GTX 260 vs HD 4870

[Creig]

The 4870 is faster than a 260 in nearly every benchmark and, in fact, is on par with the 280. PhysX is just tech demo at this point in time. Even if some games emerge that make any sort of meaningful use out of it, it's going to be a long time before there is any appreciable adoption rate for the technology. But you can use the extra speed of the 4870 in all games, even older ones. So it's up to you if you want to go with the card that MIGHT have a benefit in a couple upcoming titles or the one that will definitely benefit all games past, present and future.

 

[sourthings]

PhysX is basically what nvidia is left to hype because they can't point to the GTX 260's, their card to compete with the 4870, performance numbers, because the 260 is a slower card.

So this is what you hear about when nvidia is marketing their 260 card, physx, a function useless in anything but 3 levels of an online game with a playerbase of 10 people and one other game, that is so-so.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: nRollo
In the GTX260 vs 4870, I'd say this is the deciding factor at this point as the performance of the cards is so similar.* The difference in PhysX immersion and non PhysX immersion is so great no one would ever choose to play non PhysX.

That's why Aegia PhysX PPU's sold like hotcakes, right? :laugh:

*While the 4870 can do 8X AA in some games that the GTX260 can't, I consider the difference in 4X vs 8X AA and Physx vs Non PhysX on totally different magnitude of desirability. 8XAA is nice- but PhysX changes the whole game.

So can Havok. I would expect ATI dropping Havok drivers within the next 6-9 months.

I guess it boils down to - if you're a gamer - do you want the best Image Quality and performance for a game? Buy a Radeon.

Or do you want to sacrifice performance and possibly IQ for a few extra particles on the screen? Buy a GeForce.

 

[ZimZum]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: nRollo

I don't think you can link to me saying that because I don't believe I ever did.

LMAO.

The first search brought us this:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...147216&highlight_key=y

Five out of the six games you linked to in your commentary contained 2560x1600x8xAA results, results you were using to extol the virtues of tri-SLI.

Furthermore you?ve done this multiple times when engaging in your SLI marketing campaign so please, don't insult our collective intelligence by denying it.

For me 25X16 0X16X PhysX >>>>>> 25X16 16X16X no PhysX. (and I get over 30fps minimum, around 50fps average at UT3 so it's very playable)

To quote yourself from the link above: So you see n7, the payoff I was referring to was being able to use your monitor to game with the ultimate image quality available

Riiight, so now running with AA disabled is acceptable on high-end SLI? What happened to your desire for "ultimate image quality available"?

I?ve been running AA since about 2002 so why aren?t you running AA on your tri-SLI rig in 2008 that provides ?ultimate image quality??

The situation has changed,

Yep, it sure has, nVidia now has something new to promote so you're required to reverse over your previous arguments in order to do it.

pwnage

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

In every comparative test I've seen a PhysX board is faster than a GPU so if you're so keen on physics why didn't you buy PhysX board back in the day?

Are you actually upset that people who bought NVIDIA cards (yourself included) are getting to use PhysX for free and without the need for extra hardware?

I truly fail to see how this is a bad thing. 8xAA is not that much different from 4xAA but if it makes you feel good crank your 8800 up to 16xAA :roll:

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Creig
The 4870 is faster than a 260 in nearly every benchmark and, in fact, is on par with the 280.

LOL. :laugh:

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Creig
The 4870 is faster than a 260 in nearly every benchmark and, in fact, is on par with the 280.

LOL. :laugh:

The 4870 does perform at the same level as a GTX280. There are multiple reviews out there that prove it. But I suppose "LOL" is all you could come up with to refute me.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Creig
The 4870 is faster than a 260 in nearly every benchmark and, in fact, is on par with the 280.

LOL. :laugh:

The 4870 does perform at the same level as a GTX280. There are multiple reviews out there that prove it. But I suppose "LOL" is all you could come up with to refute me.

Right..everyone agrees with you. Thats why all the threads say "260 V 4870."

Everyone else is misinformed and read benchmarks incorrectly, and you are the enlightened one.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Creig
The 4870 is faster than a 260 in nearly every benchmark and, in fact, is on par with the 280.

