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

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

GeForce GTX 285 & GTX 295 Specifications

GeForce GTX285 & GTX295 Specifications

The performance crown is back to Nvidia once again, with the introduction of GTX285 & GTX295. Built on 55nm process, GTX285 is factory clocked at 648/1475/1240Mhz (core/shader/memory respectively). Despite the higher clocks, power consumption has been reduced by almost 30%, or 53W, vis-à-vis GTX280.

The specifications of GTX295 is rather interesting. Each of the two GTX295 cards can be better described as "GTX270", somewhere in between GTX260-216 & GTX280. You will be surprised if you thought it would be just another power hungry monster. It turned out that GTX295 merely eats 53W more than the old GTX280. Lastly, it's Quad-SLI ready, MSRP is rumored to be US$499. Later we will see how it benchmark against Radeon HD 4870X2.

Product	GeForce GTX 280	GeForce GTX 285	GeForce GTX 295
Process	65nm	55nm	55nm
Core Clock	602Mhz	648Mhz	576Mhz
Shader	1296Mhz	1476Mhz	1242Mhz
Shader	240	240	480
ROP	32	32	56
TMU	80	80	160
Memory Clock	1100Mhz	1240Mhz	999Mhz
Memory Bus Width	512-bit	512-bit	2x 448-bit
Memory Size/Type	1GB GDDR3	1GB GDDR3	1792MB GDDR3
TDP	236W	183W	289W

GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Benchmark Scores

GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Benchmark Result

Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores

Test	Resolution	9600GSO 768MB	9600GT 512MB	% difference
3DMark06 v1.1.0	1024x768	11353	10910	4.1%
		fps (average)
Lost Planet DX10	1280x1024	32.2	30.3	6.3%
Crysis v1.1	1280x1024	31.1	29.8	4.4%
Call of Duty 4 DX10	1280x1024	87.6	80	9.5%
Call of Juarez	1280x1024	36	32.3	11.5%
UT3 demo	1280x1024	148	134	10.4%

The 9600GSO beats 9600GT in every benchmark, an average of 6.6%!

Highlight: How to Softmod 9600GSO into 8800GTS

Despite having the advantage of an optimized G94 core with higher clocks and memory bandwidth, the 9600GT with 32 shaders less lost to the re-branded 9600GSO.

Do note that the market is flooded different flavors, result would be very different between 9600GSO of 192MB vs 384MB vs 768MB (even 1536MB), on top of different factory overclocks. Its a pity that we cannot possibly test our every version out there. Prices varies widely as well, so do take clocks, memory size, output types, warranty duration, package contents into your purchase consideration.



Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores


Source: SanHaoStreet


Other popular posts:

• Radeon HD 4870X2 CrossfireXvsGeForce GTX 280 Tri-SLI
  
• Radeon HD3850 X2 + GeForce 8600GT
  
• GeForce GTX260 vs GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4870
  
• Radeon HD 4830 512MB Review
  
• Intel Core i7 Specifications
  
• Core2Duo E8200 E8400 E8500 Gaming Performance
  
• GeForce 9500 GT Specifications & Benchmark
  
• AMD B3 Phenom X4 9850 Benchmarked
• Nvidia GeForce 9800 GX2 vs AMD Radeon HD 3870 X2
• GeForce 9600 GT vs Radeon HD 3850
• Triple Core 8600 vs Quad Core 9600
• Radeon HD 3870X2 vs GeForce 8800 Ultra
• Core 2 Quad Q9300 vs Q6600

GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Test Platform

GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Test Platform

Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores


Processor: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 @ 3.0Ghz
Motherboard: Asus Striker II Formula
Memory: Apacer 2x1GB DDR2-800 @ 5-5-5-15 2T
Storage: Seagate 7200.10 320GB SATA
Display: Dell 30" LCD
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate + DirectX 10
Driver: Forceware 174.88 beta

Graphics Card use in this review (Core/Shader/Memory):
Gainward 9600GSO 768MB (600/1500/1800)
Nvidia reference 9600GT 512MB (650/1650/1800)



Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores

GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Specifications Compared

GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Specifications Compared

Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores

Product	8800GS	9600GSO	9600GT
Core	G92	G92	G94
Transistors	754million	754million	505million
Core Clock	550Mhz	550Mhz	650Mhz
Shader	1375Mhz	1375Mhz	1625Mhz
Process	65nm	65nm	65nm
ROPS	16	16	16
Stream Processors	96	96	64
Memory Clock	800Mhz	800Mhz	900Mhz
Memory Bus Width	192-bit	192-bit	256-bit
Memory Size	384MB GDDR3	384MB GDDR3	512MB GDDR3

Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores

GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Introduction

GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Introduction

GeForce 8800GS was an unpopular product when it was launched. Nvidia simply injected a doze of 9-series (marketing) magic into it and, *poof!* 8800GS evolves into 9600GSO overnight. What changed? Just the name, same G92 core with 96 shaders running on 192-bit memory interface remained unchanged. But this time round, card makers are given more freedom in designing their own custom PCB, the amount of memory, as well as the clocks.

The official clocks for GeForce 9600GSO is 550/1375/1600 (core/shader/memory), which is exactly the same as 8800GS, yet slightly lower than the announced reference clocks of 580/1450/1400 earlier on. I guess this move will encourage partners to come out with more profitable overclocked editions.

Do note that Forceware 174.14 WHQL can support GeForce 9 series products as well as MCP78 chipset. The only difference is that Forceware 174.88 added in support for the 9600 GSO.




Some Pictures



8800GS





9600GSO





9600GT


Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores

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