significant difference between the two.






GTX260+ suffers a drastic drop in performance when AA & AF is turned on.



Part 1: Introduction & Specification
Part 2: Test Setup
Part 3: 3Dmark & Call of Duty 5
Part 4: NSF:Undercover & FarCry2
Part 5: COH: Tales of Valor

GeForce GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4890 Part2

Test Setup

Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 @ 3.6Ghz (400x9)
Memory: Corsair DDR2-1066 2x1GB
Motherboard: Asus P45
Harddisk: Seagate Barracuda 320GB 7200.10
Power Supply: GreatWall 650W
Display: Hanns.G 28" (1920x200)

Graphics:
Gainward GeForce GTX260+ 55nm 896MB Golden Sample (625/1348/2200)
Radeon HD 4890 GDDR5 1GB (850/3900)

Driver:
Forceware

O/S: Windows Vista Ultimate SP1
Chipset: Intel P45 Vista 9.0.0.1008 WHQL
Framerate: FRAPS 2.9.8



Part 1: Introduction & Specification
Part 2: Test Setup
Part 3: 3Dmark & Call of Duty 5
Part 4: NSF:Undercover & FarCry2
Part 5: COH: Tales of Valor

GeForce GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4890 Part1

GeForce GTX260+ 55nm vs Radeon HD4890

AMD turns up the heat with an improved core and thus the birth of it's flagship Radeon HD4890. As part of their pricing strategy, ATI has announced that HD4890 will be retailing for under $260, which is also the price point of an overclocked GTX260+. Today, we will find out which card is the most bang for bucks.




Sample GPU-Z screenshot:



GeForce GTX260+ core216 with a 55nm core


Specification Comparison

Product	GeForce GTX 260+	Radeon HD4890
Core Code	GT200	RV790
Process	55nm	55nm
Transistors	1400 million	959 million
Core Clock	625Mhz	850Mhz
Shader	1348Mhz	850 Mhz
Shader	216	800
ROP	28	16
TMU	72	40
Memory Clock	2200Mhz	3900Mhz
Memory Bus Width	448-bit	256-bit
Memory Size/Type	896MB GDDR3	1GB GDDR5

Part 1: Introduction & Specification
Part 2: Test Setup
Part 3: 3Dmark & Call of Duty 5
Part 4: NSF:Undercover & FarCry2
Part 5: COH: Tales of Valor

FEAR 2: Project Origin - GPU Graphics Performance

FEAR 2: Project Origin was released on Febuary, 11 2009. The storyline starts 30-minutes before the nuclear end of the first FEAR game. The game is powered by the LithTech engine, although still DX9, but it incorporates new features such as Havok Physics, per-pixel lighting, particle effect systems, HDR, post-processing & motion blur etc. In the following review (extracted from PConline), we shall find out how it performs on the latest graphics cards.

Test Platform

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33Ghz
Gigabyte X48
Apacer DDR2-1066 5-5-5-15 2x1GB
Seagate 7200.10 SATA 500Gb

Nvidia GeForce 9600GSO (650/1400Mhz)
Nvidia GeForce 9600GT (650/1800MHz)
Nvidia GeForce 9800GT (600/1800MHz)
Nvidia GeForce 9800GTX+ (738/2200MHz)
Nvidia GeForce GTX260 (576/1998MHz)

AMD Radeon HD4670 (750/2000MHz)
AMD Radeon HD4830 (575/1800MHz)
AMD Radeon HD4850 (625/2000MHz)
AMD Radeon HD4870 (750/3600MHz)

Windows Vista Ultimate SP1
Forceware 182.06 / Catalyst 9.2






1440x900

There is no option for GTX260 to run the game at 1440x900.






1680x1050 4xAA

Project Orignal seems to be less demanding to the system than its previous releases, even lower end graphics cards like HD4670 and 9600GSO are able to handle the game with maximum graphics details, scoring above 50fps.






1920x1200 4xAA

HD4870 512MB dominates this game at every resolution. While on the mainstream side, HD4670 512MB & 9600GSO 256MB manage to chink out playable frame rates, even at this high resolution with anti-aliasing turned on.

GeForce 8800GT vs Radeon HD4870 1GB - FarCry2

Recently upgraded my aging 8800GT to the mighty HD4870 with a luxurious 1GB of GDDR5 to play FarCry 2 =)






Bench it with the exact same settings, average result is taken after 3 loops of small ranch.

Get ready for some insane frame rates!







8800GT 512MB OC (713/1728/2000)






HD4870 1GB OC (790/3800)


WHAT?! HD4870 1GB is only 1.4fps faster than 8800GT?!







Test System

Processor: Intel Core2Quad Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz (355x9)
Motherboard: ASUS P5B-E Plus
Memory: 2x1GB Kingston @ DDR2-1066 5-5-5-18
Storage: Hitachi 160GB 7200 SATA2
Power Supply: Coolermaster iGreen 500W
Display: BenQ FP202W 1680x1050 8ms

Graphics:
MSI NX8800GT 512MB OC (T2D512E) @ 713/1728/2000
MSI R4870 1GB OC (T2D1G) @ 790/3800

Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 32-bit DX10
Forceware 180.48 WHQL
Catalyst 8.12
FarCry 2 v1.0

----UPDATE----

After installing Catalyst 8.12 Hotfix...



the frame rates shoot through the roof!!!

