• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

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

OEGUSAndy

New Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
78 (0.02/day)
Likes
1
#26
280 gtx don´t really seems to have that big muscles :) only 28% faster than 4850 in gaming...
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,374 (1.55/day)
Likes
983
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
#27
^^ 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

New Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
78 (0.02/day)
Likes
1
#28
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
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.46/day)
Likes
182
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
#29
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...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.46/day)
Likes
182
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
#30
^^ 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!
 

OEGUSAndy

New Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
78 (0.02/day)
Likes
1
#32
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:
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

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
1,263 (0.36/day)
Likes
81
Location
The Kingdom of Au
Processor i7 920 @ 3.6 GHz (4.0 when gaming)
Motherboard Asus Rampage II Extreme - Yeah I Bought It...
Cooling Swiftech.
Memory 12 GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer - I Love Red
Video Card(s) ASUS EAH4870X2 - That Fan Is...!?
Storage 4 WD 1.5 TB
Display(s) 24" Sceptre
Case TT Xaser VI - Fugly, Red, & Huge...
Audio Device(s) The ASUS Thingy
Power Supply Ultra X3 1000W
Software Vista Ultimate SP1 64bit
#33
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 :p
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
6,885 (1.49/day)
Likes
1,501
System Name MY PC
Processor E8400 @ 3.80Ghz > Q9650 3.60Ghz
Motherboard Maximus Formula
Cooling D5, 7/16" ID Tubing, Maze4 with Fuzion CPU WB
Memory XMS 8500C5D @ 1066MHz
Video Card(s) HD 2900 XT 858/900 to 4870 to 5870 (Keep Vreg area clean)
Storage 2
Display(s) 24"
Case P180
Audio Device(s) X-fi Plantinum
Power Supply Silencer 750
Software XP Pro SP3 to Windows 7
Benchmark Scores This varies from one driver to another.
#34

I took the data from the 9800 GTX, Ultra, and 260 to allow for a better comparison.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.46/day)
Likes
182
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
#35
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 :p
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.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,374 (1.55/day)
Likes
983
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
#36

Megasty

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
1,263 (0.36/day)
Likes
81
Location
The Kingdom of Au
Processor i7 920 @ 3.6 GHz (4.0 when gaming)
Motherboard Asus Rampage II Extreme - Yeah I Bought It...
Cooling Swiftech.
Memory 12 GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer - I Love Red
Video Card(s) ASUS EAH4870X2 - That Fan Is...!?
Storage 4 WD 1.5 TB
Display(s) 24" Sceptre
Case TT Xaser VI - Fugly, Red, & Huge...
Audio Device(s) The ASUS Thingy
Power Supply Ultra X3 1000W
Software Vista Ultimate SP1 64bit
#37
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 :D

I think you just did. ROFL
My 4hr work days & my bank account says differently :D
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
3,204 (0.88/day)
Likes
155
Location
London, UK
System Name Azazel 2.5
Processor Intel Core i5 3570K
Motherboard Asus P8Z77-V
Cooling Corsair Hydro Series H80i
Memory Kingston 16GB DDR3 1600MHz HyperX Genesis
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 670 FTW Sig 2 2GB
Storage Kingston 120GB HyperX + WD 1TB Caviar Black Hard Drive
Display(s) Samsung SM2032BW 20"
Case Corsair Vengeance C70 Black
Audio Device(s) Xonar DG
Power Supply Corsair TX 750W PSU
Software Windows 7 64bit
#38
man..i cant wait for the 4870x2
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,374 (1.55/day)
Likes
983
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
#39


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
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,374 (1.55/day)
Likes
983
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
#40
My 4hr work days & my bank account says differently :D
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.
 

Attachments

Megasty

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
1,263 (0.36/day)
Likes
81
Location
The Kingdom of Au
Processor i7 920 @ 3.6 GHz (4.0 when gaming)
Motherboard Asus Rampage II Extreme - Yeah I Bought It...
Cooling Swiftech.
Memory 12 GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer - I Love Red
Video Card(s) ASUS EAH4870X2 - That Fan Is...!?
Storage 4 WD 1.5 TB
Display(s) 24" Sceptre
Case TT Xaser VI - Fugly, Red, & Huge...
Audio Device(s) The ASUS Thingy
Power Supply Ultra X3 1000W
Software Vista Ultimate SP1 64bit
#41


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 :respect: 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 :ohwell:
 
