# HD 4850 or 9800GTX



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

With the new drivers coming out for the Geforce's do you guys think the 9800GTX would be a better deal for me or should I stick with my plan of getting a HD 4850? I dont really care about watts/noise etc I just want more performance.


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 22, 2008)

9800GTX with the gain's we have seen with the GTX280 drivers


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 22, 2008)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130350


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

Im going with XFX or Palit if I get a 9800.


----------



## mrw1986 (Jun 22, 2008)

You should put "New PSU" as an option in the poll.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

I actually wouldn't do any of those, closer to the monitor than anything though. Other than benching purposes, there's no real need to go faster than the gt, and those cards although faster, aren't quick enough to warrant an upgrade. A 4870 down the road? Maybe if the performance is good. But for right now I'd wait.


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 22, 2008)

there is only a couple blockbusters coming out this year. Spore, Fallout 3 and Starcraft 2.

- Christine


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

mrw1986 said:


> You should put "New PSU" as an option in the poll.



9800GTX or 4850 this Friday and new psu next next friday..


----------



## mrw1986 (Jun 22, 2008)

I would get a PSU before anything else. Rosewill PSU's are crap, I know because I had the EXACT PSU you do before I switched to this Corsair 620HX.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> there is only a couple blockbusters coming out this year. Spore, Fallout 3 and Starcraft 2.
> 
> - Christine



And probably only Fallout 3 will be really demanding. Maxis tends to make things run smoothly, as does Blizzard. Bethesda on the other hand has been known to push current hardware.......


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> there is only a couple blockbusters coming out this year. Spore, Fallout 3 and Starcraft 2.
> 
> - Christine



STALKER, Saints Row 2, FarCry2.. I dont have any consoles.


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 22, 2008)

I put my money on Spore.

if you can run Crysis you have no problems which is why I voted for monitor.

- Christine


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

Spores too boring for me..


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 22, 2008)

than you have nothing to worry about 

- Christine


----------



## ShogoXT (Jun 22, 2008)

Dont think you need to upgrade that badly. Also consider that the speed difference between your card and the 9800gtx and 4850 isnt too big. Of course if your board has 2 PCIE slots crossfire is option later on for your 4850.

Seriously though you arnt even making that much use of it with that 19inch. Get a new monitor.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824185007

God among monitors with price/performance.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Spores too boring for me..



Have to be able to kill things eh.? Don't judge it till its out. Either way, at the current time there is nothing that gt can't handle, so you might as well wait until there's something out there that it can't. Prices will be lower, and you'll have a better idea of what is better than what.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

ShogoXT said:


> Dont think you need to upgrade that badly. Also consider that the speed difference between your card and the 9800gtx and 4850 isnt too big. Of course if your board has 2 PCIE slots crossfire is option later on for your 4850.
> 
> Seriously though you arnt even making that much use of it with that 19inch. Get a new monitor.
> 
> ...



Im not a freakin doctor dude  I only get like 300-250$ a check.. im only 16 working minimum wage.


But yea I scanned newegg and there is no monitor better than mine for under 200$  I guess ill get a 9800GTX and ram.


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 22, 2008)

a monitor isn't that much more expensive than a video card if your heart is so set on a 4850 than why the hell bother making this thread and wasting everybody's time.

- Christine


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

Actually if the new drivers for my 8800GT are really good I will get a psu now. I cant get them to work tho..


----------



## v-zero (Jun 22, 2008)

I would wait two weeks as the 4850 is set to drop to between $150 and $170... Plus as the 4850 drivers mature it will destroy the 9800, and will be better in the long run for more shader intensive games and those that take advantage of DX10.1 . Lastly, you can add a second 4850 in crossfire on your board when you need more power but you can't if you go nVidia.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

v-zero said:


> I would wait two weeks as the 4850 is set to drop to between $150 and $170... Plus as the 4850 drivers mature it will destroy the 9800, and will be better in the long run for more shader intensive games and those that take advantage of DX10.1 . Lastly, you can add a second 4850 in crossfire on your board when you need more power but you can't if you go nVidia.



Yea I have a single slot board. But yea I was thinking of waiting for the drivers but I really want one now.. My 8800GT doesnt do so well at 1920x1080 in some games.


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 22, 2008)

ATI's drivers have been maturing since the company founded. the new 55nm fabrication isn't going to be destroyed by any drivers.

- Christine


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

There's also this new PhysX thing to consider. Ati's linup is looking nice, but if more games start implementing physX, that's a very good reason to stick w/ nvidia. Yet another reason to wait and see......


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> There's also this new PhysX thing to consider. Ati's linup is looking nice, but if more games start implementing physX, that's a very good reason to stick w/ nvidia. Yet another reason to wait and see......



Yea I forgot the PhysX thing. That works with the 8800GT too right?


----------



## v-zero (Jun 22, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> ATI's drivers have been maturing since the company founded. the new 55nm fabrication isn't going to be destroyed by any drivers.
> 
> - Christine



That's just not true, the 38xx series has made palpable gains over its entire lifespan as a product due to driver improvements, the cycle of development on drivers is much more active at ATi than nVidia, and on a brand new product like the 4850 you can bet there's 10%+ more performance to be had in many games.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Yea I forgot the PhysX thing. That works with the 8800GT too right?



Yup. My vantage score before physX, p6.5k. After, well over p8000. G92's have it. I haven't experiemented w/ many games w/ it yet, but it's looking like it's going to be a very big advantage w/ cards that have it.


