Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Radeon vs geforce

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 12, 2009 5:34:05 AM

now i have a few questions. im a big gamer fan but doesnt the radeon have problems of not being supported by alot of games? i know that was the way it use to be but more and more im hearing alot of people use them so i guess that is out of the question. also are radeon graphic cards that good now? ive been a nvidia geforce fan but im leaning more towards the radeons cause i noticed the shaders are alot higher. im looking to get rid of my 8600gt and update but i want to be able to play like crysis on high end graphics so any advice would be great.
thanks

More about : radeon geforce

a b U Graphics card
January 12, 2009 5:36:12 AM

What do you mean not supported? They both work in all games, though the multi-GPU setups are somewhat more picky for maximum performance. Something like the 4830 or 4850 would be a huge upgrade from an 8600, and not too expensive.
a c 171 U Graphics card
January 12, 2009 5:44:23 AM

I'm guessing hes talking about how close Nvidia is with the game manufacturers. They have tons of game profiles in their drivers, something AMD doesn't. This doesn't mean the games aren't supported by the AMD cards, it simply means they aren't "tweaked".

This question isn't worded properly. What your asking is a bit like asking Ford or Chevy. Each company makes so many different models, with different prices and abilities, that you simply can't asked Ford/Chevy or AMD/Nvidia. Mustang or Camero, 4850 or 9800GT sure, but asking about the company doesn't make a lot of sense.

Jberry, what video games do you play? What resolution do you play at? What does the rest of your computer look like? What power supply do you have? These are questions that should be answered before we start throwing card ideas at you.
Related resources
January 12, 2009 5:45:06 AM

A lot of games have Nvidia ads all over them, but ATI is supported in all games.

Right now ATI pretty much rules the low-midrange cards. In the high end there's competition between the GTX260 216 and the HD4870 1GB and in the ultra high end there's the GTX295 and HD4870X2.
January 12, 2009 10:36:30 AM

Jberry, what video games do you play? What resolution do you play at? What does the rest of your computer look like? What power supply do you have? These are questions that should be answered before we start throwing card ideas at you.



i like the games such as crysis, bioshock, f.e.a.r etc... resolution is 1680/1050(22 inch widescreen monitor) im running a 650watt ps. running a older nforce 570 slit a mb with a pen. d 830 3ghz(o/c to 3.7) ( and also will be getting a make over with that part of the pc as well). yes i am sorry i really worded my questions wrong as in not supported. its just you never see ati in anything(advertised that is) with the games.
a c 171 U Graphics card
January 12, 2009 10:42:58 AM

I wouldn't get any of the uber high end cards, the 4850 or at most the 4780 is enough. This also depends on your budget and future upgrade plans.
January 12, 2009 10:48:45 AM

future updates is the ci7 cpu and new mb but that wont be until next year. i just want a card that plays these games on high graphics and has a good shader to them. also id like to have one pci-e with hd connectors. also what is the better brand name out there in the ati world(manufacture).
January 12, 2009 2:55:47 PM

is this one a pretty good card? HIS Radeon HD 4850 IceQ4 TurboX - 512MB GDDR3, PCI Express 2.0, CrossFireX Ready, (Dual link) Dual DVI
or
HIS Radeon HD 4850 Video Card - 512MB GDDR3, PCI Express 2.0, CrossFireX Ready, (Dual Link) Dual DVI, HDTV, HDMI Support, VGA Support 4 Users Rated





i hear that the q4 is a small o/c but has great benchmarks on that little bit of o/c.
a b U Graphics card
January 12, 2009 5:03:47 PM

you'll definitely see a performance increase going from the 8600 up to that 4850.

but that pentiumD might hold your new 4850 back a little bit.

a better option is to get a cheap c2d (e5200 or e2200 whichever fits the budget, both are completely disposable till next year) and get a 4830 instead. it will require you to update your motherboard's bios though but its definitely worth it.

heres a few link to give you an idea.

