• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

My 4850 Results

Z

zod96

Suspected BAD TRADER
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
2,709
Got my Ati 4850 Today :) This is replacing my 8800GT. I ran benches comparing the two on the same system. I used Driver Cleaner to change out drivers. Ok here goes.

Everything set to High using Windows Xp and DX9, Nvidia drivers used were 175.16 and the Ati drivers used were the new ones released today 8.6. Benches were done at 1680x1050

1. 0xAA 0xAF

8800GT Min: 20 Max: 38 Avg: 32
4850 Min: 26 Max: 41 Avg: 35

2. 0xAA 16xAF

8800GT Min: 19 Max: 35 Avg: 28
4850 Min: 25 Max: 40 Avg: 31

3. 2xAA 16xAF

8800GT Min: 18 Max: 28 Avg: 23
4850 Min: 16 Max: 28 Avg: 23

4. 4xAA 16xAF

8800GT Min: 14 Max: 24 Avg: 19
4850 Min 15 Max: 27 Avg: 22

Here's my default 3dmark 06 score with both cards

8800GT: 12600
4850: 11950

Not sure why 3dmark was much better on the GT maybe early drivers.

Their you have it :) Bottom line is the 4850 is faster than the 8800GT, I'd say its more inline with the 8800GTS. A few other notes. The card is dam hot, it is idling at like 70 which is pretty bad. after running a few benchs of crysis it got to like 90. The fan at boot and in 2D is dead quiet, but as soon as you fire up crysis the fan comes on and its loud not really loud but loud. I'm going to try to put my artic cooling s1 on the 4850 and see what that does along with some as5. Image quality is about the same as the GT as far as I can tell. So far very pleased with it. Its not a 9800GTX killer but its on par with a 8800GTS. At least now I can go crossfire with the 4850, where as I couldn't before with the GT. For $189 its the perfect card for 1680x1050 with AA and AF, only downside has been the temps on the card, the GT with the stock cooler was much cooler, but that's it. I'll report back once I get the S1 installed on it.

Thanks :)
 
Looks like AA and AF were fixed

What game did you benchmark those at? Crysis?

Any other game benches?
 
did you use the gpu fly by or the second cpu test? for my part, the second cpu test is probably a better indicator of actual game performance.
 
Nice job, Look forward to seeing if you can put your S1 on it and what temps you get . I plan on getting this card as well.

After my x1900gt's single slot cooler never again will I use one, I'll be looking at either after market cooling or something like the HIS ICEQ model.
 
Also wanted to know if your 8800gt was overclocked when you got those results?
 
Hmmm, neck-in-neck with the 8800GT 512, not too impressive :( considering the GT can be had for $160ish now. Thanks for the post.
 
Yeah but the card is $199 and those G92 cards are priced that low because they're on the way out. And that's just Crysis, which seems to be more optimized for Nvidia anyways.

Need more game benches to get a full image imo.
 
I need to get rid of the 8800GT simply due to the loud fan. So I guess the ATI cards are loud too. Which is louder? I'll probably get a 4870 hoping it will be noticeably faster then 8800GT in Crysis.
 
It should be... i'm hearing the 4850 is ~3870X2 performance (certainly more consistent) so the 4870 which has to be at least 20% faster (20% more core clock) should beat it pretty consistently. Then I wonder what the 4870X2 is going to be...
 
ZerazaX said:
It should be... i'm hearing the 4850 is ~3870X2 performance (certainly more consistent) so the 4870 which has to be at least 20% faster (20% more core clock) should beat it pretty consistently. Then I wonder what the 4870X2 is going to be...
Click to expand...

I've heard the 4870 is slightly faster than the 3870x2, probably closer to 10%-15%, not 20%.
 
Thank you for that, zod96, but...would you mind quick-benching something (maybe a few things) a little more general-audience for those of us who don't give a flip about Crysis? :)
 
Redshirt #24 said:
Thank you for that, zod96, but...would you mind quick-benching something (maybe a few things) a little more general-audience for those of us who don't give a flip about Crysis? :)
Click to expand...

