Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will the 4850x2 be better than...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 7, 2008 8:06:55 PM

Hey hey :hello: 

I was thinking of doing an upgrade, looking at the 9800 GX2 --> £185.
Thats a very cheap price.

Or should i just stick around for the 4850x2.

Would it have much better performance than the 9800 GX2... and what would the price tag be like ?

Regards,

Alex

More about : 4850x2

a b U Graphics card
September 7, 2008 8:27:07 PM

I would go with 4850x2 since it has dx 10.1 so you be more future proof
September 7, 2008 8:28:20 PM

Yea, what do you reckon the price tag would be, and would it really be much better performance ?
Related resources
September 7, 2008 9:58:04 PM

seeing as the 4870 X2 is 550+, I'd say your looking at around $400+ for a 4850 X2

This is all in CAD, I don't kno what prices they charge in your country:) 
September 7, 2008 10:28:19 PM

The 4850X2 should be faster than the 9800GX2 and the GTX280, so I would go for that.
September 7, 2008 10:33:18 PM

To answer your first question, yes the HD 4850 X2 should be faster than the 9800 GX2 and GTX 280.

Given the fact that HD 4850 are retailing at around $170-190 and HD 4870 for $260-280, I'd say that the HD 4850 will be less than $400, could be around $350-360 right where it would kill off completely the GTX 280.
September 8, 2008 12:02:08 AM

4850x2 will sell for approx $450

i've read it on multiple sites
September 8, 2008 1:29:09 AM

yes so its P/P ratio is good, but there are many more options:)  2 4850 would cost less and perform better I personally think.

And yes 1 4850 X2 would be slightly faster than the GX2, but its P/P won't be near as good.
a b U Graphics card
September 8, 2008 1:56:44 AM

I just wonder why people think itll be 450$. Please give those links of other peoples opinions. If you can already get two 4850s for close to 300$, then why would they charge 50% more for something thats actually cheaper to make? Cant remember the 9800gtx prices vs the Gx2 prices, but Im pretty sure it wasnt 50% more when it came out over the single GTX if you bought 2 of them
September 8, 2008 3:25:26 AM

Well, from what I recall, in most cases the 9800GX2 is comparable to a single 4870, normally only pulling the lead in higher resolutions specifically with the AA disabled. (turn on AA and it seems to regularly lose to the 4870 outside of Crysis specifically at 1920x1200) As a general rule, the 4870 holds the lead with AA enabled, though it loses it to the 9800GX2 if you run without AA.

However, the 4850X2 would perform akin to a 4850 CrossFire setup... Which would be substantially more powerful than any card out there save for, of course, the 4870X2. So in other words, your actual performance in games would be, provided you were using AA (and who wouldn't be at such a resolution) edging on perhaps the 90-100% range above the 9800GX2. With AA disabled, it'd still be around perhaps a 40-50% advantage depending upon the game.

Now, considering that you can get a GeForce 9800GX2 for as low as $290US now, it could be an open debate as to how it'd stack up against the 4850X2 on a price-performance standpoint. With an estimated MSRP of $450US, that would make it a 55% increase in price for, with anti-aliasing disabled, only up to a 40-50% increase in performance... Not really quite worth it, especially since the improvement might be even less.

Make no mistake, the 4850X2 should hands-down beat the 9800GX2 across the board, no matter the game or settings, at least as far as I could tell... Then again, it's what you'd expect out of paying a substantial sum more. What remains to be seen is if it's worth it... If you're using AA, then the answer would certainly be yes, that it'd be superior on the price-performance ratio. However, for those that don't use AA at very high resolutions, the opposite would be the truth.
September 8, 2008 4:47:45 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I just wonder why people think itll be 450$. Please give those links of other peoples opinions. If you can already get two 4850s for close to 300$, then why would they charge 50% more for something thats actually cheaper to make? Cant remember the 9800gtx prices vs the Gx2 prices, but Im pretty sure it wasnt 50% more when it came out over the single GTX if you bought 2 of them



Well I for 1 estimated, since the 4870 X2 is more expensive than 2 4870 by like 100$ here. so I'll assume that thats how expensive the 4850 X2 will be.

250$ for 4870 here.

589.99 for a 4870 X2.

So i just completed the pattern.

and as for the GX2 vs the 4850 X2, from what i've seen in 4850 CF, it doesn't really put enough of a gap between them to justify the price, if the X2 brings 1 gig to the table, it might change at anything over 1920x1200.

But 512 meg cards have no problem doing AA even @ 1920x1200.

Either way thats my 2cents:) 

We'll have to wait and see, i'm pissed I haven't seen any benchmarks of the 4870 X2 directly compared to the GX2:( , atleast from a site I trust:) 
a b U Graphics card
September 8, 2008 4:57:06 AM

Problem is, theres a premium for top dog, as eveyone knows, making the 4870x2 get that premium. You cant really justify the 4850x2 as that, tho there may be a slight premium, running it to 400$. Now do the figuring, and its competitive again. I keep seeing people saying theyve heard that its 450$, Id just like a link or two. Im thinking even with the coming of the long awaited 55nm refresh of the G series, itll still be the 2nd best card
September 8, 2008 5:02:06 AM

I really don't think it'll be $450, first it doesn't follow the same AMD philosophy that has been preached since release "Priced for Gamers", especially when you can pretty much kill the GTX 280, severely castrate the GTX 260, albeit they'd have to drop the HD 4870 from $270 to $250 to keep it competitive (which shouldn't worry them all that much).

The HD 4870 right now is $260-280 (2x = $520 - 560) and the HD 4870 X2 is $550, so it's around the same price point for an HD 4870 CF setup and an X2. What makes people think it'll be any different for the HD 4850 X2 is beyond me.
a b U Graphics card
September 8, 2008 5:10:20 AM

Ive seen this posted several times, not just in this thread.. On one I called FUD, and still never got any links. Who knows?
September 8, 2008 5:16:56 AM

It just doesn't feel right, not something like the current AMD would do. Right now they are trying hard to restore their position as the "Gamer's choice" brand, something that nvidia took effortlessly from them in the past 2 years. They are basically indirectly painting nvidia cards as inefficient, overpriced, and technologically behind (Statement that I concur with, and sadly holds partially true for their Phenoms).

Right now making money is #2, their priority feels more like the reestablishing of their brand, which they have done well enough so far, and with the upcoming HD 4670 I can see they are taking steps to lock that position, so why overprice a card that can basically make AMD the undisputed best choice for the $150-550 price segment... doesn't make sense.

I mean it when I say it, this card if priced right can make nvidia shed tears of blood.
a b U Graphics card
September 8, 2008 5:29:13 AM

It could actually be priced as low as 300$ and would not only kill any nVidia card made, but best bang for buck, and be the second fastest out, at a price nVidia cant touch, not even a 250$ G280 at 55nm would look good against that price
September 8, 2008 5:45:26 AM

Yeah they could easily do that... But they wouldn't want to undercut their very own 4870 by too much, that's why I see a $350-$360 tag the most reasonable.

Thing is nvidia is bleeding money with their GTX 260 and 280s, pricing this thing at $350 while force nvidia to drop from their $400-430 tag to at the very minimum $340-350 and the 260 would have to drop, and exactly how much more can the GTX 260 drop in price before it's forcefully EOL'd due to tremendous losses? I may seem overly enthusiastic about this, and I know competition is good and I don't want Ati to completely kill nvidia, but that doesn't mean I don't want them to torture them and make them bleed.

Nvidia deserves what they're getting... the whole GF9 series, that joke known as 9800 GX2, and GTX 200 release price tag. They think they had a monopoly and could take advantage of the costumer. On the other hand, AMD has done a lot of crap in the past, but they are doing the right thing this time around (They could have priced the 4850 at $320 and 4870 at $470), and they got 110% support from Emp!

They gotta pour some of the same pixie dust they used on making the HD 4000 on the phenoms, see if some of the greatness rubs off on them...
a b U Graphics card
September 8, 2008 5:56:23 AM

Hope they didnt use it all up. Yea, at 300, its way too optimistic, but even so, still doable, whereas we both know nVidia couldnt compete with that price. A 280$ G280 would look nice tho.... heheh
September 8, 2008 6:06:55 AM

Ati is in such a good spot right now, not only they are supposedly having incredible yields, but also the cost per GPU seems to be really low. Kinda the opposite with nvidia. That's why I'm sticking to my conclusion, the HD 4850 X2 will be priced at $350 (+/- $20)
September 8, 2008 6:17:40 AM

i think the DX10.1 support is basically useless. Purely because nvidia does not have support for the standard, developers will not produce games using 10.1 that would lower their sales quite considerably therefore..... just no.
a b U Graphics card
September 8, 2008 6:52:56 AM

Thing is, after we see a few games out, and thatll be before nVidia comes out with DX10.1, opinions will change, regardless of whether nVidia thinks its important or not, cause, every time says someone says that, itll be thrown in their face, and their response will be "but those arent great games, then another will come out, and another.... yes it matters
September 8, 2008 7:21:28 AM

L1qu1d said:
Well I for 1 estimated, since the 4870 X2 is more expensive than 2 4870 by like 100$ here. so I'll assume that thats how expensive the 4850 X2 will be.

250$ for 4870 here.

589.99 for a 4870 X2.

So i just completed the pattern.

I dunno where you're seeing $250 4870s, especially in Canada... The least I spot 'em for in the USA is $260US on NewEgg, and that's an anomalous price; the next ones are in the $275-280US range. Meanwhile, the 4870X2s are invariably priced $550US or $560US...

If you count out the anomalous price for the 4870, then the 4870X2 is about equal to the price of two of the 4870s. Of course, one must also remember that the 4870X2 is new, and hence holds to its MSRP of $550US, while the 4870 has been cut from its MSRP of $300US, meaning that the X2 was actually CHEAPER.

L1qu1d said:
But 512 meg cards have no problem doing AA even @ 1920x1200.

I would beg to differ; Crysis shows a clear example of this; while the 4800s handle AA far, far better than even the GTX 200 series cards, at 1920x1200 its demand for framebuffer size is just too great, causing the performance of the 4870 to plummet less than that of the GTX 260, in spite of running faster with it disabled, which runs contrary to how the 4870 normally is, which is supposed to be superior in performance with AA enabled compared to some cards it loses to with it disabled. Given how it manages to be superior to the 260 with AA enabled at 1680x1050, though equal to it with it disabled... But with AA even manages to almost hit the GTX 280, it shows pretty strong evidence that at 1920x1200 with x4 AA, there's definite use for more than 512MB of RAM.

JAYDEEJOHN said:
It could actually be priced as low as 300$ and would not only kill any nVidia card made, but best bang for buck, and be the second fastest out, at a price nVidia cant touch, not even a 250$ G280 at 55nm would look good against that price

If it's the best bang for the buck, why would AMD do it? They'd be cutting into certain profits that they'd get by simply pricing it higher. I mean, SURE, the end-user would like a really cheap, stupidly powerful card, but that's not how the graphics companies work. Remember that the originally hinted MSRPs for the 4850 and 4870 were respectively $170US and $250US or so, yet they decided to jack them up a bit when AMD realized just how potent they were, and hence could squeeze more profit out of them while STILL delivering a killer price/performance ratio.
September 8, 2008 7:45:17 AM

V3NOM said:
i think the DX10.1 support is basically useless. Purely because nvidia does not have support for the standard, developers will not produce games using 10.1 that would lower their sales quite considerably therefore..... just no.

But there are still quite few games supporting 10.1 comming out.
September 8, 2008 8:41:27 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Thing is, after we see a few games out, and thatll be before nVidia comes out with DX10.1, opinions will change, regardless of whether nVidia thinks its important or not, cause, every time says someone says that, itll be thrown in their face, and their response will be "but those arent great games, then another will come out, and another.... yes it matters

No games developer in their right mind would limit their market to a specific graphic type... that's just not smart business! the people with nvidia cards would not buy it, and their sales would be down.