LOL. :laugh:

The 4870 does perform at the same level as a GTX280. There are multiple reviews out there that prove it. But I suppose "LOL" is all you could come up with to refute me.

Right..everyone agrees with you. Thats why all the threads say "260 V 4870."

Everyone else is misinformed and read benchmarks incorrectly, and you are the enlightened one.

Because they're just about in the same price segment? Whereas a 280 vs 4780 are NOT?

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Creig

The 4870 does perform at the same level as a GTX280. There are multiple reviews out there that prove it. But I suppose "LOL" is all you could come up with to refute me.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/14990

Wrong the 4870 performs closely with a GTX260, but gets it's colon stomped out by a GTX280.

It's not even close really especially when you crank up the resolution.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Creig

The 4870 does perform at the same level as a GTX280. There are multiple reviews out there that prove it. But I suppose "LOL" is all you could come up with to refute me.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/14990

Wrong the 4870 performs closely with a GTX260, but gets it's colon stomped out by a GTX280.

It's not even close really especially when you crank up the resolution.

Funny, the 4870 seems much closer to the GTX280 in a lot of benchmarks than it does the GTX260. And let's not forget, it gets MUCH closer (if not faster) once you turn on AA.

 

[OCGuy]

"Close" and "on-par" are two different things.

Its generally accepted that the 4870 is 10% faster than 260, and 280 is 10% faster than 4870.

There are benchmarks where a 9800GTX+ beats a 4850, but noone quotes them and uses them as propaganda to say the 9800GTX+ is faster.

There are benchmarks where the 260 beats a 4870, but noone says that makes it overall faster.

Same with the 4870 and 280, but I dont think ive seen anyone argue that the 280 isnt the most powerful GPU....well, I guess now I have....

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Funny, the 4870 seems much closer to the GTX280 in a lot of benchmarks than it does the GTX260. And let's not forget, it gets MUCH closer (if not faster) once you turn on AA.

LOL using you own link, you can see the 4870 lost every single benchmark.

 

[SSChevy2001]

@Wreckage

In that review the 4870 wins about 38.5% of the time over GTX280. Not bad for a card that was supposed to go up against GTX260.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: nRollo

I don't think you can link to me saying that because I don't believe I ever did.

LMAO.

The first search brought us this:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...147216&highlight_key=y

Five out of the six games you linked to in your commentary contained 2560x1600x8xAA results, results you were using to extol the virtues of tri-SLI.

Furthermore you?ve done this multiple times when engaging in your SLI marketing campaign so please, don't insult our collective intelligence by denying it.

For me 25X16 0X16X PhysX >>>>>> 25X16 16X16X no PhysX. (and I get over 30fps minimum, around 50fps average at UT3 so it's very playable)

To quote yourself from the link above: So you see n7, the payoff I was referring to was being able to use your monitor to game with the ultimate image quality available

Riiight, so now running with AA disabled is acceptable on high-end SLI? What happened to your desire for "ultimate image quality available"?

I?ve been running AA since about 2002 so why aren?t you running AA on your tri-SLI rig in 2008 that provides ?ultimate image quality??

The situation has changed,

Yep, it sure has, nVidia now has something new to promote so you're required to reverse over your previous arguments in order to do it.

BFG10K-

The point here isn't that at one time I said 8XAA was the best thing to have, the point is that technology has moved on and something better to have has come along.

Like I said, video gaming is about immersion and virtual reality- the things you get in the PhysX levels of UT3, GRAW2, and Warmonger raise the level of realism in the game to a much greater degree than the difference between 4XAA and 8XAA. (and IMO AA period)

You're going to have to get used to the fact that as years go by, and tech changes, you can't point out my old posts that said high AA was the thing to have and say I meant it's the thing to have for eternity!

For example, if NVIDIA or ATi ever brought back the 3d glasses in a better fashion, I'd also say that trumps 8XAA as an advantage. I'd personally say 25X16 resolution trumps 8XAA as an advantage. PhysX trumps 8XAA as an advantage.

Things are situationally dependent ol buddy, and the question here id GTX260 vs HD4870.

