ATI Radeon HD 4890 vs. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on April 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The New $250 Price Point: Radeon HD 4890 vs. GeForce GTX 275
Here it is, what you've all been waiting for. And it's a tie. Pretty much. These cards stay pretty close in performance across the board.
Looking at Age of Conan, we see something we didn't expect. NVIDIA is actually performing on par with AMD in this benchmark. NVIDIA's come a long way to closing the gap in this one, and for this comparison it's paid off a bit. Despite the fact that this one is essentially a tie, NVIDIA gets props for being competitive here.
While NVIDIA usually owns Call of Duty benchmarks, the 4890 outpaces the GTX 275 at 16x10 and 19x12 while the GTX 275 leads at the 30" panel resolution. As long as its still playable, then this isn't a huge deal, but the fact that most people have lower resolution monitors who might want one of these GPUs isn't in NVIDIA's favor.
Crysis Warhead is really close in performance again.
AMD leads Fallout 3, and this is the first game we've seen any consistent significant difference favoring one card over another.
FarCry 2 takes us back to the norm with both cards performing essentially the same.
The 4890 does have a pretty hefty lead under Race Driver GRID. The gap does close at higher resolution, but it's still a gap in AMD's favor.
Left4Dead is also pretty much a tie with the card you would want changing depending on the resolution of your monitor.
Overall, this is really a wash. These parts are very close in performance and very competitive.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
294 Comments
View All Comments
piesquared - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Must be tough trying to write a balanced review when you clearly favour one side of the equation. Seriously, you tow NV's line without hesitation, including soon to be extinct physx, a reviewer relieased card, and unreleased drivers at the time of your review. And here's the kicker; you ignore the OC potential of AMD's new card, which as you know, is one of it's major selling points.Could you possibly bend over any further for NV? Obviously you are perfectly willing to do so. F'n frauds
Chlorus - Friday, April 3, 2009 - link
What?! Did you even read the article? They specifically say they cannot really endorse PhysX or CUDA and note the lack of support in any games. I think you're the one towing a line here.SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
The red fanboys have to chime in with insanities so the reviewers can claim they're fair because "both sides complain".Yes, red rooster whiner never read the article, because if he had he would remember the line that neither overclocked well, and that overclocking would come in a future review ( in other words, they were rushed again, or got a chum card and knew it - whatever ).
So, they didn't ignore it , they failed on execution - and delayed it for later, so they say.
Yeah, red rooster boy didn't read.
tamalero - Thursday, April 9, 2009 - link
jesus dude, you have a strong persecution complex right?its like "ohh noes, they're going against my beloved nvidia, I MUST STOP THEM AT ALL COSTS".
I wonder how much nvidia pays you? ( if not, you're sad.. )
SiliconDoc - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
That's interesting, not a single counterpoint, just two whining personal attacks.Better luck next time - keep flapping those red rooster wings.
(You don't have any decent couinterpoints to the truth, do you flapper ? )
Sometimes things are so out of hand someone has to say it - I'm still waiting for the logical rebuttals - but you don't have any, neither does anyone else.
aguilpa1 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
All these guys talking about how irrelevant physx and how not so many games use it don't get it. The power of physx is bringing the full strength of those GPU's to bear on everyday apps like CS4 or Badaboom video encoding. I used to think it was kind of gimmicky myself until I bought the "very" inexpensive badaboom encoder and wow, how awesome was that! I forgot all about the games.Rhino2 - Monday, April 13, 2009 - link
You forgot all about gaming because you can encode video faster? I guess we are just 2 different people. I don't think I've ever needed to encode a video for my ipod in 60 seconds or less, but I do play a lot of games.z3R0C00L - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
You're talking about CUDA not Physx.Physx is useless as HavokFX will replace it as a standard through OpenCL.
sbuckler - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
No physx has the market, HavokFX is currently demoing what physx did 2 years ago.What will happen is the moment HavokFX becomes anything approaching a threat nvidia will port Physx to OpenCL and kill it.
As far as ATI users are concerned the end result is the same - you'll be able to use physics acceleration on your card.
z3R0C00L - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
You do realize that Havok Physics are used in more games than Physx right (including all the source engine based games)?And that Diablo 3 makes use of Havok Physics right? Just thought I'd mention that to give you time to change your conclusion.