Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

ATI's 4850 just a tad faster then a 8800GT

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 21, 2008 1:27:35 AM

This is really sad...

A 4850 is just a tad bit faster then a 8800GT. With a pretty big difference in price.


Let me know your thoughts...


Here's mine. (its so Fuc***** stupid to upgrade video cards every 6months)


I am icking the computer market right now. (70% of all the products that are coming out are over kill)

WE NEED 64BIT COMPUTING NOW, implement it and that's that. Until true 64bit is in force, everything is a waste after a certain dime is spent.

AMD has been amazing and I mean amazing. The price for the amount of performance is awesome. Of course there is people who truly need dual QX9650 CPU's but that's 1% of the whole market.


Feel free to raise an opinion... but I really believe that all companies need to purse 64bit right now. GET IT OVER WITH. Then I can pull my old AMD Athlon 64bit 3000+ out and actually use it. Because at the time I simple paid more just because we didn't use its true power.
August 21, 2008 2:10:27 AM

I actually heard the 4850 is 10-15% faster but overall unless you plan to play high res and max settings (not really much of a point just do same res lower settings...) its not worth the ... 45 dollars? plus they will probably last the same amount of time

furthermore I purchased an 8800GT from pny on newegg for 199.99 free shipping, becuase you know what? I have a feeling they will last almost exactly the same amount. IN terms of like gaming and 09 and 10 games youll need something like the 4870 or more by then so really save 45 dollars and wait for some deals to come your way ;) 
August 21, 2008 2:17:36 AM

actually the 4850 is a little faster than the 8800 Ultra, and the Ultra is faster than the 8800 GT by around 30%. It should be alot faster than the 8800 GT.



It looses a bit to the 8800 ultra at higher resolutions, but it keeps well ahead of the 8800 GT 512 and 1 gig.
Related resources
a c 175 U Graphics card
August 21, 2008 2:23:36 AM



Flame bait? Where's your proof that its that slow? Reputable websites have been showing it beating the 9800GTX, and being just a bit slower then the GTX260. Why should we believe you?
August 21, 2008 2:26:37 AM

^^^^^^ Shows the 4850 7 fps faster then a 8800GT @ 2560x1600.

shows the 4850 14fps faster then a 8800GT @ 1600x1200.

I am sorry to say, but that sure isn't a lot faster. That would be a tad bit faster.
August 21, 2008 2:30:17 AM

Oh... and I would think by now that we all agree that a 9800GTX is a 8800GTS G92.

We all agree that a 8800GTS is a tad bit faster then a 8800GT right? Then if a 4850 beats a 9800GTX a tad we could understand that it beats a 8800GT a tad.

Noticable differences are only on cards with SLI or X2. I don't care about 10-15 fps differences. That isn't seen in games when your already over 25-30fps.
August 21, 2008 2:32:01 AM

Well lets see, that 14 frames gives it a 33% increase in performance...I would say thats enough!

The 7 Frame increase game it a 28% increase over the 8800 GT ...thats about 30.5% average increase....

What Video card have you been smoking? :D 

No1 is saying its a bad card, but its not just a little slower!. It puts enough distance.

A little slower, would be how the 8800 GTS G92 is to the 9800 GTX :)  Thats a tad faster:) 
August 21, 2008 2:32:52 AM

Anything about the 64bit issue????
August 21, 2008 2:33:38 AM

?
a b U Graphics card
August 21, 2008 2:47:09 AM

Funny you mention AMD being amazing. They're the ones that screwed true 64 bit computing for the masses from what i understand. A long while back before the athlong 64, Intel had plans to bring real 64 bit chips (itaniums) to market. They're orginal plan was to create dual core chips, one x86 and the other core x64. It would then be up to the OS and hardware to run either core.

But AMD having to have the first hand in the 64 bit market released x64 emt. For all intensive purposes data is still processed like a 32 bit chip but you now have the ability to address more then 4 gigs of ram. This is why if you recall the last of the p4's where called p4 EMT, extended memory translation.

This was a long time ago and i could be wrong but...

FLAME ON
August 21, 2008 2:50:25 AM

Who mentioned AMD being amazing???
August 21, 2008 3:03:02 AM

Some one, delete this thread... 64-bit is not a real problem either, crappy and poorly optimized games (Crysis anyone?) are the real problems.
August 21, 2008 3:04:19 AM

L1qu1d said:
actually the 4850 is a little faster than the 8800 Ultra, and the Ultra is faster than the 8800 GT by around 30%. It should be alot faster than the 8800 GT.

http://www.guru3d.com/vga/vga-cod4.png

It looses a bit to the 8800 ultra at higher resolutions, but it keeps well ahead of the 8800 GT 512 and 1 gig.

Call of Duty is heavily skewed towards ATI cards in general. The rendering engine was developed with help of ATI programmers. It delivers up to 30% more fps on ATI cards depending on settings. Using it for example is misleading, just like using Lost Planet or UT3 to falsely prop up Nvidia performance.

This is a link to the full review in the site where that picture is cropped from.
http://www.guru3d.com/category/vga_3/
L1qu1d doesn't want everything to see the whole picture, and decided to crop out the picture of the most favorable benchmark test instead of giving link to the whole review.
August 21, 2008 3:06:36 AM

zloginet said:
Oh... and I would think by now that we all agree that a 9800GTX is a 8800GTS G92.

