$150 video card for 1680x1050 gaming

[lifeobry]

hello first post!

i have searched and read thru all the threads related to these two card and i've read all the benchmarks at anandtech, guru3d, bjorn, legitreviews, etc. multiple times.

however i am still torn about which one to get: 9800GTX+ or 4850.

both are on sale at newegg for $145 AR and $140 AR respectively, so price is not an issue.

monitor is 1680x1050 resolution and i want to run native for all games. i love AA but only do 4xAA. i play mostly FPS

reasons for 9800GTX+: it has a bigger cooler and has OC potential. it does better in Crysis, most reviews i've seen have it faster than the 4850 marginally

reasons for 4850: better AA performance, anandtech review has it spanking the 9800GTX+, it seems to be the "card to get" from general consenus

i'm concerned about heat from the 4850. i think i read that there is a new driver update for fan control but i still would prefer a cooler/quieter running card in general.

system specs:

e5200 @ 3.2ghz
P35 mobo
4GB DDR2
650W Corsair TX

anyways, any guidance would be helpful. also, is there a refresh of nvidia cards coming the next month? i could just wait a month or so but i want to get a card soon and very soon.

Thanks!

 

[legcramp]

http://www.bfgstore.com/Produc...EGTX260896OCE&CartID=1

It's only $60 more after $20 rebates

 

[GaiaHunter]

I would get a 4850 with an aftermarket cooler, because I believe the architecture will be better in the future tan the 9800GTX+, but might be wrong.

But they are both good cards.

If u prefer green over red noone one will laugh at you for picking a 9800GTX+ over a 4850 or the other way around.

 

[vj8usa]

If you're concerned about a 4850 overheating, get one with an aftermarket cooler. Glancing at Newegg right now, I see quite a few with aftermarket coolers that should keep your temps nice and low (my Palit card has never hit 60C yet, and idles in the low 30s).

 

[lifeobry]

Originally posted by: RIFLEMAN007
http://www.bfgstore.com/Produc...EGTX260896OCE&CartID=1

It's only $60 more after $20 rebates

yeah i saw that in hotdeals, plus farcry 2 just for registering. tempting for sure, but i definitely want to stay under $200

GaiaHunter: i've owned three ATi and my current is Nvidia so there's no brand loyalty in my book. why do you think the 4850 might be better in the long run? DX 10.1?

vj8usa: i'm looking at this ASUS, aftermarket cooler?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814121272

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'd go with the 4850 myself. Unless you run Folding@Home on your GPU, in that case, currently, NVidia cards give more PPD, even though the ATI cards have greater theoretical shader power.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: lifeobry

yeah i saw that in hotdeals, plus farcry 2 just for registering. tempting for sure, but i definitely want to stay under $200

Sell Farcry 2

The 4850 & 9800GTX+ are virtually the same performance wise at that resolution.

The only difference would be if you were into folding@home or game physics.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: lifeobry

Originally posted by: RIFLEMAN007
http://www.bfgstore.com/Produc...EGTX260896OCE&CartID=1

It's only $60 more after $20 rebates

GaiaHunter: i've owned three ATi and my current is Nvidia so there's no brand loyalty in my book. why do you think the 4850 might be better in the long run? DX 10.1?

A similar reason that will make quad cores be better in the future than dual cores - 800 stream processors, even if they work at groups of 5, possibly in the future more parallel work can be done, using more the 800 processors in a more reliable way.

As I said might be wrong.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
A similar reason that will make quad cores be better in the future than dual cores - 800 stream processors, even if they work at groups of 5, possibly in the future more parallel work can be done, using more the 800 processors in a more reliable way.

As I said might be wrong.

The 4850 is the best option in the $150 price range. It has at a minimum 160 stream processors (800/5) versus 128 on the 9800GTX. The GTX 260 ups the ante to 192 (or 216 for the newer model).

You might consider doing the Microsoft cashback thing and buying a card off eBay -- I just got the GTX 260 in my gaming rig there for $168 shipped. Fantastic card so far, nice improvement over my previous G92 8800GTS.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Denithor
The 4850 is the best option in the $150 price range. It has at a minimum 160 stream processors (800/5) versus 128 on the 9800GTX.

Is that because of how thoroughly it outperforms the 9800GTX+? Hmm, if it isn't that, then obviously it's because of how much better the 4850's stock cooler happens to be? BTW, I thought everyone who knew anything about video cards knew that nVidia's shaders were more powerful. How did you think the two cards give nearly identical framerates in most games?

Both cards are extremely good buys right now, giving good gaming performance to the majority of us who don't own 30" monitors. There are differences between them, though. It pretty much has to do with which company made them, although obviously, it's going to pertain to these two cards also. Since noone has mentioned any of the differences yet, and I'm sure that's why you created this thread in the first place, I'll outline them for you.

9800 GTX+ pros:

1) Much better stock heatsink.
2) Actual 3D Linux drivers, along with much more experience writing Linux drivers. ATI has never released a 3D Linux driver, and hasn't been writing 2D Linux drivers for long.
3) Slightly better drivers for XP.
4) PhysX, which like DX10.1, is only a checkbox feature for now.

4850 pros

1) Better @ higher levels of AA (>4x).
2) Better Vista drivers.
3) DX10.1, which like PhysX, is nothing more than a checkbox feature for now.

Both cards really only have a single con each, for their pricepoint. The 9800GTX+ isn't very good with >4x AA, and the 4850 comes with a subpar stock cooler. Now it's up to you which of these features is more important to you. Luckily for you, you should be happy with either of them, so if you can't make up your mind, you could always just flip a coin.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Wreckage


The 4850 & 9800GTX+ are virtually the same performance wise at that resolution.

The only difference would be if you were into folding@home or game physics.

Exactly. You can't take one of these cards and say it's just better then the other. In my opinion, these two cards are as close as it gets, in terms of performance.

The only reasons to choose one over the other, would be:

1) What do you think it's going to be used in the future better : PhysX or DirectX 10.1.

2) 9800GTX+ has a better stock cooler. Stock 4850 heatsink is a bit weak, you have to adjust its fan speed to keep the card at normal temp levels, or you could just hunt for a card that comes with an aftermarket cooler on it, like the Asus 4850 or His IceQ card.

And if you are using only 4X AA, then both cards will pretty much have the same performance in that area. Over 8X AA, 4850 has the upper hand, but from what I've seen, it will still choke in recent titles at this level, because of the 512 mb of ram. So an 8X AA is a no go for both cards.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Denithor
The 4850 is the best option in the $150 price range. It has at a minimum 160 stream processors (800/5) versus 128 on the 9800GTX.

Is that because of how thoroughly it outperforms the 9800GTX+? Hmm, if it isn't that, then obviously it's because of how much better the 4850's stock cooler happens to be? BTW, I thought everyone who knew anything about video cards knew that nVidia's shaders were more powerful. How did you think the two cards give nearly identical framerates in most games?

Both cards are extremely good buys right now, giving good gaming performance to the majority of us who don't own 30" monitors. There are differences between them, though. It pretty much has to do with which company made them, although obviously, it's going to pertain to these two cards also. Since noone has mentioned any of the differences yet, and I'm sure that's why you created this thread in the first place, I'll outline them for you.

9800 GTX+ pros:

1) Much better stock heatsink.
2) Actual 3D Linux drivers, along with much more experience writing Linux drivers. ATI has never released a 3D Linux driver, and hasn't been writing 2D Linux drivers for long.
3) Slightly better drivers for XP.
4) PhysX, which like DX10.1, is only a checkbox feature for now.

4850 pros

1) Better @ higher levels of AA (>4x).
2) Better Vista drivers.
3) DX10.1, which like PhysX, is nothing more than a checkbox feature for now.

Both cards really only have a single con each, for their pricepoint. The 9800GTX+ isn't very good with >4x AA, and the 4850 comes with a subpar stock cooler. Now it's up to you which of these features is more important to you. Luckily for you, you should be happy with either of them, so if you can't make up your mind, you could always just flip a coin.

I don't know if nVidia shaders are more powerful than the Ati shaders...

I think its a question of software optimization - if the software can take advantage of the 5 calculations a single Ati shader can do, then nVidia shaders get stomped. If not things go alot worse of Ati.

That is why the 9800GTX+ (and the fact memory and core are clocked higher) can trade blows with the 4850. And thats why the 4870 go much more closely than in theory should with the GTX 280 and is quite a match for the GTX 260.

But yes - it was a hard choice when I had to pick up a 4850 over a 9800GTX+

 

[nyker96]

+1 4850, the card is designed for future games while 9800s are essentially 8800s, bit old school, though still quite good for current games.

 

[Tempered81]

they are very close, but i'd take the 4850 for around $140. If i could find a 9800gtx+ for around $115-135 i'd take it.

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: lifeobry
vj8usa: i'm looking at this ASUS, aftermarket cooler?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814121272

dug777 has one of those, I think. He wrote about his card here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=31&threadid=2234376

Looks like he got a really nice overclock on it.

 

[bryanW1995]

you could go for a 4830 for $109 instead:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814131129

it has performance between 9800gt and 9800gtx according to anand's review and is probably even a better bang/buck card now than 4850.

I was going to ask what resolution you game at, but really it doesn't matter. Anything up to 1680x1050 the 4830 will work, anything over that you should get a gtx 260 or 4870.

edit: sorry, I missed your title. I'd still go for 4830.

