Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

To those who think HD4850 will whoop ass hold it!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 19, 2008 11:47:37 PM

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=579&type=expert&pi...

in the review the 4850 is only able to match the 8800GTS but still behind 9800GTX. but in somewhere else we have seen much higher result. so think again! from what im seeing the review on the net is being hand picked so only the good ones will be shown where as the underperforming onese has been put away.

and the release of 9800GTX+ which will have higher clock then the one use in all the review will be either catch up with hd4850 or extend the lead depend on whether the reviews we are seeing is true. and it will be sold at the same price as the 9800GTX now and the 9800GTX will drop to $199

but no doubt that the price for the card you will get is brilliant.

also one more thing to consider. something that current AMD is not capable of no matter how to argue it.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdi...

in the result chart the numbers on the left is with physics and on the right no physics.

More about : hd4850 whoop ass hold

June 19, 2008 11:58:01 PM

Old news. We already know it perform between 8800gt(g92, 112sp) and 8800gts/9800gtx(g92, 128sp). At $200, it's not really good value compared to a 8800gts at $160 after mir. Not sure about 9800gtx, it's still overpriced considering it performs the same as 8800gts, and with slightly lower overclocking headroom.

If you run dual gpu, 4850 is better value though, since you won't have to buy an overpriced and underperforming nvidia chipset motherboard. :na: 

As for physics, unforunately, Ageia still has very low adoption rate. If game developers don't bother to use it, there's no point. Nearly all recent games, even high end games with high physics effects like Crysis, do not support Ageia, but rather use generic physics engines optimized to run on spare cpu cores in a dual/quad/octo cpu.
June 19, 2008 11:59:32 PM

That is the worst review I have ever read. Stick to good sites like Anandtech, 3DGuru and the like. If you visit their sites today, you will find their reviews and I trust theirs a hundred times more than this one. In their reviews, the 4850 bests the 9800GTX in almost all tests.
Related resources
June 20, 2008 12:03:14 AM

Nvidia guys are screwed either way.

Buy a new GPU for $600+ or


Buy 2 New GPUs for $400 and a $200 motherboard.


Either way Nvidia fanboys are gonna have to drop $600 to play ball with the new tech from either side.
June 20, 2008 12:14:52 AM

stabgotham i have read more then 10 review about the 4850 and this is one of them. which somehow give different result to others just want to share with all you guys on hyper mode.

i wonder how CF will do on the new card as SLI on GT200 give all very positive results. but i still dont think the performance justify the price tag its wearing. but price cut is comming soon. it might bring the price/performance gap closer then before.
June 20, 2008 12:17:03 AM

i really looking forward to the new 55nm die shrink as Nvidia has taken at least 2 gens or cards time to develop it. will that bring the G92(B) and the GT200 to another whole new level and at a lower or same price tag.

things are getting interesting this year. its very surprising that Intel and Nvidia do discount!maybe they really want to take out AMD for once?or at least take it to as low as it can get?
June 20, 2008 12:21:55 AM

iluvgillgill said:
i really looking forward to the new 55nm die shrink as Nvidia has taken at least 2 gens or cards time to develop it. will that bring the G92(B) and the GT200 to another whole new level and at a lower or same price tag.

things are getting interesting this year. its very surprising that Intel and Nvidia do discount!maybe they really want to take out AMD for once?or at least take it to as low as it can get?

I doubt a die shrink alone will do anything for performance. Look at what die shrink did for 65nm vs 45nm cpus. :p 
June 20, 2008 12:24:53 AM

no a die shrink will allow lower heat output which result in you can OC it further hence give more oomph! now you get it? come on!you should know this since you are talking about 65nm vs 45nm CPUs!
June 20, 2008 12:26:59 AM

stabgotham said:
That is the worst review I have ever read. Stick to good sites like Anandtech, 3DGuru and the like. If you visit their sites today, you will find their reviews and I trust theirs a hundred times more than this one. In their reviews, the 4850 bests the 9800GTX in almost all tests.


But if they do that there prized card get's stomped!

I mean com'on it's already over and every legit review site has came to the same conclusion that 4850 MOP'S the floor with the 9800GTX for 100$ less!

Go cry emo fanboi's.
June 20, 2008 12:36:44 AM

stabgotham said:
That is the worst review I have ever read. Stick to good sites like Anandtech, 3DGuru and the like. If you visit their sites today, you will find their reviews and I trust theirs a hundred times more than this one. In their reviews, the 4850 bests the 9800GTX in almost all tests.


I do love me a good anand review.
June 20, 2008 12:39:16 AM

xx12amanxx said:
But if they do that there prized card get's stomped!