4830
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131129

e2200
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116063
January 12, 2009 5:38:38 PM

One thing to keep in mind is that the 4850 as a high idle unless you manually turn up the fan. I have a Visiontek 4850 (visiontek offers a lifetime warranty)that idled at ~60 until i turned the fan up from the stock 20%. My card has the stock cooler which is a single slot so any card with a dual slot will cool the card quite a bit better. ATI designed the card to have a high idle temp so it's nothing to be alarmed about.
January 13, 2009 4:29:42 AM

yeah i was going to update my cpu to a core 2 duo and probably (leaning towards) the his radeon hd 4850 iceq4 turbo card. links to show
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

reason for the cpu is that it is a 4mb cache instead of 2mb as most the other ones at fab 1066mhz.
reason for the card is that the turbo is a good little clockable card. cant clock it too much but what you can = great benchmarks compared to others.so i hear.

next question is that will a ati card be completely compatible on my nvidia based mb with sli?
January 13, 2009 6:30:36 AM

Yes, you can use an ATI card in an nvidia chipset. Of course, you can't use crossfire.
January 13, 2009 3:21:46 PM

i did notice that isnt that many mb's that are crossfire ready compared to sli. that is making me debate even more on what to get. i take it crossfire is a newer version of sli or competitor? i like the features of the sli boards but if the ati cards are better then im not sure.
January 13, 2009 3:32:43 PM

jberry72 said:
i did notice that isnt that many mb's that are crossfire ready compared to sli.


It's actually the other way around, you need a Nvidia chipset or X58 to run SLI. On the other hand many AMD and Intel chipsets can run crossfire.

jberry72 said:

that is making me debate even more on what to get. i take it crossfire is a newer version of sli or competitor? i like the features of the sli boards but if the ati cards are better then im not sure.


It's basically ATI's version of it.
January 13, 2009 4:20:44 PM

yes i do realize that on the nvidia part. im a more less old nvidia die hard but i can not deny that ati cards are better then nvidia as of now. i really want ati cards but alot of mb's i noticed dont support crossfire. they mostly support sli. cant get a mb and crossfire two gp's unless the mb supports it correct?
see i want ati cards, intel cpu but i want a good mb that competes to the xfx 790i boards (that supports ati) just in case i decide to go and get another gp.
January 13, 2009 4:58:38 PM

I was in a similar debate when I put together my current system. I ended up with a Gigabyte x38 motherboard supporting crossfire and have 2 hd3870's in crossfire right now.

There are a lot fo good articles out there explaining the difference between the 2. In a direct head to head, sli tends to beat out crossfire, expecially with AA enabled. That being said, a particular game must be specifically coded to work with SLI, where crossfire will work with anything, just by the nature of how they both work.

Regardless of what you pick, just keep in mind, in 6 months, a faster, better card will come out for probably less money. So, don't wait too long, get something that will play the games you want and pull the trigger. At this point, make sure you get a chipset that supports pci-e 2.0 and has dual x16 pathways. That's about all the future proofing you can do at this point.
January 14, 2009 4:14:19 AM

no i did not look at that article. im new here so i have been around but i will read it. i also seen a qoute that said you need to really choose a card based on the games you play im not sure how you can do that? myself i like dead space crysis fear and on and on. so how can i choose a card good for that? i know i want the power and shaders high also the clock speed bumped up. that is my problem i guess. it depends on who you talk to on what you get in response. like i seen a guy say that the 9800gtx out performs the 4850 hands down but when you look at core speeds shaders and other specs. i dont see how it can. yeah i know it will be outdated in like 6months on most of them the way games and tech is now days but i want still a good pumper of a card for this year.
a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 4:19:08 AM

The 4850 outperforms the 9800GTX. That one is a fairly simple one.

Now, the 4870 vs the GTX 260 is closer, especially the 4870 1GB vs the GTX 260 core 216, and they are pretty much dead even in most titles.
January 14, 2009 4:40:42 AM

well i noticed that it was compared to the gtx+ and the specs are real close that is for sure.
tigerdirect has a video on bench mark compared on both cards but it doesnt use the card i was interested in on it.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...
that is the video
card i was interested in was the his radeon hd 4850 iceq4 turbox that is the two im debating on right now.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

what is the stream processors on a card mean? that is the only big difference. nvidia is always lower then ati on that.
January 14, 2009 5:23:45 AM

Nvidia is definetly the future, not only is it easier to overclock, it is a lot more competitive for the price imo, has stereo 3d technology so you can play games in 3d like imax 3d, has physx for games that more and mor eutalize it like cryostasis and mirrors edge.
a c 171 U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 8:04:03 AM

^__________ LOL, your kidding right?

Nvidia has PhysX, AMD uses Havok, which is much more popular. Nvidia is not more competitive for the price, nor are their DX10 cards more "future proof" then AMDs DX10.1. They just came out with stereo, most of us lack the monitors to use it, and as reported, game play is less then good. I'm not saying AMDs are more "future proof", but they aren't behind like your trying to claim.
January 14, 2009 8:28:07 AM

Never compare number of shaders, clock or memory speed between cards that are not the same generation.

