Mainstream Graphics Card Roundup

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]rhys216[/nom]Then why is this article not posted on the German site?It has no use here but to mis-lead the casual reader!I mention Intel due to a bias I have noticed of previous articles I have read that had a similar stench to this one, but I simply thought I was mistaken. Example: They do a great big SSD article and leave out the main competition to the top-performer?[/citation]
I noticed some misinformed users earlier accusing Don of being biased towards ati in his last monthly update, and now people accuse Tino of the opposite? Can't you guys make up your minds! Honestly! As for the SSD articles, I believe I saw Chris mention that newer ocz drives weren't available to test, and well to be honest I don't care much about ssd's so I don't know which other competators there are to intel, but the reason they weren't included was that they weren't available for testing in time?
Anyway I think overall your sole problem is, that you favor the underdog?
Anyway, I assume this article is posted because it is informative. Jane's from ireland and writing for the us site, why shouldn't Tino from germany be doing so? or one of those from italy? Ultimately, I'm from denmark, so I might actually benefit from the articles conclusion in addition to the very informative list of cards and the benchmark results. And in the end the only part of the article that someone in a marked with a different economy cannot make use of is the conclusion. And that's only one page of info. If that is your basis for dissing the article, then you've got a problem! It resembles me not buying a new car, just because I don't need the stereo that comes with it!
 
[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]I think it is remarkable how small a QUALITY PSU can be and still be able to handle these systems, including a nicely OC'ed CPU.---I think if people treat this as one more piece of information on GPUs, not a single "be-all" reference, they will find less cause for criticism.[/citation]
Ye it doesn't actually require a huge psu to power a decent gaming system, BUT if you have to account for wear in the power supply, you will need a bigger one. The psu calculator that I bought a license to last year estimates a 10% performance loss per year on em. So if the system requires 300W output, you will need at least a 400W psu if you want to be sure it'll last a while.

Anyway. At work we've got some 2004 model hp dc7100cmt mashines running a 3ghz prescott, 4 memory modules and a 9600gt card - and not one of the 23 computers has a problem with that - using a 250W psu that obviously is 5 years old now. So the 10% might be a bit of a high estimate. Probably only relevant for lowcost psu's
 
More popular games benches please. I don't think LTR is a very popular PC game. Even though Tom's hates GTAIV, it's a much better game, and more people probably play it. I'd much rather see it in the suite. Also, Crysis (or Warhead) would probably be better than having HAWX. Another unpopular game. Call of Duty would be a good one to add too.

Also, there's been some back and forth about 10.1. It's certainly missing from most games, but it did give quite the boost in AC (unpatched of course).
 
[citation][nom]San Pedro[/nom]More popular games benches please. I don't think LTR is a very popular PC game. Even though Tom's hates GTAIV, it's a much better game, and more people probably play it. I'd much rather see it in the suite. Also, Crysis (or Warhead) would probably be better than having HAWX. Another unpopular game. Call of Duty would be a good one to add too.Also, there's been some back and forth about 10.1. It's certainly missing from most games, but it did give quite the boost in AC (unpatched of course).[/citation]
Personally I don't like gta4 at all, but yes I would think it should be part of the bench. But not by means of replacing one of the other titles. I don't think the titles are chosen for their popularity in and by itself, but by which engine is powering them. It would make little sense to test 4 games running on the same engine as they'd show similar characteristics. In this test they have the unreal 3 engine twice, and one of those might be a bit redundant, but they can't replace both, or add another one of them. They've got the oblivion engine, they've got the cryengine, they've got the source engine. They might want to add something based on id's engine and perhaps a title based on ... forgot the name - but the one used in one of the recent mmorpgs that borrowed someone elses engine. In short - I don't think they pick their games baesd on how popular they are, but on how they're made, how easy they are to bench, and how well known they are. I'm a bit surprised to see a game in this here benchmark that I've never seen before, but then that's the first time in 2 years or so that's happened.
 
Jane's from ireland and writing for the us site, why shouldn't Tino from germany be doing so? or one of those from italy? Ultimately, I'm from denmark, so I might actually benefit from the articles conclusion in addition to the very informative list of cards and the benchmark results.
Click to expand...