I mean com'on it's already over and every legit review site has came to the same conclusion that 4850 MOP'S the floor with the 9800GTX for 100$ less!

Go cry emo fanboi's.


Man all these cards suk!! Guys with a two year old pair of 8800GTX's don't have any reason to upgrade as they still stomp all these overhyped new cards. :pfff: 
June 20, 2008 12:39:51 AM

iluvgillgill said:
no a die shrink will allow lower heat output which result in you can OC it further hence give more oomph! now you get it? come on!you should know this since you are talking about 65nm vs 45nm CPUs!

That's just the problem. Q9450(45nm) didn't end up oc better than q6600(65nm), and q9300(45nm) ocs worse. Of course, gpus are different. We'll see if they fare any better.
June 20, 2008 12:42:04 AM

dagger said:
That's just the problem. Q9450(45nm) didn't end up oc better than q6600(65nm), and q9300(45nm) ocs worse. Of course, gpus are different. We'll see if they fare any better.




Actually they do OC better in theory then the q6600, its just Intel screwed us on the multi, because they do OC so good.
June 20, 2008 12:43:46 AM

SpinachEater said:
I do love me a good anand review.

Fox news should start doing PC hardware reviews. You know they are "Fair and Balanced."
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2008 12:45:07 AM

Look closer in that pcper review. Both these cards were oceed. So a oceed card that isnt cheap, against a brand new with baby drivers card, shows it holds it own on a bad review, which goes against the grain of every other review out there, especially the better sites? And this is good? Something to look forward to?
June 20, 2008 12:56:34 AM

It beats the 9800GTX.

That's all I need to know.

If nvidia didn't already realize this, they wouldn't have cut the 9800GTX to the same price and be releasing 9800GTX+ to try and compete.
a c 164 U Graphics card
June 20, 2008 1:06:16 AM

Lets assume for the briefest of moments that the 9800GTX ~ 4850 ~ 8800GTS. And that the newest 9800GTX+ will only increase that lead. Next month we should see the 4870, which will be even faster. A few months after that, the high end card, the 4870x2.

The problem is that there are reviews out there that show the 4850 over the 9800GTX, even in some games able to keep up with the 260. If all these other reviews are right and this one is wrong, then the 4870 should be even closer to the 260's equal. Last, the 4870x2 should be better then the 280. If you take cost into this, then these cards will be considered monsters, assuming they hit the price points they are supposed to.
June 20, 2008 1:22:17 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Look closer in that pcper review. Both these cards were oceed. So a oceed card that isnt cheap, against a brand new with baby drivers card, shows it holds it own on a bad review, which goes against the grain of every other review out there, especially the better sites? And this is good? Something to look forward to?



I didn't catch that at first because I was skimming through them too fast but after a second look I did notice that they used the GT on roids. I do like to see OC card comparisons but baselines are a little more....transparent?
June 20, 2008 1:29:37 AM

SpinachEater said:
I didn't catch that at first because I was skimming through them too fast but after a second look I did notice that they used the GT on roids. I do like to see OC card comparisons but baselines are a little more....transparent?

It's the same as gts, faster than gt. :p 
June 20, 2008 1:53:44 AM

The only reason Intels 45nm is faster clock for clock than the 65nm is because Intel increased the instructions per clock for 45nm and added new SSE extensions (SSE4 I think). Oh, and Intel added more cache to the 45nm since they had the room to do so.
June 20, 2008 2:04:12 AM

dagger said:
That's just the problem. Q9450(45nm) didn't end up oc better than q6600(65nm), and q9300(45nm) ocs worse. Of course, gpus are different. We'll see if they fare any better.


in terms of OC the 45nm are better. its just that Intel set the low multiplier on them so they mobo will limit the OC potential. the 45nm extreme series OC to 42Ghz+ where as the 65nm cant do that. when you compare 2 thing the circumstances have to be the same to make something meaningful.
June 20, 2008 2:06:47 AM

dagger looks like no one liked your comment on 45nm CPUs!lol
June 20, 2008 2:08:19 AM

NarwhaleAu said:
It beats the 9800GTX.

That's all I need to know.

