ATI Radeon HD 4890 vs. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on April 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
I'm not really sure why we have NDAs on these products anymore. Before we even got our Radeon HD 4890, before we were even briefed on it, NVIDIA contacted us and told us that if we were working on a review to wait. NVIDIA wanted to send us something special.
Then in the middle of our Radeon HD 4890 briefing what do we see but a reference to a GeForce GTX 275 in the slides. We hadn't even laid hands on the 275, but AMD knew what it was and where it was going to be priced.
If you asked NVIDIA what the Radeon HD 4890 was, you'd probably hear something like "an overclocked 4870". If you asked AMD what the GeForce GTX 275 was, you'd probably get "half of a GTX 295".
The truth of the matter is that neither one of these cards is particularly new, they are both a balance of processors, memory, and clock speeds at a new price point.
As the prices on the cards that already offered a very good value fell, higher end and dual GPU cards remained priced significantly higher. This created a gap in pricing between about $190 and $300. AMD and NVIDIA saw this as an opportunity to release cards that fell within this spectrum, and they are battling intensely over price. Both companies withheld final pricing information until the very last minute. In fact, when I started writing this intro (Wednesday morning) I still had no idea what the prices for these parts would actually be.
Now we know that both the Radeon HD 4890 and the GeForce GTX 275 will be priced at $250. This has historically been a pricing sweet spot, offering a very good balance of performance and cost before we start to see hugely diminishing returns on our investments. What we hope for here is a significant performance bump from the GTX 260 core 216 and Radeon HD 4870 1GB class of performance. We'll wait till we get to the benchmarks to reveal if that's what we actually get and whether we should just stick with what's good enough.
At a high level, here's what we're looking at:
| GTX 285 | GTX 275 | GTX 260 Core 216 | GTS 250 / 9800 GTX+ | |
| Stream Processors | 240 | 240 | 216 | 128 |
| Texture Address / Filtering | 80 / 80 | 80 / 80 | 72/72 | 64 / 64 |
| ROPs | 32 | 28 | 28 | 16 |
| Core Clock | 648MHz | 633MHz | 576MHz | 738MHz |
| Shader Clock | 1476MHz | 1404MHz | 1242MHz | 1836MHz |
| Memory Clock | 1242MHz | 1134MHz | 999MHz | 1100MHz |
| Memory Bus Width | 512-bit | 448-bit | 448-bit | 256-bit |
| Frame Buffer | 1GB | 896MB | 896MB | 512MB |
| Transistor Count | 1.4B | 1.4B | 1.4B | 754M |
| Manufacturing Process | TSMC 55nm | TSMC 55nm | TSMC 65nm | TSMC 55nm |
| Price Point | $360 | ~$250 | $205 | $140 |
| ATI Radeon HD 4890 | ATI Radeon HD 4870 | ATI Radeon HD 4850 | |
| Stream Processors | 800 | 800 | 800 |
| Texture Units | 40 | 40 | 40 |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| Core Clock | 850MHz | 750MHz | 625MHz |
| Memory Clock | 975MHz (3900MHz data rate) GDDR5 | 900MHz (3600MHz data rate) GDDR5 | 993MHz (1986MHz data rate) GDDR3 |
| Memory Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| Frame Buffer | 1GB | 1GB | 512MB |
| Transistor Count | 959M | 956M | 956M |
| Manufacturing Process | TSMC 55nm | TSMC 55nm | TSMC 55nm |
| Price Point | ~$250 | ~$200 | $150 |
We suspect that this will be quite an interesting battle and we might have some surprises on our hands. NVIDIA has been talking about their new drivers which will be released to the public early Thursday morning. These new drivers offer some performance improvements across the board as well as some cool new features. Because it's been a while since we talked about it, we will also explore PhysX and CUDA in a bit more depth than we usually do in GPU reviews.
We do want to bring up availability. This will be a hard launch for AMD but not for NVIDIA (though some European retailers should have the GTX 275 on sale this week). As for AMD, we've seen plenty of retail samples from AMD partners and we expect good availability starting today. If this ends up not being the case, we will certainly update the article to reflect that later. NVIDIA won't have availability until the middle of the month (we are hearing April 14th).
NVIDIA hasn't been hitting their launches as hard lately, and we've gotten on them about that in past reviews. This time, we're not going to be as hard on them for it. The fact of the matter is that they've got a competitive part coming out in a time frame that is very near the launch of an AMD part at the same price point. We are very interested in not getting back to the "old days" where we had paper launched parts that only ended up being seen in the pages of hardware review sites, but we certainly understand the need for companies to get their side of the story out there when launches are sufficiently close to one another. And we're certainly not going to fault anyone for that. Not being available for purchase is it's own problem.
From the summer of 2008 to today we've seen one of most heated and exciting battles in the history of the GPU. NVIDIA and AMD have been pushing back and forth with differing features, good baseline performance with strengths in different areas, and incredible pricing battles in the most popular market segments. While AMD and NVIDIA fight with all their strength to win customers, the real beneficiary has consistently been the end user. And we certainly feel this launch is no exception. If you've got $250 to spend on graphics and were wondering whether you should save up for the GTX 285 or save money and grab a sub-$200 part, your worries are over. There is now a card for you. And it is good.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
294 Comments
View All Comments
SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
Oh great, a whole other sku to lose another billion a year with. Wonderful. Any word on the new costs of the bigger cpu and expensive capacitors and vrm upgrades ?Ahh, nevermind, heck, this ain't a green greedy monster card, screw it if they lose their shirts making it - I mean there's no fantasy satisfaction there.
