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 Widespread Support Fallacy
NVIDIA acquired Ageia, they were the guys who wanted to sell you another card to put in your system to accelerate game physics - the PPU. That idea didn’t go over too well. For starters, no one wanted another *PU in their machine. And secondly, there were no compelling titles that required it. At best we saw mediocre games with mildly interesting physics support, or decent games with uninteresting physics enhancements.
Ageia’s true strength wasn’t in its PPU chip design, many companies could do that. What Ageia did that was quite smart was it acquired an up and coming game physics API, polished it up, and gave it away for free to developers. The physics engine was called PhysX.
Developers can use PhysX, for free, in their games. There are no strings attached, no licensing fees, nothing. Now if the developer wants support, there are fees of course but it’s a great way of cutting down development costs. The physics engine in a game is responsible for all modeling of newtonian forces within the game; the engine determines how objects collide, how gravity works, etc...
If developers wanted to, they could enable PPU accelerated physics in their games and do some cool effects. Very few developers wanted to because there was no real install base of Ageia cards and Ageia wasn’t large enough to convince the major players to do anything.
PhysX, being free, was of course widely adopted. When NVIDIA purchased Ageia what they really bought was the PhysX business.
NVIDIA continued offering PhysX for free, but it killed off the PPU business. Instead, NVIDIA worked to port PhysX to CUDA so that it could run on its GPUs. The same catch 22 from before existed: developers didn’t have to include GPU accelerated physics and most don’t because they don’t like alienating their non-NVIDIA users. It’s all about hitting the largest audience and not everyone can run GPU accelerated PhysX, so most developers don’t use that aspect of the engine.
Then we have NVIDIA publishing slides like this:
Indeed, PhysX is one of the world’s most popular physics APIs - but that does not mean that developers choose to accelerate PhysX on the GPU. Most don’t. The next slide paints a clearer picture:
These are the biggest titles NVIDIA has with GPU accelerated PhysX support today. That’s 12 titles, three of which are big ones, most of the rest, well, I won’t go there.
A free physics API is great, and all indicators point to PhysX being liked by developers.
The next several slides in NVIDIA’s presentation go into detail about how GPU accelerated PhysX is used in these titles and how poorly ATI performs when GPU accelerated PhysX is enabled (because ATI can’t run CUDA code on its GPUs, the GPU-friendly code must run on the CPU instead).
We normally hold manufacturers accountable to their performance claims, well it was about time we did something about these other claims - shall we?
Our goal was simple: we wanted to know if GPU accelerated PhysX effects in these titles was useful. And if it was, would it be enough to make us pick a NVIDIA GPU over an ATI one if the ATI GPU was faster.
To accomplish this I had to bring in an outsider. Someone who hadn’t been subjected to the same NVIDIA marketing that Derek and I had. I wanted someone impartial.
Meet Ben:
I met Ben in middle school and we’ve been friends ever since. He’s a gamer of the truest form. He generally just wants to come over to my office and game while I work. The relationship is rarely harmful; I have access to lots of hardware (both PC and console) and games, and he likes to play them. He plays while I work and isn't very distracting (except when he's hungry).
These past few weeks I’ve been far too busy for even Ben’s quiet gaming in the office. First there were SSDs, then GDC and then this article. But when I needed someone to play a bunch of games and tell me if he noticed GPU accelerated PhysX, Ben was the right guy for the job.
I grabbed a Dell Studio XPS I’d been working on for a while. It’s a good little system, the first sub-$1000 Core i7 machine in fact ($799 gets you a Core i7-920 and 3GB of memory). It performs similarly to my Core i7 testbeds so if you’re looking to jump on the i7 bandwagon but don’t feel like building a machine, the Dell is an alternative.
I also setup its bigger brother, the Studio XPS 435. Personally I prefer this machine, it’s larger than the regular Studio XPS, albeit more expensive. The larger chassis makes working inside the case and upgrading the graphics card a bit more pleasant.
My machine of choice, I couldn't let Ben have the faster computer.