----------



## 3xploit (Jun 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Yea I forgot the PhysX thing. That works with the 8800GT too right?



works with all g92/gt200


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

If only I can get these 177 drivers working  they keep saying my drivers arent compatible or something..


----------



## 3xploit (Jun 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> If only I can get these 177 drivers working  they keep saying my drivers arent compatible or something..



did you replace the original inf with the modded inf?


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

For which ones? .39 or .35?


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> If only I can get these 177 drivers working  they keep saying my drivers arent compatible or something..



You have to include the modded .inf. Post 282, he's got them w/ the modded inf's. Then you can get physX here.


----------



## 3xploit (Jun 22, 2008)

which modded inf did you download?


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

I got the XP64 ones now where do I put them?


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I got the XP64 ones now where do I put them?



Unzip the drivers into a folder. Move the modded .inf into the folder and replace. Then just find setup and run it from the folder.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

nvm I got it!


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 22, 2008)

v-zero said:


> That's just not true, the 38xx series has made palpable gains over its entire lifespan as a product due to driver improvements, the cycle of development on drivers is much more active at ATi than nVidia, and on a brand new product like the 4850 you can bet there's 10%+ more performance to be had in many games.



right... and your 10% is going to be crushed because nVidia can afford to launch rebrands and refabs. 9800GT (55nm) and 9800GTX+ (55nm) no driver will be able to surpass a fabrication process.  55nm will allow more transistors and better temperatures.

- Christine


----------



## 3xploit (Jun 22, 2008)

open nv4_disp.inf in notepad. 

ex. the first few lines in the inf are: 

; NVIDIA Windows 2000/XP Display INF file
; Copyright (c) NVIDIA Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Version]
Signature   = "$Windows NT$"
Provider    = %NVIDIA%
ClassGUID   = {4D36E968-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}
Class       = Display
CatalogFile = NV4_DISP.CAT
DriverVer   = 06/16/2008, 6.14.11.7739

if yours ends with 6.14.11.7739 then copy the inf and put in the 177.39 folder and run setup.exe, if it ends with xxxxxxxxxxx35 put in the 177.35 folder and run setup.exe


----------



## intel igent (Jun 22, 2008)

aren't these Nvidia card's power hungry monster's? if so better get yourself a good PSU 

personally i'd grab a 4850/4870 and a new PSU 

just my $0.02


----------



## niko084 (Jun 22, 2008)

9800GTX wins in very few tests, costs a lot more, it wins barely, and to top it all off the ATI is still running really new and poor drivers.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

niko084 said:


> 9800GTX wins in very few tests, costs a lot more, it wins barely, and to top it all off the ATI is still running really new and poor drivers.



The 9800GTX is the same price as the HD 4850


----------



## xu^ (Jun 22, 2008)

niko084 said:


> 9800GTX wins in very few tests, costs a lot more, it wins barely, and to top it all off the ATI is still running really new and poor drivers.



So u completly missed the the news about modded drivers for nvidia that add physX/Cuda and around 15% performance increase?

suddenly the ATI doesnt look quite as good.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

xubidoo said:


> So u completly missed the the news about modded drivers for nvidia that add physX/Cuda and around 15% performance increase?
> 
> suddenly the ATI doesnt look quite as good.



Yea thats what I was thinking.. When the 4850 came out it was like, whoa awesome card for 200$. Then the new drivers came out and the 9800GTX dropped 100$..


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 22, 2008)

9800GTX are going to take a price cut, and the 9800GTX+ 55nm process should decrease power consumption too. less power consumption = more money = more rails for you to snort 

- Christine


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 22, 2008)

[edited out] actually if you OC your 8800GT and use the 177 dirvers, neither one of those cards is a good option.  Youre gonna gain... what 15%-20%? for $200+.

  Thats just not a big improvement.  If youre gonna buy now, then splurge on a 9800GX2(419 on the egg), otherwise stick wit the 8800GT until the 4870X2 comes or the 55nm GTX280.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> I agree... 9800GTX is not the way to go... actually if you OC your 8800GT and use the 177 dirvers, neither one of those cards is a good option.  Youre gonna gain... what 15%-20%? for $200+.
> 
> Thats just not a big improvement.  If youre gonna buy now, then splurge on a 9800GX2(419 on the egg), otherwise stick wit the 8800GT until the 4870X2 comes.



Well im gonna sell my 8800GT.. 120$ should be ok right? 80$ for a 9800GTX aint that bad imo.


----------



## intel igent (Jun 22, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> 9800GTX are going to take a price cut, and the 9800GTX+ 55nm process should decrease power consumption too. less power consumption = more money = more rails for you to snort
> 
> - Christine



more rail's you snort = less money you have 

more rail's you have = more rail's you sell = more money you have 

don't get high on your own supply kid's


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Well im gonna sell my 8800GT.. 120$ should be ok right? 80$ for a 9800GTX aint that bad imo.



120 is nice n low, ull sell that quick. for an $80 upgrade that aint bad at all...  

[edit] i would go for the 9800GTX+ then... you might get that core close 875-900 depending on how it clocks... which is a nice upgrade.  I wish they would release a 9800GX2+  damn.


----------



## intel igent (Jun 22, 2008)

O/p if you're gonna go the nvidia route i'd suggest you get a better psu


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

I will eventually.. If the 9800GTX+ isnt out by the time I order Ill get a new psu.


----------



## ShogoXT (Jun 22, 2008)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824185005

S-PVA one instead of the IPS type. For panel type reasons there is a fine line between good and bad monitors. When I got this S-PVA i knew it was worth it. So dont expect to pay any less than that for a "good" monitor.

