Gamers looking to spend some $250 on a brand new graphics card were given two new options last month when ATI unleashed their Radeon HD 4890 and Nvidia countered with the GeForce GTX 275.

Today we will put both cards to the test and find out which is faster in a wide range of games using the latest drivers. We will also be looking at their maximum overclocked performance to help you decide which is the best value option for enthusiasts and PC gamers alike.

Read the full article at:
http://www.techspot.com/review/164-r...eforce-gtx275/

Please leave your feedback here. Thanks!

Was really looking forward to a comparison review of those two; Great job and terrific article!

But I have to ask, why did you use Dead Space for the stress test? everyone knows Furmark can truly stress a GPU at 100% and it's also more consistent as well.

Thanks for the feedback!

Dead Space or any first person shooter for that matter will keep the GPU at 100% load constantly. 3Dmark drops off between scenes.

I said FurMark... it has nothing to do at all with Futuremark's benchmarking software, even though it has the 'Mark' moniker.

Here's some quick info about FurMark:
And... no; only Crysis manages to get near the 100% load, and that using extreme settings. I know there was an article somewhere about this, but I forgot where and I'm kinda lazy now.
Dead Space is probably one of the worst examples since it doesn't even need strong GPUs @ maxed settings.

Ahh sorry I miss read. Yes Furmark is very good and we do also use it. That said we have also noticed that games tend to get the same power load results and the same operating temperatures and since most gamers play games and not Furmark we like to use the games. That said the results are cross referenced with tools like Furmark and ATItools for example.

alrighty, im curious to see where in the hell you are comming up with these benchmarks for crysis warhead. i have a amd phenom II 920 with 4gigs of ddr2 1066 ram and a ati hd4830. i run crysis warhead on all gamer settings, aka high settings for crysis. and i average 30fps in 1920 x 1080. So now lets get back to where your hd 4870x2 is only running at 32fps. hmmmmmmmm and your 4890 is only 28fps hmmmmmm once again. Are you trying to run the cards on a nvidia north bridge with no drivers installed or what? Once again terrible reviews of these cards. now if you are meaning enthuesist settings when you say high for warhead. then its alittle closer to reality. Is your test platform a pentium 4? but pls you can let me know how you came up with those benchmarks. oh and my system is all stock no overclock. i over clocked my card to 690 and 1020 and i averaged almost 40fps in all gamer with half of my settings on enthuesist. Im just so mind boggled i guess i have a unique 4830 that out performs 4870x2's and stuff. Have a nice day and maybe try and get it right next time.

Oh and i forgot to add that i am running windows vista 64bit with dx10

As of when you've posted, the latest ATi Drivers are 9.6 and the latest nVidia ones are 186.18 WHQL. The ones used in the review were both Beta drivers, so any anomaly that occurs with them is strictly because they're Beta.

If you would've paid more attention, Crysis, which uses the same engine as Warhead, has different performance numbers. Also, for Crysis, the graph shows 4xAA and the HD4890 wins, so it's pretty clear that there's something wrong with the Catalyst driver.

Why do you feel like bashing? the specs were clearly stated... did reading this review hurt your fan boy ego too much?

Well said Captain, its sad when people tarnish the guest account like that

Still if I was going to make such an outrageous comment I would want to do it anonymously as well.

Anyway it’s fun to compare oranges and apples.

What card was the GTX 260? Was that a core 216? The stock original nVidia GTX 260? Need more info!

We dropped the original GTX 260 as soon as the 216SP version was introduced.