Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

nVidia GTX285 being faster is one big fat lie!!!

Tesselator said:
ET - Nope!
UT3 - I dunno for sure but I think not! 95% sure.
COD - I dunno about that development at all so i can't comment.

Anyway by my remark I just meant that the tester is a bit of a nincompoop (barefeats too btw) for testing with the tools they do and drawing the conclusions they do from those tests. Quake is what? Frigging 10 years old? ET is the Q3 engine so no difference there. Q4 uses hardware pixel-shaders - it runs on a mac. Test with that! etc. etc.
Click to expand...

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

ETQW is a standalone game. It uses the Doom 3 engine (iD Tech 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_Territory_Quake_Wars

UT 3 uses the Unreal 3 engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Engine#Unreal_Engine_3
It is also a very sophisticated engine.

COD4 uses its own engine and it is also a modern engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_duty_4

They all use shaders..
 
dr. shdw said:
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Damn! I hate it when that happens! :D

ETQW is a standalone game. It uses the Doom 3 engine (iD Tech 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_Territory_Quake_Wars
Click to expand...

Ah, I missed... I thought we were talking about ET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein:_Enemy_Territory and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Castle_Wolfenstein which are tech3 that has no shaders - nor bump mapping, normal mapping, specular highlighting or dynamic per-pixel lighting for that matter. tech4 is the Doom3 engine. Looks like I messed up. :p


UT 3 uses the Unreal 3 engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Engine#Unreal_Engine_3
It is also a very sophisticated engine.

COD4 uses its own engine and it is also a modern engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_duty_4

They all use shaders..
Click to expand...

K, thanks for the correction.
 
Honestly, I haven't used a 285 or anything, but I do use a XFX 4870 1gb DDR5, and this card is fantastic, I love it, the performance to cost ratio is outstanding, I paid $149.99 for the card, compared to the 285 which is what? $400+ ? Even if you're going to use the graphics card under bootcamp you could buy 2 4870s and use them in crossfire and the total would still be cheaper than just one 285...

Just my .02.. take it or leave it..
 
Andrew Henry said:
Honestly, I haven't used a 285 or anything, but I do use a XFX 4870 1gb DDR5, and this card is fantastic, I love it, the performance to cost ratio is outstanding, I paid $149.99 for the card, compared to the 285 which is what? $400+ ? Even if you're going to use the graphics card under bootcamp you could buy 2 4870s and use them in crossfire and the total would still be cheaper than just one 285...

Just my .02.. take it or leave it..
Click to expand...

Can you Crossfire in OSX?
 
netkas said:
1GHZ 4890 will be the fastest solution in osx and bootcamp
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt you are right about Boot Camp.
The GTX 285 is about 18 percent more powerful under Windows than the HD 4890.

http://www.techspot.com/review/164-radeon-4890-vs-geforce-gtx275/page4.html
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/2702/gigabyte_radeon_hd_4890_1gb_graphics_card/index8.html
http://hothardware.com/Articles/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-275-Unveiled/?page=5
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...65-sapphire-radeon-hd-4890-1gb-review-13.html
http://hothardware.com/Articles/The-GeForce-GTX-275-and-HD-4890-go-HeadtoHead/?page=6
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...versus-Nvidia-Geforce-GTX-275/Reviews/?page=8
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...sk=view&id=315&Itemid=72&limit=1&limitstart=7
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1537&pageID=6665&Content_Random=6337
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/13094/40/1/1/
.
 
maybe you didnt see i said 1ghz 4890 (some brands sell it), default freq of 4890 is 850, so the speed increase fixes gap.
 
Ugh.. All of this is confusing me. What card will give me the fastest performance in OSX (Including Snow Leopard with OpenCL)?
 
ventro said:
Ugh.. All of this is confusing me. What card will give me the fastest performance in OSX (Including Snow Leopard with OpenCL)?
Click to expand...

This is what Barefeats has to say about the subject:
"Though the GeForce GTX 285 was dominating in our extreme 3D tests, it produced mixed results in the Core Image tests above. If the three graphs above are indicative of Core Image performance, it's hard to justify the upgrade on that basis alone."

By the way, in the three graphs that Barefeats is talking about, the GTX 285 beat the HD 4870 twice. The HD 4870 beat the GTX 285 in one out of the three bench tests.

The best card appears to be the GTX 285.
But it is such a close call, do you want to spend an extra 100 bucks to get a GTX 285 instead of the HD 4870?

ATI video cards do extremely well in running pro applications in OS X.
It's a shame that ATI's HD 4890 is not available for Macs.

If you are willing to flash a PC card, then I'd guess that Netka's 1GHz HD 4890 video card would probably be king of the hill (OS X).
.
 
dr. shdw said:
Then how exactly will it help her in OS X apps??? o_O
Click to expand...

Because the 4870 is just as good under OS X seeing as the drivers for it are actually optimized, and the Nvidia drivers aren't, what I was saying, is if you want to use bootcamp and get better performance and save over $100 just buy 2 of them and crossfire them, and they would perform better than the 285 under Windows and still be cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back