EDIT: Whenever it gets back in stock. Look at side angles thats how you can tell.


----------



## ShogoXT (Jun 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I will eventually.. If the 9800GTX+ isnt out by the time I order Ill get a new psu.



They are both G92, you seriously wont get much out of it...


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

ShogoXT said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824185005
> 
> S-PVA one instead of the IPS type. For panel type reasons there is a fine line between good and bad monitors. When I got this S-PVA i knew it was worth it. So dont expect to pay any less than that for a "good" monitor.
> 
> EDIT: Whenever it gets back in stock. Look at side angles thats how you can tell.



I paid $150 for mine and it's spectacular.


----------



## v-zero (Jun 22, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> right... and your 10% is going to be crushed because nVidia can afford to launch rebrands and refabs. 9800GT (55nm) and 9800GTX+ (55nm) no driver will be able to surpass a fabrication process.  55nm will allow more transistors and better temperatures.
> 
> - Christine



All wrong really. 9800GTX+ actually sucks more power despite the 55nm fab, and you act as if this small die shrink is the second coming of Jesus and he brought six different kinds of ice cream - it's just a die shrink, ATi/AMD have been at 55nm forever, and have the superior fabing capabilities (nVidia is a fabless firm reliant on TSMC amongst others). ATi/AMD is currently using the lowest bins from its production run to save the best for 4870, but as it ramps up there will be highly overclocked versions of the 4850 with custom coolers just around the corner. ATi/AMD also have the cost-reduced design that means it can always beat nVidia on price point, whereas nVidia will make little money selling the expensive to build 9800 series for peanuts. Also, since few games support PhysX and more will likely support Havok, not to mention that separate physics processing has shown few signs of usefullness, it seems silly to care greatly about nVidia's new toy in that area for the current crop of cards.

(And your point about more transistors makes no sense btw).


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 22, 2008)

I think more games will support PhysX  now because of Nvidia. Just think about how many games they sponsor.


----------



## 3xploit (Jun 22, 2008)

I honestly don't know how much of an improvement you're gonna see at 1440x900 between 8800gt and 9800gtx...


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> I think more games will support PhysX  now because of Nvidia. Just think about how many games they sponsor.



I think so too, everyone was thinking ati had the tricks up their sleeves, but it turns out nvidia was holding the ace (maybe anyway).


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 22, 2008)

9800GTX is like runnng 2 8800GT. 

Almost at least.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

3xploit said:


> I honestly don't know how much of an improvement you're gonna see at 1440x900 between 8800gt and 9800gtx...



I mainly use my 56'' now that my dad had to fire some dudes  he has to work more so I get the tv more.. not really good but kinda cool I guess.. Sorry if I didnt specify I would be using my 56'' more tho.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 22, 2008)

3xploit said:


> I honestly don't know how much of an improvement you're gonna see at 1440x900 between 8800gt and 9800gtx...



there will be ~20%.  But ur right, its gonna be real subtle.


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 22, 2008)

Wait two weeks for the 260 card tho

You will see


----------



## v-zero (Jun 22, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> 9800GTX is like runnng 2 8800GT.
> 
> Almost at least.



Nope. GTX 280 is like running two 8800GTs.


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 22, 2008)

> 9800GTX+ actually sucks more power despite the 55nm fab



proof?



> Also, since few games support PhysX and more will likely support Havok



Havok is software, cpu dependant. 



> (And your point about more transistors makes no sense btw).



ever heard of moore's law you idiot. how about simple facts and success nvidia had from 80nm to 65nm.

- Christine


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 22, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> 9800GTX is like runnng 2 8800GT.
> 
> Almost at least.



yea at higher rez mayb... but at 1440x900?


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 22, 2008)

v-zero said:


> Nope. GTX 280 is like running two 8800GTs.



This is what my friend told me going from SLi 8800GT to a single 9800. He said in games it's almost as fast. Almost....


He is not looking to add a 2ed card.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I mainly use my 56'' now that my dad had to fire some dudes  he has to work more so I get the tv more.. not really good but kinda cool I guess.. Sorry if I didnt specify I would be using my 56'' more tho.



Is the resolution 1080p or 2560xsomething or other. If the ladder, wait for the 260 gtx or the 4870, something w/ 1gb of vram, it'll come in handy. The same applies if the former, but not as much.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

Guys im gonna be on 1920x1080 alot more now.. And I dont want to spend more than 250$ on a video card.. not my style.


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 22, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> yea at higher rez mayb... but at 1440x900?



It will help more than you think it would.

I used to run CF 2900CF at 1280X1024 and CF did help some games. I'm one of those people that likes to turn everything on in CCC or Nvidia Control panel.


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Guys im gonna be on 1920x1080 alot more now.. And I dont want to spend more than 250$ on a video card.. not my style.


True the 260 will run more than what you want to spend.  Worth the extra in my mind tho.


----------



## v-zero (Jun 22, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> proof?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. Proof: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=580&type=expert

2. PhysX is also software - Havok and PhysX are simply different engines and ATi/AMD can run Havok on the 38xx and 48xx series.

3. Your comments here would rather suggest that you are the idiot, however I do of course have a full and working understanding of Moore's law and beyond (though Moore's law applies imperfectly to GPUs) - however, they cannot add more transistors like you suggest because they have made no change to the architecture, there was no time, hence my comment. You should also note that the jump from 80nm to 65nm is a bigger one than that from 65nm to 55nm, don't expect the world from a rushed die-shrink - it's bound to be good, but not mind-blowing.



