GTX295 beaten by 2xHD4890 CFx - -BIG TIME

[comp@ddict]

Guys, if, only if there is a HD4890 X2, it will leave GTX295 gasping.

Here's the review of 2xHD4890 in CFx review, and it beats GTX295 black and blue.

Review-
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...ossFire/1.html










Aww, only here it's beaten, but oh well.


3D Mark 06

[amrawtanshx]

^^
Not a really big difference.
Will get a more clear picture its done on newly released games.

[desiibond]

I don't think it's wise to compare HD4890 CF with GTX295. And technically, GTX295 is the fastest single card available in the market today.

[comp@ddict]

^^WHy do u say that?
2xHD4980 costs the same as a GTX295 after all. So they fall in the same price range too.

[desiibond]

^^ in that case, 2x GTX275 costs same as2xHD4890 and is much more faster.

[comp@ddict]

But 2xGTX275 is what GTX295 is ^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ionicsachin]

Double the Gun Double the Fun....
I think 2x(Lower then GTX295 and affordable too) GTX shud also do the job of beating GTX295

[topgear]

Let's see what happens with 2x GTX 275 in sli mode ? That should be a real comparision with HD 4890 as according to nvidia GTX 275 offers 30% more performance than HD 4890.

[desiibond]

Originally Posted by comp@ddict

But 2xGTX275 is what GTX295 is ^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no dude.

just like 2xHD4850 beating most of the cards, 2x GTX295.

Believe me the tide has turned slightly.

[comp@ddict]

We can only wait till some site does the review. Let's see.

We might be in for a shock, or a surprise.

[The Conqueror]

Obviously, Why are u comparing like this dude? if u wanna compare 2xHD4890 then compare it with 2x GTX 295 !
I dont understand why you compare 2xHD4890 with a single 295GTX ??!!

[ionicsachin]

Another Nvidia AMD war

[comp@ddict]

Obviously, Why are u comparing like this dude? if u wanna compare 2xHD4890 then compare it with 2x GTX 295 !
I dont understand why you compare 2xHD4890 with a single 295GTX ??!!

I'll do that as soon as I get a 2xGTX275 review.

I just compared what was available at that time. Don't get me wrong now.

[cyborg47]

Originally Posted by comp@ddict

I'll do that as soon as I get a 2xGTX275 review.

I just compared what was available at that time. Don't get me wrong now.

ehh dude...i think he said u to compare it with 2XGTX295!

[dOm1naTOr]

Originally Posted by The Conqueror

Obviously, Why are u comparing like this dude? if u wanna compare 2xHD4890 then compare it with 2x GTX 295 !
I dont understand why you compare 2xHD4890 with a single 295GTX ??!!

coz single GTX 295 ll cost as much as two 4890.

same as the case with HD 4870 and GTX 280.
still 4870 costs only 13k and GTX 280 costs 26k. 4870x2 costs similar to GTX280.

so GTX 295 shud be compared either with 4890X2 or CF.
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------
But for same pricetag always a single card setup is better.
lets wait n see if X2 is better than CF as the last time. With their last X2ie 4870 X2 they made clear that they have minimised micro-stuttering, maybe SLi and X2 can be a better solution.

[comp@ddict]

^^ U mean internal-SLi/CFx can be a better option.

[dOm1naTOr]

@comp@ddict
thats wat weve seen till now
2*4870 was beaten by 4870X2. Also X2 had higher clocks per GPU too.
Also w/o the need for ny CFx/SLi bridge communication will be faster, and in X2 versions they make lots of improvements to eliminate microstuttering which is there in descrete SLI/CFx.
another advantage is lower power consumption and reqd no. of slots.

But its really dissapointing to see 4890's performance...only slightly better than 4870. And shader count is the same.
Hope HD 5xxx isnt disapointing.

[comp@ddict]

Also X2 had higher clocks per GPU too.

Negative. Clocks were same.

But its really dissapointing to see 4890's performance...only slightly better than 4870. And shader count is the same.

HD4890 has 3 million transistors more than HD4870.
And with Core Clock of 950MHz and Memory Clock of 1100MHz(4400MHz effective), the card beats the HD4870 by a wide 15-25% margin.

