4850 vs 9800gtx

Do you really think that I would need the 4850 at my res for AA to be enabled?

I am kinda looking fr the best deal.I like the fact that the 9800gtx is a dual slot card.
Looking at my rig in sig will my psu be fine for these 2 video cards?
 
If you don't need it now, you will need it later with newer games. Btw it is cheaper to buy the RAM alone because it is only $25 with MIR instead of $180 with the $150 card. The HD4850 is only $130 with MIR so $130 + $25 for the RAM is only $150 and you will get a faster card.
 
the combo deal knocks off another $20 so it is really only $150 after rebate for the 9800gtx and the ram combo deal.It is like only buying the card after the rebate so kinda like free ram with the $150 video card
 
Bman123 said:
the combo deal knocks off another $20 so it is really only $150 after rebate for the 9800gtx and the ram combo deal.It is like only buying the card after the rebate so kinda like free ram with the $150 video card
Click to expand...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143137

Original price: $204.98
Discount: -$24.99
Combo Price: $179.99

With the $30 MIR it is the same price as the HD4850 and both of them come with free shipping.
 
Yeah it is $179 then there is a $30 rebate for the ram so it's back down to $149
 
You can buy

a) HD4850 + RAM for $150 with free shipping
b) 9800GTX + RAM for $150 with free shipping

You can get the faster card with the same cost if you want.
 
The stock 4850's get hot dont they?
I would prefer a dual slot card.

What about the 9800gtx+
 
I had a single slot hd4850 before and I didn;t like it.I put a gfx chilla cooler on it and it stayed cool.
I didn;t see a big increase tho in my framerate from the 8800gt I had since my cpu 5000+ wasn't utilizing the gpu all the way.I also had alot of framerate drops with the visiontek hd4850 I had.

It seemed like the 8800gt ran cod4 smoother then the 4850.Sure my framerate was higher with the 4850 but my lows were low.I felt kinda jipped with the card when I was playing cod4 since my FPS drop was pretty big.I am talking from 90 down to 30 when there was smoke grenades and explosions.

I am sure a big part of it was my cpu but with this new cpu I am sure that my lows will be higher since the cpu is alot better.Plus I will have 4 gigs of ram nowinstead of the 2 gigs that I had before
 
For your setup, at such a low res 1280 x 720. You could get either card and it will perform pretty similar at that resolution. But, as you go higher in resolution say 1600 x 1200, the HD 4850 will pull away especially in game such as COD4. It would be more worthwhile to get an HD 4850 card if you plan to upgrade your lcd monitor. But, if you stay with your 17" Gateway lcd, which I also have this monitor hehe, then a 9800GT will do fine at that res. Plus, it's cheap. Look at this MSI n9800GT card for $115 ($20 MIR) w/free shipping. For such a low res and small monitor, go cheaper, MSI n9800GT video cards for $115. See review here.
 
My idea is at such a low res, AA performance becomes even more impertive than say 1900 res. I saw go for the card that can eat AA alive and spit it out. I believe thats still the 4850. AA performance is paramount at lower res.
 
Yeah it is. But, an 8800GT is plenty still for only 1280 x 720 res. I can play Crysis with 1440 x 900 with high settings and no AA with my EVGA 8800GT O/C and Q6600 cpu stock. The MSI n9800GT O/C is clocked even higher than my 8800GT card, he should do even better. Plus he has a faster Dual Core E8400 cpu. He will perform better on his setup than my setup. he should have no problems running COD4 with very high settings at the Res. Bioshock no prolem also. FC2 he should hit 40fps+ easily with high settings.
 
See the thing is I can get a 9800gt for $100 after rebate then I still need to get ram.Gskill ram is $44 with free shipping so I am gonna be around $150 shipped for the 9800gt.

I figure what the hek I gotta get ram either way I go and with the bfg 9800gtx coming with 2x2 corsair ram for $150 after rebate with free shipping why not go for the faster card.
I am on a budget here and am trying to bargain shop.So say I get the 4850 which would be visiontek for the warranty it is $150-$160 just for the card then I still need ram
 
Wait, I see in your sig you have 4gig RAM already. How much RAM do you need? I only have 2 gigs RAM still hehe.
 
