# GTX295 beaten by 2xHD4890 CFx - -BIG TIME



## comp@ddict (Apr 3, 2009)

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-
*www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4890_CrossFire/1.html
*

*i2.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4890_CrossFire/images/crysis_1920_1200.gif

*i3.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4890_CrossFire/images/cod4_1920_1200.gif

*i7.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4890_CrossFire/images/farcry2_1920_1200.gif

*i6.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4890_CrossFire/images/clearsky_1920_1200.gif

*Aww, only here it's beaten, but oh well.*
*i7.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4890_CrossFire/images/wic_1920_1200.gif

*3D Mark 06
**i2.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4890_CrossFire/images/3dmark06_1920_1200.gif


----------



## amrawtanshx (Apr 3, 2009)

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


----------



## desiibond (Apr 3, 2009)

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 (Apr 3, 2009)

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


----------



## desiibond (Apr 3, 2009)

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


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 3, 2009)

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


----------



## ionicsachin (Apr 3, 2009)

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 (Apr 4, 2009)

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 (Apr 4, 2009)

comp@ddict said:


> 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 (Apr 4, 2009)

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 (Apr 4, 2009)

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 (Apr 4, 2009)

Another Nvidia AMD war


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 4, 2009)

> 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 (Apr 5, 2009)

comp@ddict said:


> 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 (Apr 5, 2009)

The Conqueror said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2009)

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


----------



## dOm1naTOr (Apr 7, 2009)

@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 (Apr 8, 2009)

> 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 (Apr 8, 2009)

yup, am waiting for the 5xxxx series too


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 9, 2009)

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

:drools:


----------



## topgear (Apr 10, 2009)

comp@ddict said:


> 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.

*www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-275,2266-2.html

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


comp@ddict said:


> 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 (Apr 10, 2009)

> 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 (Apr 10, 2009)

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 (Apr 10, 2009)

> 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 (Apr 10, 2009)

^^+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 (Apr 10, 2009)

> 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 (Apr 10, 2009)

> 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 (Apr 10, 2009)

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


----------



## j1n M@tt (Apr 10, 2009)

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


----------



## nvidia (Apr 10, 2009)

^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..


----------



## j1n M@tt (Apr 10, 2009)

ya its something like dat...and Intel hav something to do with it


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 10, 2009)

> . And i think Intel has acquired Havok already


U're right about that.



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


Yeah, if u take clock speeds into consideration, yes, GTX295 does have a chance, if it is build with 2xGTX275 with the new clocks.


----------



## amitash (Apr 10, 2009)

> Yeah, if u take clock speeds into consideration, yes, GTX295 does have a chance, if it is build with 2xGTX275 with the new clocks.



FYI thats one of the main things you have to consider...I never argued that the 295 was better, it was never meant to compete with anything higher than 4870x2, just wanted to say that 2xgtx275 will be better than 2x4890 so nvidia's still on top...besides, If you want to consider 2xgpu performance, nvidia will always be on top as nothing beats the gtx285 sli.


----------



## dOm1naTOr (Apr 10, 2009)

Havok is older than Physx. Remember the old game painkiller around 6 yrs ago. It used havok 1 engine. Physics bacame dominant with games like GRAW1 when they were producing dedicated Physicx hardwares.

Then nvidia bought the company and began to emulate physics in all PCs with geforce8 or above cards. Actually the s/w was made as if to run only on systems with 8 or above nvidia cards.
8 series cards were designed and started production before nvidia attained Ageia.


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 11, 2009)

> gtx285 sli.


Yes, but that's another thing cuz of the prices:-
-GTX295 = 499$
-HD4870 X2 = 399$

-GTX285 = 349$
-2 x GTX285 = 699$
-HD4850 X2 = 269$

-GTX275 = 249$
-2 x GTX275 = 499$

-HD4890 = 199$(Sapphire already!)
-2 x HD4890 = 399$

Now compare the 399$ HD4890 X2 with 499$ GTX275 X2. 
Performance wise, GTX275 X2 wins, price-performance ration wise, it's HD4890 X2.


----------



## topgear (Apr 12, 2009)

@ *comp@ddict* - Nice calculation  Yeah, price/performance rartio wise 2x HD4890 is the best you can get thing as of now.


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 12, 2009)

Can't wait to see 2xGTX275 SLi performance.


----------



## nvidia (Apr 12, 2009)

I think it will be better than 4890 CF


----------



## amitash (Apr 12, 2009)

> -HD4890 = 199$(Sapphire already!)


Link please...I dont see a 199$ saph 4890 anywhere....ATi have to be crazy to make it that cheap....Even gtx260 core 216 is 220$...In all the sites i have searched, its 250$ or 260$, same as gtx275.


