anyways i came here to ask what would be the better choice of these two...i don't mind the card being open box if i have to rma it i have to rma it so be it...if the performance isn't worth it il stick with the 80$ card instead
So pros and cons between these...opinions are kinda nice also
Basically the 4850 is one hell of a lot better.
The 128 vs 256 is the size of the through put available to the card, However its not as simple as saying bigger is better. I have a HD3850 which is 256bit but the HD4670 even though it is 128bit is basically the same card in terms of performance. The extra through put may help the HD3850 at higher resolutions but generally the differance is offset by the raw speed of the HD4670.
HD 4830 or 4850 if you can afford it are the best options here. 9800GTX would be fine too, but HD4850 is better. Keep in mind the 9800GTX+ as well if your going that way, 98XX is based on G92, which is old compared to 48XX (RV770, I think). To be honest HD4830 is just fine for this situation. The only NVIDIA cards worth getting at this point would be GTX 260 core 216/GTX 280/GTX 285/GTX 295. Unless you have $400+ for video cards, don't bother. Get the HD4830, is better than a 98XX card. Hope that helps.
Ok so il be playing at 1680 by 1050 when i can in games at high settings etc and maybe in a few cases il use 1920x1080 on my lg scarlet
would it make a difference if i payed for a full gb...will it hold me back i mean when games start pushing the bar will i need to start building my new rig sooner? if i don't need the 1gb tell me because im having to buy a psu and the ram to but if the 35$ will get me alot farther i can probably do that but il pretty much only need to run 1680x1050
Just seen this so dont know if i am replying in time but if this statement you posted.
"Ok so il be playing at 1680 by 1050 when i can in games at high settings etc and maybe in a few cases il use 1920x1080 on my lg scarlet"
Is going to be the norm for you then you need to decide which is more important to you, running at 1920x1080 when you can or is 1680x1050 with better settings going to be it 90% of the time ?
Getting 1gb will help towards the future and as its only $20 differance i would do it. Performance wise (FPS) it wont make much differance but it will make the card usefull to you for longer at 1680x1050 and let you use it more at 1920x1080 now.
2X2 gb would be the way i would go also as you plan to upgrade the OS (you know a 32bit system wont use all 4gb right)?
I would recomend you dont cheap out on the PSU its a very overlooked source of trouble if it end up struggling to run the system resulting in random crashes BSOD etc.
I would stick with a branded unit Corsair are my preferance but others are just as good look for something 80%+ efficiant rated.
Im sorry to be so rushed in posting back but i needed this squared away
iv already read up on the os and for the time being il just run 32bit xp
I knew the ram wouldn't generate more or less fps but i was very unsure on its priority and from what you said il go ahead and grab the 1gb
Can you recommend me a psu i am on a budget but if i can have some peace of mind on spending a bit extra why not
and one last thing...iv read ati cards fail between 100-1000 hours or something like that either way iv read of users having there cards faild after a month give or take a few days...so do you think i should go with the 1 year warranty in case it does break down past my rma time?
My last 5 cards have all been ATI Radeon cards the only one i had any issues with was a powercolor card that was second hand anyway and even then lasted a year overclocked in my rig before it played up and eventually died.
I dont recomend you pay less than about $60-$70 for your PSU i had a quick look on NewEgg and that sems the price point for a decent Corsair,Antec or seasonic PSU. Others may know of better deals but im in the UK so dont know the market over there too well