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,715 (1.22/day)
Likes
354
Location
Tennessee
System Name AM3+
Processor AMD FX-8350 @ 4715.73 MHz (23.5*200.63 MHz)
Motherboard ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard
Cooling AMD 8150 Factory Water Cooler
Memory Corsair XMS3 16 GB 1333 MHz PC3-10666 240-Pin DDR3
Video Card(s) ASUS ROG MATRIX-R9290X-P-4GD5 Radeon R9 290X 4GB 512-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0
Storage SanDisk Ultra II 480GB, INTEL SS DSC2BW240A4, Western Digital WDC WD50 00AAKX-003CA0
Display(s) Acer S211HL bd 21.5-Inch Widescreen Ultra-Slim LED Display - Black
Case COOLER MASTER Elite 335 Upgraded RC-335U-KKN1 Black Steel / Plastic ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
Power Supply Corsair RM Series 850 Watt ATX/EPS 80PLUS Gold-Certified Power Supply - CP-9020056-NA RM850
Software Windows 10.0 Pro 64 Bit
#42
Those cards are cheap enough. Go ahead and buy 2 or 3 guys :)
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
231 (0.07/day)
Likes
23
System Name Uh, my build?
Processor Intel Core i7 3770k 3.5GHz (3.9GHz turbo)
Motherboard Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H (F8 BIOS)
Cooling Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo
Memory G.Skill 8GB DDR3 1600MHz CL9
Video Card(s) Gigabyte Radeon HD7970 3GB 1GHz Core/5.5GHz Memory
Storage SanDisk Extreme Pro 960GB & 2TB WD Black & 1TB WD Green
Display(s) 1x Samsung 23" Syncmaster P2350 1x LG 23"
Case Coolermaster HAF X
Audio Device(s) Onboard now since store didn't RMA properly
Power Supply Corsair HX 850W
Software Win 10 Pro 64bit
Benchmark Scores 3DMark 11 - P8456 - http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3372758
#43
Interesting test report. Here's a summary:



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

New Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
78 (0.02/day)
Likes
1
#44
I wonder what image will have with some mature drivers from Ati. :) Time will tell.
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

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
1,263 (0.36/day)
Likes
81
Location
The Kingdom of Au
Processor i7 920 @ 3.6 GHz (4.0 when gaming)
Motherboard Asus Rampage II Extreme - Yeah I Bought It...
Cooling Swiftech.
Memory 12 GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer - I Love Red
Video Card(s) ASUS EAH4870X2 - That Fan Is...!?
Storage 4 WD 1.5 TB
Display(s) 24" Sceptre
Case TT Xaser VI - Fugly, Red, & Huge...
Audio Device(s) The ASUS Thingy
Power Supply Ultra X3 1000W
Software Vista Ultimate SP1 64bit
#45
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 :cry: 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 :rolleyes:

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 :wtf:
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,374 (1.55/day)
Likes
983
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
#46
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
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.46/day)
Likes
182
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
#47
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?
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
5,102 (1.18/day)
Likes
1,255
Location
AZ
System Name Thought I'd be done with this by now
Processor i7 4790K 4.4GHZ turbo currently at 4.6GHZ at 1.16v
Motherboard MSI Z97-G55 SLI
Cooling Scythe Mugen 2 rev B (SCMG-2100), stock on gpu's.
Memory 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series DDR3 2400MHZ 10-12-12-31
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 760 Superclocked replaced HIS R9 290 that was artifacting
Storage 1TB MX300 M.2 OS + Games, 4x ST31000524NS in Raid 10 Storage and Backup, external 2tb backup,
Display(s) BenQ GW2255 surprisingly good screen for the price.
Case Raidmax Scorpio 668
Audio Device(s) onboard HD
Power Supply EVGA 750 GQ
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores no one cares anymore lols
#48
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.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,714 (0.46/day)
Likes
182
Processor Intel C2Q Q6600 @ Stock (for now)
Motherboard Asus P5Q-E
Cooling Proc: Scythe Mine, Graphics: Zalman VF900 Cu
Memory 4 GB (2x2GB) DDR2 Corsair Dominator 1066Mhz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) GigaByte 8800GT Stock Clocks: 700Mhz Core, 1700 Shader, 1940 Memory
Storage 74 GB WD Raptor 10000rpm, 2x250 GB Seagate Raid 0
Display(s) HP p1130, 21" Trinitron
Case Antec p180
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi PLatinum
Power Supply 700W FSP Group 85% Efficiency
Software Windows XP
#49
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.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
5,102 (1.18/day)
Likes
1,255
Location
AZ
System Name Thought I'd be done with this by now
Processor i7 4790K 4.4GHZ turbo currently at 4.6GHZ at 1.16v
Motherboard MSI Z97-G55 SLI
Cooling Scythe Mugen 2 rev B (SCMG-2100), stock on gpu's.
Memory 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series DDR3 2400MHZ 10-12-12-31
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 760 Superclocked replaced HIS R9 290 that was artifacting
Storage 1TB MX300 M.2 OS + Games, 4x ST31000524NS in Raid 10 Storage and Backup, external 2tb backup,
Display(s) BenQ GW2255 surprisingly good screen for the price.
Case Raidmax Scorpio 668
Audio Device(s) onboard HD
Power Supply EVGA 750 GQ
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores no one cares anymore lols
#50
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.