Your better off getting a 4850, I think it costs about the same and performs bettter. Not only that but it supports directx 10.1, onlike the 8800, and if you want to crossfire in future then the 4850 is perfect. How much would you be paying for an 8800gts?
a no it does not cost about the same not here in canada 8800 gt 512 around 100$ before tax check tiger and 4850 is around 200$ give.
i own both of those cards and there performance is very close 4850 is faster but for the price you can get an 8800 if cost matters
Your friend isnt too smart. There are a lot of cards better than a 8800GTS 512, and there are cards better than a 9800GX2.
A 8800GTS 512 barely outperforms a 8800GT. The 4850 and 4870 ATI cards are both faster than a 8800GTS 512. The best bang for the buck right now is the ATI4850. Read some reviews.
I'll have to disagree to point here with these statements. I do agree that you should really stay away from anything with an X2 designation, you are paying a premium for the performance.
It is however more correct to state that a 4850 barely outperforms a 8800GTS 512.
The difference between the 8800GT and the 8800GTS is farther apart, and the GTS overclocks very, very nicely to bring it on par and even pass the 8800GTX in all but the highest resolutions. The extra memory and memory buss width still make the GTX a superior performer when you really start cranking up the resolution.
For the money, a 4850 is a good choice. If you can find an 8800GTS 512 card for say $25 less than a 4850 in your area, I would definetly grab the GTS.
As for bnechmarks, there are still plenty of them around. Just check Toms VGA charts on the front page of the site.
You may think that I am a little bias'd, as I do own a 8800GTS 512 OC. But I bought it after a lot of research, and before the latest generation of cards has came out, it replaced my aging but good ol reliable 1950pro.
According to Toms, the 4860 in most benchmarks outperforms the 9800GTX and the 9800GTX+. So to say the 4850 BARELY beats out the 8800GTS 512 is anything but reality.
If you read toms "best graphics cards for the money ($150-300)" You'll see they dont even mention the 8800GTS 512.
Look at the benchmarks, they speak for themselves. The GTS WAS on the list of best cards for the money for a long, long time until the 4850 came out with very agressive pricing, then it literally took the place of the GTS. As long as the 4850 is the same price as a GTS, then the 4850 is a better deal. As I said, if you can pick up a GTS for $25 or more less than you can get a 4850, then the GTS is a better deal.
the 4850 competes with the 9800gtx+ which is faster then the 9800gtx and the 8800gts. u really cant compare 4850 and the 8800gts performance wise.
if there around the same price 4850 is the way to go unless the 8800gts cost 50-60$ less. ur would be a fool to believe that the 4850 and 8800gts can compete. http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3338&p=7 (no 8800gts comparison but the performance is between 8800gt/8800gtx)
(toms charts r becoming false these days)
Unless the 8800GTS is a lot cheaper the HD4850 is the way to go. My research indicates that, at least in the U.S., both cards are priced about evenly at $170.
Throwing the 9800GT into the mix makes things a bit more interesting since that card can be had for just a hair over $100 and it isn't much slower than a 512MB 8800GTS. I think I'd still spend the extra an get a 4850 though.
Lol, interesting. A 9800gt with 128 stream processors enabled, while all the rest run on 112 sps, plus factory overclocking. Just adds more to the confusion of Nvidia renaming scheme.
As for 8800gts compared to 4850, the 4850 average 10-15% faster on settings that most people use. It outperforms 4850 on low resolutions without AA, but can be outperformed by as much as 25% on very high resolutions with high AA. 4850 has a low base performance, but scales much better as resolution and AA increases. So, as high resolution plus AA quickly drags down 8800gts performance, 4850 remains strong. Most people play on high resolutions with AA, so it's more relevant.
Another thing is overclocking. A typical 8800gts can oc from 650mhz stock to 780mhz (20%) reliably without volt modding or heat problems. 4850 suffer from heat and stability problems, severely limiting oc. So when both cards are oced to their respective limits, the 8800gts receives a large unfair advantage. Of course, this doesn't help people who don't oc.
Different games also handle differently. Your favorites may favor one over the other.
No one is actually wrong, they're just looking at it through a narrow, cherrypicked set of variables instead of looking at the whole picture, comparing apples to oranges, then arriving at drastically different conclusions. Basically, if you can find g92 8800gts for at least 10-15% cheaper than the cheapest 4850, it's better bang for the buck. If they cost the same, get 4850 instead. As for the gemmicks (Physx for 8800gts, DX10.1 for 4850), ignore them. They don't matter.
I too was looking at buying a new VGA and was doing a lot of research. I was after the best performance for the money. I was holding out for a price drop on the GTX 280 as it was the "Top Dog" for a single card application before the ATI 4870 X2 came out. (I have only one 16X PCIe slot)
I finally decided to buy the Geforce 9800 GX2. As I read comparisons between the newer cards and the 9800 GX2, I was finding that the 9800 GX2 was at or very near the top in every performance test. At $249 for a EVGA card, I thought this was the way to go.
I was initially mislead a bit hen I googled Gefore 9800 GX2 and read the reviews....most of these tests were conducted when the card was initially released and had immature drivers (performance was decent and the price for the card was very high). When I started to look at tests of the newer cards (GTX 280, ATI 4870, and others)..where they included the 9800 GX2 in the test...the 9800 GX2 performance really began to show through. With the latest drivers and the price drop, the 9800 GX is hard to pass up if you are looking for a single card solution.