# Sticky  Graphics Card Ranking



## Anth0789

You guys got to tell me whats new to add on and where should it go...


----------



## Varjo

Pretty sure 3 GTX285s beat 2 295s, also pretty sure that tri fire 4890s beat 2x4870s Also, 4890x2 definitely beats gtx295


----------



## paras

4890x2 isnt even out how can it beat gtx 295?


----------



## DeathTyrant

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anth0789* 
*SLI/Crossfire*
[*]*Geforce GTX295 Quad SLI
[*]Geforce GTX285 Tri SLI
[*]Radeon HD4890 Tri fire
[*]Geforce GTX295 SLI
[*]Radeon HD4890 Crossfire
[*]Radeon HD4870X2 Crossfire
[*]Geforce GTX280 Tri SLI
[*]Geforce GTX 275 Tri SLI
*

I don't quite understand. What is going on here?
If you have 'GTX 295 Quad SLI', then GTX 295 SLI must be the single card, right?
If so, how on earth can it be listed higher than Tri-SLI 280s or 275s?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeathTyrant* 
I don't quite understand. What is going on here?
If you have 'GTX 295 Quad SLI', then GTX 295 SLI must be the single card, right?
If so, how on earth can it be listed higher than Tri-SLI 280s or 275s?

My mistake its fixed!


----------



## jouno53

No idea where a card like this would go, or if you even include non-reference, but where would this be placed?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127433

I'm not sure if MSI is the only one to carry these, but I would suspect they outperform the 4870 1GB at 1080p or higher. What do you guys think? I don't have any benchies to provide.


----------



## sLowEnd

I'm quite sure the 7300GS is a little better than the 6200
(Though I lack benchmarks. They're 2 rarely compared cards.)

The 4750 isn't even out yet and considering how close the 4770 is to the HD4830, I would imagine that when it _does_ come out, it's not better than the 8800GTX

EDIT:Oh and you're missing the HD4350 and HD4550. They're generally slower than the 9500GT it seems. (but usually faster than the 9400GT)

4550 reviews
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4550_passive
http://www.guru3d.com/article/ati-ra...-512mb-review/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/801/
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=15658

Mixed
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/...re/1824_9.html
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3420


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sLowEnd* 
I'm quite sure the 7300GS is a little better than the 6200
(Though I lack benchmarks. They're 2 rarely compared cards.)

The 4750 isn't even out yet and considering how close the 4770 is to the HD4830, I would imagine that when it _does_ come out, it's not better than the 8800GTX

EDIT:Oh and you're missing the HD4350 and HD4550. They're generally slower than the 9500GT it seems. (but usually faster than the 9400GT)

4550 reviews
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4550_passive
http://www.guru3d.com/article/ati-ra...-512mb-review/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/801/
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=15658

Mixed
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/...re/1824_9.html
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3420


Yep thanks for info. Fixed! If something is missing or there is an error let me know.


----------



## TF876

HD 4650 needs to be on there, its above the 8600gts but below the 9600GSO, I think it would probably be faster than the 256mb version of the 3850. so just above i guess. Also I think the 4670 seems to be a little high.

http://www.techspot.com/article/125-...nce/page4.html
and
http://www.techspot.com/review/134-b...dup/page3.html

Also this website is awesome for comparing graphics cards for COD5, Fallout3 and Far Cry 2


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TF876* 
HD 4650 needs to be on there, its above the 8600gts but below the 9600GSO, I think it would probably be faster than the 256mb version of the 3850. so just above i guess. Also I think the 4670 seems to be a little high.

http://www.techspot.com/article/125-...nce/page4.html
and
http://www.techspot.com/review/134-b...dup/page3.html

Also this website is awesome for comparing graphics cards for COD5, Fallout3 and Far Cry 2

Good stuff thanks I updated it.


----------



## sLowEnd

Are you _sure_ the 4890 is better than the 4850X2?

The 4850X2 is essentially 4850 crossfire with more RAM


----------



## gerikoh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sLowEnd* 
Are you _sure_ the 4890 is better than the 4850X2?

The 4850X2 is essentially 4850 crossfire with more RAM

4850x2 is faster than 285 and 4890. gtx275 is faster than gtx280.

3870 is faster than a 9600gt, 2900xt is faster than both cards.

i'm too busy at school to search for the links atm. but post the links sometime soon.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gerikoh* 
4850x2 is faster than 285 and 4890. gtx275 is faster than gtx280.

3870 is faster than a 9600gt, 2900xt is faster than both cards.

i'm too busy at school to search for the links atm. but post the links sometime soon.

Imo the 4890 still outperforms the 4850X2.


----------



## sLowEnd

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anth0789* 
Imo the 4890 still outperforms the 4850X2.

What makes you so sure?
It doesnt.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sLowEnd* 
What makes you so sure?
It doesnt.

The 2GB version does...


----------



## BlackOmega

I was looking at your lists and from what I gather the top is "single" cards. Why wouldn't the dual GPU cards be in the SLI/crossfire catagory? Since technically they _need_ to have sli or crossfire enabled to function. I know for a fact that on a GTX295 if SLI is disabled it does REALLY poorly.
Maybe you should make a whole 'nother catagory for the dual GPU cards.


----------



## j.woody

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon...w-31554-6.html
look at the table, Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart. it gives you a pretty good idea of which card performs better. also the 4850x2 is better than the 4890 *but* performs about the same as a gtx285. And also remeber that a 4850x2 is basically like having 2 cards.


----------



## dcshoejake

http://service.futuremark.com/result...&resultType=19
http://service.futuremark.com/result...&resultType=14
http://service.futuremark.com/result...&resultType=12
http://service.futuremark.com/result...&resultType=10

eVGA GTS 250 1GB

855|2058|1302

Informative post


----------



## akeedthe

whats was wrong with list 4???


----------



## rico2001

Should be:
1. Geforce GTX295 1792MB, 2. Radeon HD4870X2 2GB, 3. Radeon HD4850X2 2GB, 4. Geforce GTX285 2GB, 5. Geforce GTX285 1GB, 6. Radeon HD4850X2 1GB, 7. Radeon HD4890 1GB


----------



## ErBall

I would like to see mobile variants on this list.


----------



## TF876

The 9600gt beats the hd 3870.


----------



## Anth0789

Updated!!! So the GTS 250 1GB goes under GTX 260 Core 216 then?
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...s250_oc/13.htm


----------



## sLowEnd

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ErBall* 
I would like to see mobile variants on this list.

Those are hard to do though

Not a lot of people have them, and there are very few reviews on them, so info is very patchy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anth0789* 
Updated!!! So the GTS 250 1GB goes under GTX 260 Core 216 then?
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...s250_oc/13.htm

If you looked at the actual game benchmarks, you'd see that the 4870 is better than the GTS250.
(It _is_ merely a 9800GTX+ after all.)

Your chart has the GTS250 above the 4870


----------



## Anth0789

Hmm so is there any updates needed to be added or so on?


----------



## TheSandman

my thread is back up









I move to a new place and yall replace me lol, im back and will be checking it daily again for changes

http://www.overclock.net/graphics-ca...-4th-time.html


----------



## Conley

Put in the other thread since this one is apperently the dead one.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Conley* 
Put in the other thread since this one is apperently the dead one.

What its not dead there is no updated lately.


----------



## akeedthe

is this right.... the 4890 crossfire (not TRI fire) beats the GTX 285s in Tri SLI??? if so arent the 285s so heavily overpriced!!!!


----------



## sLowEnd

Quote:


Originally Posted by *akeedthe* 
is this right.... the 4890 crossfire (not TRI fire) beats the GTX 285s in Tri SLI??? if so arent the 285s so heavily overpriced!!!!

Yes the 285's are overpriced, but I don't think crossfire 4890's beat tri 285's


----------



## TheSandman

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anth0789* 
What its not dead there is no updated lately.









thank you for keeping this updated but im back i had to make a move, but my thread is back in service


----------



## Narm

hi !

Just a litlle mistake : the Voodoo4 4500 is better than the Voodoo3 3000.
The VSA100 core is 20% better than Avenger core at the same clock so it is more : Voodoo3 3000<Voodoo3 3500< Voodoo4 4500


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Narm* 
hi !

Just a litlle mistake : the Voodoo4 4500 is better than the Voodoo3 3000.
The VSA100 core is 20% better than Avenger core at the same clock so it is more : Voodoo3 3000<Voodoo3 3500< Voodoo4 4500

Okay fixed!


----------



## TF876

This things needs to be on the 1st page really. =)


----------



## Rayce185

204. *Voodoo3*
205. *Riva TNT2 2000*

Isn't it supposed to be:

204. *Voodoo3** 2000*
205. *Riva TNT2*

I had a V3-2K


----------



## Nautilus

4850X2 1GB outperforms 4890 1GB. This list needs to be fixed.

EDIT: And one more thing: why did you list same cards repeatedly?


----------



## Rayce185

Different memory sizes maybe?

I'm worrying why there is no 8600GTS 256MB version in there though, as I have one


----------



## Afromee

Am i mistaken or is this contradicting the 4th list which is also being updated daily ? How are we suppose to even remotely agree with 2 deferent lists ?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Afromee* 
Am i mistaken or is this contradicting the 4th list which is also being updated daily ? How are we suppose to even remotely agree with 2 deferent lists ?

Well first off the 4th list was not being updated for a while so I asked some people if I should start my own thread and they said "Yes" but now he came back. He can have his thread back if he wants, really I don't care since I have other things to do anyway.


----------



## Afromee

I'm just saying . If the 2 lists were the same , there wouldn't be confusion , but i'm trying to decide between 4890 and the 275 , and in the one list the 275(Rank 5) beats the 4890(Rank 8) and in the other the 4890(Rank 7) the 275(Rank 8) .

// Are you totally sure about the ranking of those 2 cards ?
// Not dising this threat , its great that its made !


----------



## TheSandman

my thread is based on pure meaning no AA or AF settings @ 1680 for newer cards, AA and AF affect preforamnce alot between drivers and pure mode offers the best guess on preformance because AA modes ect dont get enhancements or early bugs where its under preforming. So mine is based on pure, older cards are of course based on pure also but more around 12x10 not 16x10.


----------



## TheSandman

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rayce185* 
204. *Voodoo3*
205. *Riva TNT2 2000*

Isn't it supposed to be:

204. *Voodoo3* *2000*
205. *Riva TNT2*

I had a V3-2K










incorrect the V3 2000 did not out preform the TNT2, the V3 3000 did though but lost to TNT2 Ultra which lost to V3 3500.


----------



## ItsTopher

I'm just wondering what information this list is created from?

And, no 4890 quadfire







...


----------



## Rayce185

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TheSandman* 
incorrect the V3 2000 did not out preform the TNT2, the V3 3000 did though but lost to TNT2 Ultra which lost to V3 3500.

LOL I didn't mean the ranking itself, but the mistake in the naming


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ItsTopher* 
I'm just wondering what information this list is created from?

And, no 4890 quadfire







...

Is there a 4890 Quadfire? If so ill add it.


----------



## Mason92

Not sure but im guessing that 3x9800GTX+ In tri is faster than 8800Ultra in tri

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anth0789* 
Is there a 4890 Quadfire? If so ill add it.

Yes you can quad them


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mason92* 
Not sure but im guessing that 3x9800GTX+ In tri is faster than 8800Ultra in tri

Alright fixed.


----------



## Mason92

I didnt see the G80 8800GTS 320/640mb cards on the chart in sli

make sure that you get the 9800GTX+ SLI before the 8800Ultra SLI as well +1 rep


----------



## Anth0789

Did a little update now there is a list for both ATI and Nvidia by order.


----------



## Ben the OCer

I want to complement Anth0789 on his excellent work! I really love what he's done to the list. He's put much more work into this than any of the previous threads. Keep up the good work.


----------



## sLowEnd

Why is the *Geforce 7600GT 256MB* above the *Geforce 8600GT 256MB* and the *Geforce 7600GTS 256MB*?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sLowEnd*


Why is the *Geforce 7600GT 256MB *above the *Geforce 8600GT 256MB *and the *Geforce 7600GTS 256MB*?


Fixed that. You never heard of 7600GTS:
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/...re/1665_1.html


----------



## ZealotKi11er

You have done a very good work and i would not change a thing, its like you read my mind +rep


----------



## Anth0789

Little update I added the HD4730.


----------



## TheSandman

actully your dead wrong on placement on sevral levels, 8600GT even on launch drivers best the 7900GS, and the 8600GTS bested the 7950GT.

the 7300GT should be lower, it was a tie with the 6600GT, unless your talking the DDR3 card then it was higher than the 7600GS.

the X800GTO2 was a saphire card with 16pp, and would be placed higher than the x800/x850pro.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TheSandman*


actully your dead wrong on placement on sevral levels, 8600GT even on launch drivers best the 7900GS, and the 8600GTS bested the 7950GT.

the 7300GT should be lower, it was a tie with the 6600GT, unless your talking the DDR3 card then it was higher than the 7600GS.

the X800GTO2 was a saphire card with 16pp, and would be placed higher than the x800/x850pro.


Okay got that fixed.


----------



## TheSandman

you also forgot an SLI setup, Voodoo2 SLI


----------



## Rayce185

How is a single 8600GTS better than a single 7950, but in SLI it's vice versa?
Why is the GTX275 bette rin triSLI than the GTX280, but the 280 beats it in SLI?


----------



## Anth0789

Fixed...


----------



## TheSandman

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Rayce185*


How is a single 8600GTS better than a single 7950, but in SLI it's vice versa?
Why is the GTX275 bette rin triSLI than the GTX280, but the 280 beats it in SLI?


 =on&prod[2092]=on]http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/compare,795.html?prod[2082]=on&prod[2092]=on


----------



## Conley

Why is the HD 4850X2 in front of the GTX 285, GTX 275, and HD 4890?

Also, why are the 2GB variants rated higher? They only offer higher performance if you have super high res or lots of AA. Just use one variant of a card, otherwise you'll end up factoring all kinds of specifics in.

EDIT: And GTX 275 SLi/Tri SLi should be ahead of GTX 280 SLi/Tri SLi


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Conley*


Why is the HD 4850X2 in front of the GTX 285, GTX 275, and HD 4890?

Also, why are the 2GB variants rated higher? They only offer higher performance if you have super high res or lots of AA. Just use one variant of a card, otherwise you'll end up factoring all kinds of specifics in.

EDIT: And GTX 275 SLi/Tri SLi should be ahead of GTX 280 SLi/Tri SLi


The 4850X2 1GB is around equal to the GTX 285 and does not beat the 4890 but the 4850X2 2Gb version does.

And for the GTX 275 and GTX 280 they around the same performance so its hard to judge whether which on is on top.


----------



## Conley

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


The 4850X2 1GB is around equal to the GTX 285 and does not beat the 4890 but the 4850X2 2Gb version does.

And for the GTX 275 and GTX 280 they around the same performance so its hard to judge whether which on is on top.


Can you link me to some benchmarks? I kept looking everywhere for some benches where the HD4850X2 beat any of the cards but I couldn't find any.

The only reason the 2GB would beat the HD 4890 when the 1GB does not is, like I said before, from high res or lots of AA. In other benchmarks it doesn't make a difference.

So, what I'm saying is, what's the baseline for these rankings? Is it based on a test of a specific game with 2x AA 16x AF, or what?


----------



## Anth0789

Link:
http://pcgamersera.com/2009/05/4850x2-vs-4890/

And this link:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...uarez-2_4.html

http://www.extra-pc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1551


----------



## Conley

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anth0789* 
Link:
http://pcgamersera.com/2009/05/4850x2-vs-4890/

And this link:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...uarez-2_4.html

http://www.extra-pc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1551

First one doesn't even have benches, and the third one is in a different language, and it only shows synthetics, which I could care less about. The second one shows an HD4890 beating an HD 48*70*X2 at every resolution. Am I missing something?

Pretty sure the HD 4890 & GTX 275 should be ahead of at least the HD 4850X2


----------



## darksideleader

got another one for ya:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...view/page6.asp

but w/e

Chart looks decent. If you got the time, something interesting to make would be a Multi-GPU + Single GPU chart. This way, we can see how up a single videocard can go and also how unworthwhile some multi-gpu setups might end up being.


----------



## KainXS

lol it looks to me like this list is messed up


----------



## RawZ

The 4850X2 2GB is a better card that the GTX 285 (apart from folding) The 1GB version is on par with a GTX 280.


----------



## Jarazon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Link:
http://pcgamersera.com/2009/05/4850x2-vs-4890/

And this link:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...uarez-2_4.html

http://www.extra-pc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1551


None of these justify your current card placement.

The first offers a clearly biased review with no actual testing.

The second shows the 4890 beating the 4870X2 which contradicts your current list (and is rather questionable in itself).

And the third shows only synthetic tests, like Conley mentioned, which don't really matter, and because it's written in Arabic (?) I can't tell if they took any measures to correct for this.


----------



## Sickened1

Im interested in where you found the 4890 QUADfire


----------



## kimosabi

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Jarazon*


None of these justify your current card placement.

The first offers a clearly biased review with no actual testing.

The second shows the 4890 beating the 4870X2 which contradicts your current list (and is rather questionable in itself).

And the third shows only synthetic tests, like Conley mentioned, which don't really matter, and because it's written in Arabic (?) I can't tell if they took any measures to correct for this.


Well if you have good arguments and proof that states otherwise, please post.


----------



## theCanadian

WTH guys my Rage LT 3D Pro is not dead last


----------



## Mgz

9400GT should be lower than 8600GT

source: http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...8600_gt/10.htm
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/...e/1824_11.html
http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f...-3650-a-57719/

so 8600GT should be at 62 instead

also missing X600SE, and i have no idea what rank it is, too old >.<

also 3850 256 should still be better than 4650
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/S...650_OC/26.html


----------



## Anth0789

Updated...


----------



## Chucklez

Nice to see I have a 3rd place card and two 6th place cards









Also dont know if you knew but their now is a 4890 2GB.
Cant find any reviews at the moment but im sure some will come up.


----------



## m|dg3t

Woot lets see how long this thread can last, dang newegg's cancellation of the combo Phenom X4 and HIS 4890, silly 4870 is 12th on the list!


----------



## benyu

4890 > 275 i have to agree with that but the 4890 beats the 4850x2?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chucklez* 
Nice to see I have a 3rd place card and two 6th place cards









Also dont know if you knew but their now is a 4890 2GB.
Cant find any reviews at the moment but im sure some will come up.

Ill wait for reviews to come for the 4890 2GB.


----------



## MintMouse

Do two 4890s crossfire'd really beat two 4870x2s Crossfired and GTX275/280 Tri-SLi'ed?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MintMouse*


Do two 4890s crossfire'd really beat two 4870x2s Crossfired and GTX275/280 Tri-SLi'ed?


Yeah its a mistake its fixed now.


----------



## JKBenchmarks

You can quadfire 4890's?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *JKBenchmarks*


You can quadfire 4890's?


Yes you can.


----------



## Gripen90

Hmm I've watched this getting updated several times, but haven't bothered to add some corrections, but I thought now I might as well do. I pretty much had every single card on the list (80+ graphics cards - from S3 Trio+ to GTX295).

Anyhow to comments:

It baffles me that you rate Radeon 9600Pro over Radeon 9500Pro when every one knows that the Radeon 9500Pro was faster. In fact so fast that it could give Radeon 9700 a run for it money. ATi realized that the Radeon 9500Pro was too fast and too cheap compared to the others in their own line, and therefore we didn't see Radeon 9500Pro in stores for more than 6months before it got replaced by the almost as fast but still not as anti-aliasing strong Radeon 9600Pro. I remembers having Radeon 9500Pro ordered in dec. 02 but first got one in feb. 03 due to supply shortage. *Remember the Radeon 9500Pro had 8x pixelpipelines and the Radeon 9600Pro was crippled to only 4x pixel pipelines*. Increasing the Mhz on core and memory didn't do much help when faced with higher resolutions and anti-aliasing.

Also where is GeForce FX 5200 Ultra ? the card that even beats FX5600 ?

And there's also Radeon 9800Pro 128MB just ranking below the 256MB sibling.

And lastly (sofar) - How could you forget *ATi Rage Fury MAXX *!!! it's just below GeForce 256DDR in performance.


----------



## theCanadian

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Gripen90*


Hmm I've watched this getting updated several times, but haven't bothered to add some corrections, but I thought now I might as well do. I pretty much had every single card on the list (80+ graphics cards - from S3 Trio+ to GTX295).

Anyhow to comments:

It baffles me that you rate Radeon 9600Pro over Radeon 9500Pro when every one knows that the Radeon 9500Pro was faster. In fact so fast that it could give Radeon 9700 a run for it money. ATi realized that the Radeon 9500Pro was too fast and too cheap compared to the others in their own line, and therefore we didn't see Radeon 9500Pro in stores for more than 6months before it got replaced by the almost as fast but still not as anti-aliasing strong Radeon 9600Pro. I remembers having Radeon 9500Pro ordered in dec. 02 but first got one in feb. 03 due to supply shortage. *Remember the Radeon 9500Pro had 8x pixelpipelines and the Radeon 9600Pro was crippled to only 4x pixel pipelines*. Increasing the Mhz on core and memory didn't do much help when faced with higher resolutions and anti-aliasing.

Also where is GeForce FX 5200 Ultra ? the card that even beats FX5600 ?

And there's also Radeon 9800Pro 128MB just ranking below the 256MB sibling.

And lastly (sofar) - How could you forget *ATi Rage Fury MAXX *!!! it's just below GeForce 256DDR in performance.


Epic first post dude. +rep and welcome to OCN.


----------



## Open1Your1Eyes0

GTX280 is better than GTX275. Might want to fix that. Watch out for the color coding the names are reversed I dunno why: http://www.futurelooks.com/zotac-gef...card-review/3/


----------



## mrtn400

Wow, when was there a fourth one?

Well it's nice to see someone actually made a SLI vs. CF list and continually updates the OP.


----------



## m|dg3t

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Gripen90*


Hmm I've watched this getting updated several times, but haven't bothered to add some corrections, but I thought now I might as well do. I pretty much had every single card on the list (80+ graphics cards - from S3 Trio+ to GTX295).

Anyhow to comments:

It baffles me that you rate Radeon 9600Pro over Radeon 9500Pro when every one knows that the Radeon 9500Pro was faster. In fact so fast that it could give Radeon 9700 a run for it money. ATi realized that the Radeon 9500Pro was too fast and too cheap compared to the others in their own line, and therefore we didn't see Radeon 9500Pro in stores for more than 6months before it got replaced by the almost as fast but still not as anti-aliasing strong Radeon 9600Pro. I remembers having Radeon 9500Pro ordered in dec. 02 but first got one in feb. 03 due to supply shortage. *Remember the Radeon 9500Pro had 8x pixelpipelines and the Radeon 9600Pro was crippled to only 4x pixel pipelines*. Increasing the Mhz on core and memory didn't do much help when faced with higher resolutions and anti-aliasing.

Also where is GeForce FX 5200 Ultra ? the card that even beats FX5600 ?

And there's also Radeon 9800Pro 128MB just ranking below the 256MB sibling.

And lastly (sofar) - How could you forget *ATi Rage Fury MAXX *!!! it's just below GeForce 256DDR in performance.


Many forget because its before their time with computers









But I love your first post, not only did I laugh but I was surprised to see a first time poster with so much information!


----------



## Anth0789

Little update...


----------



## Artas1984

There are some BS is this ranking..

X1950XT is quite better than X1900XTX, this is not the case with nvidia, where 7900GTX > 7950GT - EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT!

8800GTS 320 is a joke - in anandtech and xbitlabts it got smacked by X1950XTX in every game above 1600X1200 and in this list it is higher, this can't be right...

HD2900GT, sadly, is another joke, it should be even below X1900XT..

HD4650 - spare me for god sakes, it is a WEAK CARD, 128 bit and DDR2, you have to be FUCin kidding me getting this so high!!!

HD4770 is no way faster than HD4830 and HD4670 & HD3870 DDR3 is no way batter than a HD2900XT.

Fix this now!


----------



## gerikoh

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Artas1984*


There are some BS is this ranking..

X1950XT is quite better than X1900XTX, this is not the case with nvidia, where 7900GTX > 7950GT - EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT!

8800GTS 320 is a joke - in anandtech and xbitlabts it got smacked by X1950XTX in every game above 1600X1200 and in this list it is higher, this can't be right...

HD2900GT, sadly, is another joke, it should be even below X1900XT..

HD4650 - spare me for god sakes, it is a WEAK CARD, 128 bit and DDR2, you have to be FUCin kidding me getting this so high!!!

HD4770 is no way faster than HD4830 and HD4670 & HD3870 DDR3 is no way batter than a HD2900XT.

Fix this now!


ahem


----------



## Artas1984

YE RIGHT, 9400 beats 7900GT, how much more comedy here? 1 GB 9500GT DDR2 does not even beat a 7900GT 256 MB, and 9400?.. You make me sick... Now, the 9500GT 512 MB DDR3 is another thing - as good as a 7900GTX, but 9500GT 1GB DDR2 is weak. Where did you dug this list? X1800XT 512 MB is actually faster than X1950PRO...

8600GTS 512 is no way faster than a 7950GT 512, this so BS..
HD2600PRO is much too high too. This is a sympathy thread for joke cards like 2600/8600 it seems... This can't be right..


----------



## Yogi

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Artas1984*


There are some BS is this ranking..

X1950XT is quite better than X1900XTX, this is not the case with nvidia, where 7900GTX > 7950GT - EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT!

8800GTS 320 is a joke - in anandtech and xbitlabts it got smacked by X1950XTX in every game above 1600X1200 and in this list it is higher, this can't be right...

HD2900GT, sadly, is another joke, it should be even below X1900XT..

HD4650 - spare me for god sakes, it is a WEAK CARD, 128 bit and DDR2, you have to be FUCin kidding me getting this so high!!!

HD4770 is no way faster than HD4830 and HD4670 & HD3870 DDR3 is no way batter than a HD2900XT.

Fix this now!



Quote:



Originally Posted by *Artas1984*


YE RIGHT, 9400 beats 7900GT, how much more comedy here? 1 GB 9500GT DDR2 does not even beat a 7900GT 256 MB, and 9400?.. You make me sick... Now, the 9500GT 512 MB DDR3 is another thing - as good as a 7900GTX, but 9500GT 1GB DDR2 is weak. Where did you dug this list? X1800XT 512 MB is actually faster than X1950PRO...

8600GTS 512 is no way faster than a 7950GT 512, this so BS..
HD2600PRO is much too high too. This is a sympathy thread for joke cards like 2600/8600 it seems... This can't be right..


Do this

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


...
*If you want a cards rank changed you must provide benchmarks or other evidence to back it up. And let me know where it should be on the list.*


Also, does the GTX285 Mars edition count?


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Artas1984*


There are some BS is this ranking..

X1950XT is quite better than X1900XTX, this is not the case with nvidia, where 7900GTX > 7950GT - EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT!

8800GTS 320 is a joke - in anandtech and xbitlabts it got smacked by X1950XTX in every game above 1600X1200 and in this list it is higher, this can't be right...

HD2900GT, sadly, is another joke, it should be even below X1900XT..

HD4650 - spare me for god sakes, it is a WEAK CARD, 128 bit and DDR2, you have to be FUCin kidding me getting this so high!!!

HD4770 is no way faster than HD4830 and HD4670 & HD3870 DDR3 is no way batter than a HD2900XT.

Fix this now!


I'm not sure about your other comments but you are dead wrong about the HD4830 being faster than the HD4770. Just reading some reviews could tell you that: link. Do remember that even though the HD4770 uses a 128-bit bus that it also uses GDDR5 memory. So the memory bandwidth is very close to the HD4830. The main spec that makes the HD4770 faster is the 175MHz higher core clock: link.


----------



## Artas1984

Yes, i thought of HD4830 as of 800 shader version - the 640 shader version, it seems, is about 10 % weaker than HD4770 in most of the games i have seen. Sorry!

Ok, there are still things pissing me off badly:

show me the benchmarks where the HD4650 and HD2900GT actually beat a X1950XTX, because from what i have seen in the net, the X1950XTX is toe to toe with GeForce 8800GTS G80 in every game, and in high resolutions it totally destroys the 8800GTS 320 and is only 15 % behind 8800GTS 640. I also see the HD2900GT loosing even to X1900XT and here it is higher.. What nonsense is this.. Also show me where a GF 9400 and HD4550 beat 7900GT and cards below it. No way!

I also would like someone to show how a ******ed 8600GTS can beat anything in GF 7900 series..









This short bench shows a HD4670 performance in FEAR:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/ati-ra...512mb-review/8

Funny i get more FPS on the _exact_ settings with my previous MSI X1950XTX than HD4670 here, and you want to tell me that a HD4650 is faster than X1950XTX? YOU HAVE TO BE FUCIN KIDDING ME!








The HD4550 is mid-carder, that scores 24 FPS, but is rated higher than a 7900GT, whioch scored 57 in my case..









I am not going to calm down until order in the ratings will be fixed here!!!
Com on guys, this is really funny...


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Artas1984* 
Yes, i thought of HD4830 as of 800 shader version - the 640 shader version, it seems, is about 10 % weaker than HD4770 in most of the games i have seen. Sorry!

Ok, there are still things pissing me off badly:

show me the benchmarks where the HD4650 and HD2900GT actually beat a X1950XTX, because from what i have seen in the net, the X1950XTX is toe to toe with GeForce 8800GTS G80 in every game, and in high resolutions it totally destroys the 8800GTS 320 and is only 15 % behind 8800GTS 640. I also see the HD2900GT loosing even to X1900XT and here it is higher.. What nonsense is this.. Also show me where a GF 9400 and HD4550 beat 7900GT and cards below it. No way!

I also would like someone to show how a ******ed 8600GTS can beat anything in GF 7900 series..









This short bench shows a HD4670 performance in FEAR:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/ati-ra...512mb-review/8

Funny i get more FPS on the _exact_ settings with my previous MSI X1950XTX than HD4670 here, and you want to tell me that a HD4650 is faster than X1950XTX? YOU HAVE TO BE FUCIN KIDDING ME!








The HD4550 is mid-carder, that scores 24 FPS, but is rated higher than a 7900GT, whioch scored 57 in my case..









I am not going to calm down until order in the ratings will be fixed here!!!
Com on guys, this is really funny...

Watch your mouth man! Or ill report you, show me proof and ill be glad to change it.







Whats pissing me off is that you don't have any proof and you acting so immature no offense.


----------



## Artas1984

Take a look at these benchmarks:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...00_gts_320mb/1

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...ce8600gts.html

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975

8800GTS 320 getting totally owned by X1950XTX 512 and 8600GTS 256 getting totally destroyed by X1900XT 256 video cards; in some cases, 8800GTS 640 is even loosing to X1950XTX 512 and 8800GTS 320 is loosing to X1900XT. The benches also show 8600GTS loosing to X1950PRO and 7950GT BIG TIME.

I find it hard to believe after this that a HD4650 and HD2900GT are above X1950XTX, even X1900XT or the fact that 8600GTS is so high.. Also how on earth GF 9400GT and HD4550, HD4350 can beat a X1800XT 512 or a 7900GT 256


----------



## Anth0789

8800GTS vs X1950XTX:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2926&p=4

The 8600GTS 256 does loose to the X1950Pro 256 not sure about the 512 version though.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/H...ilence/28.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4770/28.html


----------



## Artas1984

The techpowerup review just showed and confirmed that HD4650 512 is behind the 9500GT 512, and the 9500GT 512 and 7900GTX/GTO 512 are ahead of 8600GTS 512 for sure.. Therefore, HD4650 should be below X1950XTX, X1950XT, X1900XTX, X1900XT and X1950PRO.

Yes, the HD4770 is ahead of 9800GT and HD4830 with 640 SP's.

And i agree that 8800GTS should be ahead of X1950 cards, it is just that in high resolutions with AA the 8800GTS 320 is a joke and 8800GTS 640 is only slighty leading almost everywhere over X1950XTX.

The problem with HD4550, HD4350, HD4650 is that those cards are so new, that there are no benches against X1900 cards, but you can clearly tell in comparison with other cards, that only the HD4670 is better than X1950XTX or 7900GTX.


----------



## zeltacore

ok this is just screwed up...

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14433/40/1/1/


----------



## mindmyenglish

wah, 4350 is a gaming card? and its faster than 7900gs! really?


----------



## Bastiaan_NL

hmm, i dont see the gtx275 1792mb...








thats the one i have... i dont know what it beats, at least the gtx275 896mb...
and no Geforce 9600GT 1024mb, beats at least the Geforce 9600GT 512MB


----------



## Anth0789

Updated...


----------



## Bastiaan_NL

Geforce GTX295 1792MB
Radeon HD4870X2 2GB
Radeon HD4850X2 2GB
Geforce GTX285 2GB
Radeon HD4890 2GB
Geforce GTX285 1GB
*Geforce GTX 275 1792MB*
Radeon HD4890 1GB
Radeon HD4850X2 1GB
Geforce GTX 280 1GB

as far as i know the gtx275 is on most things better than the gtx280. I cant find the review showing that, but im sure it is somewhere. 
At this review you see that the gtx275 is better than the 4890's and that gtx has got 896mb ram, so the 1792mb ram version is better than the 4890... 
anyways its at least better than the 280.

please someone confirm this, cause i was just checking a lot of reviews... and i never tested this myselve...


----------



## Artas1984

Well. Still BS things to replace -

1) Radeon HD4550 512 and Geforce 9400GT are not faster than Radeon X1800XT 256 and GeForce 7900GT 256..

2) Radeon HD2900GT 256 is between Radeon X1950PRO 512 and X1900XTX 512 - maby even lower. You think of it as _HD class_ with 240 SP's - don't let that fool you!!! Everybody knows it's quite weak..

3) 8800GTS 320 falls behind X1950XT and it's siblings with Mb 512 at highest resolutions almost in all games i have seen in anandtech, xbit, xtreview. Need to show again? 8800GTS is a joke at high res gaming.

4) HD2900XT 512 is better than both HD4670 and HD3870 DDR3, slightly below HD3870 DDR4.

5) X1800XT 256 beats 7900GT 256

6) 8600GT and 7600GT beat HD2600XT and X850XT

Waiting for agreements...


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Artas1984* 
Well. Still BS things to replace -

1) Radeon HD4550 512 and Geforce 9400GT are not faster than Radeon X1800XT 256 and GeForce 7900GT 256..

2) Radeon HD2900GT 256 is between Radeon X1950PRO 512 and X1900XTX 512 - maby even lower. You think of it as _HD class_ with 240 SP's - don't let that fool you!!! Everybody knows it's quite weak..

3) 8800GTS 320 falls behind X1950XT and it's siblings with Mb 512 at highest resolutions almost in all games i have seen in anandtech, xbit, xtreview. Need to show again? 8800GTS is a joke at high res gaming.

4) HD2900XT 512 is better than both HD4670 and HD3870 DDR3, slightly below HD3870 DDR4.

5) X1800XT 256 beats 7900GT 256

6) 8600GT and 7600GT beat HD2600XT and X850XT

Waiting for agreements...

Ill be happy to change it if you have any links on reviews or benchies.


----------



## oblivious

i'm not seeing a HD4850 1gb on there anywhere. thats what i got. and it's not the x2

heres a link to it

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150351


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oblivious* 
i'm not seeing a HD4850 1gb on there anywhere. thats what i got. and it's not the x2

heres a link to it

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150351

Where should it be placed though?


----------



## oblivious

Oh i really don't know. I was just checking out the list and noticed it wasn't there. I'm sure it won't add up to a HD4850x2 1gb


----------



## Anth0789

Update: Added ATI HD5850 + HD5870
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...D_5870/30.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...ssFire/25.html


----------



## Anth0789

Little update...


----------



## sLowEnd

How the heck does a 4890 2GB perform better than a GTX285?

Also, the 9400GT should not be above the 8600GT. It's an 8500GT with 100mhz higher core


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sLowEnd* 
How the heck does a 4890 2GB perform better than a GTX285?

Also, the 9400GT should not be above the 8600GT. It's an 8500GT with 100mhz higher core

Fixed!


----------



## Anth0789

HD5770 soon to be added just waiting for the review.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Fixed!


Don't forget to change the position of the 9400GT in the Nvidia only card part too. Thanks for keeping this up to date so well! Keep up the good work!


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*


Don't forget to change the position of the 9400GT in the Nvidia only card part too. Thanks for keeping this up to date so well!










Yeah I forgot about that thx.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Yeah I forgot about that thx.


No problem. By the way that second sentence was meant as a complement. Now that I Read it back with the first sentence it kind makes it sound like a bash. I edited it to make it clearer.


----------



## Bastiaan_NL

in this review you can see the gtx275(896) is better than the hd4890(1gig), so the gtx275 needs to be a step higher. Still looking for 1.8vs 2gig versions....


----------



## saulin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bastiaan_NL*


in this review you can see the gtx275(896) is better than the hd4890(1gig), so the gtx275 needs to be a step higher. Still looking for 1.8vs 2gig versions....



Yeah same here and this is a brand new review that includes 22 benchmarks!

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5850/30.html


----------



## Bastiaan_NL

Quote:



Originally Posted by *saulin*


Yeah same here and this is a brand new review that includes 22 benchmarks!

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5850/30.html


nice review








clearly shows the difference between gtx275 and the hd4890.


----------



## Nautilus

Anthony, you got a wrong impression like the bigger vram is the better card performs. i see that in the list you made. it's not actually true. you put 4870x2 GB top of 5870 1GB. There's no way 4870X2 can outperform a 5870. Even if a manufacturer actually bundles it with 3GB ram it just can't. Clocks speeds,TMU and ROP count make 5870 is absolute winner.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Nautilus*


Anthony, you got a wrong impression like the bigger vram is the better card performs. i see that in the list you made. it's not actually true. you put 4870x2 GB top of 5870 1GB. There's no way 4870X2 can outperform a 5870. Even if a manufacturer actually bundles it with 3GB ram it just can't. Clocks speeds,TMU and ROP count make 5870 is absolute winner.


Says so in this review comparison in each res:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5850/30.html


----------



## Bastiaan_NL

well, the gtx295 is still on top, and the 5870 is next, but the x2 will pwn the 295 for sure...
The 4870x2 wont outperform the 5870, thats true









[edit]@ above, hmm, thats right.....








[edit2]
08 Geforce GTX 275 1792MB
09 Radeon HD4890 2GB
10 Geforce GTX 280 1GB
11 Geforce GTX 275 896MB
12 Radeon HD4890 1GB
13 Radeon HD4850X2 1GB

not sure about 12 and 13


----------



## Anth0789

Problem is that how can GTX 275 beat a 4850X2> If I put it over the 4890 then the 4850X2 under 4890 that wouldn't be right.


----------



## MintMouse

That's one review, other reviews show the 4890 ahead in many games.


----------



## Bastiaan_NL

editted post above.

But ye, if the 4890 is better than the 4850x2 than it will be below the 4890.
Its just all doing a step back...








Only i dont know if the 4850x2 or the 4890 1gig is better...

anyways, i think that list above is better









[edit]@ above, i havent seen any review showing the 4890 better than the gtx275...


----------



## MintMouse

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bastiaan_NL*


editted post above.

But ye, if the 4890 is better than the 4850x2 than it will be below the 4890.
Its just all doing a step back...








Only i dont know if the 4850x2 or the 4890 1gig is better...

anyways, i think that list above is better









[edit]@ above, i havent seen any review showing the 4890 better than the gtx275...


You've really not had this argument before? Hm. It's bound to happen a few times.

Anyhow, here's the first two charts I could find:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...1200,1473.html
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3650&p=3

Both show the 4890 winning more often than not at highest settings.
Ensue argument.

@OP, the 4850x2 is generally better than the 4890.


----------



## Nautilus

Well, that 4870x2 with 2gb vram is not faster at resolutions below 1920x1080. so in my opinion it would be unfair to call it winner just because it gives better framerates at higher resolutions.

avarage user has 1680x1050, 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. so they'd be disappointed buying a 4870x2 after checking your list and deciding that it still outperforms 5870.right?


----------



## Anth0789

ATI's new HD5770 has been added to the list it seems its around close to the 4870 512.
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles...036&cid=3&pg=9


----------



## Anth0789

HD5750 is now the list also:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5770/30.html


----------



## ekul

Add the G210 and GT220 to the list. The GT220 should be Nvidia's answer to the HD4650. Right in between the 9600gt and 9500gt in performance. The G210 should be ranked much lower, comparable to the 9400gt, since it only has 16 SP.


----------



## krazyatom

I have 4850 x2 2gb version. Is it worth upgrading my video card to 5850?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ekul* 
Add the G210 and GT220 to the list. The GT220 should be Nvidia's answer to the HD4650. Right in between the 9600gt and 9500gt in performance. The G210 should be ranked much lower, comparable to the 9400gt, since it only has 16 SP.

Im going to have to wait for reviews to come.


----------



## gerikoh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *krazyatom* 
I have 4850 x2 2gb version. Is it worth upgrading my video card to 5850?

only if you want dx11, better minimum fps and more efficient power consumption. otherwise, go 5870 or wait for a 5850x2.


----------



## smoothjk

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


ATI's new HD5770 has been added to the list it seems its around close to the 4870 512.
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles...036&cid=3&pg=9


I think it should be placed ahead of the 512, but rightfully behind the 1gb. It trades blows with the 4870 1gb, with the latter winning the majority. But there's no way it's worse than the 512 version.

Example of the 5770 beating the 4870 1gb (significant margin):
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...review-test/15

5770 losing to 4870 1gb:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...review-test/16

Tie:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...review-test/14

At resolutions above 1680x1050 (now common), the 5770 1gb is overall better than the 4870 512mb. Not to mention the drivers are immature, DirectX 11, etc.

If TechPowerUp is being used as the main indicator, check out the performance summary...where the 5770 wins, it's by a large margin (10%)...when it loses, it's within testing error (2% or less):
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5770/30.html


----------



## Anth0789

Its updated...


----------



## Anth0789

Added the GT 220:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Z...GT_220/30.html

What I find weird is why is the 1GB slower than the 512MB???


----------



## Bastiaan_NL

Maybe the Palit is clocked a bit higher than the zotac, and just a better pcb, but i dont know... pretty weird indeed...


----------



## UltimateGamerXFX

I don't get it, why did they make a slow card now?


----------



## saulin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *UltimateGamerXFX*


I don't get it, why did they make a slow card now?


For the main stream market. People that just want a cheap video card. Not for gamers for sure.


----------



## UltimateGamerXFX

Quote:



Originally Posted by *saulin*


For the main stream market. People that just want a cheap video card. Not for gamers for sure.


but they already have mainstream cards like 9400 gt, or 9500...ah well,


----------



## UkGouki

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anth0789* 
You guys got to tell me whats new to add on and where should it go...

theres a new mobo from evga what has quad sli using 4x 285gtx's heres the vid of some benchmarks >>












this actually beats 295 quad sli!!


----------



## Contagion

I was pretty sure the 4870x2 and 5870 were close to even. From what Ive seen and read I would say the 5870 is better by a nudge.


----------



## saulin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *UkGouki*


theres a new mobo from evga what has quad sli using 4x 285gtx's heres the vid of some benchmarks >>






this actually beats 295 quad sli!!


A little over 3000 points less than 4 5870s overclocked to 1Ghz

http://www.overclock.net/hardware-ne...cked-over.html

Over 2000 points better than 3 5870s

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=7

Now if we could see some Crysis benchmarks with 3 5870s or 4 5870s so we could compared Crysis on 4 5870s vs 4 GTX 285s.


----------



## mth91

Okay, why is the 295 better than the 5870? I thought the 5870 was the best single card on the market now.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mth91* 
Okay, why is the 295 better than the 5870? I thought the 5870 was the best single card on the market now.

See for yourself:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5850/30.html


----------



## saulin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mth91*


Okay, why is the 295 better than the 5870? I thought the 5870 was the best single card on the market now.


Sure it is but is not the fastest video card on the market.


----------



## KEITHRH12

sweet list +1 rep


----------



## smoothjk

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mth91*


Okay, why is the 295 better than the 5870? I thought the 5870 was the best single card on the market now.


No, the 5870 is the best single-GPU card out. The 295 has two GPUs sandwiched in one card, and it pulls slightly ahead.


