512MB HD4870 or 1GB HD4850?

[azzav17]

Which of the two would run games better on a 1680x1050 resolution in general? Also, is the 1GB HD4850 good value for money? Does it present any advantages over a 512MB card?

 

[ElFenix]

the 4870 will be better at the resolution you're running. heck, might be better at all resolutions

edit: confirmed

 

[Tempered81]

4870 512 > 4850 1gb

 

[fffblackmage]

gddr5 ftw?

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the 4870 will be better at the resolution you're running. heck, might be better at all resolutions

edit: confirmed

Yet another example showing that 512MB of VRAM still makes a good showing in most games up to 1920x1200 and even does well in a number of games at 2560x1600.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the 4870 will be better at the resolution you're running. heck, might be better at all resolutions

edit: confirmed

Yet another example showing that 512MB of VRAM still makes a good showing in most games up to 1920x1200 and even does well in a number of games at 2560x1600.

But just remember, every single time that 512MB card runs out of frame buffer, whatever that situation might be, and whatever game that might be, you will get a stutter as the system swaps out memory from system ram/hard drive.

I spoke about Crysis for example. I know, they are not ATI cards, but I speak "only" of the framebuffer for this example. In Crysis, at 1600x1200 using two cards. An 8800GTS 512 and a 8800GTS 640. Now the 8800GTS 512 has the more powerful G92 core at 128 shaders and more Texture units over the G80 core with 96 shaders and less texture units. Playing Crysis on the 8800GTS 512 (the faster card) netted me higher framerates, but was stuttering pretty badly every few seconds as the memory was swapped out. Switching over to the 8800GTS 640 (slower card) at the exact same settings played smoothly throughout the level. Sure, I had lower framerate, but playable, and most importantly, no hitching/stuttering. I'd rather have a slower smoother card with framebuffer capable of handling the textures, than to run short on supply. Yes, the 640 only had 128MB more memory than the GTS 512, but it was enough to make the difference and enough for me choose it over a technically faster card. Crysis is just the best prime example I have for you, but I'm sure other folks here can attest to this.

Even though the 4850 is a slower card (core speed and GDDR3) they can be o/c'd a bit. You'll never get the bandwidth of the 4870 with GDDR5, but you will have twice the framebuffer. It's up to you what you think is worth more. Like Creig says, for "most" games, which is kind of a blanket statement, the 4870 512 would be terrific.

OP, If you are able, I'd save for a few weeks (if necessary) and go for the 4870 1GB.
Or, if you are at your absolute budget cap, go for the 4850 1GB over the 4870 512. This is my personal opinion from personal experience, so do with it what you will.

Hope this helps out.

Keys.

 

[fffblackmage]

I'm not sure if I'm actually hitting the 512MB framebuffer, but that's just what seems to happening, according to ATT.

I was playing TF2, everything highest with 8xAA at 1920x1200 and I actually hit less than 30fps a few times. (cpu was at 2.33GHz rather than 2.8GHz, but not sure if this has a significant effect) I had ATT monitoring graphs open and it showed that I was using up all video memory. In any case, framerate was a bit bad in a few occasions while playing TF2. I'm convinced I was out of vram, but seems rather surprising that it was while playing TF2. (but then again, I'm not sure if the graphs are accurate)

the situation might be different for 1680x1050 though. since there are less pixels, I might not see the same problem if I was playing at a lower resolution, or if I had AA at 4x instead of 8x.