Your just not getting this are you!, are you purposely trying to miss my point, or do you have a grey matter deficit?
For a start the Article quotes $ not €!
If the prices vary between products that much in € compared to $ in the US then it is pointless putting this article on the US toms hardware as the whole Article is mainly based around price Vs Performance!

On a side note, the indilinx drive had been out for quite a while at the time of the comparison, i.e. well before the Samsung!
Lot's of other review sites could get hold of an indilinx drive to compare, yet it seems Tom's couldn't?
And by the way I have both, I know the x25-m performs better in a fresh state, but why do such a big article and leave it out?

It would be like doing a GPU article and leaving out the 4870x2 while trying to show how much greater the 295 is to everything else!
 
Oh and it's not like Intel hasn't been found guilty of similar antics by the EU is it?
Did you notice how Tom's did a rescue story of why Intel's actions were in fact ethical?
 
Wow, people can't seem to understand that a game can't hate a graphics card. ATI just can't seem to get any good drivers done lately... hmmm... Since the 9800 PRO...
 
[citation][nom]rhys216[/nom]Your just not getting this are you!, are you purposely trying to miss my point, or do you have a grey matter deficit?For a start the Article quotes $ not €!If the prices vary between products that much in € compared to $ in the US then it is pointless putting this article on the US toms hardware as the whole Article is mainly based around price Vs Performance!On a side note, the indilinx drive had been out for quite a while at the time of the comparison, i.e. well before the Samsung!Lot's of other review sites could get hold of an indilinx drive to compare, yet it seems Tom's couldn't?And by the way I have both, I know the x25-m performs better in a fresh state, but why do such a big article and leave it out?It would be like doing a GPU article and leaving out the 4870x2 while trying to show how much greater the 295 is to everything else![/citation]
You're a bit daft are you not? I'm not trying to miss your point, I'm trying to make you see reason that you have no point. They only deal with prices on one single page of the article. The rest is dedicated to technical stuff.

As for your other random post - I have no idea why you're mixing things together like this. They're not in the least related, and as for toms not agreeing with the EU's decision - well that really isn't much of a surprise is it? I mean not even we who live in the EU agree with it, so why on earth would someone from the country that eventually has to pay for the EU's misguided moves?
 
[citation][nom]zmanz[/nom]Wow, people can't seem to understand that a game can't hate a graphics card. ATI just can't seem to get any good drivers done lately... hmmm... Since the 9800 PRO...[/citation]
ATI never could get drivers right. That's not just lately, that's been like this forever. They do eventually make them work, just not really performing well for the newest products. Nvidia isn't always better though. When their drivers work, it's all good, but especially with older hardware the drivers don't always work as advertised.
 
Why not test the 4850 X2? It was chosen as the best in its price range by tom's June "best card for the money" review just a few days ago.

4850 X2 2gig card at $240 is a beast, and will destroy some of the more expensive Nvidia cards.
 
The point is, you can't translate a conclusion without translating the prices.

If you make an article based on how much better a 260 is vs a 4870 and the price difference you see in Germany for some reason isn't the same as you see here in the states, destroys the conclusion.

You can post it here and say with big letters on every page, based on prices in Germany. But then people won't read it, because it's not related to them. Because they won't buy their cards in Germany, they will buy it in the states, or somewhere else in the world.

If you want to say, look these are the results, card a vs b vs c. That's fine. But there are a lot of people who will go to the conclusion page and that page is giving people the wrong idea. It says the 260 is a better price vs performance than the 4870. If you don't read the previous posts and didn't see the difference in price is not based on the US prices, you might run to the store and buy a 260 and find out later that the 260 is a good card, but the 4870 is a good card too and might have been cheaper and a better buy, or a bit more expansive and still a better buy.

This is why people are jumping up and down. And when you make the total lineup, you add unpopular games. Maybe you should test all games if you don't want to stick to the popular games. A game that heavily favours Nvidia or ATI, with a big performance gain, isn't worth it, if it's alone. If you see such a big difference in performance for 1 game, adding a comment about if you play that game we suggest you buy the nvidia card, but not add it to the total scores, because most people won't play the game and it puts the whole conclusion out of wack.