----------



## benyu

what abou the x1650 SE? i found one these in my closet!

what does SE mean?? and it is OEM

edit: 4890 does beat the gtx275 http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-14.html

4870x2 and the gtx295 still beats the 5870

hardwarecanucks is one of the most trusted review site there is


----------



## UltimateGamerXFX

Do you know will tehre be a 5890?? or a 5890x2??!


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *benyu*


what abou the x1650 SE? i found one these in my closet!

what does SE mean?? and it is OEM

edit: 4890 does beat the gtx275 http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-14.html

4870x2 and the gtx295 still beats the 5870

hardwarecanucks is one of the most trusted review site there is


If I were to change it a lot of people would complain that the 4890 beats it but in most reviews it does show the GTX 275 beating it by a bit. Plus if I were to put it above the 4890 there is no way it beats the 4850X2.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5850/30.html


----------



## smoothjk

I really think the 5870 should be ranked ahead of the 4870x2. They trade blows in guru3d, but the 5870 wins 5 while the 4870x2 wins 4. Plus, the 5870 scores higher in Vantage, and I think when it's this close, a single card should win the tiebreaker since there are some scaling issues still in games.

Check out this result, for instance. The 5870 absolutely creams the 4870x2, and the 4870x2 never comes close to winning by this kind of margin:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...review-test/21

So in summary, the 5870 wins 5/9 times in games, wins synthetics (Vantage...the more accurate one, IMHO), and doesn't have scaling issues to deal with. And when it wins, it can win BIG.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *smoothjk* 
I really think the 5870 should be ranked ahead of the 4870x2. They trade blows in guru3d, but the 5870 wins 5 while the 4870x2 wins 4. Plus, the 5870 scores higher in Vantage, and I think when it's this close, a single card should win the tiebreaker since there are some scaling issues still in games.

Check out this result, for instance. The 5870 absolutely creams the 4870x2, and the 4870x2 never comes close to winning by this kind of margin:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...review-test/21

So in summary, the 5870 wins 5/9 times in games, wins synthetics (Vantage...the more accurate one, IMHO), and doesn't have scaling issues to deal with. And when it wins, it can win BIG.

I trust more this site:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5850/30.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5850/27.html


----------



## TehStone

Quote:


Originally Posted by *smoothjk* 
Check out this result, for instance. The 5870 absolutely creams the 4870x2, and the 4870x2 never comes close to winning by this kind of margin:

I don't really think there's enough evidence yet to say the 5870 is better than the x2, especially with the current driver situation.


----------



## smoothjk

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


I trust more this site:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5850/30.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5850/27.html


Wow, they use a lot of really old games to benchmark there. The 5870 wins clearly in the more modern graphical games (Crysis, Far Cry 2), but yea it's your call. It's close!


----------



## LarsMarkelson

bump for usefulness


----------



## BloodThirstyEmu

Is the GTX285 1Gb slower than the 5850 even tho it trades blows with the 5870?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BloodThirstyEmu*


Is the GTX285 1Gb slower than the 5850 even tho it trades blows with the 5870?


Its a little slower then the 5850. Its right under it.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5850/30.html


----------



## CryWin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


I trust more this site:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5850/30.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5850/27.html


I find they're reviews to be better also because they use a large range of games and plenty of graphics cards ranging from old to the newest.


----------



## smoothjk

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BloodThirstyEmu*


Is the GTX285 1Gb slower than the 5850 even tho it trades blows with the 5870?


Where exactly does the 285 trade blows with the 5870? Maybe like 1 out of 10 games or something, but it's a clear victory for the 5870 (sometimes by a big margin, too).


----------



## Anth0789

Updated added the new HD5970: 
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/EAH5970/31.html

Look at the card lengths:


----------



## D3FiN3 SiN

A single 5870 definitely beats a 4870X2 . . .


----------



## tweaker123

i dont think the 4850x2 beats the gtx 285..


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tweaker123*


i dont think the 4850x2 beats the gtx 285..


4850x2 is ~ equal in performance.


----------



## Anth0789

GT 240 up on the list now.


----------



## Mr_Nibbles

I just saw that there is a HD4350 1Gb model, any idea how this compares to the regular 256Mb version? Also, we are missing HD3850 and HD3870 Trifire results.


----------



## Mgz

btw 7900GS is better than 8600GT (about 10%)

source: http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...formancerating


----------



## 5ILVgeARX

nice list, keep up the good work


----------



## sLowEnd

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mr_Nibbles* 
I just saw that there is a HD4350 1Gb model, any idea how this compares to the regular 256Mb version? Also, we are missing HD3850 and HD3870 Trifire results.

Should be the same thing.

A game that requires more than 256MB of memory also likely requires a lot more processing power than the 4350 can offer.


----------



## mth91

I thought the 5870 and 5850 were better than the gtx 295. Am I wrong?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *5ILVgeARX*


nice list, keep up the good work


Thanks!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Mgz*


btw 7900GS is better than 8600GT (about 10%)source: http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...formancerating


Okay fixed!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mth91*


I thought the 5870 and 5850 were better than the gtx 295. Am I wrong?


Look here:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/P...50_PCS/30.html


----------



## Mgz

also from that computerbase link the X1650XT (94th)is faster than 7600GT (91st)

also from this 
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...rd,2464-8.html

shows that 7900GS > HD4550
a quick check on Google confirmed that, on a 2008 quadcore system the 4550 get 3841 3dmark 06, while a post from 2007 system showed that 7900GS gets 5387.


----------



## Anth0789

Okay I updated it added the new HD 4860 which is up ahead of the 5750 I believe, Still no reviews of it yet.


----------



## fencefeet

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Okay I updated it added the new HD 4860 which is up ahead of the 5750 I believe, Still no reviews of it yet.


yup, its just ahead of it and right on the heals of a 4870 and 5770


----------



## UltimateGamerXFX

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anth0789* 
Okay I updated it added the new HD 4860 which is up ahead of the 5750 I believe, Still no reviews of it yet.

Thats the Mobility Radeon right? I can't find a 4860...


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *UltimateGamerXFX*


Thats the Mobility Radeon right? I can't find a 4860...


This ---> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...02866&Tpk=4860


----------



## andygoyap

Can you please show the reviews why 4870 is faster then GTX 260 216 ?

this reviews seems to tell a different story:

http://techgage.com/article/ati_hd_4..._260216_896mb/
http://techreport.com/articles.x/15651/12
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1414&pageID=5839
http://www.guru3d.com/article/top-10...core-216-test/


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *andygoyap* 
Can you please show the reviews why 4870 is faster then GTX 260 216 ?

this reviews seems to tell a different story:

http://techgage.com/article/ati_hd_4..._260216_896mb/
http://techreport.com/articles.x/15651/12
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1414&pageID=5839
http://www.guru3d.com/article/top-10...core-216-test/

Those reviews are very old... look at these results. 4870 wins in most high res:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...GT_220/30.html


----------



## smoothjk

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mth91*


I thought the 5870 and 5850 were better than the gtx 295. Am I wrong?


The GTX295 is definitely stronger. Sometimes, the 5870 is close, though.


----------



## smoothjk

*# Radeon HD3870 Tri fire
# Radeon HD3850 Tri fire*
# Geforce GTX 260 216 SLI
# Radeon HD5770 Crossfire
# Radeon HD4870 Crossfire
# Geforce GTX260 SLI
# Radeon HD3870X2 Crossfire

Pretty sure those top two (3870/3850 trifire) are in the wrong place. Two 3870 = roughly a 4870, so how would a third 3870 overcome two 4870s or their equivalent, especially when the 48xx and 57xx series scales better than the 38xx?

Plus, you have a 3870x2 CF (4 GPUs) under the trifire setup. Doesn't seem to make sense to me.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *smoothjk*


*# Radeon HD3870 Tri fire
# Radeon HD3850 Tri fire*
# Geforce GTX 260 216 SLI
# Radeon HD5770 Crossfire
# Radeon HD4870 Crossfire
# Geforce GTX260 SLI
# Radeon HD3870X2 Crossfire

Pretty sure those top two (3870/3850 trifire) are in the wrong place. Two 3870 = roughly a 4870, so how would a third 3870 overcome two 4870s or their equivalent, especially when the 48xx and 57xx series scales better than the 38xx?

Plus, you have a 3870x2 CF (4 GPUs) under the trifire setup. Doesn't seem to make sense to me.


Where should I put them then?


----------



## fencefeet

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Where should I put them then?


the 3870 x3 setup would go ~ just under a gtx 260 216 while the 3850 x3 setup would likely fit in right above the gts 250

but honestly man, I think you should probably just eliminate anything above 2 card setups in the rankings altogether. its just simply way too subjective, depends on the game, drivers, etc., and is overall just plain way too complex to chart accurately, especially if you want to include all or most cards capable of doing it, which is a lot. the only way you could do it is if you somehow found reviews of most of the 2x, 3x, and even 4x setups using say vantage as a benchmark or something. but we all know that vantage doesn't always accurately represent real world performance. just my opinion. trying to make your job a little easier too


----------



## benyu

do you guys think the 4670 is too high about hte 8800GT? i own a 4670 and i feel like it is around 9600gso area not above the 8800gt.. / 8800gts!


----------



## UltimateGamerXFX

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


This ---> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...02866&Tpk=4860


oh, thanks!







weird, until now, i never knew there were xx60 gpus...omg.


----------



## smoothjk

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fencefeet* 
the 3870 x3 setup would go ~ just under a gtx 260 216 while the 3850 x3 setup would likely fit in right above the gts 250

but honestly man, *I think you should probably just eliminate anything above 2 card setups in the rankings altogether*. its just simply way too subjective, depends on the game, drivers, etc., and is overall just plain way too complex to chart accurately, especially if you want to include all or most cards capable of doing it, which is a lot. the only way you could do it is if you somehow found reviews of most of the 2x, 3x, and even 4x setups using say vantage as a benchmark or something. but we all know that vantage doesn't always accurately represent real world performance. just my opinion. trying to make your job a little easier too









Actually, I totally agree with this statement. 3x and 4x SLI and CF is really all over the place. I mean, you could leave in two dual-gpu cards--like 5970 CF--but tri- or quad- cards are just impossible to compare against other setups.


----------



## gtsteviiee

lolwut 4860?


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gtsteviiee* 
lolwut 4860?

Let's put it this way, the HD4860 and HD4890 have a similar relationship as your HD4830 and the HD4850 (160 stream processors disabled and lower core and memory clocks). The HD4860 uses the more refined RV790 GPU, has 640SPs (160SPs are disabled), and is clocked at 700MHz core and 3000MHz memory (vs 850MHz and 3900MHz on the HD4890). It also has a sick heatpipe cooler and should be an overclocking monster if the HD4890 is any indication. It sure would be nice to see a review because it's a very interesting card indeed.


----------



## TehStone

Am I mis-informed? I didn't think the 4890 deserved to be that high... *I think that's wrong.* On GPUreview the GTX 280 AND the 275 beat it in every spec. except Gflops. How could the 4890 be getting beat in total bandwidth, pixel fillrate, _and _texture fillrate and still rank ahead of those nVidia cards? Seriously on a raw spec basis the 4890 seems to compete more with the gtx 260 55nm than the other cards it supposedly beats. I've seen real world tests where 4890 gets spanked by gtx 280...

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards....=608&card2=609
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...r_hd4890/7.htm
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...views/?page=10

OK if this is a ranking of price/performance it deserves its rank, but if we're ranking on raw performance it's simply inaccurate. *It should probably be above 275 896mb but below 280* based on the reviews I've seen. Is it ranking this high based on overclocking potential or something?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

4850X2 should be between 5870 and 5850.


----------



## Anth0789

I remember seeing the 4890 beat the GTX 275 but I guess things changed around with the latest reviews.


----------



## bgzA

Hi,

I would really like to see a chart with the Sli/CF combinations mixed with the single cards. It would be useful to know what's best between 2 4670's and a 4850 (In fact, I actually have a link that proves they are pretty similar). As the the 4670 is sold for about 50$ in Canada and a 4850 is priced around 130$, the 4670 CF option could be to consider. I'm pretty sure there are other cases like this where CF or SLI could be more profitable than a single GPU.

Would it ever be possible to make a list like this?

I would also like to have the Zotac 9800GT ranked but I haven't found any benchmark rating it, here is the link on newegg. It is sold for considerably less so I'd like to know if it's a regular 9800gt or not.

Thanks, ... and sorry for asking a lot and not helping as much, but I'm pretty sure it could interest other people as well.

Keep up the good work,

bgzA


----------



## doctor killer

i haven't really looked at the way you classify the cards but I wan a make some points for the 9800 GX2:
1-Could you add Quad SLI for the 9800 GX2
2-In Unigine Heaven Benchmark the 9800 GX2 classifies over GTX 285 at stock settings and equalize 4870x2 when OCed: (score not updated but look on the last pages for my results http://www.trubritarforums.com/forum...showtopic=3722 look for post 33 and 45


----------



## Mr_Nibbles

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bgzA* 
Hi,

I would really like to see a chart with the Sli/CF combinations mixed with the single cards. It would be useful to know what's best between 2 4670's and a 4850 (In fact, I actually have a link that proves they are pretty similar). As the the 4670 is sold for about 50$ in Canada and a 4850 is priced around 130$, the 4670 CF option could be to consider. I'm pretty sure there are other cases like this where CF or SLI could be more profitable than a single GPU.

Would it ever be possible to make a list like this?

I would also like to have the Zotac 9800GT ranked but I haven't found any benchmark rating it, here is the link on newegg. It is sold for considerably less so I'd like to know if it's a regular 9800gt or not.

Thanks, ... and sorry for asking a lot and not helping as much, but I'm pretty sure it could interest other people as well.

Keep up the good work,

bgzA

I agree. We should combine the crossfire and sli rankings with the single GPU ranks. This will take time and effort, but will be a valuable resource.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *bgzA*


Hi,

I would really like to see a chart with the Sli/CF combinations mixed with the single cards. It would be useful to know what's best between 2 4670's and a 4850 (In fact, I actually have a link that proves they are pretty similar). As the the 4670 is sold for about 50$ in Canada and a 4850 is priced around 130$, the 4670 CF option could be to consider. I'm pretty sure there are other cases like this where CF or SLI could be more profitable than a single GPU.

Would it ever be possible to make a list like this?

I would also like to have the Zotac 9800GT ranked but I haven't found any benchmark rating it, here is the link on newegg. It is sold for considerably less so I'd like to know if it's a regular 9800gt or not.

Thanks, ... and sorry for asking a lot and not helping as much, but I'm pretty sure it could interest other people as well.

Keep up the good work,

bgzA


I would do it but it would take long to do so,but I don't feel like it right now I have other things to do.


----------



## werds

BTW just wanted to say I have been following this particular list and its various incarnations for a few years now(can't remember since exactly when though). Just wanted to say thanks for the upkeep on the list!


----------



## ronnin426850

Hi. Just wanted to give a point for an old and long forgotten friend- the Radeon 9550 256Mb. I have a Sapphire R9550 with OC more than 2 times (!) core clock, which plays me most of the latest games, I don't think many 6 year old cards can do that


----------



## smash_mouth01

I thought that the 5770 landed above the 4870 and before the 4890.


----------



## DevilGear44

Quote:


Originally Posted by *smash_mouth01* 
I thought that the 5770 landed above the 4870 and before the 4890.

Nope it's between the 4850 and 4870 AFAIK.

EDIT: wait... I guess it just depends on the benchmarks you look at.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *smash_mouth01*


I thought that the 5770 landed above the 4870 and before the 4890.


Look: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5770/30.html


----------



## smash_mouth01

I would be basing my placement for this card off of the relative performance chart (all resolutions) .
Only because it works on an average of all the data collected, which puts the 5770 where I thought between the 4870 512 and the 4890 1024
I thought it weird that people say it's between the 4850-4870 when mine clearly blows my 4850/s out of the water in crossfireX and the card by it's self.


----------



## blooder11181

general
12.gtx280









nvidia
5. gtx280


----------



## hondajt

can we please make this a sticky?


----------



## hondajt

which ones better?
GT240 1GB DDR3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130531

or
GT240 512MB DD5 SO O/C
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130529

And is the last one HDCP?


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *hondajt*


which ones better?
GT240 1GB DDR3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130531

or 
GT240 512MB DD5 SO O/C
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130529

And is the last one HDCP?


You have your links switched around but the GDDR5 version is faster. Really the GT240 is a 9600GSO/8800GS with DX10.1, 40nm core, and 128-bit memory bus. It is not a fast enough card to take advantage of 1GB of video memory. The extra memory bandwidth that the GDDR5 version offers makes up for it having a 128-bit memory bus. The GDDR3 version is a gimped version that I wouldn't touch. Though personally I wouldn't touch the GT240 at all. There are much better cards for the money (the 9800GT and HD4850 for example, both faster cards). I'd pay a little more for the much better HD5750 which is faster than the GTS250 and supports DX11.


----------



## hondajt

^^Thanks. What's the best maker of ATI card's? IS MSI the best? I mean, for Nvidia, EVGA is a pretty clear winner.

Anyone more popular than the other's for ATI card's?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *hondajt*


^^Thanks. What's the best maker of ATI card's? IS MSI the best? I mean, for Nvidia, EVGA is a pretty clear winner.

Anyone more popular than the other's for ATI card's?


I know that Sapphire,Asus,HIS and VisionTek has a good reputation and a lifetime warranty. Also there is XFX for ATI.


----------



## blooder11181

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*


You have your links switched around but the GDDR5 version is faster. Really the GT240 is a 9600GSO/8800GS with DX10.1, 40nm core, and 128-bit memory bus. It is not a fast enough card to take advantage of 1GB of video memory. The extra memory bandwidth that the GDDR5 version offers makes up for it having a 128-bit memory bus. The GDDR3 version is a gimped version that I wouldn't touch. Though personally I wouldn't touch the GT240 at all. There are much better cards for the money (the 9800GT and HD4850 for example, both faster cards). I'd pay a little more for the much better HD5750 which is faster than the GTS250 and supports DX11.


but does the new 40nm makes a better o.c. for gt240 on stock volts 
like gpu 800mhz


----------



## sid0972

i think u already know....but ATI 5670 is out...so it shud b on the list somwhere


----------



## DesertRat

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sid0972* 
i think u already know....but ATI 5670 is out...so it shud b on the list somwhere

Preliminary benchmarks I've seen put it behind the 8800GT but above the 9600GT generally.


----------



## Skylit

Quote:



Originally Posted by *hondajt*


^^Thanks. What's the best maker of ATI card's? IS MSI the best? I mean, for Nvidia, EVGA is a pretty clear winner.

Anyone more popular than the other's for ATI card's?


If you're asking for the biggest ATI manufacturer, then it's Sapphire.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sid0972*


i think u already know....but ATI 5670 is out...so it shud b on the list somwhere


Yep its up on the list now!
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/H...0_IceQ/28.html


----------



## sid0972

i meant the overclock.net list....i know it'll b there eventually


----------



## xBISHOPx

Anyone know how big of a hit I would take if I "upgraded" to a 5850 @ my resolution? I would love to get a 5870 but I would rather just OC a 5850 to 5870 speeds and save myself $100+.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *xBISHOPx* 
Anyone know how big of a hit I would take if I "upgraded" to a 5850 @ my resolution? I would love to get a 5870 but I would rather just OC a 5850 to 5870 speeds and save myself $100+.

Here is a chart from TechPowerUp that compares the average frame rates from 19 games and puts them into a percent. It should give you a general idea of the difference and it's at 1920x1200 resolution, very close to yours.








Source

Also here's a more recent chart from a HD5670 review that should be more accurate of current performance with newer drivers. You'll have to do some conversions to make the percents more understandable.








Source


----------



## ZTR1760

hmm so the 5850 and 4850x2 are pretty much tied? I thought the 5850 was slightly better, GO 4850X2!!! still awesome-tastic and a good buy


----------



## gtsteviiee

tri-fire 5970?


----------



## sid0972

i thought one cant handle more than 4 GPU's
and 2x5970 is the max any mobo can swallow


----------



## cutty1998

Not sure if this is still accurate ,or has been put up ,but Looks tasty !!!


----------



## hondajt

Where does a N9800GT 1GB go?

Specifically this one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127378


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hondajt* 
Where does a N9800GT 1GB go?

Specifically this one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127378

Probably over the 512MB.
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/...re/1812_7.html


----------



## W4LNUT5

Subbed. Nice. The 2nd version of this thread is what brought me here via google









Nice to see it still continues


----------



## Mr. Stroker

Great list. This really is the first time i have actually read it.

Thanks for the work Anth


----------



## Anth0789

Added HD5450 right under the GT 220.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-11.html


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anth0789* 
Added HD5450 right under the GT 220.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-11.html

You might want to specify that the HD5450 on the list is the GDDR3 version and it needs a placement change. From the reviews I've read it's definitely slower than the 9500GT and ever so slightly slower than the HD4550. Below are some links to support this:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3734&p=6
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...5450,2549.html

I have no reviews to back this up but based purely on specs I would think the 80 shader 64-bit HD5450, HD4550, and HD4350 would slot just below the 120 shader 128-bit HD3650 and HD2600XT. Again I have nothing to back that up but it sure would be logical. As far as I know there haven't been any real shader efficiency strides from the HD2000 series to the HD5000 series. When comparing the HD4550 and HD5450 you even notice there is actually a loss in shader efficiency. Here is how I think they should slot:

*97. Radeon HD2600XT 256MB GDDR4
98. Radeon HD3650 256MB GDDR3
99. Radeon HD4550 512MB GDDR3
100. Radeon HD5450 512MB GDDR3
101. Radeon HD4350 512MB GDDR2*

I put 512MB for the HD4350 and HD4550 because those were the prominent ones on Newegg. Thanks again, for your continued work on the list. I'm sure it helps a lot of people out.


----------



## Anth0789

Okay its updated! Ill probably have to change it once I see a decent review.


----------



## Anth0789

HD5570 1GB added to the list!
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-13.html


----------



## Jeebus

are overclocks involved at all in placement or are all of these stock clock refferences?


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jeebus* 
are overclocks involved at all in placement or are all of these stock clock refferences?

Stock


----------



## grayfox99

Anth this is amazing. Good on you for keeping it updated regularly!! Im a new member and this is a very nice guide. Saved.


----------



## rocstar96

How about my lousy 9500GT 1GB DDR2?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rocstar96* 
How about my lousy 9500GT 1GB DDR2?









Added to the list.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Also the newly released HD5830 needs to go on the list. There are a lot of reviews that show it losing a to the HD4890. Though those same reviews also used old drivers. One of the few sites to use new drivers and the same drivers for all the cards tested is Hardware Canucks. They used Catalyst 10.3 Beta.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...gb-review.html

Out of the 43 tests both cards were in, the HD5830 won 28 of them and the HD4890 15. From that data, I would place the HD5830 right above the HD4890. A lot of the other sites may not show that, due to drivers, but even in the end the HD5830 will come on top with more mature drivers anyway. Though it's up to you, Anth0789, there are a lot of reviews that show the HD5830 losing to the HD4890. It will just save you from having to change it later.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer* 
Also the newly released HD5830 needs to go on the list. There are a lot of reviews that show it losing a to the HD4890. Though those same reviews also used old drivers. One of the few sites to use new drivers and the same drivers for all the cards tested is Hardware Canucks. They used Catalyst 10.3 Beta.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...gb-review.html

Out of the 43 tests both cards were in, the HD5830 won 28 of them and the HD4890 15. From that data, I would place the HD5830 right above the HD4890. A lot of the other sites may not show that, due to drivers, but even in the end the HD5830 will come on top with more mature drivers anyway. Though it's up to you, Anth0789, there are a lot of reviews that show the HD5830 losing to the HD4890. It will just save you from having to change it later.

Ill put it right under for now I guess.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...rectCu/28.html


----------



## bleep1912

edited


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bleep1912* 
The 5870 quadfire should be above the quadfire 5970









This list does not include Crossfire / SLI as that would make things even more confusing. It's strictly single cards only.

The only dual-gpu setups, are cards like the GTX295 or the 4870x2 for example, as these are on 1 graphics card.


----------



## sid0972

actually, the tests maybe right, cos 5970 is 2x5870 BUT with lower clocks...

but i think the tests should be ran at a more GPU extensive loop.....where there is actual warhead, and not just running around


----------



## A72CUTLAS

Hey guys, found this thread on a Google for card rankings. Awesome job! Looking to see if an upgrade from my mistakenly purchased GTS 250 to a HD5850 is worth it. Looks like it's a slam-dunk.
Thanks.


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A72CUTLAS* 
Hey guys, found this thread on a Google for card rankings. Awesome job! Looking to see if an upgrade from my mistakenly purchased GTS 250 to a HD5850 is worth it. Looks like it's a slam-dunk.
Thanks.

Welcome to OCN! That was exactly how I landed here. lol

Hope you enjoy your stay, and yeah, a 5850 is a solid move up from the GTS 250.


----------



## sid0972

well....wat about 5970 OC 4gb version????

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/17873/1/


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sid0972* 
well....wat about 5970 OC 4gb version????

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/17873/1/

Any reviews?


----------



## sid0972

well....i dont have any reviews yet....i'll search for them

anyways....it shudnt be hard to place, tops the list easily, doesnt it?

EDIT: wat i've found is 5970 2gb version actually is 5850+5870 operating at 725 core and 1000 memory

5970 4gb is purely 2x5870...operating at 850 core, 1200 memory, kills 5970 2gb easily

expected price is 1000$...around 1500 cards will be manufactured

Source


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sid0972* 
well....i dont have any reviews yet....i'll search for them

anyways....it shudnt be hard to place, tops the list easily, doesnt it?

EDIT: wat i've found is 5970 2gb version actually is 5850+5870 operating at 725 core and 1000 memory

5970 4gb is purely 2x5870...operating at 850 core, 1200 memory, kills 5970 2gb easily

expected price is 1000$...around 1500 cards will be manufactured

Source

Easy said and done, its probably the fastest card right now so to the top it is.


----------



## sid0972

one more thing...4860 is a mobility card right....so y it has been included and others not?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sid0972*


one more thing...4860 is a mobility card right....so y it has been included and others not?


Never knew it existed where should it be on the list?


----------



## sid0972

hey....it is already on the list

# Radeon HD4870 512MB
# Geforce GTX 260 896MB
# Radeon HD3870X2 1GB
# *Radeon HD4860 1GB*
# Radeon HD5750 1GB
# Geforce GTS 250 1GB
# Radeon HD4850 1GB


----------



## Anth0789

I didn't even notice lol.


----------



## sid0972

hope u'll remove it then


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sid0972*


one more thing...4860 is a mobility card right....so y it has been included and others not?


No, the HD4860 on the list is referring to the discrete card made by Sapphire: link. The Sapphire HD4860 is basically a HD4890 (AKA RV790) with shaders disabled (640 vs the full 800), and lower core and memory clocks (700/3000MHz vs 850/3900MHz). Anth0789 talked about it in posts 174 and 177. It seems he himself has forgotten about it.


----------



## POLICE

awsome list! thx


----------



## Bo_Fox

I changed a few rankings in the list to where I think they should be at, after being such a benchmark nerd and having owned practically every high-end card of each generation for the past 12+ years since the TNT and Voodoo3 days. I have been reading the benchies across the 'net almost religiously!!! The changes below are in bold.

*[*]Radeon HD5850 1GB
[*]Radeon HD4850X2 2GB*

With more DX11 games out like AvP, the 5850 has an overall edge and is still faster in many DX9 games also. The 4850X2 2GB still has a hard time beating GTX 285 2GB in many games, but I'll just leave it at this.

*[*]Geforce GTX 275 1792MB
[*]Radeon HD4890 2GB*

Aside from the fact that a regular GTX 275 already beats a 4890, the nvidia card is more dependent on memory than the 4890. A larger boost is seen from doubling the memory of the 275 (only 896MB) than the 1GB 4890.

*[*]Geforce GTX 260-216 896MB
[*]Radeon HD4870 1GB*

The core 216 version is oh-so-very slightly faster than a 4870 1GB, by only a few percentage points (probably at around 2% or so). Not noticeable anyways. I'd definitely give it the edge due to PhysX capability anyways.

[*]Geforce GTS 250 1GB

***** BEWARE of the UNDERCLOCKED versions of GTS 250 cards, which are quite common!!!!!

*[*]Geforce 8800Ultra 768MB
[*]Radeon HD4850 512MB*

The 8800 Ultra beats a 4770 512MB by several percentage points in most games. It also beats a 4850 512MB by a good percentage. Please feel free to do some research on this, my friend! A 4850 512MB can hardly break a tie with an 8800GTX, by the way.

*[*]Geforce 8800GTX 768MB
[*]Geforce 9800GTX 512MB
[*]Radeon HD4770 512MB*

An 8800GTX is faster than 9800GTX overall when AA is enabled (due to more memory bandwidth+buffer and ROP's), or simply faster in newer games that are memory-hungry.

*[*]Geforce 8800GTS 640MB
[*]Radeon HD4670 512MB*

I'm not 100% sure about the 4670 losing to an 8800GTS-640 overall.. but if memory serves me correctly....

*[*]Radeon X1900XTX 512MB
[*]Radeon X1900XT 512MB
[*]Geforce 7900GTX 512MB
[*]Radeon X1950XT 256MB
[*]Radeon X1900XT 256MB*

A couple of changes are made here.. an 7900GTX loses to an X1900XTX by up to 30-40% in newer shader-heavy games like UT3 for example. I had both in my rigs and could not play Bioshock with my 7900GTX SLI at 1920x1200, but it played smoothly with my X1900XTX. Practically all of the newer games use heavy SM3.0 shaders which leaves the 7900GTX behind in dust compared to the X1900XT even. Also, the 256MB versions of X1950/X1900's are just too memory-starved for anything above 1680x1050 nowadays. When the memory comes really short, the frame rate usually drops down to single digits.

Here's an example of X1900XTX vs 7900GTX's performance in Fallout3: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...eviews/?page=3 An 8800GTS 640MB also beats an HD 3870, which is usually the case whenever AA is enabled. I just found an even better example of the 7900GTX in a recent game, Modern Warfare 2: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...Duty/Practice/

Hope this helps! I do not care about the lower-end cards really, as I've never bothered to own them. The same goes for older cards like Voodoo3 3500 that I still have packed somewhere in the closet which cannot even play Doom3 from 6 years ago.







It's still cool how you ranked them anyways!


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bo_Fox*


I changed a few rankings in the list to where I think they should be at, after being such a benchmark nerd and having owned practically every high-end card of each generation for the past 12+ years since the TNT and Voodoo3 days. I have been reading the benchies across the 'net almost religiously!!! The changes below are in bold.

*[*]Radeon HD5850 1GB
[*]Radeon HD4850X2 2GB*

With more DX11 games out like AvP, the 5850 has an overall edge and is still faster in many DX9 games also. The 4850X2 2GB still has a hard time beating GTX 285 2GB in many games, but I'll just leave it at this.

*[*]Geforce GTX 275 1792MB
[*]Radeon HD4890 2GB*

Aside from the fact that a regular GTX 275 already beats a 4890, the nvidia card is more dependent on memory than the 4890. A larger boost is seen from doubling the memory of the 275 (only 896MB) than the 1GB 4890.

*[*]Geforce GTX 260-216 896MB
[*]Radeon HD4870 1GB*

The core 216 version is oh-so-very slightly faster than a 4870 1GB, by only a few percentage points (probably at around 2% or so). Not noticeable anyways. I'd definitely give it the edge due to PhysX capability anyways.

[*]Geforce GTS 250 1GB

***** BEWARE of the UNDERCLOCKED versions of GTS 250 cards, which are quite common!!!!!

*[*]Geforce 8800Ultra 768MB
[*]Radeon HD4850 512MB*

The 8800 Ultra beats a 4770 512MB by several percentage points in most games. It also beats a 4850 512MB by a good percentage. Please feel free to do some research on this, my friend! A 4850 512MB can hardly break a tie with an 8800GTX, by the way.

*[*]Geforce 8800GTX 768MB
[*]Geforce 9800GTX 512MB
[*]Radeon HD4770 512MB*

An 8800GTX is faster than 9800GTX overall when AA is enabled (due to more memory bandwidth+buffer and ROP's), or simply faster in newer games that are memory-hungry.

*[*]Geforce 8800GTS 640MB
[*]Radeon HD4670 512MB*

I'm not 100% sure about the 4670 losing to an 8800GTS-640 overall.. but if memory serves me correctly....

*[*]Radeon X1900XTX 512MB
[*]Radeon X1900XT 512MB
[*]Geforce 7900GTX 512MB
[*]Radeon X1950XT 256MB
[*]Radeon X1900XT 256MB*

A couple of changes are made here.. an 7900GTX loses to an X1900XTX by up to 30-40% in newer shader-heavy games like UT3 for example. I had both in my rigs and could not play Bioshock with my 7900GTX SLI at 1920x1200, but it played smoothly with my X1900XTX. Practically all of the newer games use heavy SM3.0 shaders which leaves the 7900GTX behind in dust compared to the X1900XT even. Also, the 256MB versions of X1950/X1900's are just too memory-starved for anything above 1680x1050 nowadays. When the memory comes really short, the frame rate usually drops down to single digits.

Here's an example of X1900XTX vs 7900GTX's performance in Fallout3: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...eviews/?page=3 An 8800GTS 640MB also beats an HD 3870, which is usually the case whenever AA is enabled. I just found an even better example of the 7900GTX in a recent game, Modern Warfare 2: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...Duty/Practice/

Hope this helps! I do not care about the lower-end cards really, as I've never bothered to own them. The same goes for older cards like Voodoo3 3500 that I still have packed somewhere in the closet which cannot even play Doom3 from 6 years ago.







It's still cool how you ranked them anyways!










Okay its updated thanks.


----------



## Bo_Fox

Cool.. you're welcome! I see that you kept the 9800GTX above the 8800GTX. I guess that's true since a few games (like NFS: Pro Street) still do benefit nicely from the greater texel processing power of the G92 over the G80. Only if there were an 9900GTX/Ultra that Nvidia made along the GT200 so that NV could still be selling them right now! It sucks that the G90 was cancelled altogether. The GT200 is too big for NV to keep on selling them for profit since the R800 came out, but the G90 would've been a nice small chip with all the goodies from G80 and G92 combined (384 bit bus, 24 ROP's, etc.. which the G92 lacks). It would've also given the 4870 some good competition for the time being, and Nvidia wouldn't have to rely so much on huge GTX260 chips. Oh well.


----------



## Contagion

The 5830 needs to be placed up there. I say its in between the 280 and 285 speeds right now. Needs better drivers.


----------



## Bo_Fox

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Contagion*


The 5830 needs to be placed up there. I say its in between the 280 and 285 speeds right now. Needs better drivers.


*"ATI 5830 launched, baffled looks follow"*

Quote:



That being said, apparently mercy was shown in the end and its memory bus width escaped the culling, remaining the same 256-bits its elder brethren had enjoyed. In light of this, we can't help but wonder exactly what the relationship between the RBEs and the memory controllers is, but that's a topic for another day.


http://beyond3d.com/content/news/746

This raises my suspicions as well. One guy, "rops", over at Xbitlabs stated:

Quote:



I think ATI is lying to us, according to the chip design is they cut 16 ROP's the remaining ROP's have only access to 128 bits of memory. THU and shaders probably still have access to 256 bits of memory. and thats why this card acts sometimes like 5770 and sometimes like 5850, and whats more surprising - even 4890 is better sometimes.
It's not a 256 bit memory card but a 128/256 bit card


The fact that the ROP's of a 5830 is only 50MHz slower than the 16 ROP's of a 4890 does not explain how the 5830 is so much slower than a 4890 in many cases. A 5830 theoretically has ~17% more shader/texel performance than a 4890, and 2.5% more memory bandwidth (assuming that it's 256-bit). Yet it's performing about 6-8% slower than a 4890, and all we can see is that the ROP's are ~6% slower than a 4890. The ROP's would have to already be such a definite bottleneck--extreme enough of a bottleneck that we'd see it badly hampering a 4890 already (which is not the case).

The fact that the 5830 performs *slower* than a 5770 in a few cases (there are a couple games that show this in some of the 10+ reviews out there), seem to show how there must be another bottleneck rather than just the ROP's. It could be the actual memory performance. Let's suppose that the bandwidth is really 128-bit.. that would make the bandwidth roughly 16% slower than a 5770. With 17% more "core" performance, but 16% slower bandwidth, that would be naturally expected for the 5830 to have only 10% more overall performance than the 5770.

It is even more disappointing to see that a 5830 is hardly any faster than my 4870 1GB (which can be had for 1/2 the price)--more disappointing than the fact that the 5770 was slower than a 4870 despite a 100MHz increase in clock speed.

The drivers for the R800 series have been maturing for roughly 6 months now, but I am with you in hoping that there would be improved drivers for the 5830 cards. In the past 1-2 months, there have been like 5% improvement in a few DX11 games for 5830's, but other 5xxx cards also got the boost. Oh well.. the 5830 is gonna be one of the infamous "overpriced" cards just like the 8800GTS-320 that sold for over $300 back then, IMHO...


----------



## Contagion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bo_Fox*


*"ATI 5830 launched, baffled looks follow"*

http://beyond3d.com/content/news/746

This raises my suspicions as well. One guy, "rops", over at Xbitlabs stated:

The fact that the ROP's of a 5830 is only 50MHz slower than the 16 ROP's of a 4890 does not explain how the 5830 is so much slower than a 4890 in many cases. A 5830 theoretically has ~17% more shader/texel performance than a 4890, and 2.5% more memory bandwidth (assuming that it's 256-bit). Yet it's performing about 6-8% slower than a 4890, and all we can see is that the ROP's are ~6% slower than a 4890. The ROP's would have to already be such a definite bottleneck--extreme enough of a bottleneck that we'd see it badly hampering a 4890 already (which is not the case).

The fact that the 5830 performs *slower* than a 5770 in a few cases (there are a couple games that show this in some of the 10+ reviews out there), seem to show how there must be another bottleneck rather than just the ROP's. It could be the actual memory performance. Let's suppose that the bandwidth is really 128-bit.. that would make the bandwidth roughly 16% slower than a 5770. With 17% more "core" performance, but 16% slower bandwidth, that would be naturally expected for the 5830 to have only 10% more overall performance than the 5770.

It is even more disappointing to see that a 5830 is hardly any faster than my 4870 1GB (which can be had for 1/2 the price)--more disappointing than the fact that the 5770 was slower than a 4870 despite a 100MHz increase in clock speed.

The drivers for the R800 series have been maturing for roughly 6 months now, but I am with you in hoping that there would be improved drivers for the 5830 cards. In the past 1-2 months, there have been like 5% improvement in a few DX11 games for 5830's, but other 5xxx cards also got the boost. Oh well.. the 5830 is gonna be one of the infamous "overpriced" cards just like the 8800GTS-320 that sold for over $300 back then, IMHO...


I don't even want to read all of that because I know you are disagreeing with me. 
Ok, I read most of it. I am not even going to comment on how wrong 98.5% of what you had in your post is.

EDIT I am going to comment
The 5830 on BETA DRIVERS is almost on par with a GTX280. That being said, a little 150mhz oc on it (which can be acheived on stock volts) puts the 5830 at 5850 speeds. As soon as Afterburner adds voltage control for the 5830's I expect them to get close to 5870 speeds when a nice OC is on them.


----------



## BlackOmega

Ummm........ how does an 8800GTS beat a 9600 GSO? It's the same freakin card.....









And how does a 192 SP 260 beat a 216SP version? Aside from that......the 4870 (1GB) beats out the 192 SP version of the 260 and is pretty much dead nuts even with the 216 SP version.


----------



## Anth0789

Latest review by resolution And here.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BlackOmega* 
Ummm........ how does an 8800GTS beat a 9600 GSO? It's the same freakin card.....









And how does a 192 SP 260 beat a 216SP version? Aside from that......the 4870 (1GB) beats out the 192 SP version of the 260 and is pretty much dead nuts even with the 216 SP version.

I think you're thinking of the 8800GS. The 9600GSO is a rebrand of that. They both use G92, have 192-bit memory bus (at least reference models do), and have the same core/shader/memory clocks. Like you said, they are the same card. There are two different versions of the 8800GTS. There is a 320MB/640GB G80 version (96 shaders and 320-bit) and a 512MB G92 version (128 shaders and 256-bit). The G80 8800GTS does have the same shader count as the 8800GS/9600GSO at 96 but that is the only spec similarity.

Secondly, the GTX260 Core 216 is #18 ahead of the GTX260 Core 192 at #22. Unless Anth0789 already fixed the problem when I looked, I don't see any problem.


----------



## steven937595

you should really add +physx cards on the SLI/crossfire list, and maybe include crossfire+physx configs. also, what about the GTX 275 Co-Op +physx dual GPU card?

A good time to be on the red team


----------



## Bo_Fox

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contagion* 
I don't even want to read all of that because I know you are disagreeing with me.
Ok, I read most of it. I am not even going to comment on how wrong 98.5% of what you had in your post is.

EDIT I am going to comment
The 5830 on BETA DRIVERS is almost on par with a GTX280. That being said, a little 150mhz oc on it (which can be acheived on stock volts) puts the 5830 at 5850 speeds. As soon as Afterburner adds voltage control for the 5830's I expect them to get close to 5870 speeds when a nice OC is on them.

Hey, take it easy. If you're really pissed off about me not agreeing with you, why not back it up with benchmarks? I will not regard the overclocked performances because it the overclockability varies with each chip. Some reviews show the 5830 to be a worse overclocker than a 5850. A 5850 gets to perform within 2% of a 5870 when overclocked, but yet a 5870 can also overclock well most of the time (usually to 920-950 Mhz). Overclockability ain't the main thing here, dude.

This:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anth0789* 
Latest review by resolution And here.

pretty much backs up what I was saying in my last post.. but again, if you got anything to prove, please show it here. Thanks


----------



## bosoxdanc

Wow. Does the 4870x2 really still rank that high?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bosoxdanc* 
Wow. Does the 4870x2 really still rank that high?

Yes it does actually its still a good top end card:
Performance by Res


----------



## ExoticallyPure

You should add sections (Like, 246-200 are for non-gaming, 200-150 are for low-end gaming, 150-100 are for mid-end gaming, 100-50 are for normal gaming, 50-20 are for high-end gaming, 20-1 are for extreme gaming) to the chart, would make it much easier. Otherwise people wouldn't know the performance they want. Someone not tech-savvy would probably say "Well I want to be a gamer, but don't want to go all out, so I think halfway through the list will suit me fine" only to be extremely dissapointed.

tl;dr - Important parts are red.


----------



## sid0972

can anyone tell me if 4890x3 (trifire) is better than single 5970?


----------



## UltimateGamerXFX

theres a 4 gig 5970?


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UltimateGamerXFX* 
theres a 4 gig 5970?
















That's referring to the limited edition Asus Ares HD5970 4GB.

http://www.overclock.net/ati/679994-...one-right.html


----------



## Eduardv

I don't know but i think the 5870 XXX (875/1300) is better peformer that the GTX 295?specially with the 10.3 performance drivers

should be on top of the 295


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eduardv* 
I don't know but i think the 5870 XXX (875/1300) is better peformer that the GTX 295?specially with the 10.3 performance drivers

should be on top of the 295

5870 Lightning at 900/1200MHz

Review Link

GTX 295 is still on top.


----------



## Anth0789

Fermi cards added!

I'm still not sure about where exactly the GTX 470 goes someone tell me where it should be at?


----------



## Celeras

Looks like you nailed it. It beats the 5870 in tessellation and some specific benches, but not enough to be put over it.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Fermi cards added!

I'm still not sure about where exactly the GTX 470 goes someone tell me where it should be at?


I think your right on the money. I did a performance summary of AnandTech's review and here's what I came up with:

*Performance Summary Relative to GTX470*








_As you can see the HD5870 performs about 10-15% higher than the GTX470 on average. The GTX470 performs about 2-5% higher than the Hd5850 on average. According to this data the HD5870 is without question faster than the GTX470. _

*Performance Summary Relative to GTX480*








_I gave the relative to GTX480 results so you can compare my findings to the techPowUp review. As you can see it's pretty much inline with it besides the HD5970 results._

Performance Summary Data Source


----------



## sid0972

actually, gtx 480 is underperformed by gtx 295, by the looks of this


----------



## chatch15117

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sid0972* 
actually, gtx 480 is underperformed by gtx 295, by the looks of this

Yes. But keep in mind that the 295 is two cards lol. The 480 is one chip. I think that's pretty impressive.