For me:

4XAA performance - too close to care
8X AA performance- ATi has some nice wins
PhysX- most important differentiating factor
DX10.1- haven't seen it do anything remarkable, can't care yet. Differences in AA on AC were minute, speed difference maybe due to render error, so who knows? Would rather have PhysX for immersion.
SLi vs CF- I give to NVIDIA
AF- I give to NVIDIA for true angle independent
AA- in general, each has strengths, still would give this to ATi on these two single cards.

Out of the above, PhysX is the big deal.

 

[sourthings]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: nRollo

I don't think you can link to me saying that because I don't believe I ever did.

LMAO.

The first search brought us this:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...147216&highlight_key=y

Five out of the six games you linked to in your commentary contained 2560x1600x8xAA results, results you were using to extol the virtues of tri-SLI.

Furthermore you?ve done this multiple times when engaging in your SLI marketing campaign so please, don't insult our collective intelligence by denying it.

For me 25X16 0X16X PhysX >>>>>> 25X16 16X16X no PhysX. (and I get over 30fps minimum, around 50fps average at UT3 so it's very playable)

To quote yourself from the link above: So you see n7, the payoff I was referring to was being able to use your monitor to game with the ultimate image quality available

Riiight, so now running with AA disabled is acceptable on high-end SLI? What happened to your desire for "ultimate image quality available"?

I?ve been running AA since about 2002 so why aren?t you running AA on your tri-SLI rig in 2008 that provides ?ultimate image quality??

The situation has changed,

Yep, it sure has, nVidia now has something new to promote so you're required to reverse over your previous arguments in order to do it.

BFG10K-

The point here isn't that at one time I said 8XAA was the best thing to have, the point is that technology has moved on and something better to have has come along.

Like I said, video gaming is about immersion and virtual reality- the things you get in the PhysX levels of UT3, GRAW2, and Warmonger raise the level of realism in the game to a much greater degree than the difference between 4XAA and 8XAA. (and IMO AA period)

You're going to have to get used to the fact that as years go by, and tech changes, you can't point out my old posts that said high AA was the thing to have and say I meant it's the thing to have for eternity!

For example, if NVIDIA or ATi ever brought back the 3d glasses in a better fashion, I'd also say that trumps 8XAA as an advantage. I'd personally say 25X16 resolution trumps 8XAA as an advantage. PhysX trumps 8XAA as an advantage.

Things are situationally dependent ol buddy, and the question here id GTX260 vs HD4870.

For me:

4XAA performance - too close to care
8X AA performance- ATi has some nice wins
PhysX- most important differentiating factor
DX10.1- haven't seen it do anything remarkable, can't care yet. Differences in AA on AC were minute, speed difference maybe due to render error, so who knows? Would rather have PhysX for immersion.
SLi vs CF- I give to NVIDIA
AF- I give to NVIDIA for true angle independent
AA- in general, each has strengths, still would give this to ATi on these two single cards.

Out of the above, PhysX is the big deal.

Just give it up. Shouldn't you have a stethoscope around your neck, and be on a merry-go-round ?

 

[SSChevy2001]

Using Anandtech review 4870 wins 29% of the time over GTX280.

While physx is nice it means nothing right now. UT3 has only one good level Heat Ray, and that's were it really stops. Warmonger is so bad it's not worth even downloading.

4870 vs 260

wins over GTX280 -> 4870
8xAA -> 4870
AA and IQ quality -> 4870

Physx and DX10.1 are vaporware right now. There both very limited right now.

 

[ginfest]

Originally posted by: sourthings

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: nRollo

I don't think you can link to me saying that because I don't believe I ever did.

LMAO.

The first search brought us this:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...147216&highlight_key=y

Five out of the six games you linked to in your commentary contained 2560x1600x8xAA results, results you were using to extol the virtues of tri-SLI.

Furthermore you?ve done this multiple times when engaging in your SLI marketing campaign so please, don't insult our collective intelligence by denying it.

For me 25X16 0X16X PhysX >>>>>> 25X16 16X16X no PhysX. (and I get over 30fps minimum, around 50fps average at UT3 so it's very playable)

To quote yourself from the link above: So you see n7, the payoff I was referring to was being able to use your monitor to game with the ultimate image quality available

Riiight, so now running with AA disabled is acceptable on high-end SLI? What happened to your desire for "ultimate image quality available"?

