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
CUDA - Oh there’s More
Oh I’m not done. Other than PhysX, NVIDIA is stressing CUDA as another huge feature that no other GPU maker on the world has.
For those who aren’t familiar, CUDA is a programming interface to NVIDIA hardware. Modern day GPUs are quite powerful, easily capable of churning out billions if not a trillion instructions per second when working on the right dataset. The problem is that harnessing such power is a bit difficult. NVIDIA put a lot of effort into developing an easy to use interface to the hardware and eventually it evolved into CUDA.
Now CUDA only works on certain NVIDIA GPUs and certainly won’t talk to Larrabee or anything in the ATI camp. Both Intel and ATI have their own alternatives, but let’s get back to CUDA for now.
The one area that GPU computing has had a tremendous impact already is the HPC market. The applications there lent themselves very well to GPU programming and thus we see incredible CUDA penetration there. What NVIDIA wants however is CUDA in the consumer market, and that’s a little more difficult.
The problem is that you need a compelling application and the first major one we looked at was Elemental’s Badaboom. The initial release of Badaboom fell short of the mark but over time it became a nice tool. While it’s not the encoder of choice for people looking to rip Blu-ray movies, it’s a good, fast way of getting your DVDs and other videos onto your iPod, iPhone or other portable media player. It only works on NVIDIA GPUs and is much faster than doing the same conversion on a CPU if you have a fast enough GPU.
The problem with Badaboom was that, like GPU accelerated PhysX, it only works on NVIDIA hardware and NVIDIA isn’t willing to give away NVIDIA GPUs to everyone in the world - thus we have another catch 22 scenario.
Badaboom is nice. If you have a NVIDIA GPU and you want to get DVD quality content onto your iPod, it works very well. But spending $200 - $300 on a GPU to run a single application just doesn’t seem like something most users would be willing to do. NVIDIA wants the equation to work like this:
Badaboom -> You buy a NVIDIA GPU
But the equation really works like this:
Games (or clever marketing) -> You buy a NVIDIA GPU -> You can also run Badaboom
Now if the majority of applications in the world required NVIDIA GPUs to run, then we’d be dealing in a very different environment, but that’s not reality in this dimension.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
294 Comments
View All Comments
johnjames - Monday, May 18, 2009 - link
I don't get it, I started reading this review and decided to get a 4890, then I read the following reviews:[url]http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=7...[/url]
[url]http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/04/...[/url]
[url]http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1539&pageI...[/url]
[url]http://www.dailytech.com/422009+Daily+Hardware+Rev...[/url]
[url]http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-275-revi...[/url]
[url]http://www.legitreviews.com/article/944/15/[/url]
[url]http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_3d_...[/url]
[url]http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canu...[/url]
[url]http://hothardware.com/Articles/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX...[/url]
[url]http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/nvidia-gtx-275-...[/url]
[url]http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_gtx...[/url]
[url]http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=684&type=...[/url]
And they all state the GTX 275 gives a lot more fps in all games bar Grid.
genetix - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link
This is actually really funny you mention multiple sites. Since it's pretty hard to find an site these days which actually doesn't review/preview without sponsors. Meaning lean to one side to other is pretty simplistic just need to review right games and voila either can win. Lol, looking ATI videos damn those are so well selected that damn.We are definedly getting back to 80s where games where made to GPU. Not to all. The funny thing is even our so trusted Benchmarks like any Futuremark production fakes the results of GPUs. Their so called ORB is pretty far from reality what the hardware is really capable.
Asianman - Tuesday, June 16, 2009 - link
most of those use either NV biased games or most likely didn't upgrade the 4890's drivers. All reviews show that 4890 loses its initial advantage at higher resolutions, and the fact that it is now much cheaper. Take your pick, you'd get good value either way.Patrick Wolf - Sunday, August 2, 2009 - link
Well the 4890 isn't exactly kicking the 275's butt here.Let me break it down:
Age of Conan: 0-3 fps difference. It's a wash
CoD: WaW: 275 is at or above 60 fps on all resolutions, beats 4890 at 2560. 275 wins.
