Did some crazy maths: Assuming the 4850 is 95% the performance of the 9800gtx+ and the 4870 1gb is also 95% the performance of the GTX 260 216 (a good approximation i reckon) then running at the same clock speeds the relative shader performance looks something like this:
9800GTX+ vs. 4850
128 shaders x 1836 shader clock = performance index 100
800 shaders x 625 shader clock = performance index 95
(Normalised 800 x 1.05 = 840 = performance index 100)
Nvidia shader clock speed divided by ATI shader clock speed: 1836 / 625 = 2.9376
well yeah there is that. But over at guru3d they say 5 ati shaders for 1 nvidia shader. They admit its a crap description but i wanted to try and work it our for myself. Seems with gt200 alot of the die is taken up with interconnects and control logic, at least from the die shots.
lol i OWN a 4870 dude and i love the little thing, but pretty sure the 180 drivers have tipped g92 and gt200 over the edge. Pls show me a recnt benchmark saying otherwise. The amd cards being 95% as fast is very fair. Yes its very much a "lets say" situation with my maths lol. Dont get me wrong i would rather have a 1gb 4870 over a gtx260 216 or a 4850 over a 9800gtx+, the 4850 vs. 9800gtx+ choice being the most clear cut out of the two.
how dare you quote my favourite website against me!
mmm i'll have to find a 4850 vs 9800gtx+ benchmark now lol
Still think the geforce is quicker than the radeon here. I'd rather have a 4850, lets get that straight though. Just thought with some funky maths it would be fun to see who compares to who and what interesting that on a power per shader kind of level gt200 is only fractionally above g92. All thanks to my crappy maths lol
well no argument agianst u, u kno that. just that there won't be that many benchmarks on the 4850 vs 9800 GTX directly unless there is a revamp, new cooler, new card inthe same category etc. Unless some1 does a Driver comparison or if they are behind the rest of the sites.
Right yet no one has brought up that none of them are performing any ware near their true potential as to the nature of the architecture due to I/O and tasking of each shader unit requiring that some resources are used for scheduling. For the G92 that was about 88% of the total computing power was available to the user while the ratios are different depending on configuration and for different Nvidia gpus. ATI's architecture is much of the same way but I do not know the ratios and poor driver support complicates this negatively impacting it's performance. So a correct conclusion can be derived that none are performing as to their full potential. The same applies to DX11 gen hardware however things improved in the 68x0 cards. The Fermi has lower ratios compared to older gen hardware so they are under performing compared to their specs.