4850 or GTX 260... For My Setup?

Z

ZzBloopzZ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 18, 2004
Messages
1,330
I plan to start PC gaming again, have not been into games since 2004! Hence why I currently have a BGF 7600 GT. I will be gaming at 1280x1024... on my 19" CRT with the Sony Trinitron tube. To be honest, I am still VERY happy with my CRT. I won't be upgrading to LCD anytime soon... although I do have a LCD for secondary display but that is for reading/chat/folders.

I will mainly be playing the latest FPS like Crysis, Far Cry 2, Fallout 3, COD4/COD5 etc. I would like to play in max graphics, minus for Crysis.

I am the type that does not overclock video cards, and I tend to upgrade every few generations. I do not want to spend more then $200. I am sure near black friday the GTX 260 will be around $200 or under AR. I have seen them now for that price with live cashback deals.

For only 1280x1024... would the GTX 260 just be overkill? The other selling point for nVidia is Cuda support, I really see some advantages of it later down the road. Also, how is nVidia for driver support? I have built some recent builds with the 4850, and really liking ATI's driver support and the CCC gui. Their built-in uninstall all drivers feature is also awesome.

Thanks!

Edit: I do plan to buy an after market HSF so that I can OC my Q6600 to 3Ghz, if that helps at all. Oh and my board does not support SLI/Crossfire so please don't recommend that. :c)
 
If you're planning on gaming on a 19" CRT at 1280x1024, then you won't need more than the 4850 which is the best card for under $200.

If money is not an issue and you want the most raw power for possible future upgrades, then you can get the 260 for about $230. IMHO, it is not worth the $80 price difference.
 
in all honesty, whichever you can get at the lowest price point, because they both are overkill for that res in my opinion.
 
I really like the HD4850. I too use a 1280*1024 monitor and most games (except crysis of course) will run around 50 to 75 FPS (I keep V. sync on) on max settings with AA and AF. However, if you can get a 260 for around that price, which may seem possible in the upcoming months I'd go with that.
 
sounds like you guys need to get bigger monitors. 16x10 panels run under $200 usd these days.
 
rennyf77 said:
sounds like you guys need to get bigger monitors. 16x10 panels run under $200 usd these days.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand the justification for a bigger monitor for myself. My 19" is perfect size for me plus I love how I can use multiple resolutions.. It seems to me that people sometimes recommend things because everyone else is doing it. If golden toilet paper was under $200, should I go out and buy it? I'm not trying to be a prick but it seems that sometimes people over hype things... like RAID 0.

/rant
 
PC_User said:
If you're planning on gaming on a 19" CRT at 1280x1024, then you won't need more than the 4850 which is the best card for under $200.

If money is not an issue and you want the most raw power for possible future upgrades, then you can get the 260 for about $230. IMHO, it is not worth the $80 price difference.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about the GTX 260 because I figured then I can upgrade again in another 2 years. Also, I really think Cuda technology is starting to take off. People are already using it to crack AES which can be done in only days now instead of months. Not that I would be doing that kind of thing, but if/when some regular programs I use start taking advantage of it, I am sure there will be huge performance increases. Then also it would feel like a better investment. Right now I'm thinking like damn I'm going to spend $150-$200 just to play games here and there. But then again this is probably the first time I will be buying a "toy" for myself all year. ;)
 
I upgraded to a 24" from my 19" about a week or so ago... I'm loving it.
 
The 4850 is more than powerful enough at 1280 to play anything that's coming out in the next year. Even crysis is playable if you don't go overboard with the AA, and in most other titles feel free to crank it to 8x adaptive and leave it there. I asked myself the same question you did (just replace 260 with 4870) The money you save now can go towards next years midrange monster, which will likely be more powerful than the 260 by a good margin.
 