Sure, maybe they could have a patch included in the box with the game to drop it to DX10, like they did with assassin's creed (unfortunately AFTER the game was released, you had to dl it lol), but no one's going to have a game exclusively DX10.1 at this point in time. by the time the next generation comes around, we'll have DX11 most likely, and all of this will just fade into history, not mattering at all.
a b U Graphics card
September 8, 2008 12:57:30 PM

Having DX10.1 doesnt limit it to exclusively DX10.1 cards, as witnessed when AC came out, and both ATI and nVidia played the game, after the "patch", performance went DOWN 20% or more on the DX10.1 compliant cards. Hmmm . Now, making the claim that nVidia card owners wont buy a game they like because its DX10.1 is crazy. If it plays on their cards, why not? Maybe theyll see a performance hit by not HAVING DX10.1, but if it plays, it wont matter. Not sure what youre thinking there. You WILL see a few DX10.1 games out, like I said. Maybe not bid titles, maybe not alot, but like I did say, as each one comes out, this will begin to matter, as it will become a topic, and one that nVidia doesnt want to happen, but when another game appears, itll only grow. With nVidias current position in the mind of enthusiasts, they really dont need this type of exposure to their cavalier attitude again, but I can assure you, itll happen, and ONLY the die hard nVidia fanboys wont see it and understand it
September 8, 2008 6:11:24 PM

So after all this... Which is a very good discussion, do you guys think that if i can get 2x4850 for around for Less than 300$ and get myself a p45 motherboard to crossfire them in. Would it be worth it ?

Or would i be loosing alot of the performance by going 8x crossfire?

Should i just save the cash and wait for the 4850x2 ?

PS. I can get both 4850 for less than the cheapest 9800gx2 i can find....
September 8, 2008 7:03:25 PM

V3NOM said:
i think the DX10.1 support is basically useless. Purely because nvidia does not have support for the standard, developers will not produce games using 10.1 that would lower their sales quite considerably therefore..... just no.

Oh, really? It didn't have much of an effect when developers were coming out with games supporting DirectX 9.0c, when ATi's cards didn't support it... Didn't really seem to hurt their sales much, even though at the time, they cut off a huge portion of their market. (X800/X850 cards outsold 6800s if memory serves)

Likewise, it wasn't too harmful either when the Radeon X1k cards came out, and then those on the relatively more-common GeForce 7 cards couldn't use the OpenEXR-style HDR with anti-aliasing at the same time, while those with ATi cards could.

Really, adding support for something doesn't kill your performance. If you want an even bigger blow to nVidia, we can take a look at Half-Life², where all those who had taken a GeForce FX card couldn't use DirectX 9 mode, because, quite frankly, even the GeForce FX 5950 ultra sucked too bad at it to make it playable, having only half the pixel shader units of the 9700/9800 cards and with each shader being vastly less competent. Yet that didn't stop the game from being one of the biggest successes ever, easily blowing past the more widely-compatible Doom³.

alex_oneill2006 said:
So after all this... Which is a very good discussion, do you guys think that if i can get 2x4850 for around for Less than 300$ and get myself a p45 motherboard to crossfire them in. Would it be worth it ?

Or would i be loosing alot of the performance by going 8x crossfire?

Should i just save the cash and wait for the 4850x2 ?

PS. I can get both 4850 for less than the cheapest 9800gx2 i can find....

I don't think that going for quad CrossFire at the moment really makes a lot of sense; current benchmarks, sadly, show that there is little to no benefit to be gained from putting two 4870X2 cards in CrossFire, so it would be safe to say that perhaps the same thing will come, right now, for two 4850X2 cards in CrossFire. Prehaps in the future they'll fix that issue with some revised drivers, but for now, it just isn't right.

