Upgrading gpu: HD4870, GTX280 or 260?

Status
Not open for further replies.
still think i wanna go with the 260 core 216 tho.
the superclocked one that is. its like as good as a 280 in games. the superclocked one is beast and its like 9 bucks more.
all these reviews against the 4870 are just with the regular core 216.
pretty sure the superclocked 216 smashes on the 4870 1 gig even tho the 1 gig wouldnt make to much of a difference anyway at smaller res.
at the end of the day..core 216 superclocked>4870
 
So this isnt everything to the max???????
****
snip
***
Oh and correct me if im wrong, but i remember a lot of people here saying that at such high resolutions (24" and up) anything past 4xAA/16xAF isnt necessary.

Those benches are not at 8x AA which I'm pretty sure would paint a different picture.

Also resolution ALONG with screen size will determine how much AA you need. 1680x1050 will need much less AA than 1680x1050 on a 22" monitor.

at the end of the day..core 216 superclocked>4870

You realize the 4870 overclocks as well lol
 
yes i know. but u could take the already superclocked 260 that much further.
i really think its the better bet
 
still think i wanna go with the 260 core 216 tho.
the superclocked one that is. its like as good as a 280 in games. the superclocked one is beast and its like 9 bucks more.
all these reviews against the 4870 are just with the regular core 216.
pretty sure the superclocked 216 smashes on the 4870 1 gig even tho the 1 gig wouldnt make to much of a difference anyway at smaller res.
at the end of the day..core 216 superclocked>4870

There is no point paying more for superclocked cards when it takes all of 30 seconds to overclock it yourself.
 
still think i wanna go with the 260 core 216 tho.
the superclocked one that is. its like as good as a 280 in games. the superclocked one is beast and its like 9 bucks more.
all these reviews against the 4870 are just with the regular core 216.
pretty sure the superclocked 216 smashes on the 4870 1 gig even tho the 1 gig wouldnt make to much of a difference anyway at smaller res.
at the end of the day..core 216 superclocked>4870

hardly
 
still think i wanna go with the 260 core 216 tho.
the superclocked one that is. its like as good as a 280 in games. the superclocked one is beast and its like 9 bucks more.
all these reviews against the 4870 are just with the regular core 216.
pretty sure the superclocked 216 smashes on the 4870 1 gig even tho the 1 gig wouldnt make to much of a difference anyway at smaller res.
at the end of the day..core 216 superclocked>4870

?...how do you figure that when the benches i linked showed it not beating it at the beginning, middle or end of the day lol. the 260/216 got beat up by the 1gb 4870, which beats a gtx 280 in a few very mainstream games.
overclocking aint gonna make a difference if you factor in that you can overclock both cards...
but, its your money.
 
the truth is that all these cards are extremely quick and I can't see anyone regretting the purchase of one when they have it up and running.

So go with the GTX 260 216core if you want....you won't be disappointed. But please don't waste your money on the superclocked version...
 
the truth is that all these cards are extremely quick and I can't see anyone regretting the purchase of one when they have it up and running.

So go with the GTX 260 216core if you want....you won't be disappointed. But please don't waste your money on the superclocked version...

QFT, it's common knowledge that "superclocked" or "ultraclocked" cards are a waste of cash.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom