OLD nvidia still powerfull in low resolution, beats HD4850 even 4870 ?

No, looking at those numbers, even at the lower resolutions the ATI cards were posting playable, enjoyable, frame rates.

I would still opt for the 4850 no matter the resolution there, depending on price of course. It also means the 4850 may have better longevity for newer games.
 
Crysis and 3DMark? Yes nVidia can have the crown for that if you want. /thread
 
thread of the day.. you compare using 1 website, 1 synthetic benchmark and 1 highly skewed benchmark on low resolutions that nobody will game at any longer, and attempt to draw a conclusion out of it.
 
There were plenty of benchmarks that showed this even at higher resolutions at release of the cards. The big deal was that the ATi cards took virtually no hit from 4X AA. If you're trying to get 200FPS at 1024x768 for CSS, then knock yourself out.
 
lowteckh said:
thread of the day.. you compare using 1 website, 1 synthetic benchmark and 1 highly skewed benchmark on low resolutions that nobody will game at any longer, and attempt to draw a conclusion out of it.
Click to expand...

lol +1
4e0d67e54ad6626e957d15b08ae128a6.jpg
cd0dce8fca267bf1fb86cf43e18d5598.jpg
 
If you bought a 9800GTX+ awhile ago good for you enjoy the card and yes its lasted awhile. But anyone today looking to spend around $150 on a new gpu should not really consider the 9800GTX+ for a single gpu solution, the 4850 is the better choice
 
Raz1r said:
There's no point in buying them unless you don't plan on upgrading that 17" LCD.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much what you can take away from the low res tests. A 9600 GT for 85 bucks is about as useful as a GTX 260 at $225.

The two higher resolution tests do show the HD 4850 beating the 9800 GTX+ in the majority of tests. For the most part both have perfectly playable FPS and save for two titles the difference is so slight as to not really make a noticeable difference in actual game play. Still, unless I was getting something like an HIS 4850 with the IceQ 4 cooler there's no way I'd choose it over the 9800 GTX+. Cool, quiet operation without the FPS dips and microstuttering counts for something.
 
lowteckh said:
thread of the day.. you compare using 1 website, 1 synthetic benchmark and 1 highly skewed benchmark on low resolutions that nobody will game at any longer, and attempt to draw a conclusion out of it.
Click to expand...

What do ya mean no one will game at any longer? I game at 1440x900 and those numbers mean something to me, alot more than the resolutions that are in reviews like at the [H].
 
Met-AL said:
What do ya mean no one will game at any longer? I game at 1440x900 and those numbers mean something to me, alot more than the resolutions that are in reviews like at the [H].
Click to expand...

At 1280x1024 (just a few more pixels than 1440x900) the 4850 and the 9800GTX+ are dead even in most of the games. However, those benchmarks don't really mean anything. On the low resolutions, there is plenty of power to crank up the AA (which would give the 4850 an edge), yet they don't. Also, they are using a 2.66ghz C2Q, which is going to be a bottleneck at such low resolutions.

The OP apparantly also has troubles reading a graph, since the 4850 beat or tied the 9800GT in every single game at every resolution save one: Knights of the Sea.

Cool, quiet operation without the FPS dips and microstuttering counts for something
Click to expand...

The 4850 doesn't have microstuttering either, since that only applies to SLI/CF. Likewise, I have never experience any "FPS dips", which I believe is just FUD. The 4850 is also very quiet and generates less heat and uses less power than the 9800GTX+... But hey, its your money :p (according to http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=580&type=expert&pid=7 its by a rather large margin, too)
 
If you can choose, and you have a good enough system to have cards like the 9800GTX and the likes you probably can also handle higher resolutions, so... whatever you make of it
wink.gif
 
I did a test myself. It turns out that at 640x480 I can get playable FPS by drawing on my monitor with a crayon.
 
I did a test myself. It turns out that at 640x480 I can get playable FPS by drawing on my monitor with a crayon
Click to expand...

640x480 is too demanding.
Anyway, Pong looks great at 320x240.
 
deddyeka said:
how about some information like this

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/palit_9800gtx_plus/6.htm
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/palit_9800gtx_plus/14.htm

that at low resolution
NVIDIA 8800gt / 9800gt / 9800gtx => IS THE KING

while at high resolution
ATI => GOOD DEAL

any comments ?
Click to expand...

Low resolution = 1680x1050
High Resolution = 1920x1200 and above

Who cares whether the 9800+ is 3 FPS faster than the 4850 at 1024x768? That's almost the same resolution I use on my 8.9" Netbook, and it was also my standard res. back when I played on a 16MB Voodoo3 3000 AGP.

That said, Nvidia drivers do have slightly less CPU overhead, especially the 9800/8800 series, which affects a small number of very CPU limited games like Flight Simulator, as well as very low resolution gaming in general.

If you play at 1280x1024 or below, you should either buy a new monitor first, or go with something like a 9600 or HD 4830/4670.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top