Problem solved.





A better picture with this graph.





Data table of the test results...



other sites on FarCry 2 graphics performance:
Guru3D
Techspot

Radeon HD3850 X2 + GeForce 8600GT

Working hand-in-hand:
Radeon HD3850 X2 + GeForce 8600GT

PhysX, the "in" thing in 3D PC gaming these days. Nvidia injected a boost of PhysX support to all GeForce 8 series & above cards. On the other hand, ATI has trouble coming up with similar features in the same field. So what can ATI fans do for now? One way is to add a mid-range GeForce card to the existing CrossFire platform, which will be covered here today. The following is an extract from the original article.





The test will be based on the Colorful C.A790GX X3. As the product name suggests, the board has 3 PCI-E 16x slots.








The PCI Express slots.

The blue one is a fully compatible PCI-E 2.0 16x slot. Under closer observation, you can see that the blacks' slots are missing half the pins, that is because they are in x8 configuration, providing x8 and x4 speed respectively.








The jumpers need to be changed to 2-3 configuration in order to enable a dual-card CrossFire mode. In CrossFire mode, the first two PCI-E slots (blue and black) will be run at x8 + x8 configuration.






Test System Specifications




CPU: AMD Phenom X4 9600 2.3Ghz
Mainboard: Colorful C.A790GX X3 (AMD 790GX + SB750)
Memory: OCZ DDR2-1150 2x1GB
Storage: Seagate 7200.10 160GB
Graphics:
Colorful Radeon HD3850-GD3 (x2)
Colorful GeForce 8600GT-GD3
Power: Thermaltake Toughpower 1200W

O/S: Windows XP Pro SP3
DirectX 9.0c 2008-3
AMD Chipset 8.9
ATI Catalyst 8.10
ForceWare 178.24 WHQL






Baseline Benchmark:



8660 for 3DMark06.

No miracle of a CrossFire-SLI here, the score matches the result for a pair of HD3850 X2 in x8 + x8. As the score suggests, the benchmark program gained no advantage from the additional 8600GT.







MKZ without PhysX acceleration







MKZ with PhysX acceleration from the 8600GT. The average framerate shows significant improvement of around 67%.








Nurien, without PhysX acceleration.






Nurien, with PhysX acceleration, received a big boost from the help of 8600GT.

GeForce GTX260 vs GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4870

GeForce GTX260 vs GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4870

Initially, the GT200 based GeForce GTX280 and GTX260 were priced so high, the price/performance ratio was so bad that it didn't make any sense to pay the huge premium over the little performance gain. Of course we are comparing it against Radeon HD4800 series. To boost sales, Nvidia cut GeForce GTX280 price by 62%; GTX260 by 33%, placing the latter in the same price point with Radeon HD4870.

Things got interesting when Nvidia launched a new GTX260 version known as GeForce GTX 260+ Core 216, containing 216 shader processors as compared to the original GTX260's 192 SP. Bla bla bla.. Let's not waste anymore time on complex technical details, time to watch the triple-threat match of GeForce GTX260 192SP vs GTX260+ 216SP vs Radeon HD 4870!

Test Platform

CPU	Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850
Motherboard	GIGABYTE GA-X48T-DQ6
Memory	A-DATA DDR3-1066 Extreme CL7 2x1GB
Graphics	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 192SP 896MB
	Inno3D GeForce GTX 260 GOLD 216PS 896MB
	ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
Power	GIGABYTE ODIN GT 1200W
OS	Windows Vista SP1
Driver	Forceware 177.43
	ATI Catalyst 8.8

Benchmark Result

	GeForce GTX 260+ 216SP 896MB	Radeon HD 4870 800SP 512MB	GeForce GTX 260 192SP 896MB
3DMark 05
16 x 10	17487	18840	17335
19 x 12	16975	18367	16712
16 x 10 8AA	15415	17328	15281
19 x 12 8AA	14299	16238	14025
3DMark 06
16 x 10	14260	14125	13948
19 x 12	13246	13183	12844
16 x 10 8AA	9448	10606	9339
19 x 12 8AA	8755	9704	8607
3DMark Vantage
High (GPU)	5726	5133	5321
Extreme (GPU)	4030	3604	3712
Company of Hero (DX10, High)
16 x 10	57.1	56.1	55.9
19 x 12	54.5	52.9	52.2
16 x 10 8AA	45.3	52.4	43.1
19 x 10 8AA	38.9	48.5	36.1
Crysis (DX 10, High)
16 x 10	41.46	39.46	39.21
19 x 12	35.06	33.02	32.81
16 x 10 8AA	30.54	35.54	29.25
19 x 10 8AA	24.33	29.38	23.33
PT Boat (DX10, High)
16 x 10	56.9	46.2	55.6
19 x 12	54.3	43.9	52.8
16 x 10 8AA	40.3	23.7 *	39.1
19 x 12 8AA	34.4	16.5 *	33.2
Lost Planet (DX10, High)
16 x 10	87.5	51.4	82.2
19 x 12	71.1	42.8	68.1
16 x 10 8AA	61.4	48.7	58.7
19 x 12 8AA	49.7	40.9	48.1

*FPS drops dramatically when required vram >512MB


On average, the new GTX260 containing 216SP outperforms it's 192SP brother by around 5%.






