Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8800GT vs HD5850

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2009 8:04:50 PM

Just exactly how much better is an ATi HD5850 than a nVidia 8800 GT?

More about : 8800gt hd5850

a c 140 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 29, 2009 8:11:18 PM

Infinitly better. I am not sure you give a good comparision because the 8800GT is a few generations back and I haven't see it on any recent reviews in benchmarks. There really is no comparision. I would ballpark a number to saythe 5850 is 3x the performance of an 8800GT.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2009 8:23:05 PM

The 5850 is definitely better. It's still around today under the name of the 9800gt and all of the cards based off of the the G92 core 9600GT, GTS 250, etc. I would say that the 5850 is at least 2 if not 3x faster than the 8800GT. It is also very dependent one you resolution. If you use a high resolution then the 5850 will destroy the 8800GT, but at lower resolutions it wouldn't matter as long as you get at least 60 FPS.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 29, 2009 8:38:51 PM

Wow. Yeah, no comparison between the two cards. The ATI 5850 is an absolute ton faster.

The 8800GT is lesser than the GTS 250, which is lesser than the GTX 260. And the ATI 5850 is quite a bit faster than the GTX 260.

You're looking at 2 to 3 graphic card generations between the 8800GT and ATI 5850.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 29, 2009 8:54:23 PM

It (5850) was quite a step up from my 4850, which is faster than an 8800GT. Plus DX11 support as well.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2009 8:57:21 PM

What about the 5970?
a c 1307 U Graphics card
a c 145 Î Nvidia
December 29, 2009 9:00:45 PM

That is pretty much as having 2 x HD5850
December 29, 2009 9:09:29 PM

lol... You should look up benchmarks. Easy question really but the answer is not as simple as ~ 43 FPS because it depends on sooo many other variables. If you have a single core P4 then you will not notice a difference between an 8800 and a 5850.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 29, 2009 9:10:11 PM

5970 is two 5870 chips put together, but then underclocked to get in under 300W. You can overclock it back up to 5870 speeds (in theory) and then have the equivalent of 2x5870. In its stock state, it performs similar to 2x5850 like rolli said.
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2009 9:14:22 PM

8800 gt is bout where the 9500 gt is

a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2009 9:32:02 PM

they never made a 256 mb 9800 gt the 8800 gt came in 265 and 320 mb versions, the higher versions came much later
December 29, 2009 9:34:37 PM

obsidian86 said:
8800 gt is bout where the 9500 gt is


:heink:  Ahhh what? You sure you didn't mean the 8800GT is where the 9800GT is?
December 29, 2009 9:36:03 PM

obsidian86 that was the first G80 cards that came out not the G92 and were only 320mb and 640mb. The 256mb version was the G92 card.
a c 1307 U Graphics card
a c 145 Î Nvidia
December 29, 2009 9:43:43 PM

obsidian86 said:
they never made a 256 mb 9800 gt the 8800 gt came in 265 and 320 mb versions, the higher versions came much later

You are referring to the G80 8800GTS cards that were released with the 8800GTX. The GTS flavor came with 320mb and 640mb but the GTX had 768mb. The first release of the G92 offered 8800GT with 256mb and 512mb and a GTS with 512mb. Later these 512mb cards were renamed to 9800gt and 9800gtx respectively.
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2009 9:44:28 PM

ok maybe its bout where the 9600 gt is in terms of performance but even comparing a 9800gtx with a 5850 still is no contest
a c 1307 U Graphics card
a c 145 Î Nvidia
December 29, 2009 9:54:35 PM

9800GT = 8800GT 512mb
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2009 10:08:12 PM

we dunno what the op has the g80 or g92
a c 1307 U Graphics card
a c 145 Î Nvidia
December 29, 2009 10:16:49 PM

they were called 8800GTS with G80.
December 29, 2009 10:18:09 PM

The 8800GT is only G92. You are confusing it with the 8800GTS.
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2009 10:23:01 PM

on the chart there is a 8800gt 256 mb and a 8800gts 320 mb on the same level

higher up there is a 8800 gt 512mb and 9800 gt on the same level
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 29, 2009 10:24:21 PM

rolli59 said:
they were called 8800GTS with G80.


djcoolmasterx said:
The 8800GT is only G92. You are confusing it with the 8800GTS.


You're both part right, part wrong.

There are three 8800GTS models.

8800 GTS 320MB G80

8800 GTS 640MB G80

8800 GTS 512MB G92

:)  They are listed in order of performance, with the lesser card at the top.

