Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sapphire 4770 vs. Powercolor 4850 w/Arctic coolr @ exactly same price

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 13, 2009 7:32:09 AM

Which of thse two would YOU go for?

http://www.sapphiretech.com/presentation/product/?psn=0...

http://www.powercolor.com/eng/products_features.asp?Pro...


I heard 4850 had trouble with heat and noise... is this fixed in the powercolor version?

It'll be used for 1280x1024 gaming and casual overclocking on a Gigabyte UDP-3 770, 4gb with probably 550BE (or maybe x3 425)
a c 169 U Graphics card
November 13, 2009 7:45:26 AM

4850 performs better.
November 13, 2009 7:50:26 AM

Maziar said:
4850 performs better.


At stock yes. But what about the whole heat/noise issue? Anyone know?
Related resources
November 13, 2009 8:25:31 AM

That depends. Use Sapphire's VaporX 4850 and you won't be disappointed.
November 13, 2009 8:41:24 AM

alikum said:
That depends. Use Sapphire's VaporX 4850 and you won't be disappointed.


Hi!

My dilemma is between these two cards. Sapphire's 4850 is about 15 dollars more expensive than the powercolor in my country, but the two I listed fit my budget. They are the only 4770 and 4850 that fit my budget actually, so I came here to hear what you guys thought was the better buy (for 1280x1024, remember! :)  )
a b U Graphics card
November 13, 2009 10:48:45 AM

HD4850 for sure.

Get HD4770 only if you are limited by your PSU.
November 13, 2009 11:23:59 AM

Thanks for answers!

I have a year old Chieftec Smart Series 550W. That should be ok right?

While I'm here anyway: Which CPU would you guys go for in my budget setup (first post)? (for gaming)

It's either Athlon II x2 240, x3 425, x4 620 or PHII 550BE.

I know the phenoms are best for gaming but honestly... what does it matter if I get 80fps instead of 60fps at 1280x1024? My monitor only goes up to 60Hz anyway. Or am I missing something? The x425 seems very balanced to me, it has both current performance and 3 cores for the future.

Like in this review for instance: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom2x2_athlo...

They get hundreds of fps, and the difference between the 550 and the 250 are a few frames. What am I paying for in a phenom II if I get almost the same performance with an athlon anway (especially at low resolutions). I don't understand.
a b U Graphics card
November 13, 2009 12:09:29 PM

The Athlon II X4 620 is the best of all.
Newer games will need 4cores more than cache.
November 13, 2009 1:32:26 PM

shubham1401 said:
The Athlon II X4 620 is the best of all.
Newer games will need 4cores more than cache.


I hear you, but I just noticed that the "system buyer's guide 2.0" specifically stated that x4 620 was no good for gaming. I have no idea who's right I'm just saying.

More importantly: Do I really need anything more than x2 240 at 1280x1024? If so, why? If I get 60+ fps anyway what does it matter?
a b U Graphics card
November 13, 2009 1:46:14 PM

It will matter sometime later...

And even now there are many titles that show good performance boost with quads.

!