----------



## sid0972

obviously that is impressive, but its a performance ranking, right?
so the card shud be placed where its supposed to be,
but that really is impressive


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sid0972*


obviously that is impressive, but its a performance ranking, right?
so the card shud be placed where its supposed to be, 
but that really is impressive


I think it's because that graph is of a very large resolution, and the 295 has more memory, which helps at higher res.

It's still pretty impressive that the 480 is the only single gpu in the top 4 of that list.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *W4LNUT5*


I think it's because that graph is of a very large resolution, and the 295 has more memory, which helps at higher res.

It's still pretty impressive that the 480 is the only single gpu in the top 4 of that list.


Actually the GTX295 only has 896MB of usable memory. Remember with dual GPU cards each GPU has it own frame buffer but the data is the same (or mirrored) in each. So the GTX480 has more usable memory at 1536MB.

In regards to sid0972's post about the techPowerUp review. The GTX295 won in only one performance summary chart (2560x1600) but the GTX480 won in the four other resolutions. Most people run 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 monitors anyway. The GTX480 will gain performance from future driver releases as well to further it's lead. I think the placement is fine.


----------



## Celeras

He has it right on the chart, the 295 scarcely wins. You don't switch spots over a single trial, look at the big picture.


----------



## Celeras

Just noticed, no Quad SLI for 480? Waiting for an actual bench of it? I'd imagine it'd be #1, in both performance and planets revolving around it.


----------



## sid0972

not necessary
quad 295 gtx is not where it cud have been acc to single gpu tests


----------



## Huster

Amazing list! Thanks so much!


----------



## steven937595

can you add in the Radeon X1300XGE? (Xtreme Gamer Edition lol) had 512mb of ddr2. I used to own one from visiontek
edit: XGE I believe may be Visiontek's spin on the card, but still, you should include the 512mb versions of the Radeon X1300 AGP card. But maybe pass on the visiontek variant, as it may appear to be overclocked idk. Just wanna know where it stands against the cards that came later


----------



## Speedster159

I don't see my Nvidia 6200TC 128MB


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Speedster159* 
I don't see my Nvidia 6200TC 128MB

I've never heard of that, according to the "6200TC" and "128MB" it's probably a very old card. Here are some websites on it, TS:

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1805

http://www.firingsquad.com/hw/4704/S...Express_128MB/


----------



## sid0972

here is a review of 5870 2gb edition

shud be placed just above 5870 1gb version....

or maybe, above gtx 470


----------



## Speedster159

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure* 
I've never heard of that, according to the "6200TC" and "128MB" it's probably a very old card. Here are some websites on it, TS:

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1805

http://www.firingsquad.com/hw/4704/S...Express_128MB/

By i mean sorry mine is set to use 128MB of my System Ram Not Dedicated i think Dedicated is only 16Mb Not sure tough.


----------



## Cyrk16

Best thread eva


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *steven937595*


can you add in the Radeon X1300XGE? (Xtreme Gamer Edition lol) had 512mb of ddr2. I used to own one from visiontek
edit: XGE I believe may be Visiontek's spin on the card, but still, you should include the 512mb versions of the Radeon X1300 AGP card. But maybe pass on the visiontek variant, as it may appear to be overclocked idk. Just wanna know where it stands against the cards that came later


Where should it be placed?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Speedster159*


I don't see my Nvidia 6200TC 128MB


Should it be placed right above the 6200?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sid0972*


here is a review of 5870 2gb edition

shud be placed just above 5870 1gb version....

or maybe, above gtx 470


Okay added!


----------



## Speedster159

Yep The 6200TC is faster than the ordinary 6200

Their is a 256MB of the 6200TC but mine is 128MB(That is shared system memory)


----------



## mmparkskier

Has anyone tri fired some 5770s? I'll look for some benchies to see where it should go...

Copy and PASTE!

Right below...? All kinds of cards, depending on the game. Perhaps it's best just off the list.


----------



## jeff77789

how come you dont' have the quad and tri sli's for the gtx 480 and the gtx 470?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeff77789* 
how come you dont' have the quad and tri sli's for the gtx 480 and the gtx 470?

Still need reviews thats why... Ill place it where I think it should be but not 100% sure though.


----------



## ExoticallyPure

You have your CrossFire/SLI list wrong. You need to fix it so it looks like this:

Geforce GTX 480 Quad SLI
Radeon HD5870 Quadfire
Radeon HD5970 Quadfire
Geforce GTX 470 Quad SLI
The GTX 480 is the fastest single GPU ever, meaning that four of them would beat the HD 5970 crossfire (made up of 5870s, slower than 480s). The HD5870 Quadfire is above the 5970 because the 5970 has them slightly underclocked for lower temperatures.


----------



## tweaker123

5850>470


----------



## Anth0789

Fixed list!


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Fixed list!


Thanks, I'm positive that it should be fine now except for what tweaker123 said. Not sure about that but I suggest you prove it with a few benchmarks because the cards are pretty close.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tweaker123*


5850>470


Review Link


----------



## rocstar96

Bookmarked! Nice thread! xD


----------



## bosoxdanc

Hi Daniel,

We would like to offer a Sapphire HD5870 for you as substitution of your HD4870X2.

If you like to take it, please e-mail us back. Picture has attached for reference.

Original HD4870X2 2GB GDDR5 PCI-E

Substitution HD5870 1GB GDDR5 PCI-E W/ACCESSORIES & DRIVER CD

Regards,

RMA Dept.
Althon Micro Inc

Take it?


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *bosoxdanc*


Hi Daniel,

We would like to offer a Sapphire HD5870 for you as substitution of your HD4870X2.

If you like to take it, please e-mail us back. Picture has attached for reference.

Original HD4870X2 2GB GDDR5 PCI-E

Substitution HD5870 1GB GDDR5 PCI-E W/ACCESSORIES & DRIVER CD

Regards,

RMA Dept.
Althon Micro Inc

Take it?


I might


----------



## SystemTech

wow, nice list, never knew there was a HD4860


----------



## TheLastPriest

There wasnt for most of the life span of the 4xxx series cards, I believe (im sure I will be corrected) that it was a sapphire card they put out after the 5xxx series release in an attempt to get rid of 4xxx series backstock.


----------



## Open1Your1Eyes0

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TheLastPriest* 
There wasnt for most of the life span of the 4xxx series cards, I believe (im sure I will be corrected) that it was a sapphire card they put out after the 5xxx series release in an attempt to get rid of 4xxx series backstock.

HD4860 was the last card to come out before HD5800 series was launches a few weeks later.


----------



## TheLastPriest

Thank you, I would have sworn it was after but I have been known to be wrong on a fairly regular basis, as was just demonstrated.


----------



## mdbsat

This is a great resource.

Anyone have any idea where 5850's in xfire would be on the list?


----------



## rocstar96

Disregard this post.


----------



## Blindsay

Maybe i missed it somewhere in the 31 pages but the wording on some of the crossfire and SLI cards seems a bit confusing

"Geforce GTX 480 Quad SLI
Radeon HD5870 Quadfire
Radeon HD5970 Quadfire
Geforce GTX 470 Quad SLI
Radeon HD5850 Quadfire
Geforce GTX285 Quad SLI
Radeon HD4890 Quadfire
Geforce GTX295 Quad SLI
Radeon HD5970 Tri fire
Geforce GTX 480 Tri SLI
Radeon HD5870 Tri fire
Geforce GTX 470 Tri SLI
Radeon HD5850 Tri fire
Geforce GTX285 Tri SLI
Geforce GTX280 Tri SLI
Geforce GTX 275 Tri SLI
Radeon HD4890 Tri fire
Radeon HD4870X2 Crossfire
Radeon HD4850X2 Crossfire "

Radeon HD5970 Quadfire for example. Thats just 2 5970 cards right (i dont beleive u can run 4x 5970's right ?)? then what the heck is Radeon HD5970 Tri fire ? and Radeon HD4870X2 Crossfire Is that mean 1 or 2 4870X2'S? and if the answer is 2 wouldnt it technically be Quadfire at that point?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blindsay*


Maybe i missed it somewhere in the 31 pages but the wording on some of the crossfire and SLI cards seems a bit confusing

"Geforce GTX 480 Quad SLI 
Radeon HD5870 Quadfire 
Radeon HD5970 Quadfire 
Geforce GTX 470 Quad SLI 
Radeon HD5850 Quadfire 
Geforce GTX285 Quad SLI 
Radeon HD4890 Quadfire 
Geforce GTX295 Quad SLI 
Radeon HD5970 Tri fire 
Geforce GTX 480 Tri SLI 
Radeon HD5870 Tri fire 
Geforce GTX 470 Tri SLI 
Radeon HD5850 Tri fire 
Geforce GTX285 Tri SLI 
Geforce GTX280 Tri SLI 
Geforce GTX 275 Tri SLI 
Radeon HD4890 Tri fire 
Radeon HD4870X2 Crossfire 
Radeon HD4850X2 Crossfire "

Radeon HD5970 Quadfire for example. Thats just 2 5970 cards right (i dont beleive u can run 4x 5970's right ?)? then what the heck is Radeon HD5970 Tri fire ? and Radeon HD4870X2 Crossfire Is that mean 1 or 2 4870X2'S? and if the answer is 2 wouldnt it technically be Quadfire at that point?


I fixed it now, my mistake the 5970 is two Crossfire and there is no 5970 Tri-fire. The 4870X2 is crossfire meaning two 4870X2's.


----------



## Blindsay

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


I fixed it now, my mistake the 5970 is two Crossfire and there is no 5970 Tri-fire. The 4870X2 is crossfire meaning two 4870X2's.


thanks. Was just a bit confusing there

edit: "Geforce GTX295 Quad SLI " again for that, do u mean 4 295's or just 2 in SLI?

Not trying to be a pain just trying to make it clear for everyone.

Great thread by the way, really helpful that it has some older cards on there cause just because some cards may be newer doesnt mean they are faster.

For example the 9500GS im stuck using while my 4870 is out for RMA, what a freakin turd this thing is


----------



## W4LNUT5

I noticed no *5830* crossfire, tri-fire, or quad-fire in the multi-gpu rankings. I'd find it now, but it's 1:45am, and I'm going to bed. I'll snag you a benchmark or something tomorrow.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *W4LNUT5*


I noticed no *5830* crossfire, tri-fire, or quad-fire in the multi-gpu rankings. I'd find it now, but it's 1:45am, and I'm going to bed. I'll snag you a benchmark or something tomorrow.


Okay I added them, just nto 100% sure thats where they go.

Added also a new banner.


----------



## D3FiN3 SiN

When did the 4870 1 GB become faster than the 5770 1 GB, lol.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *firestormcomputers*


When did the 4870 1 GB become faster than the 5770 1 GB, lol.


Since it came out, 
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...-5770-review/5

They perform around the same. But at higher res the 4870 1GB wins.


----------



## rocstar96

That banner font is so familiar....

EDIT: Lol birth of a hero


----------



## sid0972

yah...since everybody uses 1440*900 res at least, 4870 beats 5770


----------



## godofdeath

is the 5770 better than a 260 because of the ram?


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *godofdeath*


is the 5770 better than a 260 because of the ram?


No, it's faster because that's the slower GTX260 192 shader version. RAM might have something to do with it in some cases.


----------



## godofdeath

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer* 
No, it's faster because that's the slower GTX260 192 shader version. RAM might have something to do with it in some cases.

ah saw the wrong one lol


----------



## Zyphur

I am looking for my first new GFX card and need some help.
I want to be able to play new games and Crysis, on 1680x1050 with high settings, or very close.
I want to have nice GFX and running smooth.

What rank(and above) on this list should I be looking at ? I don't want to spend much money.

My PC specs are in the sig.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Zyphur*


I am looking for my first new GFX card and need some help.
I want to be able to play new games and Crysis, on 1680x1050 with high settings, or very close.
I want to have nice GFX and running smooth.

What rank(and above) on this list should I be looking at ? I don't want to spend much money.

My PC specs are in the sig.


Check this review that should make you decide which card to get.


----------



## Enigma8750

I would just like to thank the person that has compiled this Data and tell you that I personally have used these Lists several times in the past. They are great and very accurate and I hope that you continue to do this or at least pass it on to some one else one day. It is a resource that is unmatched in its importance to the gamer and builder.


----------



## TheDreadedGMan

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Zyphur*


I am looking for my first new GFX card and need some help.
I want to be able to play new games and Crysis, on 1680x1050 with high settings, or very close.
I want to have nice GFX and running smooth.

What rank(and above) on this list should I be looking at ? I don't want to spend much money.

My PC specs are in the sig.


My vote: Get a Radeon HD 5850


----------



## akeedthe

does the 5970 perform better than my 4890s in xfire?
im thinking of an upgrade - would it be worthwhile to consider my options for anything else?


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *akeedthe* 
does the 5970 perform better than my 4890s in xfire?
im thinking of an upgrade - would it be worthwhile to consider my options for anything else?

Do you have two HD4890s then? The HD5970 is basically the same as two HD5870s in Crossfire clocked at HD5850 speeds. A single HD5870 is a good deal faster than a single HD4890. It would definitely be a worthwhile upgrade.


----------



## staryoshi

Going from 1 to 2GB does not make the 4850x2 faster than the GTX 285. Increasing the memory buffer does not always result in a superior card, either. Bleh, I'm too full to complain more about the list. Nice to see an effort even if I don't agree with it 100%







Good work.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *staryoshi* 
Going from 1 to 2GB does not make the 4850x2 faster than the GTX 285. Increasing the memory buffer does not always result in a superior card, either.

It's a dual GPU card though. The 1GB version is extremely limited by the frame buffer. You are really going from a 512MB usable (1GB version) to a 1GB usable (2GB version) card. With dual GPU cards each GPU has it's own frame buffer and as a result the usable frame buffer is half of the total. It's the same way with Crossfire and SLI setups as well.


----------



## sid0972

ya, if 2 cards r crossfired or SLI'd, and if one of the cards is 512mb, n the other is 1gb, only 512mb total wud be usable for both the cards
rest is waste


----------



## Pentium4 531 overclocker

DUDE! wheres the 4670 1GB?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pentium4 531 overclocker* 
DUDE! wheres the 4670 1GB?

Any review on it? Where should it be placed on the list?


----------



## blooder11181

http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1483&pageID=6316
is this a good review?


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blooder11181*


http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1483&pageID=6316
is this a good review?


Well, it doesn't compare the card to any other cards, so it's pretty hard to tell where it should go based on just fps and resolution

I found this
http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/...ds/254?start=5

And it pretty much belongs just above the regular 4670. Not any real improvement with the added ram.


----------



## Anth0789

Okay ill just put it above it, thanks.


----------



## Desktopstu

nice to see the Chrome-motion is in the list! 

Me being an old s3 fanboi here heh heh heh.


----------



## Desktopstu

oh, how about the SiS xabre cards? xabre 200 is approximate level of the nVidia MX440, the xabre 400 / 600 about the speeds of nVidia Ti 4200 / 4400 respectively.


----------



## srsparky32

the 9800gx2 is identical to a gtx 280, so it should be bumped up imo.


----------



## Desktopstu

Xabre 400-

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=1176&page=1

http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/Si...400/xabre6.htm

Xabre 600 but with only 64mb ram :-(

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1281


----------



## headcracker

I thought the 4890 was faster than the 275 ?









http://www.anandtech.com/show/2745/23

Quote:



At 1680 x 1050 and 1920 x 1200 the 4890 is nearly undefeated


----------



## USlatin

Wish there was a way to create a link to something like price grabber where the text got automatically filled in by the lowest price available... that would make this list the holy grail of the "state of the union at a glance".

REP+ cause you are keeping this thing up to date... lots' a wurk!


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *srsparky32*


the 9800gx2 is identical to a gtx 280, so it should be bumped up imo.


Check this thread:
http://www.overclock.net/nvidia/3473...-9800-gx2.html

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Desktopstu*


Xabre 400-

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=1176&page=1

http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/Si...400/xabre6.htm

Xabre 600 but with only 64mb ram :-(

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1281


I never heard of these cards, but ill add them anyway.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *headcracker*


I thought the 4890 was faster than the 275 ?









http://www.anandtech.com/show/2745/23


Thats an old review in 2009, the drivers really make a difference:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Z...dition/29.html


----------



## Desktopstu

That was always the problem with the SiS xabre series.... great potential but pee poor driver support...


----------



## sid0972

here is one of the review of gtx 465
so what ar u waiting for mate,,,,just put it in the list


----------



## Anth0789

Another review here.

Added GTX 465 its right under the 5850.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Another review here.

Added GTX 465 its right under the 5850.


First off, let me say again how grateful we all are for your work on this ranking. It is most appreciated and very helpful to the OCN community.

According to the TechPowerUp review of the Zotac GTX465, it should go right below the GTX285 1GB:










Source

That is only one review but one of the few that show a summary of the results. That makes it a lot easier to get a general picture of the overall performance difference that is crucial for correct placement in this ranking. Though again it is only one review but I thought I'd provide the info.


----------



## Mattngsx

That doesn't seem very accurate with the 465??? I don't know, i've always been an nvidia fan, but even Tomshardware says that its a battle between the 465 and the 5830, not the 5850. Info taken from the conclusion of the 465 review. 
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...f100,2642.html


----------



## ablearcher

You have the GTX470 being listed in a quad SLI configuration.
But it only supports Tri-SLI

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product...tx_470_us.html


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ablearcher*


You have the GTX470 being listed in a quad SLI configuration.
But it only supports Tri-SLI

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product...tx_470_us.html


My mistake fixed!


----------



## losttsol

Although they would be lower on the list, I think showing where integrated graphics would rank in this list would be a good addition.


----------



## Anth0789

Added the new HD5550 to the list.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/H...D_5550/28.html


----------



## blooder11181

it uses the same specs from hd4670?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blooder11181*


it uses the same specs from hd4670?


Its close to it yes but it has 1GB:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/H...HD_5550/1.html


----------



## KoolGuy

Isnt the 9800GX2 better the the GTX 275 in every way except minimum FPS?


----------



## Open1Your1Eyes0

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KoolGuy* 
Isnt the 9800GX2 better the the GTX 275 in every way except minimum FPS?

*9800GX2 vs. GTX280 Benchmarks*

Pretty much, not sure on the minimum FPS part with a GTX275 though since it's a slightly different card (although almost identical in performance with the GTX280).


----------



## KoolGuy

Meaning the GX2 should be in 18 or 19th place


----------



## Anth0789

Updated its placed right over the GTX 275.


----------



## adzsask

top 20 still overall WOOT, be waiting for the next line of nvidia cards for my next upgrade.


----------



## KoolGuy

Sweet now my video card is in the top 20!


----------



## Anth0789

Another update! Added the ARES, "Radeon HD 5870 X2".
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...ssFire/26.html


----------



## kix

What about Radeon HD5850 1GB X2? Would that be better than a GTX480?


----------



## mdbsat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kix*


What about Radeon HD5850 1GB X2? Would that be better than a GTX480?


I would like to see where that setup is on the list. Not sure why it is left off.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kix* 
What about Radeon HD5850 1GB X2? Would that be better than a GTX480?

I don't see any reviews on it, plus I don't think its released yet.


----------



## KoolGuy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mdbsat* 
I would like to see where that setup is on the list. Not sure why it is left off.

ATI has no regard for the size of your case.

No one has the card....


----------



## mdbsat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *KoolGuy*


ATI has no regard for the size of your case.

No one has the card....


I think I was missunderstood, I am sure I wasn't clear. I was talking about where crossfired 5850's would be on that list


----------



## kix

Not too sure if how accurate it is, but here is a chart from tomshardware

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2...ny-2,2237.html


----------



## Djtomczak678

It would be a lot of work but may I suggest adding average prices for each card. Or even just go to one site and take the prices from each card. Doesn't have to be updated daily it would just be to give an idea on how much each card cost.


----------



## Open1Your1Eyes0

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Djtomczak678* 
It would be a lot of work but may I suggest adding average prices for each card. Or even just go to one site and take the prices from each card. Doesn't have to be updated daily it would just be to give an idea on how much each card cost.

This would be almost a near impossible task. A lot of cards you cannot purchase anywhere new or used anymore and even the cards now prices change very fast. I think a better idea would be to list release MSRP prices so people can get a rough idea of how things changed over the years and where they stand. That information is fairly easy to find for almost every card. But it's up to *Anth* if he wants to get a couple of people to help him out in finding this stuff.


----------



## mdbsat

So where does the 5850 x2 belong?


----------



## Anman

9. Geforce GTX 295 In SLI
10. Geforce GTX 480 In Tri SLI

I'm pretty sure since the 480 is better than the 295 would beat it in tri SLI versus the 295 using normal SLI.


----------



## Miitch

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anman*


9. Geforce GTX 295 In SLI
10. Geforce GTX 480 In Tri SLI

I'm pretty sure since the 480 is better than the 295 would beat it in tri SLI versus the 295 using normal SLI.


Geforce GTX 295 is a dual GPU card, having them in SLI is having four GPUs but is considered SLI because it is two physical cards. So no, SLI 295s are faster.


----------



## Anman

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Miitch*


Geforce GTX 295 is a dual GPU card, having them in SLI is having four GPUs but is considered SLI because it is two physical cards. So no, SLI 295s are faster.


4. Geforce GTX 480 1536MB
5. Geforce GTX 295 1792MB

This really isn't possible unless it's more than double a performance boost when in SLI.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Miitch*


Geforce GTX 295 is a dual GPU card, having them in SLI is having four GPUs but is considered SLI because it is two physical cards. So no, SLI 295s are faster.


Actually, Anman has a very valid point. A single GTX295 and a single GTX480 perform similarly, generally speaking, with the GTX480 having the upper hand. That case would still stand with GTX295 SLI and GTX480 SLI but with an even greater advantage to the GTX480 setup this time, given the horrible scaling of 4 GPUs (GTX295 SLI). Without question it would follow that GTX480 Tri-SLI is faster than GTX295 SLI. Personally I think the GTX295 SLI should go below the HD5850 Tri-fire. That's a total guess though based on the horrible scaling of 4 GPUs.

On a related topic. I think the Ares HD5870X2 in Crossfire should be below the GTX480 Quad-SLI. The reason for this is two Ares HD5870X2 in Crossfire is technically equivalent to four HD5870 2GB cards in Quad-fire. I have no chart to support this though. It's just a hunch since a single HD5870 2GB is slower than a single GTX480. Unless the extra video RAM on the Ares helps a lot.

I presume the HD5870 on the Crossfire/SLI chart is the 1GB version. So here are my suggested changes (including Anman's suggestion):

*Geforce GTX 480 In Quad SLI
[*]Radeon Ares HD5870X2 In Crossfire
[*]Radeon HD5870 In Quadfire
[*]Radeon HD5970 In Crossfire
[*]Radeon HD5850 In Quadfire
[*]Geforce GTX 285 In Quad SLI
[*]Radeon HD4890 In Quadfire
[*]Radeon HD5830 In Quadfire
[*]Geforce GTX 480 In Tri SLI
[*]Radeon HD5870 In Tri fire
[*]Geforce GTX 470 In Tri SLI
[*]Radeon HD5850 In Tri fire
[*]Geforce GTX 295 In SLI
[*]Geforce GTX 465 In Tri SLI*
I also have a feeling the GTX 480 Tri-SLI is placed too low but have no idea really where it should go. All this is really guess work anyway, since there are few data charts available comparing an array of multi-GPU setups.


----------



## Anth0789

Sorry guys been working all day, updated the list!


----------



## mdbsat

Where would crossfired 5850's be on the list?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mdbsat*


Where would crossfired 5850's be on the list?


Its already on the list look at the bottom SLI/Crossfire list #29.


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 460 768MB and 1GB added, I'm surprised it actually beats the GTX 465 at higher res but for the most part they are equal.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...768_MB/31.html


----------



## sid0972

acc to tomshardware, 5830 beats it in many cases, which means 4890 beats it in mny cases too


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sid0972* 
acc to tomshardware, 5830 beats it in many cases, which means 4890 beats it in mny cases too











http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...768_MB/31.html










http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...-review-9.html


----------



## Bodycount

After reading the graphs the OP im starting to wonder if i should just buy 2 more 260's for tri sli? instead of one 480 But then im sure ill need to up my PSU (650) what do you guys think?

Kinda want DX11

But i dont use really high res. being on a projector i use 1280x720


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bodycount*


After reading the graphs the OP im starting to wonder if i should just buy 2 more 260's for tri sli? instead of one 480 But then im sure ill need to up my PSU (650) what do you guys think?

Kinda want DX11

But i dont use really high res. being on a projector i use 1280x720


1GB-460's are one of the best bang for the buck cards atm. Could grab 1 or 2 of those eventually.


----------



## eternal7trance

You can't tri sli gtx 460s. Not sure why that's on the list.


----------



## RideZiLightning

So what are the rules or whatever about OCing and whatnot?

Because with and without voltmods, the 4860 should be right below the 4890 1GB

No real reviews for this card. Only mine and other peoples benches


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *RideZiLightning*


So what are the rules or whatever about OCing and whatnot?

Because with and without voltmods, the 4860 should be right below the 4890 1GB

No real reviews for this card. Only mine and other peoples benches


Since overclocking is so varied, the ranking is based upon stock performance.


----------



## Anman

Geforce GTX 460 1GB
Geforce GTX 465 1GB

So the 460 is BETTER than the 465? How's that possible?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anman* 
Geforce GTX 460 1GB
Geforce GTX 465 1GB

So the 460 is BETTER than the 465? How's that possible?

Look at these reviews:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-10.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/N...60_SLI/25.html


----------



## Anman

lolfail


----------



## PcG_AmD

ATI has to do something about their price,for 200 bucks you can get two 460 in sli which will almost pair the 5970 which is like 600 bucks.
That sucks man.


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PcG_AmD* 
ATI has to do something about their price,for 200 bucks you can get two 460 in sli which will almost pair the 5970 which is like 600 bucks.
That sucks man.

200 each, not 200 total. If you can find me 2 460's for $200 total I'd buy that in an instant.


----------



## PcG_AmD

Quote:



Originally Posted by *W4LNUT5*


200 each, not 200 total. If you can find me 2 460's for $200 total I'd buy that in an instant.


My bad







i meant 200 bucks each for a total of 400 in sli







.
That's 100 bucks less for almost the same performance.


----------



## rocstar96

Where is the GTS 250 E-Green/Green?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *rocstar96*


Where is the GTS 250 E-Green/Green?


Isn't it just a regular GTS 250 1GB?

The GTS 250 1GB is listed at number 33.


----------



## rocstar96

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Isn't it just a regular GTS 250 1GB?

The GTS 250 1GB is listed at number 33.


Its a clocked down card


----------



## gunner05

so looks like the best bang for the buck is the GTX 460 1GB ?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gunner05* 
so looks like the best bang for the buck is the GTX 460 1GB ?

At the moment yes.


----------



## Anman

Would two 4850s in Crossfire outperform a GTX 460?


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anman* 
Would two 4850s in Crossfire outperform a GTX 460?

Seeing that the 4850X2 lands in between the 460-1GB and the 460-768MB, I'd say performance is expected to be really close.


----------



## AK-47

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gunner05* 
so looks like the best bang for the buck is the GTX 460 1GB ?

stock yes
But why wouldn't you unlock a 465 to a 470?


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AK-47* 
stock yes
But why wouldn't you unlock a 465 to a 470?

I know people who have tried this, and it was never that great. Unstable, stuttering in sli, etc (I know a few, not just 1 guy). Plus it never really becomes a 470 as it's still lacking hardware. Some people have great success with it, but it's not a guarantee. Especially now that most of the new 465's aren't the same layout as the old 465 PNY's were.


----------



## 8800GT

5830<4890 by less then 1%. 4890 is greater then gtx 280.4850 ddr5 <3870x2


----------



## Woundingchaney

470 sli > 5870 xfire

470 = 5870 1 gb


----------



## lordvader

The new series of NVIDIA GeForce 400M GPUs includes:

* For enthusiast users: GeForce GTX 470M and GTX 460M.
* For performance users: GeForce GT 445M, GT 435M, GT 425M, GT 420M and GT 415M.

Which of these is Best for Gaming in Laptop ?

Thanks


----------



## Thatguystolemynick

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Woundingchaney* 
470 sli > 5870 xfire

470 = 5870 1 gb

LOL. No Way

5830 needs to get up in the list


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *8800GT* 
5830<4890 by less then 1%. 4890 is greater then gtx 280.4850 ddr5 <3870x2











Quote:


Originally Posted by *Woundingchaney* 
470 sli > 5870 xfire

470 = 5870 1 gb

With its new driver maybe, but I leave it like that!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordvader* 
The new series of NVIDIA GeForce 400M GPUs includes:

* For enthusiast users: GeForce GTX 470M and GTX 460M.
* For performance users: GeForce GT 445M, GT 435M, GT 425M, GT 420M and GT 415M.

Which of these is Best for Gaming in Laptop ?

Thanks

I'm not very familiar with GPU of laptops but the GTX470m seems to be the best one for gaming.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Thatguystolemynick* 
LOL. No Way

5830 needs to get up in the list

Where exactly?


----------



## UltimateGamerXFX

I think my 4770 should be 1st in the list :/


----------



## W4LNUT5

I love it when people are like "zomg cardX > cardY" without providing a comparative benchmark with some info.


----------



## lordvader

Anth0789;
I'm not very familiar with GPU of laptops but the GTX470m seems to be the best one for gaming.
[/QUOTE said:


> I thought 480 was better than the 470
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is the 470 better for gaming cos it has better support for drivers ?
> or ?
> 
> Thanks


----------



## Thatguystolemynick

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anth0789* 









With its new driver maybe, but I leave it like that!

I'm not very familiar with GPU of laptops but the GTX470m seems to be the best one for gaming.

Where exactly?

near 460


----------



## Anth0789

GTS 450 added to the list!


----------



## Anman

Why is the GTX 460 2GB not listed?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anman* 
Why is the GTX 460 2GB not listed?

Because it just came out! Its added now!


----------



## Awieos

kinda suck to see GT240 below 9600GT it should be faster by little.

Prepare urself for 6000 series


----------



## bestermj

I think the GTX 460 should be above the GTX 285.

theres some examples here: http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-ge...hawk-review/14


----------



## sid0972

that is hawk OC series
these are stock cards here


----------



## bestermj

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sid0972*


that is hawk OC series
these are stock cards here


I know, the stock GTX 460 and 285 is included in the benchmark. And the 460 still wins.


----------



## Anth0789

Updated!


----------



## Anth0789

GT 430 added now!


----------



## Anth0789

6850 + 6870 up on the list now.


----------



## Regamaster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


6850 + 6870 up on the list now.










There's an awful lot of red at the top of that list









and btw thank you so much for this thread op I really appreciate it, this is the best place that I know of where I can get a definite answer on where a GPU ranks. +rep to you


----------



## Anman

Not to be picky but the new 6850/6870 are really AMD cards, not ATI.


----------



## sbrochew

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anth0789* 
You guys got to tell me whats new to add on and where should it go...

I was curious where the Sapphire Toxic edition of the Radeon HD 5850 1GB would fit in on that list. I have no idea where it should go except before its reference card.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anman* 
Not to be picky but the new 6850/6870 are really AMD cards, not ATI.

Its still considered an Radeon card though.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sbrochew* 
I was curious where the Sapphire Toxic edition of the Radeon HD 5850 1GB would fit in on that list. I have no idea where it should go except before its reference card.

Look at these reviews:
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...50_toxic/7.htm
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-13.html


----------



## Anman

I was referring to where it said ATI at the top.


----------



## tombom

edit: nvm


----------



## Thatguystolemynick

I Thought the 465/5830 are faster than the 460 1GB

I Must Do Some Research....


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Thatguystolemynick*


I Thought the 465/5830 are faster than the 460 1GB

I Must Do Some Research....


The HD5830 is slower but pretty close to the GTX460 768MB. The GTX460 1GB and GTX465 are pretty much dead even. Though the GTX460 1GB is considered the better card because it is more efficient and most overclock really good. This might help a little:










Source


----------



## Grim

Why is it, that on this version of the list the 6600GT falls below the 8400gs?


----------



## Anman

Put the GTX 580 above the GTX 480.


----------



## sid0972

review

and link to the list


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 580 is added!


----------



## soul999

I looked in the list I can't find the ATI Radeon HD 4200 or Integrated Intel HD Graphics which is better?


----------



## soul999

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*


The HD5830 is slower but pretty close to the GTX460 768MB. The GTX460 1GB and GTX465 are pretty much dead even. Though the GTX460 1GB is considered the better card because it is more efficient and most overclock really good. This might help a little:










Source


how did you do that?


----------



## werds

Quote:



Originally Posted by *soul999*


how did you do that?


he used Image tags basically he typed


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *soul999* 
I looked in the list I can't find the ATI Radeon HD 4200 or Integrated Intel HD Graphics which is better?

That's because the ranking only includes discreet graphics cards. Which Intel HD Graphics are you talking about (depending on the CPU they come at three different clocks, see below)?

Intel Pentium G6950 - IGP @ 533MHz
Intel Core i3 5x0 - IGP @ 733MHz
Intel Core i5 6x0 - IGP @ 733MHz
Intel Core i5 661 - IGP @ 900MHz

Truthfully they are pretty well matched (when it comes to the 733MHz and 900MHz versions). Though it can depend on the game for who wins: link.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *soul999* 
how did you do that?

It's pretty easy to do. Any image on a website has a link. Just right click the image and click "Copy Link Location." Put the cursor where you want the image to be in your forum post and click the "Insert Image" button which looks like this







. That wraps your link like so *







* which makes the image appear in your post (instead of just a link).


----------



## incurablegeek

I need (for work, not gaming) a *Quad-Monitor capable graphics card* (22 inch and 28 inch monitors). Since it's for work, I am not looking for a matrix display of a single image but rather 4 monitors with independent displays (hope that makes some sense).

The ATI 100-505532 FirePro 2450 512MB GDDR3 PCI Express @ NewEgg is said to be professional grade *But Please* feel free to *Disagree* with me!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...scrollHelpful1

*Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.







*


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Oh wow. Impressive to see my old 4870X2 is still up in the ranks.


----------



## Gnickrapon

Think i've come to the right place. Currently running 2 x NX8800gt in Sli. Searching for a single card solution to beat that. Without, of course, breaking the bank. Suggestions? Cheers


----------



## Stealth Pyros

GTX 480/580. A single 480 is at least twice as powerful as 2 8800GTs...







2 8800GTs are about 'equal' to a GTX 280.


----------



## Gnickrapon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros* 
GTX 480/580. A single 480 is at least twice as powerful as 2 8800GTs...







2 8800GTs are about 'equal' to a GTX 280.

Wicked, thanks


----------



## Anman

The GTX 460 SE 1GB still hasn't been added. I'd imagine it'd go above the Radeon HD 5770.


----------



## Bo_Fox

GTX 460 SE should be just below GTX 460 768MB, and above the rest.

EDIT: See the conclusion chart: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-17.html


----------



## Anth0789

Review

Seems to be right over the 5770.


----------



## SubstreamAI

I just registered, verified my email, found this thread again, and all that just so I could say thanks for this. The trouble I went through to be able to say thanks is nothing compared to what you have done to maintain this thread. I use it _frequently _and I couldn't be happier that it exists. THANKS SO MUCH!


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SubstreamAI*


I just registered, verified my email, found this thread again, and all that just so I could say thanks for this. The trouble I went through to be able to say thanks is nothing compared to what you have done to maintain this thread. I use it _frequently _and I couldn't be happier that it exists. THANKS SO MUCH!










This thread is the reason I came to the forum. You should stick around a while and check out all OCN has to offer. Believe me, there is more like this.


----------



## Bo_Fox

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Review

Seems to be right over the 5770.


The 460 SE beats 5830 in 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 resolutions. People who buy $160 cards generally do not use 2560x1600. The 1024x768 and 1280x1024 resolutions are quite impractical settings, since the lowest resolution is usually CPU-bound, and more dependent upon how well the card was optimized with the CPU. See how the 5970 came out as first place in all other resolutions except the lowest one? Plus 1280x1024 is rarely used nowadays with people who buy $100+ video cards. 1680x1050 monitors are dirt cheap, and already "low-end" by today's standards.

Keep in mind that HardwareCanucks show GTX 460SE beating the 768MB version when 8xAA is enabled. With 8xAA, the 5830 cannot hold a candle to it.


----------



## sid0972

Quote:



Originally Posted by *W4LNUT5*


This thread is the reason I came to the forum. You should stick around a while and check out all OCN has to offer. Believe me, there is more like this.


its all like this.....


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 570 added!

Review here!


----------



## Gnickrapon

Anyone out there had any issues dealing with PowerColor? Just a little suspicious that's all. Thinking of picking up 1 of their 5850's for $235Au? Good buy?


----------



## DraganUS

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Gnickrapon*


Anyone out there had any issues dealing with PowerColor? Just a little suspicious that's all. Thinking of picking up 1 of their 5850's for $235Au? Good buy?


Worst possible time to buy 5850 or 5870 card.


----------



## Gnickrapon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *DraganUS*


Worst possible time to buy 5850 or 5870 card.


Because they're releasing the new 6xxx series soon and the prices of 58xx cards will come down? Fair call. Has anyone had any issues with PowerColor though?


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Gnickrapon*


Because they're releasing the new 6xxx series soon and the prices of 58xx cards will come down? Fair call. Has anyone had any issues with PowerColor though?


I've never used a PowerColor before. Myself I wouldn't buy one of their cards as I don't trust the brand yet.


----------



## sid0972

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Anth0789* 
GTX 570 added!

Review here!

i think u have given the wrong link

EDIT: its correct


----------



## Bo_Fox

Hey, do you guys agree with the ranking of GTX 460 SE?

See the chart from HardwareCanucks:








With 4xAA @1920x1200, it's only 1% slower than the 768MB version. With 8xAA, it's a whopping 7% faster. That's why I don't think it should be placed sooooo far below the 460 768MB, let alone the 5830 (which performs at least as bad with 8xAA due to only 16 ROP's).


----------



## incurablegeek

First of all, re: 
Quote:



This thread is the reason I came to the forum. You should stick around a while and check out all OCN has to offer. Believe me, there is more like this.


_Let me second that. When I first came to OCN, I met a very helpful fellow named TwoCables. After getting to know him better via PM, I asked him if he could recommend any other boards/forums. Well, when he told me that he found all that he needed on OCN and didn't feel the need to "stray", I concluded that he must be a bit dingy or agoraphopic at best. Not so. OCN is so complete and so replete with very helpful and knowledgeable people that I now hardly every participate elsewhere. (Also, haven't encountered one poser or chest thumper yet) _

*Now my question. Not being a gamer but a multi-monitor guy, I felt my needs for two 28" inch monitors (for work) and one 22 inch (for system monitoring) could best be met by a single ATI Radeon HD 5770. Since I am new to multi-monitor setups, I was wondering if I would "stress" the HD 5770 less by running the two 28 inchers off the HD 5770 and then use a separate low-cost card for the 22 incher? Or should I just load all three monitors on the HD 5770?

Also will I get distortion, aberrations, anomalies and the like by mixing monitors of different resolutions on the same card?*


----------



## sid0972

i think by OCN twocables never meant JUST ANYWHERE on this forum

please refer to graphics card section on this forum, or the monitor section

ur question will be better answered there
anyways....no need for another card.....5770 can perfectly handle 3 monitors,without anomalies
but expect the idle temp to increase ( no point for load temp as u dont plan to game)

and people here can read perfectly well...no need for fancy colours or big fonts

and thnx for all ur saying about OCN


----------



## incurablegeek

Quote:

.no need for fancy colours or big fonts
Hey sorry. I experimented with the big fonts cause I'm far-sighted and the colors, well because I was bored.

Hey yeh on second look, you are very right. That post really sucks. My Bad.









(Got my answer on the monitors, btw.)


----------



## Domino

are 580s seriously limited to tri sli?


----------



## Dan816

The latest atomic magazine just rated the 580 as the single fastest card on the market at the moment. How can that be if it's 4th on the list?


----------



## supra_rz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Dan816*


The latest atomic magazine just rated the 580 as *the single fastest card on the market* at the moment. How can that be if it's 4th on the list?


this is the answer to your question. the first 3 are dual solutions on single card. Thats why


----------



## GanjaSMK

Why is the GTX465 behind the GTX460 1GB? It has more ROP's, more cores, although I know it is short on the memory bus (something like 103GB/s compared to 117+GB/s)?

Still, even with slower/less bandwidth on the memory side sure it's not slower/behind the GTX460?!







What am I missing!?


----------



## supra_rz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*


Why is the GTX465 behind the GTX460 1GB? It has more ROP's, more cores, although I know it is short on the memory bus (something like 103GB/s compared to 117+GB/s)?

Still, even with slower/less bandwidth on the memory side sure it's not slower/behind the GTX460?!







What am I missing!?


check reviews.

gtx 460 1 gb > gtx 465


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:



Originally Posted by *supra_rz*


check reviews.

gtx 460 1 gb > gtx 465


While seemingly and somewhat obvious that kind of reply is, it's not helpful nor explanatory. Come on now...


----------



## tryceo

GTX 460 Is a better than 6870 and 6850 when all cards are OCed to highest level..

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...-study-12.html


----------



## supra_rz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*


While seemingly and somewhat obvious that kind of reply is, it's not helpful nor explanatory. Come on now...


so you compare gpu's on paper? or for their actual performance?


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tryceo*


GTX 460 Is a better than 6870 and 6850 when all cards are OCed to highest level..

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...-study-12.html


I'll take gaming and real world use benchmarks over Unigine all day (in my humble opinion).

Quote:



Originally Posted by *supra_rz*


so you compare gpu's on paper? or for their actual performance?


Not at all. And in seeing a few different models and comparison the rank makes sense if all clocks are stock per card. But overclocking a GTX465 would most likely beat a 460 (even overclocked) in almost anything thrown at it, I would imagine, due to larger amount of ROP's and cores. But again, tell me what I'm missing here instead of single line replies with no substance?


----------



## supra_rz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*


I'll take gaming and real world use benchmarks over Unigine all day (in my humble opinion).


still the gtx 460 is ahead http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...card-review/10

any other proofs needed?


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:



Originally Posted by *supra_rz*


still the gtx 460 is ahead http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...card-review/10

any other proofs needed?


I laugh at that as 'proof'. Enough with you - g'night!


----------



## supra_rz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK*


I laugh at that as 'proof'. Enough with you - g'night!


when you will read that the gtx 460 is a new chip maybe you change your mind..


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK;11641763*
> I laugh at that as 'proof'. Enough with you - g'night!


It's widely accepted that they perform almost the same, with the edge to the 1GB 460 for it's lower power draw and higher stock clocks










Just about every review you will find shows they perform within 5fps of each other, with the 1GB 460 on topside of the average by a couple fps (likely due to the higher stock clocks)

1GB 460 > 465 > 768MB 460


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *W4LNUT5;11643727*
> It's widely accepted that they perform almost the same, with the edge to the 1GB 460 for it's lower power draw and higher stock clocks
> 
> Just about every review you will find shows they perform within 5fps of each other, with the 1GB 460 on topside of the average by a couple fps (likely due to the higher stock clocks)
> 
> 1GB 460 > 465 > 768MB 460


Yeah, I've been looking. I was mistaken as I had thought the GTX460 only had 28 ROP's (1GB version) versus 32 in the 465. I also was mistaken thinking that the 465 was also a refresher of GF104 chips but I have read it's the GF100.

Oh well - I got one for 149$ w/FS and Mafia II so I'm not complaining. I just hope it's able to hit 750/800 with a bit of voltage. I'll find out soon enough!


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK;11643790*
> Yeah, I've been looking. I was mistaken as I had thought the GTX460 only had 28 ROP's (1GB version) versus 32 in the 465. I also was mistaken thinking that the 465 was also a refresher of GF104 chips but I have read it's the GF100.
> 
> Oh well - I got one for 149$ w/FS and Mafia II so I'm not complaining. I just hope it's able to hit 750/800 with a bit of voltage. I'll find out soon enough!


Great price man. I just saw that one today.


