HD 4850 vs GTS250

J

jayoxd

n00b
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
41
I recently bought a 4850 over the GTS 250 because I read that they were very comparable and the cheaper one would be the best bet, so I bought the 4850 for 20 dollars less, is this the right call?

And is the 4850 getting kind of old? I hardly ever see it get mentioned anymore, it definitely is a personal upgrade for me but is it really that big of an upgrade?

I do realize the 4870 is superior but it does cost 60 more or so.
 
i also accidentally bought the 512mb version but it wouldnt really make a difference if i ran my games at 1400x900 would it?
 
jayoxd said:
I recently bought a 4850 over the GTS 250 because I read that they were very comparable and the cheaper one would be the best bet, so I bought the 4850 for 20 dollars less, is this the right call?

And is the 4850 getting kind of old? I hardly ever see it get mentioned anymore, it definitely is a personal upgrade for me but is it really that big of an upgrade?

I do realize the 4870 is superior but it does cost 60 more or so.
Click to expand...

Yes. They are basically the same, performance wise, so the only things left to look at are the price, warranty and bundle. If they were the same and the HD 4850 was still cheaper, you've made the right choice.
 
jayoxd said:
i also accidentally bought the 512mb version but it wouldnt really make a difference if i ran my games at 1400x900 would it?
Click to expand...

It will if you like AA (Anti-Aliasing). If you don't usually go past 2 or 4 xAA, then you should be fine.
 
1400x900? There are monitors that run that resolution? Hmm, you should be ok.
 
No, actually the HD4850 trades blows with the original 9800GTX, the 9800GTX+ and GTS250 are both faster. Not by much, like 5%, but still faster and it runs cooler. Also, they have OpenGL 3.0 if that matters to the OP.
 
vjcsmoke said:
1400x900? There are monitors that run that resolution? Hmm, you should be ok.
Click to expand...

widescreen

Red Falcon said:
No, actually the HD4850 trades blows with the original 9800GTX, the 9800GTX+ and GTS250 are both faster. Not by much, like 5%, but still faster and it runs cooler. Also, they have OpenGL 3.0 if that matters to the OP.
Click to expand...

i've heard so many things it's crazy i dont know what to believe anymore!
 
BUt the 4850 has DX10.1 while the nvidia cards do not. so you can always up the AA to 2x and even 4x with near 0 performance hit.
 
Red Falcon said:
No, actually the HD4850 trades blows with the original 9800GTX, the 9800GTX+ and GTS250 are both faster. Not by much, like 5%, but still faster and it runs cooler. Also, they have OpenGL 3.0 if that matters to the OP.
Click to expand...

5% is irrelevant, given the margin of error of benchmarks, even real-world gameplay ones. So they are roughly the same. The GTS 250 is cooler no doubt.

As for OpenGL 3.0, it actually supports 3.2, since NVIDIA recently released a driver that adds support for it. But I wouldn't consider that a worthy of attention feature at this point.
 
kidcrumb said:
BUt the 4850 has DX10.1 while the nvidia cards do not. so you can always up the AA to 2x and even 4x with near 0 performance hit.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with DX10.1. That's an architectural feature. It's not dependent of DX10.1. And the big difference is not from 2xAA to 4xAA, but rather 4xAA to 8xAA, where the performance hit isn't as big as is even with the newest GeForces.

Anyway, having DX10.1 support was and still is quite irrelevant at this point. When Windows 7 is released it will matter a bit, since DX11 is a superset of DX10.1, but it's really just an increment of the DX API, with very little to show.
 
at your res the 4850 should be fine. The older reference designs do run hot, but there are many that have better coolers on them now. The Asus is a good one due to the fan control and overclocking software they give you. The gts 250 is a solid card as well but for my money I would grab this instead,

SAPPHIRE 100259L Radeon HD 4870 512MB $139.99

faster than both the 4850 and the gts250 and just a little higher price. But, how often do you buy a gpu? will you be happy you saved $30 in a year ? Just some food for thought.
 
jayoxd said:
i also accidentally bought the 512mb version but it wouldnt really make a difference if i ran my games at 1400x900 would it?
Click to expand...

at your res there should be no difference. hell at in most games there isn't much difference on a 24" monitor.

as for what is faster it depends largely on the driver release. The 4850 was faster last time looked but it depends on the games, testing methods, and so on. basically there are close enough for me to call a wash. for a while it seem to flip with driver releases.

have to agree with hossdaddy though, that 4870 would be a kick ass card for the price even though its over kill for your size screen.
 
In a game like GTA IV, having the extra half gb is totally worth it above, say 1280x1024. I game at 1600x1200 and with Crysis and GTA IV the extra memory allowed a better "experience" as the reviewers are saying these days (thanks to [H] I imagine).

