Quote Originally Posted by daseto View Post
baiting? fanboyism? Where did i do any of that? Is there a problem that i actually know about what has changed with each itteration of the G92 core and the top end card that it sits in? The 8800GTS was a sweet card but power hungry. The 9800GTX was the refresh of the 8800GTS which was a clock speed bump by adding another power connector and making it suck down more juice. The 9800GTX+ was another refresh that did only a clock speed and mem speed bump, and a few manufactures (one i know as evga) managed to get the pcie connectors down to one. Then comes the GTS 250, where it is another clock speed bump with the power connector back down to 1, the pcb shortened and a few other small changes in the power subsystem.

All you have is a company getting the most out of its gpus. It got premium price for the 8800GTS and the 9800GTX and GTX+ when they first came out, and now that the GTS 250 is out it is selling in the $100-$150 range for both the 512mb and 1gb versions which only the GTS 250 has, the latter refreshes were at 512mb only.

Im not saying the 4850 is a bad card, it was the better choice when it was competing against the 9800GTX and the GTX+ simply because it drew less power, ran cooler, and mainly edged those cards out in benchmarks. The GTS 250 shifts things to its favor now that it runs cooler, draws less power and edges out the 4850 in benchmarks. If you see a GTS 250 getting trounced real bad, it is more than likely the reviewers turned on the physx option. When you find a review that has that turned off, the GTS 250 then swaps victories in games with the not winning as many 4850 which is what is supposed to happen with cards that are similar in performance.
If you look at BEEF's post up there, the HD4850 wins in performance over the GTS 250, as well as having better power consumption. I don't see how you call Anand an ATI-biased site since it's given performance crowns to both Nvidia and ATI in the past.