----------



## GanjaSMK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *W4LNUT5;11643828*
> Great price man. I just saw that one today.


That's what I thought! I was







.... but if I find performance is







I'm gonna send it back and just keep waiting like I have been.


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GanjaSMK;11643885*
> That's what I thought! I was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... but if I find performance is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna send it back and just keep waiting like I have been.


Well, the 46x's are somewhere around a 285 in performance. But now you'd have DX11. When BF3 comes out, it will be DX11 only from what I've heard.

And BC2 looks way better in DX11 from what Raptor and the rest of those with newer than me GPU's say. lol


----------



## GanjaSMK

I'm definitely going to see what DX11 does to the shadows in BC2, that's for sure. But I really don't care about DX11 sadly. I do hope the texture flickering is gone with this new card.

My 260 has massive flickering textures. It happens on a a couple different maps but Heavy Metal is the worst. Good thing I only play that map to spawn rape and mess with people. I hate conquest..


----------



## ecko no yaro

Why 6970 & 6950 haven't went to the chart? I'm really interested on how high they can go within those GPU ranking chart, anyone.. please share your review for those card..


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ecko no yaro;11655012*
> Why 6970 & 6950 haven't went to the chart? I'm really interested on how high they can go within those GPU ranking chart, anyone.. please share your review for those card..


Ive been working! Now ill add it.









Reviews:
http://www.techspot.com/review/348-amd-radeon-6970/page5.html
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1488/7/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6970/29.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/29.html


----------



## PowerTrip

I have crossfired 4850's and my Wife is buying me a 6870 for xmas. According to the ranks, a 6870 is a bit faster than a 4850x2. So is it safe to expect a couple of more fps in BFBC2?


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerTrip;11659338*
> I have crossfired 4850's and my Wife is buying me a 6870 for xmas. According to the ranks, a 6870 is a bit faster than a 4850x2. So is it safe to expect a couple of more fps in BFBC2?


You could stick with your 4850s imo. I'm very happy with my 4870X2 in BC2, I'd much rather wait for BF3 (or at least its beta) to release and go for the best contending card at that time.


----------



## ATSi

Isn't 6970 better then the 480 at least, I know it trades blows with the 570 which is a little faster then the 480. I'm pretty AMD intended to beat the 480 with the 6970 originally but the 580/570 threw a hitch in their plans.


----------



## Snoopykins

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ATSi*


Isn't 6970 better then the 480 at least, I know it trades blows with the 570 which is a little faster then the 480. I'm pretty AMD intended to beat the 480 with the 6970 originally but the 580/570 threw a hitch in their plans.


What he said. The 570 and 580 did mess with AMDs plans quite a bit however those scores indicate that the 6970 is in fact ahead of the 570 and the 480.

Now yes, the 570 performs better in a few games than the 6970 does.(ones that are optimized for NVIDIA) However, the 6970 has eyefinity technology supporting up to 6 monitors at once, and a vastly larger frame buffer size. This basically means that at the tested settings the 6970 seems to be ahead by just a little bit but at higher resolutions there would be a very large difference in performance in the 6970's favor.


----------



## Brenslick

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ATSi;11665501*
> Isn't 6970 better then the 480 at least, I know it trades blows with the 570 which is a little faster then the 480. I'm pretty AMD intended to beat the 480 with the 6970 originally but the 580/570 threw a hitch in their plans.


Im gonna agree with this. From what I've seen, the 6970 beats the 570/480 pretty clearly, though not by much. I think it should go:

6970
570
480
6950

I'm pretty sure thats what it should be based on all the reviews.


----------



## Electric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brenslick;11673692*
> Im gonna agree with this. From what I've seen, the 6970 beats the 570/480 pretty clearly, though not by much. I think it should go:
> 
> 6970
> 570
> 480
> 6950
> 
> I'm pretty sure thats what it should be based on all the reviews.


I third this. I think it it should be in that order.

6970
570
480
6950


----------



## Anth0789

With all the resolutions combined GTX 570 is still ahead:


----------



## ATSi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789;11677768*
> With all the resolutions combined GTX 570 is still ahead:


That's because they factor in 1024 x 768 and the 570 is miles ahead there, face it no one buys a $350 videocard to play on a $20 monitor. As the resolution grows the 6970 leaves the 570 behind, it's about 11% faster @ 2560x1600 with AA enabled.


----------



## Customx3

Are we talking all stock or just highest benchmark? If highest benchmark let me know and i will try to get my 9400gt higher on that list


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Customx3;11694284*
> Are we talking all stock or just highest benchmark? If highest benchmark let me know and i will try to get my 9400gt higher on that list


Stock, entering overclocking into the equation would make it way too complicated. It also would be hard to do because each chip overclocks different.


----------



## Gnickrapon

Sapphire HD5870 - $319AU. Anyone think it'll come down more? Or should I just jump on it now?


----------



## ATSi

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Gnickrapon*


Sapphire HD5870 - $319AU. Anyone think it'll come down more? Or should I just jump on it now?


I'd actually go for a 6870 which is $273AU, you lose perhaps 5% performance but save some money, less power consumption, more features and 6870CF is actually on par or better then 5870CF. The 5870 will be EOL'ed soon I think but 6870's won't so it offers an easier upgrade path.


----------



## WolfenWind

Whoa never woulda thought I would own a top 5 card. Top 3 even if you discount the dual gpus and different ram models.

BTW is this updated as drivers are released?


----------



## Electric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ATSi;11677907*
> That's because they factor in 1024 x 768 and the 570 is miles ahead there, face it no one buys a $350 videocard to play on a $20 monitor. As the resolution grows the 6970 leaves the 570 behind, it's about 11% faster @ 2560x1600 with AA enabled.


You sir, hit it right on.


----------



## Drizzt5

I gotta say...
I like this list.


----------



## Rit

Thanks for making this list! It will be easier to upgrade my HD3850 much easier now! CHEERS!


----------



## steamboat

any comparisons w/ the 6950 yet?

*nvm, just saw it


----------



## Little Overclocker/Gamer

Still can't decide. Too bad Dirt 3 isn't out yet. That would really settle the score for me. Need Dirt 3 benchies because that's the game I want (the benchmarks will be here once the game comes out but I want it now).


----------



## Dan816

Well I have finally got my 5970 working properly but now looking at some of these cf combo's it could look like 2 x 6970's could be my next upgrade path.


----------



## Little Overclocker/Gamer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dan816;11812776*
> Well I have finally got my 5970 working properly but now looking at some of these cf combo's it could look like 2 x 6970's could be my next upgrade path.


Did you read the news about being able to unclock a 6950 to a 6970? Look at that and save $120-$140 by getting two 6950's instead unless you don't want to go through the hassle.


----------



## Dan816

Now that could be even better. Anything to save a few dollars that could be spent elsewhere on the rig!


----------



## steamboat

does an unlocked 6950 still count as "stock"
and if so, does it change it's ranking?


----------



## CovertCover

An unlocked card still has a chance of being unstable, and even unlocked it can't quite match the performance of the 6970.


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *steamboat*


does an unlocked 6950 still count as "stock"
and if so, does it change it's ranking?


no because it's not how the card ships. Stock means exactly how the card is originally sold. So if you've "unlocked" it, that requires modding the bios installed on the card which certainly doesn't leave the card at "stock".


----------



## Little Overclocker/Gamer

How come the list doesn't have the 6970 in tri or quad fire?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Little Overclocker/Gamer;11853958*
> How come the list doesn't have the 6970 in tri or quad fire?


No reviews still looking.


----------



## Little Overclocker/Gamer

I think the 6990 will probably be the most powerful card. It's another dual engine card. It would be interesting if it isn't (well, better than the 580. The 5970 may still be the most powerful).


----------



## Stealth Pyros

I need some opinions. I have a 4870X2 (Rank 10 on the list) slightly overclocked with a really nice cooler. I'm about to go for a 2600k build. Should I stick with my 4870X2, or grab a GTX570 which will add $360 to my build price?

And, IMO, the 4870X2 should be above the GTX295. The 4870X2 outperforms the 295 at higher resolutions with AA in gaming. I'll try to edit back with some benchmarks.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros;11945400*
> I need some opinions. I have a 4870X2 (Rank 10 on the list) slightly overclocked with a really nice cooler. I'm about to go for a 2600k build. Should I stick with my 4870X2, or grab a GTX570 which will add $360 to my build price?
> 
> And, IMO, the 4870X2 should be above the GTX295. The 4870X2 outperforms the 295 at higher resolutions with AA in gaming. I'll try to edit back with some benchmarks.


Check this review:
here!

It only beats it at the highest res 2560x1600 but the GTX 295 still wins in all the other resolutions.

Link review!


----------



## Little Overclocker/Gamer

Did anybody here ever get 3 6970's yet?


----------



## Irthizanovich

Hm interesting.. 5670 HD slightly beats 9800 GT everywhere but its listed bellow 9800 in list!


----------



## Irthizanovich

How is 5670 HD is down ranked to 9800 GT? Although not much, still it beats 9800 !


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Check this review:
here!

It only beats it at the highest res 2560x1600 but the GTX 295 still wins in all the other resolutions.

Link review!


I see now, thanks.


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Irthizanovich*


How is 5670 HD is down ranked to 9800 GT? Although not much, still it beats 9800 !


Post a link to a few reviews that show this, and I'm sure Anth would edit the list


----------



## Irthizanovich

Here it goes: www.hwcompare.com/156/geforce-9800-gt-512mb-vs-radeon-hd-5670/ its nt much buh still 5670 is better. According to it, even 240 Gt is lower than 5670 as its lower than 9800 Gt. 4770 and 5670 are just equal!


----------



## Irthizanovich

HD 5670 VS 240 GT: www.hwcompare.com/104/geforce-gt-240-gddr5-vs-radeon-hd-5670/


----------



## Anth0789

Review of 9800GT and 5670 by res.

Updated!


----------



## Irthizanovich

Ahem 5670 vs 4770:www.hwcompare.com/132/radeon-hd-4770-vs-radeon-hd-5670/ xD


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Irthizanovich*


Ahem 5670 vs 4770:http://www.hwcompare.com/132/radeon-...adeon-hd-5670/ xD


Look!


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 560 Ti added!


----------



## tconroy135

Cmon, we all know the 5970 is not a graphics card its 2 graphics cards and does not in any way perform as one card.

The 6950-GTX580(idk about 6870 and 560) all perform better in dual-gpu configuration.


----------



## ikem

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tconroy135*


Cmon, we all know the 5970 is not a graphics card its 2 graphics cards and does not in any way perform as one card.

The 6950-GTX580(idk about 6870 and 560) all perform better in dual-gpu configuration.


then take out 295, 4870x2, and dont add the 6990 and 595. they are still single cards. just a different way of getting things done


----------



## frankle

Long time lurker, first post though








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789;12143510*
> GTX 560 Ti added!


HEXUS review of the stock GTX 560 Ti ... here's the Vantage page:

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=28597&page=5

Plenty of other comparisons there as well, not sure exactly where it should sit but my guess is above the 5870, would be good if there was a direct comparison to a GTX 295 as I'm guessing it would come close!

Actually thinking of moving my 2 x 5870's for a pair of EVGA GTX 560
Superclocked models ... hmmm ...


----------



## Stealth Pyros

560 performs below 4870X2. I am disappoint. I was going to consider selling my 4970X2 and buying one. 4870X2 costed $450 in early 2009, 560 should be priced a bit lower IMO.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frankle;12147937*
> Actually thinking of moving my 2 x 5870's for a pair of EVGA GTX 560
> Superclocked models ... hmmm ...


Why would you? That as well is a downgrade, maybe a side-swap at best.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frankle*


Long time lurker, first post though









HEXUS review of the stock GTX 560 Ti ... here's the Vantage page:

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=28597&page=5

Plenty of other comparisons there as well, not sure exactly where it should sit but my guess is above the 5870, would be good if there was a direct comparison to a GTX 295 as I'm guessing it would come close!

Actually thinking of moving my 2 x 5870's for a pair of EVGA GTX 560
Superclocked models ... hmmm ...



Review by res!


----------



## frankle

^^^ that one is a much better review ...

Regarding the "swap" to GTX 560's, I've been considering moving the system into a smaller case so it's a bit more portable and so the shorter GPU's would be good ... and they're a little quieter as well which would be nice, but I didn't want to go backwards in fps for my games so I guess this would be a side step.

Thinking of going back to a trusty old NSK3480 with a few slight mods and a H50/H60/H70 for cooling. Although the 5870's will fit it would be nice to put a fan in the front to blow air over the GPU's, so the GTX 560's will allow for this. It would almost half the size of the rig going from just over 40lt to just under 25lt.

The 5870's ... well I'd probably keep one for use with my Hack Mini to replace the 9800GT Silent Cell and sell the other one. I might even try and flash it with Mac firmware which means I'll get more for it


----------



## ATSi

Not to be a fanboy but I don't believe 6970 CF is behind 570SLI, 580SLI is definitely king of the hill but 6970CF is faster, at 2560x1600/Eyefinity it trades blows with 580 SLI.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-6950-crossfirex-review/8
Here you see 6950CF is faster then 570SLI and 6970CF should be a bit faster.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1084/pg17/xfx-radeon-6970-and-radeon-6950-graphics-card-review-crossfire-eyefinity-vs-sli.html
Here 6970CF and 6950CF are faster then 580SLI @ 1080p and faster at Eyefinity.


























I know these at mostly at 1600p or Eyefinity but most people who drop $1000 on graphic cards usually have 3 monitors or a 30" monitor.


----------



## Dan816

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tconroy135*


Cmon, we all know the 5970 is not a graphics card its 2 graphics cards and does not in any way perform as one card.

The 6950-GTX580(idk about 6870 and 560) all perform better in dual-gpu configuration.


I don't know about that. My 5970 works great as one card and the best part is that it only takes up one pcie16x port so I can add another 5870 and trifire the B*****D!!!


----------



## muels7

Is the 560 really better than the 470? I know it is probably only like a percentage point, but I thought the 470 was still supposed to be slightly faster.


----------



## cutty1998

This thread is awesome. Kind of depressing though to find out my 570 can be crushed in so many different ways by so many different cards . I did not see a listing for 580's in quad sli. I thought that was possible. One would probably need a very large PSU to do that.


----------



## egerds

I pulled the trigger on a GTX 560 Ti 2gb , wonder if it would placed in same slot as the 1gb version.
Display is now 47" 1080p vs 22" 1680x1050 almost all games made last year i now need to drop aa and aaf to nothing.







hopefully the 2gb version of 560 Ti will help that.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cutty1998;12218777*
> This thread is awesome. Kind of depressing though to find out my 570 can be crushed in so many different ways by so many different cards . I did not see a listing for 580's in quad sli. I thought that was possible. One would probably need a very large PSU to do that.


Apparently GTX 580 in quad SLI is not supported by drivers.

Link for info! and EVGA forums!


----------



## sid0972

no my friend, this foreign language website has actually done the test here

http://lab501.ro/placi-video/asus-gt...-multi-card/13

and in my opinion, it shud be placed above quad sli gtx 480
but the card is not compared against any other, so u can place it wherever u feel is right


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sid0972*


no my friend, this foreign language website has actually done the test here

http://lab501.ro/placi-video/asus-gt...-multi-card/13

and in my opinion, it shud be placed above quad sli gtx 480
but the card is not compared against any other, so u can place it wherever u feel is right


Nice find its added now thanks.

New review of this month with newest drivers on both sides.

Quote:



GTX 560: 266.56
NVIDIA: 266.58
ATI: Catalyst 11.1



http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...GT_440/26.html


----------



## alancsalt

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=833917

Testing out his GTX 580 3GB in tri-sli, plus surround, ( Battlefield BC2 @ 7920x1600 32xCSAA, Just Cause 2 @ 7920x1600 16xCSAA, Mafia II @ 7920x1600 max settings, Metro 2033 @ 7920x1600 Max settings 4xMSAA, etc)

His rig: 
Core i7 970 @ 4Ghz (H2O)
GTX580 3GB Tri SLI @ 850/1700/4200 + Surround
8800GS @ 750/1800/2000
EVGA X58 SLI E758 (H2O)
12GB (3x4GB) G.Skill RipJaw 1600Mhz DDR3
Antec TPQ 1200w OC
Windows 7 Pro 64bit

I am obviously impoverished by comparison...


----------



## SyCo123

Apologies for not trawling through pages of posts but I'm not that much of a hardware techie so figured I'd just ask a question.

My question is what is a good < $100 card for Photoshop and games like BFBC2. Or perhaps there is a site that is ranking budget cards in my price range?


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SyCo123;12348811*
> Apologies for not trawling through pages of posts but I'm not that much of a hardware techie so figured I'd just ask a question.
> 
> My question is what is a good < $100 card for Photoshop and games like BFBC2. Or perhaps there is a site that is ranking budget cards in my price range?


What's your current system? If you're willing to buy used, you can find a card with much better performance. At ~$100 new, the best you'll be able to get is an HD5770 after rebate. A used HD4870 for just about that same price is a little better than an HD5770.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102873

Below $100, I'd say is a major downgrade to an HD4770.


----------



## SyCo123

Sorry should have provided that.

mobo - GIGABYTE GA-P35-DS3L LGA 775
CPU - Q6600
Power supply - 750w
RAM 4gb

I have a 4850 right now but the fan burnt out. Currently it has a CPU fan tapped to it!!







Strangely, it runs BFBC2 just fine, lol. I suppose I cold just get another fan, but they are pretty pricey.

I do like a warranty when spending $100 but would consider used if the seller is a respected member of a forum. Any recommendations?

$119 is close enough to my budget for the Sapphire. So that might do it.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Your CPU is totally fine for BC2 and probably BF3. I've had a HIS HD4870 laying around for a long time but it's only the 512MB version. I think the 5770 will be just fine. BC2's minimum is a 7800GT/X1900 with a recommended GTX260. A GTX260 is JUST a tad better (arguably on par with) than the 5770.


----------



## koooowweeee

how do you know if you have a Geforce GTX 460 1GB or a Geforce GTX 460 SE 1GB

basicly weather its a se or not?

NVM out mine is the normal one thank god


----------



## HanShotFirst

Anyone know where the GT 440 is ranked? Looks like Nvidia quietly debut the card this month.

Link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600007321%20600107097&IsNodeId=1&name=GeForce%20GT%20440%20%28Fermi%29


----------



## Freakn

Would it be fair to say SLi GTS 450's would be between a 6870 and 6950 or more below a 6870?


----------



## sid0972

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freakn;12362403*
> Would it be fair to say SLi GTS 450's would be between a 6870 and 6950 or more below a 6870?


no, cos sli and xfire have separate list


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sid0972;12419966*
> no, cos sli and xfire have separate list


Look at the OP again. There is a list of SLI vs. Xfire setups in same ranking. The SLI 450's just aren't on there

I'll even quote it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789;6155720*
> 
> *Geforce GTX 580 In Quad SLI
> *
> Geforce GTX 480 In Quad SLI
> Radeon Ares HD5870X2 In Crossfire
> Radeon HD5870 In Quadfire
> Radeon HD5970 In Crossfire
> Radeon HD5850 In Quadfire
> Geforce GTX 285 In Quad SLI
> Radeon HD4890 In Quadfire
> Radeon HD5830 In Quadfire
> Geforce GTX 580 In Tri SLI
> Geforce GTX 570 In Tri SLI
> Geforce GTX 480 In Tri SLI
> Radeon HD5870 In Tri fire
> Geforce GTX 470 In Tri SLI
> Radeon HD5850 In Tri fire
> Geforce GTX 295 In SLI
> Geforce GTX 465 In Tri SLI
> Geforce GTX 285 In Tri SLI
> Geforce GTX 280 In Tri SLI
> Geforce GTX 275 In Tri SLI
> Radeon HD4890 In Tri fire
> Radeon HD5830 In Tri fire
> Radeon HD4870X2 In Crossfire
> Radeon HD4850X2 In Crossfire
> Geforce GTX 260 Core 216 In Tri SLI
> Geforce GTX 260 In Tri SLI
> Radeon HD4870 In Tri fire
> Radeon HD4850 In Tri fire
> Geforce GTX 580 In SLI
> Geforce GTX 570 In SLI
> Radeon HD6970 In Crossfire
> Geforce GTX 480 In SLI
> Radeon HD6950 In Crossfire
> Radeon HD6870 In Crossfire
> Radeon HD5870 In Crossfire
> Geforce GTX 560 Ti In SLI
> Geforce GTX 470 In SLI
> Radeon HD6850 In Crossfire
> Radeon HD5850 In Crossfire
> Geforce GTX 460 In SLI
> Geforce GTX 465 In SLI
> Geforce GTX 285 In SLI
> Geforce GTX 275 In SLI
> Radeon HD4890 In Crossfire
> Geforce GTX 280 In SLI
> Radeon HD5830 In Crossfire
> Geforce 9800GX2 In SLI
> Radeon HD5770 In Tri fire
> Geforce 9800GTX+ /GTS250 In Tri SLI
> Geforce 8800 Ultra In Tri SLI
> Geforce 9800GTX In Tri SLI
> Geforce 8800GTX In Tri SLI
> Radeon HD4830 In Tri fire
> Geforce GTX 260 Core 216 In SLI
> Radeon HD3870 In Tri fire
> Radeon HD5770 In Crossfire
> Radeon HD4870 In Crossfire
> Geforce GTX 260 In SLI
> Geforce GTS 450 In SLI
> Radeon HD3870X2 In Crossfire
> Radeon HD4860 In Crossfire
> Radeon HD5750 In Crossfire
> Radeon HD4850 In Crossfire
> Radeon HD3850 In Tri fire
> Geforce 9800GTX+ /GTS250 In SLI
> Geforce 8800 Ultra In SLI
> Geforce 9800GTX In SLI
> Geforce 8800GTS (G92) In SLI
> Radeon HD4830 In Crossfire
> Radeon HD5670 In Crossfire
> Geforce 8800GT /9800GT /GTS240 In SLI
> Geforce 9600GT In SLI
> Geforce 8800GTS (G80) In SLI
> Radeon HD3870 In Crossfire
> Radeon HD2900XT In Crossfire
> Geforce 8800GS In SLI
> Geforce 8800GT 256 In SLI
> Radeon HD3850 In Crossfire
> Geforce 7950GX2 In SLI
> Radeon HD2900 Pro In Crossfire
> Radeon HD2900GT In Crossfire
> Radeon X1950XTX In Crossfire
> Gefore 7900GTX In SLI
> Radeon 1900XTX In Crossfire
> Radeon 1950XT In Crossfire
> Geforce 7900GTO In SLI
> Geforce 7950GT In SLI
> Radeon 1950Pro In Crossfire
> Radeon 1900GT In Crossfire
> Geforce 8600GTS In SLI
> Geforce 7800GTX 512 In SLI
> Geforce 9500GT In SLI
> Geforce 7900GT In SLI
> Radeon 1950GT In Crossfire
> Radeon 1800XT In Crossfire
> Geforce 7800GTX In SLI
> Geforce 7800GT In SLI
> Radeon 1800XL In Crossfire
> Geforce 7600GT In SLI
> Radeon X850XT In Crossfire
> Geforce 6800 Ultra In SLI
> Radeon 1650XT In Crossfire
> Geforce 6800GT In SLI
> Geforce 7600GS In SLI
> Geforce 6800 In SLI
> Radeon X1650Pro In Crossfire
> Geforce 7300GT In SLI
> Radeon X1600XT In Crossfire
> Geforce 6600GT In SLI
> Radeon X1600Pro In Crossfire
> Geforce 6600 DDR2 In SLI
> Geforce 6600 In SLI
> Radeon X1300XT In Crossfire
> Geforce 6200 In SLI
> *Voodoo 2 In SLI*


----------



## antuk15

I think the 4870x2 should drop down quite a bit, especially with the new drivers for the 5800 and 6800 series..


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *W4LNUT5;12420066*
> Look at the OP again. There is a list of SLI vs. Xfire setups in same ranking. The SLI 450's just aren't on there
> 
> I'll even quote it.


#59 on the list:

Geforce GTS 450 In SLI


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros;12420180*
> #59 on the list:
> 
> Geforce GTS 450 In SLI


Bah. I checked it like 3 times.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *W4LNUT5;12420282*
> Bah. I checked it like 3 times.


Ctrl + F is your best friend.


----------



## W4LNUT5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros;12420290*
> Ctrl + F is your best friend.


too lazy for that. that requires effort. I ran outta gas when I quoted the list.


----------



## robwadeson

how is hd 5970 2gb is better than latest gtx 580?? According to this http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html gtx 580 outperforms everything!!! is this a problem like with CPUID intel and amd?? Thanks please keep me informed


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *robwadeson*


how is hd 5970 2gb is better than latest gtx 580?? According to this http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html gtx 580 outperforms everything!!! is this a problem like with CPUID intel and amd?? Thanks please keep me informed










Both cards trades blows its kinda hard to chose which one is on top they are very close. The 5970 seems to better at higher res.

Look at this review here.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *robwadeson*


how is hd 5970 2gb is better than latest gtx 580?? According to this http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html gtx 580 outperforms everything!!! is this a problem like with CPUID intel and amd?? Thanks please keep me informed










That's a poor benchmark to use as a comparison since it doesn't even seem to use both GPUs in the HD5970 as witnessed by the HD5870 getting a higher score. Real world gaming is a much better way to compare cards. In gaming the GTX580 and HD5970 are pretty close but the HD5970 still wins by a slight margin.


















Source


----------



## Dan816

I have tried both the 580 and the 5970 and I can definitely say that the 5970 gives better fps at 1920x1080 and above compared to the 580.

needless to say.....I have sold the 580!


----------



## Anth0789

Updated the thread change a few things like banners etc renaming ATI now to AMD.

Now a list just for dual cards is just below the single cards list. Not sure if that's all the dual cards there is. But if there's any errors let me know ill fix them up.


----------



## alancsalt

Quote:


> According to Donanimhaber, AMD will launch its dual-GPU Antilles card on March 8, some six days before Nvidia's GTX 590.


http://www.fudzilla.com/graphics/item/21967-hd-6990-to-launch-march-8


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Updated the thread change a few things like banners etc renaming ATI now to AMD.

Now a list just for dual cards is just below the single cards list. Not sure if that's all the dual cards there is. But if there's any errors let me know ill fix them up.


As always, great work on the list!!! I just have a little suggestion. In the list you have AMD in front of every AMD card but you don't do a similar thing for Nvidia cards. I think for consistency you should just take out the manufacturer name and let the color code take care of that. It will remove some redundancy and even without looking at the color key the colors each company is known for makes it evident which manufacture is which (red or green). Again excellent work and thanks so much for the time you put into this!!!


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *alancsalt*


http://www.fudzilla.com/graphics/ite...launch-march-8


It will be interesting to see its power and performance.


----------



## werds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789;12560525*
> Updated the thread change a few things like banners etc renaming ATI now to AMD.
> 
> Now a list just for dual cards is just below the single cards list. Not sure if that's all the dual cards there is. But if there's any errors let me know ill fix them up.


Aaaaaw! I actually liked the dual gpu cards being in the main list - made comparisons easier


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Quote:



Originally Posted by *werds*


Aaaaaw! I actually liked the dual gpu cards being in the main list - made comparisons easier










I also preferred having all cards in the thread put in one list.

Anth0789, it would be much appreciated if you could return the double-gpu video cards back to the huge list of single-gpu video cards so that we would have a single list of every single graphics card.


----------



## B3RGY

Wheres the gtx 295s in the 1st 3 ranking lists?


----------



## lightsout

Thanks for this thread I refer to it often.


----------



## Wulfgar

GTX 470 ranked lower than HD5870 what ?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wulfgar;12631250*
> GTX 470 ranked lower than HD5870 what ?












http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_560_Twin_Frozr_II/23.html


----------



## PowerTrip

Quote:



Originally Posted by *werds*


Aaaaaw! I actually liked the dual gpu cards being in the main list - *made comparisons easier*










This,

and this:

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*


I also preferred having all cards in the thread put in one list.

Anth0789, *it would be much appreciated if you could return the double-gpu video cards back to the huge list of single-gpu video cards* so that we would have a single list of every single graphics card.


Dual GPU Cards are still "Single Slot Solutions".

I also refer people to this list from other forums. I can't do that anymore while this list is "Broken" . Please Fix it back to the way it was as it would be very much appreciated by the majority of people.


----------



## Anth0789

Okay I switched it back but I'm not so sure if they are at the right place since I don't remember exactly. But I looked at old reviews. If they are not at the right place let me know.


----------



## yang88she

580 gtx 3gb versions?


----------



## Anth0789

Thread updated now add HD6990.


----------



## sid0972

here is 6970 quad fire, and i think it shud be above 5970 quad fire and below 5870 quadfire

http://lab501.ro/placi-video/his-hd-6970-studiu-de-scalare-in-configuratii-multi-card/15


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sid0972*


here is 6970 quad fire, and i think it shud be above 5970 quad fire and below 5870 quadfire

http://lab501.ro/placi-video/his-hd-...-multi-card/15


Thanks for the review its now added!


----------



## sid0972

well i checked and compared it again, it shud be above 5870 quadfire too
sorry


----------



## W4LNUT5

I don't like being a grammar nazi, but it's "should" and not "shud"


----------



## foilfence

Interested to see the ranking of the upcoming eVGA gtx 460 2win (dual GF104).


----------



## B3RGY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *foilfence;12689818*
> Interested to see the ranking of the upcoming eVGA gtx 460 2win (dual GF104).


Yeah the card that tops a 580 but is cheaper than it


----------



## werds

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Okay I switched it back but I'm not so sure if they are at the right place since I don't remember exactly. But I looked at old reviews. If they are not at the right place let me know.


Thanks! I refer to this thread often and this is extremely helpful!


----------



## GIPrice

How are 6990 crossfire better then 580 4 way sli?

GTX 580: http://3dmark.com/3dm11/161433

HD 6990: http://3dmark.com/3dm11/823750


----------



## sid0972

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GIPrice;12722793*
> How are 6990 crossfire better then 580 4 way sli?
> 
> GTX 580: http://3dmark.com/3dm11/161433
> 
> HD 6990: http://3dmark.com/3dm11/823750


well in the case of 6990, proccy is clocked at 4.8 ghz, and in the case of 580, it is at 6.12ghz

that is a lot of difference

but u maybe right, i dont think if 580 4 way sli can be beaten,
i'll have to check some benchmarks


----------



## B3RGY

550 ti gogogo


----------



## GIPrice

I can't seem to find any benchmarks comparing the 3GB gtx 580 vs the 5970. I think that would interesting.


----------



## B3RGY




----------



## LOL_Wut_Axel

Is there a thread with a list like this, except for mobile GPUs?


----------



## B3RGY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GIPrice;12750833*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't seem to find any benchmarks comparing the 3GB gtx 580 vs the 5970. I think that would interesting.


580 would probably throw it out of water
EDIT: just looked at the benchmark, nevermind


----------



## steamboat

i'd like to see a comparison between xfire 6970's and a 6990.

anyone happen to have one lying around?

Edit: found one

xfire vs


----------



## 161029

Did you see that Tom'sHardware benchmark where he did tri 6850 vs 3-SLI GTX570? Said the 6850 was better overall. Where's that on the list?


----------



## Invisible Penguin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HybridCore;12764525*
> Did you see that Tom'sHardware benchmark where he did tri 6850 vs 3-SLI GTX570? Said the 6850 was better overall. Where's that on the list?


You mean 6950's right?....
I saw that graph too it was in a thread about sli vs Xfire.


----------



## andypc

Is a 560 not above a 5870.?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HybridCore;12764525*
> Did you see that Tom'sHardware benchmark where he did tri 6850 vs 3-SLI GTX570? Said the 6850 was better overall. Where's that on the list?


Review here:
http://www.presence-pc.com/tests/Triple-GPU-SLI-Crossfire-23351/5/
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andypc;12764609*
> Is a 560 not above a 5870.?


Your right its fixed.


----------



## Xristo

GeForce GTX 570 1280MB
GeForce GTX 480 1536MB
Radeon HD6970 2GB
GeForce GTX 295 1792MB
Radeon HD6950 2GB

??

6970 > 570 > 480 > gtx295 ... imo ... I dont know how the gtx295 is inbetween the 6950 and 6970 , someone really biased must of made that list .

295 was good , 3 years ago ... cant compare to todays cards though .. 480 is a beast , more so than a 570 i think .


----------



## Razi3l

Just to let you know 6970 CF is faster than 570 SLI, see here. You may wanna check 6950 CF too.


----------



## 161029

The if anybody's gonna get the 6950, its pretty obvious that they're going to unclock it.


----------



## FlawleZ

I don't think I ever knew there was a 4890 2GB. Great list. Very accurate with just a few debatable areas, but overall very well done.


----------



## 161029

You sound like you've just seen this for the first time. You've been here for a while now.


----------



## FlawleZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HybridCore;12770058*
> You sound like you've just seen this for the first time. You've been here for a while now.


I rarely go through the individual sections. I always just click the "New Posts" at the top. If its not posted in recently I won't see it unless I specifically find it searching for something.


----------



## Lefty67

That list brought back some memorys









Geforce 2 GTS->Radeon 9000->Geforce 6600GT->Geforce 7600GT->Geforce 8800GT->ATI 4890->GTX460 1GB SLI


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xristo;12769867*
> GeForce GTX 570 1280MB
> GeForce GTX 480 1536MB
> Radeon HD6970 2GB
> GeForce GTX 295 1792MB
> Radeon HD6950 2GB
> 
> ??
> 
> 6970 > 570 > 480 > gtx295 ... imo ... I dont know how the gtx295 is inbetween the 6950 and 6970 , someone really biased must of made that list .
> 
> 295 was good , 3 years ago ... cant compare to todays cards though .. 480 is a beast , more so than a 570 i think .


Fixed that GTX 295 at wrong place.

This is a latest review with latest drivers seems accurate:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_550_Ti_Direct_Cu/23.html
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Razi3l;12770014*
> Just to let you know 6970 CF is faster than 570/80 SLI, see here. You may wanna check 6950 CF too.


Thanks fixed!


----------



## rey63004

mine is at 60!!!


----------



## ButterNutterz

Where would the 6950 1GB version fall on this list anyway?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ButterNutterz*


Where would the 6950 1GB version fall on this list anyway?


I suppose right under the 6950 2GB:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...0-ti-review/11


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 590 added!


----------



## patriotlife

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


GTX 590 added!


Hey, i think GTX 590 faster than 6990, see review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...Force_GTX_590/

http://guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-590-review/

and see pic:


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *patriotlife;12853003*
> Hey, i think GTX 590 faster than 6990, see review:
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_590/
> 
> http://guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-590-review/
> 
> and see pic:


Honestly they are so close when you average the FPS of multiple games that the placement order is really moot at this point. I will say though that using the average relative performance for all resolutions is a poor way to gauge the performance of cards this fast. The reason being that at lower resolutions these cards are CPU bound with crazy high framerates and people who buy $700 video cards are unlikely to use 1024x768, 1280x1024, or 1680x1050 resolution monitors. Really to even make these cards worth it one really has to be using a resolution of 2560x1440+ or a multi-monitor setup (Eyefinity/SLI Surround). Looking at the same TechPowerUp review, the relative performance at the higher resolutions of 1920x1200 it's a tie and at 2560x1600 the HD6990 leads by 3%. Proving my point of how close they are. I'm not trying to say one is faster than the other and the TechPowerUp article is only one review, I'm saying they are close on average and unless you're talking about a specific game you really can't say one is king over the other. That's my 2 cents at least.
















Source


----------



## SnakeEyez

How come 570 is higher then 6970? Also seriously 590 #1 ??? Fanboyism ftw.


----------



## negative_silent

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer;12856987*
> Honestly they are so close when you average the FPS of multiple games that the placement order is really moot at this point. I will say though that using the average relative performance for all resolutions is a poor way to gauge the performance of cards this fast. The reason being that at lower resolutions these cards are CPU bound with crazy high framerates and people who buy $700 video cards are unlikely to use 1024x768, 1280x1024, or 1680x1050 resolution monitors. Really to even make these cards worth it one really has to be using a resolution of 2560x1440+ or a multi-monitor setup (Eyefinity/SLI Surround). Looking at the same TechPowerUp review, the relative performance at the higher resolutions of 1920x1200 it's a tie and at 2560x1600 the HD6990 leads by 3%. Proving my point of how close they are. I'm not trying to say one is faster than the other and the TechPowerUp article is only one review, I'm saying they are close on average and unless you're talking about a specific game you really can't say one is king over the other. That's my 2 cents at least.
> 
> Source


I agree. You should also take a look at some other sources:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4239/nvidias-geforce-gtx-590-duking-it-out-for-the-single-card-king/17
http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/Graphics-cards/GeForce-GTX-590-vs-Radeon-HD-6990-You-Want-The-Best/Page-7.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/378-nvidia-geforce-gtx-590/page13.html

I especially seem to like TechSpot's "final thoughts," they make a lot of valid points. You should take a look at that







.

IMHO, 6990 should be equal if not higher than the 590.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SnakeEyez;12863762*
> How come 570 is higher then 6970? Also seriously 590 #1 ??? Fanboyism ftw.


Unless you have unless you have a 2560 x 1600 resolution, 570 wins. And I am no fanboy; it's pure stats for me.


----------



## Alex132

Just make the 6990 = 590
Simplest way


----------



## blooder11181

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thealex132;12864647*
> Just make the 6990 = 590
> Simplest way


----------



## Alex132

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blooder11181;12864673*


----------



## blooder11181

i dare you to answer


----------



## Celeras

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SnakeEyez;12863762*
> How come 570 is higher then 6970? Also seriously 590 #1 ??? Fanboyism ftw.


Because they are? He posts his source with almost every update, you should check them out







The latest update is on this very page, and you can see both the 570+480 are ahead of the 6970 across all resolutions. (few posts up)

Funny you accuse of fanboyism then complain that your own card isn't ranked higher lol.


----------



## SnakeEyez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Celeras;12867987*
> Because they are? He posts his source with almost every update, you should check them out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The latest update is on this very page, and you can see both the 570+480 are ahead of the 6970 across all resolutions. (few posts up)
> 
> Funny you accuse of fanboyism then complain that your own card isn't ranked higher lol.


With the upcoming 11.4 drivers the 6970>570. And this relative performance list is useless in my eyes


----------



## W4LNUT5

I don't quite understand fanboy-ism... It really has to be all about justification of purchases in the long run.

Here's how I justify my purchases. Was it a good deal? Yes? Then who cares.
(Last awesome deal was 480 for $250)


----------



## Helltech

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SnakeEyez;12868459*
> With the upcoming 11.4 drivers the 6970>570. And this relative performance list is useless in my eyes


Well when/if that happens I'm sure it will be updated accordingly.









Anyway, how hard would it be to create another list where you have the dual and single card solutions together in another seperate list, it would basically just be a combination of the two lists. I think it would be interesting to see where certain SLI/CF setups lie in accordance to single cards, such as a single GTX 480 vs SLI 280s.


----------



## Stefy

Not sure if srs, some of the SLI/CF rankings are completely off.


----------



## westevilspirit777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *patriotlife;12853003*
> Hey, i think GTX 590 faster than 6990, see review:
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_590/
> 
> http://guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-590-review/
> 
> and see pic:






































.lol u crazy maaan !!
nd why the hell dat thing with 6990?!!
even nvidia has given up
nd amd already gave open challenge to nvidia to prove its better than 590
nd after all that nvidia's blah blah blah reviews,blowups...amd's new slogan ''faster than the world's fastest graphics card''


----------



## PowerTrip

http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/979012-tweakers-nvidias-gtx-590-seems-facing.html

Seems like nVidia raised GTX 590 clocks higher than what it can handle to compete with the 6990. A new 590 bios update will reduce the stock clocks and then we can finally have a clear #1 and #2 on the list?


----------



## shineon2011

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PowerTrip;12948340*
> http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/979012-tweakers-nvidias-gtx-590-seems-facing.html
> 
> Seems like nVidia raised GTX 590 clocks higher than what it can handle to compete with the 6990. A new 590 bios update will reduce the stock clocks and then we can finally have a clear #1 and #2 on the list?


This will never end......


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 460 2Win added now.
Review here!


----------



## eugene12345

Any chance for a list of crossfire/sli and single card comparisons? Like 6850 crossfire beats gtx 580 or somethin like that?


----------



## Cmdr.Shephard

How come gtx480 higher then 6970?


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cmdr.Shephard*


How come gtx480 higher then 6970?


Because the GTX480 is ever so slightly faster, except at 1920x1200 it was a tie and 2560x1600 the HD6970 pulled ahead, a resolution where that 2GB vRAM comes in handy: link.


----------



## Singledigit

is the gtx 285 still a worthy buy?


----------



## Singledigit

bump for question


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Singledigit;12982500*
> is the gtx 285 still a worthy buy?


Depends what resolution you will use it at?

And what price?


----------



## steamboat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cmdr.Shephard*


How come gtx480 higher then 6970?


because ppl are still using the 17" gateway monitor they stole from work 3 years ago.

as soon as higher resolutions become the standard, the rankings will more accurately reflect real world conditions.


----------



## Enfluenza

plz explain how x2 4890s are better than my dual 5830s.
i get 21K performance points in vantage at stock. can 2 stock 4890s beat that?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Enfluenza*


plz explain how x2 4890s are better than my dual 5830s.
i get 21K performance points in vantage at stock. can 2 stock 4890s beat that?


Its mistake its fixed!


----------



## alancsalt

Antho, how could you drop your snow leopard (?) for a fire fox?!! The previous avatar, IMO, was just unbeatable.......


----------



## LOL_Wut_Axel

The listings for the GTX 480, Radeon HD 6970, and GTX 570 are wrong. The Radeon HD 6970 is 0% faster than the GTX 480 at 1920x1200 and 8% faster at 2560x1600. The GTX 570 is 5% faster than the Radeon HD 6970 1920x1200 and 5% slower at 2560x1600.

The Radeon HD 6970 needs to be put in position 7 alongside the GeForce GTX 570.



















I use the images from the Radeon HD 6790 review to reflect the performance with the newest drivers.


----------



## LOL_Wut_Axel

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*


Because the GTX480 is ever so slightly faster, except at 1920x1200 it was a tie and 2560x1600 the HD6970 pulled ahead, a resolution where that 2GB vRAM comes in handy: link.


The target resolutions for the Radeon HD 6970, GTX 480, and GTX 570 are 1920x1200 and 2560x1600. 1680x1050 and lower are irrelevant.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *LOL_Wut_Axel*


The target resolutions for the Radeon HD 6970, GTX 480, and GTX 570 are 1920x1200 and 2560x1600. 1680x1050 and lower are irrelevant.


I understand, that is a valid point.


----------



## B3RGY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LOL_Wut_Axel;13033294*
> The listings for the GTX 480, Radeon HD 6970, and GTX 570 are wrong. The Radeon HD 6970 is 0% faster than the GTX 480 at 1920x1200 and 8% faster at 2560x1600. The GTX 570 is 5% faster than the Radeon HD 6970 1920x1200 and 5% slower at 2560x1600.
> 
> The Radeon HD 6970 needs to be put in position 7 alongside the GeForce GTX 570.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use the images from the Radeon HD 6790 review to reflect the performance with the newest drivers.


6790? lol


----------



## B3RGY

nevermind, found out there really are 6790's


----------



## Wulfgar

I still don't understand why the GTX 470 is considered slower than the HD5870. Not only it stomps it in Heaven 2.1, 2.5 and any other version you can think of, it beats it hands down in Metro 2033, Stalker CoP, Batman Arkham Asylum, AvP and pretty much any DX11 game.

Where does the 10% difference come from ? 3D Mark ?

If this ranking is meant to inform people in making good decisions it's not very effective. I mean what would you buy ? A card that does it's job well in graphics intensive games using DX 11 or in 3D Mark ?


----------



## Celeras

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wulfgar;13068536*
> I still don't understand why the GTX 470 is considered slower than the HD5870. Not only it stomps it in Heaven 2.1, 2.5 and any other version you can think of, it beats it hands down in Metro 2033, Stalker CoP, Batman Arkham Asylum, AvP and pretty much any DX11 game.
> 
> Where does the 10% difference come from ? 3D Mark ?
> 
> If this ranking is meant to inform people in making good decisions it's not very effective. I mean what would you buy ? A card that does it's job well in graphics intensive games using DX 11 or in 3D Mark ?


