Latest News Posts

Social
Latest Forum Posts

ATI Radeon HD 4890 & NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
Bookmark and Share

ati_hd_4890_nvidia_gtx_275_article_logo.jpg
Print
by Rob Williams on April 3, 2009 in AMD-Based GPU, NVIDIA-Based GPU

It’s not often we get to take two brand-new GPUs and pit them against each other in one launch article, but that’s what we’re doing with ATI’s HD 4890 and NVIDIA’s GTX 275. Both cards are priced at $249, and both also happen to offer great performance and insane overclocking-ability. So coupled with those and other factors, who comes out on top?

Call of Duty: World at War

While some popular game franchises are struggling to keep themselves healthy, Call of Duty doesn’t have much to worry about. This is Treyarch’s third go at a game in the series, and a first for one that’s featured on the PC. All worries leading up to this title were all for naught, though, as Treyarch delivered on all promises.

To help keep things fresh, CoD: World at War focuses on battles not exhaustively explored in previous WWII-inspired games. These include battles which take place in the Pacific region, Russia and Berlin, and variety is definitely something this game pulls off well, so it’s unlikely you’ll be off your toes until the end of the game.

For our testing, we use a level called “Relentless”, as it’s easily one of the most intensive levels in the game. It features tanks, a large forest environment and even a few explosions. This level depicts the Battle of Peleliu, where American soldiers advance to capture an airstrip from the Japanese. It’s a level that’s both exciting to play and one that can bring even high-end systems to their knees.

At each one of our resolutions, NVIDIA manages to come out on top, and also beats out what was NVIDIA’s top-end card last summer, the GTX 280. The per-vendor performance differences are far more impressive on the ATI side of things though, where we can see the HD 4890 sky-rocket up past the HD 4870 1GB.

Graphics Card
Best Playable
Avg. FPS
NVIDIA GTX 295 1792MB x 2
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 8xAA
90.283 FPS
NVIDIA GTX 285 1GB x 2
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 8xAA
63.401 FPS
Zotac GTX 295 1792MB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 8xAA
52.461 FPS
Palit HD 4870 X2 2GB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 8xAA
37.825 FPS
NVIDIA GTX 285 1GB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA
41.510 FPS
NVIDIA GTX 275 896MB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA
39.998 FPS
Palit GTX 280 1GB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA
38.192 FPS
Sapphire HD 4890 1GB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA
34.094 FPS
XFX GTX 260/216 896MB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA
32.723 FPS
ASUS GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512MB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA
34.596 FPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 1GB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA
34.192 FPS
Diamond HD 4870 1GB
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA
30.372 FPS
Sapphire HD 4830 512MB
1920×1200 – Max Detail, 0xAA
40.157 FPS
Sapphire HD 4670 512MB
1920×1200 – Max Detail, 0xAA
28.101 FPS

Since both of the cards here performed well at 2560×1600, our best-playable settings mimic what’s seen in the final graph above. NVIDIA’s card was noticeably better, but nothing was lacking where the HD 4890 was concerned.