4870 or gtx260 216 55nm

[SirJangly]

Which is better, and specifically, would would do better over 2.5 years?

[Mussels]

If you'd done a search, you'd find tens of threads asking the same question.

it boils down to: Do you want HDMI audio and DX10.1, or do you want Nvidia PhysX.

I chose ATI, i figure DX10.1 is going to outlast Physx (since DX11 will have its own physics engine)

[mlee49]

The 4870 is a dx10.1 card which may help with future compatibility as the 260 is just DX10. Very minimal differences but the slight edge to the 4870. Does you board support CF or SLI? If not then I'd go with what ever is cheaper, that would be the 4870 where I've seen a few at $150 and under. A good 260 216 may be slightly over, egg has one for $165 w/20 MIR.

Guess its up to you mate! My suggestion would be to find a 55nm 260 216sp.

[SirJangly]

Sorry. Been stressed lately choosing all of these parts! that is a valid point though.

[Flibolito]

It's a bit hard to judge how cards will perform 2+ years out. Games are becoming more demanding as time goes on but it comes down to a few factors.
1. Your resolution
2. Are you ok with turning setting in games down in 2 years to keep frame rates playable.
3. Sometimes games are released that really give 1-2 year old cards a swift kick in the balls (crysis and cryostasis being a few of those titles)

Now to address the ATi v. Nvidia issue.
Both cards do very well and are actually very similar in performance. Differences are in which games you play. I prefer Nvidia because they run cooler than the ATi cards I have had and I like the drivers better. At this point in time the graphic card market is so close that the consumers win. Performance is even and prices are rapidly dropping. The cards you want are in the $150 range some even cheaper with rebates or sales. That's a sweet deal on either one.
Check some benchmarks on your favorite games and decide from that.

[trt740]

they are very evenly matched until the 216 cores is overclocked and then it's kills the 4870 even at it's max overclock.

[SirJangly]

The 4870 is considerably cheaper for me, the only thing that bothers me is the heavy power consumption and heat. This is specifically towards the visiontek model.

[trt740]

Originally Posted by SirJangly

The 4870 is considerably cheaper for me, the only thing that bothers me is the heavy power consumption and heat. This is specifically towards the visiontek model.

The 216 core is a lot faster at it's average overclock of 700/1500/2300, and some will go higher, at those speeds it will match or beat a 280 gtx and is in the same league as a 275 gtx or 4890. I have owned both and when overclocked the 216 is the better choice plus it cooler is a lot quieter.

[trt740]

this ones 144.99 after a rebate , free shipping and two games thats pretty cheap.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814121316

[Mussels]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ue&Order=PRICE


and the 4870 starts at $115 after MIR

[Flibolito]

That's a sweet deal plus it comes with stalker which I hear is a decent game.

[n-ster]

Well 130$ if you want the 1gb... which you do

[SirJangly]

Where is the 1gb for that price?

[n-ster]

130$ after MIR 4870 1gb

[Kursah]

Ya know, too many of these 260 vs 4870 threads, each side has good points, imo the reference GTX260 cooler is better, the vrms are MUCH cooler, no tweaked drivers for furmark, and physix, solid overclockability but then on the other end you have more bang for the buck, dx10.1 (meh), gddr5, decent overclockability, etc. Pick what you are and aren't willing to deal with for your investment and go with it. They're 2 very evenly matched cards at stock, I will agree with TRT, when the GTX is OC'd it really shines, even with the stock cooler, I made my choice over a year ago...but things were a lot different from how they are today in quite a few aspects...what it comes down to is what you can fit in your budget and what you feel will treat you the best for your investment...we can all try to sway you one way or the other, but the real kicker is not just taking these recommendations, but going out and doing your own research so you're more confident in the purchase you make for your rig with the money out of your wallet.

Either way you go, you won't be losing.

[n-ster]

TBH I think that I'm getting http://www.microcenter.com/single_pr...uct_id=0292272 I am in the same position as you but I live near a Microcenter with 3.5% tax... 145$ after MIR and easy RMA if needed as well as great EVGA support lifetime warranty and step-up program... with EVGA... YOU ARE ALLOWED TO KILL YOUR GPU BY OCing and they will replace it

[Mussels]

it really is an equal choice between the cards. If you get a good 260, it can OC higher - but they cost more, too.

If you can get a better warranty on the EVGA 260 and its closer to you (easier to return) - go for it.

[n-ster]

The step-up program is awesome too

[DanishDevil]

Originally Posted by n-ster

3.5% tax

I hate you. We're up at 9.75%.

[n-ster]

It's 7% but idk why it's just 3.5% at that MC

[Kursah]

It is (step-up, n-ster's post a couple above), I wasted mine on going from the 192sp to the 216sp for the cost of shipping, I can't complain though. My GTX has been an amazing card, in fact it's been the only card to stay in my rig for over 1 year since my ATI 9600 Pro! That's saying something!

[SirJangly]

Is the 260 worth a $40 difference? 100 for the 4870 compared to 140 for the 260, both second hand obviously

[n-ster]

150$ new gtx 260 shouldn't be hard to find... and if it is EVGA I hate second hand cards.... but obviously a 4870 1gb at 100$ I would jump on 512mb isn't so good with 1920x1080 or x1200

[Kursah]

Originally Posted by SirJangly

Is the 260 worth a $40 difference? 100 for the 4870 compared to 140 for the 260, both second hand obviously

At this point that's something you need to decide, is it worth $40 more to YOU? I think you need to do some research and see if you want what the GTX provides or if you want what the cheaper 4870 provides. Both have matured drivers, good support, revisions to sort the bugs out, etc. That's kind of a vague question, I see why you're asking it, but with the wealth of knowlege already out there, the best thing you can do right now is search through threads and see what others liked and disliked, read some reviews, pro and consumer, give yourself another day or two to make a decision..so that way you make the right one.

To me the GTX was worth it back then, that was about the same price difference in mid-late July 08, though I snaked a hell of a deal outta newegg for my GTX back then...which evened out the playing field. It's still worth it to me, though if that had not panned out, I'm sure I'd be just as content right now with an HD4870/4890 installed. Like I said before you won't lose out either way, what resolution are you planning on gaming @ anyways?

DO SOME RESEARCH MAN! Search threads here and hit up google for a bit, give some others time to post here with their experiences, don't rush your deicision. You keep asking these questions and it's gonna get the flames a rollin! Well it might not, but it's gotten to that point in many other threads.

[SirJangly]

I will do research Thanks guys. I will be playing at 1440x900 99% of the time, and maybe bring it to the loft once in a while for 1080p gaming on the 40" lcd.