The 8800 GTS 512MB is better than the 8800GT / 9800GT. Interestingly, the 8800 GTS 512MB molded into what nVidia called the 9800GTX+, and that was then turned into the GTS 250.
a c 1307 U Graphics card
a c 145 Î Nvidia
December 29, 2009 10:36:24 PM

jerreece said:
You're both part right, part wrong.

There are three 8800GTS models.

8800 GTS 320MB G80

8800 GTS 640MB G80

8800 GTS 512MB G92

:)  They are listed in order of performance, with the lesser card at the top.

The 8800 GTS 512MB is better than the 8800GT / 9800GT. Interestingly, the 8800 GTS 512MB molded into what nVidia called the 9800GTX+, and that was then turned into the GTS 250.

the 8800GTS 512 was turned into 9800GTX. The GTX+ came later on a smaller die with higher clock and changed into GTS250. All of my statements are right! We have just been clarifying that 8800GT 512mb which is G92 is the same as 9800GT 512mb G92.
I posted about the G92 8800GTS higher up in the thread.
December 29, 2009 10:41:40 PM

jerreece said:
You're both part right, part wrong.


I think you will find that I am totally correct in my statement. I can see the source of your confusion as I was ninja'd by rolli59 making it appear I was talking to him when I was infact talking to obsidian86.
a c 1307 U Graphics card
a c 145 Î Nvidia
December 29, 2009 10:50:41 PM

We have both been talking to Obisidian at the same time.
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2009 10:53:51 PM

ok we all done now the 8800 gt is no match for a 5850
a c 1307 U Graphics card
a c 145 Î Nvidia
December 29, 2009 10:55:59 PM

That is true I guess we got a little of topic lol!
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2009 11:02:15 PM

tends to happen sometimes
December 29, 2009 11:14:31 PM

I think he means IN TERMS OF REVOLUTIONARY and EVOLUTIONARY WISE. First of all, the 8800gt was not the revolutionary GPU when the g92 chip/cpu was introduced in '06. It was the 8800Ultra or 8800gtx that wowed GPU fans and casual fans turning them into PC players and enthusiasts. This GPU actually gave the PC market an edge over the newly released platform consoles like Xbox360, and the PS3 in the graphics department as they were using Nvidia 7xxx series cards. We also saw good shaders, high overclockability, and great DX9. Most games could be maxed out and when Crysis came out, it helped show the capability of these early power GPU’s. In terms of price however, these cards were so expensive that one could buy almost two PS3, and 2 Xbox’s for a GPU. What made this “renaissance” in the PC world was that when coupled with the core2 duo’s and quad’s, these GPU’s were superior and could handle all games at that time with ease. People in the professional field didn’t need an Nvidia quadro card in order to create content as this card could be used as well. Photoshop, 3ds Max, and CAD apps were easily run with the 8800series cards. These cards were huge and took two slots to fill which at that time was unheard of. Then for the mainstream gamers the single slot 8800gt came out. Which I ended up buying in 2007. That handled Crysis at high settings (with no AA) pretty well. I then bought a 9800GTX+ last may 2008. This card believe it or not was the same card as the 8800Ultra but with a smaller die and more efficient coolers and higher clocks. It was also Hybrid SLi ready and had DX10 capabilities coupled with Physx and CUDA. Imagine a card lasting as long as a processor?! 4 years until today. There are 9800GTX+’s and GTS250’s available for the mainstream gamers and one can still get middle performance squeezed out of these cards.
So in comparison to the 5850 and 5870, these two cards are also a bit revolutionary in their own right because they both destroy the previous flagship GPU which was the GTX280, or the GTX285. I am glad because I ended up buying a 5850 instead of a GTX285. It is too early to tell whether the 5850 and 5870 will live up to the legacy of the G92 architecture which still exists today in the GTS250!
The only difference is that obviously the 58xx series is made by Ati while the older 88xxseries is by Nvidia and many can say Nvidia paved the way, at that time making Ati realize they needed better cards in the 2xxx series at the time. The 3xxxseries was never any real threat either. So this time around we will see whether Nvidia can bounce back up with the newely updated FERMI GT100 cards! I will eventually get one seeing as they are capable of taking on the competition. The few advantages Ati has are Time, great performance(until we see what gt100 can do) and most importantly price. Yes Ati did the right thing by pricing their SKU’s slightly lower than ALL of Nvidias current generation of cards, while Ati’s cards are FAR superior, the prices of Nvidia are still expensive and haven’t moved much. So this is the long answer to your “simple” question…..
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2009 1:01:28 AM