I?ve been running AA since about 2002 so why aren?t you running AA on your tri-SLI rig in 2008 that provides ?ultimate image quality??

The situation has changed,

Yep, it sure has, nVidia now has something new to promote so you're required to reverse over your previous arguments in order to do it.

BFG10K-

The point here isn't that at one time I said 8XAA was the best thing to have, the point is that technology has moved on and something better to have has come along.

Like I said, video gaming is about immersion and virtual reality- the things you get in the PhysX levels of UT3, GRAW2, and Warmonger raise the level of realism in the game to a much greater degree than the difference between 4XAA and 8XAA. (and IMO AA period)

You're going to have to get used to the fact that as years go by, and tech changes, you can't point out my old posts that said high AA was the thing to have and say I meant it's the thing to have for eternity!

For example, if NVIDIA or ATi ever brought back the 3d glasses in a better fashion, I'd also say that trumps 8XAA as an advantage. I'd personally say 25X16 resolution trumps 8XAA as an advantage. PhysX trumps 8XAA as an advantage.

Things are situationally dependent ol buddy, and the question here id GTX260 vs HD4870.

For me:

4XAA performance - too close to care
8X AA performance- ATi has some nice wins
PhysX- most important differentiating factor
DX10.1- haven't seen it do anything remarkable, can't care yet. Differences in AA on AC were minute, speed difference maybe due to render error, so who knows? Would rather have PhysX for immersion.
SLi vs CF- I give to NVIDIA
AF- I give to NVIDIA for true angle independent
AA- in general, each has strengths, still would give this to ATi on these two single cards.

Out of the above, PhysX is the big deal.

Just give it up. Shouldn't you have a stethoscope around your neck, and be on a merry-go-round ?

What is your point, other than to troll this post?
Why don't you refute his arguments, if you can

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: sourthings

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: nRollo

I don't think you can link to me saying that because I don't believe I ever did.

LMAO.

The first search brought us this:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...147216&highlight_key=y

Five out of the six games you linked to in your commentary contained 2560x1600x8xAA results, results you were using to extol the virtues of tri-SLI.

Furthermore you?ve done this multiple times when engaging in your SLI marketing campaign so please, don't insult our collective intelligence by denying it.

For me 25X16 0X16X PhysX >>>>>> 25X16 16X16X no PhysX. (and I get over 30fps minimum, around 50fps average at UT3 so it's very playable)

To quote yourself from the link above: So you see n7, the payoff I was referring to was being able to use your monitor to game with the ultimate image quality available

Riiight, so now running with AA disabled is acceptable on high-end SLI? What happened to your desire for "ultimate image quality available"?

I?ve been running AA since about 2002 so why aren?t you running AA on your tri-SLI rig in 2008 that provides ?ultimate image quality??

The situation has changed,

Yep, it sure has, nVidia now has something new to promote so you're required to reverse over your previous arguments in order to do it.

BFG10K-

The point here isn't that at one time I said 8XAA was the best thing to have, the point is that technology has moved on and something better to have has come along.

Like I said, video gaming is about immersion and virtual reality- the things you get in the PhysX levels of UT3, GRAW2, and Warmonger raise the level of realism in the game to a much greater degree than the difference between 4XAA and 8XAA. (and IMO AA period)

You're going to have to get used to the fact that as years go by, and tech changes, you can't point out my old posts that said high AA was the thing to have and say I meant it's the thing to have for eternity!

For example, if NVIDIA or ATi ever brought back the 3d glasses in a better fashion, I'd also say that trumps 8XAA as an advantage. I'd personally say 25X16 resolution trumps 8XAA as an advantage. PhysX trumps 8XAA as an advantage.

Things are situationally dependent ol buddy, and the question here id GTX260 vs HD4870.

