4850 vs 9800GTX+

[cowie]

well i tried to make this point before,you have to see on your OWN rig
i think the 98gtx+ is the winner hands down too but i dont want to start the brickering blah blah stuff.
its not like i go around calling the 4850 card a pos
whats so bad about toms?

[insurgent]

well i tried to make this point before,you have to see on your OWN rig
i think the 98gtx+ is the winner hands down too but i dont want to start the brickering blah blah stuff.
its not like i go around calling the 4850 card a pos
whats so bad about toms?

I have this opinion that tom's testing is questionable, and it's shared by a lot of people, anyway techpowerup is better IMO:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/S...D_4850/26.html

So looking at that we learn that the GTX+ is faster by 2% than stock 4850 but this is somewhat skewed by the low resolution results and we also have to consider the margin of error. We also have the idea that the "+" gives you 3% more performance than the older 9800GTX which gets you how far in a game? It just so happens that ati is not as petty as nvidia, I mean, they could release a 4850+ or something and I'm glad they haven't, one childish company is enough but who knows.

Now the Max OC result is still up in the air as these threads turn into flame wars with a lot of talk, hence me asking for posted benches and choosing to ignore just plain words. Driver quality argument is bs, build quality argument is bs. Step Up is cool, but it's just another gimmick to separate you from your money more quickly. Stock cooler of 4850 is not enough for XS members, but we got plenty of non-reference cards already that's the same price as the stock ones. It all comes down to warranty, support and price (MIR sucks btw).

Hell I'll be generous and let's assume the GTX+ is 10% faster, that's 3fps in a 30fps game or 10fps in a 100fps game.. wow?

[JS1234]

Hell, im just thinking about waiting a month or two (or whenever the time comes) for a 4870 to be closer to $200. I have already seen some on sale for around 250. Not for long though.

So im guessing the 9800GTX+ vs 4850 question is just dumb because they're basically the same?

What is the 4850 supposed to go up against? The GTX260? (Just guessin here) But the GTX260 looks clearly better (and for a price).

And can anyone actually confirm the ASUS voiding warranty thing if you remove the cooler? I mean that's really the only thing that would be stopping me if i was to go out and buy one today.

[gOtVoltage]

To quote him, "Review links and real life are two different things.." and you show Tom's testing?

He said the GTX+ is hands down better,I'm curious to see his results, show me the benches because I wanna know by how much, it's a fanboy thing. He's not going to own me by showing the GTX+ is really better, it just adds to the data, spewing bs and fud does not.

And the DVI thing, it's possibly Nv drivers corrupting the edid so yeah, ati has worse drivers.

CCC and POWERPLAY and Overclocking limits along with single slot Overheating ,,shouldnt that help determin the overall performance rating,,..

Im no Nvfanboy ,just because im showing the negative things many people do experiance . Even fan profile/overheating still not 100%fixed...8.10 may fix that at least from what the beta is showing.

Speed wise ,,you really cant tell between the two cards while gaming except for AA and thats even hard to do. So all the review sites are wrong that show the GTX+ does pull more FPS on average in most GAMES/ reviews vs 4850 except when using 8xAA.

I know AA/AF goes to the 4850 hands down even with brighter/vivid color with same res..
The GTX+ in almost every Game and or Bench performs except for 8XAA you wont tell the differance speed wise,,


Price wise ,,ATI 4850 its a steal...
Superb DVD playback
Nice dispaly/Color
I never said it wasnt a good card.
"I simply showed the several..problems that are common with ATI ATM and heat is a issue with single slot slution."


The GTX+ is more user friendly. It does have a price increase over 4850 and the GTX+ also lacks 8xAA at the Higher resolution.

Coming from ATI fanland i find this Odd,
Some people believe ATI drivers and the 4850 have no problems

Real life ..
4850 is affected more so than a 3870 ,4870, .
I can put the 3870x2 and even the GTX+ into the same machine with out any problem back to back with driver installs. The 4850 just has a wierd DVi/HDMi buggyness. Several 4850's i have tried and settled on a ASUS.

Ive tested with,, Even Vista64bit 9600BE/M2N32 Sli deluxe,,XP32bitSP3 9950BE/TA770 ,,Xp64X2-6000+/K9N,, All running systems i have up .