I dont have the ram yet I still need to order it.I must of been speed typing and not thinking when I did my sig rig.I'll go change it now.Thanks for noticing tho
 
That is what I have been thinking but I was hearing hd4850.

I am gonna come right out and say it I am biased towards nvidia.My experience with the 8800gt and the hd4850 showed me that the nvidia cards run smoother.
 
I also have been thinking of which to get. Even looked at the same combo deal as you and just thought of what a great price it was, but if what everyone is saying is that the HD 4850 will get a bigger gap over the 9800GTX as the res increases then I'll probably get the 4850 myself. I have a low resolution too but might get a new monitor. I found ASUS Radeon HD 4850 512MB to be the best deal for the 4850. Wasn't sure about the sapphire one.
 
Yeah that may be the best for you but I need to get ram so the 9800gtx deal is gonn abe the best for me.The more i think about the performance the less I care.
We all know that next year the new cards will be the same price and probably whoop ass compared to today's cards.
I like nvidia more then ati.Ati color is better and it doesn;t take a big hit with AA but my framerate dropping like flies is what made me sell the 4850.It made me a little pissed off after reading so much good about the card.I dont know maybe it was my cpu,but now I have a fast cpu so I should be good to go for awhile now
 
Nah, I'm building a whole computer pretty much and was just looking at what card to buy when I came across this post. I also like the combo deal a lot, its very cheap.
 
Bman123 said:
Yeah that may be the best for you but I need to get ram so the 9800gtx deal is gonn abe the best for me.The more i think about the performance the less I care.
We all know that next year the new cards will be the same price and probably whoop ass compared to today's cards.
I like nvidia more then ati.Ati color is better and it doesn;t take a big hit with AA but my framerate dropping like flies is what made me sell the 4850.It made me a little pissed off after reading so much good about the card.I dont know maybe it was my cpu,but now I have a fast cpu so I should be good to go for awhile now
Click to expand...

I think you had a different problem. I'm running a 4850 with an X2 5000+ at 3ghz and there are ZERO framerate drops in ANY of the games I've played (including CoD4). At low resolutions AA is a huge benefit, and ATI's CFAA is a perfect fit. 12xCFAA/8xMSAA/24xCFAA are all very real possibilities in terms of playability, even on demanding games (I played GRID with 8xMSAA at 1280x1024 and I was still CPU limited at around 50FPS)

But its your money, spend it how you want.
 
my big thing was getting off of being so cpu dependant.I know that at a low res like this I am cpu dependant but with a better cpu I can achieve better framerates.

That is the bad thing about pc gaming.You are always bottlenecked somehow.
At low res you are cpu dependant,at high res you are gpu dependant.I use to play consoles and the framerate sucked on some games so I decided to try the pc scene out and now I am hooked,

I figure with this new rig upgrade and keeping my current monitor I should be okay gaming wise for quite a while
 
kllrnohj said:
I think you had a different problem. I'm running a 4850 with an X2 5000+ at 3ghz and there are ZERO framerate drops in ANY of the games I've played (including CoD4). At low resolutions AA is a huge benefit, and ATI's CFAA is a perfect fit. 12xCFAA/8xMSAA/24xCFAA are all very real possibilities in terms of playability, even on demanding games (I played GRID with 8xMSAA at 1280x1024 and I was still CPU limited at around 50FPS)

But its your money, spend it how you want.
Click to expand...

You are also running ultimate and 4 gigs of ram.I was using 2 gigs of ram and vist uses around half of that before gaming,
 
Bman123 said:
That is what I have been thinking but I was hearing hd4850.

I am gonna come right out and say it I am biased towards nvidia.My experience with the 8800gt and the hd4850 showed me that the nvidia cards run smoother.
Click to expand...

i sent my 4850 back and changed it for a 9800gtx+.as i was getting very low fps dips with the 4850.but with the 9800gtx+ the same game runs smooth as silk with 9800gtx+,and image looks better with dv.
 