The only thing important is the performance they offer. Memory bandwidth and processing power might be an indicator.
You cannot compare radeon and geforce in terms of shaders, clock or memory. There are different architectures involved. They do pretty much the same thing using different methods.
In the end you are interested in what it can do not how it does it.
Just see which one achieves the highest most consistent framerate at an affordable price.

Read a few reviews and watch the frame rate charts.
You can find them all here and on other sites.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/review/Components,1/Graph...

Search benchmarks for
Radeon HD 4830, 4850, 4870, 4850x2, 4870x2
Nvidia 9800GTX, GTX 260, GTX 280, GTX 295

Decide which one of the cards offers you the best performance for what you can afford and buy it. You might want to read 2-3 reviews entirely, you will start to understand things a lot better. After that just check the frame rates, power consumption and price.

4830 < 9800GTX < 4850 < 4850 1GB < 4870 < 260 < 4870 1GB < 260 (216) < 280 < 4850x2 < 4870x2 < 295

Pick one card and then check all it's variations... for factory overclocks, cooling solutions, sound generated accessories and prices.
a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 11:40:14 AM

4745454b said:


Nvidia has PhysX, AMD uses Havok, which is much more popular.


i think thats a wrong assumption. Yes nvidia uses PhysX, but as of now AMD/ATI uses nothing for hardware physics acceleration. Havok runs on the CPU not on the GPU. So in effect NVIDIA can run Havok, too.


Nvidia is definetly the future, not only is it easier to overclock.
said:

Nvidia is definetly the future, not only is it easier to overclock.


what'dya mean easier to overclock? both camps has already OC support from their drivers. both drivers will let you use a slider to increase or to decrease mem/core clock. i think i didnt even burn 5 calories doing that.
January 14, 2009 11:46:32 AM

Never compare number of shaders, clock or memory speed between cards that are not the same generation.


didnt the two cards come out around the same time to compete with one another?
i seen three benchmark test on the two cards i listed above. and they are about equal on the benchmarks depending on the game as in unreal tournament III the gtx+ won and like in call of duty 4 4850 won. but that was just the updated version of the cards(o/c style). the accual vanilla 4850 was left standin in the low margin on the benchmarks compared to the two cards i listed.
i dunno ill keep checking and comparing. i have a little more time before i pull the trigger and buy one.
a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 12:30:22 PM

most of the reviews on the net came around the time when the 4850 came out. at that time a gtx (not gtx+, it cost around 220$) cost around the same as a 4870 (around 200$+) and the 4850 came in @ 180$+.

most people just look @ the conclusion/final words section. some of them just look @ the graphs.

the 4800's success isnt about the cards complete performance domination of the geforce, it didnt. its more of the price the 4800s are being offered at. some people forget that.

January 14, 2009 3:14:58 PM

yeah i did notice that i can get a 4870 at $200 so i may do that instead. ive read alot of reviews and they are a good card.
the iceq4 was over 200 and the gtx+ was under 200 at like 174 and the 4870 was 199 and that is suppose to be better then the other two i have listed.
can you o/c the 4870 and get accual improvements out of it?
a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 3:41:39 PM

@ your target resolution OC'ing is not that necessary. but of course oc'ing will always yield improvement vs a stock configuration. the only caveat is oc'ing is not an exact science. experience may vary from other users.
January 14, 2009 3:49:55 PM

so in general the 4870 is the best out there for 200?
all ill be running is a 22inch hd monitor on it as of now i have no plans of crossfire (cant anyways til i update my mb)(mine is sli ready) so the best bang for my buck is a hd 4870?
January 14, 2009 3:50:19 PM

I'm quite happy with my HD 4870. I play everything at 1920x1200. I can up everything in far cry 2 dx10 mode with 2xAA. 4xAA gets me under 30 frames though...

Hardware is pretty expensive so I don't play with overclocks. I'd just buy a factory overclocked one.
January 14, 2009 4:03:28 PM

jberry72 said:
like i seen a guy say that the 9800gtx out performs the 4850 hands down


That guy is just a fanboy, if you look at benchmarks the HD4850 is almost always on top.

I had someone argue with me that the 9800GTX was faster because it was clocked at 675Mhz while the HD4850 was only clocked at 625Mhz. He didn't even know what a benchmark was...

