View Full Version : Graphic card comparisons
here are the up to date tech specs for all ATI and Nvidia graphics cards
please add any further comprison data you find (benchmarking etc) comparing 4 or more cards if you come across them.
Both images are direct links that keep right up to date with the technical specs of all cards
ATI
http://www.timelessgaming.com/timeless/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4719 (http://www.techarp.com/article/Desktop_GPU_Comparison/ati_4_big.png)
Nvidia
http://www.timelessgaming.com/timeless/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4720 (http://www.techarp.com/article/Desktop_GPU_Comparison/nvidia_4_big.png)
Reviews from toms hardware
Tom's Hardware - Benchmark Battlefield Bad Company 2 (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2010-gaming-graphics-charts-high-quality/Battlefield-Bad-Company-2,2111.html) allcards at 1680/1050
Tom's Hardware - Benchmark Battlefield Bad Company 2 (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2010-gaming-graphics-charts-high-quality/Battlefield-Bad-Company-2,2112.html) all cards at 1920/1200
Tom's Hardware - Benchmark 3DMark11 - Enthusiast (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2011-gaming-graphics-charts/3DMark11-Enthusiast,2660.html)
Passmark G3D benchmarking
Click the chart to link to the daily updated chart of passmark G3D scores
http://www.timelessgaming.com/timeless/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4723 (http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html)
Guru3D
VGA Charts for December 2009 . http://www.guru3d.com/article/vga-charts-december-2009/
measured at 1920x1200 (where possible) to achieve nice GPU limited test results.
In red the most high-end single graphics card to date.
Test setup
eVGA X58 Classified 200 motherboard
Core i7 965 @ 3.75 GHz
6 GB (3x2048MB) DDR3 CAS8 @ 1600 MHz Dominator Corsair
BFG 1200 Watt Power Supply
OCZ Vertex SSD
Dell 3007WFP - resolutions up-to 2560x1600
http://www.timelessgaming.com/timeless/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4724
XbitLabs.com
Contemporary Graphics Cards Performance in Battlefield: Bad Company 2
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/battlefield-bad-company-2.html
Testbed and Methods
To investigate the performance of contemporary graphics accelerators in Battlefield: Bad Company 2 we put together the following testbed:
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition processor (3.33 GHz, 6.4 GT/s QPI);
Scythe SCKTN-3000 Katana 3 CPU cooler;
Gigabyte GA-EX58-Extreme mainboard (Intel X58 chipset)
Corsair XMS3-12800C9 (3 x 2 GB, 1333 MHz, 9-9-9-24, 2T);
Samsung Spinpoint F1 HDD (1 TB / 32 MB, SATA II);
Ultra X4 850 W Modular power supply;
Dell 3007WFP monitor (30", 2560x1600 @ 60 Hz max display resolution);
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit;
ATI Catalyst 10.2 for ATI Radeon HD;
Nvidia GeForce 196.75 WHQL for Nvidia GeForce.
The graphics card drivers were set up to deliver the highest possible quality of texture filtering and to minimize the effect of software optimizations used by default. We enabled transparent texture antialiasing. As a result, our ATI and Nvidia driver settings looked as follows:
ATI Catalyst:
Smoothvision HD: Anti-Aliasing: Use application settings/Box Filter
Catalyst A.I.: Standard
Mipmap Detail Level: High Quality
Wait for vertical refresh: Always Off
Enable Adaptive Anti-Aliasing: On/Quality
Other settings: default
Nvidia GeForce:
Texture filtering – Quality: High quality
Texture filtering – Trilinear optimization: Off
Texture filtering – Anisotropic sample optimization: Off
Threaded optimization: Auto
Vertical sync: Force off
Antialiasing - Gamma correction: On
Antialiasing - Transparency: Multisampling
Multi-GPU performance mode: NVIDIA recommended
Multi-display mixed-GPU acceleration: Multiple display performance mode
Set PhysX GPU acceleration: Enabled
Ambient Occlusion: Off
Other settings: default
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video/battlefield-bad-company-2/BFBC2_Game_HighEnd.png
TechSpot.com
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 GPU Performance In-depth
http://www.techspot.com/article/255-battlefield-bad-company2-performance/
Test System Specs
- Intel Core i7 920 (Overclocked @ 3.70GHz)
- x3 2GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-12800 (CAS 9-9-9-24)
- Asus P6T Deluxe (Intel X58)
- OCZ GameXStream (700 watt)
- Seagate 500GB 7200-RPM (Serial ATA300)
Software
- Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
- Nvidia Forceware 196.21
- ATI Catalyst 10.2
http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/255/bench/High_01.pnghttp://www.techspot.com/articles-info/255/bench/Medium_01.pnghttp://www.techspot.com/articles-info/255/bench/Low_01.png
I became a bit baffled yesterday.