DaMulta said:


> True the 260 will run more than what you want to spend.  Worth the extra in my mind tho.


A single 4850 sometimes beats the 260, and hence it's worth waiting for the much cheaper 4870 - the GT200 series currently represents horrible value for money.


----------



## aGeoM (Jun 22, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> It will help more than you think it would.
> 
> I used to run CF 2900CF at 1280X1024 and CF did help some games. I'm one of those people that likes to turn everything on in CCC or Nvidia Control panel.



 Like me, it's cool to see the second GPU been attached to the slot, in NCP's animated picture, when enabling SLI.


----------



## MrW (Jun 22, 2008)

Depends on the resolutions you want to be running at. I usually run at 1600x1200 or over so I'd get the 4850. Also you could put the money somewhere else. (ram - psu) The 8800GT is pretty good still.


----------



## Megasty (Jun 22, 2008)

My goofy brother is running 3 9800GTXs & he's still not satisfied. But he bench more than game so I guess its a hobby for him. Right now he's pissed since the 4850 is a better bencher than it. I pissed him off even more when I bought one today @ BB for $150. I game at 1920 & 1680, depending on which system I'm on. For a single slot card it can handle _anything_ @ 1920. But it gets hot as hell - fast. 

I actually gave him my GTX so he could try tri-sli, but during the short time I was using it, the card handled everything @ 1920 except for GD crysis. It only hung up during the last level so go figure 

You can't compare the 8800gt to these 2 cards. I sli'd the gt & they are slower than a single GTX. They don't really scale that well in a lot of games. I would go for whatever card is cheaper. The GTX is slower, louder, & cooler while the 4850 is faster, quiet, & HOT. I would personally go for the performer because I can easily deal with the heat by ripping the red casing off & straping on a good fan - but most wouldn't go through that trouble.


----------



## Zubasa (Jun 22, 2008)

HD 4850 for the UVD & DX10.1


----------



## wolf (Jun 22, 2008)

9800GTX for several reasons

-Price drop to 199 USD
-177.xx drivers have ~15-20% gain over 174/175, and the old driervs are what all the reviews pitting it against the 4850 are on. it WILL beat a 4850 with 177.39 drivers.
-CUDA
-Physx (totally tits)

Bam.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Yea I forgot the PhysX thing. That works with the 8800GT too right?



Wrong. No current driver, not even beta gives PhysX acceleration for 8800GT. Looks like NV played greedy-bas**** and made it exclusive for GTX 200 series. "Onboard PhysX processor" my arse, it's just a CUDA accelerated software now, that PhysX thingy. Even at $199, the 9800GTX (old) isn't worth it.


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 22, 2008)

G92 and above are supposed to support Ageia PhysX and future Cuda PhysX

where did you hear this? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





- Christine


----------



## wolf (Jun 22, 2008)

nvidia CEO has said all 8+ series hardware will eventually support CUDA physx

and the 9800GTX is not old.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 22, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> G92 and above are supposed to support Ageia PhysX and future Cuda PhysX
> 
> where did you hear this?
> 
> - Christine



And when is that? The beta drivers that become 'stable' in the next three or so months still don't carry it? Besides, after acquiring Ageia, NV's CEO stated any CUDA supportive GPU will run PhysX, G8x included. And when they've already released it and are advertising for it under GTX 200 series, where's my PhysX?


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 22, 2008)

oh yeah your right, the only cards supporting Cuda PhysX right now are 9800GTX, 9800GTX+, GTX 260 and GTX 280 but they are supposed to gradually support other 8 series cards in future drivers. be patient 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




- Christine


----------



## wolf (Jun 22, 2008)

hence a great reason to get the 9800GTX over a 4850, especially with the massive performance gains on the 177.39 drivers


----------



## btarunr (Jun 22, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> oh yeah your right, the only cards supporting Cuda PhysX right now are 9800GTX, 9800GTX+, GTX 260 and GTX 280 but they are supposed to gradually support other 8 series cards in future drivers. be patient
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And that would be when the only thing 8800GT would be worth is in a file-server.


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 22, 2008)

your 8800GT has given you endless hours of entertainment and your ready to hang it out to dry. 8800GT isn't going anywhere.

- Christine


----------



## btarunr (Jun 22, 2008)

Bad argument. I'm telling that NV is just being the squirrel from _Ice Age_. They'll fart things out only when necessary. If it wasn't for HD4850, there would never have been a 9800GTX+ or even PhysX in 9800 for that matter. ATI already released performance enhancing hotfixes for the HD4000, the way NV did for 9800 (only). There's no real reason to choose a 9800GTX (old) over a HD4850 if they sell for the same price. The world doesn't shop from Newegg, PhysX processing is at the expense of graphics performance.


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Im not a freakin doctor dude  I only get like 300-250$ a check.. im only 16 working minimum wage.



 made me laugh, 
But i voted monitor only because i think you should get the PSU then possibly a monitor ? and wait a week or two see how the 4870 fairs, see how the prices settle we know nvidia will lower prices and the AMD/ATI cards will come down dont go shooting yourself in the foot .


----------



## wiak (Jun 22, 2008)

newegg got 4850 for 170 usd, that cant be beaten


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jun 22, 2008)

> This is kind of surprising - the 9800 GTX+ actually is using MORE power than the 9800 GTX original card.  This tells me that NVIDIA basically "wiped out" any power advantages and savings they got with the 55nm product by pushing the clocks up to improve performance.  Obviously I was expecting these results to be quite different, with the power savings and performance improvement for the new G92b over G92.




