Mainstream Graphics Card Roundup

[justjc]

@neiroatopelcc
Danish prices are, according to the price comparison site Edbpriser.dk
The chosen cards the ZOTAC GeForce GTX260² 216 Core costs 1707 DKK the SAPPHIRE Radeon HD4870 Vapor-X costs 1618 DKK and the HIS Radeon HD4870 IceQ 4+ can be had for 1393 DKK, all prices includes shipping. So the above conclusion doesn't work for Denmark. Even if you chosse the cheapest the GeForce 260 with 216 stream processors costs at least 200DKK more than the cheapest 4780 with 1 GB of Ram.

Looking on a German price comparison site hardwareschotte.de
The chosen cards the ZOTAC GeForce GTX260² 216 Core costs 160,62€ the SAPPHIRE Radeon HD4870 Vapor-X costs 174,83€ and the HIS Radeon HD4870 IceQ 4+ can be had for 145,00€. So even for Germany this articles conclusion needs a revision, unless it is biased as many claim.

 

[randomizer]

Remember that prices change before the articles get published. Even the SBM articles are usually out of date when it comes to prices.

 

[Guest]

What about MSI's 260 GTX 1798 MB Card? How does it compare?? Im looking into buying 2X but want to see the preformace..

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]justjc[/nom]@neiroatopelccDanish prices are, according to the price comparison site Edbpriser.dkThe chosen cards the ZOTAC GeForce GTX260² 216 Core costs 1707 DKK the SAPPHIRE Radeon HD4870 Vapor-X costs 1618 DKK and the HIS Radeon HD4870 IceQ 4+ can be had for 1393 DKK, all prices includes shipping. So the above conclusion doesn't work for Denmark. Even if you chosse the cheapest the GeForce 260 with 216 stream processors costs at least 200DKK more than the cheapest 4780 with 1 GB of Ram.Looking on a German price comparison site hardwareschotte.deThe chosen cards the ZOTAC GeForce GTX260² 216 Core costs 160,62€ the SAPPHIRE Radeon HD4870 Vapor-X costs 174,83€ and the HIS Radeon HD4870 IceQ 4+ can be had for 145,00€. So even for Germany this articles conclusion needs a revision, unless it is biased as many claim.[/citation]
Didn't check danish prices as they're usually a bit more 'random' than german ones, but ye you're right about that. As for the german ones - the idealo.de price comparison listed prices of 137 and 139€ for the chepeast 4870 and 260 card yesterday. I'm not entirely sure I was looking for the 216 model though, but the article persistently deals with the old one, and mentions a $50 price premium for the newer one anyway.
In any event, I don't believe Tino intentionally favored Nvidia based cards.

 

[trinix]

Maybe he didn't favour it, or he didn't mean to right a pro nvidia article, but he didn't weigh the results and that's what everyone is mad about.

An article that doesn't show an objective conclusion, even if it was meant like one, doesn't make it a good conclusion.

And the most important thing was, you need to put into the conclusion the prices off all the products you are mentioning to make it clear that the competition has good cards too that, a 250 or 275 or a 4770 or 4850 or whatever is a better option if prices change.

You now have an article that is apparently outdated before it's released and wrong when translated to the US market. The conclusion, which many viewers will read as they don't understand or want to read all the techno talk anyway about what system you used to test it, or whatever they don't understand.

I bet most people will just go to the conclusion, read back a few pages, look at the game they are playing and looking for the comparison on that page and buy the card in the conclusion.

If prices changes, they won't know what the best card is they should buy. In the monthly recommendations you always see a big mention of, this card is good for this price, but if it becomes more expansive or you can find card x for less, you should get that. If card x was 10 or 15 dollars less, I'd recommend it. That's what's in the monthly, something similar like that, especially when you consider this article will not be monthly and this article will be outdated before it's released is what people expect from a site like THG.