It sounds too much as being biased and the author has done nothing to remove that perception. He could have added a different graph without the biased games, he could have mentioned more about it in the conclusion, something like, if you won't play game x, then the price/performance my shift to card x rather than this one, that is our overall champion. Nothing was done to remove the perception of being biased. Combined with the prices from a place no one buys the card, this article has turned out to be a waste of space in the end.
 
[citation][nom]aaron216[/nom]Maybe im missing something here but where's the June of 2009 recommended buy the 4850X2?[/citation]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-price,2323-4.html

Best card for $220 was the 4850 x2 1g version, and for an extra $20 you can get the 2g version.

Oh, and there was no $320 reccomendation for june, why? This is why:

"Best PCIe Card For ~$320: None
A lot of folks ask why I'm not recommending the GeForce GTX 285 for those who don't have CrossFire or SLI motherboards, so I'll address that here: the Radeon HD 4850 X2 is a single card and doesn't require a special motherboard and it provides superior performance compared to the GeForce GTX 285 for more than $100 less."

4850 x2 is a beast.

 
the 260 and 4870 are pretty evenly priced. we can cherry pick prices but depending on who has what on sale on a given day the results will differ. if you buy either card you win. they are both powerful, capable and don't break your wallet. if someone buys one and is bent out of shape because a week later they see newegg has the other 20 dollars cheaper then your dealing with a malcontent anyways and they will never be happy.this one article isn't going to cement anyone's purchase. once you go to the online vendor of choice the prices are right there, customer reviews are right there so if 20-30 dollars is the issue you will buy what is cheaper at the time.
 
That should have been brought up more clearly in the conclusion if you ask me. The fact that they are almost equal and if you can get either one for less, go grab that one or if your game is game x, check if it performs better.

If you only look at the conclusion, you are under the impression, after watching the prices here at newegg, that the 4870 is a very inferior card, as it cost the same or almost the same but in that case it has to perform rather bad.
 
I figured the 4850 in CF performed very well for the price. I guess my point was I have yet to see the actual FPS this configuration is getting on any of the charts unless im an idiot and over looking it.
 
this is so stupid, ati does not suck that hard on the last remnant! i should know, i play the damn thing! my 4830 gets well over 30fps with max settings @1440x900. thats with 4x AA/16AF. either my 4830 is the devil's spawn or you guys are using some glitchy a$$ beta/hack drivers from some drunk monkey. 4850-512mb ties a 3850-256mb? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!
 
Your selection of The Last Remnant reflects VERY POORLY on the integrity of your results and conclusion. Please get rid of that game as we all know it hates ATI cards.

These are the games you should be benching:
Call of Duty 4 and/or World At War
Farcry 2
Fallout 3
Crysis
Left 4 Dead
Age of Conan
 
[citation][nom]proofhitter[/nom]Why do you keep on including the last remnant test when it's obvious that there is a problem with the ati cards? Therefore the overall results are biased and it's unfair to ati and to the foes who jump directly to the conclusion.Also when you say *quote* "DirectX 10 crashed at 8x AA and the game and screen went black. Switch to DirectX 9 instead, and the game works at 8x AA and offers frame rates up to 50% higher" *unquote* for HAWX didn't you mean "ati cards were a lot faster that nvidia ones using DirectX 10 thanks to DirectX 10.1 and that was unacceptable. Hence the switch to DirectX 9 instead, and the game works at 8x AA and offers frame rates up to 50% higher for nvidia and ati is fcked again, close one guys".I am not an ati fanboy but I think TH has got its tongue sticked up a juicy green @ss.[/citation]

Why should they NOT include the benchmark? I believe the purpose of the article is to give an idea of how the cards run different games. The bias towards certain cards shouldn't matter. People need to know how certain cards run games that they will play, period. If a certain game doesn't run well with certain cards/manufacturers I think the public should be made aware. There is no harm in including it as judgement on any one card should never be made off of a single benchmark. Take the article as a whole, don't cry about 1 benchmark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom