HD4850 Vs. 9800GTX w/AA, review inside .

[OEGUSAndy]

280 gtx don´t really seems to have that big muscles only 28% faster than 4850 in gaming...

[lemonadesoda]

^^ if you take the table above as the "muscle test" benchmark, then the GTX280 is 39% faster (not 28%) than the 4850. That's not insignificant, since it is a bigger improvement over the 4850 (38.7%) than the 4850 is over the 3870 (31.9%)!

GTX280 >> 4850 than 4850 > 3870

[OEGUSAndy]

ok lets do it then.. we have to transform it in 182.9 base so:

100/182.9 *100 = 54.6 => 280 has 45.4% more muscle than 3870
next is 4850:
131.9/182.9 * 100 = 72.1 => 280 has 27.9% more muscle than 4850

comparing 4850 and 3870 in base 131.9(4850 base)
100/131.9 * 100 = 75.8 => 4850 has 24.2% more muscle that 3870

GTX280 >> 4850 than 4850 > 3870 your point is correct but not really acurate because we have to utilise or 260 GTX or 4870 that woult be only fair.

Andy

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by OEGUSAndy

ok lets do it then.. we have to transform it in 182.9 base so:

100/182.9 *100 = 54.6 => 280 has 45.4% more muscle than 3870
next is 4850:
131.9/182.9 * 100 = 72.1 => 280 has 27.9% more muscle than 4850

comparing 4850 and 3870 in base 131.9(4850 base)
100/131.9 * 100 = 75.8 => 4850 has 24.2% more muscle that 3870

GTX280 >> 4850 than 4850 > 3870 your point is correct but not really acurate because we have to utilise or 260 GTX or 4870 that woult be only fair.

Andy

You did it wrong or must I say you interpreted it wrong. By your calculations (i.e 54.6) the HD3870 has 45.4% LESS muscle than the 280 and not the other way. Just compare 75 and 100 numbers to a baseline of 50 annd then the other way around.

100/50 * 100 = 200% >> 100 is double of 50, right.

75/50 * 100 = 150% >> and 75 is 50% more than 50, right again

YOUR way:

50/100 * 100 = 50% >> 100 is 50% more than 50, WRONG

50/75 * 100 = 67% >> 75 is 33 % more than 50, wrong again.

EDIT: Anyway IMO both RV770 and GT200 (as well as faster G92 cards) are performing less in games than what their actual performance is. The higher you go in the stack the bigger the impact is, lesser the performance compared to it's full potential. This is because most games are using engines 5 years old!! Almost all engines used in the games are based on Doom3, Source and UE2. Even Unreal Engine 3 is very little more than a revamped UE2 really. Take into account those engines and games were created with consoles in mind that use technology almost 8 years old!! With more horsepower, with unified shaders in the case of the Xbox but rather old nonetheless.

EDIT2: Uff I exagerated a bit. I thought Radeon 9700 was of around year 2000. Sometimes the time doesn't pass as fast as we could first think, but there's been so many cards in between...

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

^^ your wish is my command


WOW. Big change in stats. LOL

nvidia must be enjoying this

After a second thought, the results in fact should be the same. The difference is probably in the rounding, but WOW the difference is big. Almost 5% in the case of the GTX280!

guys this is not a stats class, everything is going over my head . LOL .

[OEGUSAndy]

DarkMatter i think both are correct. It depends of the viewer. In the chart that lemonadesoda did, i would use as a baseline 280GTX as 100% then you could really see the diferencte in %. But using 3870 is the same thing only diferent perception.

Andy

Edit:

Originally Posted by wolf2009

guys this is not a stats class, everything is going over my head . LOL .

Youre tottaly right. We should wait one week or so and with all the data we should do it again. Then will se. Wee could do it with price performance and everyone will se it. The best worst buy

[Megasty]

Originally Posted by wolf2009

guys this is not a stats class, everything is going over my head . LOL .

They're just doing what NV & AMD did with their respective propaganda. Taking a baseline as the 3870 & using the other cards as a 100+ percentile over that. It doesn't work unless you use each card as a baseline & then work a percentile scale for the other cards. Trying to compare the 4850 & GTX280 from the 3870 only works in dunt-da-dunt land. I didn't spend half my life in a classroom for nothing

[EastCoasthandle]

I took the data from the 9800 GTX, Ultra, and 260 to allow for a better comparison.

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by Megasty

They're just doing what NV & AMD did with their respective propaganda. Taking a baseline as the 3870 & using the other cards as a 100+ percentile over that. It doesn't work unless you use each card as a baseline & then work a percentile scale for the other cards. Trying to compare the 4850 & GTX280 from the 3870 only works in dunt-da-dunt land. I didn't spend half my life in a classroom for nothing

I am not doing anything. I'm just correcting a conception that is inevitably wrong. As I said in the above 100 is 100% more or double of 50, 50 is 50% of 100 and/or 50% less than 100 too, 100 is NOT 50% more than 50, that's 75. Period.

[lemonadesoda]

Originally Posted by Megasty

I didn't spend half my life in a classroom for nothing

I think you just did. ROFL

[Megasty]

Originally Posted by DarkMatter

I am not doing anything. I'm just correcting a conception that is inevitably wrong. As I said in the above 100 is 100% more or double of 50, 50 is 50% of 100 and/or 50% less than 100 too, 100 is NOT 50% more than 50, that's 75. Period.