[x3060]

yup, am waiting for the 5xxxx series too

[comp@ddict]

With DX11, most interesting would be 7GHz GDDR5 with a 512-bit memory interface.

:drools:

[topgear]

Originally Posted by comp@ddict

HD4890 has 3 million transistors more than HD4870.
And with Core Clock of 950MHz and Memory Clock of 1100MHz(4400MHz effective), the card beats the HD4870 by a wide 15-25% margin.

Wrong. HD 4890 has core clock of 850 Mhz & Mem clock of 975 Mhz with 1GB of 256 bit GDDR5 mem.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...75,2266-2.html

Benchmark results of HD4890 & GTX 275
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...-275,2266.html
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------

Originally Posted by comp@ddict

With DX11, most interesting would be 7GHz GDDR5 with a 512-bit memory interface.

:drools:

7GHZ GDDR5 Mem. It would be exorbitantly priced coz even a gfx card with 448 bit GDD3 mem is too costly.

[comp@ddict]

Wrong. HD 4890 has core clock of 850 Mhz & Mem clock of 975 Mhz with 1GB of 256 bit GDDR5 mem.

Arrey that I know, I'm saying that these speeds are safe an easy OC with this card, such that a person can run it at this speed.

Default clocks pata hai.

[amitash]

a 2xgtx275 comparison would be more accurate...and the GTX295 is NOT 2xgtx275 in sli...its a hybrid between 280 and 260...and if you factor in the nearly 400W power consumption of 2x4890 and only 280W of the 295 and the cost of a crossfirex full x16 mobo + the powersupply + Nvidia's great driver support + physX + CUDA...A single card setup is still the way to go...Try comparing 2x4890 to 2xgtx285.

You have also failed to include the other 4 benchmarks where the 295 wins...also the power consumption graph.

[comp@ddict]

its a hybrid between 280 and 260

What do you think a GTX275 is, wait, I'll show you:-

GTX285
240 Shaders
512-bit memory interface
1GB GDDR3 Memory

GTX260
216 Shaders
448-bit memory interface
896MB GDDR3 Memory

The new GTX275
240 Shaders - Like GTX285
448-bit memory interface - Like GTX260
896MB GDDR3 Memory - Like GTX260

And there are texture units too, which is the same as GTX285, and more than GTX260.


Now let's see a GTX295
2 x 240 Shaders - 2 x GTX275
2 x 448-bit memory interface - 2 x GTX275
2 x 896MB GDDR3 Memory - 2 x GTX275

Is that enough?

I know the power consumption is bad, and dun talk about Physx, the only game which makes Physx worthy of consideration is Mirror's Edge, none other.

[j1n M@tt]

^^+1

GTX295 is 2xGTX275, and btw Physx and CUDA is almost non-existent. ATI's Havok is going to be used in most up coming games.

[comp@ddict]

ATI's Havok is going to be used in most up coming games.

Absolutely, although AMD doesn't go trumpeting of it's Havok, it already supports 100 games, and 100 more are on the way.

[amitash]

btw Physx and CUDA is almost non-existent. ATI's Havok is going to be used in most up coming games.

Physx and CUDA are new, and they are becoming better and better...Mirrors edge was the first release, you will see more in the future....And where are the 100 games that support havok? Im yet to see even one game that supports it...With amd's current drivers and lower cfx scalability than SLI, i dont see a more powerfull 4890

And FYI no they are NOT the same...They are very similar but NOT the same, their speeds differ...here:

2xgtx275 = 633mhz gpu clock, 1404mhz shader clock, 2322Mhz mem clock
gtx295 = 576mhz gpu clock, 1242mhz shader clock, 2000mhz mem clock

So 2xgtx275 IS going to be faster than gtx295 by some margin and it mostly will beat 2x4890 as a single gtx275 already pwns a single 4890.

[nvidia]

^^PhysX and CUDA are older than Havok right?.

[j1n M@tt]

^^ya..I think PhysX manufactured cards many years before it was brought by nVidia.

[nvidia]

^Yeah.. Lots of games supported Ageia PhysX cards but they were barely useful..

And btw, Havok is not an ATi only thing AFAIK. And i think Intel has acquired Havok already.. ATi just supports the technology.. Maybe its open or something..