liquidsnake718 said:
I think he means IN TERMS OF REVOLUTIONARY and EVOLUTIONARY WISE. First of all, the 8800gt was not the revolutionary GPU when the g92 chip/cpu was introduced in '06. It was the 8800Ultra or 8800gtx that wowed GPU fans and casual fans turning them into PC players and enthusiasts. This GPU actually gave the PC market an edge over the newly released platform consoles like Xbox360, and the PS3 in the graphics department as they were using Nvidia 7xxx series cards. We also saw good shaders, high overclockability, and great DX9. Most games could be maxed out and when Crysis came out, it helped show the capability of these early power GPU’s. In terms of price however, these cards were so expensive that one could buy almost two PS3, and 2 Xbox’s for a GPU. What made this “renaissance” in the PC world was that when coupled with the core2 duo’s and quad’s, these GPU’s were superior and could handle all games at that time with ease. People in the professional field didn’t need an Nvidia quadro card in order to create content as this card could be used as well. Photoshop, 3ds Max, and CAD apps were easily run with the 8800series cards. These cards were huge and took two slots to fill which at that time was unheard of. Then for the mainstream gamers the single slot 8800gt came out. Which I ended up buying in 2007. That handled Crysis at high settings (with no AA) pretty well. I then bought a 9800GTX+ last may 2008. This card believe it or not was the same card as the 8800Ultra but with a smaller die and more efficient coolers and higher clocks. It was also Hybrid SLi ready and had DX10 capabilities coupled with Physx and CUDA. Imagine a card lasting as long as a processor?! 4 years until today. There are 9800GTX+’s and GTS250’s available for the mainstream gamers and one can still get middle performance squeezed out of these cards.
So in comparison to the 5850 and 5870, these two cards are also a bit revolutionary in their own right because they both destroy the previous flagship GPU which was the GTX280, or the GTX285. I am glad because I ended up buying a 5850 instead of a GTX285. It is too early to tell whether the 5850 and 5870 will live up to the legacy of the G92 architecture which still exists today in the GTS250!
The only difference is that obviously the 58xx series is made by Ati while the older 88xxseries is by Nvidia and many can say Nvidia paved the way, at that time making Ati realize they needed better cards in the 2xxx series at the time. The 3xxxseries was never any real threat either. So this time around we will see whether Nvidia can bounce back up with the newely updated FERMI GT100 cards! I will eventually get one seeing as they are capable of taking on the competition. The few advantages Ati has are Time, great performance(until we see what gt100 can do) and most importantly price. Yes Ati did the right thing by pricing their SKU’s slightly lower than ALL of Nvidias current generation of cards, while Ati’s cards are FAR superior, the prices of Nvidia are still expensive and haven’t moved much. So this is the long answer to your “simple” question…..



What are you talking about? The first g92 card was the 8800gt. The 8800gtx and ultra were the older g80. The 8800gt was praised because of the performance it gave for the price. The 8800gtx and ultra wowed no one because it was just another expensive high performing card. The 9800gtx/gtx+ is not the same card as the 8800 ultra no matter how similar their performance was. The 9800gtx was a rebranded 8800gts and the gtx+ was one that had a smaller die. Fermi is expected to be called the GT300 series, the GT100 series is the re-branding of all their 9 series cards. There is no proof that Fermi will be faster than the current 5xxx cards. Even if they are ATI will lower their prices as they would have had time to get their products to the masses. ATI will have their new low and midrange cards out in the next 2 or 3 months and that's where they make most of their money. Nvidia is in deep trouble if Fermi is too expensive, doesn't truly blow away the 5xxx series, or is plagued by supply issues. Also by the time Fermi releases I expect ATI to have plans for their 6xxx cards release.
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2009 1:36:27 AM

In terms of price however, these cards were so expensive that one could buy almost two PS3, and 2 Xbox’s for a GPU.
said:
In terms of price however, these cards were so expensive that one could buy almost two PS3, and 2 Xbox’s for a GPU.


what're you smoking? go back to 2007 and check how much a ps3 costs.
December 31, 2009 12:48:49 AM

anonymousdude said:
What are you talking about? The first g92 card was the 8800gt. The 8800gtx and ultra were the older g80. The 8800gt was praised because of the performance it gave for the price. The 8800gtx and ultra wowed no one because it was just another expensive high performing card. The 9800gtx/gtx+ is not the same card as the 8800 ultra no matter how similar their performance was. The 9800gtx was a rebranded 8800gts and the gtx+ was one that had a smaller die. Fermi is expected to be called the GT300 series, the GT100 series is the re-branding of all their 9 series cards. There is no proof that Fermi will be faster than the current 5xxx cards. Even if they are ATI will lower their prices as they would have had time to get their products to the masses. ATI will have their new low and midrange cards out in the next 2 or 3 months and that's where they make most of their money. Nvidia is in deep trouble if Fermi is too expensive, doesn't truly blow away the 5xxx series, or is plagued by supply issues. Also by the time Fermi releases I expect ATI to have plans for their 6xxx cards release.


http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-fermi-d...

