My 4850 vs 8800 Ultra Comparison

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: gizbug

According to your review, and what I read here this 4850 is NOT a huge upgrade over an 8800gts 512 nvidia card at all.
Maybe I 'won't upgrade.

Yeah, I personally wouldn't bother, unless maybe you?re a heavy user of 8xAA.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: gizbug

According to your review, and what I read here this 4850 is NOT a huge upgrade over an 8800gts 512 nvidia card at all.
Maybe I 'won't upgrade.

Yeah, I personally wouldn't bother, unless maybe you?re a heavy user of 8xAA.

Agreed. Nice job on the benches btw.

 

[BFG10K]

FYI - Riva Tuner 2.10 supports the Radeon 4xxx series and you can perform low level fan adjustments.

 

[Keysplayr]

Is 2.10 out yet? Last I heard, Unwinder was still beta testing with about 20 people.
::crosses fingers::

 

[BFG10K]

Yeah, I got 2.10 about an hour ago. :thumbsup:

 

[Borealis7]

youre using:

4 GB DDR2-800 RAM (4x1 GB, dual-channel).
Windows XP 32 bit SP3.

?? guess its your choice...

 

[User5]

24x AA = useless test. This is an absolutely ridiculous overkill of AA to even care about. 4x MSAA is all you need. In which case the 4850 handles at 0 fps difference over having no AA enabled. So the test is very misleading in this sense. For free 4x AA alone and a few extra FPS in all games, it was worth it for me. No more aliasing forever !

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: User5
24x AA = useless test. This is an absolutely ridiculous overkill of AA to even care about. 4x MSAA is all you need. In which case the 4850 handles at 0 fps difference over having no AA enabled. So the test is very misleading in this sense. For free 4x AA alone and a few extra FPS in all games, it was worth it for me. No more aliasing forever !

24x aa is not useless, there are numerous games that benefit from more AA. In those games, particularly if they're a couple years old, the performance difference is near 0 as well. So why not use more? Your logic that 4x is all you need is very flawed thinking.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Borealis7
youre using:

4 GB DDR2-800 RAM (4x1 GB, dual-channel).
Windows XP 32 bit SP3.

?? guess its your choice...

I'm using 2x2GB with Windows XP 32 bit as well. Windows see 3.25GB, that's still better then 2GB even if all 4GB isn't being used.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Borealis7
youre using:

4 GB DDR2-800 RAM (4x1 GB, dual-channel).
Windows XP 32 bit SP3.

?? guess its your choice...

I'm using 2x2GB with Windows XP 32 bit as well. Windows see 3.25GB, that's still better then 2GB even if all 4GB isn't being used.

That's the spirit

:thumbsup:

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Borealis7
youre using:

4 GB DDR2-800 RAM (4x1 GB, dual-channel).
Windows XP 32 bit SP3.

?? guess its your choice...

I like to use the best tool for the job and currently for me that?s Windows XP 32 bit. It?s stable, mature and runs everything I throw at it without issue.

Originally posted by: User5

24x AA = useless test. This is an absolutely ridiculous overkill of AA to even care about. 4x MSAA is all you need. In which case the 4850 handles at 0 fps difference over having no AA enabled. So the test is very misleading in this sense.

Misleading? I think it's anything but misleading

It demonstrates 24xAA being usable in many games on a 4850 which isn't a high-end board. 4xAA is good but higher AA modes can still show large differences at times.