Pershing121 said:
Nvidia is definetly the future, not only is it easier to overclock, it is a lot more competitive for the price imo, has stereo 3d technology so you can play games in 3d like imax 3d, has physx for games that more and mor eutalize it like cryostasis and mirrors edge.


lol what a load of crap. PhysX is only used in a handful of games and that 3d game thing is just a concept demonstration with no real support, not to mention expensive. That's no different than an ATI fanboy saying that ATI is better just because of DX10.1 and that tessellation unit in the GPU. Sure the features are great but nobody uses them so it doesn't matter.
January 14, 2009 4:15:00 PM

If $200 is your budget then i would definately go with the 9800GTX over the 4870....just cause of the price performance ratio, but if you can squeeze out atleast a few more dollars then i would say get a 260GTX 192 shader model.


now that is a true fan im leaning towards the Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 Video Card. that blew the gtx away on all the benchmarks i seen and for the little bit of money price wise it is worth it to me. also the gtx 260 wasnt that much higher on the benchmarks then the 4870. the 4870 won a few lost a few to that card but the price difference between those two cards isnt worth it to me.

here is the link if anyone wants to see all the benchmarks
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/589/1

what do you guys think?
January 14, 2009 4:19:19 PM

I think better go for 9800GTX+ than going for 9800GTX..
January 14, 2009 4:21:20 PM

Go for it, the HD4870 512MB is a great card.
January 14, 2009 4:52:07 PM

man i dunno the gtx+ is around the same price as the 4870 and that is already factory o/c and the 4870 isnt.
also that is compared to the 4850 in benchmarks and wins some lose some to the 4850.
i believe that the 4870 tops the 4850 in benchmarks hands down.
link to the gtx+ benchmarks to the 4850
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-9800-gtx-512mb-pl...
January 14, 2009 5:17:22 PM

Seriously... you can't compare a 9800 GTX+ with an HD 4870... The radeon card has GDDR5 after all.

I friend of mine has the Sapphire HD 4870. The cooling solution is much better than on my Asus card. (about 50 degrees vs 80 and more silent as well)
It can also be overclocked to higher values than mine (850 vs 790 gpu and 1200 vs 1100 mem), but I don't care about those.

You have a 22" lcd so a 1GB 4870 isn't really necessary.

The GTX 260 (216 shaders) is too expensive.

So yeah... 4870 would be a best buy.

January 14, 2009 5:31:32 PM

yeah i was leaning more and more to the Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 Video Card. like what i see.
as for o/c it is just an option if i wanted to. like i did to my 8600gt just to get it to perform better til i bought a new card. and hell for 200 it sounds like a good buy.
thanks everyone for everything
January 14, 2009 6:01:49 PM

4745454b said:
^__________ LOL, your kidding right?

Nvidia has PhysX, AMD uses Havok, which is much more popular. Nvidia is not more competitive for the price, nor are their DX10 cards more "future proof" then AMDs DX10.1. They just came out with stereo, most of us lack the monitors to use it, and as reported, game play is less then good. I'm not saying AMDs are more "future proof", but they aren't behind like your trying to claim.


dude, havok isnt more popular, no games really use it unless they have to because the user only has an ati card. It is a lot slower because it is dependant on the cpu not the gpu, look at mirrors edge second level for instance, everyone with an ati card gets liess than 15 fps some get 1-2 while those with nvidia card get the regular 30-60. The same things holds true for Crystostasis. Notice both of these games are new more and more newer games utilize it. Stereo is the future and nvidia holds key, it is so immensive and impressive it will literally make you feel like you are inside the game. I use it on an lcd with cardboard glasses and already feel like this not to mention what it would be like with a 120 hz lcd with 100 dollar glasses. I mean you are looking at a world that isnt flat, and gameplay is just that much better.
a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 6:05:34 PM

turboflame said:
That guy is just a fanboy, if you look at benchmarks the HD4850 is almost always on top.



i wouldnt use the words almost always here.

you count.

sites that pitted a stock 4850 against a stock gtx+

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-4850-and-4870-review-force3d/ = the gtx+ is faster here

mass effect : gtx+
cod4: 4850
frontlines: gtx+
crysis: gtx+
wic: gtx+
vantage: gtx+
stalker: gtx+
fear:4850
grid: 4850
graw2: gtx+ (not counted, this game is so nvidia biased the gtx+ even beats a 4870)


http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341 = the gtx+ won a split decision, won by a hair.

