AMD HD 4850 or 8800GT?

2nd : physx, It could amount to nothing but considering im poor and may have to live with this card for the next 3years I didnt want to take the chance that I would be without it.
Considering how weak, in GFLOPs, the GTX260 is, I expect you'll be running graphics at "low" or at low resolution (i.e. less than 1920x1080) in order to get any use from the "physics".

Currently buying a single card for physics is a worse prospect than buying an 8800GTX to play D3D10 games, before any of them were released. Remember how that worked out?

I can't help think that with NVidia's currently available cards the only viable configuration is 1 card for graphics and 1 card for physics.

Jawed
 
i could see an overclocked 8800gt beating a 4850
look here theyre quite close (close enough that an overclock could make the difference)
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/compare,735.html?prod%5B2065%5D=on&prod%5B2074%5D=on&prod%5B2116%5D=on

score go from (roughly) +25% to -25% for the 4850vs 8800gt
That assumes linear performance scaling with clockspeed, also all but one test is at 4x fsaa, the RV770 is designed for 8x fsaa to be used like all the time since there is usally a very small performance hit going from 4-8x fsaa
Also isnt the G92 said to be bandwidth straved? I know the core of the G92 can clock quite high but depending on the board you get the memory might not overclock as well so the high core clocks may not translate into that much extra performance.
Btw, as I stated earlier in thread, I do NOT like tomshardware, or more aptly named, tomsbiasware.
 
Currently buying a single card for physics is a worse prospect than buying an 8800GTX to play D3D10 games, before any of them were released. Remember how that worked out?


Jawed

no, i play at 1680 with a 8800gts lost planet and bioshock are fine

i could use the 8800gts for physx but id rather not as it uses a lot of power and puts out a fair amount of heat, maybe a better idea would be to pick up a cheap 8400 or something depends how much horsepower physx needs 1 person quoted that a 8400 was better at physx than a ppu
 
no, i play at 1680 with a 8800gts lost planet and bioshock are fine
:LOL: My point was about "features", not performance. Particularly the "NVidia sponsored" D3D10 games provided what can best be described as almost pointless D3D10 options. CoJ is an honourable exception (though with a heavy performance penalty).

It's been a big yawn so far.

Why should the first couple of years of PhysX games be different?

Jawed
 
Ahh, im with you now and I agree dx10 "isnt all that"


"Why should the first couple of years of PhysX games be different?"
They might not be, but ive played some physx enabled games and it does add to the experience imho the price difference is only £20 and for that amount of money im prepared to take the chance even if im wrong its not like the gtx260 is a bad card

imho i took a bigger gamble getting a quad core a 2.4 core2 duo would of been more than £20 cheaper and I dont regret that purchase even though games using 4 cores are few and far between

pluse the gtx260 I ordered has a 10year warranty the longest warranty on a 4870 i could find was 3years
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm questioning "entire games". What studio, within the next couple of years, is going to produce a game for profit that's dependent upon the player having GPU-accelerated physics (i.e. unplayable without)?

Anyway, you've ordered, so we can let the thread get back on topic. PhysX related diversions are only a notch up from trolling in my view, so I suppose I should apologise for taking the bait :oops:

Jawed
 
I wasnt trolling just giving my reasons for switching from "i would 100% get an ati card" to "i would 100% get a nv card"

the thread starter faces the same dilema sacrifice something (money or performance) for having physx. depends on what his views are about it
 
i could see an overclocked 8800gt beating a 4850
look here theyre quite close (close enough that an overclock could make the difference)
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/chart...tml?prod[2065]=on&prod[2074]=on&prod[2116]=on

score go from (roughly) +25% to -25% for the 4850vs 8800gt


Like mine for example ;)

http://img528.imageshack.us/my.php?image=8800gtocxpw9.jpg

http://www.guru3d.com/article/bfg-geforce-9600-gt-ocx-and-8800-gt-ocx-review/10

My GT is now clocked at 750MHZ core, 1920 shader and 2100 mem so mine would be faster still :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wasnt trolling just giving my reasons for switching from "i would 100% get an ati card" to "i would 100% get a nv card"
I agree you weren't trolling - just stating that I think the subject of PhysX tends to have a horrible effect on threads and I wish I hadn't bothered.