Get back to me on the nvidia costs - so I can really dream about them losing money.
itbj2 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
I am not sure about you guys but NVIDIA has problems with their drivers as well. I have a 9400GT and a 8800 GTS in my machine and the new drivers can't make the two work well enough for my computer to come out of hibernation with out Windows XP crashing every so often. This use to work just fine before I upgraded the drivers to the latest version.FishTankX - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
For anyone who REALLY wants temp data..Firingsquad 4890/GTX275 review
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_489...">http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati...4890_nvi...
Idle
GTX 260 216 (45C)
GTX 285 (46C)
GTX 275 (47C)
4890 1GB (51C)
4870 (60C)
Load
4890 1GB (64C)
GTX 260 216 (64C)
GTX 275 (68C)
GTX 285 (70C)
4870 1GB (80C)
Power consumption
(Total system power)
Idle
GTX 275 (143W)
4890 (172W)
Load
4890 (276W)
GTX 275 (279W)
There, now you can can it! :D
SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
There it is again, 30 watts less idle for nvidia, and only 3 watts more in 3d. NVIDIA WINS - that's why they left it out - they just couldn't HANDLE it....So, if you're 3d gaming 91% of the time, and only 2d surfing 9% of the time, the ati card comes in at equal power useage...
Otherwise, it LOSES - again.
I doubt the red raging reviewers can even say it. Oh well, thanks for posting numbers.
7Enigma - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Can anyone confirm whether or not the heatsink/fan has been altered between the 4870 and the 4890? I'm interested to know if the decreased temps of the higher clocked 4890 are due in part to a better cooling mechanism, or strictly from a respin/binning.Warren21 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Yes, the cooler has been slightly revised. I believe it's a combination of both. I'll admit I'm a bit disappointed AT didn't explore the differences between the HD 4870 and the 4890 more in-depth.Comparisson:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canu...">http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ha...phire-ra...
bill3 - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
"It looks like NVIDIA might be the marginal leader at this new price point of $250." you wroteBut looking at your own benches..
Since you run 3 resolutions of your benches, lets reasonably declare that the card that can win 2 or more of them "wins" that game. In that case 4890 wins over 275 in: COD WaW, Warhead, Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, GRID, and Left 4 Dead. 275 wins over 4890 in Age of Conan. Either with AA or without the results stay the same.
The only way I think you can contend 275 has an edge is if you place a premium on the 2560X1600 results, where it seems to edge out the 4890 more often. However, it's often at unplayable framerates. Further I dont see a reason to place undue importance on the 2560X benches, the majority of people still game on 1680X1050 monitors, and as you yourself noted, Nvidia released a new driver that trades off performance at low res for high res, which I think is arguably neither here nor their, not a clear advantage at all.
Even at 2560 (using the AA bar graphs because its often difficult to spot the winner at 2560 on the line graphs), where the 275 wins 5 and loses 2, the margins are often so ridiculously close it essentially a tie. 275 takes AOC, COD WaW, and L4D by a reasonable margin at the highest res, while the 4890 wins Fallout3 and GRID comfortably. Warhead and Far Cry 2 are within .7 FPS although nominally wins for 275. Thats a difference of all of 3-2 in materially relevant wins, or exactly 1 game. But keep in mind again that 4890 is fairly clearly winning the lower reses more often, and to me it's wrong to state 275 has the edge.
SiliconDoc - Monday, April 6, 2009 - link
The funny thing is, if you're in those games and constantly looking at your 5-10 fps difference at 50-60-100-200 fps - there's definitely something wrong with you.I find reviews that show LOWEST framerate during game when it's a very high resolution and a demanding game useful - usually more useful when the playable rate is hovering around 30 or below 50 (and dips a ways below 30.
Otherwise, you'd have to be an IDIOT to base your decision on the very often, way over playable framerates in the near equally matched cards. WE HAVE A LOT OF IDIOTS HERE.
Then comes the next conclusion, or the follow on. Since framerates are at playable, and are within 10% at the top end, the things that really matter are : game drivers / stability , profiles , clarity, added features, added box contents (a free game one wants perhaps).
Almost ALWAYS, Nvidia wins that - with the very things this site continues to claim simply do not matter, and should not matter - to ANYONE they claim - in effect.
I think it's one big fat lie, and they most certainly SHOULD know it.
Note now, that NVidia - having released their, according to this site, high resolution driver tweak for 2560xX , wins at that resolution, the review calmly states it does'nt matter much, most people don't play at that resolution - and recommend ati now instead.
Whereas just prior, for MONTHS on end, when ati won only the top resolution, and NVidia took the others, this same site could not stop ranting and raving that ATI won it all and was the only buy that made sense.
It's REALLY SICK.
I pointed out their 30" monitor for ATI bias months ago, and they continued with it - but now they agree with me - when ATI loses at that rezz... LOL
Yeah, they're schesiters. Ain't no doubt about it.
Others notice as well - and are saying things now.
I see Jarred is their damage control agent.
JonnyDough - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
Why not just use RivaTuner or ATI Tool to underclock OC'd cards?Jamahl - Thursday, April 2, 2009 - link
How can the conclusion be that the 275 is the leader at the price point? The benchmarks are clearly in favour of the 4890 apart from the extreme end 2560x1600.