Low stock clocks. A 470 will end up faster than a 5870 when both are at maximum overclocks.. but for consistency purposes these charts have to be done at stock.


----------



## sid0972

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wulfgar;13068536*
> I still don't understand why the GTX 470 is considered slower than the HD5870. Not only it stomps it in Heaven 2.1, 2.5 and any other version you can think of, it beats it hands down in Metro 2033, Stalker CoP, Batman Arkham Asylum, AvP and pretty much any DX11 game.
> 
> Where does the 10% difference come from ? 3D Mark ?
> 
> If this ranking is meant to inform people in making good decisions it's not very effective. I mean what would you buy ? A card that does it's job well in graphics intensive games using DX 11 or in 3D Mark ?


fanboy?????


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Celeras*


Low stock clocks.* A 470 will end up faster than a 5870 when both are at maximum overclocks.. but for consistency purposes these charts have to be done at stock.*


^^^









edit: because not all cards will oc the same, it would be misleading to include these non-stock performance figures for those who are researching a graphics card.


----------



## Dan816

It is amazing to see 2 GPU's neck and neck even though what you read on the net shows the 6990 to be the fastest card on the planet at the moment (See latest Atomic magazine for source!)


----------



## alancsalt

By a gnat's whisker, but no reports of 6990's going "Phut" tends to put 6990 ahead


----------



## Wulfgar

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Celeras*


Low stock clocks. A 470 will end up faster than a 5870 when both are at maximum overclocks.. but for consistency purposes these charts have to be done at stock.


I'm talking about stock vs stock. OCed the GTX 470 smokes the HD5870.

Here's the latest review I could find on these 2 cards.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...0_hd5850/9.htm

Granted the benchmarks are pretty crappy since they don't show minimum FPS but the GTX 470 comes out ahead both at stock and OCed when comparing average FPS.

There might've been some issues at launch but Nvidia kept improving performance with the drivers.

Also, I'm prety sure I saw a lot of reviews on the GTX 570 being on par with a GTX 480. Unless some sites used old benchmarks back from March 2010.


----------



## cdoublejj

4870x2 and hd2600xt in crossfire


----------



## PowerTrip

6670 and 6450 are out, gotta keep an eye out for benchmarks.

6670:


----------



## Ben the OCer

I was just messing around and created this for fun:









TPU HD6670 Review (source for relative FPS data)

Anth0789, feel free to use this in the OP if you want. Don't feel like you have to or anything, I just thought it might be put to good use in the OP. Like I said, I just made it for fun and I love hardware too so it was interesting to look at all the specs for current generation cards. Also AMD and Nvidia finally have complete top to bottom products for the AMD HD6000 Series and Nvidia 500 Series, so it seemed like a good time to make it. If any of you guys see a mistake, please let me know and I'll fix it. I tried my best fit everything and make it readable and nice to look at. It is pretty wide so I apologize for that. I chose to use the GTX580 for the baseline for the relative FPS since it's the fastest single GPU card so many people probably wouldn't mind seeing how all the current generation cards compare to it (being a single GPU card, it also produces more consistent and stable FPS than the dual GPU cards).


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer;13201679*
> I was just messing around and created this for fun:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TPU HD6670 Review (source for relative FPS data)
> 
> Anth0789, feel free to use this in the OP if you want. Don't feel like you have to or anything, I just thought it might be put to good use in the OP. Like I said, I just made it for fun and I love hardware too so it was interesting to look at all the specs for current generation cards. Also AMD and Nvidia finally have complete top to bottom products for the AMD HD6000 Series and Nvidia 500 Series, so it seemed like a good time to make it. If any of you guys see a mistake, please let me know and I'll fix it. I tried my best fit everything and make it readable and nice to look at. It is pretty wide so I apologize for that. I chose to use the GTX580 for the baseline for the relative FPS since it's the fastest single GPU card so many people probably wouldn't mind seeing how all the current generation cards compare to it (being a single GPU card, it also produces more consistent and stable FPS than the dual GPU cards).


Ill use it since it might be useful for some members for sure thanks!


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789;13207148*
> Ill use it since it might be useful for some members for sure thanks!


My pleasure, I don't want to give you more work so I'll try to keep it up to date for you, as needed. Not to mention it would be pretty hard to update without the Excel file.







The GPU industry should be pretty quiet for many months now since both companies have only just completed releasing their full product line-ups. You never know though, they might surprise us with new cards out of the blue.







Again thanks for what you do on this GPU ranking, Anth0789, you've been so awesome updating it.

By the way, feel free to put a title above my chart image to help explain what it is, something like Current Generation GPU Specs and Relative Performance Chart. I didn't add a title because I thought it would have ruined the look and it's also somewhat self explanatory. I thought instead the title could just be above the image in the OP. It's totally up to you though, as it's your thread. Have a great evening.


----------



## B3RGY

from what im seeing from benchmarks is that the 6990 scaled better at higher resolutions than a 590


----------



## Ben the OCer

Fixed some typos and added some new data to the chart (Length and Power Connector/s):


----------



## Fooliobass

How does the ATI HD5770x2 place? I have heard many people on the forum say it scales well, but how well?


----------



## Blade

Guys I am replacing my sig cards but I can only buy one new card now and one later on sometime but I want a card that is reasonably priced and that will be at least as good as both mine. I will be getting BF3 and want to be ready.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blade;13446062*
> Guys I am replacing my sig cards but I can only buy one new card now and one later on sometime but I want a card that is reasonably priced and that will be at least as good as both mine. I will be getting BF3 and want to be ready.


Your Crossfire HD4860's would be pretty close in performance to a HD4870X2. A HD4870X2 is around a HD5870 in performance. So if you got a HD6870 it would probably be about the same performance as your cards and a HD6950 would be a bit faster. What resolution is your monitor? If it's 1600x900 or 1680x1050, a HD6870 should be more than enough. I have a HD6850 1GB and even at 2560x1600 it handles most of my games pretty decently.


----------



## Blade

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer;13446958*
> Your Crossfire HD4860's would be pretty close in performance to a HD4870X2. A HD4870X2 is around a HD5870 in performance. So if you got a HD6870 it would probably be about the same performance as your cards and a HD6950 would be a bit faster. What resolution is your monitor? If it's 1600x900 or 1680x1050, a HD6870 should be more than enough. I have a HD6850 1GB and even at 2560x1600 it handles most of my games pretty decently.


Ok thanks so I am looking at a Sapphire HD 6950 2GB so that should be better than both my cards right?


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blade;13447140*
> Ok thanks so I am looking at a Sapphire HD 6950 2GB so that should be better than both my cards right?


That is correct. Just make sure to get a reference design HD6950 2GB, as they can possibly unlock to a HD6970. Though if you have questions about which cards are reference design and how to do the unlock, I can't help you there since I don't own a HD6950. I think the unlocking involves flashing the BIOS and just like AMD CPU core unlocking, it's the luck of the draw.


----------



## Blade

Thanks Ben


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blade;13447441*
> Thanks Ben


My pleasure, enjoy the upgrade.


----------



## Secret Dragoon

Can I make a small suggestion and couple 512MB and 1GB variants with each other, or are their performance so different that they deserve definitive separation in some cases? I'm just thinking it would be a more accurate way of ranking cards. Also would make me feel better when I look at the list because my card will have a higher ranking <_<.


----------



## alancsalt

Performance differs. Not accurate.


----------



## Dirtyworks

Wait, a GTX460SE outperforms a GTX768? In this case, is the memory bandwidth more important than number of cuda cores?


----------



## LOL_Wut_Axel

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Dirtyworks*


Wait, a GTX460SE outperforms a GTX768? In this case, is the memory bandwidth more important than number of cuda cores?


No, it doesn't. Don't follow this list. It's as inaccurate as they get. It says the GTX 570 and GTX 480 are faster than the Radeon HD 6970.

With the latest drivers:










The GTX 460 768MB is faster than the GTX 460 SE at 1680x1050 and the same speed at 1920x1200/1080.


----------



## LOL_Wut_Axel

WTH? Double post.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Dirtyworks*


Wait, a GTX460SE outperforms a GTX768? In this case, is the memory bandwidth more important than number of cuda cores?


No, the GTX460 768MB is a little faster in most cases. We'll have to have Anth0789 change it's rank to above the GTX460 SE. Anth0789, I couldn't find any recent benchmarks, the TechPowerUp GTX460 SE review is the best I could find:

*1024x768*
GTX460 SE: 100%
GTX460 768MB: 109%

*1280x1024*
GTX460 SE: 100%
GTX460 768MB: 108%

*1680x1050*
GTX460 SE: 100%
GTX460 768MB: 107%

*1920x1200*
GTX460 SE: 100%
GTX460 768MB: 107%

*2560x1600*
GTX460 SE: 100%
GTX460 768MB: 104%

Quote:



Originally Posted by *LOL_Wut_Axel*


No, it doesn't. *Don't follow this list. It's as inaccurate as they get.* It says the GTX 570 and GTX 480 are faster than the Radeon HD 6970.

The GTX 460 768MB is faster than the GTX 460 SE at 1680x1050 and the same speed at 1920x1200/1080.


If you think it's so inaccurate, why don't you suggest what changes need to be made with benchmark proof. Blind bashing when you have the power to make changes is pointless. I also don't appreciate your blatant disregard and disrespect for this thread. That kind of attitude will not get you very far in life. I'm not saying this list is perfect, because it's not since truthfully it's impossible for the list to be 100% accurate. The performance of each card can vary depending on the other hardware used, game, resolution, quality settings, and drivers. Plus a lot of the older cards are hard to place since their isn't a lot of benchmark data comparing them to current cards. The best you can do with a list like this is be about correct.


----------



## LOL_Wut_Axel

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*


No, the GTX460 768MB is a little faster in most cases. We'll have to have Anth0789 change it.

If you think it's so inaccurate, why don't you suggest what changes need to be made with benchmark proof. Blind bashing when you have the power to make changes is pointless. I also don't appreciate your blatant disregard and disrespect for this thread. That kind of attitude will not get you very far in life. I'm not saying this list is perfect, because it's not since truthfully it's impossible for the list to be 100% accurate. The performance of each card can vary depending on the other hardware used, game, resolution, quality settings, and drivers. Plus a lot of the older cards are hard to place since their isn't a lot of benchmark data comparing them to current cards. The best you can do with a list like this is be about correct.


I already presented you with the overall performance for the GTX 480, GTX 570, and the Radeon HD 6970. What are you ranting about? None of the reviews said those cards are faster. The GTX 460 768MB is faster than the SE, too. This list is inaccurate.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *LOL_Wut_Axel*


I already presented you with the overall performance for the GTX 480, GTX 570, and the Radeon HD 6970. What are you ranting about? None of the reviews said those cards are faster. The GTX 460 768MB is faster than the SE, too. This list is inaccurate.


Based on the post you replied to I was slightly confused what the purpose of that benchmark image was but thanks for clearing it up. Still you should have given a source link, it's much easier that way for the OP. You also should have stated the change you desired and you didn't specifically ask for a change. You can suggest to make changes in a nice way too, without totally bashing this thread. I was "ranting" as you say because of your unnecessarily harsh post, that generalized too much. You basically said this whole list is worthless, just listen to me instead. That's totally not true (that the list is worthless).

You might be right about the GTX570, GTX480, and HD6970 needing a placement change. The thing is that those three cards perform so close that they can be very hard to place. I do agree with you on them needing a change. Please don't take my previous post wrong and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was ranting. I just think you could have done a better job of being more respectful with your post. Anth0789 has put a lot of hard work into this list, keeping it up to date.


----------



## LOL_Wut_Axel

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*


Based on the post you replied to I was slightly confused what the purpose of that benchmark image was but thanks for clearing it up. Still you should have given a source link, it's much easier that way for the OP. You also should have stated the change you desired and you didn't specifically ask for a change. You can suggest to make changes in a nice way too, without totally bashing this thread. I was "ranting" as you say because of your unnecessarily harsh post, that generalized too much. You basically said this whole list is worthless, just listen to me instead. That's totally not true (that the list is worthless).

You might be right about the GTX570, GTX480, and HD6970 needing a placement change. The thing is that those three cards perform so close that they can be very hard to place. I do agree with you on them needing a change. Please don't take my previous post wrong and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was ranting. I just think you could have done a better job of being more respectful with your post. Anth0789 has put a lot of hard work into this list, keeping it up to date.


Well, I think this would make sense: the Radeon HD 6970 is only 1% faster than the GTX 570, and that is within margin of error. Therefore, they should be tied for position 7. The GTX 480 should stay where it's at for position 8 since it's 4% slower. The GTX 460 768MB and 1GB SE need to switch position and because the GTX 570 and Radeon HD 6970 are tied, cards after position 8 need to move up one place.

For now, I think this list is worthless because of the errors. If they're fixed, I'd recommend it again.


----------



## alancsalt

I agree with Ben. "Worthless" is too strong a term.

There is no way debate about position on any list wouldn't be endless. You can be dismissive if you want. I just happen to appreciate the effort put in to try and please so many differing takes on it all. Ben +rep for yr efforts!


----------



## LOL_Wut_Axel

Quote:



Originally Posted by *alancsalt*


I agree with Ben. "Worthless" is too strong a term.

There is no way debate about position on any list wouldn't be endless. You can be dismissive if you want. I just happen to appreciate the effort put in to try and please so many differing takes on it all. Ben +rep for yr efforts!


I'm not appreciative of misleading information. If you are, good for you. I already stated my point and it is backed up by facts.


----------



## Anth0789

Sorry guys kinda too busy with other stuff in life ill update the list as soon as I have the chance but not for now.


----------



## Spct

Anth0, with people ranting and making rude comments, I don't know how motivated I would be to fix something someone terms 'worthless'. Too bad some people have such high opinions of one's self they feel they can use such terms without care.


----------



## Wulfgar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer;13522460*
> If you think it's so inaccurate, why don't you suggest what changes need to be made with benchmark proof. Blind bashing when you have the power to make changes is pointless. I also don't appreciate your blatant disregard and disrespect for this thread. That kind of attitude will not get you very far in life. I'm not saying this list is perfect, because it's not since truthfully it's impossible for the list to be 100% accurate. The performance of each card can vary depending on the other hardware used, game, resolution, quality settings, and drivers. Plus a lot of the older cards are hard to place since their isn't a lot of benchmark data comparing them to current cards. The best you can do with a list like this is be about correct.


I suggested changes with benchmark proof and I still see the HD5870 > GTX 470 and even GTX 560 which is total bs.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wulfgar;13170099*
> I'm talking about stock vs stock.
> 
> Here's the latest review I could find on these 2 cards.
> 
> http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_hd5830_hd5850/9.htm


----------



## Ben the OCer

GTX560 (non-Ti) reviews are out:
TechPowerUp
AnandTech
Hardware Canucks
Tom's Hardware

It's kind of hard to place because of the fact there is no reference design and as a result there are a lot of factory overclocked cards. I think it should be placed below the HD6870 since it seems to perform below it when at reference clocks (810MHz Core and 4004MHz Memory). Another change is to put the HD6990 in the first spot since it seems to have pulled away from the GTX590 now. The HD5870 is slightly faster than the GTX560 Ti. The benchmark proof link for all the previously suggested changes is: Source. Lastly, the GTX460 768MB should be above the GTX460 SE: Source. Here is what the list will look like with all the changes:

Radeon HD6990 4GB
GeForce GTX 590 3GB
Radeon HD5870X2 4GB
Radeon HD5970 4GB
Radeon HD5970 2GB
GeForce GTX 580 3GB
GeForce GTX 580 1536MB - GeForce GTX 460 2Win 2GB
Radeon HD6970 2GB
GeForce GTX 570 1280MB
GeForce GTX 480 1536MB
Radeon HD6950 2GB
Radeon HD6950 1GB
GeForce GTX 295 1792MB
Radeon HD4870X2 2GB
Radeon HD5870 2GB
Radeon HD5870 1GB
GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB
GeForce GTX 470 1280MB
Radeon HD6870 1GB
Geforce GTX560 1GB
Radeon HD5850 1GB
Radeon HD6850 1GB
GeForce GTX 460 2GB
GeForce GTX 285 2GB
GeForce GTX 460 1GB
GeForce GTX 465 1GB
Radeon HD4850X2 2GB
Radeon HD4850X2 1GB
GeForce GTX 285 1GB
GeForce GTX 460 768MB
GeForce GTX 460 SE 1GB
Revised chart with the changes and GTX560 non-Ti added:


----------



## LOL_Wut_Axel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer;13539230*
> GTX560 (non-Ti) reviews are out:
> TechPowerUp
> AnandTech
> Hardware Canucks
> Tom's Hardware
> 
> It's kind of hard to place because of the fact there is no reference design and as a result there are a lot of factory overclocked cards. I think it should be placed below the HD6870 since it seems to perform below it when at reference clocks (810MHz Core and 4004MHz Memory). Another change is to put the HD6990 in the first spot since it seems to have pulled away from the GTX590 now. As Wulfgar pointed out the HD5870 is slightly faster than the GTX560 Ti. The benchmark proof source for all the previously suggested changes as follows: Source. Lastly, the GTX460 768MB should be above the GTX460 SE: Source. Here is what the list will look like with all the changes:
> 
> Radeon HD6990 4GB
> GeForce GTX 590 3GB
> Radeon HD5870X2 4GB
> Radeon HD5970 4GB
> Radeon HD5970 2GB
> GeForce GTX 580 3GB
> GeForce GTX 580 1536MB - GeForce GTX 460 2Win 2GB
> Radeon HD6970 2GB
> GeForce GTX 570 1280MB
> GeForce GTX 480 1536MB
> Radeon HD6950 2GB
> Radeon HD6950 1GB
> GeForce GTX 295 1792MB
> Radeon HD4870X2 2GB
> Radeon HD5870 2GB
> Radeon HD5870 1GB
> GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB
> GeForce GTX 470 1280MB
> Radeon HD6870 1GB
> Geforce GTX560 1GB
> Radeon HD5850 1GB
> Radeon HD6850 1GB
> GeForce GTX 460 2GB
> GeForce GTX 285 2GB
> GeForce GTX 460 1GB
> GeForce GTX 465 1GB
> Radeon HD4850X2 2GB
> Radeon HD4850X2 1GB
> GeForce GTX 285 1GB
> GeForce GTX 460 768MB
> GeForce GTX 460 SE 1GB
> Good point, it should be HD5870, GTX560, and GTX470.


See? *This* makes sense. Good job.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wulfgar;13537842*
> I suggested changes with benchmark proof and I still see the HD5870 > GTX 470 and even GTX 560 which is total bs.


No, the HD5870 is still faster than the GTX470 (both at stock). The GTX560 Ti (don't forget about the Ti with the GTX560 non-Ti now released) is also faster than the GTX470. What changes are you speaking of, we are already required to give benchmark proof to make a change to the list.

Source

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LOL_Wut_Axel;13539257*
> See? *This* makes sense. Good job.


Thanks


----------



## Wulfgar

*facepalm* Did you even check the link I posted earlier ?

You were saying that you need proof to make any changes. Well that's my proof. They tested both the GTX 470 and the HD5870 at stock speed in April 2011 with the latest drivers and the 470 came out ahead in everything except Aliens vs Predator and 3D Mark. What more could you ask for ?

The changes that need to be done are as follows:

[1]Radeon HD6990 4GB
[2]GeForce GTX 590 3GB
[3]Radeon HD5870X2 4GB
[4]Radeon HD5970 4GB
[5]Radeon HD5970 2GB
[6]GeForce GTX 580 3GB
[7]GeForce GTX 580 1536MB - GeForce GTX 460 2Win 2GB
[8]Radeon HD6970 2GB
[9]GeForce GTX 570 1280MB
[10]GeForce GTX 480 1536MB
[11]Radeon HD6950 2GB
[12]Radeon HD6950 1GB
[13]GeForce GTX 295 1792MB
[14]Radeon HD4870X2 2GB
[15]GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB (instead of Radeon HD5870 2GB)
[16]GeForce GTX 470 1280MB (instead of Radeon HD5870 1GB)
[17]Raden HD5870 2GB (instead of GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB)
[18]Radeon HD5870 1GB (instead of GeForce GTX 470 1280MB)
[19]Radeon HD6870 1GB
[20]Geforce GTX560 1GB
[21]Radeon HD5850 1GB
[22]Radeon HD6850 1GB

Some other stuff I'd like to point out:

1. The dual-GPUs have no place among the DX11 cards. Who would buy a GTX 295/HD4870X2 instead of a GTX 560 for the same price ?
2. The GTX 570 should pe on par with the GTX 480
3. The HD6950 2GB should be on par with the GTX 560
4. The HD6950 1GB should be on par with the GTX 470


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wulfgar;13555756*
> *facepalm* Did you even check the link I posted earlier ?
> 
> You were saying that you need proof to make any changes. Well that's my proof. They tested both the GTX 470 and the HD5870 at stock speed in April 2011 with the latest drivers and the 470 came out ahead in everything except Aliens vs Predator and 3D Mark. What more could you ask for ?
> 
> The changes that need to be done are as follows:
> 
> [1]Radeon HD6990 4GB
> [2]GeForce GTX 590 3GB
> [3]Radeon HD5870X2 4GB
> [4]Radeon HD5970 4GB
> [5]Radeon HD5970 2GB
> [6]GeForce GTX 580 3GB
> [7]GeForce GTX 580 1536MB - GeForce GTX 460 2Win 2GB
> [8]Radeon HD6970 2GB
> [9]GeForce GTX 570 1280MB
> [10]GeForce GTX 480 1536MB
> [11]Radeon HD6950 2GB
> [12]Radeon HD6950 1GB
> [13]GeForce GTX 295 1792MB
> [14]Radeon HD4870X2 2GB
> [15]GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB (instead of Radeon HD5870 2GB)
> [16]GeForce GTX 470 1280MB (instead of Radeon HD5870 1GB)
> [17]Raden HD5870 2GB (instead of GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB)
> [18]Radeon HD5870 1GB (instead of GeForce GTX 470 1280MB)
> [19]Radeon HD6870 1GB
> [20]Geforce GTX560 1GB
> [21]Radeon HD5850 1GB
> [22]Radeon HD6850 1GB
> 
> Some other stuff I'd like to point out:
> 
> 1. The dual-GPUs have no place among the DX11 cards. Who would buy a GTX 295/HD4870X2 instead of a GTX 560 for the same price ?
> 2. The GTX 570 should pe on par with the GTX 480
> 3. The HD6950 2GB should be on par with the GTX 560
> 4. The HD6950 1GB should be on par with the GTX 470


I did look at the benchmarks in your link. The review does show the GTX470 being faster than the HD5870. The problem is this is just one review and most reviews I've seen show the HD5870 faster on average than the GTX470. Also the TechPowerUp source I gave to support my claim tested with 17 games (your source tested with only 6 games).

1. This isn't a buying guide, it's a performance list. If we did remove the GTX295 and HD48790X2, then I could argue we should also remove the DX9 cards and the DX8 cards, and so on until the list has lost its purpose. The best we can do is compare their DX10 and DX9 performance in games. No game I know of has DX11 support as a requirement to run.

2. to 4. You didn't give any sources to support your claims. The GTX570 and GTX480 are very close, you are correct, but the according to this source the GTX570 is ever so slightly faster: Source. The HD6950 and GTX560 can be somewhat close as well, but the HD6950 has a slight performance advantage: Source (You can also see the chart in the OP or post #659). For your last claim see this: Source.


----------



## Anth0789

Calm down people list is updated!


----------



## Dan816

Dual GPU's should be on the list. They are there as a comparison with the single GPU cards. As Ben said this is a performance list, not a buyers guide.

Well done Ben and keep up the good work Anth!!!


----------



## sid0972

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dan816;13573786*
> Dual GPU's should be on the list. They are there as a comparison with the single GPU cards. As Ben said this is a performance list, not a buyers guide.
> 
> Well done Ben and keep up the good work Anth!!!


right, the list shows the single cards, dual or single gpu, for multiple cards there's another list
why cant just people just thank for the hard work done by many members here?
suggestions are good, but saying "this is wrong" is not a good way to motivate
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wulfgar;13555756*
> 1. The dual-GPUs have no place among the DX11 cards. Who would buy a GTX 295/HD4870X2 instead of a GTX 560 for the same price ?


do you seriously think just because a card is old it is worthless?


----------



## Darkapoc

What no Intel on the list? xD Kidding ahah Awesome list though


----------



## Neitzluber

I think we should add Intel integrated graphics to the list as a good point of comparison.

Core i5 2500K is a bit below GT 430 and HD 5450 but above G 210...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/I...00K_GPU/4.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/I...00K_GPU/5.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/I...00K_GPU/6.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/I...00K_GPU/7.html


----------



## sid0972

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Neitzluber*


I think we should add Intel integrated graphics to the list as a good point of comparison.


seriously?


----------



## alancsalt

Way to make it more complex...


----------



## Awieos

Could u add notebook graphic card maybe.. yeah i know i can check it in but i also know how it is compare to desktop counterpart.


----------



## 0CALEFACTION0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awieos;13624526*
> Could u add notebook graphic card maybe.. yeah i know i can check it in but i also know how it is compare to desktop counterpart.


http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html


----------



## EvoBeardy

What's the basis for the 6990 beating the 590? http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/24/nvidia-geforce-gtx-590-3gb-review/6

Not being a fanboy, just genuinely wondering.

BTW, many thanks to Anth and everyone contributing to this, I always come here for a comparison.
I think it's fine exactly how it is, regardless of dual-GPU, DX9, DX10. It's a comparison, myself and others like to see how high you'd have to climb for a single GPU to compare/beat a dual-GPU card.

My brother's running my old 8600GT, and had my old 7600GS before that, it's a great reference list for cheap temporary upgrades, or just as a reference.









It's great seeing the older, obsolete cards we used to run there also.


----------



## Freakn

Be interested to see how 6970 in tri-fire would stack up against the rest


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EvoBeardy;13798170*
> What's the basis for the 6990 beating the 590? http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/24/nvidia-geforce-gtx-590-3gb-review/6
> 
> Not being a fanboy, just genuinely wondering.
> 
> BTW, many thanks to Anth and everyone contributing to this, I always come here for a comparison.
> I think it's fine exactly how it is, regardless of dual-GPU, DX9, DX10. It's a comparison, myself and others like to see how high you'd have to climb for a single GPU to compare/beat a dual-GPU card.
> 
> My brother's running my old 8600GT, and had my old 7600GS before that, it's a great reference list for cheap temporary upgrades, or just as a reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's great seeing the older, obsolete cards we used to run there also.


The HD6990 beating the GTX590 is based off of TechPowerUp reviews. It has 2GB of usable video RAM versus the 1.5GB in the GTX590. Since these are dual GPU cards and will likely be used at very high resolutions and quality settings, this can make a big difference in some cases. It might appear the GTX590 should be ahead based on that bit-tech review. The thing is that review only tested with 4 games but the TechPowerUp review below tested with 17 games, and the HD6990 is faster on average at the most likely resolutions to be used (1920x1200 and 2560x1600):

















Source


----------



## EvoBeardy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer;13824946*
> The HD6990 beating the GTX590 is based off of TechPowerUp reviews. It has 2GB of usable video RAM versus the 1.5GB in the GTX590. Since these are dual GPU cards and will likely be used at very high resolutions and quality settings, this can make a big difference in some cases. It might appear the GTX590 should be ahead based on that bit-tech review. The thing is that review only tested with 4 games but the TechPowerUp review below tested with 17 games, and the HD6990 is faster on average at the most likely resolutions to be used (1920x1200 and 2560x1600)


Yeah, Arma II at 1080p+ the 6990 killed it, and I can imagine it besting it a much higher res on various other games, just wasn't sure what kinda resolutions were the guideline these days and who people use as the majority source, wasn't sure if it was TechPowerUp or a mix of some together.

I'll be fine on a 560Ti for a long while at 1080p then, haha.









Thanks alot for the reply mate.


----------



## Dan816

The latest atomic pc mag just conducted a video card mega-test and has now put the 590 ahead of the 6990. 2 issues ago it was the other way around









Anyway I think that this debate is nowhere near running it's course, as the new games still to be released will give these cards a new challenge to conquer


----------



## Celeras

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dan816;13830070*
> The latest atomic pc mag just conducted a video card mega-test and has now put the 590 ahead of the 6990. 2 issues ago it was the other way around:kookoo:


Drivers, and nVidia's are far superior. If the cards are competitive at respective launches, nVidia will take the crown within 2-3 months guaranteed.


----------



## W4LNUT5

So it seems. ATI's drivers do also mature however. But I would agree that Nvidia seems to squeeze more out of their drivers in the long run.


----------



## Alatar

In the OC3D review with the *275.33 drivers* for the GTX 590 it won 6 out of 8 surround/eyefinity benches against the 6990 (the 590 lost in dirt2 and metro 2033).

And for single screen the GTX 590 won 7 out of 8 benches against the 6990. (590 lost crysis warhead though the metro 2033 bench was a little questionable since the 590 got so high framerates)

Review


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

My 7950GT looks to be on its last legs, so I was searching for a replacement. I don't need anything more powerful, so I was looking at a low-end modern GPU, which led me to this...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789;6155720*
> 85. *Radeon HD6450 1GB*
> 86. *GeForce GT 520 1GB*
> 87. *Radeon HD5550 1GB*
> 88. *Radeon HD3850 256MB*
> 89. *GeForce 7950GX2 1GB*


The 6450, 5550, and 520 are actually faster than the 7950GX2?! Are we sure this thing is accurate?


----------



## longroadtrip

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64;13911489*
> My 7950GT looks to be on its last legs, so I was searching for a replacement. I don't need anything more powerful, so I was looking at a low-end modern GPU, which led me to this...
> 
> The 6450, 5550, and 520 are actually faster than the 7950GX2?! Are we sure this thing is accurate?


Different architecture..and yes, they are faster.


----------



## Dan816

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64;13911489*
> My 7950GT looks to be on its last legs, so I was searching for a replacement. I don't need anything more powerful, so I was looking at a low-end modern GPU, which led me to this...
> 
> The 6450, 5550, and 520 are actually faster than the 7950GX2?! Are we sure this thing is accurate?


Your choice will also depend on your budget. From the look of your setup, I'm sure any of the cards your looking at will do the job nicely:thumb:


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Nevermind, crisis averted (or maybe I should say Metro 2033?








).

I revived my 7950GT with the oven trick.


----------



## PcG_AmD

Is there a real difference between the HD4850 x2 and all the cards in the middle until you reach rank 13 where the HD4870x2 is?,I've seen their performance but fps is almost the same in most games,why is the HD4850x2 so low? last year was 11.


----------



## broke

just a quick question guys, is a GTX 570 a solid "upgrade" from a 5850?


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Anth0789, you should add a space in all of the Radeon cards, for example a space between "HD" and "6990".


----------



## TMallory

No 560ti 2GB?


----------



## Dan816

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *broke;14003566*
> just a quick question guys, is a GTX 570 a solid "upgrade" from a 5850?


With your setup...definitely. 5850 crossfire is not bad either. I'd say if budget allows, get 2 of them in sli and you won't have to upgrade for a while.


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

No love for the Fusion APUs?


----------



## Pickled

can't wait to bench this setup


----------



## Camph

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*


No love for the Fusion APUs?


You just plain old can't compare a cpu to gpu.


----------



## FlawleZ

I think the 7800GT Dual and 8800GTS SSC should be added to the list.

7800GT Dual
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121213

8800GTS SSC 112 SP
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_8800_gts_ssc_review/


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Camph*


You just plain old can't compare a cpu to gpu.


Good thing Llano and Brazos aren't CPUs but are instead APUs.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*


No love for the Fusion APUs?


Technically the GPU part of Llano is integrated graphics, though it is the most powerful one to date. This thread is a discreet graphics card ranking. There are no IGPs on the list. For example there is no HD4290 (IGP of 890GX Chipset), HD6310 (IGP of E-350 APU), or HD Graphics 3000 (IGP of some Sandy Bridge APUs) on the list.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlawleZ;14226909*
> I think the 7800GT Dual and 8800GTS SSC should be added to the list.
> 
> 7800GT Dual
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121213
> 
> 8800GTS SSC 112 SP
> http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_8800_gts_ssc_review/


Where do they class on the list?


----------



## EvoBeardy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789;14259250*
> Where do they class on the list?


The 7800 Dual (79FPS) beats a 7900GTX by around 16FPS, but is less than an 8800GTX by around 12FPS @1600x1200:- http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=3638
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7177&page=9

Am checking it out, as rather interested myself.









[EDIT] Seems it's between the Radeon X1900XTX and the X1950XTX (81FPS) by the last link and this one here:- http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4477&page=11
I could be wrong, you'll have to double-check, I'm a bit tired.









Now for the 8800GTS SSC...


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*


Technically the GPU part of Llano is integrated graphics, though it is the most powerful one to date. This thread is a discreet graphics card ranking. There are no IGPs on the list.


Would it be safe to say that this was because in the past gaming on an IGP was just foolish? But when the 6620G gets better framerates than my 7950GT, I think we need to change that policy...


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*


Would it be safe to say that this was because in the past gaming on an IGP was just foolish? But when the 6620G gets better framerates than my 7950GT, I think we need to change that policy...


There probably could be a valid case made for adding Llano, so I won't argue with you there. I'm just stating there is no precedent for it. From what I've seen the desktop version of Llano falls somewhere between the performance of a HD6450 and HD5570: link. Llano is definitely a welcome option and an innovative win for AMD for sure. The CPU side using only a slightly modified Athlon II kind of holds it back but hopefully the Bulldozer version will remedy that. On a side note, the HD6620G is a GPU used in the mobile version of Llano.


----------



## frankle

Ben, is it possible to put the 6870x2 into your chart ...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_6870_X2/


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frankle;14276364*
> Ben, is it possible to put the 6870x2 into your chart ...
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_6870_X2/


Its already on the list!


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frankle*


Ben, is it possible to put the 6870x2 into your chart ...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/P...or/HD_6870_X2/


It's a special card made only by Powercolor and it's just two HD6870s on a single card. The point of the chart is really to aid people with what specs each current generation card has. I only added TechPowerUp relative performance data to help people see where each card falls performance wise (very precisely). Since it's not an official AMD card, respectfully I won't be adding it to the chart but thanks for pointing that review out to me. Anth0789 did put it on his list, as he said.


----------



## FlawleZ

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Anth0789*


Where do they class on the list?


EvoBeardy is on par with the 7800GT Dual. The G80 8800GTS SSC is faster than G92 8800GT/9800GT and slightly slower than G92 8800GTS 512MB and 8800GTX.

Sources:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...on-review.html

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...view/page2.asp

EDIT* I see it was placed only above the standard 8800GTS? It's clearly faster than G92 8800GT/9800GT as seen in the above to reviews.


----------



## Nintendo Maniac 64

So um... just to confirm, no Llano is intentional... right?


----------



## EvoBeardy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Nintendo Maniac 64*


So um... just to confirm, no Llano is intentional... right?


It's integrated Graphics, so I doubt it, otherwise we'd have to include Mobile graphics and all of Intel's GMA rubbish, I think that'd be much more difficult to get all of them together and find a suitable spot, especially considering how far back the chart goes.

I mean yeah, it'd be interesting to find where it ranks in comparison to dedicated, but it's alot to keep ahold of.


----------



## Dan816

I think this list is for stand-alone graphics cards only, but I must admit, it would be good to know where they would be ranked if there were a list


----------



## damric

Love the new spreadsheet layout with %relative performance. Looks fantastic!


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *damric*


Love the new spreadsheet layout with %relative performance. Looks fantastic!


Thanks very much for your kind complement, I'm glad you like it. I tried my best to make it look cool and easily readable. I thought it would help people who wanted to buy a current generation card but were unsure which one to get. This way people get detailed specs and relative performance data of all the cards compiled in one place. As always though props to Anth0789 for maintaining this thread as it is no easy job and he has been doing it faithfully for a long time now.


----------



## frankle

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*


It's a special card made only by Powercolor and it's just two HD6870s on a single card. The point of the chart is really to aid people with what specs each current generation card has. I only added TechPowerUp relative performance data to help people see where each card falls performance wise (very precisely). Since it's not an official AMD card, respectfully I won't be adding it to the chart but thanks for point that review out to me. Anth0789 did put it on his list, as he said.


Fair enough ...

I'm considering one of these to replace my pair of 5870's and then getting another near the end of the year when prices drop and new cards come out. It looks to be the best setup I can get with my current motherboard (mATX) and PSU (750w) ... the PSU would probably struggle with a pair of 6990's or 590's, and they're also a $200+ premium each over the 6870x2.


----------



## zipper17

on the "List by Dual video cards"

there is no 'HD 6870 X2'? it should be Rank 3, am i right?


----------



## Irthizanovich

5830>6790 really? here look: http://www.hwcompare.com/10008/radeon-hd-5830-vs-radeon-hd-6790/


----------



## blooder11181

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Irthizanovich;14352058*
> 5830>6790 really? here look: http://www.hwcompare.com/10008/radeon-hd-5830-vs-radeon-hd-6790/


the hd6xx0 series are better (tessellation improvement and other things)


----------



## linkin93

Here are my 3dMark06, 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark11 results for GTS 450 1GB with the system in my sig:

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/1573777

http://3dmark.com/3dmv/3345855

http://3dmark.com/3dm06/15910523


----------



## Redwoodz

Well done.Only cards I didn't see where the 6770-6750's,which are retooled.Should be a notch above their 5-series counterparts?


----------



## EvoBeardy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *linkin93;14352362*
> Here are my 3dMark06, 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark11 results for GTS 450 1GB with the system in my sig:
> 
> http://3dmark.com/3dm11/1573777
> 
> http://3dmark.com/3dmv/3345855
> 
> http://3dmark.com/3dm06/15910523


All the rankings are done via Reference Clocks, your's is OC'd.

Ref Clocks for the 450 are 783MHz Core, and 902MHz (3606MHz) on the Memory.

Also, CPU comes into play, the rankings are trying to use as much comparable systems as possible, otherwise someone with an i7 980X/i7 2600k and a GTX 580 under LN2 would come along and throw the system off.
Or OC'd 460 768's and SE's on air would beat the 465.


----------



## zipper17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Irthizanovich;14352058*
> 5830>6790 really? here look: http://www.hwcompare.com/10008/radeon-hd-5830-vs-radeon-hd-6790/


site hwcompare is not 100% accurately,,

usually people read that website, just 'think' if the 'Values' of 'BW, PIxel,& texel' is 'higher', mean that card perform better,,thats totally wrong,,

just look at HD 5970 vs HD 6990 on 'hwcompare web',, HD 5970 has more value for texel & pixel,

but in 'real tested' performance, HD 6990 is twice better than HD 5970,,
HD 5970 = GTX 580
HD 6990 = GTX 590

CMIIW just my 2 cents


----------



## linkin93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EvoBeardy;14353081*
> All the rankings are done via Reference Clocks, your's is OC'd.
> 
> Ref Clocks for the 450 are 783MHz Core, and 902MHz (3606MHz) on the Memory.
> 
> Also, CPU comes into play, the rankings are trying to use as much comparable systems as possible, otherwise someone with an i7 980X/i7 2600k and a GTX 580 under LN2 would come along and throw the system off.
> Or OC'd 460 768's and SE's on air would beat the 465.


Well the gpu is already listed so I guess it's a non issue anyway. Was just trying to be helpful


----------



## EvoBeardy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *linkin93;14364300*
> Well the gpu is already listed so I guess it's a non issue anyway. Was just trying to be helpful


Yeah I didn't mean to be picky mate, was just saying why we need to provide links comparing to different cards on the same systems, otherwise it all goes up the swanee.


----------



## Dan816

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zipper17;14361842*
> site hwcompare is not 100% accurately,,
> 
> usually people read that website, just 'think' if the 'Values' of 'BW, PIxel,& texel' is 'higher', mean that card perform better,,thats totally wrong,,
> 
> just look at HD 5970 vs HD 6990 on 'hwcompare web',, HD 5970 has more value for texel & pixel,
> 
> but in 'real tested' performance, HD 6990 is twice better than HD 5970,,
> HD 5970 = GTX 580
> HD 6990 = GTX 590
> 
> CMIIW just my 2 cents


Definitely agree with you there. But with the comparo between a 5970 = 580, I'd say no. I have used both cards and the 5970 is just a better card. It doesn't run as hot and the fps is higher than the 580 I used to own......therefore why I sold it.


----------



## zipper17

i heard theres Asus Mars II Dual-GTX 580,,
should be added to the list? but still no review yet for that card,,


Spoiler: some vids here



[ame="



]


----------



## jamor

Great work OP thanks.

Really proved that the $129 GTX 465 is a MUCH MUCH better purchase than the $170 GTX 460s.


----------



## RagingCain

Very detailed and organized, are the rankings ordered by stock performance or overclocked?


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jamor*


Great work OP thanks.

Really proved that the $129 GTX 465 is a MUCH MUCH better purchase than the $170 GTX 460s.


Price and performance aren't really an advantage for either card. They can be found for around the same price and their performance is almost identical. EVGA even has a B-Stock version of both the GTX460 1GB and GTX465 for $109.99. Don't forget that the GTX460 runs cooler and has lower power consumption: link.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *RagingCain*


Very detailed and organized, are the rankings ordered by stock performance or overclocked?











Stock performance, putting overclocking into the equation would add an impossible amount of complexity being that all cards overclock differently.


----------



## Elis

pretty sure the gtx 570 should be ahead of the 6970 or is it just because of the 2gb ram on the 6970?


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Elis*


pretty sure the gtx 570 should be ahead of the 6970 or is it just because of the 2gb ram on the 6970?


They are both extremely competitive cards which makes them extremely hard to place. Plus every month or so performance can change with new drivers. You are correct, thanks to the 2GB frame buffer the HD6970 does seem to have the advantage at extreme resolutions (2560x1600) and around HD resolution they perform about the same on average (1920x1200): link.


----------



## jamor

So the $109 just have 90 day warranties? Is that worth it?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer;14594227*
> Price and performance aren't really an advantage for either card. They can be found for around the same price and their performance is almost identical. EVGA even has a B-Stock version of both the GTX460 1GB and GTX465 for $109.99. Don't forget that the GTX460 runs cooler and has lower power consumption: link.
> 
> Stock performance, putting overclocking into the equation would add an impossible amount of complexity being that all cards overclock differently.


----------



## jamor

They have a GTX 560 for $149 on the B-Stock EVGA website.

EVGA GeForce GTX 560
1024MB GDDR5 Memory
PCI-E 2.0 16x
810Mhz GPU Clock Speed
4008Mhz Memory Clock Speed
NVIDIA SLI ready

You can superclock all of these correct?

They also have a GTX 460 1024MB FPB (Free Performance Boost) for $109.
1024MB GDDR5 Memory
PCI-E 2.0 16x
720Mhz GPU Clock Speed
3600Mhz Memory Clock Speed
NVIDIA SLI ready

I wonder if I could get the GTX 460 1024MB FPB to 4000 memory, 1500 shaders, 800 gpu


----------



## Anth0789

ASUS Mars II 3 GB Dual GTX 580 review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/Mars_II/27.html


----------



## jln1

I still think about 6850 and 460. Some of them say intel run better with gtx 460. Does the 6850 perform better than gtx 460 that worth the price (6850)?


----------



## jamor

What does it mean when an NVIDIA card is EE?


----------



## alancsalt

external exhaust as in evga that vents heat out back of case?


----------



## jamor

Thanks for the info.

I just read an article that basically says the EE runs hotter and louder.


----------



## cusideabelincoln

The 6770 and 6750 aren't on the list. They would be easy to rank.


----------



## Freakn

6770 & 6750 are rebadged 5770 & 5750's so much so you van crossfire these cards between each other


----------



## cusideabelincoln

That's why they would be easy to rank. 9800GT and 8800GT are both listed.


----------



## Fooliobass

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freakn;14726010*
> 6770 & 6750 are rebadged 5770 & 5750's so much so you van crossfire these cards between each other


If the 67x0 series is the same as the 57x0 series can they be placed on the same row with a / or something just to have them listed.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fooliobass;14737705*
> If the 67x0 series is the same as the 57x0 series can they be placed on the same row with a / or something just to have them listed.


Correct!

So they are added now!


----------



## AllyOmega

Awesome list! Is there anyway you might consider adding the MSRP of, say, the top 20 cards or so?


----------



## Schmuckley

Thanks for compiling this!


----------



## Dan816

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AllyOmega;14762500*
> Awesome list! Is there anyway you might consider adding the MSRP of, say, the top 20 cards or so?


I think it doesn't need any more additions. Remember, this is only for comparison/ranking purposes.


----------



## Freakn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AllyOmega;14762500*
> Awesome list! Is there anyway you might consider adding the MSRP of, say, the top 20 cards or so?


Prices will fluctuate and international exchange rates differ too much on a daily basis.

With this simple yet beautiful performance based list, user just need to find cost information for their region and then compare products.

Simple yet effective, I say leave it the way it is


----------



## FlawleZ

Is there a reason why 8800GTS 640MB 112sp is so far below 8800GT 112sp? It's as fast or faster than 8800GT/9800GT/GT240.


----------



## Calipso

GTX560ti 2GB and GTX560 2GB. Where do they stack up?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Calipso*


GTX560ti 2GB and GTX560 2GB. Where do they stack up?


Need a review if you can find one!


----------



## RyviusRan

Why is the ATI 5670 above the 8800gt?

The 8800gt is quite a bit better.


----------



## alancsalt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *RyviusRan*


Why is the ATI 5670 above the 8800gt?

The 8800gt is quite a bit better.


Idly googling.........

http://www.hwcompare.com/185/geforce...adeon-hd-5670/

The 8800GT if 512MB is better! http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 552-7.html
8800GT 512mb = 9800GT but it *does not support DX11*

8800gt is faster, but whether or not its better for you will depend on your circumstance. If you play dx11 games, the 5670 should give good performance. If someone offered me both cards at the same price, id probably take the 5670. check this comparison, the 5670 actually beats the 9800gt in some tests and comes close in many =on&prod[4543]=on&prod[4581]=on]http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2010-gaming-graphics-charts-high-quality/compare,2458.html?prod[4578]=on&prod[4543]=on&prod[4581]=on


----------



## alancsalt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Calipso*


GTX560ti 2GB and GTX560 2GB. Where do they stack up?


still idly googling...hardly any reviews on this, but Fudzilla concludes:

Quote:



Twice the amount of memory found on reference cards will probably catch the eye of less experienced users, as 1024MB of memory will be enough in for most of GTX 560 gaming. Naturally, there are benefits to more memory, mostly when graphics settings are maxed out at 2560x1600. However, the GTX 560â€™s GPU simply isnâ€™t fast enough to handle such frame rates so the few frames more that you get by doubling the memory will hardly make a difference. Additional memory can however come in handy to users who use special game modes or those who like downsampling.

The fact that Gainwardâ€™s special cooling isnâ€™t quieter than reference cooling, although it isnâ€™t much louder either, it is a bit underwhelming. The card is inaudible when idle. The GTX 560 2048MB comes with standard HDMI out, which, coupled with quiet idle mode, may attract multimedia computer owners.

If you manage to find Gainwardâ€™s GTX 560 2048MB priced at â‚¬15-20 more than the reference version, then there is no reason why you shouldnâ€™t invest in the future. The lowest price we managed to find is â‚¬40 higher than the 1GB version, here.


Full review here


----------



## xDriftyy

The NVidia list doesn't have the asus mars, is this because they don't officially make it?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *driftkidd2323*


The NVidia list doesn't have the asus mars, is this because they don't officially make it?


Its my mistake forgot to add it now its on.


----------



## bosoxdanc

Hey guys,
I'm looking at possibly upgrading my GPU for less than $300, most specifically for playing BF3. My plan would be to sell my 5870, and buy a new GPU. I think I want at least 2 GBs on the card. Thanks guys!
-Dan

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## xDriftyy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *bosoxdanc*


Hey guys,
I'm looking at possibly upgrading my GPU for less than $300, most specifically for playing BF3. My plan would be to sell my 5870, and buy a new GPU. I think I want at least 2 GBs on the card. Thanks guys!
-Dan

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


sounds like basically the only thing in your range is a 2gb 6950.


----------



## bosoxdanc

Quote:



Originally Posted by *driftkidd2323*


sounds like basically the only thing in your range is a 2gb 6950.


Is that the card you'd recommend around that price range? I could go up another $50 or so, probably.


----------



## Fooliobass

Quote:



Originally Posted by *bosoxdanc*


Is that the card you'd recommend around that price range? I could go up another $50 or so, probably.


Check out the HD6970, it's the same card as the HD6950 with the extra unlocked shaders and slightly faster stock clocks.


----------



## oomalikoo

in List of Cards By Order Nvidia SLI/AMD Crossfire:

#21 says gtx 295 SLI

who are u trying to fool here?


----------



## Freakn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oomalikoo;15440579*
> in List of Cards By Order Nvidia SLI/AMD Crossfire:
> 
> #21 says gtx 295 SLI
> 
> who are u trying to fool here?


What's the issue?

You disagree with performance or the issue that they are calling it SLI, yes it's "Quad" gpu's but that's how they are all listed


----------



## 161029

I didn't want to start another one of "those" threads so I'm just going to ask here.

Trying to choose between the 570 and 6950/6970 for my needs (Dirt 3, 3D rendering, Folding, BOINC, and Photoshop related). Which one would be best? Also, are there any more cards that can unclock? I'm aware the Sapphire Toxic 6950 can but I've heard some people weren't able to achieve the full unclock.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HybridCore;15445797*
> I didn't want to start another one of "those" threads so I'm just going to ask here.
> 
> Trying to choose between the 570 and 6950/6970 for my needs (Dirt 3, 3D rendering, Folding, BOINC, and Photoshop related). Which one would be best? Also, are there any more cards that can unclock? I'm aware the Sapphire Toxic 6950 can but I've heard some people weren't able to achieve the full unclock.


Here is a comparison for both cards:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/292?vs=306

They are both pretty much the same.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/Mars_II/27.html

Any of the two will do for you for sure.


----------



## KevinsL

can you add HD 6570 1GB & 2GB / DDR3 & DDR5?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:



Originally Posted by *KevinsL*


can you add HD 6570 1GB & 2GB / DDR3 & DDR5?










Yeah their up now.


----------



## xDriftyy

for the crossfire/sli list, shouldn't the mars 2 in SLI be #1?


----------



## 66racer

Man this was awesome!! It came in handy when picking out a budget card for a family member!! Going to order tomorrow morning after searching for the cheapest price! Thanks


----------



## Ben the OCer

Anth0789 it looks like the new OCN has a different image display system so the GPU Spec Chart is now unreadable since you can't view it full size. With the new system it should look like this (clicking it should open it in full view):


----------



## LuiKangBakinPie

You can add this


----------



## Hexusdfx

Update!

New GTX 560TI 2Win 30% faster than a GTX 580 according to EVGA

Just got the email from EVGA. Sweet!

http://www.evga.com/articles/00656/

3DS on a single card WOW!


----------



## LuiKangBakinPie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hexusdfx*
> 
> Update!
> New GTX 560TI 2Win 30% faster than a GTX 580 according to EVGA
> Just got the email from EVGA. Sweet!
> http://www.evga.com/articles/00656/
> 3DS on a single card WOW!


Quote:


> *according to EVGA*


The GTX 560 Ti 2Win has 1GB PER GPU for a total of 2GB on the card, it is still seen as two 1GB cards. 560 Ti will basically emphasize rendering bottleneck all that much more due to its architectural performance and the fact that dual GPU cards still detect a pair of individual GPUs rather than combining both into one massive rendering engine.


----------



## Anth0789

List updated!


----------



## steamboat

source for the 6870x2 in crossfire being faster than the 6970 in quad?


----------



## Hexusdfx

It makes sense. Two X2 cards in crossfire can run 16X+16X lanes on PCI-e. When running cards in quadfire some of your slots will be reduced to 8X producing a diminishing return. Plus I'll bet having an on-board bridge chip allows two GPUs on one card to scale better than a standard crossfire configuration.


----------



## jonnylaris

Where is the single gpu only ranking?


----------



## bottleofboos

Thanks for keeping this list up to date. It's very helpful to see how old/dated my card is


----------



## Anth0789

*Added the GTX 560 Ti (448 Cores) 1280MB!*


----------



## iCow

I noticed you have the 580GTX MARS II but not the ASUS Ares (yes its old but the 5970 is still tank).


----------



## KevinsL

can u add GT440 1gb ddr5?


----------



## 161029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> *Added the GTX 560 Ti (448 Cores) 1280MB!
> *


Wow. I'm late to the party. Yes!!!! Now to choose, sapphire 6950 dirt 3 edition unlocked or 560 Ti 448 core? Hm...


----------



## Anth0789

7970 added to the list!


----------



## alancsalt

Hey!

Bump.


----------



## rob3342421

so 2 460's are 46th in the SLI rankings (not surprising when its up against 4 580's, 3 580's and 2 580's) =p

but how does 2 460's compare to say 1 580? =/


----------



## alancsalt

About the same, depending on manufacturer and overclocks. See position 11 in the first list displayed on the first page of this thread......


----------



## Hexusdfx

The HD6570 1GB appears twice.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hexusdfx*
> 
> The HD6570 1GB appears twice.


Fixed!


----------



## Psychoticus

You forgot the ATI MACH64 lol.... Other then that, very good job with the list


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Hey!

I noticed your list's numbering was wrong. Think you could fix that?


----------



## TheSandman

not to nitpick but your dual GPU card list is missing a few

Gigabye 3D1 6600GT and 6800GT and RageFuryMAXX

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125210
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125203


----------



## alancsalt

No nitpicks from me. You do a great job Anth0789. You have my thanks for your long time volunteer care of this thread.


----------



## TheSandman

lol i just felt they where missing


----------



## rob3342421

Where's the 7970?


----------



## UserNameisTaken

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rob3342421*
> 
> Where's the 7970?


Look at number 4 on the list


----------



## rob3342421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UserNameisTaken*
> 
> Look at number 4 on the list


woops *facepalm*


----------



## Psychoticus

Here is a the result after a week investigating wich gfx card to buy.
My rig contains two GTX285 in sli, and I have a 750w PSU. Since I'm gaming on three monitors (matrox TH2GO) and have a fourth monitor for system stuff, most of nvidias solutions wasen't a choice.

Fastest combinations at the top of the list.
(the costs is in swedish "kronor")

hd 6950 3x CF 6000:- 474w
hd 6970 CF 5100:- 414w
gtx 285 3x sli 6000:- 549w
hd 6950 CF 4000:- 316w
hd 7970 4700:- 195w
hd 6970 3000:- 207w
gtx 285 sli 4000:- 366w
hd 6950 2000:- 158w
gtx 285 2000:- 183w

I went for HD 6950 CF, And going to buy a third card later this year maybe.

In the charts on Tom's hardware, you can see that HD 6950 scales very good in CF and TriFire.
And because its is a "middle" card, there will be a lot of used cards for sale cheap later on. Wich is a good thing if you buy a new now and planing to buy another one later for crossfire.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2011-gaming-graphics-charts/Gamer-Index,2673.html

For now, HD 6950 seems to be the most cost effective solution.


----------



## TheSandman

the 285 is dated


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*
> 
> Hey!
> I noticed your list's numbering was wrong. Think you could fix that?


I'm trying to fixed it but I can't get it for some reason in the edit post it looks fine but it stops at 100 for some reason...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Psychoticus*
> 
> You forgot the ATI MACH64 lol.... Other then that, very good job with the list


Where should it be placed?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheSandman*
> 
> not to nitpick but your dual GPU card list is missing a few
> Gigabye 3D1 6600GT and 6800GT and RageFuryMAXX
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125210
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125203


Okay their added to the list never knew they existed thanks!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alancsalt*
> 
> No nitpicks from me. You do a great job Anth0789. You have my thanks for your long time volunteer care of this thread.


Thanks!

Update added 7950 to the list!


----------



## TheSandman

TNT2 M64 Right below TNT
Riva TNT Vanta Right below TNT2 M64

Also the Rage Fury Maxx would be just a Rage not a radeon.

The 6800GT 3D1 preforms like a 7800GT and the 6600GT 3D1 preforms like a 6800GT.


----------



## Psychoticus

The "ATI MACH64" was the first graphic card that had a cool name used to make people buy pc systems for their homes. I'm not sure if it even had 64bit internal, but it was riding on the 64bit wave in the mid 90's (the 64bit gaming consol wave that is).

I would place the card last in the list.


----------



## TheSandman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Psychoticus*
> 
> The "ATI MACH64" was the first graphic card that had a cool name used to make people buy pc systems for their homes. I'm not sure if it even had 64bit internal, but it was riding on the 64bit wave in the mid 90's (the 64bit gaming consol wave that is).
> I would place the card last in the list.


not 3d lol


----------



## Psychoticus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheSandman*
> 
> not 3d lol


I know. But it is still a graphic card.


----------



## TheSandman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Psychoticus*
> 
> I know. But it is still a graphic card.


lol so we should bring all the video cards since they where able to display text on a screen? lol


----------



## Psychoticus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheSandman*
> 
> lol so we should bring all the video cards since they where able to display text on a screen? lol


Hehehe, maybe not. though, the thread title clearly says: "Graphics Card Ranking (5th Time And Last) (Updated Daily)"

How ever, the MACH64 was mor or less the first card that the graphic industry tried to "push" for the common people, in the same way they do today with 3d cards. So I thought it would be appropriate to include that card in the bottom of the list:







.


----------



## alancsalt

This could get indulgent, but while there is a sudden mania for 3D ancient history ....I have an AGP 2x Power Color *S3 Trio 3d* from a 1999 Pentium 2/Gigabyte GA-6BXC/Samsung 64MB PC66 SDRAM/8.4GB Fujitsu MPC3084AT HDD in front of me right now. That PC cost $3000 back then. Customer brought it in to see if I could get it going after 6 years disuse. I did, but hardware then started failing, lol.

*S3 Product History:*
S3 Savage/MX-/IX
S3 ViRGE (3D from here on)
S3 Trio3D/1X-/2X
S3 Trio3D
S3 ProSavage
S3 ViRGE/DX-GX
S3 Twister
S3 Savage3D
S3 Savage4
S3 Savage 2000 with Diamond Viper II (In 1999, Diamond was acquired by S3 Graphics)
S3 ProSavageDDR
S3 SuperSavage
S3 Trio64V+
S3 Trio64V2/DX -/GX

Would the 1989 *Tseng ET4000AX* ISA card be the oldest graphics card?

I don't care if they are listed at all. I don't know that they'd be easily rankable. I think the S3 Trio 3D is the only success for S3, then decline. So many companies came and went back then.


----------



## zipper17

HD 7770 & HD 7750 is out now ..









http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-HD-7770-and-7750-Cape-Verde-GPU-Review
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5541/amd-radeon-hd-7750-radeon-hd-7770-ghz-edition-review/1
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/XFX/HD_7770_Black_Edition_Super_Overclock
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_7750_iCooler

HD 7770 should be place behind gtx 460 1gb,,,?

HD 7750 should be place above or behind GTX 550ti ,,,?

my conclusion:
HD 6850 > GTX 460 1gb > *HD 7770* > GTX 460 768mb > HD 6790 > GTX 550ti > *HD 7750*

cmiiw


----------



## Anth0789

New 7850 + 7870 added!

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/26.html


----------



## zipper17

wow cool..

7870 1 step behind the gtx 580 1.5 gb
7850 1 step behind the hd 6970 2gb..

nice card..


----------



## Ben the OCer

Well most of the Southern Island GPUs are released so I updated the chart. I left the HD6990 in there since the HD7990 hasn't released yet. Obviously Nvidia hasn't released any Kepler cards yet so all I could do was just leave the 500 series cards in there. Here is a preview and direct image shack link:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6808/amdandnvidiachartv3.png


----------



## 66racer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*
> 
> Well most of the Southern Island GPUs are released so I updated the chart. I left the HD6990 in there since the HD7990 hasn't released yet. Obviously Nvidia hasn't released any Kepler cards yet so all I could do was just leave the 500 series cards in there. Here is a preview and direct image shack link:
> 
> http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6808/amdandnvidiachartv3.png


Thanks for keeping this updated


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *66racer*
> 
> Thanks for keeping this updated


No problem, it's my pleasure. I love doing it so it's a win for everybody.


----------



## zipper17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*
> 
> Well most of the Southern Island GPUs are released so I updated the chart. I left the HD6990 in there since the HD7990 hasn't released yet. Obviously Nvidia hasn't released any Kepler cards yet so all I could do was just leave the 500 series cards in there. Here is a preview and direct image shack link:
> 
> http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6808/amdandnvidiachartv3.png


nice but where is the HD 6970 ???

oh crap u remove the hd 6000 series,,
ok no problem,,

but its nice if in the table also have hd 6000 series,,


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zipper17*
> 
> nice but where is the HD 6970 ???
> oh crap u remove the hd 6000 series,,
> ok no problem,,
> but its nice if in the table also have hd 6000 series,,


The chart is meant as a spec comparison of the current generation cards and basic performance comparison. If I kept the previews generation cards in as well the chart would get too wide to read. I understand why you might want to have the HD6970 in there but at some point you must move on.







Besides a cheap used card you wouldn't get a HD6970 over the superior HD7870 anyway, at least when they are officially available to buy. As stated I only kept the HD6990 in there because it has no replacement yet in the unreleased HD7990.


----------



## alancsalt

You do great BEN! Thank you for maintaining that chart. Great supplement to the thread


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alancsalt*
> 
> You do great BEN! Thank you for maintaining that chart. Great supplement to the thread


You're very welcome and thank you for the support and kind words. I just thought it would be very helpful for a lot of people to have all the specs of the current gen cards in one place. I should also note I added two new rows to the chart, Manufacturing Process and Architecture. I've also thought about adding die size as well but maybe I'll do that in the next revision. Anth0789 does a great job of maintaining this thread and I want to do a small part to contribute.


----------



## zipper17

another gtx 560 variant leaked..

GTX 560 SE
http://www.custompcreview.com/2012/02/29/nvidia-geforce-gtx-560-se-benchmarks/
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/hardwareheaven-newsroom/215232-zotac-announces-geforce-gtx-560-se.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/162342/Inno3D-GeForce-GTX-560-SE-Pictured.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/161726/Yeston-Unveils-GeForce-GTX-560-SE-GameMaster-with-336-CUDA-Cores.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/news/zotac-announces-geforce-gtx-560-se/

some folks said gtx 560 SE will compete with HD 7770 ...


----------



## Ben the OCer

I updated the chart with the GTX680 and made a lot of changes. I standardize the card rankings so they match with Anth0789's list, before all I was really doing was counting. I removed the Memory Type and Shader Clock fields. They have both become redundant or irrelevant since all the current cards on the chart have GDDR5 memory and the Shader Clock has been removed in the GTX680. I also removed the GTX580 and some slower Nvidia cards like the GTX560, GTX550 Ti, and GT520. The GTX500 series cards I left on the chart are either because they haven't been replaced yet or they are still decent buys so they should be left on. Here is the new chart:

http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/7498/amdandnvidiachartv4.png


----------



## Ben the OCer

Just a small error correction to the chart. The note marker for the Relative FPS section was 4 when it should have been 3.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7498/amdandnvidiachartv4.png


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*
> 
> Just a small error correction to the chart. The note marker for the Relative FPS section was 4 when it should have been 3.
> 
> http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7498/amdandnvidiachartv4.png


Thanks fixed!


----------



## ExoticallyPure

The list is very misnumbered, Anth. You may want to check that.


----------



## alancsalt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*
> 
> The list is very misnumbered, Anth. You may want to check that.


That glitch has been mentioned and explained before.









EDIT: Also see http://www.overclock.net/t/1235912/will-fix-numberlist-stops-at-100 It's being looked at.....


----------



## zipper17

something missing GTX 460 V2 lol (launch: September 24, 2011)..

look at this:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1175219/nvidia-gtx-460-v2-released
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units

pfft another strange card from nvidia, and no review yet for this card,,
should be added?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zipper17*
> 
> something missing GTX 460 V2 lol (launch: September 24, 2011)..
> look at this:
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1175219/nvidia-gtx-460-v2-released
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units
> pfft another strange card from nvidia, and no review yet for this card,,
> should be added?


I could add it but how does it perfrom thats the thing.


----------



## blackhand

what about gtx 570 2.5 gb where would u put that?


----------



## ihatelolcats

any chance for a list comparing single card to multiple card configurations? an all in one list you might say


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackhand*
> 
> what about gtx 570 2.5 gb where would u put that?


Its added now!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ihatelolcats*
> 
> any chance for a list comparing single card to multiple card configurations? an all in one list you might say


I would but it would take really long to do it and would be complicated.


----------



## blackhand

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> Its added now!


sweet


----------



## frankle

http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=2210&pageID=11721

GTX 680 SLI vs GTX 580 Tri-SLI ...

Not sure of what you will make of it but I'd say that 680 SLI will beat most Tri-Fire/SLI GPU's.


----------



## zipper17

AFAIK, there is a gtx 560ti 2 GB model vram..
should be added to list i thought..


----------



## Marshock

What are pieces of trash video cards like GT 520, HD6450, GT430 doing so high? They should be below X1900XT 512 Mb, unless it is 800X600 and no AA...
8800GT is superior to HD5670 DDR3, HD6570 DDR3 and HD6670 DDR3 - i think everybody knows that.


----------



## LowFlyR

nothing, sorry


----------



## nycste

subbed bumping and so glad I was forwarded to this thread! thanks

ps any chance of getting 6950s in crossfire or 6970s? because my buddy has that setup and its not listed i dont think im sure there are benchmarks for it somewhere offical ones anyway


----------



## Ben the OCer

I've updated the chart with the GTX690, GTX670, and made other changes outlined below:

All previous generation cards have been removed. This made the Manufacturing Process field redundant since all the GPUs on the chart are now 28nm, so it has been removed.
Renamed the GPU Code Name field to just plainly GPU as the long name seemed unneeded. Moved the Architecture field below the GPU filed since it seems to fit better there.
Added boost clock frequency for Nvidia GPUs.
Added the word Limit to the TDP field to emphasize that these are the max watts the manufacturer will allow the card to pull but the power consumption will vary greatly depending on the game or load used. It's not the old definition of TDP. AMD calls this their PowerTune Limit.
Compressed the Relative FPS field so there isn't that blank bar.
Zoomed in on the chart more so the text is crisper and higher resolution. This also made everything slightly bigger which is fine since with the old cards removed the number of cards in the chart is lower.
Please let me know if you see any mistakes. Here is an OCN and Image Shack hosted link of the chart:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8555/amdandnvidiachartv5.png


----------



## Ben the OCer

Anth0, could you update the OP with my revised chart.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*
> 
> Anth0, could you update the OP with my revised chart.


Yep sorry been busy lately thanks again.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> Yep sorry been busy lately thanks again.


No problem life happens, I just thought I'd give you a friendly reminder.







Your welcome and thanks again for maintaining the ranking. Have a good one, Anth0.


----------



## Jackeduphard

Just wanted to say thanks for a Grate visualizer on speeds and power and performers of video card brother







Helping me make my mind up for a new desktop cheap card







thanks!


----------



## Mr_Nibbles

Just got an email from EVGA about the GT 640 so I decided to check its ranking and it appears to be missing. Here are the specs, but I do not have benchmarks.

384 CUDA Cores
GPU Clock: 901 MHz
Bus: PCI-E 3.01
Texture Fill Rate: 28.8 GT/s
Memory Specs
Memory Detail: 2048 MB DDR3
Memory Bit Width: 128 Bit
Memory Clock: 1782 MHz
Memory Bandwidth: 28.5 GB/sec

Also there appear to be a few variations with different sizes and significantly different specs and clocks. (The card is only about the length of a pci express slot, but comes in both single slot and dual slot versions).

Thanks.


----------



## ShadowDragoon

I see the GTX 670 has a 4GB model available. I would assume it would rank higher than the 2GB, but you know how these type of things can be... Has anyone had a chance to test or rank that card yet?


----------



## zipper17

ASUS ROG MARS III Dual GTX 680
http://www.techpowerup.com/167217/ASUS-ROG-MARS-III-Dual-GTX-680-Graphics-Card-Detailed.html


----------



## bayarea757

Im glad to see the GTX295 im using is still doing good for a 5 year old card.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr_Nibbles*
> 
> Just got an email from EVGA about the GT 640 so I decided to check its ranking and it appears to be missing. Here are the specs, but I do not have benchmarks.
> 384 CUDA Cores
> GPU Clock: 901 MHz
> Bus: PCI-E 3.01
> Texture Fill Rate: 28.8 GT/s
> Memory Specs
> Memory Detail: 2048 MB DDR3
> Memory Bit Width: 128 Bit
> Memory Clock: 1782 MHz
> Memory Bandwidth: 28.5 GB/sec
> Also there appear to be a few variations with different sizes and significantly different specs and clocks. (The card is only about the length of a pci express slot, but comes in both single slot and dual slot versions).
> Thanks.


I'll wait for review first!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ShadowDragoon*
> 
> I see the GTX 670 has a 4GB model available. I would assume it would rank higher than the 2GB, but you know how these type of things can be... Has anyone had a chance to test or rank that card yet?


Yep I assume, I'll put them down both for GTX 670 and 680 thanks!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zipper17*
> 
> ASUS ROG MARS III Dual GTX 680
> http://www.techpowerup.com/167217/ASUS-ROG-MARS-III-Dual-GTX-680-Graphics-Card-Detailed.html


No review either for this I'll wait it off.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bayarea757*
> 
> Im glad to see the GTX295 im using is still doing good for a 5 year old card.


Yes the GTX 295 is still a great performer for its age.


----------



## Jackeduphard

This is great .. i know not perfect but it is a great way to get get your mind around the idea where your card is it


----------



## spRICE

Would anybody happen to know where a gt 650m fits in here? I'm looking to get a gaming laptop. Thanks


----------



## ShadowDragoon

I think this is only for desktop GPUs, not mobile.


----------



## zipper17

GTX 660ti out now,,

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/geforce-gtx-660-ti_11.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/565-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-ti/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_660_Ti_Direct_Cu_II/1.html
http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/zotac_gtx660ti_amp_edition_review,1.html

the place must be above HD 7950 or below the HD 7950 ...kinda confuse


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zipper17*
> 
> GTX 660ti out now,,
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/geforce-gtx-660-ti_11.html
> http://www.techspot.com/review/565-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-ti/
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_660_Ti_Direct_Cu_II/1.html
> http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/zotac_gtx660ti_amp_edition_review,1.html
> the place must be above HD 7950 or below the HD 7950 ...kinda confuse


Yep added now!


----------



## 161029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zipper17*
> 
> the place must be above HD 7950 or below the HD 7950 ...kinda confuse


They seem like they're neck to neck. The 7950 has the advantage of being better at 2560 x 1440 (or higher) because of the wider memory bus. The 660ti is crippled when it comes to the memory bus. The 7950 and 7800 cards are also getting a price cut. The 7950 should cost just as much as the 660ti or only a little bit more. From what I've heard, it overclocks better too and is runs cooler when using aftermarket coolers.


----------



## derpy_hooves

I feel that the 7950 should be above the 660ti it does better in more scenarios especially when both are at max OC


----------



## Ben the OCer

*Chart Update*

Full Update Notes: GTX660 Ti, HD7970 GHz Edition, and HD7950 with Boost added to the chart. A new row with Transistor count of each GPU has been added. Separate row added for the Boost Clock. There are now four distinct areas to the chart which are the GPU Core Info, Main Specifications, Power/Size Requirements, and Relative FPS. Due to adding three cards to the list it became wider so I tried to shave off width space where I could. This also resulted in some slight row name changes. Row color changed slightly from a light blue to a light blue/green color. Relative FPS area has been left with the light blue row color and a added darker blue strip with the card model has been added for easier comparisons and more distinction between the specs area and relative FPS. The HD7970GE is now the baseline for the relative FPS since it is now the fastest single GPU card (above the GTX680 slightly at higher resolutions).

Resources Links for Chart (Relative FPS):
MSI GTX660 Ti Power Edition Review: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/
HD7950 Boost Review: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7950_Boost_BIOS_Upgrade/

*Suggested Ranking Additions and Changes:*
I agree with derpy_hooves, the regular HD7950 should be placed above the GTX660 Ti. At low resolutions they are about the same on average but at 2560x1440 and above the HD7950 pulls away.

HD7970 GHz Edition: Placement should be above the HD6990 with a rank of 4th. According to TechPowerUp, it's faster than the HD6990 at 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 on average: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/28.html

HD7950 with Boost: Placement should be right above the regular HD7950. With the GTX660 Ti order changed it would have a rank of 15th and this would give the regular HD7950 a rank of 16th: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7950_Boost_BIOS_Upgrade/25.html

GTX660 Ti: Rank should be changed to 17th due to the HD7950s having better performance at higher resolutions: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_660_Ti_Power_Edition/28.html

Edit: I found a couple errors in the chart. Image in this post has been updated with the corrections.


----------



## 66racer

Awesome


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *66racer*
> 
> Awesome


Was that "Awesome







" directed at my chart or Anth0789's work. Anth0789 has done a lot of great work in this thread but if it was for my chart thank you very much, I'm glad you like it.







With this revision I tried a lot of different things that didn't seem to work and I finally came up with that design which I was very happy with.


----------



## 66racer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*
> 
> Was that "Awesome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " directed at my chart or Anth0789's work. Anth0789 has done a lot of great work in this thread but if it was for my chart thank you very much, I'm glad you like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With this revision I tried a lot of different things that didn't seem to work and I finally came up with that design which I was very happy with.


Was directed at your recent update, nice to see this thread still getting worked on. I also appreciate the work the op has done. Didnt want anyone to think the effort was unappreciated









Edit: geez phone typo correction sucks lol


----------



## 161029

Thank you ben! Seems easier for me to choose now.







Nice work.









Just waiting on Anth now to update the first page.

Edit: Didn't know the 7970 GHz Edition performed on par/a bit better than the 680. News to me.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *66racer*
> 
> Was directed at your recent update, nice to see this thread still getting worked on. I also appreciate the work the op has done. Didnt want anyone to think the effort was unappreciated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: geez phone typo correction sucks lol


Thank you so much for your support. It's nice when your work is appreciated.







I wasn't implying you were neglecting Anth0789 but I can't take praise without shooting some back at him for all his work on this thread. I am just a small piece to the puzzle.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HybridCore*
> 
> Thank you ben! Seems easier for me to choose now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just waiting on Anth now to update the first page.
> Edit: Didn't know the 7970 GHz Edition performed on par/a bit better than the 680. News to me.


Your welcome, I'm glad it makes your decision easier. I have two main motivations for making the chart. The first is for my own knowledge and interest in computer hardware. The second is to be a help to you guys and give you a single location of comparison for all current gen graphics cards.

The GTX680 and HD7970 GHz Edition are pretty evenly matched at low to medium resolutions (1680x1050 and 1920x1200). Which card is ahead will of course depend on the specific game tested but TechPowerUp uses a vast game library of 18 and 2 synthetic benchmarks. So you get a good variety to have an accurate average. It's at high resolutions like 2560x1600 and 2560x1440 and extreme resolutions in multi-monitor Eyefinity setups when AMD's cards with their immense memory bandwidth and frame buffer shines and pull away. This is the case for the HD7970GE vs GTX680 (288GB/s vs 192.3GB/s), HD7970 vs GTX670 (264GB/s vs 192.3GB/s), HD7950 vs GTX660 Ti (240GB/s vs 144.2GB/s), and HD7750 vs GT640 (72GB/s vs 28.5GB/s). In the case of the GT640 the card has a larger frame buffer but is crippled by the use of DDR3 memory, even at lower resolutions it just get's blown away by the HD7750 (Nvidia cheaped out on the memory and it shows, that is supposed to be remedied by the not yet released GTX650 Ti). One thing my chart doesn't show is the minimum frame rates but maybe that will be a future addition.


----------



## flash2021

subscribed! great work guys, and nice polished chart...looking forward to future revisions!


----------



## Anth0789

Alright thanks Ben for the updated chart list updated!


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flash2021*
> 
> subscribed! great work guys, and nice polished chart...looking forward to future revisions!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> Alright thanks Ben for the updated chart list updated!


Your welcome guys. Thanks for updating the list Anth0.


----------



## Anth0789

HD7990 review:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_7990_Devil_13/1.html


----------



## Awieos

GTX660 review:
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4922/nvidia_geforce_gtx_660_2gb_reference_video_card_review/index1.html


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awieos*
> 
> GTX660 review:
> http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4922/nvidia_geforce_gtx_660_2gb_reference_video_card_review/index1.html


GTX 660 2GB added!


----------



## Ben the OCer

I've updated the chart with the GTX660 and GTX650 but I'm waiting for GTX650 TPU relative FPS numbers to post it here. The GTX660 is a tough card to place depending on the game but it looks like it often performs between the HD7870 and HD7850. You're placement is pretty close already but according to TPU it performs below the HD7870 on average: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_660/27.html


----------



## 161029

Just saw the GTX660 reviews news thread. Interesting results, I guess.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*
> 
> I've updated the chart with the GTX660 and GTX650 but I'm waiting for GTX650 TPU relative FPS numbers to post it here. The GTX660 is a tough card to place depending on the game but it looks like it often performs between the HD7870 and HD7850. You're placement is pretty close already but according to TPU it performs below the HD7870 on average: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_660/27.html


Alright fixed thanks again for the chart work.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*
> 
> I've updated the chart with the GTX660 and GTX650 but I'm waiting for GTX650 TPU relative FPS numbers to post it here. The GTX660 is a tough card to place depending on the game but it looks like it often performs between the HD7870 and HD7850. You're placement is pretty close already but according to TPU it performs below the HD7870 on average: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_660/27.html
> 
> 
> 
> Alright fixed thanks again for the chart work.
Click to expand...

No problem, it's my pleasure. Thanks, Anth0, will update with chart image when TPU hopefully get's the GTX650 review out.


----------



## Awieos

GTX 650 review :
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-geforce-gtx-650-benchmark,3297-24.html


----------



## blooder11181

overkill from msi
4GB DDR3 Memory Design
- The first product of GT 630 series with 4GB memory.
- 4GB memory provides better experience for ultra-high resolution PC games and movies.

http://www.msi.com/product/vga/N630GT-MD4GD3.html#?div=Specification


----------



## Ben the OCer

Good news guys, the new version of the GPU chart is here.







The GTX660 and GTX650 have been added. TechPowerUp's review of the GTX650 shows the reference card performing basically the same as the HD7750 but for placement it appears to be just barely above it:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_650_Power_Edition/27.html



Anth0, I want to suggest a ranking change for the GT640. According to TechPowerUp's GTX650 review the GT640 barely performs better than the HD6670 (see link above). This is something that I've also seen with release reviews of the GT640. So it's hard to believe it would be faster than an HD6750 when it can even be outperformed by the HD6670 GDDR5 in some cases due to memory bandwidth. So I would change the ranking for the GT640 to right above the HD6670.


----------



## Anth0789

Thanks for the update, changes made!


----------



## Awieos

GTX 650 ti review :
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-review-leaked-falls-hd-7850-gaming-benchmarks/


----------



## mohit9206

gtx650 is faster than 7750 almost matching the 7770 when oc'd..its a good card for the price good not great..personally am going for 7750 for low power consumption , no need for pcie connection and performance on par with 5770, 6770.


----------



## Bruennis

Are we taking into account overclocking performance? Or is this just strictly stock performance? What about single monitor performance? Or multiple monitor performance? There are a lot of variables in comparing flagship cards that possess strength in different areas but generally speaking in terms of single monitor performance at the resolution of 2560x1600 to the popular 1920x1080, I would argue that the 680 edges out the 7970 / GHz Edition (No difference really as both overclock identically). 5a and 5b would be fine too







.

Here is a gaming performance review done by Hardocp with the 7970 and 680 brought to their maximum clocks with overvolting;

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/07/23/msi_geforce_gtx_680_lightning_video_card_review/9

Obviously not all 7970s will reach 1280/1860 (I've had 3 and none were able to) and only the 680 Lightning is capable of 1392/1765 clocks and perhaps some golden non-Lightning 680s but nonetheless the 680 separates itself from the 7970 with ease at the given single monitor resolutions.

Here is another review with the same 680 Lightning overclocked @ 1293/1537 (No voltage mod.) pitted against the same 7970 at 1280/1860. Results are nearly identical at these clocks and single monitor resolutions.

Having said all that, I think a case can be made that with both at their air maximums with voltage modification; the 680 will come out comfortably on top.

I will say, though, that with multiple monitors the 7970 / GHz Edition should come out on top


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 650 Ti added!


----------



## mohit9206

hmmm gtx650 ti is one of nvidias most appealing cards to me..great overclocking potential, and most of all assassin's creed 3 download code free .. all this for $149 ..so for someone who was gonna get AC3 this fall for the pc and is in the market for a mid budget card this is it..but i wanna know if this AC3 offer is only for the US?


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bruennis*
> 
> Are we taking into account overclocking performance? Or is this just strictly stock performance? What about single monitor performance? Or multiple monitor performance? There are a lot of variables in comparing flagship cards that possess strength in different areas but generally speaking in terms of single monitor performance at the resolution of 2560x1600 to the popular 1920x1080, I would argue that the 680 edges out the 7970 / GHz Edition (No difference really as both overclock identically). 5a and 5b would be fine too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Here is a gaming performance review done by Hardocp with the 7970 and 680 brought to their maximum clocks with overvolting;
> 
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/07/23/msi_geforce_gtx_680_lightning_video_card_review/9
> 
> Obviously not all 7970s will reach 1280/1860 (I've had 3 and none were able to) and only the 680 Lightning is capable of 1392/1765 clocks and perhaps some golden non-Lightning 680s but nonetheless the 680 separates itself from the 7970 with ease at the given single monitor resolutions.
> 
> Here is another review with the same 680 Lightning overclocked @ 1293/1537 (No voltage mod.) pitted against the same 7970 at 1280/1860. Results are nearly identical at these clocks and single monitor resolutions.
> 
> Having said all that, I think a case can be made that with both at their air maximums with voltage modification; the 680 will come out comfortably on top.
> 
> I will say, though, that with multiple monitors the 7970 / GHz Edition should come out on top


Overclockability can vary greatly so it's an unreliable way to compare cards. It's also hard to find data comparing a lot of cards when overclocked.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> hmmm gtx650 ti is one of nvidias most appealing cards to me..great overclocking potential, and most of all assassin's creed 3 download code free .. all this for $149 ..so for someone who was gonna get AC3 this fall for the pc and is in the market for a mid budget card this is it..but i wanna know if this AC3 offer is only for the US?


If you need a card in that price range and are going to buy Assassin's Creed III anyway then it's a decent deal. If not the card really isn't that impressive for the money. The HD7850 totally blows it out of the water and doesn't cost that much more. The cheapest GTX650 Ti on Newegg for the 1GB version is $154.99 and 2GB is $169.99. Compare that to the HD7850 1GB at $164.99 and 2GB at $184.99. That's $10 and $15 more respectively for a much better performing card that consistently gives you a higher % performance increase than the % increase in cost. It's really hard for the GTX650 Ti to overcome it's low 86.4GB/s memory bandwidth and 16 ROPs when the HD7850 has 153.6GB/s memory bandwidth and 32 ROPs.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Sorry for the double post but this new comment requires a bump of the thread and has a lot of info. I looked at the TechPowerUp review of the GTX650 Ti so I could update the GPU chart. It appears Nvidia has been busy the past month and made a lot of improvements to their drivers between the GTX650 and GTX650 Ti release. This makes the job of ranking the GPUs all that much harder for us all. I'll go through some Nvidia vs AMD card matchups with my take on it but I'd really appreciate input from you guys.

*Data Source and General Info*
The following analysis is based on TechPowerUp's GTX650 Ti review and more specifically the relative performance numbers:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_650_Ti_Power_Edition/28.html

Baseline GPU: HD7970GE = 100%

*HD7970GE vs GTX680*
This is a very close race. At 1680x150 (100% vs 102%) and 1920x1200 (100% vs 100%) they are virtually in a dead heat and in the margin of error. At 2560x1600 (100% vs 93%) the HD7970GE pulls ahead by a decent amount. This being the high end of high end card category, multi-monitor resolutions and extreme single monitor resolutions can be important, and they are virtually the same at lower resolutions. So the HD7970GE should keep it's placement and slight lead, if only by the skin of its teeth.

_Suggested Change: None, keep ranking the same._

*HD7970 vs GTX670*
This situation is very similar to the HD7970GE vs GTX680 matchup. At 1680x1050 (92% vs 95%) and 1920x1200 (92% vs 93%) they are in a dead heat. With the HD7970 pulling ahead at 2560x1600 (92% vs 85%). So my conclusion is the same, the HD7970 should keep its spot above the GTX670, but see above explanation if you need a refresher.

_Suggested Change: None, keep ranking the same._

*HD7950 vs GTX660 Ti*
This is the one I'm the least sure about. The GTX660 Ti is ahead at 1680x1050 (78% vs 83%). They are basically equal and within the margin of error at 1920x1200 (78% vs 80%). Then the HD7950 is ahead slightly at 2560x1600 (77% vs 73%). So what is one to do with this info. The HD7950 is only ever so slightly ahead at 2560x1600, and the other two resolutions the GTX660 Ti is ahead although not by a lot. They might have to be put on equal footing with the same ranking number but again this is a tough call.

_Suggested Changed: Unsure but maybe give them the same ranking number, as it's pretty close to call._

*HD7870 vs GTX660*
Honestly these two are so close at all resolutions, I'd almost say I can't place them. I might suggest we make these equal (same ranking number) but what are your thoughts? Here are the numbers:
1680x1050: 69% vs 72%
1920x1200: 67% vs 69%
2560x1600: 65% vs 63%

_Suggested Change: Give them the same ranking number, as it's just too close to call._


----------



## eli2112

Hello, everyone! I got a question I hope you can help me. I'm sorry for any noobish question and please be kind haha.

I got a 1gb Sapphire HD 5570 card and I want a cheap upgrade while I wait for the opportunity of building a new PC from scratch next year. I'm thinking about setting up crossfire or simply switching to another card, but I can't find many comparisons on the web of this card in CF against single better cards, so I turn to you =). Here are my upgrade options:


Crossfire with another 1gb Sapphire HD 5570
Crossfire with a 2gb ATI HD 5670
Switching to 2gb XFX HD 6670
I'm new here so I hope I'm not asking too much, but I'd like to know how would my options weigh against each other, no big explanation, just which is better and which is worse. Oh and can I crossfire 2 compatible cards of different brands (Sapphire and XFX, for example). Thanks in advance.


----------



## mohit9206

the radeon hd5570 i think does not support crossfire . you are better off with a new radeon hd6670 gddr5 for the time being until you build a new pc next year. in case you build yourself an amd trinity based system then you can also use your 6670 in that pc as well in crossfire mode with onboard gpu. so go with hd6670 gddr5


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eli2112*
> 
> Hello, everyone! I got a question I hope you can help me. I'm sorry for any noobish question and please be kind haha.
> 
> I got a 1gb Sapphire HD 5570 card and I want a cheap upgrade while I wait for the opportunity of building a new PC from scratch next year. I'm thinking about setting up crossfire or simply switching to another card, but I can't find many comparisons on the web of this card in CF against single better cards, so I turn to you =). Here are my upgrade options:
> 
> 
> Crossfire with another 1gb Sapphire HD 5570
> Crossfire with a 2gb ATI HD 5670
> Switching to 2gb XFX HD 6670
> I'm new here so I hope I'm not asking too much, but I'd like to know how would my options weigh against each other, no big explanation, just which is better and which is worse. Oh and can I crossfire 2 compatible cards of different brands (Sapphire and XFX, for example). Thanks in advance.


Yes, the HD5570 supports Crossfire. Often low end cards don't need a Crossfire bridge which you can misunderstand as not supporting Crossfire. The brand does't matter, they just have to have the same GPU. Here is a review from Tweak Town that compares Crossfire HD5570, single HD5570, and HD5670:
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3152/his_radeon_hd_5570_1gb_gddr3_video_card_in_crossfire/index1.html

A single HD6670 GDDR5 would be a good option as then you wouldn't have any Crossfire hassle for whether it works for the games you play. It seems that Crossfire HD5570 performs pretty good so if a second one is cheap enough it's definitely an option.


