9800 GT?

4850 is better... Also i have notice adds for 8800 Ultra which is about the same as 4850 for 200 bucks.

I would go for the 4850

In most cases the 9800GT is the same as the 8800GT 512, there are a few exceptions though. This Asus is actually a rebadged 8800GTS 512
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814121266
according to this chart
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 011-6.html
it's about 3 tiers, or the borderline of noticeable improvement.
You really have to pay attention to the stats. Nvidia is giving there badgers a pretty free hand.

Do you guys think it's worth the $50 more?

Why do you keep linking people to tom's charts, they are really REALLY poorly done.

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/Prod [...] 6814102770

$160, or $140 after rebates.

The HD 4850 is a better choice than any 8800/9800

I've recently sold my ATI 2900XT and now I'm using a 9800GT. It's not a major step up, but I've noticed improvements in Crysis and some other games where I like to enable AA and AF. I don't play at high enough resolutions to warrant expensive cards, but I like a solid performer.

I understand that these new ATI 4000 cards are much improved over cards like the 2900XT, but I didn't choose another ATI card this time because I've not been that impressed with my experiences with ATI namely their drivers and unpredictable game performance. You'll find ATI cards perform fantastic in some games, but a different story in others. Nvidia's don't always come out on top, but they seem to be more consistent across a variety games. Also because more game developers optimize their games for Nvidia based cards, ATI always seem to be playing the catch up game trying to optimize their drivers. These are the reasons I have switched back to Nvidia, even if the 4850 is physically a faster card.