About to pull the trigger: GTX470 or 5850

L

lolivegarden

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
117
They're both around $325. I don't know which one to get.

I do have a 8800 GT which I wanna use as a physx card. I understand it can be done with hacked drivers for the ATI card.

My system is:
[email protected]
6GB RAM @ 1600
 
5850. Less power, less heat, and you could use three monitors some day if you choose to. With nVidia you'd need another $325 GTX 470 to pull that off...
 
LOL, 3 monitors with one 5850? Don't even try it if you want all the eye candy. Even Kyle who is an eyefinity lover says the best multi-monitor gaming is with GTX 480 SLI.
 
DooKey said:
LOL, 3 monitors with one 5850? Don't even try it if you want all the eye candy. Even Kyle who is an eyefinity lover says the best multi-monitor gaming is with GTX 480 SLI.
Click to expand...

I used a single 5850 with Eyefinity for the longest time. Worked fine. You can't honestly expect to have everything at max setting with 3 times the viewing space.

And yes I vote for the 5850.
 
Who the hell cares about multimon gaming, big bezel = no immersion. 3 cheap monitors no immersion FTL. Give me a huge local dimming LED LCD , Kuro or projector instead. Gaming is best done on a big screen.

470 unless you care about thermals or power.
 
I'm running 3 screens with one 5850 just fine. If u go for 5850 make sure you get one you can adjust voltage(mad overclock)
If you plan to go 3D go with nvidia if not I'd stick with Ati cost/performance wise.
you barely see bazel when your mind is in the game.
I didnt like 3 screen too(bezel) but after having it i wont go back to single screen.

Its up to you. nvidia fan will ask you to go for 470 and ati fan will ask you goto 5850. Just pick one.
 
StaticSuo said:
the hell cares about multimon gaming, big bezel = no immersion. 3 cheap monitors no immersion FTL. Give me a huge local dimming LED LCD , Kuro or projector instead. Gaming is best done on a big screen.

470 unless you care about thermals or power.
Click to expand...

It is a big screen. Great way to know what your talking about man. Eyefinity and Surround treats the 3 monitors like one big monitor. You see more too within a game that way.

Doesnt matter how big the screen or project is when it can't get past 25xx+ resolution, you'll see exactly the same amount.

Take a look at this, then rethink about your "3 monitors is small in comparison to a big screen."
 
As a fan of both, and at the same price I'd pick the 470 if you can forgo the extra heat and power that comes with it.
 
Get one of those GTX 465 that unlocks to a 470.

I mean the 465 is a 470...
 
King Icewind said:
It is a big screen. Great way to know what your talking about man. Eyefinity and Surround treats the 3 monitors like one big monitor. You see more too within a game that way.

Doesnt matter how big the screen or project is when it can't get past 25xx+ resolution, you'll see exactly the same amount.

Take a look at this, then rethink about your "3 monitors is small in comparison to a big screen."
Click to expand...

Ok so when I watch a movie I can just stretch it across 3 screens and it will be the same as a 60" screen.. not. 3 small monitors is 3 small monitors and yes 30" is small. Resolution is trival with the HDTVs we have today you're not sitting 2 feet away like a monitor. All that extra resolution a 30" monitor offers is wasted on such a small screen. Go ask people who REALLY know what they're talking about at AVS Forum and tell them you think that you need more than 1080p under 40", go post that in the calibration section to see what experts tell you about viewable display resolution.

This goes without mentioning that every PC monitor on the market is TRASH, mostly TN monitors and the few VA IPS are designed with computer work in mind not gaming or movies. If you want CONTRAST which is very useful for games as well as movies you'll want an HDTV.
 
Last edited:
StaticSurge said:
Ok so when I watch a movie I can just stretch it across 3 screens and it will be the same as a 60" screen.. not. 3 small monitors is 3 small monitors and yes 30" is small. Resolution is trival with the HDTVs we have today you're not sitting 2 feet away like a monitor. All that extra resolution a 30" monitor offers is wasted on such a small screen. Go ask people who REALLY know what they're talking about at AVS Forum and tell them you think that you need more than 1080p under 40", go post that in the calibration section to see what experts tell you about viewable display resolution.