I'd have to say go with the 4850,you have the option for fast cheap x-fire then.


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 22, 2008)

dont forget 
http://www.alanwake.com/index.html


----------



## btarunr (Jun 22, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> dont forget
> http://www.alanwake.com/index.html



That game will be a disaster for Remedy if they release it now. On the one hand, they want it to be a Vista-only game (PC version) on the other, they don't want to release it at a time when Windows Vista still is a minority with the PC. It's another Puke Nukem Forever in the making.


----------



## titan_zero (Jun 22, 2008)

Both cards are excellent and will make a good job, but I would take the 4850 and a new technology is very promising in crossfire. 
Instead the 9800gtx is simplemte most of the good that we already know nvidia.


----------



## wolf (Jun 22, 2008)

go read a 4850 vs 9800GTX review where they use 177.39 drivers, then make up your mind, just putting it out there.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 22, 2008)

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=580&type=expert

Honestly, the 9800 GTX+ doesn't look worthy of $230 at all.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Jun 22, 2008)

Get the 4850!!!

It pwns the 9800GTX with AA turned on.


----------



## imperialreign (Jun 22, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> there is only a couple blockbusters coming out this year. Spore, Fallout 3 and Starcraft 2.
> 
> - Christine



add two more to that list;  STALKER: Clear Sky and (FEAR 2) Project Origin



OT - IMHO, either card will be more than suited for you, but I currently have to give the nod to the 4850.  Cheaper, very respectable performance.  

If you can be patient, I'd say wait and see how the 4870s are going to perform; they should probably be in the same ballpark price wise as the 9800GTX (if nVidia lowers their price a bit to compete).


----------



## newconroer (Jun 22, 2008)

I second not getting either one and getting a monitor instead. Your GT will handle 1680 and sometimes 1920, and you will be pleased with the size increase of the screen.

Monitors need to upgraded now and again, but going to something like 24" will last you several years . Save up and get a card when the current prices are down and the new ones are more tested.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

btarunr said:


> And when is that? The beta drivers that become 'stable' in the next three or so months still don't carry it? Besides, after acquiring Ageia, NV's CEO stated any CUDA supportive GPU will run PhysX, G8x included. And when they've already released it and are advertising for it under GTX 200 series, where's my PhysX?



I'm not sure what you mean. PhysX is supported by G92. Download it. Works w/ the 177.35 drivers or the 177.39 drivers. These drivers aren't officially for the 8-series, but it's nothing a simple .inf change can't fix. Maybe it's not supported on the same level that the gtx 2xx series is? I don't know, I was under the impression this was a software thing anyway, but I guess I haven't looked into it too much. But it definately installs on my gts 512, and completely changes the way vantage is run. Mass Effect does seem to run better as well.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 22, 2008)

I installed the PhysX software on the current WHQL driver. The demos seem to work, and the configuration of PhysX shows this: 





So is PhysX working? How do I tell?

Can you please give me a screenshot of the _info_ tab of your PhysX control-panel?


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 22, 2008)

PhysX does NOT work for my 8800GT with the drivers and PhysX drivers. Warmonger, no matter what settings, lags like hell and I cant get more than 10fps on it. I decided to get a PSU now and wait a month or two before deciding on a new video card.. Drivers, price lowering etc should all be worth it in the end. Thanks for the help tho everyone!


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

Here's my info, looks like you got it goin bt. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




So it looks like the gt200 series is privy to an actual phyX processor in the hardware, while the rest of us can just install the phyX engines, or something like that. I can't tell exactly what's going on, but some capacity of physX is enabled. The most noticeable difference I've been able to tell so far is 3dmark vantage, which runs completely differently now in the final test, and I gained about 1500 points and the cpu score went through the roof since physX was handling the physics better. There are some games, like I said Mass Effect seems to be running smoother, but I can't bench it so I can't tell for sure. UT3 and Gears of War are other games that have it. If you have one of these games (some can be downloaded) you can give it a go and see if you notice any difference. I think it may still be a few months until any huge difference becomes apparent, although I've seen a few reports of much higher fps in a couple of these games. It's still not widely known apparently that these work w/ cards many people have.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> PhysX does NOT work for my 8800GT with the drivers and PhysX drivers. Warmonger, no matter what settings, lags like hell and I cant get more than 10fps on it. I decided to get a PSU now and wait a month or two before deciding on a new video card.. Drivers, price lowering etc should all be worth it in the end. Thanks for the help tho everyone!



Shadow your either doing something wrong or the game is having trouble for some reason. I will try warmonger and see what I can find out, but see if you have the phyX control panel.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 22, 2008)

It's the same for me:





So can we conclude that this thing works with 175.16 ?


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

I guess so, I thought is was only the 177 drivers, but I guess not. If you can find something w/ physX to bench it would be interesting to see how it works w/ the 175 as compared to the 177s.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 22, 2008)

IIRC, the 177 drivers come with a newer model of CUDA, CUDA 2.0 while drivers earlier than 177 use CUDA 1.1   

F@H_GeForce requires CUDA 2.0. Wonder if PhysX actually required 2.0


----------



## wolf (Jun 22, 2008)

btarunr said:


> http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=580&type=expert
> 
> Honestly, the 9800 GTX+ doesn't look worthy of $230 at all.



in that review they are STILL testing on 175.xx drivers

honestly, if you want a fair comparison, use the hotfixed 4850 drivers and 177.39 for the geforce


----------



## OEGUSAndy (Jun 23, 2008)

You have a rewiew???


