I've been researching video cards lately for an upgrade for my Biostar 790GX uATX board (w/ PII x4 940). The board has the Radeon 3x00 on-board graphics. I have been using a Radeon 3650 1GB with it but need a little more power.
... DDR3 256-bit 1GB ... pretty good, I think (graphics/graphic cards are the weakest link in my computing repertoire )
Is this a significant upgrade for running Tom Clancy & COD games on a 22" 1680x1050? If so, is there a better "bang for my buck" card available at a lower price? I'm currently using a 420W power supply, so I'd like to pick a card that would NOT require me to get a new PSU.
I've seen several 4670 1GB cards around the $100 mark, but they are all 128-bit. What's the jump like between the 4670 128-bit & the 256-bit 4850?
Thanks for any help.
*PS ... yes I've reviewed the graphics charts on Tom's*
I would definatly go with the 4850 over the 4670 it would be a big improvement in gaming. The card that you picked out is pretty good b/c it has 1gb of ram instead of the standard 512mb on the 4850 and the ram isnt any slower ur version is 1990mhz and the standard 512mb version is 1986 so its even slightly faster. Depending on your budget this card is a little more but you will see great performance gains over the 4850 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... it has less ram but a much wider bus interface of 448bit vs. 256bit and its the oc version too. But for the same price range that you picked out the card you chose was a good choice Good Luck with the new card
That XFX card you originally linked to is a great deal. I'd suggest it if you can afford it (much better than a 9600, and the 1GB will be great for crossfire later on). I just bought that XFX card, and it installed nicely and is very cool and quiet (the fan barely spins at all, but the card stays very cool. I'm not sure how). I'm very pleased with it.
So ... now that I have both cards in my possession ... I can't tell a difference in performance?!?! They both run COD5, COD4, & Tom Clancy games with great frame rates. I am sure that the 1GB 4850 beats the 512mb 9600 in benchmarks, but is there really a difference in actual performance? I can't find any so far.
The 4850 is a couple of steps up, but it's not a huge improvement over a 9600gt.
You are experiencing what most people do when they upgrade a graphics card. It's almost always disappointing because you were expecting more.
What you need to do is, make your card work. Before you were getting good framerates on the 9600, now you can get good framerates with 2-4x AA, 16x AF. Just don't expect miracles because like you said, the 9600gt was running those games at great frame rates already, and there isn't really anything better than 'great' tbh.
It's really not that noticable BSD, at least not in raw fps. It is probably the same as an upgrade from an 8800gt to 4870, which is one I made and I was pretty underwhelmed with it to start with.
You do have to make it noticable, ie push the settings up to max. In pure fps terms there is hardly much going on at all between them. When I pushed all my settings to max, then I realised what the real upgrade was - not fps but quality.
Well the originally linked card is only $120 with free shipping now, but the 4670s, if you're still interested, are also cheaper then you originally posted.
Instead of $100, here's a 4670 for $75 + free shipping + $10 mail-in-rebate: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
It's just a 512MB model, but with the 4670 there's very little perfomance difference between then 512MB and 1GB models. It's a great if you're on a budget but if you can afford the 4850 you linked I'd go with it instead.
Well, like I said earlier, I can't tell too much of a difference between the 4850 & the 9600. However, my Windows 7 Experience shot up from 5.4 or 5.5 (9600) to 6.9 (4850). I was really impressed with that jump. It far surpassed what I had expected. I feel better about my purchase now that I have actually seen that number. I think that the 4850 will service me longer (before I need to upgrade again) than the 9600.
I am let down that Newegg has dropped the 4850 down to $120 ... after I already bought it. And now I have an extra video card lying around that I can't use Now my $135 4850 cost me $225.
Based on 1600x1200 resolution the percentage increase in performance is from about 40% to over 200% with Quake. At 1920 x 1200 resolution the percentage increase should be a little lower, but still noticeable. If people think the HD 4850 only offers a minor increase in performance, then based one these benchmarks, their expectation are rather absurd and need to get back in touch with reality.