QFT. I'll give you an internet cookie/beer (your choice) if you test Oblivion with 4x aa :).
 
Thanks for the test results. Not as impressive as some others we've seen, but it still leads the G92. People are quoting the $199 MSRP, but I think we'll see at least $169-$179 soon enough and eventually closer to $150 (which I suspect was ATI's original target price). I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of non-reference cooler designs the manufacturing partners come up with. Better cooling would add some value and overclocking headroom.

Is your E8400 stock or overclocked?
 
My E8400 is slightly overclocked to 3.2 from 3.0 And sorry I've only got 2 games Crysis and BF2. This card runs fricking hot and loud. The GT was much cooler and quieter with the stock cooler. I actually was expecting a bit more out of the card. Its pretty much neck and neck with the GT which is like a year old.
 
My 3870x2 can get 17k from 3Dmark2006, I still don't think a single core 4870 could beat it. I paid 270 for my 3870x2 shipped and I think by the time 4870x2 is out. You can probably get 2 3870x2 for 450 which can beat the hell out of 4870x2.
 
3dMark06 doesn't indicate anything now since its very bottlenecked at default settings and these cards aren't optimized. The GTX280 barely breaks 17k in 3dmark06 on some setups, but its faster than the 3870x2. And anyways, you can't compare scores across platforms
 
I expected the 4000 series to run cooler then the Geforce 8 series. Idling in the 70s? My 8800 GT at full load goes in the 70s range and idles around 60s.

A bit of a disappointment IMO. Looks like I'm gonna have to get a HD 4870 or wait for R700 for a definitive push in performance.
 
many reviews have said its just the poor quality just they used, using some arctic silver or ceramique should lower temps by like 20
 
i get average 23 fps min 11 and max 30 with 8800gts 640 at 1600x900 0aa and 0af.so maybe with the r700 i could get average 60fps?;)
 
Guess it was common knowledge, but seems that one slot solutions is not very reasonable anymore even for the mid range cards. I think I'll get a 4870 instead, but waiting for the more benchies.

@OP

I guess you used the Catalyst 8.6 for the benchies or whatever came with the card?
 
I hate to say it, but based on what I've done today, if you already have a GT, stick with it. Anything slower than that, like a 9600GT then upgrade to the 4850..
 
Yeah if its ~ 8800GTS512/9800GTX numbers, it wont be a significant upgrade from the 8800GT, but if you're running slower cards itll be a great buy
 
I'm guessing this time around the 4870 will be quite a bit faster, at least when we get the gddr5 version. Cant wait for the 4870x2 though if the 4850 is on par with a 8800gtx.
 
christpunchersg said:
I'm guessing this time around the 4870 will be quite a bit faster, at least when we get the gddr5 version. Cant wait for the 4870x2 though if the 4850 is on par with a 8800gtx.
Click to expand...

It's not on par with an 8800GTX, more like the 8800GT 512. Also it will, due to the lower bus width and memory capacity, falter with high levels of AA/AF at good (1680x1050 or higher) resolutions. While it's a good-looking card for a new purchaser, it's not an upgrade for existing owners of GT cards, and a downgrade for GTX owners.
 
ZerazaX said:
Nah, it performs quite fine in AA and AF. You can read user reviews here:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=191096

and

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=191574

It doesn't suffer like the 9800GTX does at higher AA and AF settings and AA seems to be fixed just fine. Plus, CF scaling looks excellent this time around
Click to expand...

I said higher AA/AF, meaning 8x AA and 16x AF HQ mode minimum :)... note those tests there were run with a 4ghz Quad as well ;) I've followed that thread since the beginning. It does indeed suffer like the 8800 GT 512 does when you try to crank things up with maximum (the numbers in those threads weren't max settings, first one even shows it as medium in its games) and high AA/AF. The second thread shows NO AA/AF at all on most of its tests, even ;).
 
