HD 4850 or 8800GT?

[PacificGeek]

Ok, I am currently working on a new desktop computer and need help deciding on a video card.

The main game I want to play is Call of Duty 4 on a 22" LCD Widescreen monitor at resolutions of 1680x1050.

I will have a E8400 for the processor, 4GB of G.Skill DDR2 800, and depending on the video card will make me decide on the motherboard (for SLI or CF purposes).

The two cards that are in my budget would be the 8800GT and HD 4850.

Which card would you choose? Does COD4 favor nVidia or ATI or is it neutral?

Any information would be helpful, thanks.

 

[ShOcKwAvE827]

4850 is faster in COD4 and most games. You can't lose with either choice, but I would pick the 4850.

 

[ochadd]

I'd go 8800 gt. The 4850 cards are nice but the temps and fan headaches are a bad sign. Specifically I would go for an 8800 gt with a dual slot cooler.

ATI might say they are good up to 105 degrees but people are seeing load temps in the 90s with well cooled cases. Running that hot might be "safe" to them but hot electronics like to fail early.

 

[ss284]

Apply the 4850 fanspeed fix, I'm sure an official bios update will fix the temperature problems. The 4850 is noticeably faster than an 8800gt (I upgraded from one to the other) in COD 4.

 

[AzN]

I don't know why people are so afraid of GPU running 80-90C. GPU's have much higher temperature threshold than CPU. I had a 850xt that used to run 90C even with a dual slot cooler and that card was stable as a rock for many years and still running.

8800gt also runs hot if you get the ones with single slot coolers. Kind of beating the head horse. If you are so worried about heat get a better cooler for $20. 4850 is that much better than 8800gt for future or current games.

 

[The Odorous One]

I'd buy the 4850 with the potential of finding another (inexpensive) one down the road for CF. The heat is manageable with the talked about fan fixes, or just do as I did, buy an AC S1 and never look at temps ever again.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

New ATi cards wipe the floor with Nvidia cards in COD4, its a no brainer

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
New ATi cards wipe the floor with Nvidia cards in COD4, its a no brainer

Exactly.

 

[shangshang]

In a mano-y-mano matchup, the 4850 wins.

But if I were you, I'd get a SLI mobo and an 8800GT for now if the 8800GT can be had for cheaper than the 4850 (it should). The 8800GT will hand COD4 at your resolution fine, I've played COD4 @ 1600x1200 with the 8800GT with without a glitch. Then you get another 8000GT down the road (go to Ebay!) if you wanna SLI. 2x 8800GTs in SLI config scales much better than 2x 4850 in CF. Best of all, you won't have to deal with the insane heat issue of the 4850.

But if you want to get a 4850, and you're thinking of CF'ing down the road, then you need to get a mobo with at least an Intel x48 chip (people say x38 is enough, but I don't about the x38 chip well enough to say yes or no, all I know is that the x38 chip was shortlived).

Plus the 8800GT will support Physx soon with official NV drivers (there's a hack for it already), and Physx could be important in the next wave of games released. From all the reviews, Physx makes a HUGE difference.

Persoanlly, if I were in your position, I'd get an 8800GT on Ebay for cheap (no playing the stupid rebate game), play your COD4 game or whatever games you could play with it, then ebay it back, and by then, you can move on to a better card. Prices are dropping like dead flies.

 

[hemmy]

A 8800GT isn't fast enough to get constant good FPS on every map in COD4 @ 1680

FPS drops below 70 which is low enough to impact my gaming.

 

[nCred]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...performance-roundup/10

1680x1050 4xAA 16xAF

HD 4850 66.5 fps
8800 GT 49 fps

 

[geoffry]

Originally posted by: hemmy
A 8800GT isn't fast enough to get constant good FPS on every map in COD4 @ 1680

FPS drops below 70 which is low enough to impact my gaming.

How much below 70 are we talking here?

Anything above 50-60 seems pretty good to me

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: geoffry

Originally posted by: hemmy
A 8800GT isn't fast enough to get constant good FPS on every map in COD4 @ 1680

FPS drops below 70 which is low enough to impact my gaming.

How much below 70 are we talking here?

Anything above 50-60 seems pretty good to me

lol isn't the human eye only capable of discerning 60fps at maximum?

 

[SirJangly]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff

Originally posted by: geoffry

Originally posted by: hemmy
A 8800GT isn't fast enough to get constant good FPS on every map in COD4 @ 1680

FPS drops below 70 which is low enough to impact my gaming.

How much below 70 are we talking here?

Anything above 50-60 seems pretty good to me

lol isn't the human eye only capable of discerning 60fps at maximum?

I thought it was ~30?

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: Azn
I don't know why people are so afraid of GPU running 80-90C. GPU's have much higher temperature threshold than CPU. I had a 850xt that used to run 90C even with a dual slot cooler and that card was stable as a rock for many years and still running.

8800gt also runs hot if you get the ones with single slot coolers. Kind of beating the head horse. If you are so worried about heat get a better cooler for $20. 4850 is that much better than 8800gt for future or current games.