----------



## wolf (Jun 23, 2008)

im saying wait for one. if you want to see the benefits of 177 drivers on G92's just look thru the nvidia forums section.


----------



## 3xploit (Jun 23, 2008)

ut3 physx maps lag like hell with 177.35 and physx installed.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 23, 2008)

overclock the 8800gt and get a new monitor that does 1680x1050 at least. (unless of course you play games on your 52" tv)


----------



## marvelous211 (Jun 23, 2008)

I would get a new monitor instead over incremental video card improvement.

However is you want a video card over monitor I would choose 4580 all the way.


----------



## Super XP (Jun 24, 2008)

GTX 280 won't stand a chance vs. the upcoming HD 4870 IMO. Will not be able to touch Price/Performance. And when the HD 4870 x2 comes out, ATI should enjoy a Slaughter Fest.


----------



## Urbklr (Jun 24, 2008)

I voted 4850, you have the option to Crossfire them. You may not want to, but the option will always be there, whereas the 9800GTX you won't. Both are getting better with newer drivers, both are great choices


----------



## wolf2009 (Jun 24, 2008)

remember, 4850 with unmature drivers is at par with 9800gtx with mature drivers. From here on in with driver releases, 4850 can only get better.


----------



## Super XP (Jun 24, 2008)

Ever since the NVIDIA's GeForce4 Ti 4200 graphics cards, I will never touch an NVIDIA card anytime soon. ATI has been dominating in Price/Performance for months now.
I look forward to Sapphire when they release a single slot HD 4870 card, just like they released 4 different single slot versions of the HD 3870.


----------



## wiak (Jun 25, 2008)

4850 why?, you can get it for like 169.99 on newegg with a $30 rebate or if your lucky pick one up on your local best-buy for 149.99!

i hate living in norway lol 
oh wait norway does look amazingly good, like fords, woods, hills 

from Anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3340&p=6


> The Radeon HD 4850 continues to be a better buy than NVIDIA's GeForce 9800 GTX, even if both are priced at $199. The overclocked, 55nm 9800 GTX+ manages to barely outperform the 4850 in a few titles, but loses by a larger margin in others, so for the most part it isn't competitive enough to justify the extra $30. The 4850 also uses significantly less power than the 9800 GTX+, and AMD was quick to point out that by the time the 9800 GTX+ ships that it will also have factory overclocked 4850s. That should make things even more interesting, because honestly, a factory overclocked Radeon HD 4850 is far more attractive to us than an overclocked GTX+.
> 
> In a little over 12 hours we'll be able to complete the story with a full look at AMD's RV770 GPU and the Radeon HD 4870, so for a full, detailed performance analysis come back then. Until then, in short, the 9800 GTX+ doesn't really change anything for NVIDIA.


----------



## zithe (Jun 25, 2008)

mrw1986 said:


> You should put "New PSU" as an option in the poll.



Seeing as the 8800gt uses more power than a 4850, I'd say his current one should do just fine.

I'd go with the 4850 seeing as it usually (usually) outperforms the 9800gtx on immature drivers, it has DX10.1 (Doubt it'll ever come out with that name, if it did the card would probably be too weak though), and ATI will most likely counter the 9800GTX+ with an OC'd card of their own (4850 that takes 150W rather than 75W from the motherboard, anyone?) which also means the eventual expansion in possibilities in any current 4850.


----------



## wolf (Jun 25, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> remember, 4850 with unmature drivers is at par with 9800gtx with mature drivers. From here on in with driver releases, 4850 can only get better.



nvidia is working really hard on 9800GTX drivers, just search thru these forums to see 9800GTX owners seeing ~20% more performance using 177.xx drivers over 174/175.

it started at ~15% with 177.29 then improved a further 5% with 177.35/39, imo they might have more optimizations up their sleeves.

not to mention they will ALWAYS compete on a price level, just like ATi has been the past year or so, you can already get GTX's below 190 US


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 25, 2008)

Yea im gonna wait a few more weeks before I decide, will be a tough one thats for sure!


----------



## HiddenStupid (Jul 1, 2008)

4850 vs. 9800gtx...... 9800gtx all the way.

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=566&card2=559


----------



## Super XP (Jul 3, 2008)

HiddenStupid said:


> 4850 vs. 9800gtx...... 9800gtx all the way.
> 
> http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=566&card2=559


Not necessarily. The 9800GTX has been out for some time now where as the HD 4850 just came out. So that comparison is based on misinformation.

I'll take the HD 4800's any day.


----------



## wolf (Jul 3, 2008)

just goes to show how a 6+ month old GPU can still hold its own against ATi's new wonder chip, especially when overclocked, and we've all seen how well a 9800GTX overclocks.


----------



## roedzzz (Jul 3, 2008)

Of corse HD 4850 for my rig..


----------



## Super XP (Jul 3, 2008)

wolf said:


> just goes to show how a 6+ month old GPU can still hold its own against ATi's new wonder chip, especially when overclocked, and we've all seen how well a 9800GTX overclocks.


Yes they do, the 9800GTX was a great card. ATI's 3800's should have been better but they were not.
ATI did state that the current 4800 GPU's can easily hit 1000MHz GPU speed with a minor bump in volts and good cooling. And that all 4800's are underclocked.