For me:

4XAA performance - too close to care
8X AA performance- ATi has some nice wins
PhysX- most important differentiating factor
DX10.1- haven't seen it do anything remarkable, can't care yet. Differences in AA on AC were minute, speed difference maybe due to render error, so who knows? Would rather have PhysX for immersion.
SLi vs CF- I give to NVIDIA
AF- I give to NVIDIA for true angle independent
AA- in general, each has strengths, still would give this to ATi on these two single cards.

Out of the above, PhysX is the big deal.

Just give it up. Shouldn't you have a stethoscope around your neck, and be on a merry-go-round ?

Why not talk about what was said instead of a random personal attack? Sheesh.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
"Close" and "on-par" are two different things.

Its generally accepted that the 4870 is 10% faster than 260, and 280 is 10% faster than 4870.

There are benchmarks where a 9800GTX+ beats a 4850, but noone quotes them and uses them as propaganda to say the 9800GTX+ is faster.

There are benchmarks where the 260 beats a 4870, but noone says that makes it overall faster.

Same with the 4870 and 280, but I dont think ive seen anyone argue that the 280 isnt the most powerful GPU....well, I guess now I have....

"Close" and "on-par" are the same thing. If I said "The 4870 performs exactly the same as a GTX280", then that's different. Of course the 4870 and the GTX280 aren't going to perform identically. They are two completely different architectures. It all depends on what resolution you're looking at, the level of AA, which games, etc. But on the whole, the 4870 performs at GTX280 level. (approximately, around, about, in the region of, just about, roughly, in the order of, more or less, roughly speaking, give or take, almost, nearly)

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
"Close" and "on-par" are two different things.

Its generally accepted that the 4870 is 10% faster than 260, and 280 is 10% faster than 4870.

There are benchmarks where a 9800GTX+ beats a 4850, but noone quotes them and uses them as propaganda to say the 9800GTX+ is faster.

There are benchmarks where the 260 beats a 4870, but noone says that makes it overall faster.

Same with the 4870 and 280, but I dont think ive seen anyone argue that the 280 isnt the most powerful GPU....well, I guess now I have....

"Close" and "on-par" are the same thing. If I said "The 4870 performs exactly the same as a GTX280", then that's different. Of course the 4870 and the GTX280 aren't going to perform identically. They are two completely different architectures. It all depends on what resolution you're looking at, the level of AA, which games, etc. But on the whole, the 4870 performs at GTX280 level. (approximately, around, about, in the region of, just about, roughly, in the order of, more or less, roughly speaking, give or take, almost, nearly)

Then I would say the same about a 9800GTX+ and 4850, and a 260 and 4870.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: ginfest

Originally posted by: sourthings

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: nRollo

I don't think you can link to me saying that because I don't believe I ever did.

LMAO.

The first search brought us this:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...147216&highlight_key=y

Five out of the six games you linked to in your commentary contained 2560x1600x8xAA results, results you were using to extol the virtues of tri-SLI.

Furthermore you?ve done this multiple times when engaging in your SLI marketing campaign so please, don't insult our collective intelligence by denying it.

For me 25X16 0X16X PhysX >>>>>> 25X16 16X16X no PhysX. (and I get over 30fps minimum, around 50fps average at UT3 so it's very playable)

To quote yourself from the link above: So you see n7, the payoff I was referring to was being able to use your monitor to game with the ultimate image quality available

Riiight, so now running with AA disabled is acceptable on high-end SLI? What happened to your desire for "ultimate image quality available"?

I?ve been running AA since about 2002 so why aren?t you running AA on your tri-SLI rig in 2008 that provides ?ultimate image quality??

The situation has changed,

Yep, it sure has, nVidia now has something new to promote so you're required to reverse over your previous arguments in order to do it.

BFG10K-

The point here isn't that at one time I said 8XAA was the best thing to have, the point is that technology has moved on and something better to have has come along.

Like I said, video gaming is about immersion and virtual reality- the things you get in the PhysX levels of UT3, GRAW2, and Warmonger raise the level of realism in the game to a much greater degree than the difference between 4XAA and 8XAA. (and IMO AA period)

You're going to have to get used to the fact that as years go by, and tech changes, you can't point out my old posts that said high AA was the thing to have and say I meant it's the thing to have for eternity!

