Printable View
Legit Reviews* did a nice review comparing the two rivals for the mainstream market.
In the end I think 9800GTX+ wins considering the OC capabilities (117Mhz core,~370Mhz Shaders,450Mhz mem) a better cooling solution and PhysX support but you judge the results.
The overclocking capabilities + physx support would be the reason I'd go for 9800GTX+ but that card is also expensier so to be fair these cards can't be compared in performance and features only, you pay for what you get.
I'm more interested in HD4870 and X2 results though. :)
Physx, while intriguing, is not something major game makers will implement without a viable solution for AMD based cards. If the benefits are so good, no game manufacturer is going to alienate and entire platform (AMD) from there games. The loss of revenue would be too great. You will probably find it more used for atmospheric parts of the game than anything else (certainly no online FPS game would dream of making there game nvidia only).
It would not surprise me if microsoft, within DX, becomes a standard for physics. this would allow all companies to produce physics and thus competition between them.
While the 9800GTX+ certainly looks a decent card, it is more of a knee jerk reaction to the 4850. It is basically there to piss on AMDs fire. It's low cost, plays games pretty much the same and is competitive to the 4850.
Over the coming months, you will see price reduction from Nvidia on it's top line cards, as they look increasingly expensive compared to AMDs offering (4870) in the next few weeks. Once that is out, expect the price to drop down a little as benchmarks of CF 4870 and the 4870x2 put it in a bad light.
Nvidia need a 55nm process soon on the GTX280, this will allow them to cut prices and have a viable option to the 4870x2. The 4870x2 will no doubt cause them great concern as they know, while a small market, performance leaders get far more publicity in the marketplace.
Nvidia currently have the performance crown but they certainly don't, currently, have the lead.
dam, an overclocked 9800gtx+ could give a stock 4870 a run for its money, and might even be approaching the gtx 260
I don't see this a clear win for either card. Turn up AA and/or use higher resolutions and the 4850 is on par with the GTX+ in a majority of the games they tested. I don't see the GTX+ as being a roadblock for the 4870 either.
I would suspect the 4850 to be a better overclocker, since it's the lower end chip in the family. Perhaps if they used ATI tool and manually set the fan to run at a higher RPM the 4850 would clock much better.
As it stands now, waiting for the 9800GTX+ would have cost me over $80 more than what I paid for my 4850. When I see a 9800GTX+ hit $149, then I'll consider comparing the two cards. That being said, both cards look to be excellent, and the only real losers in this game are the people who, not more than a month ago, overpaid for last generation cards.
The GTX + is not currently available in stores that I've seen as of yet. The 4850 is currently $149.99 at BB and newegg does offer a rebate, etc. Which places the 4850 as low as $90 price point from the GTX+. Therefore, price wise, the 4850 offers better bang for the buck.
Why is the OP stating Tech Report as the source but the link goes to Legit Review?
Edit: It's is corrected
In any case lets do a comparison of COD4 @ 1920 using 4xAA, 16xAF between Legit Review and Tech Report. From what I see in this example, the GTX 280 has a much higher score with the GX2, X2, 4850 having a lower score on Legit Review then on Tech Report. Now the test bed on Legit review is:
Intel Core 2 Quad QX9770 3.20GHZ
Gigabyte X38-DQ6
4GB Corsair PC2-9136C5
etc
Windows Vista Ultimate
etc
The test bed on Tech Report is:
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 3.0GHz
2 x Corsair TWIN2X20488500C5D
Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6
Windows Vista Ultimate x64 Edition
etc
LOL @nV, what a knee jerk reaction, shame on them. They release a card that consumes more power than previous 9800GTX just to catch up against 4850... :rofl: Link
Still, in hardware.fr review, they show how 4850 spanks 9800GTX+ when 4xAA is applied: Link
Why don't these reviewers bench 8xAA ? Maybe it's because the 9800GTX, 9800GTX+ and 9800GTX* and all its variants will loose miserabily ? :rolleyes:
4850 is already 71% faster than 9800GTX when using 8xAA, as shown here: Computerbase :shocked:
For god's sake, nV wants to make more money with a lame "refresh" of a 3 year old architecture, yet over again. :down:
I say it is all good news. kudo's for ATI for bringing the cost down on gameable hardware, not neutering the core except for clockspeeds and being early for a change. and Kudo's to Nvidia for following suite and getting more performace into the mainstream area. the mainstream no longer should need to drop resolution and all the eyecandy to play current titles.
Either card is a big improvement over what was in the sub $200 dollar market a year ago. and we all know if you build a strong mainstream card people are more likely to use your high-end cards later when they move up into better equipment. It will build strong bases for both companies.
just for an indication, with my limit in CCC being 700mhz I am less than 10% slower in maximum bench scores from my 3870X2 quadfire set-up Which was clocked at 950ish on each core (v-modded). when the utilities are out,( AMD GPU TOOL has been used already but it is still only in the hands of people with N.D.A.s) I expect the $350 dollar pair of 4850's in my rig to top 35k in o5 and approach 30k in 06. follow the HWbot link in my sig (click on the image) and you can see my scores, these little puppies fly.
How is that 71% ??? It's faster but not that much...Quote:
Originally Posted by jam2k
He's talking about the 1600 8XAA scores and they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
58,3 vs 100 ;)
@1600x1200Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
I'm bad in math... so i believe you. :p:
FANBOY ALERT!:yeppQuote:
Originally Posted by jam2k
Look at the scores,in some games Crysis etc.. both cards run the game misserably @ 1920x1200 4XAA and in others they are close or the framerate is over 60FPS and also there is Bioshock in which ATi scores 0FPS (bug or smth) with AA.
And the diffrence is 42% not 71%...:rofl:
As for the power consumtion,the diffrence is 1W Full Load and 12W idle,but you seem to don't care about PhysX,Temperature and OC potential
@ that resolution the old GTX actually wins over with (0.6% :)) ) over 4850.Quote:
Originally Posted by jam2k
Just move the mouse over the card you want, it'll do the math for you :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
That's FPS difference, not PERCENTAGE, for Christ sake ! :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by XS2K
100FPS is 71% percent more of 58.3FPS, got it now ?
Just move the mouse over the graph, to 9800GTX position.
haha, that actually is percentage genius, but it's still 71% faster than the gtx.
:eek: :shocked:
Well, just to show how the 9800GTX sucks at 8xAA.
And looks like they didn't fix the 8xAA hit in GT200, because the GTX280 is only 32% faster than 4850. ($650 vs $200) :clap:
And this needs its own thread..... ?
Nothing has been said here that hasn't been covered to death elsewhere :shrug:
That's exactly what I thought, nvidia could really be stabbing themselves in the foot a second time with another pre-mature/irrational launch - first was g92 being released as geforce 8 and screwing up geforce 9Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
also bear in mind, the 9800gtx drivers are very mature, don't expect them to get much better, if at all, however the 4850 drivers were just released, so expect a nice performance increase for the 4850 as drivers mature
nvidia got physx ati got cf.
because of we will not see sli in nehalem i think ati will be the final winner if they can compete with nvidia with this prices.
http://www.fell2earth.com/puzzles/detour.jpg
Let's try to keep this on topic and fanboy free. ;)
Perkam