is the GTX 260 better than the ATI 4850

[Creig]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
No no my congenial friend. I understood just fine. And you sit here and flatly say that no game under 1650x1080 utilizes more than 512MB of framebuffer. Yes. That is what you said. That is why I mentioned earlier, that "Majority" is the key word.

In all the video card reviews I've read, I have yet to see one that showed an abnormal framerate dropoff at 1680x1050 that could be attributed to lack of vram on a 512MB card. The lowest resolution to exhibit this behavior was at 1920x1200. Even at that resolution, it was only the occasional title. Lowering some of the graphics options on those few games might have eliminated the issue.

Chizow said "anyone looking in this price range shouldn't consider a card with only 512MB" & "the 512MB market is going to be the people who listen to poor advice". Since you are backing him up, you must agree with his statement that nobody should purchase a new 512MB card from now on, right?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: pectin
I was thinking of getting the ATI 4850 but then saw the price of the GTX 260 only 30+ more... which is better in terms of video encoding, play a little games, CS3, etc..?

quick search of newegg shows an asus 4870 with glaciator heatsink for $195 AR shipped. The cheapest gtx 260 I saw was around $220 shipped.

Unlisted $40 Rebate

People were stacking those low MSRP with that rebate and a $10 instant coupon for $170 GTX 260s.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Creig
Chizow said "anyone looking in this price range shouldn't consider a card with only 512MB" & "the 512MB market is going to be the people who listen to poor advice". Since you are backing him up, you must agree with his statement that nobody should purchase a new 512MB card from now on, right?

Certainly not in that price range, especially since there are superior parts with more RAM in the same price range for less. Recommending a 512MB 4870 when there's 896MB GTX 260 for less and GTX 260c216 and 1GB 4870 available for slightly more is poor advice. It doesn't surprise me that you still would though, misery loves company.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: chizow
Certainly not in that price range, especially since there are superior parts with more RAM in the same price range for less. Recommending a 512MB 4870 when there's 896MB GTX 260 for less and GTX 260c216 and 1GB 4870 available for slightly more is poor advice. It doesn't surprise me that you still would though, misery loves company.

But we're not talking about just 512MB 4870's now, are we? What about 512MB 4850's or 512MB 9800GTX's?

You said:

the 512MB market is going to be the people who listen to poor advice

Which is inherently wrong. 512MB cards work just fine up to 1680x1050 and can even play most games at 1920x1200. If a person doesn't have a 1920x1200 or higher monitor, then there's no need for a 1GB video card unless they plan on upgrading their display in the near future.

The only one giving "poor advice" here is you.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Because as games progress, they will use more than 512mb, hence going for more vram....?!

Again, you have to look at the resolution being used. The higher the resolution, the more vram you typically need. A 512MB card is going to remain useful longer at 1680x1050 than at 1920x1200. I can't see 1440x900 or lower needing more than 512MB vram for a long time to come.

As it stands right now, I would recommend a 512MB for 1680x1050 and below, a 1GB card for 1920x1200 and above. Current 512MB cards can run most games at 1920x1200 without experiencing slowdowns related to a lack of memory so this resolution is kind of a tossup. As times goes on, I'm sure more and more games will require 1GB at 1920x1200 and 512MB will be increasingly unable to handle this resolution.

But vram isn't everything. By the time current 512MB cards are unable to handle the majority of new games at 1920x1200, I don't doubt that the GPU on them will be too slow to handle those games anyhow. So there's really not much point in purchasing a 1GB card unless you need to run 1920x1200 or higher with current games.

Creig-
You need to remember that AA uses some RAM as well, and that higher AA settings might tip the amount needed over 512:

Bioshock RAM use across resolutions, with AA factored

COD4 RAM use

Crysis RAM use

Stalker RAM use

Oblivion RAM use

As you can see, it's not hard to run out of video memory in many games even at 16X10, and we weren't even considering the 8X MSAA ATi fans like to use.

Chizow is right, it's much harder to recommend a 512MB card these days.

 

[Nurn]

If I was buying a card today, I'd spend an extra $25 to $50 for 1GB VRAM instead of 512MB. Generally, I agree that 512 is OK if you game at 1680, but 1GB gives you some flexibility to splurge on that 24 inch monitor sometime in the future and crank up the resolution.

But that's just me. $25 to $50 can be a deal breaker for other people.

 

[dguy6789]

In order of preference, it should be a tie between a 1GB 4870 and an 896MB GTX260 Core 216. The 512MB 4870 is a superior card to the non core 216 GTX260, more ram or not. Don't get confused.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: Nurn
If I was buying a card today, I'd spend an extra $25 to $50 for 1GB VRAM instead of 512MB. Generally, I agree that 512 is OK if you game at 1680, but 1GB gives you some flexibility to splurge on that 24 inch monitor sometime in the future and crank up the resolution.

But that's just me. $25 to $50 can be a deal breaker for other people.

+1 for this advice.

I will bet some people buying the 512MB 4870 will regret this purchase in a year when they think back to saving that $30 to buy their favorite Hannah Montana DVD and the newer games are really utilizing more than 512MB of RAM. You are never "future proof" but it's the same as when cards went from 256MB to 512MB. The 512MB cards (good versions mind you) tended to last the test of time better than the 256MB cards.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Creig
But we're not talking about just 512MB 4870's now, are we? What about 512MB 4850's or 512MB 9800GTX's?

What about them? Are they in the same price and performance range as the 4870 or GTX 260? No, they're not. If you're considering those parts there isn't an alternative to 512MB, so RAM isn't a consideration. Not to mention their level of performance may not even allow them to run settings that would benefit from additional RAM. This clearly isn't the same situation as the 4870 and GTX 260.

You said:

the 512MB market is going to be the people who listen to poor advice

Which is inherently wrong. 512MB cards work just fine up to 1680x1050 and can even play most games at 1920x1200. If a person doesn't have a 1920x1200 or higher monitor, then there's no need for a 1GB video card unless they plan on upgrading their display in the near future.

The only one giving "poor advice" here is you.

In context I was clearly referring to the 4870, unless you're now claiming the 4850/9800GTX/8800GT/9600GT/4830 are in this range of price and performance? I've already proven your claims about resolutions 1680 not benefitting from more than 512MB and lower to be wrong. Not to mention those users would be more inclined to crank up AA to make use of the unused GPU overhead which would in turn increase VRAM use.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
In order of preference, it should be a tie between a 1GB 4870 and an 896MB GTX260 Core 216. The 512MB 4870 is a superior card to the non core 216 GTX260, more ram or not. Don't get confused.

Based on what? Certainly not on the latest reviews. And certainly not based on price. I'll be the first to admit I was skeptical about huge improvements from a single driver update, but every single review site has been independently confirming these results. AMD has promised similar with their 8.12s, so we'll see if they can manage a similar feat.

 

[schneiderguy]

The $220 GTX 260 was too good of a deal to pass up. I bought one

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
In order of preference, it should be a tie between a 1GB 4870 and an 896MB GTX260 Core 216. The 512MB 4870 is a superior card to the non core 216 GTX260, more ram or not. Don't get confused.

I disagree.

Any review of the GTX60s using the 180 series drivers will show the Core216 above the 1GBHD4870.

Likewise, the GTX260 will be above the 512 4870, and more RAM is one of the biggest reasons you should want it.

I posted links to several common games in this thread that are using up all the RAM of a 512 card just at 16X10 4XAA. Exceeding the amount of RAM available in a card won't necessarily result in (much)worse benchmark averages in reviews, but will for sure result in hitching.