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

[erocker]

Not really, we you are "comparing cards" keeping in mind generations. Compare price VS value. I dont care if i am buying a "generation card" for more or less, all i would care is erformance/price.

Yes sir you are completely correct in my book! There are "the fringe" that care only about performance vs. performance, but when it comes down to the average consumer it's all about price vs. performance.

 

[yogurt_21]

Not really, we you are "comparing cards" keeping in mind generations. Compare price VS value. I dont care if i am buying a "generation card" for more or less, all i would care is erformance/price.

the 3850 didn't launch at 120$ it launched at closer to 200$ taking a peek around the 4850 can be had as low as 170$ so yest it really is the replacement for the 3850 the 4870 will launch closer to 300$ and will likely be found as cheap as 260$ at some places which puts it close to where the 3870 launched. you can't compare launch price to year old price. lol

 

[yogurt_21]

I knew it will happen. 8x vs. 4x AA is not the same as 4x vs. 0x AA. 14% is not the same as 50%. Not going to say anything more.

you're not making much sense here. both cards were ran with the same settings. so I really don't see where you're going with this.

 

[DarkMatter]

you're not making much sense here. both cards were ran with the same settings. so I really don't see where you're going with this.

My claims that going above 4x AA on high resolutions doesn't make much sense are a lot more legitimate than those to which you were comparing. Same with the performance differences, now we are talking about much smaller differences..

 

[rockfella]

It is strange and also nice how HD4850 scales so well as screen size increases!

 

[btarunr]

Ok, the OC does help the GTX+ out.

Do you still need more power input (2x 6-pin)?

 

[yogurt_21]

My claims that going above 4x AA on high resolutions doesn't make much sense are a lot more legitimate than those to which you were comparing. Same with the performance differences, now we are talking about much smaller differences..

gonna have to ask for some screenies, I listed 1280x1024 with 8x aa, wanna show me 1280x1024 with 4x aa that looks as good ? 1680x1050 I notice a difference between 4x and 8x, perhaps you're screen is in need of updating. and I definetly notice a difference between 0aa and 4x aa. I mean seriously this is exactly what the ati fanboys were saying when the 2900 didn't fare so well, yet I seem to recall the normal people showing them that IT DOES matter. we dont buy these cards to not turn on the pretties. that'd be like getting an xbox 360 to play pong. it's ridiculous to say "ooo I don't like ati so I'm going to find any victory they have and say it doesn't matter because nvidia rules." the 4870x2 will likely beat the gtx280 and the nvidia fanboys say "ooo but it takes 2 core to do it" wtf does that have to do with the rice in china? the 4850 beats the 9800gtx with aa on and the nvidia fanboys say "oooo but aa doesn't matter" and thats the same nvidia fanboys who were saying aa was everything when the 2900 couldn't run it well. the 4870 will compete against the gtx260 and if it beats it the nvidia fanboys will say "ooo but the gtx 260 is cooler"

I mean seriously it's like you're hanging on to an argument that was disproven just so you can discredit one company over another. imo it's dumb and childish. if aa didn't matter, aa reviews wouldn't be included, no games would support it and no cards would use it. IT DOES MATTER. which is why it is included and it's why the 2900 was such a bad buy. not because the 2900 lagged so far behing the 8800's in normal detail settings, but because it absolutely failed with the details turned up. the 9800gtx now sits in that same situation and just as the 2900 was it's a bad buy right now. before the 4850 launch it wasn't, with the 4850 out it is. It happens get over it.

 

[DarkMatter]

gonna have to ask for some screenies, I listed 1280x1024 with 8x aa, wanna show me 1280x1024 with 4x aa that looks as good ? 1680x1050 I notice a difference between 4x and 8x, perhaps you're screen is in need of updating. and I definetly notice a difference between 0aa and 4x aa. I mean seriously this is exactly what the ati fanboys were saying when the 2900 didn't fare so well, yet I seem to recall the normal people showing them that IT DOES matter. we dont buy these cards to not turn on the pretties. that'd be like getting an xbox 360 to play pong. it's ridiculous to say "ooo I don't like ati so I'm going to find any victory they have and say it doesn't matter because nvidia rules." the 4870x2 will likely beat the gtx280 and the nvidia fanboys say "ooo but it takes 2 core to do it" wtf does that have to do with the rice in china? the 4850 beats the 9800gtx with aa on and the nvidia fanboys say "oooo but aa doesn't matter" and thats the same nvidia fanboys who were saying aa was everything when the 2900 couldn't run it well. the 4870 will compete against the gtx260 and if it beats it the nvidia fanboys will say "ooo but the gtx 260 is cooler"

I mean seriously it's like you're hanging on to an argument that was disproven just so you can discredit one company over another. imo it's dumb and childish. if aa didn't matter, aa reviews wouldn't be included, no games would support it and no cards would use it. IT DOES MATTER. which is why it is included and it's why the 2900 was such a bad buy. not because the 2900 lagged so far behing the 8800's in normal detail settings, but because it absolutely failed with the details turned up. the 9800gtx now sits in that same situation and just as the 2900 was it's a bad buy right now. before the 4850 launch it wasn't, with the 4850 out it is. It happens get over it.

