HD4850 x 9800GTX

[MrX8503]

I don't think I would take NVIDIA advice from NVIDIA focus group.

As with any computer tech, there's no such thing has future proof. Especially video cards.

I would say buy the highest performing card that you can afford today, then upgrade 2 years later. I'm still using an Radeon X850 where I had to decide whether or not to get SM 2.0 or SM 3.0 and years later using this card, having SM 2.0 has not affected me. If I want SM 3.0 I would just update to a newer card, as most cards have SM 3.0 now.

My point is don't base your video card purchases on features that haven't matured yet, because by the time PhysX becomes mainstream your card will be like my current Radeon X850, slow.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: MrX8503
I don't think I would take NVIDIA advice from NVIDIA focus group.

As with any computer tech, there's no such thing has future proof. Especially video cards.

I would say buy the highest performing card that you can afford today, then upgrade 2 years later. I'm still using an Radeon X850 where I had to decide whether or not to get SM 2.0 or SM 3.0 and years later using this card, having SM 2.0 has not affected me. If I want SM 3.0 I would just update to a newer card, as most cards have SM 3.0 now.

My point is don't base your video card purchases on features that haven't matured yet, because by the time PhysX becomes mainstream your card will be like my current Radeon X850, slow.

So you wouldn't recommend the 4850 to the OP then? Which I have done? Because that was my advice in his particular situation? This is the problem you're going to run into with somebody who likes to keep things real.

 

[uribag]

Thanks everybody!

The 2 years upgrade thing is what makes this decision so hard.

I´m gonna buy the 4850 then.

Would you recommend a 780G or 790FX motherboard?

Asus M3A78-EMH HDMI Socket AM2 , or

DFI LANPARTY DK 790FX-M2RS Socket AM2+/AM2 Chipset AMD 790FX

 

[airhendrix13]

EDIT: Didn't see page 2.... yeah....

 

[airhendrix13]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Cooler

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I can't believe you guys are saying what you're saying. Checkbox feature? Gimmick? This guy plainly said he can't change his card for two years. Do you think PhysX and CUDA will still be gimmicks and checkbox features over the next year?
CUDA has been showing it's prowess for months now. PhysX is only just emerging now.
Tell the OP whichever card you think is best, of course. But give him the facts along with it.

PhysX is not really more future proof then 10.1 which HD 4850 supports so it?s a pick your poison kind of deal.

What does DX 10.1 have to do with anything? At least PhysX is making it's presence known. Some levels in games, one full game, and some tech demos. That's more of a showing than I can say for DX 10.1, which is nil.

Keep it real folks.

EDIT: Sorry, I hit edit instead of quote. Your post was not altered.

well, 10.1 did have assasin's creed for about 5 minutes...until nvidia started throwing their weight around. the fact is, dx 10.1 has just as much likelihood to impact op's gaming experience in the next 24mos as physics does. also, how much physics is op going to be able to effective use with his 9800gtx on games that are released in 12-18 mos? as was previously mentioned, he can barely use the 9800gtx with physics RIGHT NOW. keys, face it, it's a losing battle to promote old tech g92 vs the "nearly free" AA of rv770. now, it will be a different story when/if we see gt200 at 55nm and/or with gddr5, but I still haven't even heard a rumor of an eta on that one yet.

As far as Nvidia "throwing their weight around", prove it. Or don't say it. The AC developer explained what happened. If that isn't what you want' to hear, too bad.
I can list a whole page worth of potential PhysX titles coming in the next year. How many DX 10.1 titles can you list? You'll probably have better luck finding DX11 titles.

If you could list some that would be great, thanks.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I can't believe you guys are saying what you're saying. Checkbox feature? Gimmick? This guy plainly said he can't change his card for two years. Do you think PhysX and CUDA will still be gimmicks and checkbox features over the next year?
CUDA has been showing it's prowess for months now. PhysX is only just emerging now.
Tell the OP whichever card you think is best, of course. But give him the facts along with it.

Such as the fact that in 2 years, titles developed for hardware PhysX will eat a 9800GTX+ alive...if PhysX is to be the future, then you wait for the future to come and then you buy for it.

In two years, sure. I can picture that. But what about all the time from now til then? Does that not exist? 9800GTX/+ are still powerful cards.

From what I've seen from around the web (as well as your own information) the 9800GTX+ is too slow to run hardware PhysX on its own even with reasonable resolution an AA (1680x1050 @ 4xAA). Sure, its heads and tails better than having the CPU do it, but 30-40fps average is not acceptable for a game like UT3. If the newer card can't do it for the older game, my magic 8-ball tells me the outlook isn't good for games from 'now til then'.