Oh yeah, so you too think you know it all. GT300 series right? Well why dont you read this link.

Ok so g92 was the 8800gt.

Its just the die sizes that I got mixed up... basically the 8800gtx and ultra are older versions of the 9800GTX+. The 8800gt is g92 and is the same as the 9800gt.
December 31, 2009 12:52:39 AM

wh3resmycar said:
what're you smoking? go back to 2007 and check how much a ps3 costs.



Look"buddy" the 8800ultra cards used to cost around $800-1000.... I bought my PS3 in 2007. A few months after it came out. I bought it for $450. Use your addition, remember your facts, and no I wasnt smoking in 2007.
December 31, 2009 12:53:17 AM

wh3resmycar said:
what're you smoking? go back to 2007 and check how much a ps3 costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_8_Series

You want more info on 2007, the PS3, and the 8800Ultra, go look for it yourself. I had the 8800gt AND the PS3 in 2007. I dont think you did by the sound of it.
a b U Graphics card
December 31, 2009 1:24:15 AM

liquidsnake718 said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-fermi-d...

Oh yeah, so you too think you know it all. GT300 series right? Well why dont you read this link.

Ok so g92 was the 8800gt.

Its just the die sizes that I got mixed up... basically the 8800gtx and ultra are older versions of the 9800GTX+. The 8800gt is g92 and is the same as the 9800gt.




Fine you got me at the naming, but it is the GF100 or whatever they decide to call it. You know as well I do that Nvidia and ATI have confusing naming systems. The 8800gtx and ultra are not older versions of the 9800gtx+. The 9800gtx+ is the newer version of the 9800gtx which is the which is a rebranded 8800gts 512mb. Aside from the clock differences and in the case of the gtx+ the die shrink they are the same card. You are correct about the 8800gt and the 9800gt being the same card.
December 31, 2009 1:31:53 AM

anonymousdude said:
Fine you got me at the naming, but it is the GF100 or whatever they decide to call it. You know as well I do that Nvidia and ATI have confusing naming systems. The 8800gtx and ultra are not older versions of the 9800gtx+. The 9800gtx+ is the newer version of the 9800gtx which is the which is a rebranded 8800gts 512mb. Aside from the clock differences and in the case of the gtx+ the die shrink they are the same card. You are correct about the 8800gt and the 9800gt being the same card.



Ok I was wrong with the 8800ultra... but the 9800gtx is a rebranded 8800gts...
a b U Graphics card
December 31, 2009 1:33:16 AM

liquidsnake718 said:
Ok I was wrong with the 8800ultra... but the 9800gtx is a rebranded 8800gts...



Correct
January 9, 2010 7:25:46 PM

Well, I just upgraded from a GeForce 8800GTS card to an ATI HD5850 as a way to improve my game performance on FSX. I used a high graphics detail setting at 1920x1080 on my old card and was getting between 15-24FPS. Using the same settings with the HD5850 produces almost the exact same FPS and the load times are MUCH longer... :heink: 

I've updated to the latest drivers, but it made no noticable change in the game. The results are the same whether I have the game in a window or full screen.
Intel Q8600, 4Gb, Asus P5N-E MB, HD5850, Win 7 32bit... (planning to go to 64)

Needless to say Im a little disappointed at wasting $350......... or am I missing something here?

Cheers... Jon
a b U Graphics card
January 9, 2010 7:38:45 PM

Otis357 said:
Well, I just upgraded from a GeForce 8800GTS card to an ATI HD5850 as a way to improve my game performance on FSX. I used a high graphics detail setting at 1920x1080 on my old card and was getting between 15-24FPS. Using the same settings with the HD5850 produces almost the exact same FPS and the load times are MUCH longer... :heink: 

I've updated to the latest drivers, but it made no noticable change in the game. The results are the same whether I have the game in a window or full screen.
Intel Q8600, 4Gb, Asus P5N-E MB, HD5850, Win 7 32bit... (planning to go to 64)

Needless to say Im a little disappointed at wasting $350......... or am I missing something here?

Cheers... Jon


A 5850 should've cost you around $300, and $260 was suppose to be it's retail price.

Since you had an Nvidia card, it means you need to download special software to clean your registries of Nvidia drivers.

Download drive-sweeper and use it to wipe anything Nvidia related, do this again in safe mode to be sure.
January 9, 2010 7:51:21 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
A 5850 should've cost you around $300, and $260 was suppose to be it's retail price.