Since Intel's best chipsets all support CrossFire anyway, though, 4850 CrossFire, provided you have suitable cooling for them, (such as having 2-slot coolers to vent out the hot air) makes a good deal of sense; for $340US or so you'd get a good deal more performance than any single card out on the market save for the 4870X2. And yes, it'll readily surpass the performance of the 9800GX2... One must remember that the 4850 is quite a ways above the 9800GT that the 9800GX2 is based upon. Kinda irks me that some people (not referring to you, since you appear to understand) forget what a wide range in performance difference exists between the entire G80/G92 lineup; the 4850 bests the 9800GTX+, which is about 25% more potent than the 8800GT. And if you're using AA, the 4850's lead grows.

At any rate, 4850 CrossFire would be good for high-resolutions and settings... And if you can get them cheaper than a single 9800GX2, then that's all the better. Likewise, potentially waiting for a 4850X2 could make sense, though if you've got CrossFire capability, I don't really see what you'd be missing out on by taking a pair of 4850s instead of a single 4850X2, since quad CrossFire is currently nothing to worry about missing out on. Of course, keep in mind that it's quite possible that a pair of 4850s or 4850X2 might be utterly overkill for you... I don't recall you mentioning what you said you intended to use 'em for.
September 8, 2008 7:17:04 PM

Thanks for that reply^, very knowledgeable.

Im doing an overall system upgrade at the moment. Piece by piece. As i dont have the cash to blow it all at once :p 

I have 2 choices:

Stick with the P35 i have at the moment with my 9800 GTX. And wait for the 4850x2.

Buy the 2 4850's and an x38 ddr3 motherboard (as x48 ddr3 is too expensive for me!)

I also intend to use them for gaming such as cod4 crysis etc. top games and i like my AA. on a 24" screen soon :) 
September 8, 2008 8:17:51 PM

nottheking said:
I dunno where you're seeing $250 4870s, especially in Canada... The least I spot 'em for in the USA is $260US on NewEgg, and that's an anomalous price; the next ones are in the $275-280US range. Meanwhile, the 4870X2s are invariably priced $550US or $560US...

If you count out the anomalous price for the 4870, then the 4870X2 is about equal to the price of two of the 4870s. Of course, one must also remember that the 4870X2 is new, and hence holds to its MSRP of $550US, while the 4870 has been cut from its MSRP of $300US, meaning that the X2 was actually CHEAPER.


I would beg to differ; Crysis shows a clear example of this; while the 4800s handle AA far, far better than even the GTX 200 series cards, at 1920x1200 its demand for framebuffer size is just too great, causing the performance of the 4870 to plummet less than that of the GTX 260, in spite of running faster with it disabled, which runs contrary to how the 4870 normally is, which is supposed to be superior in performance with AA enabled compared to some cards it loses to with it disabled. Given how it manages to be superior to the 260 with AA enabled at 1680x1050, though equal to it with it disabled... But with AA even manages to almost hit the GTX 280, it shows pretty strong evidence that at 1920x1200 with x4 AA, there's definite use for more than 512MB of RAM.


If it's the best bang for the buck, why would AMD do it? They'd be cutting into certain profits that they'd get by simply pricing it higher. I mean, SURE, the end-user would like a really cheap, stupidly powerful card, but that's not how the graphics companies work. Remember that the originally hinted MSRPs for the 4850 and 4870 were respectively $170US and $250US or so, yet they decided to jack them up a bit when AMD realized just how potent they were, and hence could squeeze more profit out of them while STILL delivering a killer price/performance ratio.


Crysis is a game that can put any graphics card to its knees even at 1280x1024, but I won't argue when it comes to that game. Everything else the GX2 alone is less than the 280 GTX by 10 frames or sometimes even above. Likewise for the 4870, Sometimes I even see it over the 1 gig 280 GTX @ 1920x1200 (GRID would be a good example, but I think I saw Enemy territory as well).

And to answer your other question, theres a place called filtechcomputers in canada, they have awesome prices, there was an open boxed 4870 X2 for 450$. The 4870 go on sale once in a while for 250 from their original 279.99. Either way for me I don't spend too much time looking for a video card.