I'm just saying if you want to compare the 4850 & GTX280 by indexing them then use the 4850 as 100%. The first chart w/o the indexing has nothing wrong but the indexed chart is just comparing the other cards with the 3870. I'm only saying this because I made the same mistake on a research paper back in the day & the GD professor tore it up in my face

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

I think you just did. ROFL

My 4hr work days & my bank account says differently

[Azazel]

man..i cant wait for the 4870x2

[lemonadesoda]

1./ The 4850 "is a" 9800GTX overall, with a small +/- in any ONE game
2./ The 4850 is 31.9% faster than the 3870
3./ The GTX280 is 39.1% faster than the 4850

[lemonadesoda]

Originally Posted by Megasty

My 4hr work days & my bank account says differently

I believe in job sharing LOL Gimme gimme
P.S. So long as you arent in finance... that's OK... or there will probably be another banking crisis coming if you're at the helm. LOL
P.P.S. I cant believe you guys are making me recut these numbers. Nothing has changed by more than a few marginal % (less than a driver update IMO). But anyway, there you go.

[Megasty]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

1./ The 4850 "is a" 9800GTX overall, with a small +/- in any ONE game
2./ The 4850 is 31.9% faster than the 3870
3./ The GTX280 is 39.1% faster than the 4850

...& that's the answer That 4850 is a fighter. Even if its a small sample size, the overall difference between it & the 9800GTX are nil. Increasing the number of games will only yield the same results. Everyone is going nuts over how CF is beating the GTX280 when it actually should do much better than that. It also means that CFx still scales like garbage

[Ravenas]

Those cards are cheap enough. Go ahead and buy 2 or 3 guys

[Disruptor4]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

Interesting test report. Here's a summary:



3./ STILL cannot play crysis at 1920x1600. OMG what's wrong with that game? LOL

Performance and scaling in Crysis is poor. Don't expect much to run it.
This is a post on another forum:

If they had done what they said they were going to do, Crysis would have been fine.

Crysis does not run on computers 3 years old. It barely runs on computers that are 3 days old.

I could put my settings on 800x600, no AA, everything low, and i would still get lag in multiplayer, with an 8800GTX and an overclocked Quad core. They failed to deliver on performance scaling and that was it's biggest downfall, because hardly anyone could play it, or would put up with the terrible frame rates with no second option.

I made this sarcastic picture to send to a friend back when the BETA was on. It still holds true today:

[OEGUSAndy]

I wonder what image will have with some mature drivers from Ati. Time will tell.

Originally Posted by Ravenas

Those cards are cheap enough. Go ahead and buy 2 or 3 guys

Not yet. I would say that the smarthest thing is to wait till August till the 4870x2 gets out and then decide.

[Megasty]

Originally Posted by OEGUSAndy

I wonder what image will have with some mature drivers from Ati. Time will tell.

Not yet. I would say that the smarthest thing is to wait till August till the 4870x2 gets out and then decide.

Never Hell its been 4 friggin months for the 3870x2 & its still getting noticeable performance increases. That PLX chip is bottlenecting the hell out of that thing. The subtle increases are coming from the drivers allowing data to move move efficiently through the PLX

The 4870x2 won't have that problem but its architecture is still an experiment which will see stupid performance increases from 2 yrs down the line

[lemonadesoda]

I'm updating the table to include the 1600x1200 results from w1z. If anyone spots any mistakes in the table, let me know.

(UPDATED)



GTX280 averaging 49.2% 38.7% faster than 4850. Big drop due to bizarre Quake4 results

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

I'm updating the table to include the 1600x1200 results from w1z. If anyone spots any mistakes in the table, let me know.

Hmm Wizz's results are a lot more favorable to both new cards than the other one.

EDIT: It's a lot more favorable to soposedly faster cards, not only new ones. Kind of fits with my previous claim of system bottleneck?

[yogurt_21]

it seems like this will definetly be the cad to buy at 200$ we'll see how the 4870 come in on price/performance but thus far from what I'm seeing we finally have something that beats the 8800gt in that category.

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by yogurt_21

it seems like this will definetly be the cad to buy at 200$ we'll see how the 4870 come in on price/performance but thus far from what I'm seeing we finally have something that beats the 8800gt in that category.

8800 GT is a lot cheaper AFAIK. The price is more on the line of the GTS, this one being overpriced due to the lack of compentence. They will come down, while I would expect Radeon prices to go up. It's a better buy at $200 anyway if only because of the power consumption and noise. Temps are way too high on the other hand, hopefully fan speeds can be turned up easily.

[yogurt_21]

Originally Posted by DarkMatter

8800 GT is a lot cheaper AFAIK. The price is more on the line of the GTS, this one being overpriced due to the lack of compentence. They will come down, while I would expect Radeon prices to go up. It's a better buy at $200 anyway if only because of the power consumption and noise. Temps are way too high on the other hand, hopefully fan speeds can be turned up easily.

price/performance ie 200$/performance index vs the 8800gt's 170$/performance index. thus far the 4850 easily has a better ratio.