Bman123, you're saying that at a low res you're more CPU dependent? I was going to get the E7300 CPU and that 9800GTX that you were talking about. If so, should I just get a cheaper GPU and a better CPU myself if I have a low res monitor?
 
gamerx11 said:
Bman123, you're saying that at a low res you're more CPU dependent? I was going to get the E7300 CPU and that 9800GTX that you were talking about. If so, should I just get a cheaper GPU and a better CPU myself if I have a low res monitor?
Click to expand...

Nah, just overclock the E7300 ;) The better GPU will still help a great deal, especially with AA.
 
I've noticed, both at 1280x1024 and 1680x1050, that in the vast majority of games anything more than 4X AA isn't necessary for decent edge smoothing. Well, I suppose if you keep your nose three inches from the screen trying to find jaggies it may be, but for normal gameplay, regardless of GPU, any more is a waste of resources for very little benefit.

Personal opinion I know, but I do have an EVGA GTX 260 "FTW" Edition that can easily handle max AA in any game I play with my new 22" monitor. Again, I notice very little benefit with the monitor a couple feet from me. 4X AA is plenty. This is with Oblivion, Lord of the Rings Online, WoW, Fallout 3, Gothic 3, Two Worlds, etc... And with larger screens high levels of A.A. are just overkill. Nice marketing exercise to tout "superior high resolution AA", but that's about all it is.
 
gamerx11 said:
Bman123, you're saying that at a low res you're more CPU dependent? I was going to get the E7300 CPU and that 9800GTX that you were talking about. If so, should I just get a cheaper GPU and a better CPU myself if I have a low res monitor?
Click to expand...

It is kinda hard for me to explain the way I feel about that situation.
I had a 5000+ cpu @2.6ghz.I was cpu limited at 1280x720.

I forget how it goes but it is something like this.

Run a benchmark like lost planet at default record your framerates.Lower all the settings including the resolution to as low as they can go.If your framerate goes up by alot then you are cpu limited,if not then you are gpu limited.

I am just glad to have a fast cpu that I am making the video card purchase rough on myself.I am ordering the bfg combo and 64bit vista right now.

Honestly in my situation ordering the bfg combo is the best thing for me.I was gonna get a 9800gt which was $100 then spend another $50 on ram so for the same price I can get a faster card and get the ram for the same price.

I am just very happy that this is all coming together now
 
Jeffredo said:
I've noticed, both at 1280x1024 and 1680x1050, that in the vast majority of games anything more than 4X AA isn't necessary for decent edge smoothing. Well, I suppose if you keep your nose three inches from the screen trying to find jaggies it may be, but for normal gameplay, regardless of GPU, any more is a waste of resources for very little benefit.

Personal opinion I know, but I do have an EVGA GTX 260 "FTW" Edition that can easily handle max AA in any game I play with my new 22" monitor. Again, I notice very little benefit with the monitor a couple feet from me. 4X AA is plenty. This is with Oblivion, Lord of the Rings Online, WoW, Fallout 3, Gothic 3, Two Worlds, etc... And with larger screens high levels of A.A. are just overkill. Nice marketing exercise to tout "superior high resolution AA", but that's about all it is.
Click to expand...

That really isn't true. I can easily notice a difference between 4xAA and 8xAA in some games at 1280x1024. Larger screens benefit just as much from AA as smaller screens, as the dot pitch doesn't really improve (meaning jaggies are just as visible). One tends to sit a bit farther back from a larger screen, which does help, but AA still helps more. You may not mind jaggies, but I personally can't stand them. I would gladly lower the IQ a bit to up the AA (but I don't have to, w00t)

I have a friend who thinks that 20fps is perfectly playable in Oblivion - I think it is so jerky that I start getting a headache. It is all up to the eye of the viewer.
 
I have a friend who thinks that 20fps is perfectly playable in Oblivion - I think it is so jerky that I start getting a headache. It is all up to the eye of the viewer.

I perfectly understand you about that.A buddy from work is still using a p4 with a 8600gt and he likes the performance.It is in the person as what is nice or not.I like AA alot
 
Oh damn, I can't a slight bit of lag and it pisses the hell out of me. I prefer at least 30fps to play anything.
 
at least 30fps ?
thats for gamers surely

20fps is okay => means new gamers hehehe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top