4850 ASUS replaced my 1st and second Sapphire 4850(stockheatsink non toxic) and both did the same crap on each sytem using 8.7/8.8 whql's and betas alike.. Was gonna crossfire them with new GX..Sometimes no output or blanking screen during gaming and Overheating /fan profile,, including limited overclocking with WHQL driver 750/2300. Until i used a MCW60 and ramsinks along with AMDGPuclock tool to unlock GPU past 800.

Beta's worked beter but DVi output was still a problem along with the card not running 75HZ when it was set to it..the 8.8/8.9 Cat drivers would default it to 70HZ with 4850 but 3870x2 had no problem.

Despite pci-e 1.0 or 2.0.. the DVI/HDMI was Clearly driver and 4850 related. This wasnt PSU or impropper driver installs .No it wasnt the EDID display detection /No corruption from the Nvida card. Both 3870x2 and GTX+ can run same Monitor with out any problems,each system also has a 600watt+ PSU or better.

last,
A few links of common buggyness.

Noticed the AA jaggies too with 8.8whql..
Another reason i used 8.522.2beta,,it fixed problems for AA even in older games like Tomb raider Legends and CSS.
http://forums.amd.com/game/messagevi...&enterthread=y

HDMI/DVI..this also happened to me with 8.7/ 8.8 / 8.9whql still not fixed

http://forums.amd.com/game/messagevi...&enterthread=y


One of the best 4850 reviews.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=191096

Note:
There was a small Bios problem and became a slight recall/return for vendors/sales . BBA vendors/sales of Sapphire places like(ComputerCentral)had to send back cards and wait for shipment during the month of July. Some bios faulty cards are still out there by Sapphire..I know first hand and had to return a few.
Other companies ,like Visiontek and ASUS have bios updates on line for them..

Hmm people deciding same thing..
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums...ic_id=26562941


You know the 4850 price is the main factor...its 50/50 toss up
at least you have all the dirt now..

8.10 may fix DVI/HDMI and the fan.

P.s. I will run some games when i get back from Bakersfield.

[insurgent]

You know no one here is saying you're calling the 4850 a bad card, not me anyway, and this is one of the more annoying things in XS; putting words on somebody else's mouth. I said show some benches and I got walls of text... twice. Both brands have driver bugs and then it's a matter of hoping for a fix in a month, or 3 months. We can throw links at each other or we can just learn something useful instead with those benches. And stop with the single slot cooling.. really it just reinforces your bias, there are loads of non-reference cards out. I'm sure you're no fanboy, you're just being too defensive right now. Oh and "fanland" haha, nice.

If you want to discuss drivers why don't you share your input here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messagev...VIEWTMP=Linear

In the end, both have problems and both sides will just claim victory for either side, kinda like the presidential debate.

Edit: opinion of the graphics editor (Derek Wilson)

Here's the thing --

In order to get the gamer what he or she wants, a company would need to test all of their hardware to make sure things simply work and regression test all games from the past couple years with that hardware. This is never going to happen.

Both AMD and NVIDIA cut major corners.

AMD has multiple driver trunks, and a rotating schedule of only about 2 dozen titles for regression testing that do not repeat within something like 6 months to a year. If one driver breaks something, it will be at least two months until it gets "fixed" for real (as the next month might not exhibit the same problem, but it also won't necessarily be based on the same code). If one game is dropped from the regression testing schedule, it could break in one driver and not be caught for a very long time (or until reviewers start to complain about it).

We run into the problem a lot, especially with crossfire scaling, of things that used to work not working and then when we point it out, all of a sudden we've got a beta driver with a fix. It's just because AMD dropped that title from their regression testing. Over time they hit a lot of titles, but this is an optimization that does cause issues.

Because you can't have monthly WHQL drivers with the latest features on the latest hardware all regression tested on everything everyone could want to play. There isn't enough time there to do all the necessary QA. All the driver has to do is pass Microsoft's WHQL testing ... which is easier than actually working in all relevant games.

NVIDIA does something else --

They don't always test all their hardware every cycle. We'll see beta drivers tested completely first on high end hardware or newly released hardware. Older stuff is left out of testing, so we have divergent driver versions necessary for different classes of hardware. Since NVIDIA uses a unified model (at the moment), all drivers should work on all hardware, but if it hasn't been released to support a specific card then that means it hasn't been QA'd on that card.