For example, if NVIDIA or ATi ever brought back the 3d glasses in a better fashion, I'd also say that trumps 8XAA as an advantage. I'd personally say 25X16 resolution trumps 8XAA as an advantage. PhysX trumps 8XAA as an advantage.

Things are situationally dependent ol buddy, and the question here id GTX260 vs HD4870.

For me:

4XAA performance - too close to care
8X AA performance- ATi has some nice wins
PhysX- most important differentiating factor
DX10.1- haven't seen it do anything remarkable, can't care yet. Differences in AA on AC were minute, speed difference maybe due to render error, so who knows? Would rather have PhysX for immersion.
SLi vs CF- I give to NVIDIA
AF- I give to NVIDIA for true angle independent
AA- in general, each has strengths, still would give this to ATi on these two single cards.

Out of the above, PhysX is the big deal.

Just give it up. Shouldn't you have a stethoscope around your neck, and be on a merry-go-round ?

What is your point, other than to troll this post?
Why don't you refute his arguments, if you can

While I agree that that post was useless, so is nRollo's, and there is nothing to refute in nRollo's argument. His arguments are completely subjective and they are his own personal opinion (hence the notion of marketing). PhysX is the big deal to him. Good for him. For most of the rest of the world out there right now until PhysX matures, gets faster, doesn't cause a performance hit, etc., image quality and performance matter.

Again, I could be wrong, I don't speak for the world at large, that is my general inference, and hence my opinion. However my opinion also isn't tainted by being part of one competitor's marketing arm either, so I have no vested interest either way.

 

[Qbah]

For me it's simple. HD4870 is a bit faster than a GTX260, though it comes down to company preference in the end. GTX280 is the fastest thing you can have, not even a contest. However if it wasn't for ATI we would need to spend 450$+ for a GTX260-class card and 650$ for a GTX280. This is where they got all the attention. The speed at the price they offered. And they still have the advantage outside US (yes there are other places ).

Remember the 4850 was supposed to fight the 8800GT and the 4870 the 9800GTX! They pulled out 'a rabbit out of a hat' so to speak. It was the left straight in boxing... ie. WTF kind of performance.

It's mad props for me for ATI. They forced prices down. They gave me wicked performance for cheap. The nV-pro people should be thankful as they would still be paying major $$$ just to get a GTX260-level card.

And the HD4870 beats the crap out of nV at AAx8 Had to add it, sorry

EDIT: As for nRollo, he's doing what he's tasked to do, neglecting or diminishing the flaws of nVidia products and vocalize it's advantages. As much as PhsyX is 'the talk' of today, so was SM3.0 in the 6-series era. Sure it had it, but who cared? The X800 cards were better in the end and nothing can change that. I am sure once the HD4870X2 hits the shelves he will be screaming about micro-stutter and the need for profiles and lower scaling than SLI. But that won't change the fact that the ATi card will be better in the end So no hate towards the guy He's doing what he needs to do. And he does it in a nice way, might I add! He ain't bashing ATi products... He's just saying you what nVidia offers. Which in my book is a plus (unlike the old Rollo ). You can compare it to all the ATI-fanboy talk of how much ATI pwns and nV sucks without the nV-sucks part.

Stay strong, man! We can't have a one-side game here. Else it will be ATI that will want 650$ for their top tier cards and 450$ for the slower parts. And if you think otherwise you're delusional.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Then I would say the same about a 9800GTX+ and 4850, and a 260 and 4870.

I guess you could if you wanted to. In fact, you could say the same about a 4870 and an FX5200. But the benchmarks put the 4870 at GTX280 level a heckuva lot more often than the 260.

 

[CreasianDevaili]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: nRollo

I don't think you can link to me saying that because I don't believe I ever did.

LMAO.

The first search brought us this:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...147216&highlight_key=y

Five out of the six games you linked to in your commentary contained 2560x1600x8xAA results, results you were using to extol the virtues of tri-SLI.

Furthermore you?ve done this multiple times when engaging in your SLI marketing campaign so please, don't insult our collective intelligence by denying it.