My Radeon HD 4800 failed on me, believe it to be hardware malfunction of some sort.. Anyways, I bought and installed a Nvidia 9500 GT in to my other older computer a year ago, maybe more.
Now that this gfx card failed, I needed a gfx card so I took the Nvidia and put it in to this one, what amazed me was the clarity in the picture.
I now feel like the entire time I used the HD 4800 that I never really had true High Definition picture quality.
At the time I moved over to the Nvidia, my computer was hooked to my Full HDTV.. The first thing I notice when seeing the desktop is how extremely over sharpened everything is. As I had to set the sharpness on my TV to 75/100 for the picture quality to be any good while using the ATI. Now that I am using this Nvidia card I had to decrease the sharpness down to 55/100 and still the picture quality is much clearer and sharp.
The TV monitor automatically found the right screen size for the Nvidia card while with the ATI card I had to manually find the right size so that my desktop didnt go out of frame.
How come this older Nvdia card beats this much more powerful ATI card?
Another weird thing, that I feel I need to mention, is the montage I recently edited. When I played it in Media Player with my HD 4800 the sound would always go out of sync at one point, that has not happened once since I moved over to this Nvidia card?? :think:
But the ATI is better for games I have to say, but picture was always dark with the ATI, I tried BC2 with the Nvidia and it was like a new kind of daylight was in it.
Chriss-FIN-
04-01-2011, 22:18
In my opponition still picture doesnt say much, also there is some settings at ATI which changes still pictures quality... was it some IQ setting or something, havent read much about that as it is quite boring to read hundreds of different tweaking guides.
But ATI has always had poor driver design, i think most of the probs comes there. And this leads to sound thingy, i dont know has the NVidia build in audio decoder, but ATI has and i have had little tweaking probs because it. Depending of my monitor / tv setup i sometimes which between my mobo sound-card, X-FI sound-card and ATI "sound-card" and some games/movies really dont like this, but again i think its driver issue as all of them uses different drivers.
I however had exatly the opposite
when I changed from a 9800 series Nvidia to my current XFX radeon 4890 I got a far sharper and brighter image
I did notice the audio bug, particularly on streamed content
but certainly with my setup the 4890 was far far better than the 9800, 3-4 times the frame rates etc
also im assuming its a driver issue, but I get a far higher frame rate for the 4890 than shown above even with the same settings
which cheers me up no end, as the reason i created this thread was to decide what card I actually needed rather than buy blind off the shelf.
EDIT---------------
btw I would say if you need a replacement then the 6850 will certainly fit the bill for you, well above the performance you were getting from the 4800 series
and all the benefits from the latest tech
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-189-XF
if you want to see the differences in the technical specs look at the first post in this thread, it the links keep current with the latest cards out there.