----------



## eli2112

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*
> 
> Yes, the HD5570 supports Crossfire. Often low end cards don't need a Crossfire bridge which you can misunderstand as not supporting Crossfire. The brand does't matter, they just have to have the same GPU. Here is a review from Tweak Town that compares Crossfire HD5570, single HD5570, and HD5670:
> http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3152/his_radeon_hd_5570_1gb_gddr3_video_card_in_crossfire/index1.html
> A single HD6670 GDDR5 would be a good option as then you wouldn't have any Crossfire hassle for whether it works for the games you play. It seems that Crossfire HD5570 performs pretty good so if a second one is cheap enough it's definitely an option.


Thanks, that review helped. I got a couple follow ups, though. All the cards I have access to have GDDR3 memory, not GDDR5, so I'm thinking of going the crossfire way since it seems to give good results. But, should I get the HD 5670 or is that potentialy more troublesome to be worth it? Than setting it up with the same card I got (HD 5570), I mean.

I mainly want it to play the new World of Warcraft expansion, and I've read that game works with crossfired cards. I'm assuming GDDR3 HD 6670 is clearly below the other options but if it isn't I could use the heads ups there too


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eli2112*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*
> 
> Yes, the HD5570 supports Crossfire. Often low end cards don't need a Crossfire bridge which you can misunderstand as not supporting Crossfire. The brand does't matter, they just have to have the same GPU. Here is a review from Tweak Town that compares Crossfire HD5570, single HD5570, and HD5670:
> http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/3152/his_radeon_hd_5570_1gb_gddr3_video_card_in_crossfire/index1.html
> A single HD6670 GDDR5 would be a good option as then you wouldn't have any Crossfire hassle for whether it works for the games you play. It seems that Crossfire HD5570 performs pretty good so if a second one is cheap enough it's definitely an option.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, that review helped. I got a couple follow ups, though. All the cards I have access to have GDDR3 memory, not GDDR5, so I'm thinking of going the crossfire way since it seems to give good results. But, should I get the HD 5670 or is that potentialy more troublesome to be worth it? Than setting it up with the same card I got (HD 5570), I mean.
> 
> I mainly want it to play the new World of Warcraft expansion, and I've read that game works with crossfired cards. I'm assuming GDDR3 HD 6670 is clearly below the other options but if it isn't I could use the heads ups there too
Click to expand...

I would stick with the HD5570 for the second card. Like dual channel RAM configs, with Crossfire it's best to get close to identical cards for the best results (when it comes to core and memory clock), as the setup will be limited by the slowest card. I would guess the HD5670 might work as both use the same GPU except the HD5570 is clocked lower and has only GDDR3 memory, but I can't confirm that. If the HD5670 and HD6670 you have available to you are the GDDR3 versions then they don't have much appeal.


----------



## eli2112

Thanks a lot. I'll stick with the HD 5570 which is also the cheaper (they're all pretty close in price though). You were very helpful!


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eli2112*
> 
> Thanks a lot. I'll stick with the HD 5570 which is also the cheaper (they're all pretty close in price though). You were very helpful!


It was my pleasure and I am glad you found the info helpful. If you have any other questions let us know.


----------



## 66racer

would it be a bad Idea to suggest amd and intel onboard graphics? Maybe starting with sandy/ivy and the amd fm1 socket? Just an idea









This is my go to guide for suggesting lower end graghics to friends and wish those were on there too


----------



## Awieos

buy hd 7750 .. much better than cfx hd5570


----------



## Ben the OCer

Thanks to the performance improvement in Catalyst 12.11 I can finally get the new GPU chart out. On the GTX650 Ti release there were so many cards close that is was basically impossible to place them since Nvidia released big performance improvements with the GTX650 Ti release drivers. The relative performance data was taken from TechPowerUp's AMD Catalyst 12.11 Performance Analysis article. Changes to the chart include addition of the GTX650 Ti, adding a 1GB option to the HD7850, updating the relative performance data, and minor changes to the location of the brand logos. Here is the new chart:


Direct Link to Chart for Anth0:
http://cdn.overclock.net/f/fc/fc85b614_AMDandNvidiaChartV8.png


----------



## Conspiracy

the list needs to be updates as its misleading others to think that its possible to quad fire 7750 when AMD says its not possible considering they say only the 7970 and 7950 support quad gpu

check this thread

http://www.overclock.net/t/1326206/quadfire-7750s


----------



## sid0972

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awieos*
> 
> buy hd 7750 .. much better than cfx hd5570


true
single more powerful gpu over two less powerful gpus
less hassle, less noise, less heat, less power consumption, unless its really a kill deal or very good cards


----------



## Awieos

HD 7870 Tahiti LE review

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Club_3D/HD_7870_jokerCard_Tahiti_LE/28.html


----------



## Dan816

Asus Ares 2 HD7970x2 6GB has been released!

Review - www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/ARES_II/


----------



## zipper17

GTX TITAN reviews finally come, must be place in rank #4 maybe??


----------



## Anth0789

Finally had time to update and fix the list took long but its done.


----------



## ihatelolcats

how are there trifire 7870s on there? and 7770, 7850 too. they only have 1 goldfinger


----------



## Rains

nice


----------



## rob3342421

hey guys I'm thinking about upgrading from my 2 GTX 460's any advise?

tbh I'm looking at a 660Ti but I'm not overly sure how much performance I'll gain I could consider keeping one of the 460's as a physx card? meh I dunno at the moment I'm still undicided


----------



## Ben the OCer

I wonder when we will see reviews of the HD7790? The rumors were its release date would be today (March 19). It being our first taste of GCN 2.0 I'm interested to see how it performs and overclocks.

By the way, I haven't forgotten about the GPU chart. I've been really busy with an internship and didn't have time to update it. Once reviews for the HD7790 come in I'll hopefully get the updated chart posted and it will also include the HD7870 Tahiti LE and GTX Titan.


----------



## unseen0

Since when is a 690GTX faster then a 7990? Assuming this ranking is purely on power.
The 7990 is definantly faster. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7990-devil13-7970-x2,3329.html


----------



## Anth0789

7790 added and a few changes made.


----------



## rob3342421

hey a friends interested in getting a GT 620 whereabouts would that come on this?


----------



## blooder11181

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rob3342421*
> 
> hey a friends interested in getting a GT 620 whereabouts would that come on this?


its a rebranded gt430 128/64bits ddr3 card


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 650 Ti Boost 2GB added!


----------



## svenge

Thanks for the updates, Anth0789. Hopefully the primary graphic chart for current-gen cards can be updated soon as well.


----------



## Portal

I think the new GTX650 TI Super Clocked Boost should be 27. It is within a few FPS for most benchmarks vs the standard GTX660 2gb


----------



## svenge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Portal*
> 
> I think the new GTX650 TI Super Clocked Boost should be 27. It is within a few FPS for most benchmarks vs the standard GTX660 2gb


From the reviews I've read, the 650 Ti-B is ~10% slower than the 660.

Also, based on the 3DMark Vantage chart that NVIDIA has on their GeForce website, the 650 Ti-B is just slightly slower than the 570. It is ahead of the 480 however, and the 560 Ti-448 isn't shown (likely due to being a limited-production model).


----------



## Portal

That conflicts with my own benchmarks :\ not sure what to say.


----------



## alancsalt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Portal*
> 
> That conflicts with my own benchmarks :\ not sure what to say.


Overclocked?


----------



## FlawleZ

Why in the world is 8800GT 512MB above 8800GTS 640MB (112 sp)?


----------



## blooder11181

8800gts 640mb is 96sp
8800gt 512/1gb is 112sp and faster clocks


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlawleZ*
> 
> Why in the world is 8800GT 512MB above 8800GTS 640MB (112 sp)?


Review here:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/3173-evga-8800gts-640mb-w-112sps-ssc-edition-review-4.html


----------



## alancsalt

Ah, that *GTX 650 Ti BOOST*;
Quote:


> higher clock speeds, GPU Boost, a wider memory interface, and double the memory of the original GeForce GTX 650 Ti, NVIDIA gave the new GTX 650 Ti Boost variant SLI capability


http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_650_Ti_Boost_SLI/


----------



## Anth0789

Chart is updates thanks to Ben but I can't seem to get it as a larger view.


----------



## Ben the OCer

*GPU Chart V9 Update Log:*

New GPUs Added:
HD7870 Tahiti LE (called HD7870XT on the chart due to space limitations)
GTX Titan
HD7790
GTX650 Ti Boost

Two notes added at the bottom. 1 is a note about the unofficial architecture name of HD7790 being GCN 1.1 (coined by AnandTech). 6 is a note about the relative FPS of HD7950 Boost and HD7870 Tahiti LE being estimated since they are not included in new reviews.
I used the XT monicker to differentiate the HD7870 Tahiti LE because putting Tahiti LE would take too much space (thanks AMD for the silly naming). This monicker is used with Sapphire's version of Tahiti LE but hopefully it won't confuse anyone.
I again decided not to include the unofficial HD7990s because there is no official reference clock. Also TechPowerUp hasn't re-reviewed any HD7990s so the relative FPS data would be horribly outdated. I'm hoping to include it when AMD releases their official HD7990 Malta card.
Increased accuracy added to the relative FPS by adding the tenths place to the percents.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> Chart is updates thanks to Ben but I can't seem to get it as a larger view.


The problem might be the "Import Images" check box. When editing the OP try unchecking it (should be just below the post edit box). When clicking the question mark by it this is what it says:
Quote:


> When this option is enabled, we will automatically copy any images you added into your post to our image server when you submit your post.
> 
> This will make it so your images are viewable using the Thread Gallery Viewer, and will also ensure your images don't accidently disappear in the future if the originals are deleted.
> 
> We recommend you use this option unless you are embedding a dynamic image that updates periodically.


If that doesn't work you could just use my Image Shack upload instead (Example and URL text below):


*Click Image to Enlarge Chart* (Uploaded with ImageShack.us)

Code:



Code:


[URL=http://imageshack.us/a/img199/3717/amdandnvidiachartv9.png][IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img199/3717/amdandnvidiachartv9.png[/IMG][/URL]
[B]Click Image to Enlarge Chart[/B] (Uploaded with [URL=http://imageshack.us]ImageShack.us[/URL])


----------



## Anth0789

^ Thank you got it now!


----------



## megahmad

Great thread I must say, I was always looking at this kind of info. I didn't know about it and yes I am a slowpoke LOL


----------



## megahmad

In your list "List of Cards By Order Nvidia:"
Quote:


> 8.GeForce GTX 670 2GB
> 9.*GeForce GTX 580 3GB*
> 10.*GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB*
> 11.GeForce GTX 560 2Win 2GB


Shouldn't the 660 Ti be above the GTX 580?
I think it's better according to all benchmarks.

Thanks


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *megahmad*
> 
> In your list "List of Cards By Order Nvidia:"
> Shouldn't the 660 Ti be above the GTX 580?
> I think it's better according to all benchmarks.
> 
> Thanks


Just realized that thanks for telling fixed!


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 780 3GB added!


----------



## megahmad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> GTX 780 3GB added!


Nice to see that you're still updating this cool list


----------



## megahmad

I think it's time to add the GTX 770!

*Like this:*
Quote:


> List By Order: AMD/Nvidia/3DFX/Matrox/S3/SiS
> 
> 5.GeForce GTX 780 3GB
> 6.GeForce Mars II Dual GTX 580 3GB
> 7.*GeForce GTX 770 2GB*
> 8.GeForce GTX 590 3GB


Quote:


> List of Cards By Order Nvidia:
> 
> 1.GeForce GTX 690 4GB
> 2.GeForce GTX Titan 6GB
> 3.GeForce GTX 780 3GB
> 4.GeForce Mars II Dual GTX 580 3GB
> 5.*GeForce GTX 770 2GB*
> 6.GeForce GTX 590 3GB
> 7.GeForce GTX 680 4GB
> 8.GeForce GTX 680 2GB


I think it's early to add it now and without real benchmarks but I think it should be placed like this in the near future.









Thank you.


----------



## Maiky

The GeForce 7300LE 128MB was one of my first dedicated GPU's.

Brings back awesome memories!

Thanks to the OP for this list!


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 770 added!


----------



## Dirtylarry86

TNT2 M64 PCI not express







was my first dedicated card, not having an agp port at the time was pretty lame. Had to upgrade not long after.


----------



## justgopown

you can't tri fire or quadfire the 7750 or 7770 and the 7870 and the 7850 and could you add the 7870XT jokercard?







cause that card is based on the 79xx kernel and since you can xfire it with the normal 7870 its quite intresting







sorry for my bad english







. thanks and do you use hwcompare.com to compare the card







?


----------



## f0rteOC

Great list!
Are the cards tested w/ latest drivers? Cause after the 12.11 driver, the 7850 should beat the 560 Ti 448 Core.
Also, could you add the GT 630?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *f0rteOC*
> 
> Great list!
> Are the cards tested w/ latest drivers? Cause after the 12.11 driver, the 7850 should beat the 560 Ti 448 Core.
> Also, could you add the GT 630?


TPU used ATI: Catalyst 13.3 Beta 3 (newer than 13.4)
HD 7990: 13.5 Beta 2

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_770/27.html

The GT 630, is a rebadge of the GT 440 so it should be just above it I imagine.


----------



## f0rteOC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> TPU used ATI: Catalyst 13.3 Beta 3 (newer than 13.4)
> HD 7990: 13.5 Beta 2
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_770/27.html
> 
> The GT 630, is a rebadge of the GT 440 so it should be just above it I imagine.


Got it, thanks!


----------



## Bacchus451

Should I post some evidence for placement of the 7970 Ghz Edition 6GB card when I receive it next week?


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> TPU used ATI: Catalyst 13.3 Beta 3 (newer than 13.4)
> HD 7990: 13.5 Beta 2
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_770/27.html
> 
> The GT 630, is a rebadge of the GT 440 so it should be just above it I imagine.


i still think that 1080 is the most popular rez when it comes to gaming. how come they don't test at that rez? i tested metro with my 7970 stock at 1080 and matched the 780 test ran at 1050. this was just using a Phenom II X6 clocked at 4GHz.



rightside was ran with 4MSAA. are there any settings i missed? the lack of details kinda makes these tests questionable.


----------



## IChangedMyName

how come gtx 465 is slower than gtx 460?


----------



## megahmad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *danielkim624*
> 
> how come gtx 465 is slower than gtx 460?


They're the same card, plus the GTX 460 is a newer version with less power consuption and a smaller die, thus it sometimes can be better. However some models of the 465 can unlock to GTX 470.


----------



## alancsalt

Not the same card.. The GTX460 is based on the GF104 that uses less power and has 336 cuda cores compared to the GF100 GTX465 that has 352 cuda cores and ran hotter. The introduction of the 460 eclipsed the 465, especially the 460 1GB model. AFAIK.


----------



## Awieos

http://www.overclock.net/t/1404021/various-gtx-760-reviews

GTX 760 review! it just get pricier compare to previous x60 series


----------



## Anth0789

Thanks GTX 760 added!


----------



## kaneandtaker

Great list! Thanks so much for the effort.

Kinda heartbreaking that my GPU keeps dropping in rankings haha. Oh well I guess this is technology after all.


----------



## Edwardccm

What about the 4GB version of the 770?


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Just a reminder, Anth, the GPU combination rankings are outdated.

For starters, you could add Quad-SLI Titans and Quad-SLI GTX 780s to the top of the list, in that order.


----------



## Snuckie7

Why is the GTX 760 above the 7950? Lol?


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Why is the GTX 760 above the 7950? Lol?


Because it's faster than the HD7950:








Source


----------



## Snuckie7

Oh rly now?



SOURCE


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Oh rly now?
> 
> SOURCE


That's the rough thing with comparing performance of video cards. Often sites say different things. Plus one can be ahead in one game and not in another, or in one resolution but not in another. So that's why to make it simpler we use sites that compile a large group of games and give relative performance compared to other cards.

I've never heard of the site you sourced and it required Google translation. So I can't say whether it's credible or not. TechPowerUp is a site I trust, not that it's perfect. The performance index can depend on the library of games used. Some sites do show the HD7950 and GTX760 trading blows. For the purposes of the list we have to rank the cards and the sources I've seen generally show the GTX760 ahead. Still, that can change with new drivers and showing sources to better place the card is the whole point of this thread. It's the lovely world of tech, always changing.


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*
> 
> That's the rough thing with comparing performance of video cards. Often sites say different things. Plus one can be ahead in one game and not in another, or in one resolution but not in another. So that's why to make it simpler we use sites that compile a large group of games and give relative performance compared to other cards.
> 
> I've never heard of the site you sourced and it required Google translation. So I can't say whether it's credible or not. TechPowerUp is a site I trust, not that it's perfect. The performance index can depend on the library of games used. What we can say is that the HD7950 and GTX760 are somewhat close in performance on average.


Well two things lead me to draw the conclusion that the 7950 outpaces the 760 by quite a bit.

1. From all the benchmarks I've seen here, on HWBot etc. 7950's perform a lot better when overclocked. Now this doesn't get represented in official reviews and such, which is why those reviews can be misleading.

2. The German site tested all 55 of those cards at once, on the same driver revisions. The same cannot be said for Anandtech, TPU, where they just recycle old results, thus making the newer cards look faster because they have newer drivers.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*
> 
> That's the rough thing with comparing performance of video cards. Often sites say different things. Plus one can be ahead in one game and not in another, or in one resolution but not in another. So that's why to make it simpler we use sites that compile a large group of games and give relative performance compared to other cards.
> 
> I've never heard of the site you sourced and it required Google translation. So I can't say whether it's credible or not. TechPowerUp is a site I trust, not that it's perfect. The performance index can depend on the library of games used. Some sites do show the HD7950 and GTX760 trading blows. For the purposes of the list we have to rank the cards and the sources I've seen generally show the GTX760 ahead. Still, that can change with new drivers and showing sources to better place the card is the whole point of this thread. It's the lovely world of tech, always changing.


no 760 will beat a 7950 when both oc'ed, especially Snuckie7's 7950. NONE.

Snuckie7 is just being humble.


----------



## Snuckie7

Speaking from experience here lol.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Speaking from experience here lol.


it is easier for us to recognize a garbage review. they are like WEI. lol


----------



## alancsalt

This thread is about stock cards.


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alancsalt*
> 
> This thread is about stock cards.


And I posted a benchmark with all the cards at truly stock speeds.


----------



## Popple

Where is the PS4 gpu supposed to be at?


----------



## Nukelear

I think that 7850 and 650 ti boost should switch places


----------



## brucethemoose

Too much bashing. However much +rep OP got, its not enough.

Now whenever I run into a GPU argument, I can just link to this thoroughly refined thread and some TR reviews to back it up... it's an instant /argument.

Also, I feel much better about my 6850s now


----------



## Baghi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Popple*
> 
> Where is the PS4 gpu supposed to be at?


Probably just below HD 7850 / GTX 660. Though, optimizations of console game developers will make them perform almost like an HD 7870 or a GTX 660 Ti.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nukelear*
> 
> I think that 7850 and 650 ti boost should switch places


Yes please. Most cards available in the market are clocked above 860 MHz (910-1000 range).


----------



## Popple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baghi*
> 
> Probably just below HD 7850 / GTX 660.


Doesn't the gpu in the PS4 have 1156 shaders?


----------



## everlast4291987

sweet im going to send this to my friends who looking to buy and learn more about gpus


----------



## Ben the OCer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nukelear*
> 
> I think that 7850 and 650 ti boost should switch places


Guys please read the rules in the OP and keep them in mind when suggesting changes:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> ================================================== ========================
> 
> *If you want a cards rank changed you must provide benchmarks or other evidence to back it up. And let me know where it should be on the list.*
> 
> ================================================== ========================


According to TPU the GTX650 Ti Boost is slightly ahead of the HD7850 but they are insanely close. The performance is so close that it's really just semantics on which is placed above another. You'd be better served to look at benchmarks for specific games you play if you are debating between the two.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*
> 
> Guys please read the rules in the OP and keep them in mind when suggesting changes:
> According to TPU the GTX650 Ti Boost is slightly ahead of the HD7850 but they are insanely close. The performance is so close that it's really just semantics on which is placed above another. You'd be better served to look at benchmarks for specific games you play if you are debating between the two.


can't help it. we benchmarks here in ocn and it is really hard not to compare results. look at the valley bench thread . . . a 7850 is edging out even some 660tis and then you see it get beat by a 650ti. forget it, like a moderator said, these are being done stock.


----------



## Baghi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ben the OCer*
> 
> Guys please read the rules in the OP and keep them in mind when suggesting changes:
> According to TPU the GTX650 Ti Boost is slightly ahead of the HD7850 but they are insanely close. The performance is so close that it's really just semantics on which is placed above another. You'd be better served to look at benchmarks for specific games you play if you are debating between the two.


TPU recycles results from their old reviews, and then, only a handful amount of sites actually compare GPUs of same tiers (which makes easier to re-bench given cards).

Vortez - MSI GTX 650Ti BOOST OC Review
Quote:


> Pros
> + Excellent Cooling & acoustics
> + Offered the smoothest game play on test
> + Military Class Components
> + 2GB GDDR5
> 
> Cons
> - The HD7850 is a little quicker at a similar price point


X-bit labs - AMD Radeon HD 7790 vs. Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 Ti BOOST: Performance Review

In the majority of the apps/games tested, HD 7850 is faster. Good thing about them is they use internal benchmark tool which makes easy for everyone to compare their results; it's so simple methodology. I get almost identical results at maximum settings even though my CPU is a lot weaker than them.

Hardware Heaven - Palit GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost Overclock Edition Review

HD 7850 is faster (their review says HD 7850 *OC*, but I don't see mentioning the clock speeds).

Still though, I'm open for benches if someone on this thread already has a GTX 650 Ti-B.


----------



## FlawleZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> Review here:
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/3173-evga-8800gts-640mb-w-112sps-ssc-edition-review-4.html


I'm so confused, the 8800GTS 640MB SSC soundly beats 8800GT 512MB in almost every single test. Why again is it not only below 8800GT, but also below 2900XT, 3870, and 9600GT?


----------



## Stormblade

Where would 2x 5970 be on this list? Sorry if it's been asked before.


----------



## Anth0789

AMD's R9 series added!


----------



## ExoticallyPure

290x goes above Titan, Anth0789.

"Compared to NVIDIA's lineup, the R9 290X in "Quiet" mode is slightly faster than the GTX 780 and 5% slower than the GTX Titan. With the "Uber" BIOS, the card ends up a bit faster than the GTX Titan. At higher resolutions, like 2560x1600, we see the card outperform NVIDIA's offerings by another few percent."
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290X/33.html

There's a new king.


----------



## xXLDXx

Number 27. should be GTX 560 Ti 2Win ?


----------



## Anth0789

Fixed and updated!


----------



## xXLDXx

No problem glad I could help hoho


----------



## xXLDXx

Oh 1 more tinh Anth0789. I've noticed the absence of GTX 660 Ti 3GB


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Thanks for the swift change, Anth, but I think the list would be better off with one card each. You know, assuming that each card is performing at it's fastest?

Can you remove the second 290x "Silent Bios" entry and get rid of "(Uber BIOS)" on the 290x?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xXLDXx*
> 
> Oh 1 more tinh Anth0789. I've noticed the absence of GTX 660 Ti 3GB


Where should it be on the list?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*
> 
> Thanks for the swift change, Anth, but I think the list would be better off with one card each. You know, assuming that each card is performing at it's fastest?
> 
> Can you remove the second 290x "Silent Bios" entry and get rid of "(Uber BIOS)" on the 290x?


Yes fixed!


----------



## xXLDXx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> Where should it be on the list?
> Yes fixed!


Given that it's the same GPU with and extra 1 GB for higher resolution. I suppose it should be over GTX 660 Ti 2Gb and under HD 7950 3GB









http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-memory-bandwidth-anti-aliasing,3283-9.html


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xXLDXx*
> 
> Given that it's the same GPU with and extra 1 GB for higher resolution. I suppose it should be over GTX 660 Ti 2Gb and under HD 7950 3GB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-memory-bandwidth-anti-aliasing,3283-9.html


Thanks added now!


----------



## xXLDXx

Well just found another one missing from the list which is the GTX 650 1GB

It is under the GTX 650 2gb and over the HD 7750 1GB


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xXLDXx*
> 
> Well just found another one missing from the list which is the GTX 650 1GB
> 
> It is under the GTX 650 2gb and over the HD 7750 1GB


Done thanks again!


----------



## xXLDXx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> Done thanks again!


No worries I'll let you know if there is something need to be fix or added


----------



## arcolog2

The radeon r9 280x is 3gb ram

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Anth0789

My mistake fixed!


----------



## Ben the OCer

Just to let you all know, I am working on an update to the GPU chart. I do apologize for how long it's taken to get an update, but truthfully a lot of the GPUs released have been rebrands (GTX770 an OCed GTX680 with faster RAM, R9 280X a lower clocked HD7970 GE). I won't make any guarantees but I'm hope to have it released after the R9 290 comes out (supposedly Oct. 31).


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 780 Ti 3GB added!


----------



## jacknhut

Listing the 290x being faster than the GTX Titan can be very misleading. Granted the card is faster when using uber bios, but it is quite slower under quite bios mode, especially after long period of heavy gaming due to the thermal threshold.

I think it would be best to list the card performance under each mode, ie it is above the GTX Titan in uber bios and slower than the Titan in quiet bios for accuracy because that is what really happens in reality during gaming. Furthermore, the purpose of this chart is to let people know the performance of the card in comparison to another card, and the 290x in quiet bios which is the default bios does not outperform the GTX Titan.

As for the argument we should list the card performance at its "fastest", I agree as long as there is no switching of bios from quiet mode to uber mode and vice versa because the moment the users have to switch from one bios to another, that means the card default performance is being altered ie overclocking is implied.


----------



## f0rteOC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jacknhut*
> 
> Listing the 290x being faster than the GTX Titan can be very misleading. Granted the card is faster when using uber bios, but it is quite slower under quite bios mode, especially after long period of heavy gaming due to the thermal threshold.
> 
> I think it would be best to list the card performance under each mode, ie it is above the GTX Titan in uber bios and slower than the Titan in quiet bios for accuracy because that is what really happens in reality during gaming. Furthermore, the purpose of this chart is to let people know the performance of the card in comparison to another card, and the 290x in quiet bios which is the default bios does not outperform the GTX Titan.
> 
> As for the argument we should list the card performance at its "fastest", I agree as long as there is no switching of bios from quiet mode to uber mode and vice versa because the moment the users have to switch from one bios to another, that means the card default performance is being altered ie overclocking is implied.


This chart should still indicate that the 290X is faster than the titan, but without taking into account thermal limitations (throttling).
At first glance this may seem like a biased suggestion, but I assure you there is some reason behind it.
Any modern graphics card will throttle down it's clock speeds when it hits the thermal limit. The GTX 590 was infamous for running extremely hot, but it is still higher up in the list than if it were running at throttled (lower) clock speeds. Applying the same logic to the 290X would let it retain it's current position on the list.

Just one more thing, the ASUS Mars 760 should be added to the list.


----------



## jacknhut

While I agree with you that any modern video card will throttle down if thermal threshold is reached, but that argument has nothing to do with the fact that the performance of the GTX 290x is less than the GTX Titan with it's default bios (quiet bios).

Granted the uber bios mode released by AMD increase the performance of the 290x with the sacrifice of power, noise, voltage and temperature. Applying the same logic to the GTX Titan, if you use the skynet bios for the GTX Titan, the power, noise, voltage and temperature will also go up as well as the performance and in this case the 290x with it's uber bios will not outperform the GTX titan with its Skynet bios.

Where should we draw the line regarding the default performance of the card as intended by the manufacturer to be used as the baseline in determining the ranking? To me, whatever bios the manufacturer decides to use as the default bios is the one that should be used to compare in the official ranking. If the manufacturer decides to use 2 different bios for the card, then the comparison should also include the performance of the card according to the 2 different bios to make the comparison as fair and accurate as possible. This is crucial because novice users who look at the chart will not be confused and angry after spending so much money to find out that the card default performance is less than what it should be according to the performance chart listed on here.

Anyway, everyone has his/her own opinion, I just don't think this chart paints an accurate picture of the performance of the 290x if its not listed under each specific bios because not everyone who reads the chart is an expert at reading all the reviews to find out that the 290x performance under it's default quiet bios is not the same as what listed here.


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Just in case you're confused, Anth, simply disregard any talk about "Bioses" and clock speeds.

All cards are as they should be, naturally listed in terms of their maximum *manufacturer-set* speeds.

If overclocking and bioses were to be considered, the list would be crazily disorganized and cluttered.

You're doing a great job with the list as it is.


----------



## Anth0789

List updated!

A few new cards added: GTX 750, GTX 750 Ti, and R7 265.


----------



## tenzo19

Can OP update this list? I still use it!


----------



## PcG_AmD

Why is the GTX 760 better than the HD7950??? It is not better, not even when overclocking it.

And I'm not saying that because I own a 7950, there are reviews proving otherwise. As a matter of fact, I'm getting a 780ti.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/10/21/asus_geforce_gtx_760_directcu_ii_oc_video_card_review/11#.UzcOpfldVx0

The 7950 is better than the 760.


----------



## Malaziel

The GTX 480 has basically indistinguishable performance from the GTX 570. They trade small victories in benchmarks. The GTX 480 should be moved up to a tie with it or just under and higher than the 560 ti 448 core.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4051/nvidias-geforce-gtx-570-filling-in-the-gaps


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PcG_AmD*
> 
> Why is the GTX 760 better than the HD7950??? It is not better, not even when overclocking it.
> 
> And I'm not saying that because I own a 7950, there are reviews proving otherwise. As a matter of fact, I'm getting a 780ti.
> 
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/10/21/asus_geforce_gtx_760_directcu_ii_oc_video_card_review/11#.UzcOpfldVx0
> 
> The 7950 is better than the 760.


I haven't updated in a while by the way, now its Fixed!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Malaziel*
> 
> The GTX 480 has basically indistinguishable performance from the GTX 570. They trade small victories in benchmarks. The GTX 480 should be moved up to a tie with it or just under and higher than the 560 ti 448 core.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4051/nvidias-geforce-gtx-570-filling-in-the-gaps


Done!


----------



## Jyris Clipton

What about the GTX Titan Black, GTX Titan Z, Mars 760 and R9 295 X2?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jyris Clipton*
> 
> What about the GTX Titan Black, GTX Titan Z, Mars 760 and R9 295 X2?


The GTX Titan Z and the R9 295X2 have no review yet so ill wait for that.

I added GTX Titan Black and GTX 760 Mars!


----------



## Jyris Clipton

Quote:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Jyris Clipton View Post
> 
> What about the GTX Titan Black, GTX Titan Z, Mars 760 and R9 295 X2?
> 
> The GTX Titan Z and the R9 295X2 have no review yet so ill wait for that.
> 
> I added GTX Titan Black and GTX 760 Mars!


Good job! Just to inform, there are few cards that's not in the list. Mars (the first one), GT 620, GT 610, MX 4000.


----------



## PcG_AmD

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> I haven't updated in a while by the way, now its Fixed!
> Done!


Great! Thanks a lot for considering my suggestion.

I think you should consider having a list for single cards only. The fact that the Titan Black and the rest of the cards have to be better than the 780ti is not cool, they are all dual.
Why would you waste so much money to buy such a card? I've played with the 780ti, it's a monster and it has many advantages compared to the Titan, I still don't get how someone could buy it.


----------



## blooder11181

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jyris Clipton*
> 
> Good job! Just to inform, there are few cards that's not in the list. Mars (the first one), GT 620, GT 610, MX 4000.


gt610 rebranded gt520
gt620 rebranded gt430
mx4000 rebranded mx 440 se


----------



## blooder11181

the "new" gt630
http://www.pinoytechblog.com/archives/introducing-the-new-nvidia-geforce-gt-630-with-384-cuda-cores


----------



## Jyris Clipton

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blooder11181*
> 
> gt610 rebranded gt520
> gt620 rebranded gt430
> mx4000 rebranded mx 440 se


Well, if the GT 610 is a rebranded GT 520 and the GT 620 a rebranded GT 430 (which make them quite similar), it could be displayed as the 8800 GT / 9800 GT / GTS 240. I would believe if you said that the GT 610 and GT 520 are rebranded GT 430, because don't make much sense have two cards GT 610 and GT 620 if they are almost equal. Where did you find out that? And I knew about the MX 4000, but I think it could be displayed like rebranded cards as well, and I saw some benchmarks that show MX 440 X8 being better than FX 5200, but I have these cards here, I'll do some benchmarks to see if this is true.

But Mars isn't a GTX 295 (which is made of 2 GTX 275), Mars is made with 2 GTX 285.


----------



## zipper17

R9 280x = HD 7970 GHZ
R9 280 = HD 7950 B/HD 7950 =>>

R9 270x = ~HD 7870 XT =>>
R9 270 = HD 7870 GHZ =>>

R7 265 = 8% better than HD 7850 =>>

R7 260x = bit faster than HD 7790
R7 260 = bit slower than HD 7790
=>>

R7 250x = HD 7770 GHZ =>>

R7 250 = bit slower than 7750
R7 240 = slower than HD 7730
((240 =HD 6670 GDDR3/GDDR5 performances))
=>>

the chart is missing: R9 280, R9 270, R7 260, R7 250X, R7 250, R7 240.


----------



## Jyris Clipton

Updated daily they said.


----------



## blooder11181

the mx440 is better than fx5200 because most used 128bits ddr at 400mhz memory


----------



## alancsalt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jyris Clipton*
> 
> Updated daily they said.


He is a volunteer that has maintained this thread for quite some time and done a very good job of it.


----------



## Jyris Clipton

false
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alancsalt*
> 
> He is a volunteer that has maintained this thread for quite some time and done a very good job of it.


Yeah, you're right. But it's been three months that he does not update.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jyris Clipton*
> 
> false
> Yeah, you're right. But it's been three months that he does not update.


Sorry been gone for while, what is there to update?









I added the GTX 780 6GB.


----------



## Jyris Clipton

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> Sorry been gone for while, what is there to update?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I added the GTX 780 6GB.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zipper17*
> 
> R9 280x = HD 7970 GHZ
> R9 280 = HD 7950 B/HD 7950 =>>
> 
> R9 270x = ~HD 7870 XT =>>
> R9 270 = HD 7870 GHZ =>>
> 
> R7 265 = 8% better than HD 7850 =>>
> 
> R7 260x = bit faster than HD 7790
> R7 260 = bit slower than HD 7790
> =>>
> 
> R7 250x = HD 7770 GHZ =>>
> 
> R7 250 = bit slower than 7750
> R7 240 = slower than HD 7730
> ((240 =HD 6670 GDDR3/GDDR5 performances))
> =>>
> 
> the chart is missing: R9 280, R9 270, R7 260, R7 250X, R7 250, R7 240.


This guy brought us that some cards are missing: R9 280, R9 270, R7 260, R7 250X, R7 250, R7 240

You're doing a great job, I use this chart everyday this is why I need it so much.

It's missing:

GTX Titan Z
Asus Mars
GT 740
GT 730
GT 620
GT 610
MX 4000

R9 280
R9 270
R7 260
R7 250X
R7 250
R7 240
HD 3850 X2


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jyris Clipton*
> 
> This guy brought us that some cards are missing: R9 280, R9 270, R7 260, R7 250X, R7 250, R7 240
> 
> You're doing a great job, I use this chart everyday this is why I need it so much.
> 
> It's missing:
> 
> GTX Titan Z
> Asus Mars
> GT 740
> GT 730
> GT 620
> GT 610
> MX 4000
> 
> R9 280
> R9 270
> R7 260
> R7 250X
> R7 250
> R7 240
> HD 3850 X2


Thanks, Okay ill do it later tonight when I get back from work.

Edit: Only cards missing now are:

GT 740
GT 730
GT 620
GT 610

I have no clue where to put them its hard to find reviews on them.


----------



## madorax

i think you also missing GTX 750 Ti 2Gb, which is best buy for mid to low gamers right now


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madorax*
> 
> i think you also missing GTX 750 Ti 2Gb, which is best buy for mid to low gamers right now


Okay thanks added it now.


----------



## blooder11181

the GT 620/GT 610 are rebranded gt 430/gt 520


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blooder11181*
> 
> the GT 620/GT 610 are rebranded gt 430/gt 520


Okay got it thanks.


----------



## m|dg3t

What is the Radeon HD 8470D equivalent to? 8400?


----------



## blooder11181

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m|dg3t*
> 
> What is the Radeon HD 8470D equivalent to? 8400?


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-richland-intel-haswell-gpu_5.html


----------



## PcG_AmD

Anth0789:

Thanks a lot for this chart, it's the best video cards chart in the web. I think you've been doing a great job since you first created it. It's really useful and accurate.

One thing, is the Titan Black much better than the 780 ti for gaming? The Titan black it's way too expensive just for gaming, it's also developed for professional work. Why is it ranked better?

Thanks.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PcG_AmD*
> 
> Anth0789:
> 
> Thanks a lot for this chart, it's the best video cards chart in the web. I think you've been doing a great job since you first created it. It's really useful and accurate.
> 
> One thing, is the Titan Black much better than the 780 ti for gaming? The Titan black it's way too expensive just for gaming, it's also developed for professional work. Why is it ranked better?
> 
> Thanks.


Thanks, for the Titan black they seem to be very equal.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/02/26/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-black-review/5


----------



## ExoticallyPure

I AM THE 1000st POST!

WAHOO!


----------



## ozlay

missing gt 545 and gtx 645


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ozlay*
> 
> missing gt 545 and gtx 645


Any reviews or where they should be on the list?


----------



## blooder11181

they are oem only

gt 545
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-545-oem-gddr5/specifications

gt 645
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-645-oem/specifications


----------



## ozlay

gt 545 is a little bit slower then the gts 450 and the gtx 645 is a tad bit faster then the gts 450


----------



## jerrytsao

Awesome chart, nice work! Now we just need to add the maxwell SLI update


----------



## ozlay

i like this thread its amazing only thing that i think could improve it is maybe mixing the single gpu set with the sli set that way we can compare sli to non sli

example: if someone has a pair of 460s in sli and is looking to upgrade to a single card setup its kinda hard to find which cards are faster but if the non sli list and sli list where together it would be easy for someone to find that a single 580 is about is fast as a 460 sli and then they would know which cards to upgrade to


----------



## muels7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ozlay*
> 
> i like this thread its amazing only thing that i think could improve it is maybe mixing the single gpu set with the sli set that way we can compare sli to non sli
> 
> example: if someone has a pair of 460s in sli and is looking to upgrade to a single card setup its kinda hard to find which cards are faster but if the non sli list and sli list where together it would be easy for someone to find that a single 580 is about is fast as a 460 sli and then they would know which cards to upgrade to


This, I like the way this guy thinks. Would make the decision on whether or not to upgrade to a faster single card or buy another of the same much easier.


----------



## treeee

Missing GTX 555


----------



## blooder11181

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *treeee*
> 
> Missing GTX 555


another oem but its better than the gtx 550ti


----------



## muels7

Where will the 960 fit on this list? I'm looking for an upgrade over my 680 but am trying to do it on a budget


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *muels7*
> 
> Where will the 960 fit on this list? I'm looking for an upgrade over my 680 but am trying to do it on a budget


Its just on top of the GTX 670. So its a bit slower than the 680.


----------



## muels7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> Its just on top of the GTX 670. So its a bit slower than the 680.


Thanks. I was thinking it would be around that range, but I wanted to be sure. 960 will not be my next card then.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *muels7*
> 
> Thanks. I was thinking it would be around that range, but I wanted to be sure. 960 will not be my next card then.


You should get a GTX 970 its a great card for the price and performance, I went from GTX 680 to GTX 970 and I noticed the difference.


----------



## Whodie

how is the GTX 690 still top of the Nvidia list.......?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Whodie*
> 
> how is the GTX 690 still top of the Nvidia list.......?


Opps! Fixed forgot to add it to the Nvidia list thanks.


----------



## jerrytsao

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Whodie*
> 
> how is the GTX 690 still top of the Nvidia list.......?


I was thinking the same thing, good work by Anth0789 by putting all together, but... in majority of the cases, the only single card faster than 980 is either 295X2 or Titan Z, some of the ranking here are not so accurate.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

First off great chart!









Question though.. How is the Gtx780 6GB Faster then a Titan despite having less cores? Or a 290x for that matter?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> First off great chart!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question though.. How is the Gtx780 6GB Faster then a Titan despite having less cores? Or a 290x for that matter?


For the titan its pretty even:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_780_gaming_oc_6_gb_graphics_card_review,16.html

I got to bump the 290x up on the list.


----------



## Slink3Slyde

First off great chart! Question though.. How is the Gtx780 6GB Faster then a Titan despite having less cores?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789*
> 
> For the titan its pretty even:
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_780_gaming_oc_6_gb_graphics_card_review,16.html
> 
> I got to bump the 290x up on the list.


Ah I see, no reference version, didnt think of that. I think its in its right place where you've put it now though. Can I also suggest Titan Black needs moving down as well, it's the same chip as the 780ti with extra compute and more VRAM. So it performs a touch better then 780ti but 980 is better (As long as youre not using >4GB VRAM)

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_black_review,12.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/26.html

Don't hate me, I promise I wont come back with any more suggestions now


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Hey Anth, haven't commented in a while but noticed you moved the GTX 970 down below the R9 290x.

They are indeed very close cards, but according to AnandTech, the GTX 970 is 1% faster than the 290x.
Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga/17

Additionally, Tom's Hardware February GPU Recommendations says the same:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-5.html


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*
> 
> Hey Anth, haven't commented in a while but noticed you moved the GTX 970 down below the R9 290x.
> 
> They are indeed very close cards, but according to AnandTech, the GTX 970 is 1% faster than the 290x.
> Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga/17
> 
> Additionally, Tom's Hardware February GPU Recommendations says the same:
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-5.html


Hmm its an interesting one that because according to TPU 1080p and below the ref 970 is better then ref 290x but at 1440 and 4k the 290x is ahead.









http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_960_Gaming/29.html

Also worth noting the EVGA card at Anand is technically overclocked even at 'stock'... http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga/2

Can you do a tie?


----------



## Poisoner

The 290x is a superior card.


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poisoner*
> 
> The 290x is a superior card.


this.

for the recent price cuts and performance this thing is an absolute monster.

and for some reason is still below the 780ti on the charts in the op.

unless its @ 1920x1080 the 780ti is handily beaten by the 290x


----------



## Poisoner

I run my r9 290 at 2560x1080 and it does pretty good.


----------



## bhshawon

Where is the R9 285?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> Hmm its an interesting one that because according to TPU 1080p and below the ref 970 is better then ref 290x but at 1440 and 4k the 290x is ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_960_Gaming/29.html
> 
> Also worth noting the EVGA card at Anand is technically overclocked even at 'stock'... http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga/2
> 
> Can you do a tie?


I guess they can be together as a tie for now.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhshawon*
> 
> Where is the R9 285?


Just added it thanks.


----------



## blooder11181

the geforce gt 720 1gb ddr3 is 50€ might buy one to replace my hd5450

its between gt 620 and gt 630(96cores) and 19watts tdp


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Get ready to add the new AMD cards!


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Glad to see you add the 980 Ti.


----------



## ExoticallyPure




----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*


No offense but I dont think we can count an AMD marketing slide as gospel.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2937335/behold-the-beast-full-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-tech-specs-and-design-details-revealed.html

Quote:
"But these AMD-supplied benchmarks-which were obviously chosen to place the Radeon in the best possible light-show the two cards performing fairly neck-and-neck in most games. "

I'm hoping it is the case, but I have a feeling that the AIO cooled FuryX is clocked up quite high at stock in order to get those numbers, whereas the reference 980Ti has pretty conservative clocks, It's like comparing one card under custom water vs an air cooled reference card, I know AMD have come out and said that FuryX overclocks well but I think it's best to see what happens when people outside AMD get a hold of the card.

Also not forgetting at 4K at the moment things always look a bit rosier for AMD. Nothing wrong with that but many of us are still on 1080/1440

Lets wait a bit and see.


----------



## frankle

I know that the new Intel Iris and HD aren't setting the world on fire but is there a way of slotting them into the list somehow?