 

[taltamir]

I don't know if nVidia shaders are more powerful than the Ati shaders...

800 AMD shaders have about the same flops as 250 nvidia shaders. So yes, the nvidia ones are more powerful per shader, they also take up most space... so AMD has more shaders per card, often resulting in faster cards for the same money / die size.

Overall just compare individual card performance, not engineering decisions (ram type, shader amount, clock speeds, bus size etc)...
Many people say "nvidia has wider bus so it is better" or "amd has GDDR5 so it is better"... that is irrelevant engineering choices that cause the cards to have the performance that they do.
Temperature issues and power consumption are not engineering decisions though, those ARE features you should care about.

 

[Extelleron]

I would go with the GTX 260 posted above, even if it is a bit more than you wanted to spend. You are getting FC2 with it, so really the price is only $150-160...... for the price difference it is going to be much better than an HD 4850 or 9800GTX+.

If you are stuck on either the 4850 or the 9800GTX, I would go with the HD 4850.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Denithor
The 4850 is the best option in the $150 price range. It has at a minimum 160 stream processors (800/5) versus 128 on the 9800GTX.

Is that because of how thoroughly it outperforms the 9800GTX+? Hmm, if it isn't that, then obviously it's because of how much better the 4850's stock cooler happens to be? BTW, I thought everyone who knew anything about video cards knew that nVidia's shaders were more powerful. How did you think the two cards give nearly identical framerates in most games?

Both cards are extremely good buys right now, giving good gaming performance to the majority of us who don't own 30" monitors. There are differences between them, though. It pretty much has to do with which company made them, although obviously, it's going to pertain to these two cards also. Since noone has mentioned any of the differences yet, and I'm sure that's why you created this thread in the first place, I'll outline them for you.

Per shader Nvidia shader is faster but ATI has more shader in the end 4850 has more processing power. In a shader limited game 4850 demolishes 9800gtx. GRID for instance. As time goes by it's only going to get worse for 9800gtx not better.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Pretty much what taltamir said is correct. Engineering decisions could be part of your purchase decision, but as long as the card performs then it doesn't matter.

Temperature issues and power consumption are the end results from engineering decisions, and those should be considered carefully when making a purchase decision.

edit - just get whatevers cheaper in this case.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Denithor
The 4850 is the best option in the $150 price range. It has at a minimum 160 stream processors (800/5) versus 128 on the 9800GTX.

Is that because of how thoroughly it outperforms the 9800GTX+? Hmm, if it isn't that, then obviously it's because of how much better the 4850's stock cooler happens to be? BTW, I thought everyone who knew anything about video cards knew that nVidia's shaders were more powerful. How did you think the two cards give nearly identical framerates in most games?

Both cards are extremely good buys right now, giving good gaming performance to the majority of us who don't own 30" monitors. There are differences between them, though. It pretty much has to do with which company made them, although obviously, it's going to pertain to these two cards also. Since noone has mentioned any of the differences yet, and I'm sure that's why you created this thread in the first place, I'll outline them for you.

9800 GTX+ pros:

1) Much better stock heatsink.
2) Actual 3D Linux drivers, along with much more experience writing Linux drivers. ATI has never released a 3D Linux driver, and hasn't been writing 2D Linux drivers for long.
3) Slightly better drivers for XP.
4) PhysX, which like DX10.1, is only a checkbox feature for now.

4850 pros

1) Better @ higher levels of AA (>4x).
2) Better Vista drivers.
3) DX10.1, which like PhysX, is nothing more than a checkbox feature for now.

Both cards really only have a single con each, for their pricepoint. The 9800GTX+ isn't very good with >4x AA, and the 4850 comes with a subpar stock cooler. Now it's up to you which of these features is more important to you. Luckily for you, you should be happy with either of them, so if you can't make up your mind, you could always just flip a coin.

False, they started releasing 3D linux drivers a few months ago, they work fine on my 4870.

 

[lifeobry]

alright i'm going with the ASUS 4850. thanks everybody

 

[FalseChristian]

Originally posted by: lifeobry
alright i'm going with the ASUS 4850. thanks everybody

Smart choice. You won't regret it. And this is coming from a guy with 2 8800GTs in SLI.:thumbsup:

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: FalseChristian

Originally posted by: lifeobry
alright i'm going with the ASUS 4850. thanks everybody

Smart choice. You won't regret it. And this is coming from a guy with 2 8800GTs in SLI.:thumbsup:

Well its not like he could go wrong Good times for buying vga cards

Enjoy your card

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: nyker96
+1 4850, the card is designed for future games

What are the chances that by the time "future" games come out, would be time to upgrade anyways... or the card would be too slow by then?

Buy for now, not for the future.

Moot issue anyways... since OP already made purchase.