:yo:
What some have written here is true, but what u need for replacement depends on ur needs. I remember u talked about CUDA and its supporting rendering acceleration in Vegas, also all Adobe products are intel optimized so if u definitly want new hardware for video/image rendering NVIDIA and Intel is the must. Below i give u the important comparsion with all important facts for gamers and graphicans
Current NVIDIA architecture
Power consumption : around 200 Watts
Shader processing units : CUDA cores already usage by software like Adobe CS5 and Sony Vegas ( and a few more )
Anti-Aliasing : NVIDIA can do all modes include SSAA on DX10 and DX11, they have CSAA as standard for long time
Anisotropic filtering : nearly perfect filtering here, no flickering textures, but the image is not that sharp as AMDs
Additional technologys : Physx and 3D Vision Surround, the plus is that its already out for long and developers already brought hardware and software for it
Current AMD architecture
Power consumption : around 200 Watts
Shader processing units : Streamprocessors, no extras so far by software developers sadly *sniff
Anti-Aliasing : AMD brought now lately the CSAA with the 6900 series ( they call it different but its same technic ), but still SSAA only possible in DX 9
Anisotropic filtering : AMD has the sharper/crispier image but...... on high frequent textures it tends to flicker, they tryed to fix it with 6000 series but its still there
Additional technologys : AMD Streamtechnology offers the possibility to cycling queries again between AMD CPUs and AMD GPUs,
theoreticly u are able to hardware accelerating FLASH by + 20-30 percent faster but there were only 1-2 noname programms developed which made usage of this technic ( in other words intel payed off all companys and bullyed AMD out ). With Sandy Bridge intel now launchs Quick Sync which is like + 20 percent faster than the AMD solution so Streamtechnology ( which we saw as sticker on old 5000 series packages ) dies. Now AMD invested more in other technologys to stick with the rival NVIDIA, things like HD3D for 3D watching with glasses. The Cayman ( HD 6900 ) is a big disappointment for fans and technicans because the 6900 is slower than the NV 500 series and consumpts more power, basicly the invert of what the 5000 series did to NVIDIA. But... most of them dont acknowledge that the die-size from the new 6900 chips are 20-25 percent smaller than the Fermi chip on the 500s, so what AMD did was : they put more energy in technology research like HD3D, AF and Video Decoder/Encode instead of wasting money to maximize the 40nm process for gaming to get maybe 1-2 fps more than NVIDIA, their plus now they did good in technologys and have them ready for 28nm process ( the whole 6000 is only a simple refresh of the 5000 series except for the 3D thing, same counts for NVIDIAs 500 serie ). Atm the GTX 500 series consumpts less power and are faster than the 6000 Series, but as said when u remember the time the HD 5000 series started it was exactly the opposite and AMD had the lead for a year, now its reverted AMD is trimming their technologys ( because the already had good power consumption and architecture ) and NVIDIA had to completly retrimm their architecture to get lower TDPs and to get stable temperatures ( GTX 400 series = epic fail, to high degrees celsius under load and the power usage was like +25 percent compared to a same fast Radeon ).
For ur decision u should ask urself what u need ur graca for kharak, i know u are goofying around with Vegas so NVIDIA is atm the better choice ^^ Just as a word to the end here, Radeons are monsters in doing GFlops/s so if AMD would had written a physics engine ( or another application ) which could make usage of the powerfull chip architecture, then they would rip of NVIDIA easy. Sadly truth is that Intel and NVIDIA did crime and had to pay 2 milliard Euros to cartell, after AMD went to judge it came out that both companys payed of nearly the whole industry over the past 10 years to sell only their products and to dust-in the AMD offers, that slaped the science back for much years and poor AMD has now to get back up like it was on the big times in the 90s when AMD was better. BtW Intel has 65 percent of the market, in the 90s it was tie between them and AMD, today intel has its own wafer production industrys, chipfabrics and can easy build higher quality in their chips but..... pls never forget what AMD scienced, nearly all today used technologys in intel processores are from AMD, for exmaple the integrated memorycontroller, the QPI/HT Link, Tesselation ( HD 2000 series ), the 64-bit architecture for sure, and a lot more( except for the main x86 architecture lol )
hope it helps u kharak and for sure other members here too when they are again to the big question of gaming:) as said for people who want to do more than gaming NVIDIA is the Choice, but if u want pure power just for gaming i would say the Radeons are often a better way ( they just need to invest more to their drivers )
regards GUNter
__
Someone in the Shoutbox asked about buying the HD 6950 or the HD 5870, i told some pros and contras but forgot something to meantion which could be also important for anyone whos on the graphics upgrade path. If u want to buy a Radeon 6970 then better let it because the 6950 is a 6970 just with some locked cores, u can easy download the 6970 BIOS and patch it over 6950 eh voila u got a HD 6970 for like 100-150 bucks less. Its nearly the same like with the Phenom x3 which u can unlock to an x4, on some chips it dont work with the 4th core because its faulty hardware and thats why AMD disabled it. On the HD 6950 its not the same the cores are all full functionally, they just saved money disabled some cores and sell it now for a lil less money. As written in my post above they shrinked the die size compared to Fermi, and plus they just produced 1 chip for all 6900 cards they spared production costs.
__