For me 25X16 0X16X PhysX >>>>>> 25X16 16X16X no PhysX. (and I get over 30fps minimum, around 50fps average at UT3 so it's very playable)

To quote yourself from the link above: So you see n7, the payoff I was referring to was being able to use your monitor to game with the ultimate image quality available

Riiight, so now running with AA disabled is acceptable on high-end SLI? What happened to your desire for "ultimate image quality available"?

I?ve been running AA since about 2002 so why aren?t you running AA on your tri-SLI rig in 2008 that provides ?ultimate image quality??

The situation has changed,

Yep, it sure has, nVidia now has something new to promote so you're required to reverse over your previous arguments in order to do it.

BFG10K-

The point here isn't that at one time I said 8XAA was the best thing to have, the point is that technology has moved on and something better to have has come along.

Like I said, video gaming is about immersion and virtual reality- the things you get in the PhysX levels of UT3, GRAW2, and Warmonger raise the level of realism in the game to a much greater degree than the difference between 4XAA and 8XAA. (and IMO AA period)

You're going to have to get used to the fact that as years go by, and tech changes, you can't point out my old posts that said high AA was the thing to have and say I meant it's the thing to have for eternity!

For example, if NVIDIA or ATi ever brought back the 3d glasses in a better fashion, I'd also say that trumps 8XAA as an advantage. I'd personally say 25X16 resolution trumps 8XAA as an advantage. PhysX trumps 8XAA as an advantage.

Things are situationally dependent ol buddy, and the question here id GTX260 vs HD4870.

For me:

4XAA performance - too close to care
8X AA performance- ATi has some nice wins
PhysX- most important differentiating factor
DX10.1- haven't seen it do anything remarkable, can't care yet. Differences in AA on AC were minute, speed difference maybe due to render error, so who knows? Would rather have PhysX for immersion.
SLi vs CF- I give to NVIDIA
AF- I give to NVIDIA for true angle independent
AA- in general, each has strengths, still would give this to ATi on these two single cards.

Out of the above, PhysX is the big deal.

My question overall is: what if nothing shown on the horizon, even before the next generation of cards, has physX support that a gamer cares for?

Take for instance Diablo III. Because the DX10.1 is rumor mill I wont use it. However it does use Havok instead of PhysX. Then I started looking at the upcoming games that will use PhysX, and looked at their planned fiscal quarter/year release dates. It seems to me that PhysX is great for those that want these games or current games. However the selection isnt great or that spread out among genres. By the time more games do come out wont the next generation GPU also be out? If so, why does this effect the current decision making on a HD4870 or 260gtx?

I am not trying to downplay PhysX here. I am just trying to go with reality and what is official and what is rumor mill. If a new great title is announced for PhysX then that is great but then we need to look at development cycles and release dates. If the game isnt released for several more years then how can that be an effect for the here and now?

8xAA does effect the here and now on a more grand scale than PhysX. I can pop in any game and force it if need be and experience it better on the HD4870. Havok is also widely used and I experience that with my OC'ed e8400.

The end factor is indeed gameplay for the majority of gamers. A game that someone enjoys is going to be the selling factor overall. If someone sees a title that they really want that uses PhysX in the near future, then I say go for the nvidia gpu. However if the game isnt going to be out until late 2010 due to the long development cycles then good chances are that the gamer will buy a new card. If they dont then thats another factor, kind of like dualcore and quadcore debates for gaming.

I just dont think PhysX is a big deal until a game comes out that is enough to make someone want to get the most out of the title. Alot of people in this thread seem to feel that PhysX will naturally make a game BETTER in all regards. A game with bad gameplay but pretty effects/explosions/destructibles isnt the same as a game with great gameplay and pretty effects/explosions/destructibles.

It is just like the old saying for consoles. You buy the console for the games. You build your system for games that you want in the future so you can get the most out of it. You should factor PhysX only on the games being developed and before you upgrade again in your buying process right now.

PhysX is worthless on a game aside from a game that is coded for it. The selection isnt that big right now and most chances are alot dont play games with PhysX on the engine. Some of the people reading might not understand all of it and feel that PhysX is going to do more for their situation when in reality.. it will do nothing for years to come.

PhysX is situational but has a place like anything in the same light.