If what you have is the half-gig, for that screen it'll get you by, but I think the time has come where it's no longer enough for the best possible experience, even for smaller screens.
 
Silus said:
That has nothing to do with DX10.1. That's an architectural feature. It's not dependent of DX10.1. And the big difference is not from 2xAA to 4xAA, but rather 4xAA to 8xAA, where the performance hit isn't as big as is even with the newest GeForces.

Anyway, having DX10.1 support was and still is quite irrelevant at this point. When Windows 7 is released it will matter a bit, since DX11 is a superset of DX10.1, but it's really just an increment of the DX API, with very little to show.
Click to expand...

One of the VERY few games that actually uses DX10.1 is STALKER: Clear Sky, and it runs like garbage on just about any system. The programing was terrible and the DX10.1 effects weren't even note worthy. This is less of a difference between DX9.0b and DX9.0c.
 
Red Falcon said:
One of the VERY few games that actually uses DX10.1 is STALKER: Clear Sky, and it runs like garbage on just about any system. The programing was terrible and the DX10.1 effects weren't even note worthy. This is less of a difference between DX9.0b and DX9.0c.
Click to expand...

this is true, much like physx its more or less a marketing ploy at this point. Games that do use it do perform much better but but there are only two noteworthy games that I know of that make good use of it HAWK and assassins creed. that might change with nvidia now making 10.1 chips but 11 is right around the corner.
 
Red Falcon said:
One of the VERY few games that actually uses DX10.1 is STALKER: Clear Sky, and it runs like garbage on just about any system. The programing was terrible and the DX10.1 effects weren't even note worthy. This is less of a difference between DX9.0b and DX9.0c.
Click to expand...

really? I find Clear Sky runs pretty well on my PC, or it just those people who is using FX5200 that is complaining that it runs horrible :rolleyes:
 
shansoft said:
really? I find Clear Sky runs pretty well on my PC, or it just those people who is using FX5200 that is complaining that it runs horrible :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Dude, you're running two 4950's in X-Fire and a GTX295, it BETTER run good on your system.

For those who have anything less than the VERY best though, it runs like shit.

And define "runs good"

You mean, 60+ fps @ max settings at 1680x1050 or beyond?


[H]ardOCP did a review on it and even showed that it had massive programming problems and was very difficult to run at 40+ fps at the above resolution with even the best systems.

Seriously, don't be so arrogant. Not all of us are running FX5200's :rolleyes:
 
Red Falcon said:
Dude, you're running two 4950's in X-Fire and a GTX295, it BETTER run good on your system.

For those who have anything less than the VERY best though, it runs like shit.

And define "runs good"

You mean, 60+ fps @ max settings at 1680x1050 or beyond?


[H]ardOCP did a review on it and even showed that it had massive programming problems and was very difficult to run at 40+ fps at the above resolution with even the best systems.

Seriously, don't be so arrogant. Not all of us are running FX5200's :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

the game does not need 60 fps to be smooth, like Crysis...
the motion blur makes it....

and no, 4890CF and GTX 295 is not require to run smooth, a 4870/4890 should run smooth as well... at least from my testing...
 
shansoft said:
the game does not need 60 fps to be smooth, like Crysis...
the motion blur makes it....

and no, 4890CF and GTX 295 is not require to run smooth, a 4870/4890 should run smooth as well... at least from my testing...
Click to expand...

Well maybe I'll just have to get a pair of them, then we'll see! HA! :D
 
I'm getting mixed signals about 512GB vs 1GB. I also am trying to choose between a 4850 and a GTS250. I'm probably going to go with the cheaper one, but would it be worth an extra $20-30 for a 1GB version? I run the same resolution as the OP, 1440x900.
 
SLiGuy said:
I'm getting mixed signals about 512GB vs 1GB. I also am trying to choose between a 4850 and a GTS250. I'm probably going to go with the cheaper one, but would it be worth an extra $20-30 for a 1GB version? I run the same resolution as the OP, 1440x900.
Click to expand...
at 1440x900 the 512mb is fine.

as for as the OP goes with his relatively 5000 X2 neither a 4850 or gts250 would get fully utilized anyway especially at just 1440x900. heck even a much slower 4670 is bottlenecked by a 5000 X2 at 1440x900. I had about a 20-25% performance increase at 1280x1024 by using the 4670 with my E8500 over my 5000 X2 and yes that was confirmed with real benchmarks. realistically the OP is only getting about 60-70% of what his 4850 is even capable of at 1440x900.
 