----------



## nvidia (Apr 12, 2009)

^^If thats the case, then 295 is a better buy IMO


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 12, 2009)

@ amitash - *www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13088&Itemid=1

&

*buy.fudzilla.com/eu/?cat=gra16_512;asuch=hd 4890&sort=p

^ The first in the list^


----------



## amitash (Apr 12, 2009)

> @ amitash - *www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...13088&Itemid=1
> 
> &
> 
> ...



Thats 200 euro not 200$...


----------



## nvidia (Apr 12, 2009)

^Lolz yeah


----------



## amitash (Apr 12, 2009)

And just to remind u, 200euro is 263$...


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 13, 2009)

> Thats 200 euro not 200$..


It's running at par, I mean at time of release, the HD4890 and GTX275, both were selling form 249$ as well as 249 Euro, for reasons unexplained.


----------



## nvidia (Apr 13, 2009)

^^The 4890 costs 200Euro, not 249


----------



## amitash (Apr 13, 2009)

> It's running at par, I mean at time of release, the HD4890 and GTX275, both were selling form 249$ as well as 249 Euro, for reasons unexplained.



So your trying to suggest that It was priced at 249 euro for so called "unexplained" reasons and now your saying there was a price cut ON the 249euro to 200euro which in fact is NOT a price cut as it still costs the same as the dollar price....I dont think it was 249$ AND euro at the time of release...there has been no price cut...It costs the same


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 14, 2009)

> ^^The 4890 costs 200Euro, not 249


I was talking about the time of launch !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## amitash (Apr 14, 2009)

Yes at the time of launch it was 229Euro...Now its come down b 30euro...Its not really a price cut as its still the same price as the dollar one, ie 250$


----------



## nvidia (Apr 14, 2009)

comp@ddict said:


> I was talking about the time of launch !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


How relevant is that now? 
Here's some more information - the 7600GT was priced that high at the time of launch.
Go ahead make comparisons with the 4890 launch price with that now 

What really matters is how much the card costs now, and afaik, its 260$.


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 14, 2009)

Okay okay, well, true, it can't matter much. 
One strong reason - It ain't there in India yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## nvidia (Apr 14, 2009)

^^Strong reason what ?


----------



## amitash (Apr 14, 2009)

^First you argued about price and now u say it doesnt matter because its not available? Then wat was the point of this thread?


----------



## dOm1naTOr (Apr 14, 2009)

cooldown guyssss
it was a mistake i think
(the euro/$ thing)


----------



## nvidia (Apr 14, 2009)

> it was a mistake i think


It happens every now and then(usually when comp@ddict starts a thread which makes high claims).


----------



## j1n M@tt (Apr 14, 2009)

^^but he is younger than most guys here, everyone can make mistakes....and he often posts quality content than most older guys here. so don't be dat hard on him guys


----------



## topgear (Apr 15, 2009)

To all :



> We don't know how far the price of the HD 4890 will drop, but considering the fact that you can find *Sapphire's HD 4870 512MB listed at €140,46 and for example Club3D's HD 4870 1GB OC edition for as low as €158,57* we consider that there is still more room for price cuts, should AMD deem them necessary, of course
> 
> Nvidia's GTX 275 is still very hard to find in Europe, and *Palit's GTX 275 is still the best bet, as this is currently the most readily available, non-reference cooled and the cheapest card around. This one can be found for €213,90*



*www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13088&Itemid=1

But the Listing in here doesn't shows any sapphire HD4890 @ 148 euro which is around $196. The lowest priced HD4890 is 199 euro which is around $264 & I could not find any Club HD 4890.

*buy.fudzilla.com/eu/?cat=gra16_512;asuch=hd 4890&sort=p

But the palit GTX 275 is priced at 212 euro which is around $281.

*buy.fudzilla.com/eu/?cat=gra16_512;asuch=GTX 275&sort=p

*From my searches I've found the lowest priced $249 HD 4890 in here but you can get it @ $229 in mail rebate*:
*www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp...mc=OTC-Froogle-_-Video+Cards-_-XFX-_-14150359

*From my seraches I've found the lowest priced $249 EVGA GeForce GTX 275  in here :*
*www.tigerdirect.com/applications/s...&cm_mmc_o=TBBTkwCjCVyBpAgf mwzygtCjCVRqCjCVRq


----------



## amitash (Apr 16, 2009)

> It happens every now and then(usually when comp@ddict starts a thread which makes high claims).



OUCH!


----------



## The Sorcerer (Apr 16, 2009)

Okay...but did anyone see the power consumption GTX295 and  2 sets of HD4890?? One will need a airy case and a good power supply. So is it really feasible?


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 16, 2009)

Yea I do go and make some big claims. Well, jus' waiting for HD4890 X2 and for GTX275 in SLi results, then we'll get talking.

Till then, it's 'idle' time
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------
Yea I do go and make some big claims. Well, jus' waiting for HD4890 X2 and for GTX275 in SLi results, then we'll get talking.

Till then, it's 'idle' time


----------



## amitash (Apr 16, 2009)

^the fact that a single gtx275 is faster than an hd4890 + the fact that SLI scales much better than crossfire + lower power consumption of nvidia = no chance for 4890 cfx


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 17, 2009)

> the fact that SLI scales much better than crossfire


it's not fact, that's clear "fart"
-----------------------------------------
Posted again:
-----------------------------------------


> the fact that SLI scales much better than crossfire


it's not fact, that's clear "fart"


----------



## amitash (Apr 18, 2009)

> it's not fact, that's clear "fart"



Lol, do you even know what your talking about?...search before u post as always.

*www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-multigpu-sli-crossfire-game-performance-review/6

compare the performances there and again, dont make claims that you cant support.


----------



## tkin (Apr 21, 2009)

I agree, but here's something that concerns me.

Both *SLI* and *CF* suck, most new games have issues that need patches and Driver Updates to be dealt with, for now the most elusive card is the GTX 275, no CF/SLI Hassle to deal with and offers good performance

BTW-ALL tested games are years old, how about some new game reviews, also sometimes CF and SLI beats 2x cards, like HD4870 CF beat HD4870x2 in many games, so I like a review of GTX 275 SLI with HD4890 CF.


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 21, 2009)

> compare the performances there and again, dont make claims that you cant support.



How does that change anything? the fact that an HD4870X2 performs 106% higher than HD4870 is good enough, I don't see GTX295 coming near that feat, although it's the fastest GPU.

And we can't go on comparing HD4870 to GTX260, reason:-
GTX 260 - 216 SHADERS
HD 4870 - 160 Shaders (x5 = 800 Stream Processors in ATi Language)

And true, both CFx and SLi suck.


----------



## amitash (Apr 21, 2009)

> BTW-ALL tested games are years old, how about some new game reviews, also sometimes CF and SLI beats 2x cards, like HD4870 CF beat HD4870x2 in many games, so I like a review of GTX 275 SLI with HD4890 CF.


We are all waiting for the ellusive gtx275 sli review 



> How does that change anything? the fact that an HD4870X2 performs 106% higher than HD4870 is good enough, I don't see GTX295 coming near that feat, although it's the fastest GPU.
> And we can't go on comparing HD4870 to GTX260, reason:-
> GTX 260 - 216 SHADERS
> HD 4870 - 160 Shaders (x5 = 800 Stream Processors in ATi Language)


The GTX260 was released to compete with the 4870 only....I dont see any other card you can compare with...gtx280 is way more powerfull but gtx260 and 4870 have VERY similar performances....And at the time of release, the 4870 was easily beating the gtx260, but with new rivers that is not the case....If you look around, you will find that a single gtx260 and 4870 are VERY similar in terms of performance....since 2x gtx260 beats 2x4870, then its clear that SLI scales better.



> GTX 260 - 216 SHADERS
> HD 4870 - 160 Shaders (x5 = 800 Stream Processors in ATi Language)


This is a very noobish statement to make...ATi and NVIDIA have vast differences in archaetecture, Its like saying you cant compare say, a Q8200 to phenom 2 920 because phenom 2 uses different arch.... The point is: gt260 was meant for competetion with hd4870 and it WINS in both single and dual gpu configs...If not gtx260 there is nothing to compare 4870 too.

Oh and BTW, hd4890x2 is very unlikely to come out because of the near 400W power consumption:

source: *www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13228&Itemid=34



> We have investigated if any of ATI’s partners will actually make an HD 4890 X2 card powered with two RV790 chips and most of them are negating that they plan do make such a card.
> 
> 
> With a *moderate clock*, this card should be possible, it would draw a lot of power as HD4890 has maximal board power of 190W but still a dual card could be possible.
> ...


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 21, 2009)

> This is a very noobish statement to make...ATi and NVIDIA have vast differences in archaetecture


exactly, that's y i mentioned it.

What you see as 800 SPs is (160 x 5D)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But yes, due to different archietecture, they somehow come up with near similar performance

EDIT:- Yes I agree, GTX260 pawns HD4870 and HD4890 too, but HD4890 OC handles it.

BTW, let's end this endless argument


----------



## ico (Apr 21, 2009)

^ lol, we all love to kiss and make up. Don't we?


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 22, 2009)

yes


----------



## ico (Apr 22, 2009)

^ yup, i knw.


----------



## amitash (Apr 23, 2009)

GTX275 SLI results are here: *www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1554&pageID=6783

But the site has listed very few games and settings are different from the 4890x2 results on tech power up....The only games i found comparable to these two reviews is far cry 2, and world in conflict...where gtx275 sli beats 4890x2 quite easily...