This goes without mentioning that every PC monitor on the market is TRASH, mostly TN monitors and the few VA IPS are designed with computer work in mind not gaming or movies. If you want CONTRAST which is very useful for games as well as movies you'll want an HDTV.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your first post because though I believe eyefinity is the future the current selection of LCDs doesn't offer the possibility of a good eyefinity solution (especially on a budget), you seem to have some facts wrong here.

More than 1080p under 40" is definitely NOT wasted if you are sitting at or under 2 feet (PC set up). Also the main point he was making was it is primarily for the increased field of view in games ~ you seem to have missed that.

ON TOPIC - At the same price 470 is better but it is more heat and noise.
 
Was actually about to post this thread, but someone saved me the trouble.

Basically, as the prices for the 470 and 4850 is ever so slowly approaching/breaching the $250-$300 mark, I'm thinking that the price-for-performance gain ratio from an 8800gt is also reaching a good zone.

I'm not looking for 100% raw power; let's face it, we all have heat concerns and electric bills to worry about. Eyefinity is not even remotely attractive at this point. I'm looking for the best performing card that has really (relatively) low power draw and is less prone to technical problems. I've drawn up some of my perceptions of the two choices below; anyone has any opinions on my options or corrections of any misperceptions on my part?

5850:
Pros:
-Slight edge on price
-Better value for money

Cons:
-Poor/problematic driver support (big problem, maybe a misperception on my part?)
-No Physx support (Can my 8800gt be used as a dedicated phsyx card with a 5850? Impact on power consumption/heat?)

470:
Pros:
-Slight edge on power
-Physx support

Cons:
-Runs hot
-Poor power consumption
-Slightly more expensive

What I'm upgrading from:
E6750
4gig DDR2
8800gt 512
26" 1900x1200

I'm not sure I'll be upgrading the other internals, namely mobo/CPU/RAM. I don't know how this will impact my decision.

Thanks for any help/info.
 
StaticSurge said:
Who the hell cares about multimon gaming, big bezel = no immersion. 3 cheap monitors no immersion FTL. Give me a huge local dimming LED LCD , Kuro or projector instead. Gaming is best done on a big screen.

470 unless you care about thermals or power.
Click to expand...

Have you played on an Eyefinity setup? Because frankly you sound like a moron.

I own a 54" Plasma Panasonic.

I also own 3 25.5" Asus TN panels.

Guess which setup I prefer for gaming?

If OP wants a single card, he should go with a 5850 or a 470, whichever is cheaper or has a better warranty, really. If OP wants two cards, now or eventually, he should go with the 5850 unless he wants to deal with water cooling. If OP is considering Eyefinity or Surround, the answer depends on a lot of other factors.
 
Matrices said:
At the very least, upgrade to a quad-core (C2Q). A quality gaming experience on dual-core is a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I am indeed mulling over whether or not to upgrade to i7/i5 or stick with 775 Quads.
 
460 is pretty crippled. Get the 470gtx. You'll be very happy running at 32x antialiasing.

One hitch is that it does get pretty hot. You really feel it when sitting in the same room as the computer.
 
I am in a similar situation (though with main PC in sig, mostly want to upgrade the LAN box video, but if a computer is getting an upgrade it will be my main one... so the LAN box gets the 9800GTX passed on to it :cool: ).


Can't say either ATI or nVIDIA have super great options right now it seems. I would love to upgrade, but the nVIDIA 4** seem to have heat issues and the ATI cards have driver issues :/ I am leaning towards an nVIDIA card right now just so I could go with eVGA though. Only decent ATI vendor seems to be XFX. Starting to think I just shouldn't upgrade now. Am I really going to be wowed going from a 9800GTX+ at 1920x1200? Or should I just sit this generation out?
 
Anyone consider overclocking?

The 5850 has a bunch of overclocking headroom (especially with increased voltage), but I don't know where the GTX470 stands in that regard.

...something to consider.
 
DarkMeld said:
460 is pretty crippled. Get the 470gtx. You'll be very happy running at 32x antialiasing.

One hitch is that it does get pretty hot. You really feel it when sitting in the same room as the computer.
Click to expand...