crysis: gtx+
cod4: 4850
quakewars: 4850
assassinscreed: gtx+
witcher: gtx+
bioshock: 4850
oblivion: gtx+


http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/11/summer-2008-graphics-performance-roundup/1

crysis dx10 (4xaa / 8x af): 4850
cod4: 4850
wic: gtx+
hl2: tie (gtx+ has lower min fps while 4850 has higher max fps, the reviewer failed to notice that, they gave it to the gtx+ here)
assassinscreed: gtx+
grid: 4850


gtx+ = 12
4850 = 9


January 14, 2009 6:14:23 PM

wh3resmycar said:
i wouldnt use the words almost always here.

you count.

sites that pitted a stock 4850 against a stock gtx+

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-4850-and-4870-review-force3d/ = the gtx+ is faster here

mass effect : gtx+
cod4: 4850
frontlines: gtx+
crysis: gtx+
wic: gtx+
vantage: gtx+
stalker: gtx+
fear:4850
grid: 4850
graw2: gtx+ (not counted, this game is so nvidia biased the gtx+ even beats a 4870)


http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341 = the gtx+ won a split decision, won by a hair.

crysis: gtx+
cod4: 4850
quakewars: 4850
assassinscreed: gtx+
witcher: gtx+
bioshock: 4850
oblivion: gtx+


http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/11/summer-2008-graphics-performance-roundup/1

crysis dx10 (4xaa / 8x af): 4850
cod4: 4850
wic: gtx+
hl2: tie (gtx+ has lower min fps while 4850 has higher max fps, the reviewer failed to notice that, they gave it to the gtx+ here)
assassinscreed: gtx+
grid: 4850


gtx+ = 12
4850 = 9


Notice how I was talking about the regular 9800GTX without the plus.

The 9800GTX+ is much closer in performance but it's also generally more expensive.
January 14, 2009 6:15:00 PM

Transsive said:
Never compare number of shaders, clock or memory speed between cards that are not the same generation.

The only thing important is the performance they offer. Memory bandwidth and processing power might be an indicator.
You cannot compare radeon and geforce in terms of shaders, clock or memory. There are different architectures involved. They do pretty much the same thing using different methods.
In the end you are interested in what it can do not how it does it.
Just see which one achieves the highest most consistent framerate at an affordable price.

Read a few reviews and watch the frame rate charts.
You can find them all here and on other sites.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/review/Components,1/Graph...

Search benchmarks for
Radeon HD 4830, 4850, 4870, 4850x2, 4870x2
Nvidia 9800GTX, GTX 260, GTX 280, GTX 295

Decide which one of the cards offers you the best performance for what you can afford and buy it. You might want to read 2-3 reviews entirely, you will start to understand things a lot better. After that just check the frame rates, power consumption and price.

4830 < 9800GTX < 4850 < 4850 1GB < 4870 < 260 < 4870 1GB < 260 (216) < 280 < 4850x2 < 4870x2 < 295

Pick one card and then check all it's variations... for factory overclocks, cooling solutions, sound generated accessories and prices.


you forgot to confuse him even further by mentioning that there are sometimes 15 varitieties of a single card like the 9600 gso which has a 384 mb version, 512, and 1 gig on top of some of them having more bits than others for bandwith differences.
January 14, 2009 6:16:20 PM

"
what'dya mean easier to overclock? both camps has already OC support from their drivers. both drivers will let you use a slider to increase or to decrease mem/core clock. i think i didnt even burn 5 calories doing that."

I mena its less risky for nvidia, better throdding so you wont create lasting artifacts.
a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 6:16:49 PM

wh3resmycar said:
i wouldnt use the words almost always here.

you count.

sites that pitted a stock 4850 against a stock gtx+

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-4850-and-4870-review-force3d/ = the gtx+ is faster here

mass effect : gtx+
cod4: 4850
frontlines: gtx+
crysis: gtx+
wic: gtx+
vantage: gtx+
stalker: gtx+
fear:4850
grid: 4850
graw2: gtx+ (not counted, this game is so nvidia biased the gtx+ even beats a 4870)


http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341 = the gtx+ won a split decision, won by a hair.

crysis: gtx+
cod4: 4850
quakewars: 4850
assassinscreed: gtx+
witcher: gtx+
bioshock: 4850
oblivion: gtx+


http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/11/summer-2008-graphics-performance-roundup/1

crysis dx10 (4xaa / 8x af): 4850
cod4: 4850
wic: gtx+
hl2: tie (gtx+ has lower min fps while 4850 has higher max fps, the reviewer failed to notice that, they gave it to the gtx+ here)
assassinscreed: gtx+
grid: 4850


gtx+ = 12
4850 = 9


Minor problem with that.

