Sapphire HD 4890 Toxic / Vapor-X

[W1zzard]

To read this review go to: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/S...Toxic_Vapor-X/

Please Digg the review to help us promote it.

[Castiel]

Thanks W1zz! Man this card is awesome. Screams BEAST!

[vanyots]

How come it beats GTX275 in all resolutions except 1024x768, and lags in the combined performance graph?

[newtekie1]

Looks like a very nice card, sad that even at 960MHz it still can't top a stock GTX275 though and costs more...

[Paintface]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Looks like a very nice card, sad that even at 960MHz it still can't top a stock GTX275 though and costs more...

you get the best air cooling available in return

[ZoneDymo]

Why on earth is 6pin + 8pin a good thing?

[W1zzard]

Originally Posted by ZoneDymo

Why on earth is 6pin + 8pin a good thing?

potentially higher power delivery potential. there are enough adapter cables included to even work with older psus

[erocker]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Looks like a very nice card, sad that even at 960MHz it still can't top a stock GTX275 though and costs more...

What graphs are you looking at? It beats the GTX 275 and 280 in just about everything. It definitely does when overclocked. This is the first Toxic review I've seen where the core can't hit 1000 on stock voltage. I also paid considerably less money for my card than a GTX 275 sells for.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Paintface

you get the best air cooling available in return

The cooler on this card is not, IMO, the best air cooling available. The Vapor-X is nothing more than a flat heatpipe used as the base of the cooler. And no cooler that pushes hot air back into the case can be considered the best air cooler available. IMO, the best stock air cooler I've ever seen come on a card was the original GTX280/260 cooler.

Originally Posted by erocker

What graphs are you looking at? It beats the GTX 275 and 280 in just about everything. It definitely does when overclocked. This is the first Toxic review I've seen where the core can't hit 1000 on stock voltage. I also paid considerably less money for my card than a GTX 275 sells for.

This graph, the one showing the GTX275 outperforming the HD4890 Toxic overall.

And the 1% overclock isn't going to help the HD4890 any, and remember this is a stock GTX275 that has plenty of overclocking headroom left in it also.

As for price, the HD4890 Toxic is going for $270 on newegg right now, a GTX275 goes for $220. That is $50 less for a better performing card. I don't know what you got your card for, but I can only go by what prices are available to me.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

The cooler on this card is not, IMO, the best air cooling available. The Vapor-X is nothing more than a flat heatpipe used as the base of the cooler. And no cooler that pushes hot air back into the case can be considered the best air cooler available. IMO, the best stock air cooler I've ever seen come on a card was the original GTX280/260 cooler.



This graph, the one showing the GTX275 outperforming the HD4890 Toxic overall.

And the 1% overclock isn't going to help the HD4890 any, and remember this is a stock GTX275 that has plenty of overclocking headroom left in it also.

As for price, the HD4890 Toxic is going for $270 on newegg right now, a GTX275 goes for $220. That is $50 less for a better performing card. I don't know what you got your card for, but I can only go by what prices are available to me.

The only problem I have with the relative performance graph is the GTX 275 beats the 4890 at lower resolutions (by 1%) and that doesn't really matter for a high performance card. If you use those lower resolutions, neither card is the right choice. Man, Newegg jacked up the prices. I paid $230 shipped for mine from ewiz. So, I suppose I have to agree with you, if a GTX275 is $220, and a 4890 is $270, fifty bucks isn't worth it for performance that the human brain can't differentiate between.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by erocker

The only problem I have with the relative performance graph is the GTX 275 beats the 4890 at lower resolutions (by 1%) and that doesn't really matter for a high performance card. If you use those lower resolutions, neither card is the right choice. Man, Newegg jacked up the prices. I paid $230 shipped for mine from ewiz. So, I suppose I have to agree with you, if a GTX275 is $220, and a 4890 is $270, fifty bucks isn't worth it for performance that the human brain can't differentiate between.

For the difference between the two cards(be it the HD4890 Toxic being 1% better or worse, I'll just say the two are equal), even if you can get the HD4890 Toxic for $230, it isn't worth going for over the GTX275. The GTX275 is still $10 cheaper, and has more overclocking headroom.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

For the difference between the two cards(be it the HD4890 Toxic being 1% better or worse, I'll just say the two are equal), even if you can get the HD4890 Toxic for $230, it isn't worth going for over the GTX275. The GTX275 is still $10 cheaper, and has more overclocking headroom.

Then, I challenge any GTX 275 user to go head to head with me in some benchmarks. Maybe I should just ditch the 260 in my other rig and get a 275 to find out myself?

[Blacklash]

Guess I got lucky with mine.

I have never seen over 65C load and am more often closer to 60C. That's in a SilverStone TJ10 case. It idles @ 43C with all system fans on low.

http://img35.imageshack.us/i/clipboard01epu.jpg/

I've had the core up to 1050 and I have to keep the fan on blow dry to do that. It does 1000|1100 fine @ 38% fan speed though.

As far as beating a 275 goes the below round up shows an HD 4890 @ 925 on the core and one @ 1000 on the core often matching or passing a 275 @ 713 on the core. They tested the EVGA FTW card in that round up.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...re-xfx-13.html

If you want the fastest single GPU on the market that's going to be the EVGA GTX 285 FTW, and it's going to cost you.