Huh? Do you mean the 465?
 
If you are considering either multi gpu's in the future or multi monitors I would go with the 470. If you are are just using one card on one monitor I would pick up the cheapest 5850 you can find.
 
You should be able to find a GTX 470 with free shipping and no tax for $300, check MSI at amazon, I think its still that price, also check newegg prices, I got mine for $265 after all discounts (had a $20 rebate) but that was one heck of a deal.

the GTX 470 actually is a better value for the money if comparing performance per $ than the 5850 and new benches are showing it to be on par with a 5870 in a lot of games. Nvidia makes their cards better with drivers over time, can't really say the same for ATI, there is a reason the NVidia cards pull so much power, their potential is a lot higher than ATI. look at the new i7 chips they use more power than older cpu's as well...

I haven't overclocked my card yet but have heard they can be OC'd a ton, even to allow almost GTX 480 stock performance!

I will just say this, I played through Crysis (entire game) at 2560X1440 averaging 30 fps (everything max, no AA), I don't think the 5850 could do that, probably not even the 5870...

Am I a NVidia fanboy, not really, am I biased, YES, does ATI make a good product and therefore force NVidia to improve, YES. As someone else stated, people who own ATI will tell you to get a 5850, people who own Nvidia will tell you to buy the GTX 470 :D
 
A 5870 does about 35fps in Crysis @ 2560x1200, it varies from PC to PC. Also at that resolution most cards seem to be within 5-10% of each other so I won't read much into a 470 being close to a 5870. Buying a 470 now would be a waste IMO because we all know Nivida will announce a refresh of these cards sometime soon. You will have buyers remorse and try to sell the very same 470 you bought today 2 months from now and no one will want it. Get the cheaper card and wait for Nvidia and ATI to refresh their line-up.
 
Why do you think there will be a refresh in 2 months? That is nonsense. Nothing indicates that is the case.
 
yeah they still have a bunch of other cards to release, like mainstream DX11 ones, a dual gpu one... They won't refresh them until early next year... They will however be updating drivers! They invest too much money to do a refresh months after it releases.
 
I don't think you can go wrong with either card. I would probably research and find the cheapest card for each and then make my decision. Lots of people on here are talking about driver improvements but 90% of the time it isn't even games i play that are being improved upon so i don't take that into consideration.
 
onepost said:
I don't think you can go wrong with either card. I would probably research and find the cheapest card for each and then make my decision. Lots of people on here are talking about driver improvements but 90% of the time it isn't even games i play that are being improved upon so i don't take that into consideration.
Click to expand...

when they update drivers they don't put in code for certain games, they only show certain games to give you an idea of the performance gain for popular ones. It will still improve the games you play (although by how much will be unknown unless you test it...)
 
Matrices said:
At the very least, upgrade to a quad-core (C2Q). A quality gaming experience on dual-core is a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

Only a few games benefit from a quad-core. Dual-Core performs just as well as a quad-core in probably 90%+ games.
 
eddie500 said:
Only a few games benefit from a quad-core. Dual-Core performs just as well as a quad-core in probably 90%+ games.
Click to expand...

Yes, 90%+ of games, but nowhere near 90%+ of the games you will actually want to play these days...

Just Cause 2, Bad Company 2, GTA 4, and many others not only utilize four cores, but completely suck on two cores.

Every other day on these forums someone is whining that their C2D setup with a brand new GPU is disappointing in performance. They are surprised to see that ludicrous overclocks haven't overcome the basic limitation of their obsolete 2-core CPU.

C2D is outdated. It doesn't play nearly as smoothly as a quad-core in many modern games.
 
You'll also want quad core if you want any longevity in your PC for gaming or general use in a few years are more & more programs are using multiple cores. At least Intel's duel core CPUs are hyper-threaded to improve performance a little bit.
 
Aumakua said:
when they update drivers they don't put in code for certain games, they only show certain games to give you an idea of the performance gain for popular ones. It will still improve the games you play (although by how much will be unknown unless you test it...)
Click to expand...

i did not know that - thanks for the info. I thought the release notes included everything...
 
I say that both cards are very good, but I would go with the one that will have the longest product lifespan and warranty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top