The quality from some of the reviews have dropped and unfair bias is being noticed. If it's real bias or just something that unconsciously is slipping in or even if it's true, there should always be something in the article to proof you are unbiased so these talks don't surface every time you write an article.

 

[Shadow703793]

[citation][nom]matt87_50[/nom]doesn't matter how cheap they are, i won't buy one unless it fits in my case. why do they have to keep making them bigger and bigger?? i mean manufactures put lots of effort into coming up with the ATX spesifications, so cases would be made to accommodate motherboards and psus properly, and then the moronic gfx card makers think its perfectly acceptable for a card to be longer than the mobo is?!?!? computers are supposed to be getting SMALLER, NOT BIGGER, so in 10 years time will we have the room size gfx card? and everybody will think that is awesome?i can only hope 40nm brings with it some smaller, powerful cards.[/citation]
True that, at the current rate, we may need a new format (or perhaps EATX?) boards in a few years.

 

[meribela]

A more useful review for consumers was recently done at Xbit labs. Here's the link,

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/mainstream-roundup-2.html

And I agree, with the recent ATI price drops some of the models are really worth upgrading to. For example a XFX 4873 1gb for around $110

 

[meribela]

Also wanted to credit Tom for listing the 9800 GX2 card. I think this is a fantastic card still and will hold me off until the next round of video cards

 

[meribela]

Ops, meant the first post to be XFX 4870

 

[thearm]

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/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]

ATI sucks. Deal with it.

 

[genored]

JUST give it a rest by now anybody who knows anything about GPU knows that the reviews on TOMS are bias. And why should they care if they are bias. They get some sort of contribution from Nvida and the only people that get hurt are the average JOE. Just go and get your GPU reviews at anandtech or xbit labs. Well any other place will do, its only toms that gets NVIDA as the top GPU.

 

[genored]

Tino Kreiss is laughing his ass of right now. He gets paid and we get to complain.

 

[rhys216]

From this review it seems like Tom's likes to make a few quick bucks at the expense of long term credibility.
But what will happen to their income when people begin to bypass Tom's in search for other sites that haven't sold out and still have the integrity intact?
These kind of dirty tricks deserve to be highlighted, as this is one example of when the average consumer is almost 'directly' being harmed by possibly intentional bias or incompetency of their staff.

 

[rhys216]

I can't believe after every ones comments they have not amended the conclusion to take into account correct pricing!
IMHO, seems like an Nvidea add for sure!

 

[Lans]

[citation][nom]Ramar[/nom]And to all of you screaming about an "ongoing" Nvidia bias, read http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,1964.html where Tom's trumpeted the great coming of the 4870, even with TLR.[/citation]

I don't like this kind of defense one bit. Look we were fair here so we can be biased here! I think it is still very much a valid point to argue whether or not this particular instance is showing Nvidia bias. Please, stop that kind of defense and argue each article on its own merit!

I think The Last Remnant results should be included in the overall results and I agree ATI shouldn't get a free pass on this one but I would have been lot more cautious with the final conclusion. Especially since the results were so close given the problems ATI cards had!

Keeping benchmarks up-to-date and relevant is a good thing but it is still not clear why the all the sudden change and not much of an explanation in the main article. Hell some sites spend whole articles on benchmark suite changes (sorry I forgot if Tom's did too or not)! If it was well explained in the first place, I think it there would have been lower perception of bias here.

Yes, DX10.1, PhysX, etc would have been fair game. It is the lack of mention that is fueling the perception of bias, again.

 

[hangfirew8]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for including older cards like the 3xxx and 8800's including my orphan 8800Ultra (no, I didn't pay $650 for it, just $199). Including older cards makes it easier to see if an upgrade is worthwhile, and avoids us spending money for a card that gets one frame per second better (e.g., there's almost no difference between the "new" gtx250 and my old 8800U).

Yes, definite Nvidia bias, but you gotta plug the sponsors, but anyone can see the truth as the facts are clear enough in the article.