A whole 3 extra frames on average faster than a 8800GT at the highest setting? Is that what people have been getting excited about in the GTX 280 threads? Sheesh, I am sure the same fan boys who were deriding the GTX 280 for not being fast enough will hail this card as the second coming of jesus. :eek:
 
Yeah if you're talking extreme things like 8xAA and 16xAA and higher, then sure it'll probably start choking, but then again most cards do too. These cards don't seem to get hit by resolution as much as the 1920 x 1200 results show (including the French preview) so thats an advantage over the G92. Given the target range and demographics though of the 4800's, extreme settings isn't what those users are looking for.
 
defiant007 said:
A whole 3 extra frames on average faster than a 8800GT at the highest setting? Is that what people have been getting excited about in the GTX 280 threads? Sheesh, I am sure the same fan boys who were deriding the GTX 280 for not being fast enough will hail this card as the second coming of jesus. :eek:
Click to expand...

No, actually...

High settings like THESE: http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/geforce_gtx_280/page_6.shtml is what people have been excited about. Why buy a high-end card if you're not going to push it, a $100 card will do you fine if you don't want AA/AF/high in-game settings. Double, nearly triple, 8800GTX 768MB numbers are what people are excited about, with no SLI issues, no microstuttering, etc. compared to a GX2 which has much lower *minimum* framerates even though the average comes closer.

ZerazaX said:
Yeah if you're talking extreme things like 8xAA and 16xAA and higher, then sure it'll probably start choking, but then again most cards do too. These cards don't seem to get hit by resolution as much as the 1920 x 1200 results show (including the French preview) so thats an advantage over the G92. Given the target range and demographics though of the 4800's, extreme settings isn't what those users are looking for.
Click to expand...

The second link you posted shows the Crossfire 4850s as far slower than the GX2, and a single 4850 getting trounced by the 9800GTX 512, not sure how that's proof that it's a huge advantage over the G92 :), please explain?
 
defiant007 said:
A whole 3 extra frames on average faster than a 8800GT at the highest setting? Is that what people have been getting excited about in the GTX 280 threads? Sheesh, I am sure the same fan boys who were deriding the GTX 280 for not being fast enough will hail this card as the second coming of jesus. :eek:
Click to expand...

3fps doesnt sound like a lot but thats 15% higher in average fps in one game (not that those settings matter since 22 or 19 fps are both unplayable). Anyways we should see some results soon if the NDA push-up is indeed true
 
GoldenTiger said:
No, actually...

High settings like THESE: http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/geforce_gtx_280/page_6.shtml is what people have been excited about. Why buy a high-end card if you're not going to push it, a $100 card will do you fine if you don't want AA/AF/high in-game settings. Double, nearly triple, 8800GTX 768MB numbers are what people are excited about, with no SLI issues, no microstuttering, etc. compared to a GX2 which has much lower *minimum* framerates even though the average comes closer.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand my post, I am referring to certain fanboys jumping up and down in the GTX 280 threads who claim that the GTX 280 is a disappointment and that people should instead wait until the release of the 4850/4870.
 
defiant007 said:
I think you misunderstand my post, I am referring to certain fanboys jumping up and down in the GTX 280 threads who claim that the GTX 280 is a disappointment and that people should instead wait until the release of the 4850/4870.
Click to expand...

Gotcha :)... and yes, I did misunderstand.
 
Dunno what to believe anymore, very mixed results from all the 4850 user test thus far. Well if tweaktowns right, we got less than 10h wait untill we find out whats what.
 
Did you clean up after the 8800? I would think you should be getting a little more out of the card than those numbers indicate.

Ignore the 3dMark results, they are about as useful as tits on a boar.
 
zod96 said:
Got my Ati 4850 Today :) This is replacing my 8800GT.
Click to expand...
Do you think you could post some screen shots with maximum screen quality (highest anti-aliasing settings, etc.). I'd like to see how good the IQ is with this generation.
 
Thanks for the numbers OP. It seems consistent with the early rumors, where the HD 4850's performance was between the 8800 GT 512 and 8800 GTS 512.

I also have to ask, what's in the box in terms of specifications. Does it say how many SPs it has ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top