Heres another review of 4890 crossfire with nearly the same setup:*www.tweaktown.com/articles/2704/ati_radeon_hd_4890_in_crossfire/index2.html

Here, if you compare the 2 reviews, gtx275x2 scores higher than 4890x2 in vantage, world in conflict, and in crysis warhead (which tech power up mysteriously didnt include) the gtx295 itself beats the 4890x2, gtx295 even wins in farcry 2 in that review, it is beaten by 4890x2 in stalker, and in left 4 dead: 4890x2 beats in one review and gtx295 in the other so its equal there.

Result: 4890x2 barely manages to beat gtx295 and is not even close to gtx275 as i have always said...


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 23, 2009)

^^^Yes, I agree. Well, now HD4890 has a chance only on price, at least till stock GTX 275's come for 17.8k.

Otherwise, nVidia rulez. BTW, nVidia's GTX350 aka GT300 will have *512 SHADERS*


----------



## tkin (Apr 24, 2009)

comp@ddict said:


> ^^^Yes, I agree. Well, now HD4890 has a chance only on price, at least till stock GTX 275's come for 17.8k.
> 
> Otherwise, nVidia rulez. BTW, nVidia's GTX350 aka GT300 will have *512 SHADERS*


Palit GTX 275 Sonic @ 17.3k(itwares).

512 Shaders, hell yeah, that card's gonna kick a$$, that's equivalent to 5*512=2564 shaders for ATI.

Seems ATI needs to come up with new plans and not just stick to revisions

(9800GTX+:GTS250=HD4870:HD4890).


----------



## amitash (Apr 25, 2009)

17.3k...WOW thats cool....AMD need to do something fast or nvidia will walk all over them


----------



## tkin (Apr 27, 2009)

^^ F**king spammer. Bot perhaps?


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 27, 2009)

I had already REPORTED it about a few minutes ago


----------



## tkin (Apr 29, 2009)

^^Again!!!
WTH is happening here?? 
GET THE F**K OUT.

Why why why on this thread? Go to chit chat, bother others, no one cares.


----------



## comp@ddict (Apr 29, 2009)

I've reported 20 threads or so today as spam/ad


----------



## topgear (May 5, 2009)

Here goes the much awaited *GTX 275 SLI Review* 

*BFG GTX 275 OC Edition SLI Review*

*www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1554


BTW, I've noticed a strange thing :

*For example in Far Cry 2* @ 1920*1200 ( High DX10 )

HD4890 X2 ( CF Mode ) 91.2
*www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4890_CrossFire/9.html

HD4890 X2 ( CF Mode ) 111.58
*www.tweaktown.com/articles/2704/ati_radeon_hd_4890_in_crossfire/index7.html

GTX 295 81.1
*www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4890_CrossFire/9.html

ASUS GTX 295 111.41
*www.tweaktown.com/articles/2704/ati_radeon_hd_4890_in_crossfire/index7.html

ASUS GTX 295 89
*www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1554&pageID=6785

BTW, techpowerup used a core i7 920 @ 3.8 with 2x 1GB DDR3 Ram
tweakdown used a core i7 965 @ 3.8 GHz with 3x 2GB of DDR3 ram
bjorn3d used a core i7 965 @ 3.74 Ghz with 6 GB memkit

Now look those rigs & scores. The rig with core i7 965 @ 3.8 Ghz just outperformed all those other results. So I think gfx cards benchmarks not only depends on the gfx card itself but also heavily depends on what kind of cpu & ram is used & their speed also.


----------



## dOm1naTOr (May 5, 2009)

errr..
maybe drivers are diff, or driver setings might be diff


----------



## amitash (May 5, 2009)

New nvidia 185 beta drivers are out...It includes better ambient occlusion and here are the claims:
Up to 11% performance increase in Call of Duty: World at War.
Up to 5% performance increase Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts.
Up to 22% performance increase Crysis: Warhead with antialiasing enabled.
Up to 11% performance increase in Fallout 3 with antialiasing enabled.
Up to 14% performance increase in Far Cry 2.
Up to 45% performance increase in Mirror's Edge with antialiasing enabled.


----------



## comp@ddict (May 5, 2009)

> 2x 1GB DDR3 Ram


this one's the culprit for tpu

even a GTX285 produces unexciting results with 2GB, but with 4GB, the card roars to life.


----------



## dOm1naTOr (May 5, 2009)

oh, yes
didnt notice
even with a card like 8800GT and a c2d, 2GB seems to be kinda low no matter what its frequency is.
and in that bench, its not only enuf to pull thru higher resolution, but is runing in dual channel only, while triple channel is possible and other benchmarkers are using triple.


----------



## comp@ddict (May 6, 2009)

yeah, the new standard itself is 4GB, and it's dead cheap, 1.9k tht's it.

BTW, one more review, where HD4770 CFX wipes away competition, except at 2560x1600 resolution.

*www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=18281


----------

