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
Putting this PhysX Business to Rest
Let me put things in perspective. Remember our Radeon HD 4870/4850 article that went up last year? It was a straight crown-robbing on ATI’s part, NVIDIA had no competitively priced response at the time.
About two hours before the NDA lifted on the Radeon HD 4800 series we got an urgent call from NVIDIA. The purpose of the call? To attempt to persuade us to weigh PhysX and CUDA support as major benefits of GeForce GPUs. A performance win by ATI shouldn’t matter, ATI can’t accelerate PhysX in hardware and can’t run CUDA applications.
The argument NVIDIA gave us was preposterous. The global economy was weakening and NVIDIA cautioned us against recommending a card that in 12 months would not be the right choice because new titles supporting PhysX and new CUDA applications would be coming right around the corner.
The tactics didn’t work obviously, and history showed us that despite NVIDIA’s doomsday warnings - Radeon HD 4800 series owners didn’t live to regret their purchases. Yes, the global economy did take a turn for the worst, but no - NVIDIA’s PhysX and CUDA support hadn’t done anything to incite buyer’s remorse for anyone who has purchased a 4800 series card. The only thing those users got were higher frame rates. (Note that if you did buy a Radeon HD 4870/4850 and severely regretted your purchase due to a lack of PhysX/CUDA support, please post in the comments).
This wasn’t a one time thing. NVIDIA has delivered the same tired message at every single opportunity. NVIDIA’s latest attempt was to punish those reviewers who haven’t been sold on the PhysX/CUDA messages by not sending them GeForce GTS 250 cards for review. The plan seemed to backfire thanks to one vigilant Inquirer reporter.
More recently we had our briefing for the GeForce GTX 275. The presentation for the briefing was 53 slides long, now the length wasn’t bothersome, but let’s look at the content of the slides:
| Slides About... | Number of Slides in NVIDIA's GTX 275 Presentation |
| The GeForce GTX 275 | 8 |
| PhysX/CUDA | 34 |
| Miscellaneous (DX11, Title Slides, etc...) | 11 |
You could argue that NVIDIA truly believes that PhysX and CUDA support are the strongest features of its GPUs. You could also argue that NVIDIA is trying to justify a premium for its much larger GPUs rather than having to sell them as cheap as possible to stand up to an unusually competitive ATI.
NVIDIA’s stance is that when you buy a GeForce GPU, it’s more than just how well it runs games. It’s about everything else you can run on it, whether that means in-game GPU accelerated PhysX or CUDA applications.
Maybe we’ve been wrong this entire time. Maybe instead of just presenting you with bar charts of which GPU is faster we should be penalizing ATI GPUs for not being able to run CUDA code or accelerate PhysX. Self reflection is a very important human trait, let’s see if NVIDIA is truly right about the value of PhysX and CUDA today.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
294 Comments
View All Comments
evilsopure - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Update: I guess Anand was making his updates while I was making my post, so the "marginal leader at this new price point of $250" line is gone and the Final Words actually now reflect my own personal conclusion above.Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
I've updated the conclusion, we agree :)-A
SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
You agree now that NVidia has moved their driver to the 2650 rez to win, since for months on end, you WHINED about NVidia not winning at the highest rez, even though it took everyting lower.So of COURSE, now is the time to claim 2650 doesn't matter much, and suddenly ROOT for RED at lower resolutions.
It Nvidia screws you out of cards again, I certainly won't be surprised, because you definitely deserve it.
Thanks anyway for changing Derek's 6 month plus long mindset where only the highest resolution mattered, as he had been ranting and red raving how wonderful they were.
That is EXACTLY WHY his brain FARTED, and he declared NVidia the top dog - it's how he's been doing it for MONTHS.
So good job there, you BONEHEAD - you finally caught the bias, just when the red rooster cards FAILED at that resolution.
Look in the mirror - DUMMY - maybe you can figure it out.
7Enigma - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Check the article again. Anand edited it and it is now very clear and concise.7Enigma - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Bah, internet lag. Ya got there first.... :)sublifer - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
As I predicted elsewhere, they probably should have named this new card the GTX 281. In almost every single benchmark and resolution it beats the 280. In one case it even beat the 285 somehow./Gripe
That said, Go AMD! I wanna check other sites and see if they benched with the card highly over-clocked. One site got 950 core and 1150 memory easily but they didn't include it on the graphs :(
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Hey guys, I just wanted to chime in with a few fixes:1) I believe Derek used the beta Catalyst driver that ATI gave us with the 4890, not the 8.12 hotfix. I updated the table to reflect this.
2) Power consumption data is now in the article as well, 2nd to last page.
3) I've also updated the conclusion to better reflect the data. What Derek was trying to say is that the GTX 275 vs. 4890 is more of a wash at 2560 x 1600, which it is. At lower than 2560 x 1600 resolutions, the 4890 is the clear winner, losing only a single test.
Thank you for all the responses :)
Take care,
Anand
7Enigma - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Thank you Anand for the update and the article changes. I think that will quell most of the comments so far (mine included).Could you possibly comment on the temps posted earlier in the comments section? My question is whether there are significant changes with the fan/heatsink between the stock 4870 and the 4890. The idle and load temps of the 4890 are much lower, especially when the higher frequency is taken into consideration.
Also a request to describe the differences between the 4890 and the 4870 (several comments allude to a respin that would account for the higher clocks, lower temp, different die size).
Thank you again for all of your hard work (both of you).
Warren21 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Yeah, I would also second a closer comparison between RV790 and RV770, or at least mention it. It's got new power phases, different VRM (7-phase vs 5-phase respectively), slightly redesigned core (AT did mention this) and features a revised HS/F.VooDooAddict - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
I was very happy to see the PhysX details. I'd started worrying I might be missing out with my 4870. It's clear now that I'm not missing out on PhysX, but might be missing out on some great encoding performance wiht CUDA.I'll be looking forward to your SLI / Crossfire followup. Hoping to see some details about peformance with ultra high Anti-Aliasing that's only available with SLI/Crossfire. I used to run Two 4850s and enjoyed the high-end Edge Antialiasing. Unfortunetly the pair of 4850's were a too much heat in a tiny shuttle case so I had to switch out to a 4870.
Your review reinforced something that I'd been feeling about the 4800s. There isn't much to complain about when running 1920x1200 or lower with modest AA. They seem well positioned for most gamers out there. For those out there with 30" screens (or lusting after them, like myself)... while the GTX280/285 has a solid edge, one really needs SLI/Crossfire to drive 30" well.