I'm sure they're faster than quite a few older GPU's out there ...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5675c-broadwell,4169-6.html

I guess "technically" they're not "cards" but I'm sure that people are interested in how they perform ... but I will get my flame suit on


----------



## bahn

pls add the r9 380


----------



## syne

Firstly thanks for updating this thread, I've been using it for years now and it is really appreciated.









Secondly, -this may be too much as its comparing apples to pears- How can I compare cards in sli/ tri to the other lists
ie
rank 10 Radeon HD6990 In Crossfire
where/how would that fit in to the single list ?
rank 21 Radeon HD6990 4GB

of course it may be that the difference between rank 21 and 20 is so big that two 6990's are still lesser than one gtx590.
is there any simple way to cross reference the two lists?


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Looks like you got the R9 380 in the right place. Good job.


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Planning on adding 390x?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*
> 
> Planning on adding 390x?


Was already there number 10 on the list.


----------



## Klutz0

Did I miss it, or is the R9 390 not on the list?


----------



## LA_Kings_Fan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klutz0*
> 
> Did I miss it, or is the R9 390 not on the list?


U missed it @ #10 ....


*Radeon* R9 295X2 8GB
*GeForce* GTX Titan X 12GB
*GeForce* GTX Titan Z 12GB
*GeForce* GTX 980 Ti 6GB
*Radeon* R9 Fury X 4GB
*Radeon* R9 Fury 4GB
*Radeon* Ares II 6GB
*Radeon* HD7990 6GB
*GeForce* GTX 980 4GB
*Radeon* *R9 390X 8GB*
*GeForce* GTX Titan Black 6GB
*GeForce* GTX 690 4GB
*GeForce* GTX 780 Ti 3GB
*Radeon* R9 290X 4GB - *GeForce* GTX 970 4GB
*Radeon* R9 290 4GB
Oh my bad .... R9 390 .... not 390X .... ok it should slot in like #11 or ?


----------



## Klutz0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LA_Kings_Fan*
> 
> Oh my bad .... R9 390 .... not 390X .... ok it should slot in like #11 or ?


Hehe, I saw your pre-edit response in my e-mail and came here to point that you were confusing 390 and 390x









Looking at the benchmarks of Sapphire's R9 390 here (Gamer's Nexus), it's hard to say where it should go...

Witcher 3 at 1080p? The R9 390 and 290x perform similarly and outperform the 780ti pretty handily.
GTA V at 1080p? The R9 390, R9 290x and 780ti perform very similarly.
GRID: Autosport at 1080p? The R9 390 gets outperformed by the R9 290x and the 780ti beats both of them. (This benchmark seems very weird...)
Metro: Last Light at 1080p? The R9 390, R9 290x and 780ti perform very similarly.
Far Cry 4 at 1080p? The R9 390 beats the 290x by a little, and the 780ti by a lot.
Shadow of Mordor at 1080p? The R9 390 beats the 290x by a little, and the 780ti by a lot.
Looking at these, it seems like the 780ti might be ranked a little too high?

If we were to simply add in the R9 390, I think I'd put the R9 390 at spot 13 or higher, since it consistently out performs the 290x and 970. Does that seem reasonable?

Edit: I have absolutely no idea how GTX Titan Black or 690 compare to these cards.


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Are you sure the Fury shouldn't be below the GTX 980?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*
> 
> Are you sure the Fury shouldn't be below the GTX 980?


They are pretty even but at higher res the Fury wins.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_Fury_Tri-X_OC/30.html


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Where is the R9 390?


----------



## Skambak

I have a question, where would the 960 4 gb be?


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skambak*
> 
> I have a question, where would the 960 4 gb be?


My guess is right above the 2GB version but still below the R9 285 2GB.


----------



## megahmad

Isn't the GTX 670 better than the GTX 950? You put it below the 950...









Edit: Here it shows that the 670 is only about 2% slower than the GTX 960 so I am sure the 950 is slower than the 670.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *megahmad*
> 
> Isn't the GTX 670 better than the GTX 950? You put it below the 950...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Here it shows that the 670 is only about 2% slower than the GTX 960 so I am sure the 950 is slower than the 670.


Thanks just fixed that!


----------



## Marshock

HD4850 was some-what faster than HD3870X2. I had many HD3870X2S and HD4850S... There is no comparison. When CrossFire was working at 100 %, the cards were equal, but most of times HD4850 was always ahead since CF did not scale 100 % at most of times..

X1950XTX 512, X1900XTX 512, X1950XT 512 and X1900XT 512 were *MUCH FASTER* than the HD2900GT. Who the in heck did put HD2900GT above those? WTH... Even X1950PRO was some-what faster than HD2900GT... HD2900GT was one of the worst disappointments of all time, in some benchmarks it was even behind 8600GTS, which was roughly equal to 7900GS/GT.. OMG how can you forget that and mess up so bad with HD2900GT??? SHAME... Also i would put HD3850 256 MB below X19XT(X) 512 MB series cards, but that's just my memories of high resolution benchmarks, because HD3850 was faster when below 1600x1200.


----------



## bhshawon

Where is R9 380 2 GB version?


----------



## Magical Eskimo

The sad feeling when the 780Ti is now 15th down on the list... Oh mighty flagship cards.. why must you be succeeded by another so quickly..


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magical Eskimo*
> 
> The sad feeling when the 780Ti is now 15th down on the list... Oh mighty flagship cards.. why must you be succeeded by another so quickly..


Might be 15th down the list but it's pretty damn close to still being at the top of the heap. Only Titan X/Fury/X and 980Ti are a lot faster.


----------



## gr4474

Good list. I would like to see prices, and maybe specs. Definitely prices though.


----------



## Osjur

Hmm why you have 280X in front of 7970Ghz when they both have the same die and 7970Ghz is actually clocked 50mhz higher than 280X?

Last I checked, 7970 Ghz was around 2-3% faster vs stock 280X.


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Just wanted to remind you, Anth, that I'm really grateful you keep this thread updated. I go back to it and refer people here enough times to say it's been very helpful to me and others!


----------



## alancsalt

Deeply appreciated by some of us Anth!


----------



## Marshock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magical Eskimo*
> 
> The sad feeling when the 780Ti is now 15th down on the list... Oh mighty flagship cards.. why must you be succeeded by another so quickly..


I think there is a problem with placing R9 390....

All the reviews i have seen indicate that R9 390 is equivalent in performance to R9 290X and to GTX970 - all of these cards are somewhat slightly slower than GTX780 Ti.

So how come now R9 390 is suddenly faster than GTX970 and GTX780 Ti?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Osjur*
> 
> Hmm why you have 280X in front of 7970Ghz when they both have the same die and 7970Ghz is actually clocked 50mhz higher than 280X?
> 
> Last I checked, 7970 Ghz was around 2-3% faster vs stock 280X.


This also!

HD7970 GHz is a bit faster than R9 280X in most of the benchmarks i've seen.


----------



## Anth0789

Sorry guys haven't been on OCN for awhile fixed the 280x.


----------



## Munnerlyn

Thanks for building this database.... Bookmarked for life!


----------



## Skambak

Is there a reason why the R7 360 is not on the list?


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Hi Anth

The reference GTX 770 has moved down the charts these days, its out done by the 7970GHZ, 280X, R9 380 and R 9 285 now according to TPU with newer drivers on both sides. Its a touch better then the GTX 960 on TPU's test suite.

I would estimate the 7970 non GHZ is maybe still a touch behind due to its lower clocks, no one really tests it anymore though. This also means the 680 also moves down as it's the same card with a different BIOS

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_Waterforce/23.html



Thanks again for the list, really useful to have a dynamic one like this


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skambak*
> 
> Is there a reason why the R7 360 is not on the list?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slink3Slyde*
> 
> Hi Anth
> 
> The reference GTX 770 has moved down the charts these days, its out done by the 7970GHZ, 280X, R9 380 and R 9 285 now according to TPU with newer drivers on both sides. Its a touch better then the GTX 960 on TPU's test suite.
> 
> I would estimate the 7970 non GHZ is maybe still a touch behind due to its lower clocks, no one really tests it anymore though. This also means the 680 also moves down as it's the same card with a different BIOS
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_Waterforce/23.html
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again for the list, really useful to have a dynamic one like this


Okay fixed and updated thanks!


----------



## MajesticHF

What about Radeon R5 series?


----------



## blooder11181

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MajesticHF*
> 
> What about Radeon R5 series?


rebranded 6450/8x50


----------



## ozlay

fury nano on the list has a space beteen the 4 and the GB it bothers me


----------



## Dan816

R9 Duo Pro has been released.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10279/amd-releases-radeon-pro-duo-fiji-350w-vr


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 1080 and Pro Duo added!


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Glad to see this continually updated. Great job Anth!


----------



## Jyris Clipton

As we can see in this test: http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-pro-duo-benchmarks?page=2

In 3DMark FireStrike Extreme: Pro Duo 73,3% better than GTX 980 Ti
In Far Cry Primal: Pro Duo 67,6% better than GTX 980 Ti
In Metro Last Light: Pro Duo 66,1% better than GTX 980 Ti
In Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor: Pro Duo 63,1% better than GTX 980 Ti
In Thief: Pro Duo 43,1% better than GTX 980 Ti

Conclusion: Pro Duo is 62,64% better than GTX 980 Ti

In this test of TechPowerUp: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html

GTX 1080 is 34,1% better than GTX 980 Ti in 1080p
GTX 1080 is 38,1% better than GTX 980 Ti in 1440p
GTX 1080 is 38,3% better than GTX 980 Ti in 2160p

By analogy, Pro Duo is suposed to be 18,9% better than GTX 1080. It's a difference close to GTX 1080 and GTX 1070.

If we think that R9 295X2 had a 50% performance increment in relation with R9 290X and Pro Duo could have a 50 performance increment in relation with Fury X. Pro Duo would have at least 12,5% better performance than GTX 1080.

So I think is correct to have the Radeon Pro Duo in the first place.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jyris Clipton*
> 
> As we can see in this test: http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-pro-duo-benchmarks?page=2
> 
> In 3DMark FireStrike Extreme: Pro Duo 73,3% better than GTX 980 Ti
> In Far Cry Primal: Pro Duo 67,6% better than GTX 980 Ti
> In Metro Last Light: Pro Duo 66,1% better than GTX 980 Ti
> In Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor: Pro Duo 63,1% better than GTX 980 Ti
> In Thief: Pro Duo 43,1% better than GTX 980 Ti
> 
> Conclusion: Pro Duo is 62,64% better than GTX 980 Ti
> 
> In this test of TechPowerUp: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html
> 
> GTX 1080 is 34,1% better than GTX 980 Ti in 1080p
> GTX 1080 is 38,1% better than GTX 980 Ti in 1440p
> GTX 1080 is 38,3% better than GTX 980 Ti in 2160p
> 
> By analogy, Pro Duo is suposed to be 18,9% better than GTX 1080. It's a difference close to GTX 1080 and GTX 1070.
> 
> If we think that R9 295X2 had a 50% performance increment in relation with R9 290X and Pro Duo could have a 50 performance increment in relation with Fury X. Pro Duo would have at least 12,5% better performance than GTX 1080.
> 
> So I think is correct to have the Radeon Pro Duo in the first place.


Thanks just updated and added RX 480!


----------



## Neitzluber

Seconded! They should definitely be ranked for comparison. Intel integrated graphics form the majority of the market, after all, and we buy graphics cards to get an improvement over what Intel offers.


----------



## ExoticallyPure

While it's true that it would be nice to have integrated rankings listed, I don't think Anth should do it unless he's in the mood for it. They would likely end up in the triple digits, and would be somewhat irrelevant to most people viewing the thread. Basically any video card is far superior to integrated graphics, it's like comparing a car to a bicycle.

Keep in mind Anth is already doing a great duty to the entire Overclock community by keeping this up to date everyday. _Anth_, if you'd like to, go ahead. If not, that's totally understandable.

Edit: New Titan X, may as well put it at the top:
https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/22/nvidias-new-top-end-graphics-card-is-the-1-200-titan-x/


----------



## ExoticallyPure

RX 470 goes right above GTX 970?


----------



## alancsalt

Thread title says "Graphics Card" - not "IGP and Graphics Card".
OP is under no obligation to take on extra work.


----------



## ExoticallyPure

GTX 1060 slower than GTX 980

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-pascal,4679-4.html


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*
> 
> GTX 1060 slower than GTX 980
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-pascal,4679-4.html


Okay fixed thanks!


----------



## devilangel

Raderon 390 better than 480? did i miss something?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *devilangel*
> 
> Raderon 390 better than 480? did i miss something?


Fixed its under the 390x.


----------



## izzan

i think u forgot to put GTX 1060 3GB and RX 460 2GB on the list


----------



## izzan

please put rx 480 with 4GB of RAM and rx 470 8GB on the list

thx....


----------



## masterdev

This list seems a bit inaccurate.

The Best Graphics Cards October - 2016

Please see the official FutureMark list of 3DMark benchmarks http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu.
Data is based on 3DMark submits in the past 30 days.

Pretty close though. Thanks for updating daily.


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *masterdev*
> 
> This list seems a bit inaccurate.
> 
> The Best Graphics Cards October - 2016
> 
> Please see the official FutureMark list of 3DMark benchmarks http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu.
> Data is based on 3DMark submits in the past 30 days.
> 
> Pretty close though. Thanks for updating daily.


This list is based off multiple benchmarks and games. Futuremark is only a single benchmark. Some cards are faster in games than others.

This is the most accurate list on the internet for overall gaming performance.


----------



## Boinz

Any word when the gtx 1050 and 1050 ti will be added (I'm aware they just came out).


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boinz*
> 
> Any word when the gtx 1050 and 1050 ti will be added (I'm aware they just came out).


Yes just added!


----------



## Marshock

1. HUGE MISTAKE with R9 280X so low!!!

The card is slightly faster than R9 380X (obvious memory bandwidth advantage) and much faster than R9 285 or R9 380. Somebody needs to change that ASAP! Only custom OC R9 380X can match stock R9 280X. Also, R9 280X should be equal to HD7970 GHz Edition.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_Strix/23.html

As you can see, it's 96 % for R9 380X compared to 100 % for R9 280X...

2. Small mistake with GTX950 being faster than GTX760. They should be equal

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_Strix/23.html

GTX760 is faster according to TP.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_geforce_gtx_950_strix_review,1.html

In Guru3d the cards tie one another (don't look at custom OC GTX950).

3. Is there any proof that GTX1050 is faster than GTX670? Or is this a speculation? I hardly believe it.


----------



## JackCY

Yeah same here, had an R9 280x and it is faster than 770/680 2GB and 280/285/380. The 380x can be faster in new titles optimized for it but otherwise it can be slower than the 280x which was a more of a brute force beast.
Proof? See review comparisons of 2014+.

As far as raw performance goes 480 > 1060, but the 480 is almost never used to max and stuff isn't optimized for it beyond Doom etc. Older titles, 1060, newer and upcoming equal.


----------



## comagnum

Rx 480 > 1060

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-23.html


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marshock*
> 
> 1. HUGE MISTAKE with R9 280X so low!!!
> 
> The card is slightly faster than R9 380X (obvious memory bandwidth advantage) and much faster than R9 285 or R9 380. Somebody needs to change that ASAP! Only custom OC R9 380X can match stock R9 280X. Also, R9 280X should be equal to HD7970 GHz Edition.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_Strix/23.html
> 
> As you can see, it's 96 % for R9 380X compared to 100 % for R9 280X...
> 
> 2. Small mistake with GTX950 being faster than GTX760. They should be equal
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_Strix/23.html
> 
> GTX760 is faster according to TP.
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_geforce_gtx_950_strix_review,1.html
> 
> In Guru3d the cards tie one another (don't look at custom OC GTX950).
> 
> 3. Is there any proof that GTX1050 is faster than GTX670? Or is this a speculation? I hardly believe it.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Yeah same here, had an R9 280x and it is faster than 770/680 2GB and 280/285/380. The 380x can be faster in new titles optimized for it but otherwise it can be slower than the 280x which was a more of a brute force beast.
> Proof? See review comparisons of 2014+.
> 
> As far as raw performance goes 480 > 1060, but the 480 is almost never used to max and stuff isn't optimized for it beyond Doom etc. Older titles, 1060, newer and upcoming equal.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Rx 480 > 1060
> 
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-23.html


Thanks guys just fixed up the list.


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 1080 Ti is added!


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Nice job adding new RX Vega series so fast!

Would you kindly put official Titan Xp on top?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*
> 
> Nice job adding new RX Vega series so fast!
> 
> Would you kindly put official Titan Xp on top?


Thanks for letting me know, i had know idea there was a Titan Xp.


----------



## alancsalt

Yeah, there's Titan X, Titan X Pascal, and now Titan Xp ....


----------



## Arbiter419

This is like looking into a time machine for me, hah I missed about...7 years worth? Glad to be back on OCN it's been a long time. Time to relieve my trusty Opteron and GTX 260 of duty, putting a new machine together now. It's amazing, I used to be so current on the latest and greatest now I feel like a lost puppy!


----------



## Marshock

*This concerns R9 390 VS RX 480*

It's hard to find stock RX 480 reviews vs R9 390 or R9 390X, as most reviewers focus on overclocked video cards from AMD partners, but let me try to make a point here.

Pcgamer based on 15 games average result has R9 390 about 5 FPS faster than RX 480 8 GB in it's performance summary.

Techpowerup states that RX 480 8 GB is faster in lower resolution benches, but R9 390 wins in higher resolution benches. This means that R9 390 is faster, since it's true potential of higher memory bandwidth is unleashed on higher resolutions.

Extreme tech show R9 390 to be faster than RX 480 8 GB in every game, except one tie.

Eurogamer shows R9 390 winning in 5 games out of 8 and RX480 winning in 2 games out of 8 with one tie.

So, *R9 390X 8 GB > R9 390 8 GB > RX 480 8 GB > RX 480 4 GB.*

You have based your RX 480 superiority upon RX 480 OC benchmarked vs stock R9 390, which gives a false impression when in reality stock R9 390 8 GB is undoubtedly faster than stock RX 480 8 GB.


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marshock*
> 
> *This concerns R9 390 VS RX 480*
> 
> It's hard to find stock RX 480 reviews vs R9 390 or R9 390X, as most reviewers focus on overclocked video cards from AMD partners, but let me try to make a point here.
> 
> Pcgamer based on 15 games average result has R9 390 about 5 FPS faster than RX 480 8 GB in it's performance summary.
> 
> Techpowerup states that RX 480 8 GB is faster in lower resolution benches, but R9 390 wins in higher resolution benches. This means that R9 390 is faster, since it's true potential of higher memory bandwidth is unleashed on higher resolutions.
> 
> Extreme tech show R9 390 to be faster than RX 480 8 GB in every game, except one tie.
> 
> So, *R9 390X 8 GB > R9 390 8 GB > RX 480 8 GB > RX 480 4 GB.*
> 
> You have based your RX 480 superiority upon RX 480 OC benchmarked vs stock R9 390, which gives a false impression when in reality stock R9 390 8 GB is undoubtedly faster than stock RX 480 8 GB.


Got it thanks its fixed!


----------



## zipper17

I'm wondering why there is GTX 1080 11 Gbps?

they're actually GTX 1080 OC aren't they?

okay this is article from nvidia:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-11gbps-gddr5x

The Base Memory pre-overclocked or Binned into 11Gbps G5X.


----------



## Marshock

I've updated my previous post just to cementify the R9 390 slight superiority over RX 480 8 GB - i have included a link from Eurogamer, in which, again, R9 390 beats RX480 in total score. Also, while R9 390 is not much faster than RX 480, the new RX 580 surely can not be slower than R9 390 - what do you think guys? While there are no direct RX 580 VS R9 390 comparisons, i would tend to think that at the very least R9 390 should be equal to RX 580. I would recommend to update that. But surely, i agree that R9 390X and GTX980 should be, without a shadow of doubt, superior to the rest mid-rangers.

But the main thing i'd like to talk now is the never-ending GTX 1060 6 GB VS RX 480 8 GB discussion and now VS RX 580 8 GB!

While i have noticed that over the past 6 months all AMD cards gained improved performance over NVIDIA and now RX 480 8 GB is closer to GTX 1060 6 GB than it ever was, it still does not beat it. Let me make a point once more from the newest RX 480 and RX 580 benchmarks.

1. Here is Tom's review of RX 580, in which 11 games have been tested in both 1080P and 1440P resolutions.

I have calculated the first, second and third places for all the cards in all of those games. If the difference is less than 1 FPS, i consider it a tie, but watch minimal FPS then. And here is how it looks:

RX 580: 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1
GTX 1060: 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 2
RX 480: 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3

While clearly RX 580 dominates the benchmark, GTX 1060 had more second places, and RX 480 had more third places; also RX 480 never had any first places, while GTX 1060 had four of them. In one game GTX 1060 and RX 480 tie; in another game RX 480 and RX 580 tie, so i wrote double same number places in these instances. This is direct evidence that RX 480 is no match for GTX 1060, but RX 580 is just barely faster than GTX 1060.

2. Here is Eurogamer's review of RX 580, in which 8 games have been tested in both 1080P and 1440P resolutions.

It's not a big deal to take a look at the results and calculate the wins. If the difference is less than 1 FPS, i consider it a tie, and there are no minimal FPS.

1080P RX 580: 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
1080P GTX 1060: 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
1080P RX 480: 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3

Once again the same picture at 1080P - RX 580 leading, with only in 2 games out of 8 falling behind GTX 1060. GTX 1060 ties RX 580 or losses to it in half the games (50/50 %). However, RX 480 never wins, only manages to tie GTX 1060 in 3 games and looses in 5 games.

1440P RX 580: 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1440P GTX 1060: 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
1440P RX 480: 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3

The picture does not change much at 1440P - RX 580 now leads even more, with only in one game falling behind GTX 1060. GTX 1060 beats RX 480 in 6 games out of 8 with 2 ties.

3. Here is Anandtech review of RX 580, in which 9 games have been tested in both 1080P and 1440P resolutions.

The results of 8 games match in both 1080P and 1440P, except in Hitman, where there is a difference between 1080P and 1440P for RX 580, RX 580 and GTX 1060:

1080P & 1440P GTX 1060: 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 (2)
1080P & 1440P RX 580: 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 (1)
1080P & 1440P RX 480: 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 (3)

According to Anandtech GTX 1060 CLEARLY beats RX 580 in 6 out of 9 games with 3 ties. RX 480, on the other hand, only manages to be equal in one game, and loses to GTX 1060 in ALL games. I trust Anandtech the most, since they are the only ones who had the balls to test stock RX 580 VS stock GTX 1060.

Tom's Hardware and Eurogamer used overclocked RX 580 cards, stock RX 480 and stock GTX 1060 cards. Anandtech used all stock cards.

4. 



 quote: "_previously GTX 1060 6 GB was 12 % faster at 1080P and 1440P, but now it is only 1 % faster_" - this comparison is not apple to apple, since different games were being used when GTX1060 6 GB was 12 % faster versus when GTX1060 6 GB was just 1 % faster.

The final verdict should be no problem based upon what proof i linked.

1. Without a shadow of a doubt, GTX1060 6 GB is faster than RX 480!

2. When it comes to GTX1060 6 GB VS RX 580 - these cards should be equal, since in Anandtech GTX1060 wins, and in Eurogamer and Tom's Hardware RX580 wins, but it's a bit of a cheat for RX 580 win because of the RX 580 overclock.

That being said: RX 580 8 GB = R9 390 8 GB = GTX 1060 6 GB. Of course this is for now, and it might change after 3 months.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Rx 480 > 1060
> 
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-23.html


While i trust Hardware Cannucks and their results are definitely legit, their point of RX 480 > GTX 1060 6 GB is in DX12 games. In DX11 they have GTX1060 winning still. We can not base our final verdict just on that. Windows 7 is still a FAR MORE popular OS than Windows 10 and there are *FAR MORE* DX11 games than DX12 games as of now. Perhaps in one year this will change, but for now - not!

And this is an advice to *YOU ALL* - do not base your GPU ranking based on DX12 as it is not the dominant API subrank!


----------



## FlawleZ

Are we basing results off an average of 4K? 1440? 1080P? Because the AMD cards scale noticeably better at 4K. In fact, like mentioned above the AMD cards have continually seen improvements with subsequent driver releases thus making original reviews or even benchmarks from 1 year ago no longer relevant. I'd like to see an extensive test using current drivers with R9 Fury and Fury X vs 980 TI, 1070, and 1080.


----------



## bahn

Any review on the Rx 570 8Gb?


----------



## Slink3Slyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlawleZ*
> 
> Are we basing results off an average of 4K? 1440? 1080P? Because the AMD cards scale noticeably better at 4K. In fact, like mentioned above the AMD cards have continually seen improvements with subsequent driver releases thus making original reviews or even benchmarks from 1 year ago no longer relevant. I'd like to see an extensive test using current drivers with R9 Fury and Fury X vs 980 TI, 1070, and 1080.


TPU state that none of their results are recycled, so heres one









https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_1080_Ti_SC2/31.html


----------



## ExoticallyPure

There's a new Radeon Pro Duo, but I don't know much about it:
http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/the-new-radeon-2017apr24.aspx


----------



## FireOath

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*
> 
> There's a new Radeon Pro Duo, but I don't know much about it:
> http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/the-new-radeon-2017apr24.aspx


From what I know it is a dual Polaris, more than likely RX580x2. Obviously with that dual Polaris it is slower than the previous Pro Duo.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NoDestiny

#33 and #63 both have Nvidia GTX 950 2GB in it? FYI.


----------



## bahn

A local store here in the Philippines is having a clearance sale of "old" gpus.
R9 Fury 4GB cost around $215. R9 390x 8GB cost around $202.

R9 Fury is sold out









Is it worth it to upgrade to a 390x from a 380 or should I just go with a 580?


----------



## Marshock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bahn*
> 
> A local store here in the Philippines is having a clearance sale of "old" gpus.
> R9 Fury 4GB cost around $215. R9 390x 8GB cost around $202.
> 
> R9 Fury is sold out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it worth it to upgrade to a 390x from a 380 or should I just go with a 580?


The jump from basic R9 380 to R9 390X is huge - around 80 % more performance is expected. The R9 390X is a much better choice for 200 $ than RX 580 for 250 $ having in mind they come with the same warranty. R9 390X is actually a bit faster as well on higher res. The only downside i see is R9 390X being power hungry.


----------



## Awieos

GT 1030 review. It should be below GTX 750 Ti

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gt-1030-2gb,5110-4.html


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awieos*
> 
> GT 1030 review. It should be below GTX 750 Ti
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gt-1030-2gb,5110-4.html


Thanks added!


----------



## Marshock

One of the Techpowerup members compared GT1030 to GTX580 and GTX285:

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/qubits-gt-1030-v-gtx-580-showdown.235223/

As you see from very basic synthetic tests, GT1030 is just barely faster than GTX285 and twice slower than GTX580. I am thinking GT1030 real place is below GTX470 and GTX560 Ti cards. If it can barely beat GTX285, that means it should beat or tie GTX460/GTX560 at best case, but hardly GTX560 Ti. I would put it between GTX560 Ti 1 GB and GTX560 Ti 2 GB. What do you think?


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marshock*
> 
> One of the Techpowerup members compared GT1030 to GTX580 and GTX285:
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/qubits-gt-1030-v-gtx-580-showdown.235223/
> 
> As you see from very basic synthetic tests, GT1030 is just barely faster than GTX285 and twice slower than GTX580. I am thinking GT1030 real place is below GTX470 and GTX560 Ti cards. If it can barely beat GTX285, that means it should beat or tie GTX460/GTX560 at best case, but hardly GTX560 Ti. I would put it between GTX560 Ti 1 GB and GTX560 Ti 2 GB. What do you think?


Alright thanks updated!


----------



## RazorXTheftAuto

Hi, the truth is that I am impressed with the great work that has made the creator of the thread. I had a doubt, I saw that the GTX 770 is below the GTX 1050 Ti. It is totally true that the GTX 1050 Ti is better than The GTX 770? Well I say yes, but I have a friend who says no and another who says yes. I'm a bit confused lol.


----------



## Boinz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RazorXTheftAuto*
> 
> Hi, the truth is that I am impressed with the great work that has made the creator of the thread. I had a doubt, I saw that the GTX 770 is below the GTX 1050 Ti. It is totally true that the GTX 1050 Ti is better than The GTX 770? Well I say yes, but I have a friend who says no and another who says yes. I'm a bit confused lol.


I imagine this thread takes into account power consumption and vram consumption. Most 1050ti's can just work off the pcie slot's power and come in 4gb variants. Newer titles seem to make more use of the 1050ti's abilities than the 770's it would seem.

Granted its a small margin by which the 1050ti wins, but it wins nonetheless
http://media.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2016/gpu/gtx-770/gtx-770-gta-v-1080p.png
http://media.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2016/gpu/gtx-770/gtx-770-doom-vlk-1080p.pnghttp://media.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2016/gpu/gtx-770/gtx-770-doom-vlk-1080p.png
https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=news&action=file&id=16709


----------



## RazorXTheftAuto

Many thanks Boinz







! It is that I have the gtx 1050 Ti, and wanted to know if it had the same performance as the GTX 770







.


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Anth,

It may be time to start organizing cards according to 4K performance. That's where the industry is headed. If consoles are doing it (PS4 Pro, Xbox One X), PC should absolutely be tiered for 4K performance


----------



## FlawleZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*
> 
> Anth,
> 
> It may be time to start organizing cards according to 4K performance. That's where the industry is headed. If consoles are doing it (PS4 Pro, Xbox One X), PC should absolutely be tiered for 4K performance


Problem with that is the vast majority of the cards listed overall that aren't capable of even completing benchmarks in 4K. I see your point, but should only be applied to the last few gen cards that would even be found in a 4K gaming PC. And actually 4K gaming is still largely the minority and will be for some time.


----------



## whitrzac

Why is the titan XP listed twice?


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *whitrzac*
> 
> Why is the titan XP listed twice?


Because there's two titan xp's


----------



## FlawleZ

We need to switch Fury X and 980TI. With recent drivers Fury X is faster.


----------



## Anth0789

GTX 1070 Ti added!


----------



## MagiCom

Why is the #89 #90 GeForce GTX 750 Ti 1GB listed twice? and little update GTX1060, 9GBPS, 6Gb DDR5, 192-bit?


----------



## Boinz

Shows updated now

GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB
GeForce GTX 750 Ti 1GB


----------



## Marshock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*
> 
> Anth,
> 
> It may be time to start organizing cards according to 4K performance. That's where the industry is headed. If consoles are doing it (PS4 Pro, Xbox One X), PC should absolutely be tiered for 4K performance


The only 4K worthy card is GTX1080 Ti, so there is nothing really to organize. Check out my latest 4K gaming benchmark test i did with GTX1080, GTX1070, GTX980 Ti and RX Vega 56:

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/4k-gaming-benchmarks-rx-vega-56-oc-vs-gtx980-ti-strix-oc-vs-gtx1070-strix-oc-vs-gtx1080-sc.238263/#post-3751913

Non of these cards i had is WORTHY is being a true 4K "roller". I think we are still far from 4K.


----------



## ExoticallyPure

Titan V on top


----------



## Anth0789

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ExoticallyPure*
> 
> Titan V on top


Done added!


----------



## crazycrave

Still testing mode as Sapphire Tri X 290X New Edition as clocks are correct as Samsung memory and why 8000Mhz .

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/26714789


----------



## ExoticallyPure

RTX 2080 goes above GTX 1080 Ti (just barely, 1080 Ti aftermarket boards beat RTX 2080).

RTX 2080 Ti goes on top.


----------



## lightsout

Still use this thread as a reference.


----------



## FlawleZ

Vega 64 LC should be added between 1080 and 1080TI


----------



## Vlada011

From my perspective GTX1080 is better shoping than any Vega model.
But GTX1080Ti overclocked models are better than RTX2080, more video memory could be important next year.


----------



## Diablix6

Add nVidia Titan RTX, it should be on top of the list.


----------



## ExoticallyPure

You're doing great. AMD Radeon VII needs to be added to the list. Goes above Vega 64 somewhere


----------



## koooowweeee

Shame this thread no longer gets updated. I've used it for years.


----------



## PowerTrip

koooowweeee said:


> Shame this thread no longer gets updated. I've used it for years.


Me too. Came to see where the AMD 5700 and 5700XT stacks up for a new build


----------



## Anth0789

Sorry guys but I can't seem to update as I used to but since I'm busy with other things but for some reason I can't edit this thread anymore sadly.


----------



## alancsalt

Anth0789 said:


> Sorry guys but I can't seem to update as I used to but since I'm busy with other things but for some reason I can't edit this thread anymore sadly.



It's a security feature to stop hot heads leaving in anger from deleting threads. Contact ENTERPRISE telling him of your need to be able to regularly edit the first post and he will have that editing ability restored.


----------



## Anth0789

Updated the list, If I missed something let me know thanks!


----------



## Camph

Will you be adding the RTX Super line to the list?


----------



## Anth0789

Camph said:


> Will you be adding the RTX Super line to the list?


I didn't notice that there was Super line.

Ill add them up now.


----------



## izzan

can u put GTX 1650 on the list ?


----------



## Marshock

Ok, let's see.

1. HD 7970 GHz is the same thing as R9 280X, so they should be on par. That's a fact.

2. According to hardware unboxed this year's made benchmark, GeForce GTX 980 Ti = GTX 1070 = GTX 1660 Ti:






All of them should be on the same level, and all should be above R9 Fury X. In fact, GTX 1660 Ti seems to be the weakest, but it will catch up in 2020, so, that's a fact.

3. GTX 690 - a 2 GB frame buffer card would suffer tremendously these days. But i can not be sure, there are no comparative benchmarks to test GTX 690 vs. modern cards, every benchmark that i find in 2019 only reviews the card itself, with nothing else to compare, so perhaps i will have to check this myself in the future. 

4. RX 580 has become way more potent in the last two years. It now constantly beats GTX 1060 6 GB. Two years ago they were equal, now RX 580 8 GB should be just below RX 590.

5. RX 480 8 GB = RX 570 8 GB = GTX 980 = GTX 1060 6 GB, but this is debatable. 

6. RX 470 8 GB = RX 570 4 GB = R9 390X = R9 290X 8 GB (yes, there is an R9 290X with 8 GB VRAM)

7. RX 470 4 GB = GTX 780 Ti = R9 290X = GTX 970 = R9 390

8. GTX 1650 is 10 % slower than GTX 1060 3 GB, but still, that's definitely enough to put it above GTX 780 3 GB, but perhaps below GTX 780 6 GB. Questionable though... 


Basically what i am trying to say is AMD has moved forward since 2017, I am basing these observations on gamer's nexus and hardware unboxed benchmarks. 

I've noticed that GTX 1080 Ti is now below RTX 2070 Super? What latest tests prove this?


----------



## FlawleZ

Vega 64 is faster on average than both 2060 and GTX 1080.


----------



## StAndrew

When the 7900 GTX was released, it had stability issues from the vRam running to fast. The original batches saw very high RMA's and finally Nvidia admitted to using inferior vRam IC's. There was a "recall" and the later batches of the 7900 GTX used a faster Samsung IC for the vRAm. These recalled 7900 GTX's were re-branded as the GTO and resold at a lower price point. 

These should be swapped (or just remove the GTO):

224: GeForce 7900GTO 512MB
225: GeForce 7800GTX 512MB


----------



## lightsout

Marshock said:


> Ok, let's see.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. According to hardware unboxed this year's made benchmark, GeForce GTX 980 Ti = GTX 1070 = GTX 1660 Ti:


You really gotta love the xx70 card matching the xx80ti card, that really is impressive. Would love to see that kind of jump again, 1070 was a great card.


----------



## munternet

I only play BFV @ 3440 x 1440 on GTX 1080Ti and I've noticed that every time I update the driver to the latest I get an FPS drop.
Do they think we won't notice if they do it gradually?? 
Was above 130 FPS at low settings but with the newest driver I can't hit 120. I might revert to the oldest driver that still works.


----------



## zipper17

I think *GeForce Titan XP 12GB* (Pascal, April-6-2017) is not faster than 2080Ti, it should be on par or slightly below RTX 2080

GeForce Titan RTX 24GB
GeForce Titan V 12GB
GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB
GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB
GeForce RTX 2080 8GB - GeForce Titan XP 12GB
GeForce RTX 2070 Super 8GB
GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB
...

references: 
-techpowerup; see Relative Performance chart (GTX 1080Ti 93%, RTX 2070 Super 94 %, Titan Xp 100%, RTX 2080 100%, RTX 2080 Super 106%, RTX 2080 Ti 117%; based on 1080p)
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/titan-xp.c2948
-many benchmark on youtube shows the similarity

However the *Titan V vs 2080Ti* which better in gaming is still inconsistent and questionable.
From what I can see from some youtube benchmarks perspective; Titan V can be a lot slower than 2080Ti in some games, but can run better in some too, 
The 2080ti looks more favorable to be faster in general.
But on techpowerup the relative performances in-short are; 2080Ti at 96% and Titan v at 100% https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/titan-v.c3051


----------



## masterdev

munternet said:


> I only play BFV @ 3440 x 1440 on GTX 1080Ti and I've noticed that every time I update the driver to the latest I get an FPS drop.
> Do they think we won't notice if they do it gradually??
> Was above 130 FPS at low settings but with the newest driver I can't hit 120. I might revert to the oldest driver that still works.


Holly molly, is this true?
I'm screwed. I bough a G-Sync monitor. I feel bad now.


----------



## izzan

Please put GTX 1650 Super on the list


----------



## Anth0789

RTX 3080 added, Do you guys think that RTX 3080 is faster than the Titan V ?


----------



## izzan

Please put GTX 1660 Super on the list


----------



## Slink3Slyde

The Titan RTX isn't much faster stock then a 2080Ti as far as I can find from reviews. 3080 is the fastest card available currently if that's the case, by quite a distance.









GeForce Titan RTX im Test (Seite 2)


Nvidia Titan RTX im Test: Das Turing-Topmodell im High-End-PC von Mifcom / Testsystem und Testergebnisse / Details zu den Spieletests




www.computerbase.de













NVIDIA Titan RTX Review: Overclocking, Gaming, Power, & Thermals


Today, we’re reviewing the NVIDIA Titan RTX for overclocking, gaming, thermal, and acoustic performance, looking at the first of two cards in the lab. We have a third card arriving to trade for one defective unit, working around the 1350MHz clock lock we discovered, but that won’t be until after...




www.gamersnexus.net













Nvidia Titan RTX Review: Gaming, Training, Inferencing, Pro Viz, Oh My!


Nvidia's Titan RTX is intended for data scientists and professionals able to utilize its 24GB of GDDR6 memory. It's also a mean gaming card, if you have $2,500 for top shelf frame rates.




www.tomshardware.com


----------



## n00b3r

I just wanted to say that this list is great. I reference it every day as I look at building a future system.

Thank you!


----------



## PowerTrip

What about Radeon 5600 XT and 5500 XT?


----------



## Perseqtor

Where exactly would RTX 3070 stack in the Top 10 ? I can't see it there yet...

Also, thank you for this to absolutely all involved in keeping this active, especially* Anth0789 *!

Hopefully you guys know that we're not taking this for granted and sincerely appreciate keeping the list up-to-date.

I've been referencing this myself for literally the last decade ( that's 10 years ! crazy ).


----------



## Anth0789

Updated the list, Added 5600 XT and 5500 XT and RTX 3070.


----------



## Avacado

How exactly can the 3070 be above the 2080 Ti already when it hasn't been released yet? And there are no benchmarks.

And by benchmarks, I mean real benchmarks, you know by real people.


----------



## CptAsian

Avacado said:


> How can the 3070 be above the 2080 Ti already when it hasn't been released yet? And there are no benchmarks.


Reviews with benchmarks just came out this morning.

However, I'm inclined to suggest that it's listed as a tie or below the 2080 Ti, considering its lower VRAM and slightly RT and DLSS performance, and slightly worse overclocking headroom (as far as we can tell so far).


----------



## Avacado

CptAsian said:


> Reviews with benchmarks just came out this morning.
> 
> However, I'm inclined to suggest that it's listed as a tie or below the 2080 Ti, considering its lower VRAM and slightly RT and DLSS performance, and slightly worse overclocking headroom (as far as we can tell so far).


But I guess we are basing it on stock clocks then? Because I can get 2.1 GHz all day out of a 2080 Ti.


----------



## CptAsian

Avacado said:


> But I guess we are basing it on stock clocks then? Because I can get 2.1 GHz all day out of a 2080 Ti.


Exactly, I think most 2080 Tis can, or at least can get very close.

Just went back and read the OP fully and saw that it's based on 1080p. The 2080 Ti is just slightly faster at 1080p, so @Anth0789 I think it'd be best to swap them.








NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Founders Edition Review - Disruptive Price-Performance


NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 3070 is faster than the RTX 2080 Ti, for $500. The new FE cooler is greatly improved, runs very quietly, and even has fan stop. In our RTX 3070 Founders Edition review, we'll also take a look at RTX performance, energy efficiency, frametimes, and overclocking.




www.techpowerup.com


----------



## zipper17

probably soon

*GeForce RTX 3090 24GB - Radeon RX 6900 XT 16 GB*
*GeForce RTX 3080 10GB - Radeon RX 6800 XT 16 GB*
*Radeon RX 6800 16 GB*
*GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB - GeForce RTX 3070 8GB*
=================
mega edit:
Just FYI, revision from the last post I made @*Anth0789*,
Is Titan RTX 24GB should be still faster than 2080ti & RTX 3070?

Titan RTX*: NVIDIA TITAN RTX Specs, TechPowerUpReviewDatabase (Dec 18th, 2018) *
from the overall reviews, im pretty confidence Titan RTX 24GB stock is faster than 2080Ti/3070 stock

Titan V: *NVIDIA TITAN V Specs,* *TechPowerUpReviewDatabase** (Dec 7th, 2017)*
Titan-V is not really a gaming card ...so we have very less review comparison, and the performances also seems inconsistent in some games, it can be as low as 1080ti.
Very tricky to determine which rank Titan V should be placed

Titan Xp: *NVIDIA TITAN Xp Specs**, **TechPowerUpReviewDatabase* *(Apr 6th, 2017)*
overall as far I can see, still trade blows with 2080

In chronology, I think it will be like this:

*GeForce RTX 3090 24GB - Radeon RX 6900 XT 16 GB*
*GeForce RTX 3080 10GB - Radeon RX 6800 XT 16 GB*
*Radeon RX 6800 16 GB - GeForce Titan RTX 24GB ?*
*GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB - GeForce RTX 3070 8GB*
*GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB*
*GeForce RTX 2080 8GB* - *GeForce Titan Xp 12GB - GeForce Titan V 12GB ?*
*GeForce RTX 2070 Super 8GB*
*GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB*
but yeah to be 100% accurate is tricky, especially *Titan(s) *card.


----------



## Anth0789

RTX 3060 Ti added!


----------



## nalpagutt

I'm looking forward to the RTX 3090. Cyberpunk performance especially


----------



## PowerTrip

I don't see the regular AMD 6600 on the list (non-XT)


----------



## Anth0789

PowerTrip said:


> I don't see the regular AMD 6600 on the list (non-XT)


Forgot to add it, now its added!


----------



## maltamonk

Also missing gtx 1650 super


----------



## CptAsian

Anth0789 said:


> Forgot to add it, now its added!


Just want to say I'm glad to see you're still actively maintaining this!


----------



## SoloCamo

What are the most modern cards being benched with? Apologies if I missed it but all I found on the main page is that testing was done at 1080p.


----------



## Anth0789

maltamonk said:


> Also missing gtx 1650 super


Its already there under the RX 590 8GB.

Updated the list to the latest cards.


----------



## koooowweeee_8498

Is this not getting updated anymore? 

This thread has been my go-to thread for many years. Saves me looking at reviews


----------



## mouacyk

Probably lost momentum with EVGA's exodus

any bets as to what NVidia FE really means? is it f em or f everybody or f everyone


----------



## Calipso

koooowweeee_8498 said:


> Is this not getting updated anymore?
> 
> This thread has been my go-to thread for many years. Saves me looking at reviews


Doesn't seem to be. GPU prices be crazy now.


----------

