Discussion in 'AMD / ATI' started by Pop, Apr 7, 2009.
Where can I get one of those hats with out the sniff sniff part
Not fanboy, my point is valid.
Here's another just for you......... just to show I am fair!
Bleh I don't need anything nvidia. I have an AMD button up shirt, I just need a hat
Your point as far as this thread goes is immaterial IMO if the performance of the "re-branded" card (I agree with you by the way) matches the competition.
You could in fact therefore argue that a last generation re-branded card is still able to compete with a current gen card is a decent acheivement
Faster is faster. Practically every website that reviews the GTS 250 shows it outperforming the 4850 enough to outrule margin for errors.
I set you a challenge. Find a website where the ATI 4850 wins overall.
Thats a different point to this. In this case a new card is being looked for, not proving a older card can match a newer card. Which is very much what a GTS250 is, a old card matching a newer card. Couple those facts with that a GTS250 is pretty much maxxed when you take it out the box in regards to its GPU speed where the 4850 is far from maxxed on its GPU when you take it out of the box, the 4850 is by far the smarter choice. Clock a 4850 to a similar GPU speed as the GTS250 and watch the 4850 piss all over the 250 from very great height.
I agree the 4850 is the smarter choice, here in the UK the GTS250 still costs more, for similar performance. However, until I see a review, if one exists of an overclocked 4850 pissing over the 250 GTS then you are just guessing or speculating. To be frank the original 9800 GTX+ can compete and beat the 4850 with a 50/50 roll of a dice determines the victor, the GTS250 shouldn't have any issue keeping ahead.
In a few reviews I've seen the GTS250 has had up to a 20 FPS lead, even with the odd test competing with the ATI 4870.
I hate rehashing of cards too, but if it delivers the goods at a cheap price then I'm all in favour. The ATI 4890 is rehashed but I never see anyone giving it a bad stigma?
Erm.. theres a shitload of reviews where the 4850 is OCd. I'm yet to see a review that puts a GTS250 "up to 20FPS" faster than a 4850. bye-bye GTS250 (please don't start going on about the compare being against the 9800GTX+, we all know their the same card with similar clocks)
The 4890 is also not a re-hash, ATi have actually done more than just re-brand something and increase clockspeeds. The most obvious giveaway being the 4890 GPU has a extra 3 million transistors under its hood.
The HD4890 (R790) has a VERY MUCH improved manufacturing process allowing it to reach speeds of 1.3Ghz on the core. So, no its not a rehash. Its an improved product. GTS250 is a straight across the board rehash.
Indeed, apparently there is a ring of extra transistor count and it uses less power. Perhaps the 4890 wasn't the best example.
Interesting review. I would of liked to see the GTS250 in the review though. It is not ethical to show an ATI 4850 OC'd without a GTS 250 on the same graph.
Also you'd need an OC'd GTS 250 vs an OC'd 4850 for it to be ethical. (otherwise its like saying a OC'd GTS 250 is faster or competes with a 4870)
To be fair, the OP has not even mentioned that he overclocks, he may be one of the 95% that dont so all this talk of which clocks the best or is re-branded etc etc is not so important (to me), the bottom line is measurable performance, both cards are very similar, the GTS250 actually pips the HD4850 in most things but there is not enough difference to make the decision clearcut and IMO the only sensible thing to do is buy the cheapest!
Look closer, the 4850 @ stock beats the living crap out of the 9800GTX+
Who cares which card is clocked higher. A win is a win.
You are defending a card which is clearly slower. Why?
Fair enough, I'm willing to say the 9800 GTX+ is equivalent to the ATI 4850, 50/50 wins.
But the GTS 250 is sometimes margins ahead of the 4850, especially in newer games.
I run my HD4850 @ 750Mhz 24/7 and its doing fine. No Vmods or aftermarket cooling... just the plain card with the core cranked to 750Mhz. Been running at that speed for over 5 months btw... If I had a GTS250 I would do the comparison bench but I dont. Which gives me an idea... why not start a R770/R700 Batch Club or somthin... so maybe we can narrow down which batches clock better.
omfg. I gave you a link showing the 4850 is faster in a game, which most would probably agree on, is unbiased to both teams. Which thoroughly proves my point, the 4850 has the better architecture, which is no surprise considering its relatively new technology vs. technology thats as good as as old as the dinosaurs. Somebody has already pointed out that in regard to DX11 as well, the GTS250 is maybe 55% compatible, the 4850 almost 100%.
These reviews might be of interest, it shows the performance gap between the cards.
@ 2560x1600 the GTS wins by 18 FPS
@ 1680x1050 the GTs wins by 23 FPS
@ 1680x1050 the GTS 250 wins by 29 FPS
@ 2560x1600 GTS wins by 16 FPS
4850 looses at every resolution of Crysis Warhead
...the only game that favoured the 4850 was Fear 2
To be frank even the boring 9800 GTX beat the 4850. But they are equivalent still (wink, wink)
The HD4800 series was 100% compatible BUT some minor changes to the Tessellation requirements in DX11 changed that. However, the FirePro/FireGL cards based on the R700/R770 ARE DX11 compatible as the minor change that was made to the Tessellation unit was already present in the drivers/BIOS of the FirePro/FireGL cards. So, you may see a BIOS update for the HD4 series that gives it DX11 certification.
It was something about the math... like it could only figure textures within .75 Geometry and it needed to do it in .5. The hardware is capable of it, its just not all the TUs are up to par on doing it. Drivers could make up for it, but it may slow it down a bit.
Who in the hell are ninjalane? Sorry, I'm not going to accept results from a source where its results are questionable down to the fact vey few (probably nobody) on this forum have heard of them. I bet you didn't even know of them until you googled. Theres no way of being able to accurately determine if their biased to one side or the other, something you can do with a reasonable degree of accuracy with websites people DO know of, such as anandtech, TPU, thetechreport, overclockersclub, etc.
You are right ninjalane was a bad choice, they are a bunch of people out to spread false benchmark results all over the internet.
Even on "anandtech, TPU, thetechreport, and overclockersclub" the 4850 looses the majority of benchmarks still.
Even the image you posted shows the 4850 loosing
Ahh.. and the classic post when somebody can't use a credible well known source. I see your memory has also become very selective. Allow me to help you.
Pay attention to the points raised there now and try to take them in. Would hate for your amnesia to get any worse.
Indeed and I agreed that performance different is small
I even said so on post #4
However in the odd benchmarks it is more than just 2 FPS, sometimes up to 20 FPS between the two cards. - It still means the 4850 and GTS are equivalent, but it also gives more sway to purchasing Nvidia's opposing card.
Seems like you forgot your admitted sarcasm, perhaps you have a case of amnesia too?
Stop trying to prove who's penis is bigger and let the OP decide if he wants to spend more on a 250 that is faster, or a 4850 that is a mile cheaper.
Personally..the cash side of things would decide for me and I'd get the 4850 due to the 250 being more expensive.
I agree, apparently in the OP's situation the GTS 250 is $40 more than the 4850. Even here in the UK the GTS 250 costs more and hence financially the 4850 is the better choice.
However we have to recognise, performance wise, putting cost aside the GTS 250 is faster although both are still competitive with each other.
I'm just getting stick of people saying the "GTS 250 sucks because its just 9800GTX+". or "its just a rebrand dont touch it"
If the card is faster it is faster. If people dont like the cost get ATI's alternative, but performance wise I hate when it gets bashed for no good reason.
Separate names with a comma.