NVIDIA regression tests with many more titles per WHQL release, but at the same time, there is much more time between WHQL releases. This gives them a longer period to look at more things, but at the same time stuff can stay broken for longer.

If all this stuff is really interesting, I could take some time and talk to AMD and NVIDIA again (we've had this discussion with them before) and I could do a write up about it explaining the pros and cons of both approaches.

Frankly, from my perspective, monthly WHQL is just a marketing tool ... it makes people feel better. But NVIDIA's approach isn't necessarily better -- it's just different.

[gOtVoltage]

Thanks for your Honesty...
I can be stuborn and overly persistant some times,goes along with me age hahaaa.

I can post some results when i get back...Hmm funny i actually got mad a little/ more so frustrated(didnt think i was explaining my View correct)

Yes i did over type a bit ..It seems lots of people lately including me kinda jump the gun with Videocards. .Ill most likly use COD4 and Crysis ... Warhead and Bioshock could be possiable when my brother returns my Cd's...

Both cards are great and have = differances for most part.

The 4850 is the $cheapest$ but in no way Cheap on perfomance.

P.S. ill have to but heads in that link

[Nasgul]

I have this opinion that tom's testing is questionable, and it's shared by a lot of people, anyway techpowerup is better IMO:

Basically what you're saying is that: Those that prove/show that the 4850 isn't better? Are questionable and therefore it does not count, just what's your opinion?

Here, take another one besides tom: http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont...13&pageid=3184

Don't forget, that's an overclocked 4850 vs a GTX+ at stock speeds.

[insurgent]

Thanks for your Honesty...
I can be stuborn and overly persistant some times,goes along with me age hahaaa.

I can post some results when i get back...Hmm funny i actually got mad a little/ more so frustrated(didnt think i was explaining my View correct)

Yes i did over type a bit ..It seems lots of people lately including me kinda jump the gun with Videocards. .Ill most likly use COD4 and Crysis ... Warhead and Bioshock could be possiable when my brother returns my Cd's...

Both cards are great and have = differances for most part.

The 4850 is the $cheapest$ but in no way Cheap on perfomance.

P.S. ill have to but heads in that link

I'm really interested on those results.

Basically what you're saying is that: Those that prove/show that the 4850 isn't better? Are questionable and therefore it does not count, just what's your opinion?

Here, take another one besides tom: http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont...13&pageid=3184

Don't forget, that's an overclocked 4850 vs a GTX+ at stock speeds.

What I'm saying is, let's refrain from using Tom's as a source regardless of the results but you can read my post anyway you like.

[AKM]

Techreports comparison

[jam2k]

No doubt the 4850 was a kick in the middle of nV's balls ...

And they didn't even test 8xAA

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

Basically what you're saying is that: Those that prove/show that the 4850 isn't better? Are questionable and therefore it does not count, just what's your opinion?

Here, take another one besides tom: http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont...13&pageid=3184

Don't forget, that's an overclocked 4850 vs a GTX+ at stock speeds.

first thing I have to say to that is 3-ghz proc for testing isn't a so good, but passable, although I guess it wasn't xtremesystems benchmarking

no AA

8xAA


for the 9800gtx+ you see a 12 FPS loss, the 4850 is less than 6 FPS loss.

unfortunately Hardspell wasn't good enought to force 8x AA in the other games, if they did you would have seen similar performance gap increases wit the 4850 taking the lead in every one.

[JS1234]

damn forget the 4850 and GTX+.....LOOK!

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.p...1&promoid=1078

argh i want to buy it....

Think there are going to be any other revisions out this year?

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

oh damn, nope, no other revisions this year, 230 CAD$ is a steal!!!!

[JS1234]

oh damn, nope, no other revisions this year, 230 CAD$ is a steal!!!!

Yeah but it's a "Palit" and it looks like it basically has no warranty other then the stores.

[onethreehill]

damn forget the 4850 and GTX+.....LOOK!

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.p...1&promoid=1078

argh i want to buy it....

Think there are going to be any other revisions out this year?

I just bought the 1GB version
What do you hope to see in the "new" revisions?