Quake3World

whats the story?...

i dont know but u see those jewel gif?

Get the 280 OC2, ya cheap fuck.

it's not for me...a friend...

lol aids...

LawL wrote:lol i got aids...see...

You sure do.

aww...lawl is about to cry...how cute...

overthetop.

scared? wrote:aww...lawl is about to cry...how cute...

lol at how owned/upset you are...



[/quote]

don't fret...i blocked u on utube...so u can't harass us anymore with ur upsetness...lol?...

Goof thinks everyone's out to get him...lol @ victim paranoia...

scared? wrote:it's not for me...a friend...

260.... nigga.

That's fucking sick!

4870.
or go with the 280.

but not the 260 if its the only other choice.

4870.. It seems to be slower, but a little more elegant and reliable than the new NVIDIA stuff. I haven't looked much beyond the initial reviews, though.

is the geoffs kid?

Dave wrote:4870.. It seems to be slower, but a little more elegant and reliable than the new NVIDIA stuff. I haven't looked much beyond the initial reviews, though.

What kind of bullshit arguments are those, though.
It's slower. End of discussion where it concerns video cards. Cranking out the most fps is all I want from a card.
More reliable? It's not like nvidia is notorious for buggy cards, is it.
And where does elegance come into the picture?

is it faster or slower cuz i keep seeing conflicting reviews?...

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=13

Faster for crysis. In fact, as I look through that article, it benchmarks above the 260 in about everything.

Look at the COD4 benchmark.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=14

Where is all this about the 260 being faster? I looked a a shitload of benchmarks before building my last system, and wasn't going to shell out the $$$ for a 280, that being the case, the 4870 was cheaper than the 260 at the time, and benchmarked above it.

Plan B wrote:

Dave wrote:4870.. It seems to be slower, but a little more elegant and reliable than the new NVIDIA stuff. I haven't looked much beyond the initial reviews, though.

What kind of bullshit arguments are those, though.
It's slower. End of discussion where it concerns video cards. Cranking out the most fps is all I want from a card.
More reliable? It's not like nvidia is notorious for buggy cards, is it.
And where does elegance come into the picture?

They aren't total bullshit arguments because it isn't slower by the benchmarks I've seen. Faster and more elegant.

reliable, stable, solid... all these can be understood one way or another.
But 'elegant' needs to come with a definition when you're talking about v-cards.

I don't know. I'm just saying if its more elegant, its also faster. Even if its not more elegant, its faster.

But is it more reliable and easier to deal with in the long run? I've run both nvidia and ati. Had good luck with both, but more reliability and better driver support with nvidia. Currently running a 9800 gtx and damn pleased with it for $200. My next move will probably be a GTX 280 or whatever is available when I can't run the games I want to play. I have no problem now.

I've had no problems with any ATI card I've ever owned. My last card was a BFG nvidia card, but before that I put ATI in every machine I built almost because it was usually more bang for the buck.