Both of these systems shipped with ATI graphics, obviously that wasn’t going to work. I decided to pick midrange cards to work with: a GeForce GTS 250 and a GeForce GTX 260.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
294 Comments
View All Comments
papapapapapapapababy - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Is the quality of the drivers. ATI. Call me when: A) you fix your broken drivers. B) Decide to finally ditch that bloated Microsoft Visual C++ just so i can have the enormous privilege of using your- also terrible and also bloated- CCC panel. c) Stop pouting my pc with your useless extra services. Until then 'll carry on with NVIDIA. Thanks. > Happy- nvidia- user (and frustrated ex-ATI costumer)josh6079 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
The quality of drivers can be argued either way and the negative connotations associated with "Drivers" and "ATi" are all but ancient concerns in the single GPU arena.papapapapapapapababy - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
BS. I have a pretty beefy pc, that doesn't mean im going to stop demanding for efficiency when it comes to memory usage and to reduce the shear amount of stupid services required to run a simple application. This are all FACTS about Ati. But hey, you are free to use vista, buy ATI and end up with a system that is inferior and slower than mine.( performance and feature wise)btw, to all the people claiming that cuda and physics are gimmicks... Give me a fn break! U Hypocrites. This cards ARE HUGE GIMMICKS! BEHOLD he MEGA POWAAR! For what? Crysis? Thats just ONE GAME. ONE. UNO. 1. Then what?... Console ports. At the end of the day 99.9% of games today are console ports. The fact is, you don't need this monstrosities in order to run that console crap. Trust me, you may get a boner comparing 600 fps vs 599, but the rest of the - sane- people here, dsnt give a rat ass, expectantly when the original - console game- barely runs at 30fps to begin with.
SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
The red roosters cannot face reality my friend. They are insane as you point out.cuda, physx, badaboom, the vreveal, the mirrors edge that addicted anand, none of it matters to red roosters - the excessive heat at idle from ati - also thrown out with the bathwater, endless driver issues, forget it - no forced multi gpu - nmevermind, no gamer profiles built into the driver for 100 popular games that nvidia has - forget it - better folding performance, forget it -NOT EVEN CURING CANCER MATTERS WHEN A RED ROOSTER FANBOI IS YAKKING ALONG THAT THEY HAVE NO BIAS.
Buddy, be angry, as you definitely deserve to be - where we got so many full of it liars is beyond me, but I suspect the 60's had something to do with it. Perhaps it's their tiny nvidia assaulted wallets - and that chip on their shoulder is just never going away.
I see someone mentioned Nvidia "tortured" the reviewers. LOL
hahahaahahahahahahaaa
There is no comparison... here's one they just hate:
The top ati core, without ddr5, and neutered for the lower tier, is the 4830.
The top nvd core, without ddr5, and neutered for the lower tier, is the 260/192.
Compare the 260/192 to the 4830 - and you'll see the absolute STOMPING it takes.
In fact go up to the 4850, no ddr5 - and it's STILL a kicking to proud of.
Now what would happen if NVidia put ddr5 on it's HATED G92 "rebrand" core ? LOL We both know - the 9800gtx+ and it's flavors actually competes equivalently with the 4850 - if Nvidia put ddr5 on it, it WOULD BE A 4870 .
Now, that G80/G92/G92b "all the same" according to the raging red roosters who SCREAM rebranded - is SEVERAL YEARS OLD nvidia technology... that - well - is the same quality as the current top core ati has produced.
So ATI is 2 years behind on core - luckily they had the one company that was making the dddr5 - to turn that 4850 into a 4870 - same core mind you!
So, the red roosters kept screaming for a GT200 "in the lower mid range" --- they kept whining nvidia has to do it - as if the 8800/9800 series wasn't there.
The real reason of course, would be - it could prove to them, deep down inside, that the GT200 "brute force" was really as bad or worse than the 770 core - bad enough that they could make something with it as lowly as the 4830...
Ahh, but it just hasn't happened - that's what the 2 year old plus rebrand of nvidia is for - competing with the ati core that doesn't have the ddr5 on it.
Well, this reality has been well covered up by the raging red rooster fanboys for quite some time. They are so enraged, and so deranged, and so filled with endless lies and fudging, that they just simply missed it - or drove it deep within their subconscoius, hoping they would never fully, conscoiusly realize it.
Well, that's what I'm here for ! :)
To spread the good word, the word of TRUTH.
josh6079 - Friday, April 3, 2009 - link
I just came from using Cat 9's to 182+'s when I upgraded to nVidia.The "efficiency when it comes to memory usage" is a non-issue -- especially on a "beefy pc."
The windows task manager is not a benchmark leading to conclusive comparisons regarding quality. My Nvidia GPU can (and has) occupied more memory, especially when I utilize nHancer so as to tap the super-sampling capabilities.