ZzBloopzZ said:
I was thinking about the GTX 260 because I figured then I can upgrade again in another 2 years. Also, I really think Cuda technology is starting to take off. People are already using it to crack AES which can be done in only days now instead of months. Not that I would be doing that kind of thing, but if/when some regular programs I use start taking advantage of it, I am sure there will be huge performance increases. Then also it would feel like a better investment. Right now I'm thinking like damn I'm going to spend $150-$200 just to play games here and there. But then again this is probably the first time I will be buying a "toy" for myself all year. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't know about Cuda, but I do know that ATI > nVidia as of late. :D
 
PC_User said:
I don't know about Cuda, but I do know that ATI > nVidia as of late. :D
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnIvodB2RzU

^^ I know that guy is nerdy as HELL but check out the vid. Cuda is being used here at John Hopkins for medical stuff and it's being used in other industries too. Really interesting technology IMO.

I hear ATI will have a similar version but don't see any info on it as of yet. Cuda works off of C language, thus no new language needed to take advantage of it.
 
4850 at that res FTW. you could really get away with even cheaper if you wanted to.
 
Yoda4561 said:
The 4850 is more than powerful enough at 1280 to play anything that's coming out in the next year. Even crysis is playable if you don't go overboard with the AA, and in most other titles feel free to crank it to 8x adaptive and leave it there. I asked myself the same question you did (just replace 260 with 4870) The money you save now can go towards next years midrange monster, which will likely be more powerful than the 260 by a good margin.
Click to expand...

That is very true man. I bought my BFG 7600 GT OC w/ Zalman Cooler for $50 shipped in Dec 07. I am sure I can sell it for $40-$50 on craigslist.

Such a hard decision. I'm still going to order my card around black friday, so maybe there will be 4850's for under $125 AR. I have seen used 4850's go for $120-130 shipped on for sale forums.
 
ZzBloopzZ said:
I really don't understand the justification for a bigger monitor for myself. My 19" is perfect size for me plus I love how I can use multiple resolutions.. It seems to me that people sometimes recommend things because everyone else is doing it. If golden toilet paper was under $200, should I go out and buy it? I'm not trying to be a prick but it seems that sometimes people over hype things... like RAID 0.

/rant
Click to expand...

every individual places differing values on things certainly and its perfectly fine that you don't feel that you need more than your 12x10. you certainly are trying to be a prick by the way, because there simply is no plausible reason for anyone to buy golden toilet paper. there's no reason to believe that golden toilet paper will wipe up more than regular toilet paper. in contrast, a purchase of a 20 or 22 inch 16x10 will allow you to see images in greater clarity. these current generation video cards really are meant to run at greater than 12x10 resolutions. with a 4850 or a gtx 260 you will see better performance than with your current video card, but the change won't be so drastically different considering your resolution. furthermore, raid 0 with two identical drives improves loading and writing speed over the one drive alone; that's a fact and not conjecture.
 
ZzBloopzZ said:
I was thinking about the GTX 260 because I figured then I can upgrade again in another 2 years. Also, I really think Cuda technology is starting to take off. People are already using it to crack AES which can be done in only days now instead of months. Not that I would be doing that kind of thing, but if/when some regular programs I use start taking advantage of it, I am sure there will be huge performance increases. Then also it would feel like a better investment. Right now I'm thinking like damn I'm going to spend $150-$200 just to play games here and there. But then again this is probably the first time I will be buying a "toy" for myself all year. ;)
Click to expand...

Considering the cheapest license elcomsoft has for the distributed password recovery tool that uses CUDA for GPU accelerated AES and other wireless cracking is $599, I wouldn't make a purchase based off that :) People are slow to adopt this. I'd rather purchase a general purpose GPU and assume that most consumer software will go the route of Photoshop CS4 and be OpenGL accelerated for certain tasks than put my eggs in a basket and assume CUDA will revolutionize the way you perform many tasks. In fact, if it ever takes off like you're hoping, you'll probably be due for another upgrade around that time :)
 
I've seen the 4850 for $160 on newegg.
champagne.gif
content.gif
ecstatic.gif
eeek.gif
friends.gif
grouphug.gif
happy.gif
puzzle.gif
smileyup.gif
unsure.gif
 
The price difference between the GTX 260 and 4850 is pretty small IMO... there was a BFG 260 this week for $220 + an additional $20 MIR w/ Far Cry 2.. but that's OOS..