Crysis Warhead: 0-2 fps difference. It's a wash.
Fallout 3: 4890 wins.
Far Cry 2: 0-2 fps difference. It's a wash.
Left 4 Dead: Again, 275 is at or above 60 fps on all resolutions, beats 4890 at 2560. 275 wins.
Grid: 4890 wins.
That's 2 for nvidia, 2 for ATI. And on COD, Crysis, Far Cry, and L4D the 4890 wins at 1680 and 1920, then at 2560 the 275 suddenly pulls ahead? That's supposed to make sense? Not to mention both drivers used were beta. And the 185.65 drivers have been pulled from nvidia's archives.
pinguw - Friday, April 17, 2009 - link
yes, you said the one that is getting the benefit are the end user, but I think you have a short vision, because when things getting cheapper means we have more chance to get lower quality product. for example, the GTX260 that I bought several month a go, I can see that the image was worse than the 8800GTS that I had 2 years. At beggining I thought it was a defect so I changed other one and other brand and had the same result. so I say, instead of fighting for price, why dont they just make a better product?? lowering the price would just get our product worse and worse, like most of the product sold in US are now made in China... and then everybody are complaining about the product is bad... that is poisoned etc, what a joke what do you expect when the price go down? the answer is easy to get right? So I would suggest you stopping saing the one is getting the benefit are the users, what a brainless commentjoeysfb - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link
Something is not right here, are you linking the lowering of product quality to ficere competition???That's why people read reviews, comments from Neweggs, Amazons... to find out the user experience before buying a desired product...
Almost everythings is made in china now...like it or not.
8KCABrett - Thursday, April 16, 2009 - link
Those of us that buy the latest hardware to fly our flight sims have been pretty much left to using the outdated Tom's Hardware charts (which still show the 8800GTS being the fastest card around). I would love to know how the Q9650s and i7s are doing in FSX since the service packs, and it would be great to learn if the GTX 260/280s and now the refreshes are still slower than an 8800GTS in those sims. . .not to mention the abysmal performance of ATI cards! Has anyone found such a review anywhere?joeysfb - Friday, April 17, 2009 - link
just stick to 8800GTS then (money saved)... besides there not many sim titles these days.BikeDude - Friday, April 17, 2009 - link
Stick with the 8800GTS?I do not think you realize the problem. A year ago, FSX ate all the hardware you could throw at it.
FSX is a very difficult animal to feed.
It loves fast CPUs, but it also needs a fast GPU. Unfortunately, as was pointed out, there exists few recent comparisons. It is not easy figuring out the correct hw balance for FSX, since few includes it in a review.
Comparing dozens of FPS games is pointless. They perform similar. There are some small differences, but to evaluate a given card, you don't have to review that many games. FSX however poses some unique challenges, and deserves some attention.
Oh... I'd also like to know which of these cards will play nicely with HD video.
8KCABrett - Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - link
Well, every now and then I like to have a little shooter fun, and the GTS is certainly lagging behind in the new titles.I'm currently beta testing a new sim and it really utilizes the GPU which is nice to see, but my 8800GTS limits me quite a lot, and it's also nicely multi-threaded. I decided it's time to update my system, and really have nothing to guide me. Is ATI still really weak in sims? Have the GTX 280s gotten any better with the recent drivers? What about SP2 in FSX? I just don't have any source of this info, and I've looked everywhere for a legit source.
I've got a GTX 285 on the way and will just end up doing my own testing since that's apparently the only way to get the info.
There are hundreds of review sites out there posting these same four or five titles in their benchmarks and not a single one that includes any of the flight sims, even the new releases. I know sims are a niche market, but flight simmers are left to test for themselves, and they use what is perhaps one of the more demanding titles out there! My complaint isn't directed at Anandtech per se, I favor this site and have seen and appreciated the helpfulness of Gary Key time and again, especially over at the Abit forums, I just wish that Anandtech could employ their testing discipline in titles that really do need a legit place to evaluate them. It could really be a benefit to many people that really aren't catered to at all currently.
OK. . .back to lurking.