Also, it's something to note that nVidia's latest driver download is 77.0 MB in size, yet ATi's latest is only 38.2 MB.
papapapapapapapababy - Saturday, April 4, 2009 - link
1) Nhancer is just an optional utility, optional. IF want to check the gpu temps i just use gpuz, or everest, if i want to overclock i just use rivaturner, for the rest i have the nvidia control panel.The ccc, not only is a bloated crap, it also requires Ms NET framework, and spawns like 45 extra services running non stop ALL THE TIME, clogging my pc, and the thing dsnt even work! GREAT WORK ATI! CCC is stupidly slow and broken. Se, i dont need a massive mega all in one solution that doesn't work and runs like ass.
2) YOUR Nvidia GPU. YOUR. Thats the key word, here. Your fault. Just like that windows task manager of yours, it seems to me you just didnt know how to use that nvidia gpu . And you need that knowledge in order to form conclusive comparisons regarding efficiency.
3) i made a gif, just for you. here. try no to hurt yourself reading it.
http://i39.tinypic.com/5ygu91.jpg">http://i39.tinypic.com/5ygu91.jpg
3) upgrade your adsl? btw the nvidia driver includes the extra functionality, that ati dsnt even have. ( and hint, it doesn't pollute your pc!)
tamalero - Sunday, April 5, 2009 - link
sorry to bust your bubble, but your screenshots is no proof, its clear you removed a LOT OF PROCESSES just to take the screenshot, how about if you take the FULL desktop screenshot that shows the nvidia panel loaded?because it doesnt seem to be in the process list.
also you're liying, I got an ATI 3870. and I only got 3 processes of ATI, one of them being the "AI" tool for game optimizations(using the latest drivers).
and I agree with Anandtech for first time ever, PhysX is just not ready for the "big thing"
most of the things they bloat are just "tech demos" or very weak stuff, Mirrors Edge's PhysX in other hand does show indeed add a lot of graphical feel.
and funny you mention framework, because a lot of new games and programs NOW NEED the framework fundation, or at least the C++ redistribuitable groups.
also lately I've been reading a lot of fuzz related to the 275's optomizations, wich in many games forces games to use less AA levels than the chosen ones. and thus giving the "edge" to the 275 vs the 4890. (MSAA vs TRSS)
I suppose again NVidia as been playing the dirty way.
and its gets annoying how Nvidia as been doing that for quite a bit to keep the dumb thing of "opening a can of whoop ass"
papapapapapapapababy - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
"you removed a LOT OF PROCESSES", dumbass... if its not a necessary service, its turned off REGARDLESS OF THE videocard . maybe you should try to do the same? (lol just 3 ati services, run the ccc and see) btw, if i CHOOSE to use the nvidia control panel, THEN a new nvidia service starts, THEN as soon as I CLOSE THE control panel ( the process disappears from the task manager. THAT 3 ATI SERVICES OF YOURS ARE RUNNING ALL THE FRINGIN TIME, DUMMY, Remaining resident in YOUR memory REGARDLESS IF YOU USE OR NOT THE CCC. AND THEY GET BIGGER, AND BIGGER, AND BIGGER. ALSO YOU HAVE TO USE THE NET CRAP. (EXTRA SERVICES!) AND FINALLY, THE CCC RUNS LIKE ASS. so there, i WIN. YOU LOOSE. END OF STORY.tamalero - Thursday, April 9, 2009 - link
hang on, since when you need the CCC panel to be ON ( Ie, loaded and not in the tray ) to play games?are you a bit dumb?
second, why you didnt filter out the services then?
your screenshot is bull
its almost like you ran WinXP in safe mode just to take the screenshot and claim your "memory superiority".
like I said, show us a full screen that shows the nvidia panel LOADED .
your argument is stupid .
4 Mb of Ram must be a LOT for you? (thats what my ATI driver uses currently on vista X64.. )
btw, theres also an option in ATI side to remove the panel from the tray.
the tray serves a similar function as ATI TOOL ( Ie, fast resolution , color dept and frecuency changes )
play apples with apples if you want to make a smart conversation.
"runs like ass", makes me wonder how old are you, 14 years old?
and my CC runs very fine, thank you!, not a single error.
also, I got all frameworks installed and even when programs loaded, I dont see any "framework" services running, nor application, so please, get your head out of your ass.
you're just like this pseudo SiliconDr who spreads only FUD and insults.
SiliconDoc - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link
Besides all your errors and the corrections issued, it comes down to you claiming " Don't load the software that came with the ATI card because it's a fat bloated pig thqt needs to be gotten rid of".Yes, and most people who want the performance have to do that.
Sad, isn't it ?
You do know you got spanked badly, and used pathetic 3rd grader whines like "~ your screencap is fake" after he had to correct you on it all....
Just keep it shut until you have a valid point - stop removing all doubt.