And besides that, in two years, you can buy that current mainstream/higher end card, and use the GTX+ for PhysX.

So we sacrifice on performance today (reminder, reread the OP), to potentially get performance tomorrow? Awesome. :roll:

Similar to people considering buying a GTX260/280 today, and using their older 8 series cards just for PhysX.

Not similar at all, those people are buying for today, not for the future.

The services you can perform here given your special circumstance certainly can be appreciated, but I think you got a little bit too caught up in your never ending quest to please your benefactors...

 

[Piuc2020]

PhysX is a much bigger deal than the extremely insignificant and might-as-well-have-never-existed tiny DX 10.1. Physics have the potential to revolutionize the gaming industry, it's not just about eyecandy, it's also about increased gameplay possibilities.

Sadly, it's never going to happen until NV and ATI decide to fully support PhysX on Radeon cards and allow a mix n match of NV and ATI cards to use either card as render and either card as physx without any issues. They need to be committed to that.

Once they do that, all developers will get on board and we'll definitely start to see some great stuff, until then, PhysX is nice but not having it is not a deal-breaker, PhysX will NEVER EVER and I mean NEVER take off if AMD doesn't get on board with it, NEVER.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I can't believe you guys are saying what you're saying. Checkbox feature? Gimmick? This guy plainly said he can't change his card for two years. Do you think PhysX and CUDA will still be gimmicks and checkbox features over the next year?
CUDA has been showing it's prowess for months now. PhysX is only just emerging now.
Tell the OP whichever card you think is best, of course. But give him the facts along with it.

Such as the fact that in 2 years, titles developed for hardware PhysX will eat a 9800GTX+ alive...if PhysX is to be the future, then you wait for the future to come and then you buy for it.

In two years, sure. I can picture that. But what about all the time from now til then? Does that not exist? 9800GTX/+ are still powerful cards.

From what I've seen from around the web (as well as your own information) the 9800GTX+ is too slow to run hardware PhysX on its own even with reasonable resolution an AA (1680x1050 @ 4xAA). Sure, its heads and tails better than having the CPU do it, but 30-40fps average is not acceptable for a game like UT3. If the newer card can't do it for the older game, my magic 8-ball tells me the outlook isn't good for games from 'now til then'.

And besides that, in two years, you can buy that current mainstream/higher end card, and use the GTX+ for PhysX.

So we sacrifice on performance today (reminder, reread the OP), to potentially get performance tomorrow? Awesome. :roll:

Similar to people considering buying a GTX260/280 today, and using their older 8 series cards just for PhysX.

Not similar at all, those people are buying for today, not for the future.

The services you can perform here given your special circumstance certainly can be appreciated, but I think you got a little bit too caught up in your never ending quest to please your benefactors...

You clearly have a different point of view than I have BF. But you don't see me getting personal toward you as a poster because of it, now do you...... STICK TO THE TOPIC AND DO NOT GET PERSONAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! please. Can all of you handle that? I knew you could.
Some people can't get past the fact that I am stoked about this technology and really enjoy talking about it. But what you would like to believe is that I can't stand technology, and only doing this to please someone else. Which is more believable? Anyway, I don't want to hear this crap anymore. Keep to the topic.

 

[ronnn]

Interesting times. Ati has the official ms vista stamp of support with dx 10.1, but few take it seriously. Ati also has cinema 2.0 , which tends to blow everyone away, but no one knows if it has any near future uses. Nividia has CUDA, which they described as their inhouse name for C+ programming. Nvidia has physx, which I assume is an inhouse name for physics software to utilize their hardware. No wonder they are both struggling right now.

Usually something has to be supported by both companies to take off. So I wish the employees and fanboys would just get along. :laugh:


Or one blockbuster game could tilt the playing field.

 

[AmdInside]

Keep in mind Physx is supported on Xbox 360 and PS3 is it isn't going away anytime soon. In fact, you could say what was holding up Physx in the past was Agea. With NVIDIA marketing, I think you will see it much more in future PC games.

And CUDA is a very cool feature to have on your graphics card if there is enough software support for it. If Photoshop were to add CUDA support for ACR RAW processing and processing filters, it would save me hundreds of dollars when you factor post processing time it would take me. I'm really looking forward to picking Badaboom when it is released. It will greatly but down the encoding time for me as I do a lot of video encoding to tranfer movies to my AppleTV:

http://www.badaboomit.com/

For strictly game, I would go with the lowest priced version as the performance is similar.