Jawed
 
Like mine for example ;)

http://img528.imageshack.us/my.php?image=8800gtocxpw9.jpg

http://www.guru3d.com/article/bfg-geforce-9600-gt-ocx-and-8800-gt-ocx-review/10

My GT is now clocked at 750MHZ core, 1920 shader and 2100 mem so mine would be faster still :D

And of course a 4850 o/c would most definitely beat any 8800gt that ever came about. You can't mix apples and oranges :). You have to compare them non-o/c or o/c, but not mixed.

The 4850 is clearly the winner hands down. It's cheaper, faster, and has newer technologies built-in. I'm not sure how much you can really compare the two cards really, as most have responded to here have said.
 
That particular graph is also using an underclocked 4850 given that it was a pre-release board that should never have been given for review and its only operating the memory at 900MHz.
 
That is the *exact* PSU I have (VX550) :) Excellent choice. Runs my E8400 @ 4GHz (500x8) and my 8800 GT @ 700/1688/1980 24x7. The 450W version is probably the best PSU in its class, but for the negligible price difference I'd go for the 550.

Don't take chances with a crappy PSU and high-end, high-draw hardware - you only stand to lose in that scenario. Best-case is you don't fry anything other than the PSU (and you WILL fry your PSU if you try to use a decent graphics card).

As for which 4850 brand to buy - TBH it really doesn't matter, in my experience. They're all reference designs anyway, which means Sapphire is manufacturing the card for all the other board partners so you're buying a Sapphire no matter how you slice it :p

The 550 might not be as efficient though. PSUs usually are more efficient near their rated power. It depends on the design though perhaps someone has checked this one out. (If it is an 80+ model it has to offer efficiency over a broader range though).
 
The 550 might not be as efficient though. PSUs usually are more efficient near their rated power. It depends on the design though perhaps someone has checked this one out. (If it is an 80+ model it has to offer efficiency over a broader range though).

I think this should be fine ;)

vx550w_efficiency.jpg
 
AMD HD 4850 or 8800GT?

For doing video editing, graphic design and producing playback / recording 1080P Full HD.

ATI is the Winner here :)

Edit: DX10.1 support, plus ----> faster rendering FPS when AA/AF enable with HD4850....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For doing video editing, graphic design and producing playback / recording 1080P Full HD.

ATI is the Winner here :)

I'm not sure I agree on that point. Not sure about recording but I understand NV's HD playaback to be just as good as ATI's.

But for video editing, it looks like CUDA is bringing a lot more to the table than ATI is right now. I've certainly got my eye on Adobe CS4 to use with my GTS.
 
But for video editing, it looks like CUDA is bringing a lot more to the table than ATI is right now. I've certainly got my eye on Adobe CS4 to use with my GTS.
What do you think that CUDA is bringing to CS4 that ATI doesn't? Most of the CS4 elements are using standard 3D API's and are applicable to both ATI and NVIDIA. The only CUDA element appears to be the Premiere plug-in and its not a given that a GeForce will benefit you there.
 
For doing video editing, graphic design and producing playback / recording 1080P Full HD.

ATI is the Winner here :)

Edit: DX10.1 support, plus ----> faster rendering FPS when AA/AF enable with HD4850....

Talking about playback and recording, is there an app to calibrate the Color setting on that CCC, because it looks awful at the moment.

And I am having some HDMI problem too. I am beginning to regret getting 4850.
 
Talking about playback and recording, is there an app to calibrate the Color setting on that CCC, because it looks awful at the moment.

And I am having some HDMI problem too. I am beginning to regret getting 4850.
I see no reason why HDMI should look like crap, there is a color setting in the CCC, make sure that' at default.
What looks wrong about it?
Btw make sure you have the resolution set to the native res of your display.
 
I can calibrate the desktop, I can calibrate the AVIVO, is there a way I can calibrate the overlay used for videos that doesn't used AVIVO ?

Also is there any fixed for losing HDMI audio when I turned off my TV and back on ? Like I am playing a game, need to eat dinner or something, I normally just paused the game and turned off my TV and resume afterward. When I turned TV back on the game is still running but I lost the audio. So I have to quit the game and restart it to get audio back.

Also with dual monitor, this is a problem too. If I am watching something and want to switch to my little 24" screen, everything works fine until I turned off the TV. Media players would stop or freeze. It seems ATI HDMI is causing all these things.

I had a look at AMD knowledge database, the HDMI audio lost problem seems to be known since x2900xt. Two generations and they still don't have a solution.

Anybody else have a workaround or beta drivers they would like to share ?
 
Back
Top