Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1680 x 1050 with 4850 or 4870

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2008 6:45:51 PM

So guys quick question for 1680 x 1050 resolution should go with 4850 or shell out $100 more and get 4870? Will the gddr5 do miracles at that resolution?

More about : 1680 1050 4850 4870

August 15, 2008 6:55:55 PM

4850 is gud.....
4870 is beter futur proof
August 15, 2008 7:05:04 PM

4850 is the best value
for alot more money the 4870 gives u 30% more performance over 4850
Related resources
August 15, 2008 7:05:34 PM

I have no problems running any game at 1680x1050 with my 4850 (even crysis at mostly max settings). If your strapped for cash, a 4850 will be a nice card for you :) 

Except for a quakeIII based game. Damn ATI drivers make it crash. Catalyst 8.8beta fixed it though!

definitely a big upgrade from my 7800gt.
August 15, 2008 7:10:47 PM

Yeah 4850 is enough for 1680 x 1050. 4870 would be overkill.
August 15, 2008 7:15:38 PM

skittle said:
I have no problems running any game at 1680x1050 with my 4850 (even crysis at mostly max settings). If your strapped for cash, a 4850 will be a nice card for you :) 

Except for a quakeIII based game. Damn ATI drivers make it crash. Catalyst 8.8beta fixed it though!

definitely a big upgrade from my 7800gt.


On the contrary, it's difficult running Crysis at anything above all High, noAA 1680x1050. I get 25-40 FPS. Pretty good, but turned up to very high I get way less then that.
August 15, 2008 7:23:32 PM

Q6600, 4850 (no AA of course) runs smoothly. Only setting that needs to be turned down is shadows. It really chews up the FPS.
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2008 7:25:03 PM

okay thanks guys! :)  4850 then
August 15, 2008 7:37:28 PM

Very BAD idea getting a 4850 for a 1600+ resolution monitor. Look up the benchmarks yourself, they are all over the internet. In some games, you really need crossfire/SLI to get AA/AF cranked up and looking good.
Do some research first. Look up benchmarks for similar resolutions.
August 15, 2008 7:51:25 PM

For $189 i think its a "very good idea"
a c 156 U Graphics card
August 15, 2008 8:03:32 PM

Be interested in knowing what Alvine currently has.

-Wolf ponders
August 15, 2008 8:06:09 PM

OK guys:

If I understand you correctly, 4850 = good up to 1050 (i.e., 22" monitor).

4870 = for 1200 (ie., 24", 26")?

At what point is Crossfire needed?
August 15, 2008 8:18:57 PM

It depends on what your ok with. I'm ordering my wife's new comp this weekend and she only has a 1600x1050 screen but I'm going with a 4870. SLI scaling tends to not kick in tell res over 1600x1050 much, so I went with a single card, 4870. Even at 1600x1050 you will see a big step up with the 4870 vs its little brother. The question is is the step up worth it for you, I don't mind paying the extra cash so my wife can play with better FPS at higher settings. Look at the benchmarks for different games/settings for what you will be playing, but remember that any fps over 60 with be a mute point, barring you having a very nice screen and super human good eyes. So if at the game/settings you want both cards get at lest 60 FPS or higher its not going to matter much. Check out the benchmarks first though before you make up your mind.
August 15, 2008 8:20:25 PM

I just installed a 4870 last night. Bioshock and COD 4 are beautiful, but I haven't tried anything as demanding as Crysis. I was running it at 1680 x 1050
August 15, 2008 8:32:57 PM

My monitor is 24'', but i always find it to be overkill to play games at native res. ( 1200 x )
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2008 8:51:39 PM

The 4870x2 will get over 30 fps ,very high settings, 4xAA in Crysis
August 15, 2008 9:45:45 PM

Personally, I rather enjoy gaming with my 4850 and 22" LCD. All the games I own, I can max out ('cept Mass Effect, and that's close. xD) But it provides a very good experience. :3
August 15, 2008 10:04:33 PM

^You can't max out Mass Effect? That game runs like a dream for me; are you trying to force AA or something?
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2008 10:28:46 PM

I have the 4850 with 1680X1050 and I have not run into a problem. I have not run Crysis, but Assassin's Creed runs great.

Get the 4870 for Crysis and 4850 for everything else.

I could not justify the over $100 Difference to myself. Plus If I want to I can Crossfire another 4850 if I need to.

Just look at anandtechs review of the 4870 and 4850, Look at the 1680X1050 FPS.

1Haplo
August 15, 2008 10:59:17 PM

i bought a 4870 3 days ago for my 1680x1050 resolution runs crysis on high pritty well just picked up another 4870 yesterday gonna crossfire them for abit of a boost in performance but i recommend u get the 4870 its great for the price.
August 15, 2008 11:14:38 PM

i have a 4850 and i play all my games at 1680x1050. everything runs like a dream except for crysis, but i'm going to blame that either on my cpu (only an athlon x2 4200+) or the catalyst drivers. nvidia cards always outperform the ati cards in this game. also, i noticed a performance drop when i upgraded from the 8.6 hotfix to the 8.7 drivers. that might be more subjective than anything else though.
August 15, 2008 11:18:52 PM

i dont get why people are willing to blow hundreds of dollars for a video card yes the 4870x2 is the fastest gpu out right now but what do u need it for when theres such a lack of games for the computer on the market buy a 4850 or a 4870 save your money cause when fallout 3 and all those games come out theyll be better and higher end videocards out on the market and anywaise the 4850 and 4870 perform just fine for the resolution you guys are talking about and its cheap for the card.
August 16, 2008 3:20:35 AM

I don't get why people refuse to use proper grammar and punctuation. But, I guess that's a topic for a different forum.
August 16, 2008 4:15:24 AM

georgep001 said:
i dont get why people are willing to blow hundreds of dollars for a video card yes the 4870x2 is the fastest gpu out right now but what do u need it for when theres such a lack of games for the computer on the market buy a 4850 or a 4870 save your money cause when fallout 3 and all those games come out theyll be better and higher end videocards out on the market and anywaise the 4850 and 4870 perform just fine for the resolution you guys are talking about and its cheap for the card.


This group of words gets my vote for the largest run-on sentence I have ever read. A sentence should also not start with the word "but". You should be careful when you correct people for their faults. :non: 
August 16, 2008 4:20:17 AM

one-shot said:
This group of words gets my vote for the largest run-on sentence I have ever read. A sentence should also not start with the word "but". You should be careful when you correct people for their faults. :non: 



One-shot, I totally agree, but I think it is accepted anymore that you can start sentences with "but" and "and." However, I could be wrong.
August 16, 2008 4:28:14 AM

Primus462 said:
One-shot, I totally agree, but I think it is accepted anymore that you can start sentences with "but" and "and." However, I could be wrong.


+1 depending on context.

But +1 on one-shot's general point.
August 16, 2008 4:34:32 AM

We could start a "Tom's Guide to Grammar and the English Language."
August 16, 2008 4:39:22 AM

Primus462 said:
We could start a "Tom's Guide to Grammar and the English Language."


We could.

But it is a hell of a lot more interesting thinking about whether I should save for a 4850, 4870 or 4850x2...
August 16, 2008 5:26:48 AM

LOL, thanks guys, good laughs. I have always been taught to never use "but" to start a sentence. I place very high in writing and grammar. Nice job Husky starting your sentence with "but". The young grasshopper has much to learn. lol. This is a pretty informal forum. I don't use the best grammar sometimes although I never cram ten sentences into one. Let's get back to the topic. I currently own an ATI 4850 right now. I wish I would have bought a 9800GX2 instead but the 4850X2 looks great too. The 4870X2 looks great on 30" screens but who has those anyway. I have a 22" Samsung with 1680x1050 for my res. A 4850x2 might do well at lower resolutions that more people play on. I don't know, we can only speculate :D 
August 17, 2008 6:43:32 PM

husky mctarflash said:
We could.

But it is a hell of a lot more interesting thinking about whether I should save for a 4850, 4870 or 4850x2...


Agreed. I doubt a grammar forum would be very popular.

I upgraded from a 8800GTS 320mb GDDR3 to the 4870. So far, I am very pleased. COD4 and Bioshock (I know they aren't very demanding compared to Crysis) looked great on the 8800GTS. I could run them on max settings @ 1680x1050 with a good frame rate. But, the 4870 made look even better than I thought possible. I just purchased Crysis, too. I know that is the true test in today's world. Guess I will see what kind of fps I can get with that.
August 18, 2008 6:51:19 AM

maukaguy said:
It depends on what your ok with. I'm ordering my wife's new comp this weekend and she only has a 1600x1050 screen but I'm going with a 4870. SLI scaling tends to not kick in tell res over 1600x1050 much, so I went with a single card, 4870. Even at 1600x1050 you will see a big step up with the 4870 vs its little brother. The question is is the step up worth it for you, I don't mind paying the extra cash so my wife can play with better FPS at higher settings. Look at the benchmarks for different games/settings for what you will be playing, but remember that any fps over 60 with be a mute point, barring you having a very nice screen and super human good eyes. So if at the game/settings you want both cards get at lest 60 FPS or higher its not going to matter much. Check out the benchmarks first though before you make up your mind.



Im thinking of getting the 4870. Am I going to run into an issue since my 19" LCD's native resolution is 1280x1024? I don't play Crysis, Mass Effect, Assasin's Creed or any FPS but I plan to re-enter MMORPG's like Star Trek Online and APB. I might even go back to City of Heroes.
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2008 7:10:38 AM

You won't have any issues, but it is probably more power than you will ever need with that screen.
August 18, 2008 7:26:01 AM

cjl said:
You won't have any issues, but it is probably more power than you will ever need with that screen.



Should I look to balance it out or my eyes won't even detect the difference. I was looking at the LCD's higher than 19" but the prices were rediculous----over $800 and the response times weren't very impressive. I thought that since I don't play FPS's that this 19" with a response time of 2ms would be more than enough.
August 18, 2008 8:07:35 AM

A 19" monitor makes me sad :( . I have a 22" and still contemplating about taking it back and getting a 24" monitor. I have a Samsung 22" with a 2ms response. Great monitor, only 300 after taxes. 19"-22" is a big step, though definitely worth it.
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2008 8:52:56 AM

mikeny said:
Should I look to balance it out or my eyes won't even detect the difference. I was looking at the LCD's higher than 19" but the prices were rediculous----over $800 and the response times weren't very impressive. I thought that since I don't play FPS's that this 19" with a response time of 2ms would be more than enough.

Where were you looking? 1680x1050 20" and 22" monitors should run around $220-$380 for the most part. 24" and up get expensive, at least for the good ones, but you should be able to pick up a decent 20" for a heck of a lot less than that, and the extra resolution should be quite nice (1680x1050 vs 1280x1024). I'd say a 4850 and a 1680x1050 monitor would be a good combo for you.
August 18, 2008 1:23:11 PM

maukaguy said:
It depends on what your ok with. I'm ordering my wife's new comp this weekend and she only has a 1600x1050 screen but I'm going with a 4870. SLI scaling tends to not kick in tell res over 1600x1050 much, so I went with a single card, 4870. Even at 1600x1050 you will see a big step up with the 4870 vs its little brother. The question is is the step up worth it for you, I don't mind paying the extra cash so my wife can play with better FPS at higher settings. Look at the benchmarks for different games/settings for what you will be playing, but remember that any fps over 60 with be a mute point, barring you having a very nice screen and super human good eyes. So if at the game/settings you want both cards get at lest 60 FPS or higher its not going to matter much. Check out the benchmarks first though before you make up your mind.

fps in benchmarks usualy shows average fps, but what is also important is lowest fps.
if you have 60+ fps 95% time and it drop to 15 fps for 5% time you still get 57.75 average fps but 5% of time you will be watching little faster slideshow. so even if your monitor support max 60fps its still better to have graphic card able to do much more.
August 18, 2008 1:26:48 PM

georgep001 said:
i dont get why people are willing to blow hundreds of dollars for a video card yes the 4870x2 is the fastest gpu out right now but what do u need it for when theres such a lack of games for the computer on the market buy a 4850 or a 4870 save your money cause when fallout 3 and all those games come out theyll be better and higher end videocards out on the market and anywaise the 4850 and 4870 perform just fine for the resolution you guys are talking about and its cheap for the card.

Speaking about Fallout 3, it will be out before next graphic card generation came out.
I am going for 4870x2 because mine 8800GTX dont have enough power to play all my games on max settings with 1600x1200 and i am planning on getting 30" LCD in few months whitch will definetly need this beast.
August 19, 2008 9:19:02 PM

cjl said:
Where were you looking? 1680x1050 20" and 22" monitors should run around $220-$380 for the most part. 24" and up get expensive, at least for the good ones, but you should be able to pick up a decent 20" for a heck of a lot less than that, and the extra resolution should be quite nice (1680x1050 vs 1280x1024). I'd say a 4850 and a 1680x1050 monitor would be a good combo for you.



Hmm, I was on Newegg.com. Monitors and the size of the screen. I must of hit the wrong button. I was looking to get the 4870. Probably go with a E8600 with it. I don't play FSX that much to justify getting a Q9550. But I am wondering if the new MMORPG's like Star Trek Online and APB, will take advantage of 4 cores. Go for the future--Q9550 or stick with what's fast and enough now--E8600. Ugg I need another
tylenol

Update: I see what I did. I took off widescreen and everything was $400-$900. I see the 20" are roughly $199-$299. Are 2ms-5ms repsonse times good. My present 19" has 2ms.
!