Last edited:
Silus said:
It will if you like AA (Anti-Aliasing). If you don't usually go past 2 or 4 xAA, then you should be fine.
Click to expand...
unless you are running 16x AA and/or some crazy texture mods then there are no games that would exceed 512mb of vram at just 1440x900. well maybe GTA 4 but thats about it. I would certainly go with 1gb for 1680 or higher but for 1440x900 it is a non issue.
 
shansoft said:
like I said, you don't need a pair of high-end gpu to run the game..

if you really think its needed, then its your problem :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
if you are talking about Clear Sky then NO single gpu will run that game smoothly max DX10 settings. I even turn down many settings and it completely kills my gtx260 in DX10 with mostly maxed and but no AA. outside its more demanding than Crysis if you dont turn down things like sun rays, viewing distance and such.



a gtx285 cant even crack 30fps at 1920 and thats with MANY of the details turned down. if you used any AA and turned on full sun rays and other stuff the gtx285 would be in the teens for an average. http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/inno3d-geforce-gtx295-platinum_10.html#sect1
 
whats sad is that clear sky isn't that good of a game for the amount of power it requires. i'd take crysis over it any day
 
shansoft said:
like I said, you don't need a pair of high-end gpu to run the game..

if you really think its needed, then its your problem :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

whatever, go read the review. If your version of "running smooth" is 15fps, then lol @ you.
 
I have the 4850 512mb.

I run Counterstrike source at 1600x1200 with all settings maxed and AA set to 8x and I never drop below 100fps, and often am between 200-300.
 
shansoft said:
like I said, you don't need a pair of high-end gpu to run the game..

if you really think its needed, then its your problem :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why don't you take a break from the snide, useless remarks for a few minutes and do some reading? Looking at your pair of top-end rigs, surely you must have something more constructive to say on the subject of hardware scaling without resorting to a condescending :rolleyes:.

Ever since you made that remark the other day about not understanding why people fold, you're credibility has been completely shot as far as I'm concerned. You might not care about that, I know I wouldn't, but based on what I've read, you're rubbing others the wrong way as well.

There are better ways to get your point across than your current method of belittling people in a vain attempt to appear somewhat important. You're not the most knowledgeable person in this forum. Not by a long shot. You'll be instantly wiser for coming to grips with that fact.

Decent suggestions are appreciated, try some of those.

Go ahead.

OP, 4850 seems like a winner to me. It's too bad you ended up with the 512MB model though. For what it's worth, I can game very well with just one 8800GT @ 1680x1050 and the 4850 stomps on the 8800GT...well, not stomps.. but is better than.
 
snaggletooth said:
Why don't you take a break from the snide, useless remarks for a few minutes and do some reading? Looking at your pair of top-end rigs, surely you must have something more constructive to say on the subject of hardware scaling without resorting to a condescending :rolleyes:.

Ever since you made that remark the other day about not understanding why people fold, you're credibility has been completely shot as far as I'm concerned. You might not care about that, I know I wouldn't, but based on what I've read, you're rubbing others the wrong way as well.

There are better ways to get your point across than your current method of belittling people in a vain attempt to appear somewhat important. You're not the most knowledgeable person in this forum. Not by a long shot. You'll be instantly wiser for coming to grips with that fact.

Decent suggestions are appreciated, try some of those.

Go ahead.

OP, 4850 seems like a winner to me. It's too bad you ended up with the 512MB model though. For what it's worth, I can game very well with just one 8800GT @ 1680x1050 and the 4850 stomps on the 8800GT...well, not stomps.. but is better than.
Click to expand...
OP is at 1440x900 so more than 512mb wont matter anyway. his relatively slow cpu is much more of an issue and he wont even come close to fully pushing that 4850 with his cpu. the only reason I mention that is because he actually considered a 4870 which would have been silly at 1440x900 with a 2.6 Opty(X2).
 
Last edited:
snaggletooth said:
Why don't you take a break from the snide, useless remarks for a few minutes and do some reading? Looking at your pair of top-end rigs, surely you must have something more constructive to say on the subject of hardware scaling without resorting to a condescending :rolleyes:.

Ever since you made that remark the other day about not understanding why people fold, you're credibility has been completely shot as far as I'm concerned. You might not care about that, I know I wouldn't, but based on what I've read, you're rubbing others the wrong way as well.

There are better ways to get your point across than your current method of belittling people in a vain attempt to appear somewhat important. You're not the most knowledgeable person in this forum. Not by a long shot. You'll be instantly wiser for coming to grips with that fact.

Decent suggestions are appreciated, try some of those.

Go ahead.

OP, 4850 seems like a winner to me. It's too bad you ended up with the 512MB model though. For what it's worth, I can game very well with just one 8800GT @ 1680x1050 and the 4850 stomps on the 8800GT...well, not stomps.. but is better than.
Click to expand...