Blah blah blah.

4x antialiasing is relevant, more than that no. No at high resolutions and definately not in mainstream cards (chances are someone looking into sub $200 segment doesn't ave the best screen out there). Even reviews don't use more than that even when 6x and 8x has been available for many years. You can argue as much as you want, and bring in the same old and FALSE argument of fanboism. The truth is that both cards perform well, it is not me the one jumping to any oportunity to claim any superiority of one company over the other. The release of this card doesn't make G92 cards obsolete and that is what I'm saying. Ati is back on the game again and that is good, but in way is owning as every Ati fan is so fast to try to point out, that's all. It's funny how I didn't saw you saying so cathegorically that AA matters. On the other hand I have not changed of opinion, AA at higher resolutions is not very important for me (more than 2x) and is not for many people, in fact every Ati R600/670 owner shouldn't be so concerned if they chose that cards. What has changed in the last moth that makes AA so important? Ah, yes...

BTW GT200 can do AA better, did you brought the argument then, no? Well...

 

[lemonadesoda]

You have to agree with DarkM on this. While 16x AA is, in theory, better than 4x AA, the difference is very hard to notice unless you "investigate" a static screen. In action MP you really will not notice any quality difference at all. Other than a performance hit. And quality gains become even less noticable as the resolution of the TFT scales up, and pixel density increases. In theory, if we had 3200x2400 19" screens we wouldnt need 4x AA at all.

4x AA has killed most of the jaggies. It's hard to quantify the improvement using any numbers. Only a subjective interpretation of what you see. But the result is that 16x AA has a huge processing requirement for a very very marginal gain. And I mean very very very marginal.

In theory, we could demand 64x AA and 64xAF. But I think we would all agree that was nonsense. So we've established the principle. Decreasing "quality returns" on exponentially increasing AA and AF. So where is the best bang for the buck? Somewhere around 4x AA.

 

[yogurt_21]

Blah blah blah.

4x antialiasing is relevant, more than that no. No at high resolutions and definately not in mainstream cards (chances are someone looking into sub $200 segment doesn't ave the best screen out there). Even reviews don't use more than that even when 6x and 8x has been available for many years. You can argue as much as you want, and bring in the same old and FALSE argument of fanboism. The truth is that both cards perform well, it is not me the one jumping to any oportunity to claim any superiority of one company over the other. The release of this card doesn't make G92 cards obsolete and that is what I'm saying. Ati is back on the game again and that is good, but in way is owning as every Ati fan is so fast to try to point out, that's all. It's funny how I didn't saw you saying so cathegorically that AA matters. On the other hand I have not changed of opinion, AA at higher resolutions is not very important for me (more than 2x) and is not for many people, in fact every Ati R600/670 owner shouldn't be so concerned if they chose that cards. What has changed in the last moth that makes AA so important? Ah, yes...

BTW GT200 can do AA better, did you brought the argument then, no? Well...

bla bla bla all I see here is someone failing to point out one card's advantage over another which seems to indicate a bias. the 9800gtx is a decent card, but once the details are turned up it fails to compete with the 4850 which btw is cheaper. and no not everyone has a big screen, which is exactly my point with 1280x1024 in which aa matter more. I'll post up some pics when I get home. but at 1280x1024 aa matter just as I see a differentce at 1680x1050. you can argue all you want. but I intent to bring proof. you can do the same for all ic are, maybe then you'll actually take alook at the issue rather than pointlessly disagreeing based off of your own whim.

 

[KainXS]

bla bla bla all I see here is someone failing to point out one card's advantage over another which seems to indicate a bias. the 9800gtx is a decent card, but once the details are turned up it fails to compete with the 4850 which btw is cheaper. and no not everyone has a big screen, which is exactly my point with 1280x1024 in which aa matter more. I'll post up some pics when I get home. but at 1280x1024 aa matter just as I see a differentce at 1680x1050. you can argue all you want. but I intent to bring proof. you can do the same for all ic are, maybe then you'll actually take alook at the issue rather than pointlessly disagreeing based off of your own whim.

your right in the fact that aa seems to like the 4850 more but when I try to go from 4x to 8x, i really fail to notice a significant difference on my monitor.

 

[DarkMatter]

bla bla bla all I see here is someone failing to point out one card's advantage over another which seems to indicate a bias. the 9800gtx is a decent card, but once the details are turned up it fails to compete with the 4850 which btw is cheaper. and no not everyone has a big screen, which is exactly my point with 1280x1024 in which aa matter more. I'll post up some pics when I get home. but at 1280x1024 aa matter just as I see a differentce at 1680x1050. you can argue all you want. but I intent to bring proof. you can do the same for all ic are, maybe then you'll actually take alook at the issue rather than pointlessly disagreeing based off of your own whim.