Source: http://game.ali213.net/thread-2275669-1-1.html

Radeon HD 4830 512MB Review Part4

AMD (ATI) Radeon HD 4830 Review Part4:
CoH, WIC, FEAR, UT3

Maximum quality; shader made @ DX10.

HD4830 is struggling to keep up at 1440x900, else they are pretty on par at other resolutions.







Very high settings on DX10 mode, tested using the in-game benchmark tool.








Maximum quality, again tested with in-game benchmark tool.

Clear victory for the RV770LE based card.







Maximum quality with V-sync disabled.

The result looks very inconclusive. But overall, with 20/29 benchmarks in hand, the winner is no doubt Radeon HD4830, in terms of raw performance.


Part1: Introduction & Specifications
Part2: Test System, 3Dmark06 & Vantage
Part3: CoD4, Assassin's Creed, HL2:EP2
Part4: CoH, WIC, FEAR, UT3


Source: http://diy.pconline.com.cn/graphics/reviews/0810/1452670.html

Radeon HD 4830 512MB Review Part3

AMD (ATI) Radeon HD 4830 Review Part3:
CoD4, Assassin's Creed, HL2:EP2

Maximum quality, V-sync off.

Close fight between HD4830 & 9800GT.







A clear win for the Radeons. The gap is more obvious at low resolution.







Again, everything at maximum quality.

This time round, the gap is wider at higher resolution, interesting phenomenon. On average, HD4830 is 5.2% faster than 9800GT here.


Part1: Introduction & Specifications
Part2: Test System, 3Dmark06 & Vantage
Part3: CoD4, Assassin's Creed, HL2:EP2
Part4: CoH, WIC, FEAR, UT3

Radeon HD 4830 512MB Review Part2

AMD (ATI) Radeon HD 4830 Review Part2:
Test System, 3Dmark06 & Vantage

Test Platform

CPU: Intel Core2 Quad QX9770 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Asus X48
Memory: Aeneon DDR2-1066 2x1GB @ 5-5-5-15
Storage: Seagate 7200.10 500GB SATA

Graphics:
Radeon HD4850 512MB (625/1986)
Sapphire Radeon HD4830 512MB (575/1800)
GeForce 9800GT 512MB (600/1500/1800)


OS: Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 DX10
Drivers: Catalyst 8.54 RC1/ Forceware 178.13 Vista WHQL






ATI cards are traditionally weak in 3Dmark06, so no big surprise here.






3Dmark Vantage tells a very different story, so it all goes down to the real world game tests.


Part1: Introduction & Specifications
Part2: Test System, 3Dmark06 & Vantage
Part3: CoD4, Assassin's Creed, HL2:EP2
Part4: CoH, WIC, FEAR, UT3

Radeon HD 4830 512MB Review Part1

AMD (ATI) Radeon HD 4830 Review Part1:
Introduction & Specifications

Just-another-card from AMD to cover the price point vacuum between Radeon HD 4670 & HD 4850, as well as to battle with Nvidia's Geforce 9800 GT. This card is based on the RV770LE core, which has 1 cluster of shader processors (usually defective) disabled, bringing the magic number to 640. Where the fully functional RV770 (HD4850/4870) have all the 800.

An interesting to note, AMD confirmed that disabling the cluster is a hardware-cut, so chances are it is impossible for anyone to "revive" the card with a modded BIOS. Let aside the controversy surrounding its "missing shaders", let's take a look at this extracted review:

Graphics cards	HD 4830 512MB (RV770LE)	HD 4850 512MB (RV770)	HD 3870 512MB (RV670)	9800 GT 512MB (G92)
Core clock	575MHz	625MHz	775MHz	600MHz
Shader clock	575MHz	625MHz	775MHz	1,500MHz
Memory clock	1,800MHz	2,000MHz	2,250MHz	1,800MHz
Bus width, size, type	256-bit, 512MB, GDDR3		256-bit, 512MB, GDDR4	256-bit, 512MB, GDDR3
Memory bandwidth	57.6GB/s	64GB/s	72.8GB/s	57.6GB/s
Process	55nm			65nm/55nm
Transistor count	956mil	956mil	666mil	754mil
Die size	260mm²	260mm²	192mm²	296mm²/230mm²
Peak GFLOPS	736	1,000	496	504
ROPs	12	16	16	16
TDP	110W	110W	105W	105W

Part1: Introduction & Specifications
Part2: Test System, 3Dmark06 & Vantage
Part3: CoD4, Assassin's Creed, HL2:EP2
Part4: CoH, WIC, FEAR, UT3