 

[Ramar]

Well put Lans, and I agree.

Considering the lack of response from any Tom's editor when we're on page 5/5 I'm starting to agree on the bias and am going to start looking at other websites to get my benchmarks. It just isn't really credible when they don't even care.

 

[esquire468]

[citation][nom]Ramar[/nom]Well put Lans, and I agree.Considering the lack of response from any Tom's editor when we're on page 5/5 I'm starting to agree on the bias and am going to start looking at other websites to get my benchmarks. It just isn't really credible when they don't even care.[/citation]

Goodbye then. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Make sure you take your ATI fanboyism with you.

I love how all these ATI fanboys are so concerned for the average consumer who may stumble upon this article and not be able to make his own conclusions by reading the entire article. Last time I checked this was an enthusiast site. I think there is no doubt that ATI cards support DX 10.1 and Nvidia doesn't, or that Nvidia cards have PhysX and ATI doesn't. The point of these articles is to test cards based upon commonality, not their differences which you can take into consideration on your own. That's probably why THG does not use Mirror's Edge as a benchmark, because ATI cards do not have PhysX support. (I mean, if you really want to break it down, let's start talking driver support). However, just because a manufacturer's drivers are crap when it comes to certain games, especially those that are requested by users to be used as benchmarks, should not mean they do not get used because they are unfair. If THG were to adopt the wishes of any fanboy, whether ATI or Nvidia, we would be left with only 2-3 benchmarks, where there is no difference, and no recommendation as to either card. There would continue to be ties in every article on graphics card round ups with no one making a stand or voicing an opinion for fear of retribution from the other sides' fanboys.

 

[jive]

HI,

there is one thing at least I'm happy with, my bfg gtx295, get top result in almost all test except synthetic bechmark. When I bought that i think I'm little crazy to that much, 578 cnd$ 4 month ago. But now i'm really happy. I play game at 1920X 1600 everything at max and well how can i say that ... Those game are simply beautiful. For the article I think it's a god source of information, some people saiying it's not fair in every aspect but personnally I like it.

thanks for the article good job

 

[pij]

I was planning on buying the 4850x2 card that was reviewed on here last month but its not in these charts so now I am not so sure.

Maybe the best way to write up the 'conclusion' would be like this..

Best buy for; ATI Nvdia

Money no object ____ ____

Middle of the range ____ ____

On a budget ____ ____


That would solve any 'biased' opinions.

PJ

 

[pij]

I was planning on buying the 4850x2 card that was reviewed on here last month but its not in these charts so now I am not so sure.

Maybe the best way to write up the 'conclusion' would be like this..

Best buy for; ATI Nvdia

Money no object ____ ____

Middle of the range ____ ____

On a budget ____ ____


That would solve any 'biased' opinions.

PJ

 

[rhys216]

@esquire468
Lol! or perhaps unlike most other people posting here it is you that is naive and suffering from Nvidea fanboyism.
The bias in the article is sooo completely obvious it's hard to perceive why you can't see it?
When are you going to wake up and smell the coffee!
I'm not an ATI fan either, as I'm currently lusting after a gtx 285 because I just love those single GPU cards.

 

[rhys216]

Probably better to wait for next gen now though!

 

[wh3resmycar]

please dont include " THE LAST REMNANT " as a benchmark. for crying out loud theres a ton of Unreal 3 engine games out there that looks 10x times better.

oh and why not use "THE TOKYO BAY MISSION" for HAWX, thats by far the most demanding mission in the game.

 

[Ramar]

@esquire,

I have been fighting for nvidia this whole time. ; Not sure at all how I'm an ATI fanboy.

I really just don't think enough research was done into pricing on the article. I'm not screaming BIAS BIAS BIAS, I'd just like a little more input from the guy that wrote the article to explain why it doesn't make any sense.

@PIJ,

Tom's has one of those every month. =]