----------



## Megasty (Jul 3, 2008)

Considering how fast these 4800 beasts are now, imagining a 1ghz GPU would be lights out. When these boys come out, we have to get our hands on those bios quick. Unlocking these monsters should be a treat.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jul 3, 2008)

I did decide on a HD 4850 and im ready to buy when ever palit releases some..


----------



## Super XP (Jul 4, 2008)

R700 Spartan has 2GB of memory 
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8279&Itemid=34
Just looking at the current available confirmed specs for the HD 4870 x2 @ 2GB GDDR5 memory, this thing is going to kill anything on the market.


----------



## roedzzz (Jul 5, 2008)

*My personal test comparasion with gaming performance..

Test Bed..

Intel E2160 @3711mhz
DFI LP DK P35-T2RS
Hitachi 250GB
ADATA X 800+ @515mhz 4-4-4-12
Corsair VX550
LCD LG 19" L196WTQ
POV 9800 GTX / POV 8800 GT / HIS HD 4850

OS : Windows XP SP2
Driver : Forceware 174.74 for POV 9800 GTX/8800 GT..
Catalyst 8.6 for HIS HD 4850..
Game : COD4..Crysis pacth 1.2..GRID..
All VGA default..no OC..
*

*Call of Dutty 4 All setting high with 4xAA @1440 x900..*







*GRID All setting high with 4xAA @1440 x 900..*






*Crysis benchmark tool all set to high 4x AA @1400 x 960..*


----------



## MKmods (Jul 5, 2008)

Dont forget the 9800GTX+...
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/731/1/


----------



## ViciousXUSMC (Jul 5, 2008)

I think the 4850 has more too offer than the 9800, I have used Nvidia for the last 10 years so it had to be good to make me swap over 

Audio over HDMI (great for htpc)
DX 10.1
Single Slot
Lower Price
and in a striaght out 4850 vs 9800 I think the 4850 wins most tests and the 9800GTX+ is supposed to be the remedy for that, but thats also more money.

You can find (in the U.S) the 4850 for 150-160$ when its on sale.  Thats why I got 2 of them for 300$ and have not looked back since.  Makes me look at my 350 something dollar 7800gtx like its a piece of junk.


----------



## Super XP (Jul 5, 2008)

You can easily CrossfireX 2 x HD 4850's for a little under $370 which will turn out faster than the more expensive GTX 280.

I don't know if people looked at the HD 4800's design but they've removed the Internal Ring Bus Memory Controller and added a CrossBar Switch instead. Just like the AMD K8 & Phenom cores.


----------



## Widjaja (Jul 6, 2008)

The HD4850 appears to be a sure win in the votes.

I only went with the HD4850 due to size as my case would not fit a 9800GTX.
But still, have to see how things go when the official 8.7cat which support the HD4xxx series which shouldn't need a hotfix to lower the already hot temperatures go.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 6, 2008)

v-zero said:


> That's just not true, the 38xx series has made palpable gains over its entire lifespan as a product due to driver improvements, the cycle of development on drivers is much more active at ATi than nVidia, and on a brand new product like the 4850 you can bet there's 10%+ more performance to be had in many games.



Has you tested the new beta Nvidia drivers. Obviously not.

Looking at what MKMods posted:http://www.legitreviews.com/article/731/10/

The 9800gtx+ is better than 4850 at just about everything. So 9800gtx+ is a better pick. Wow, Nvidia countered very well.



So Nvidia's midrange 9800gtx+ beats 4850. But the 4870 beats the GTX 260. And the GTX280 is unchallenged until the 4870X2 is released.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jul 6, 2008)

try the hd 4870 it have very good performance , see here the test it really run better than gtx 260 in all test's , and the price drop shortly,

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4870,1964.html


----------



## Super XP (Jul 6, 2008)

hayder.master said:


> try the hd 4870 it have very good performance , see here the test it really run better than gtx 260 in all test's , and the price drop shortly,
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4870,1964.html


The HD 4870 is not too far behind the GTX280. I just can't wait for the newer official Cat drivers to be released. AMD promises 20% + performance improvement and a lot more with newer drivers.


----------



## nanohead (Jul 6, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> There's also this new PhysX thing to consider. Ati's linup is looking nice, but if more games start implementing physX, that's a very good reason to stick w/ nvidia. Yet another reason to wait and see......



I'll apologize up front for this, but ARE YOU KIDDING ME?????  

No developer in their right mind will get involved with this PhysX nonsense. Its NOT new by any  stretch of imagination.   Ageia was around for years, and NO ONE really used their stuff anyway.   Havoc is a different approach.   PhysX is a non starter, totally useless and will only be adopted if NVidia pays developers to use it.

Physics processing in games can be done a zillion different ways, there is no single correct way.  Valve doesn't need any of these silly hardware accelerators as an example.   

stop reading mis informed internet chat rooms....   

I feel better now


----------



## Widjaja (Jul 6, 2008)

nanohead said:


> PhysX is a non starter, totally useless and will only be adopted if NVidia pays developers to use it.



It's a possiblity knowing nVidia.
They're like Fox network, alot of flash and bang when it comes to advertising.

Few games are using PhysX at the moment.

Havoc is used by some notable games like Bioshock and Oblivion.