If nvidia didn't already realize this, they wouldn't have cut the 9800GTX to the same price and be releasing 9800GTX+ to try and compete.


then if the 8800GTS beaten the 3870 so badly, AMD wouldnt lowed its price to 9600GT level and squash 2 of them to fight against the 8800GTS/9800GTX and still sometimes gets outperform by the N cards.
June 20, 2008 2:11:33 AM

one thing if you guys agree or not.

how far the GPU can OC will tell how desperate or bad the product is since the original manufactures is running it so close to the limit to be able to stand ground in the competition. so obviously this means if who ever can OC furthesr has the better GPU.

anyone disagree with that?
June 20, 2008 2:19:24 AM

Also, Techreports review, the 4850 pretty clearly trounces the 9800GTX

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14967/1

"It's been a long time since a Radeon was the graphics card of choice at the all-important $199 price point, but the HD 4850 looks like it might have the title locked up. The current GeForce 9800 GTX is simply no match for AMD's latest mid-range offering, and Nvidia's surprise, the GeForce 9800 GTX+, has quite a bit of ground to make up if it hopes to be competitive."


You'll notice how the 4850's really love playing with AA cranked up.
June 20, 2008 2:21:08 AM

iluvgillgill said:
one thing if you guys agree or not.

how far the GPU can OC will tell how desperate or bad the product is since the original manufactures is running it so close to the limit to be able to stand ground in the competition. so obviously this means if who ever can OC furthesr has the better GPU.

anyone disagree with that?



For CPU's, YES.

For GPU's, NO.

The gain in frames per second from overclocking GPU's is minimal. Looking through some 8800gts 512mb OC reviews, they gain from 0-5 FPS over the non-OC'd card (with 50 FPS the average). Not to mention aftermarket GPU coolers are not nearly as common as CPU coolers.

Anyway, the 4850 looks to kick ass with 4x AA (and who likes to play without AA? NOT me). I was just about to buy a $160 8800gts, but I think I'll wait a few weeks for prices to shift.
June 20, 2008 2:22:41 AM

i think its all clear now that 256bit just SUCK so hard and it shows clearly in high resolution where lots of data fills up that bus!

but i still DO think its unfair because its like comparing the Core 2 Dual E7200 to a athlon top of the range and say the old king is no match for the latest offering from Intel at the midrange.

but we all look out for $$ and ££ dont we!:) 
June 20, 2008 2:26:25 AM

Noya said:
For CPU's, YES.

For GPU's, NO.

The gain in frames per second from overclocking GPU's is minimal. Looking through some 8800gts 512mb OC reviews, they gain from 0-5 FPS over the non-OC'd card (with 50 FPS the average). Not to mention aftermarket GPU coolers are not nearly as common as CPU coolers.

Anyway, the 4850 looks to kick ass with 4x AA (and who likes to play without AA? NOT me). I was just about to buy a $160 8800gts, but I think I'll wait a few weeks for prices to shift.


i think you should look at the percentage of OC not the actual fps increase. YES fps is very important but even so if it increase from 50fps to 55fps then thats 10% increase. if a card dont OC well meanning NO increase. and sometime 5fps means playable or unplayable.
June 20, 2008 2:32:39 AM

iluvgillgill said:
no a die shrink will allow lower heat output which result in you can OC it further hence give more oomph! now you get it? come on!you should know this since you are talking about 65nm vs 45nm CPUs!

This has been an interesting discussion. However... my 8800GT is not heat limited. In other words my GPU starts showing artifact from high overclock speeds way before the heat would cause a problem. The problem lies in the voltage. If GPUs could be easily voltage adjustable like CPUs than we would be having a whole different discussion on why it's so important for die shrinks like it was for the 90nm tech to shrink to 65nm.
warezme said:
Man all these cards suk!! Guys with a two year old pair of 8800GTX's don't have any reason to upgrade as they still stomp all these overhyped new cards. :pfff: 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that a 8800GTX can stomp the newer cards... It still performs well but I see your point... If I had any of the G80 high end cards I would not upgrade either... I would definitely not upgrade If (and I do) had a G92 card.
June 20, 2008 2:45:50 AM

I don't like how 4850's performance is so inconsistant. That's not a good thing. While it performed very well overall, it really sunk in a few engines, UT3, for example.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Unreal Engine is extremely popular among game developers and used in lots of games, which makes this particularily bad. It'd be a pain to have everything running perfectly, but you get a new game, and suddenly get hit with low performance because the engine happen to be bad with the card.
June 20, 2008 2:52:00 AM

in the current flow whats going into mainstream(or at least getting popular) is quad core(or more then dual core(which intel and amd is pushing it) then physics(nvidia) are getting notice since Crysis have came out. people play with those explosive barrel remember?

just incase
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5qDeWHNmk
June 20, 2008 2:55:52 AM

I think not all reviews should be trusted.

Theoratically with similar hardware and system setup the results should all be within a close range and all numbers highly repeatable. If one review has numbers way below others something must be wrong with their setup. I've seen this happening many times with sites doing reviews with old/unsupported drivers/BIOS versions and bashing the product for getting horrendous performance.