The 3 top rated 4850's on Newegg right now, all with aftermarket coolers, are $159, $179, and $159 respectively. The 3 top rated 9800GTX+ cards are all over $170. If you find them for the same price, they are fairly even, but the 4850 is consistently cheaper, making it the better choice.
a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 6:17:41 PM

turboflame said:
Notice how I was talking about the regular 9800GTX without the plus.

The 9800GTX+ is much closer in performance but it's also generally more expensive.


yeah, my bad.
a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 6:17:46 PM

Pershing121 said:
dude, havok isnt more popular, no games really use it unless they have to because the user only has an ati card.


thats wrong. you make it sound like havok is a desperate countermeasure for ATI, which is a typical fan boy spat, wel it isn't. didnt you know that havok had been around for like forever?

uhh, duh, GPU-Accelerated PhysX just went primetime last year.
a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 6:24:28 PM

Pershing121 said:
"

I mena its less risky for nvidia, better throdding so you wont create lasting artifacts.


what? you mean throttling?

my 4850 sits @ 500mhz coreclock @ idle.

once your overclocking goes bad, and a transistor blow up, thats the only time you'll see lasting artifacts. that goes for nvidia and ati.

as long as none of the chips are damaged your lasting artifacts boohoo wont appear.

i hope you're not directly comparing the 738 core from the gtx+ and the 625 core from a 4850, because if thats what you're doing this conversation is over.

January 14, 2009 6:29:08 PM

Pershing121 said:
dude, havok isnt more popular, no games really use it unless they have to because the user only has an ati card. It is a lot slower because it is dependant on the cpu not the gpu


lol, Havok was around awhile before PhysX on the GPU. PhysX calculations also cause a performance hit since it takes away GPU power from working on the graphics. Also, there are still quite a few people with earlier Nvidia cards that don't support PhysX. Not everyone upgrades every 1-2 years.

Man you really are clueless.

Pershing121 said:

look at mirrors edge second level for instance, everyone with an ati card gets liess than 15 fps some get 1-2 while those with nvidia card get the regular 30-60. The same things holds true for Crystostasis. Notice both of these games are new more and more newer games utilize it.


I haven't heard any complaints from people with ATI cards, other than the HD4870X2 which apparently has issues. There are plenty of new games coming out that don't use PhysX at all.

Pershing121 said:

Stereo is the future and nvidia holds key, it is so immensive and impressive it will literally make you feel like you are inside the game. I use it on an lcd with cardboard glasses and already feel like this not to mention what it would be like with a 120 hz lcd with 100 dollar glasses. I mean you are looking at a world that isnt flat, and gameplay is just that much better.


Not happening anytime soon.

Pershing121 said:
"
I mena its less risky for nvidia, better throdding so you wont create lasting artifacts.


uh right

Sure is desperate fanboy around here.
a b U Graphics card
January 14, 2009 6:36:33 PM

cjl said:
Minor problem with that.

The 3 top rated 4850's on Newegg right now, all with aftermarket coolers, are $159, $179, and $159 respectively. The 3 top rated 9800GTX+ cards are all over $170. If you find them for the same price, they are fairly even, but the 4850 is consistently cheaper, making it the better choice.



yep i know that, let me quote myself for you :D  . .




the 4800's success isnt about the cards complete performance domination of the geforce, it didnt. its more of the price the 4800s are being offered at. some people forget that.

said:


the 4800's success isnt about the cards complete performance domination of the geforce, it didnt. its more of the price the 4800s are being offered at. some people forget that.




problem is my tally post was useless, turbo was talking about the normal gtx, i was talking about a gtx+. i didnt notice that itsy bitsy "+".

January 14, 2009 6:37:35 PM

you just proved my point. Physx is newer, hence newer technology of the future while ati is stuck in the past, stereo 3d is the future as well. You may say its nieche and no one uses it thats only because people dont know about it, it hasnt really been advertised yet. Sony is already working on it and advertising it for the ps3 and doing part of nvidia's job so it'll take off real soon. And sometimes the best things are nieche anyway when it comes to technology. And ati lets you sometimes overclock too much before warning you unlike nvidia which is a lot more safe thats what I meant, its more safe in general.
!