I really think you need to read your own post and my post again, then you should figure something out...


and no, Stalker does not give 15fps or Crysis on a single card, unless you using something worse than your FX 5200 :p
 
shansoft said:
I really think you need to read your own post and my post again, then you should figure something out...


and no, Stalker does not give 15fps or Crysis on a single card, unless you using something worse than your FX 5200 :p
Click to expand...
sorry but you are wrong about Clear Sky. the link to xbit should be enough proof to back up exactly what we are saying. if not then when I get home I will run the benchmark on all DX10 max settings at 1920x1080 and you will see that even without AA my gtx260 cannot handle some of the outdoor scenes.


in the mean time have fun with this little review. a gtx260 getting just 19fps at only 1680x1050 and thats without any AA. http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,659033/Stalker-Clear-Sky-DX10-Benchmark-Review/Reviews/?page=2

here is their conclusion and remember they never even used any AA: "If you want to play Stalker: Clear Sky with all details in DX 10 at a resolution of 1,680 x 1,050, you will have to use a multi GPU solution. If you don't need high framerates you can do with Geforce GTX 280 or a Radeon HD 4870. At 1,280 x 1,024 a Geforce 8800 GTX, 9800 GTX+ or a HD 4850 do quite well, but you will have to go down to 1,024 x 768 to make them display the game really smooth."
 
Last edited:
shansoft said:
I really think you need to read your own post and my post again, then you should figure something out...


and no, Stalker does not give 15fps or Crysis on a single card, unless you using something worse than your FX 5200 :p
Click to expand...

as I and EVERYONE else here are saying, but with what you can't come to grips with, S: CS cannot run well on a single GPU with maxed settings.

Running a game on a top end system with an HD4850 at only 1024x768 is pathetic to say the least.

The engine is worse than Crysis and the returns from that game are minimal at best.

Dude, get off the FX5200 joke, it's not even funny. That's like me saying "oh, well it won't run good on your Trident512 ISA card, hahaha", the comment is kinda lame. New jokes are always welcome. ;)
 
Red Falcon said:
as I and EVERYONE else here are saying, but with what you can't come to grips with, S: CS cannot run well on a single GPU with maxed settings.

Running a game on a top end system with an HD4850 at only 1024x768 is pathetic to say the least.

The engine is worse than Crysis and the returns from that game are minimal at best.

Dude, get off the FX5200 joke, it's not even funny. That's like me saying "oh, well it won't run good on your Trident512 ISA card, hahaha", the comment is kinda lame. New jokes are always welcome. ;)
Click to expand...

Max setting as everything set to highest? is that what you are saying?

like ArmA 2 where you set the view distance to 100000?

if that is what you are trying to proof, then yes, a single GPU can hold the damn thing..
not even multi-GPU can do that...

Did you ever play Stalker before? I suggest you give it a shot before you talk more about it....:rolleyes:

or if you GPU is way too weak, try to turn Ray to medium, it should run butter smooth...
at least that is what I experience on my single GPU rig...
 
shansoft said:
Max setting as everything set to highest? is that what you are saying?

like ArmA 2 where you set the view distance to 100000?

if that is what you are trying to proof, then yes, a single GPU can hold the damn thing..
not even multi-GPU can do that...

Did you ever play Stalker before? I suggest you give it a shot before you talk more about it....:rolleyes:

or if you GPU is way too weak, try to turn Ray to medium, it should run butter smooth...
at least that is what I experience on my single GPU rig...
Click to expand...

Yeah, STALKER SoC is my absolute favorite FPS PC game of all time. STALKER CS happens to be on my bottom 3 list.

I've played it a ton with all different settings, and honestly, it doesn't live up to the first one story/gameplay wise and graphically, yeah it's pretty, but not worth what one would have to pay to get 30+ fps @ medium settings (which look like shit).

btw, what single GPU are you talking about that you can run it on?
 
Red Falcon said:
Yeah, STALKER SoC is my absolute favorite FPS PC game of all time. STALKER CS happens to be on my bottom 3 list.

I've played it a ton with all different settings, and honestly, it doesn't live up to the first one story/gameplay wise and graphically, yeah it's pretty, but not worth what one would have to pay to get 30+ fps @ medium settings (which look like shit).

btw, what single GPU are you talking about that you can run it on?
Click to expand...

I was running on 4870 512 the first time, it runs quite stutter on high resolution until I decrease the distance view to and grass distance, then its smooth again....other setting were on max.... the second time I tried is when I got my first 4890, it become a a lot more better, I guess larger VRAM for this game helps a lot...

I gotta agree the first one have way better storyline and game play, but SC isn't that bad overall, it just some settings that I dislike...especially the bullet/money problem...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top