1 of my GX2s can take any game maxed out @ 1920x1200 (Crysis jerks). For this year I'd say anything thats 9600 GT sli (I beleive its slightly less than 1 4850 since 2 9600 GTs are only abit over 1 Ultra) and over would do you more than enough (maybe you'll have to let go of AA at some point). People that shine out for for heavy cards (I for 1 am one of them) are either enthusiasts or show offs, which isn't bad to be either since this is a hobby.

512 staggers above 1920 but only with AA enabled (Except amazing games like COD4, and well optimized games like HL2 Source engine, and I'm sure there are others (UT3/Bioshock)).

Either way make what you from it, I'm never trying to put any1 down when commenting or posting, but I use my logic and what ever I acquired to spank trolls (you def don't fall in that category from your posts).

People need to be open minded and not talk about hardware using personal feeling, and I've seen alot of posts like that. both Nvidia and ATI have brought cards to the table this year, and I'm glad that I can use the words "Exchange" and "on par" when talking about both companies.


P.S

I have a 9700M GTS 512 megs on my laptop, and I can max out any game with atleast 4x AA (crysis no, barely do high without AA) @ 1440x900, and that card is about as strong as a 9600 GT.
September 8, 2008 8:32:14 PM

alex_oneill2006 said:
Thanks for that reply^, very knowledgeable.

Im doing an overall system upgrade at the moment. Piece by piece. As i dont have the cash to blow it all at once :p 

I have 2 choices:

Stick with the P35 i have at the moment with my 9800 GTX. And wait for the 4850x2.

Buy the 2 4850's and an x38 ddr3 motherboard (as x48 ddr3 is too expensive for me!)

I also intend to use them for gaming such as cod4 crysis etc. top games and i like my AA. on a 24" screen soon :) 


Get an X38 DDR2 board instead, save a lot of money on the memory that will give you no real performance gains.

DFI LANPARTY DK X38-T2R LGA 775 Intel X38 ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

(2x) SAPPHIRE 100245L Radeon HD 4850 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card - Retail

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory - Retail

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

That's a great deal for your money right there.
September 8, 2008 9:18:24 PM

Thanks for that reply dude. ^

I do agree that would be a very good deal, but seeing as i already have ddr3 ram. And a i can purchase an asus p5e3 x38 cheaper than that.

The 4850's look good!

Maybe i can buy the normal version with the single slot coolers and see if i can find a bargain for other coolers

Regards
September 9, 2008 12:25:52 AM

emp said:
Ati is in such a good spot right now, not only they are supposedly having incredible yields, but also the cost per GPU seems to be really low.(+/- $20)


Internerd Nitpicker here, but I don't think that is a "but also" statement. The cost per GPU is low primarily because of the incredible yields.
a b U Graphics card
September 9, 2008 1:26:15 AM

No, as the determined size of the chip comes into play as well, so, the yields are very impressive, but also cheaper to make regarding die size as well
September 9, 2008 1:34:11 AM

I see $350 for the 4850X2, any higher and the buy becomes questionable.
a c 106 U Graphics card
September 9, 2008 2:52:32 AM

If it costs more than $400 it's probably better just to get two 4850s :sol: 
September 9, 2008 3:08:28 AM

^exacta tickaly tackly
September 9, 2008 5:47:05 PM

Ok i have missed that deal...

Would i be economically viable to buy 2x4850's for around £220 which is ~ $330 ?
September 9, 2008 7:07:49 PM

Definitely... in newegg the cheapest I've seen is $340 for a pair of HD 4850s, and that's a pretty good deal.
September 10, 2008 8:09:04 AM

under $30 for a 9800GX2 though...

anyway, interesting comments king, that directx 9.0c comparison was very enlightening. guess i was being a bit of a fanboy there :??: 

and as for two 4870X2's in CF... drivers are new and not mature... seems to be happening more and more these days, just throw the product on the market before it's ready, hoping to snatch some fanboy sales. hope it disappoints, lol. jk...

and hmmm 8800 ultra's are at $200 these days, how much are 9600GT's? i've seen a 8800GT for $110 after rebate, so that's $90 maybe for the cheapest 9600GT? if so, stuff the ultra! :)  good if nvidia came out with another chip with a "ultra" suffix :p 
!