It's not necessarily the GPU overheating, but more that the card is dumping 90ºC air into the case.


But I'd recommend the 4850 as well. It's simply faster.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: SirJangly

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff

Originally posted by: geoffry

Originally posted by: hemmy
A 8800GT isn't fast enough to get constant good FPS on every map in COD4 @ 1680

FPS drops below 70 which is low enough to impact my gaming.

How much below 70 are we talking here?

Anything above 50-60 seems pretty good to me

lol isn't the human eye only capable of discerning 60fps at maximum?

I thought it was ~30?

lol, you both heard wrong.

Thats a huge misconception....

 

[tvdang7]

4850 FTW come on ati needs your money!! and they earned it this round.

 

[nemesismk2]

I recommend the HD 4850, unless your computer is very cpu limited it should give you a nice speed boost over the 8800 GT.

 

[ss284]

Originally posted by: SirJangly

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff

Originally posted by: geoffry

Originally posted by: hemmy
A 8800GT isn't fast enough to get constant good FPS on every map in COD4 @ 1680

FPS drops below 70 which is low enough to impact my gaming.

How much below 70 are we talking here?

Anything above 50-60 seems pretty good to me

lol isn't the human eye only capable of discerning 60fps at maximum?

I thought it was ~30?

Its variable depending on the person, but around 72-75 is when a human brain perceives fluid motion, same reason why CRTs flickered at 60hz. However, if you game on an LCD, since its only refreshing at 60hz, anything above 60fps is useless.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: shangshang
In a mano-y-mano matchup, the 4850 wins.

But if I were you, I'd get a SLI mobo and an 8800GT for now if the 8800GT can be had for cheaper than the 4850 (it should). The 8800GT will hand COD4 at your resolution fine, I've played COD4 @ 1600x1200 with the 8800GT with without a glitch. Then you get another 8000GT down the road (go to Ebay!) if you wanna SLI. 2x 8800GTs in SLI config scales much better than 2x 4850 in CF. Best of all, you won't have to deal with the insane heat issue of the 4850..

A HD 4850 CF even if doesn't scale will be faster than a 8800GT that doesn't scale, also the Crossfire implementation in the HD4XXX series is improved, it easily matches and outperforms a single GTX 280, something that 8800GT in SLI barely does.

Plus the 8800GT will support Physx soon with official NV drivers (there's a hack for it already), and Physx could be important in the next wave of games released. From all the reviews, Physx makes a HUGE difference.

Yeah, it's gonna be important, but it has been proven that in high resolutions with lots of anti aliasing, it presents a problem since the GPU is working so hard that it doesn't have enough power to spare for physics, hence the drop in FPS. nVidia already stated that is working to suppor the ATi cards. Huge difference? Is a nice addition, but gameplay is far more important. Look at Crysis, great Physix, not so great in gameplay.

 

[shangshang]

Originally posted by: ss284

Originally posted by: SirJangly

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff

Originally posted by: geoffry

Originally posted by: hemmy
A 8800GT isn't fast enough to get constant good FPS on every map in COD4 @ 1680

FPS drops below 70 which is low enough to impact my gaming.

How much below 70 are we talking here?

Anything above 50-60 seems pretty good to me

lol isn't the human eye only capable of discerning 60fps at maximum?

I thought it was ~30?

Its variable depending on the person, but around 72-75 is when a human brain perceives fluid motion, same reason why CRTs flickered at 60hz. However, if you game on an LCD, since its only refreshing at 60hz, anything above 60fps is useless.

There is a subtle difference between perceiving smooth motion and perceiving flickering. The 2 phenomenon are not the same.

For a brief explanation:

http://www.100fps.com/how_many...mes_can_humans_see.htm

 

[kmmatney]

Originally posted by: nCred
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...performance-roundup/10

1680x1050 4xAA 16xAF

HD 4850 66.5 fps
8800 GT 49 fps

I would say that this should answers the OP's original question.

 

[taltamir]

the 4850 is much faster then the GT... the 8800GT had the same problem with temps, its just that they are now made with 3rd party coolers, JUST LIKE THE 4850!
Do not get a 8800GT with the single slot cooler or you have the same temperature issues!
Asus makes a 4850 with improved cooler.

Anyways, the e8400 is too slow. I oced my E8400 to 3.6ghz and I am still CPU bound in some games at under 60fps... many higher end games today that are CPU hogs run quite well on quad cores, and really require a quad core at at least 3ghz to be really smooth.

 

[idiotekniQues]

as long as any game i have runs at 50fps im pretty darn happy. its about turnin the eye candy up.

id rather play a game maxed out eye candy at 50fps than trying to get 100fps with less stuff turned up.

 

[PacificGeek]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Anyways, the e8400 is too slow. I oced my E8400 to 3.6ghz and I am still CPU bound in some games at under 60fps... many higher end games today that are CPU hogs run quite well on quad cores, and really require a quad core at at least 3ghz to be really smooth.

I didn't think games were fully utilizing quad core cpu's yet.

What games/software use the quad cores to their full potential?