We all agree that a 8800GTS is a tad bit faster then a 8800GT right? Then if a 4850 beats a 9800GTX a tad we could understand that it beats a 8800GT a tad.

Noticable differences are only on cards with SLI or X2. I don't care about 10-15 fps differences. That isn't seen in games when your already over 25-30fps.


first off, let me state, you are either retarded, high, or a combination of the two.

you got to be kidding me right? it's either your rig sucks and is bottle necking the 4850 or you just love an 8800GT beyond redemption.

anyone one who is a SERIOUS gamer would not accept FPS of 25-30. that is CRAP. if my rig played games at 25-30, i would burn it and toss it away. you can totally tell that a game is smooth when your gaming at 60+ FPS consistently and it drops down to 40ish, not to mention 25-30, that is playable but not very enjoyable.

an INCREASE of 14FPS is very impressive! 14 FPS could mean the difference between a playable game and an unplayable game. but i guess you wouldn't know that, since you're probably stuck playing games at 25fps. i feel sorry for you, flame on as i play COD4 at 100+ FPS. :)  i guess i wouldn't know what 25-30 FPS is like either ;) 
August 21, 2008 3:14:17 AM

dagger said:
Call of Duty is heavily skewed towards ATI cards in general. The rendering engine was developed with help of ATI programmers. It delivers up to 30% more fps on ATI cards depending on settings. Using it for example is misleading, just like using Lost Planet or UT3 to falsely prop up Nvidia performance.

This is a link to the full review in the site where that picture is cropped from.
http://www.guru3d.com/category/vga_3/
L1qu1d doesn't want everything to see the whole picture, and decided to crop out the picture of the most favorable benchmark test instead of giving link to the whole review.



Actually I posted games that are actually played more densely. So your argument would be that the 4850 isn't what most review sites says it is? Because I'm just saying what they said in my own words:D 

And btw UT3 doesn't really prop up nvidia, since it doesn't scale sli as well as games like COD4:D 
August 21, 2008 3:17:50 AM

zloginet said:
Oh... and I would think by now that we all agree that a 9800GTX is a 8800GTS G92.

We all agree that a 8800GTS is a tad bit faster then a 8800GT right? Then if a 4850 beats a 9800GTX a tad we could understand that it beats a 8800GT a tad.

Noticable differences are only on cards with SLI or X2. I don't care about 10-15 fps differences. That isn't seen in games when your already over 25-30fps.


This guy is stoned out of his mind or dropped out of elementary school.
and this thread is retarded. please close it.
August 21, 2008 3:19:09 AM

Keep in mind that while on average, across multiple rendering engines and resolutions, 4850 is about 15% faster than an aging 8800gt and the the same as g92 8800gts, it's not better performance across the board. It's above 15% lead on some, but below on others, even slower than 8800gt in a few, especially in lower resolutions like 1280x1024. Examples include UT3 and Far Cry.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/17.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/10.html

Look through all the tests and you'll see the whole picture.

As for g92 8800gts being same as 9800gtx, that's about right. They run the same hardware after all. It's Nvidia renaming scheme.
http://en.expreview.com/2008/04/03/geforce-9800gtx-revi...
August 21, 2008 3:19:54 AM

yeah seriously, this can all be solved by surfing the net, and viewing reviews:D  CLOSE THE THREAD!!!!
August 21, 2008 3:24:54 AM

L1qu1d said:
yeah seriously, this can all be solved by surfing the net, and viewing reviews :D  CLOSE THE THREAD!!!!

So when people see through the reason you cropped out a picture instead of linking to the actual review, you want the thread closed? You're not the first one to take things out of context in order to mislead people.

I'm not saying to get 8800gt instead of 4850. The 4850 is 15% faster on average, and outperform 8800gt on overwhelming majority of cases. But you should not have tried to mislead people with such a cheap trick.
August 21, 2008 3:32:57 AM

how did I try to mislead ppl? I pasted a game that has been known to be optimized well, and works well ont he majority of cards....I'm saying to close the thread because its just going in circles.

PPl wouldn't be mislead if they would research or atleast see if the posters "post" is justifiable.

Not my problem to go out of my way to post a whole review. I chose the gmae I and most ppl play.

enjoy:) 
a b U Graphics card
August 21, 2008 3:37:14 AM

zloginet said:
^^^^^^ Shows the 4850 7 fps faster then a 8800GT @ 2560x1600.
shows the 4850 14fps faster then a 8800GT @ 1600x1200.
I am sorry to say, but that sure isn't a lot faster. That would be a tad bit faster.


That's far more than a 'tad' , that's 28% faster and 33% faster, noticably more than a 'tad' or a 'smidge', a little less than a 'metric tonne' or 'boat load' just about a 'bunch' more. But like everything else they go up/down all-around.

Anywhoo, closing thread, you've had your rant, it's served it's use (if it had one), move on folks. :hello: 

PS, PsyKhiqZero , you've got it backawards, look it up the I64 was not superior to X64. intel did try very hard to make I64 the standard and they had many Itaniums in the market long before AMD, but you really need to do better research before making statements like that. Next time check first, post second. :non: 

!