[trt740]

Originally Posted by Paintface

you get the best air cooling available in return

http://www.arctic-cooling.com/catalo...ath=2_&mID=101

na this is better but the best factory installed cooling , the toxic does have that.

[MrAlex]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Looks like a very nice card, sad that even at 960MHz it still can't top a stock GTX275 though and costs more...

OK what the hell are you on about? At 1920x1200, the Toxic beats the GTX 275 11 times, while the GTX 275 only beats the Toxic 5 times.

[intel igent]

nice review W1zz! thnx

here in Canada the green team card's are a GOOD deal more than the red team so it only make's sense

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by MrAlex

OK what the hell are you on about? At 1920x1200, the Toxic beats the GTX 275 11 times, while the GTX 275 only beats the Toxic 5 times.

Look at the overall chart, the GTX275 beats the Toxic.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Look at the overall chart, the GTX275 beats the Toxic.

At lower resolutions which basically negates the argument. Why buy either card for lower resolutions? What does it matter anyway as both cards will run everything at any settings. I think people get caught up too much in a few FPS.

[Paintface]

Originally Posted by erocker

At lower resolutions which basically negates the argument. Why buy either card for lower resolutions? What does it matter anyway as both cards will run everything at any settings. I think people get caught up too much in a few FPS.

he has to justify his purchase, dont mind him

[MrAlex]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Look at the overall chart, the GTX275 beats the Toxic.

OK...the graphs show that the Toxic beats the GTX 275 3 times out of 5.
Anything else no point in buying the cards then.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by Paintface

he has to justify his purchase, dont mind him

Lol, so do I, I guess! Really though, you can't go wrong with either card as by the amount one beats out the other is miniscule.

[intel igent]

i still think ATi has better quality GFX than Nvidia

i will trade a few FPS for better quality anyday

can we really tell the difference between 35FPS and 37FPS?

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by erocker

At lower resolutions which basically negates the argument. Why buy either card for lower resolutions? What does it matter anyway as both cards will run everything at any settings. I think people get caught up too much in a few FPS.

Look at the graphs broken down by resolution, the top two resolutions tested: 1680x1050 and 1920x1200

The two cards are virtually even. No point in paying a dime more for either card. Right now, even if I assume you can get the Toxic for $230 like you say, the GTX275 for $10 cheaper is a better buy. $10 is $10, if you can get the same performance and save $10 I say do it. I'm not caught up in a few FPS, to me the cards are equal, I'm caught up on the $$$.

Originally Posted by Paintface

he has to justify his purchase, dont mind him

You mean I have to justify my purchase of the HD4890? I don't really get how that makes sense in the context.

Originally Posted by MrAlex

OK...the graphs show that the Toxic beats the GTX 275 3 times out of 5.
Anything else no point in buying the cards then.

The two cards are equal in my eyes, and I'll quote myself:

Originally Posted by newtekie1

...I'll just say the two are equal...

Originally Posted by erocker

Lol, so do I, I guess! Really though, you can't go wrong with either card as by the amount one beats out the other is miniscule.

That is my point here, it isn't about which performs better, as they are both so close it won't matter, but the Toxic being more expensive and having no overclocking head room makes the GTX275 a better option.

Originally Posted by intel igent

i still think ATi has better quality GFX than Nvidia

i will trade a few FPS for better quality anyday

can we really tell the difference between 35FPS and 37FPS?

I use both, I certainly can't tell the difference in IQ between the two. I've read articles where they freeze frame the game and zoom in so far both images look completely pixelated, and you can't even tell what you are looking at, and some say ATi is better and others say nVidia is better. Personally, I don't freeze frame in the middle of my games and press my face against the monitor...

[btarunr]

GTX 275 wins this round. All this card manages is a 1% overclock (in the review), and ends up providing 1.7% performance boost with it. Compare that to say a Zotac GTX 275 AMP. AMD partners shouldn't be putting in so much of development, only to end up matching a GTX 275 at its stock speed. Spend the same $270 on a Zotac 275 AMP, EVGA 275 SSC, BFG 275 OC2, etc. instead. Or you could give this a look.

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

The cooler on this card is not, IMO, the best air cooling available. The Vapor-X is nothing more than a flat heatpipe used as the base of the cooler. And no cooler that pushes hot air back into the case can be considered the best air cooler available. IMO, the best stock air cooler I've ever seen come on a card was the original GTX280/260 cooler.



This graph, the one showing the GTX275 outperforming the HD4890 Toxic overall.

And the 1% overclock isn't going to help the HD4890 any, and remember this is a stock GTX275 that has plenty of overclocking headroom left in it also.

As for price, the HD4890 Toxic is going for $270 on newegg right now, a GTX275 goes for $220. That is $50 less for a better performing card. I don't know what you got your card for, but I can only go by what prices are available to me.

1%, mine is currently running at 1100mhz I also got a very good deal, it cost me £20 less than my Palit GTX275 but I did buy that the week they were released. To be fair, it only did 1050mhz out of the box, I tweaked the volts using rivatuner to get the extra 50mhz.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showth...=93433&page=14

I only installed this Toxic yesterday and I havent really had any time to make comparisons between this and my 275, TBH, visually i cant really tell any difference in IQ although at my age the old spotlights arent what they used to be .