----------



## nanohead (Jul 6, 2008)

Widjaja said:


> It's a possiblity knowing nVidia.
> They're like Fox network, alot of flash and bang when it comes to advertising.
> 
> Few games are using PhysX at the moment.
> ...



    another rational person


----------



## _33 (Jul 6, 2008)

I really like my 8800GTS 512 as it overclocks past the 9800GTX.  For the price I paid for, it is a really good card.  But, the 4850 seems like an incredible deal, yet I heard it gets really hot.  My 8800GTS goes up to around 57-61 degrees GPU and 48-50 chipset, which I consider hot.  The 4850 will get more in the 70-75 degree range for GPU, 50+ on chipset.  The G92 gpu is really good.  And, with the new 9800GTX+, I think Nvidia hits a sweetspot both stability & performance


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 7, 2008)

Both PhysX and Havok is Software. Which means with enough work, either sides fanboys will eat there words if they are talking trash. 

Don't take sides(Nvidia vs. ATi) on these threads. Just suggest what model you think is the best for the money and move on please.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jul 7, 2008)

Yea guys I said last page im getting a 4850 so you can stop flaming each other..


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 7, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Yea guys I said last page im getting a 4850 so you can stop flaming each other..



Yeah, both cards are a good choice. I would say its really about each one as to your preference. If you have a 3850/3870 cooler I heard it will bolt right up.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jul 8, 2008)

Anyone think it would be worth it getting the 4870 instead. I only have a 19'' wide screen that does 1440x900 so would I see any difference?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 8, 2008)

I am using a 19" monitor myself(same resolution) and have decided from looking at the reviews and benchmarks for the 4850,that it is powerful enough for games on my system.It seems to be able to run games at much higher resolution than our monitors native,so i think the 4850 should be fine.Even a upgrade at some point to a 1680x1050 monitor should pose no problem.


----------



## zithe (Jul 8, 2008)

> The 9800gtx+ is better than 4850 at just about everything. So 9800gtx+ is a better pick. Wow, Nvidia countered very well.
> 
> So Nvidia's midrange 9800gtx+ beats 4850. But the 4870 beats the GTX 260. And the GTX280 is unchallenged until the 4870X2 is released.



Now wait for an overclocked 4850. It'll take the crown back with ease. (Heat problems are due to the usual 'broken fan speed controller' in the drivers that ATI usually has every new generation.)

I personally would like the see the 4870 superclocked. The one that redefined the term 'superclock'. over 900mhz core dude. XD that's a 38% overclock!

I'd still go with 4850.

9800gtx + costs more. It'll heat up your room like two 4850s XD. It would also push your power bill further a tiny bit. I'd stick with the 4850 to save 30 dollars now and get back the performance through drivers later. look: 

http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1297&pageID=5020

It's very even. Every other test a different card comes out on top. This is NOT the performance you'll see with a non overclocked 9800gtx >.> Again. 4850 has been out a couple weeks. 9800gtx a few months. There have been no major architecture changes for the 9800gtx+, so I doubt that drivers will improve it as much as drivers for the 4850 will.

Either way, happy gaming!

1440x900 is my favorite resolution. :3
It's like the price/performance king of resolutions.


----------



## prijikn (Jul 14, 2008)

I prefer to 9800GTX, because it will still perform well in most games.


----------



## lukesky (Jul 15, 2008)

Super XP said:


> The HD 4870 is not too far behind the GTX280. I just can't wait for the newer official Cat drivers to be released. AMD promises 20% + performance improvement and a lot more with newer drivers.



You sure about this?? Hope it's true. I'm running hotfix 8.6 right now because I heard the 8.7 beta is worse in performance.


----------



## lukesky (Jul 15, 2008)

4850 wins against 9800GTX and 9800GTX+ when AA and AF is turned up. That's what you want anyways. ATI designed the 4800 series that AA virtually no longer takes bandwidth.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jul 15, 2008)

lukesky said:


> 4850 wins against 9800GTX and 9800GTX+ when AA and AF is turned up. That's what you want anyways. ATI designed the 4800 series that AA virtually no longer takes bandwidth.



It no longer cripples their cards like before, but its still not "Virtually no bandwidth". Remember how some drivers process AA differently? I would like to see a comparison between the AA used by each company because it sounds fishy. Some games don't allow AA above a certain point.

Sounds like ATi marketing.

I have seen benchmarks but I haven't seen any real comparison between multiple games as far as quality of AA. Just like the old drum of ATi's image quality. I would love to see proof that its not just a workaround.


----------



## vojc (Jul 15, 2008)

yes, and if game use DX10.1 than it is true, that AA is not an issue  anymore


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 15, 2008)

PhysX works on the 8800gt and gts both the newer 512mb versions

it is being made for ati cards too i believe

id either keep the 8800gt or get a hd4870
the 4850 wont blow the 8800gt away but the 4870 would

i think that Empire Total War is coming out this year and left for dead so they might push the boat a little

a few other blockbusters as was said are coming out


----------



## bim27142 (Jul 23, 2008)

I just upgraded from X1950 Pro to HD 4850... I've always liked ATI Graphics card because of its excellent driver support...

So far i'm happy with its performance... And it's cheap!!!


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Jul 23, 2008)

roedzzz said:


>



 Maximal. 

HEH HEH HEH... anyroad, your 8800GT is fine for now, I really recommend investing in a decent 22" monitor instead. The Samsung 226BW gets highly recommended by my colleagues.


----------



## Super XP (Jul 23, 2008)

lukesky said:


> You sure about this?? Hope it's true. I'm running hotfix 8.6 right now because I heard the 8.7 beta is worse in performance.


Well the 8.7 I admit were very bad for performance. But the new official 8.7 out now seems to do the trick. All my benchmark scores increased. The HD 4800 series has so much more headroom for much more performance, it will only take driver updates to unleash its true potencial.


----------