All in all, I would not take that review very seriously.
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2008 2:59:53 AM

UT3 needs a driver fix itll pan out
June 20, 2008 3:03:36 AM

in fact i will not take any review seriously up untill the release of the HD4xxx series and being put through the test with all the new drivers and "modern" system. because the release of the new forceware i heard provide alot of kicks then before. so the result should be updated.
June 20, 2008 3:14:46 AM

iluvgillgill said:

also one more thing to consider. something that current AMD is not capable of no matter how to argue it.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdi...

in the result chart the numbers on the left is with physics and on the right no physics.


Not true.
AMD is/willbe using Havok for physics, so Ageia is kind of moot point. They even hint that the 4xxx series ATI cards support / are physics ready.
a b U Graphics card
June 20, 2008 3:18:39 AM

This review was brought up as questionable here in other threads, and on others sites as well. Anybody that stumbles upon share-a-kooks site would have you believeing that the Phenom was 3x better than a C2D, so now, should we give that credit?
June 20, 2008 3:25:59 AM

reddozen said:
Not true.
AMD is/willbe using Havok for physics, so Ageia is kind of moot point. They even hint that the 4xxx series ATI cards support / are physics ready.


http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

i only read that. they will first look into CPU physics so HD4xxx will not support it. by the time AMD finish with CPU they will be ready to lauch their next HD5xxxx series(i assume thats what its called).
June 20, 2008 3:26:59 AM

iluvgillgill said:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=579&type=expert&pi...

in the review the 4850 is only able to match the 8800GTS but still behind 9800GTX. but in somewhere else we have seen much higher result. so think again! from what im seeing the review on the net is being hand picked so only the good ones will be shown where as the underperforming onese has been put away.

and the release of 9800GTX+ which will have higher clock then the one use in all the review will be either catch up with hd4850 or extend the lead depend on whether the reviews we are seeing is true. and it will be sold at the same price as the 9800GTX now and the 9800GTX will drop to $199

but no doubt that the price for the card you will get is brilliant.

also one more thing to consider. something that current AMD is not capable of no matter how to argue it.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdi...

in the result chart the numbers on the left is with physics and on the right no physics.


What? PCPER has 4850 slightly faster than 9800gtx in COD4 and tied with Crysis. I don't know what review you are reading?

Try a real pc know how sites like Anandtech, techreport, etc.. and is downright beating 9800gtx in almost all tests.
June 20, 2008 3:29:43 AM

marvelous211 said:
Ah it's faster, cooler, cheaper, better hd support, dx10.1. Why would anyone get a 9800gtx over 4850?


its not cooler actually it idles at 80C. DX10.1 has already been drop by ALL game developers.even ubisoft who had a go and see no future in it. they going to skip DX10 and straight to DX11 when windows 7 come out in about 1-2 years time.
June 20, 2008 3:32:20 AM

marvelous211 said:
What? PCPER has 4850 slightly faster than 9800gtx in COD4 and tied with Crysis. I don't know what review you are reading?

Try a real pc know how sites like Anandtech, techreport, etc.. and is downright beating 9800gtx in almost all tests.


as you said it TIED with 9800GTX where as it SHOULD be faster then the 9800GTX and NOT TIED with it. in low resolution YES.but in high resolution where the 512bit bus SHOULD excel but does it?erm......I don't know what review you are reading?
June 20, 2008 3:34:10 AM

iluvgillgill said:
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

i only read that. they will first look into CPU physics so HD4xxx will not support it. by the time AMD finish with CPU they will be ready to lauch their next HD5xxxx series(i assume thats what its called).

I don't get all the hype about physics. Nearly all recent games currently run on generic physics engines developed in house, and optimized to run on spare cpu cores in a dual/quad cpu. Even Crysis's large amount of destructive environment runs on generic physics engine off cpu. And it's impressive enough. Unlike graphics, which is parallel in nature, physics work fine on cpu. The specialized versions of physics processing, such as used by Ageia, is in practice no superior than generic physics running off the raw power of cpu. Why would game designers use something that only works on one brand when they can use what works for everyone? :sarcastic: 
June 20, 2008 3:35:49 AM

iluvgillgill said:
its not cooler actually it idles at 80C. DX10.1 has already been drop by ALL game developers.even ubisoft who had a go and see no future in it. they going to skip DX10 and straight to DX11 when windows 7 come out in about 1-2 years time.

Are you sure it's 80C idle? That's not a good sign... :sweat: 
June 20, 2008 3:35:55 AM

you get the point.but you see you prove that there is already a widely use of physics. if nvidia is manage to convince the developers then the next patch will be adding support to GPU physics. do you get it now?
!