Since you had an Nvidia card, it means you need to download special software to clean your registries of Nvidia drivers.

Download drive-sweeper and use it to wipe anything Nvidia related, do this again in safe mode to be sure.



Thanks BlueScreenDeath, maybe Ill wipe my system and reinstall the 64bit Win 7 tonight and try it with a clean install.

Things are always more $$ up here in Canada... after shopping around a bit, $350 was actually a pretty good price... :ouch: 

Cheers...... Jon
a c 216 U Graphics card
a c 80 Î Nvidia
January 9, 2010 8:15:33 PM

Otis357 said:
Well, I just upgraded from a GeForce 8800GTS card to an ATI HD5850 as a way to improve my game performance on FSX. I used a high graphics detail setting at 1920x1080 on my old card and was getting between 15-24FPS. Using the same settings with the HD5850 produces almost the exact same FPS and the load times are MUCH longer... :heink: 

I've updated to the latest drivers, but it made no noticable change in the game. The results are the same whether I have the game in a window or full screen.
Intel Q8600, 4Gb, Asus P5N-E MB, HD5850, Win 7 32bit... (planning to go to 64)

Needless to say Im a little disappointed at wasting $350......... or am I missing something here?

Cheers... Jon


There was another thread with someone upgrading for FSX, and it was learned by those with personal experience, that FSX is heavily CPU limited. Meaning that in order to see a big improvement, you'd most likely need to improve your CPU more than your GPU.

The GPU will improve most your other games, but FSX is apparently very CPU intensive.
a b U Graphics card
January 9, 2010 8:24:09 PM

8800gt quad sli = 5850
January 9, 2010 8:24:38 PM

bystander said:
There was another thread with someone upgrading for FSX, and it was learned by those with personal experience, that FSX is heavily CPU limited. Meaning that in order to see a big improvement, you'd most likely need to improve your CPU more than your GPU.

The GPU will improve most your other games, but FSX is apparently very CPU intensive.



Can't believe I never stumbled across that thread in my searches.... damn. Well, I was planning on a MB\CPU upgrade later this year, so at least Im positioned with a decent card when that time comes. Guess I drop by the OC forums and see what I can do in the mean time.

Thanks.
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2010 3:48:36 AM

invisik said:
8800gt quad sli = 5850


Two 8800GT 512mbs equal a GTX285. Since a 5850 is 15% better than a GTX285, a 5850 will be nowhere close to four 8800GTs in quad sli, even taking account poor quad scaling.
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2010 4:16:27 AM

liquidsnake718 said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-fermi-d...

Oh yeah, so you too think you know it all. GT300 series right? Well why dont you read this link.

Ok so g92 was the 8800gt.

Its just the die sizes that I got mixed up... basically the 8800gtx and ultra are older versions of the 9800GTX+. The 8800gt is g92 and is the same as the 9800gt.


The 8800GTX & 8800 Ultra use a different core, G80.

liquidsnake718 said:
Look"buddy" the 8800ultra cards used to cost around $800-1000.... I bought my PS3 in 2007. A few months after it came out. I bought it for $450. Use your addition, remember your facts, and no I wasnt smoking in 2007.


The highest 8800 Ultra I've seen on newegg in 2007 was around $750 (watercooled).
The PS3's RSX was based on the 6800 Ultra with a 7800GTX's performance (being nice) a 8800 Ultra is more than twice the power of a 7800GTX, around 3, as it clubs 2 x 7900GTX's in SLI, so the 8800GTX/Ultra are still better buys than the PS3 is terms of power.

liquidsnake718 said:
Ok I was wrong with the 8800ultra... but the 9800gtx is a rebranded 8800gts...


Slighter rebranded 8800 GTS 512 MB (128 core version) (G92) with higher clocks.

Bluescreendeath said:
Two 8800GT 512mbs equal a GTX285. Since a 5850 is 15% better than a GTX285, a 5850 will be nowhere close to four 8800GTs in quad sli, even taking account poor quad scaling.


I would expect a 5850 to match 3 x 8800GT's, however only the 9800GT has the required double SLI connectors to work.


January 10, 2010 9:45:03 AM

Seeing as it can handle directx11 for the future of gaming, a fair bit better,
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2010 12:40:17 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
Two 8800GT 512mbs equal a GTX285. Since a 5850 is 15% better than a GTX285, a 5850 will be nowhere close to four 8800GTs in quad sli, even taking account poor quad scaling.


I didn't mean it like that i was just pointing out the superiority of the 5850 against the 8800gt. lol.
2 8800gt = gtx285? i thought 2 9800gtx = gtx285? I think it would be able to take on 3 8800gt.
!