The difference is small, even if it's a waste of money ( small amount though ) for right now since you're gaming at that resolution.. but the 260 will last longer maxing out newer games coming out at that resolution whereas the 4850 will not.
 
If you're just getting back in to pc gaming you also may find yourself wanting a larger monitor shortly down the road. IMO just pay a little more and get the most graphic card that you can afford right now. I would't go anything less the a 260 or 4870. For the price to performance ratio though I don't think you can beat the gtx 260 as it can be had for $200 after rebates.
 
if your talking rebate territory, 4850's can be had for the 130's after rebate. But i think the original poster should just get whichever is cheaper as they both would be suitable for his res.
 
HD4850 is good enough for 1280x1024 and can be easily found for less than $150 shipped (usually after rebate).

Newegg:

ASUS HD4850 dual slot cooler and overclocked for $140 AR and free shipping.

OR

HIS HD4850 single slot cooler is $135 AR and "EMCBADACF" free shipping promo. (need to be signed up for newegg's news letter to use promo codes)
 
rennyf77 said:
furthermore, raid 0 with two identical drives improves loading and writing speed over the one drive alone; that's a fact and not conjecture.
Click to expand...

http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=SingleDriveVsRaid0

A majority of people that do raid 0 on here don't do A/V work. Faster load times is subjective. I personally noticed that a single higher RPM drive was overall more responsive/faster load times in the real world over a raid 0 array, and if the raid 0 was faster it only saved a few seconds in the game.

Is double cost really worth 0-15% improvement, plus double the risk of losing your data? Especially since most people here with raid 0 use it as their main system drive.

But let's not turn this in to a raid 0 debate :c)

I am slowly leaning towards the 4850 now actually. As one person stated, by the time Cuda gets matured it will probably better off going with the next gen of GPU's. I beleive Photoshop does use Cuda technology now via a plugin.

Now the hard part, to wait for black friday sales. :c/
 
i agree with your assessment of raid 0 performance, and that 4850 will make an excellent upgrade from your 7600gt. consider the dual slot his iceq4 card if you have the space. the 4850 runs pretty hot in my htpc even though it exhausts heat off the gpu and ic chips out the back. i hasten to wonder how much worse the heat would be in a small case with heat from both the pcb and the gpu/ram floating around.
 
A 4850 is more than enough for 1280x1024.

With my 4850 I've played these:

Team Fortress 2 at 1920x1200 with everything maxed and 4xAA/16xAF

Crysis at 1600x1200 with everything on high and 8xAF

Pure at 1920x1200 with everything maxed and 16xAF

Dead Space at 1920x1200 with everything maxed and 16xAF

Portal with at 1920x1200 with everything maxed and 4xAA/16xAF

Bioshock at 1920x1440 with everything maxed and 16xAF

Seriously, at 1280x1024 there's no reason to get anything more powerful than a 4850. It's really an amazing card for the price, I've been consistently impressed with mine. I've been playing Dead Space all day, and cannot believe just how great my 4850 makes it look. I mean, just look at it:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v457/Opioid/DS2.jpg

Sooo good.
 
OK, you guys convinced me. 4850 it is :c)

Plus I think with the savings I'll snag a Logitech steering wheel for Grid, GTR 2, Toca 3 and Collin Mcrae. ;)

/me anxious for Christmas season sales.
 
If I had to do it over again, I would go GTX 260 or 280 instead of a 4870, simply for stability. Doesn't matter how fast or cheap the card is if it has problems working correctly. And for optimal compatiblity with today's and tomorrow's games, I'd say Nvidia has an edge.
 
ZzBloopzZ said:
OK, you guys convinced me. 4850 it is :c)

Plus I think with the savings I'll snag a Logitech steering wheel for Grid, GTR 2, Toca 3 and Collin Mcrae. ;)

/me anxious for Christmas season sales.
Click to expand...

Good choice. By the time you buy it, it will be even cheaper and can handle pretty much anything you throw at it today and perhaps even tomorrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top