[newzhunter]

ATi 4870X2 CFX Setup

CPU : i7 965 oc 4.2G
MB : ASUS X58 R2E
RAM : A DATA DDR3-2000 8 8 8 21 1T Tri-Channel
GFX : ATi 4870x2 CFX oc 832/1050










NV GTX295 QSLI Setup

CPU : i7 965 oc 4.2G
MB : ASUS X58 R2E
RAM : A DATA DDR3-2000 8 8 8 21 1T Tri-Channel
GFX : GTX295 QSLI oc 690~705 / 1250

[TalTara]

Doesn't mean anything about game performance.. 3DMark is known to like better SLI and with the PHYSX on its not actualy fair to compare.. better wait for game benches to see clearer the performance differences.

[Kimofil]

Originally Posted by TalTara

Doesn't mean anything about game performance.. 3DMark is known to like better SLI and with the PHYSX on its not actualy fair to compare.. better wait for game benches to see clearer the performance differences.

This test done without PhysX.
Game test already published in Web, GTX295 destroys 4870X2.

[hwmook]

Originally Posted by Kimofil

This test done without PhysX.
Game test already published in Web, GTX295 destroys 4870X2.

I can tell you are a nvidia boy.

[Megalord]

Do you people actually "play" 3dmark?

[brian.ca]

I honestly wouldn't trust any early tests... If Nv is pushing a product before it's out (should be about 2 weeks till release now no?) it's probably to put some doubt in the minds of anyone that might otherwise be looking to buy an ATI alternative. If this thing "destroyed" the 4870 X2 I'm sure Nv would be handing it out to reviewers left and right to get the message out. Yet reviews are only showing up on a handful of sites and in those cases missing some benchmarks while at least one site has been claiming that Nv was limiting what they could benchmark with the new cards.

I'd rather wait until the reviews are available on most sites and they're allowed to test it as they see fit. I wouldn't doubt that this might be faster than the 4870 X2 but I definately doubt it's as clear cut as some fanboys are making it out to be.

[eternalkp]

i have 3Dmark and it doesn't mean anything. just an application to estimate the performance but doesn't mean it represent all the games.

i hate nvidia cheap tactic of 295 early announcement to slower the flow sale of the 4870x2. i am an nvidia gpu (8800gts g92) owner and appreciate the 4870x2 because nvidia has to lower their prices. remember how 8800 ultra cost $800?

[Nuker_]

Originally Posted by Kimofil

This test done without PhysX.
Game test already published in Web, GTX295 destroys 4870X2.

Hmm, where are these tests where gtx295 'destroys' hd4870x2? From what I've seen, I'd say it's marginally better, you would not be able to tell the difference (possibly if you take micro-stutter into account).

[Kimofil]

Originally Posted by Nuker_

Hmm, where are these tests where gtx295 'destroys' hd4870x2? From what I've seen, I'd say it's marginally better, you would not be able to tell the difference (possibly if you take micro-stutter into account).

Better perfomance, lover power consumption and lower noise level.
Easily destroys 4870X2 at all.

[Kozato]

I would love to see a more neutral comparison of the 2 cards. But hey, with the GTX295 coming, all the more you should get 4870x2, since 4870x2 prices will drop.

[-73H_64M3R-]

Originally Posted by Kimofil

Better perfomance, lover power consumption and lower noise level.
Easily destroys 4870X2 at all.

wow how you know?

[brian.ca]

Originally Posted by Kimofil

Better perfomance, lover power consumption and lower noise level.
Easily destroys 4870X2 at all.

Come on, really...

Admittably I haven't looked too hard but so far is seems only a few sites have reviewed this thing so far. A few of the reviews I've seen so far are from sites I've never heard of, or only hear from when a new card is out. And also, of the sites that have reported on it, there has been mention that Nv is imposing restrictions on how it's tested (this could explain why more sites haven't done reviews). Bittech in particular listed these restrictions here;

* Top 5 Games benchmarks only*
* Plus one other title of their choosing
* No other benchmarks period
* No acoustic measurements
* No power measurements
* No PhysX testing or benchmarks

*According to another site (Hardware-infos here) these games are choosen by Nvidia and consist of: Call of Duty 5, Dead Space, Fallout 3, Far Cry 2 and Left 4 Dead.

So lets see now... we're to believe it operates at a lower noise (though it's currently not allowed to be tested), has lower power consumption (though this is not allowed to be tested either), and performs better (as tested in 5 titles chosen by the company making and selling the product + 1 other title)?

I'd echo -73H_64M3R-'s sentiments of "How do you know?" when 2/3rds of the claims you made most likely haven't been tested by reputable sites (as Nvidia doesn't seem to be allowing them to be), and the 3rd is most likely skewed to Nv's favor (we all know some games will favor Nv or ATI cards - do you really think Nv is going to tell the reviewers dependent on them to supply the cards well before other sites can get them to benchmark games that favor ATI setups?).

Again I'll reiterate what I said before... I'll wait till more (and more reputable) have done reviews where Nv isn't in a position to impose restrictions on them. I won't be suprised if Nv's X2 betters ATI's X2 but I really doubt it will "easily destroy" it (if it was that good do you think Nv would be 1- so tight with the testing restrictions effectively limiting it's publicity before the holiday season? 2- selling it so cheaply?) and am guessing it will probably be only marginally better / go back and forth with the ATI x2 depending on the game.

[Smith]

I'm afraid GTX295 will be destroyed by 40nm HD4870X2....



I got a feeling there will be a 40nm revision...

[shard]

It is a two edged sword when giving out hardware to be reviewed. Give the reviewer too many rules and guidelines and you are accused of trying to control the review, give them no guidelines and you run the risk of having a pro competitor site make your product look bad by running benchmarks that are more favorable to your competitor.

At the moment, the previews do seem a little controlled to me. As a consumers I will just have to wait for more reviews and benchmarks before making a decision.

P.S.
Who am I kidding? AMD or Nvidia, I will buy them anyway no matter what the reviews say

[shard]

Originally Posted by y eye

and not one reference to Quad SLI except in the title...

There is no Quad SLI. no driver support, no scaling, no nothing.

If someone would kindly point to a driver or source then I could go away peacefully and happy. Until then this thread is declared another newz rumor, fake.

how many is that in a row newz? three or four?

In the past year, this forum has been filled with fan boys. Expect alot more threads like this.