All I see here is a person unable and unwilling to undersand a simple thing, with a big desire (only God knows why) o start a flame war. Others have undertood the point. Don't be silly continuing with the nonsense.

BTW screenshots mean NOTHING. Yeah let's take some screenies, open them up on PS and zoom in 8X. Then get our face 2 inches away from the monitor and "Oh yeah definately 64x AA is INDISPENSABLE.

You didn't catch my simple point in the first place so here it is: HD4850 is A LOT better once we use 8x AA, FACT(I could say it's even 4x times faster if that makes you sleep better), point is tht even if it was 100 times faster at 8x AA, since at 4x AA is barely faster it doesn't matter for the mayority of people buying a card in that price segment. It will only depend on price/performance/reasonable quality settings, period.

 

[yogurt_21]

uh huh, I figured you'd opt out of real research. and it's not just 8x aa in question here the card is 14% faster in 4x aa at 1280x1024 menaing there are going to be situations where a 9800gtx user has to run without aa to get reasonable frames and the 4850 user can run with it. there is no zoom on I'm merely looking a building, some cars, and a powerline in hl2 episode 2.

1280x1024 no aa menu

1280x1024 no aa shot

1280x1024 4x aa menu

1280x1024 4x aa shot

1280x1024 8x aa menu

1280x1024 8x aa shot

I have 1650x1080 ones will will upload them on request. note that there are jpegs and quality will drop from the originals. jaggies on cars buildings and powerline may not amtter to you, but to me it matters so much so that I'll overclock my card before I'll drop details. there are many other like me. it's the whole reason most poeple overclock (other than the 3dmark score hounds) to be able to play at a higher detail level without buying a new card. the 4850 can handle higher levels of aa at higher frames than the 9800gtx can. take the screenies as you will, but there's no way you can tell me that aa doesn't matter. not that I gave any weight to your opinion in the first place. lol

 

[DarkMatter]

OMG I'm not going to spend even 1 more minute to read your crap above. WE ALL KNOW in this forum what AA is and how it affects the picture. We all can use those settings on our PC, we don't need some screens posted here to see how it looks. :shadedshu

 

[yogurt_21]

lmao and yet you seem to think it pointless. somehow I'm seeing a disconnect between your logic on aa and your understanding of it.

 

[snapper]

darkmatter is right. I own a hd 4850 and a 8800gts 512 and at 1600x1200 there is no diff in benchmark scores. Both are overclocked ,but the 4850 only overclocks to 645/1013, while the 8800 overclocks to 810/ 1030 mem.The 4850 blow out hot air like a 1200w hairdryer inside the case,(no kidding). I love the fact it is only a single slot,but i'm going with the 8800gts,(44 degree idle, compaired with the 4850's 75 degree idle).SO if you want to buy a one day old 4850,I'll sell it for $170

 

[btarunr]

darkmatter is right. I own a hd 4850 and a 8800gts 512 and at 1600x1200 there is no diff in benchmark scores. Both are overclocked ,but the 4850 only overclocks to 645/1013, while the 8800 overclocks to 810/ 1030 mem.The 4850 blow out hot air like a 1200w hairdryer inside the case,(no kidding). I love the fact it is only a single slot,but i'm going with the 8800gts,(44 degree idle, compaired with the 4850's 75 degree idle).SO if you want to buy a one day old 4850,I'll sell it for $170

Mind giving us GPU-Z validations of the 645/1013 for HD4000 and 810/1030 for the 8800GTS?

 

[snapper]

I've got the 4850 card in my computer now,and gpu-z only reads 500/750 unless i have a load on it.Any idea how to display it without a game playing?

 

[From_Nowhere]

Disable ATI PowerPlay. It will prevent it from down-clocking.

 

[btarunr]

I've got the 4850 card in my computer now,and gpu-z only reads 500/750 unless i have a load on it.Any idea how to display it without a game playing?

Download the latest GPU-Z, validate it.

 

[snapper]

I have a GA-MA78GM-S2H ati based motherboard and was hoping the 4850 was going to make a difference because i need a slot for my tv tuner. But for me the two cards are a toss up.The 8800throws out less heat(in the case), but consumes more power.I would love to keep the hd4850, but when i overclock it just a little, it shuts down in the first 5 min of the game.(I returned one 4850 already because i thought it was defective).I have not tested both at stock, but I would say the 4850 would beat out the 8800 easy.I do overclock ,so that is why I would go with the 8800(plus the heat the 4850 throws out) It's HOT!

 

[btarunr]

Validate your HD4800 at any setting, even if it runs at 1 MHz.

 

[snapper]

Btarunr,thanks for your help it worked.Now just let me know how to paste gpu z here

 

[btarunr]

Btarunr,thanks for your help it worked.Now just let me know how to paste gpu z here

Don't paste. Don't need to. Use the validation tab, submit, you get a validation number. Put up that number.

Here's mine: http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/a38uu/

 

[snapper]

9k4e8