NVIDIA 9800GTX+ Review Thread

[shangshang]

Originally posted by: Kuzi

Originally posted by: shangshang
Believe it or not, but AMD/ATI is in deep trouble!!

Just when ATI thought they had a complete midrange winner with the 4850, Nvidia struck back virtually overnight with the 9800GTX+. Nobody saw the GTX+ coming! Basically, ATI spent a lot of R&D time and resources in the 4850, only to have Nvidia punch it in the mouth the GTX+ without spending a dime or research. Going 55nm doesnt cost Nvidia a dime.

I don't know how long AMD plans to play this game of trying to out competes Nvidia with lowering prices. Lowering prices has done nothing put pummel their stock. AMD didn't succeed against Intel by playing the lowering price game.

What will happen when the GT200 goes 55nm in 3 months? Hmm what's ATI's answer then?

But for now, I have to thank ATI for playing this lowering price game, because it'll enable me to get a pair of 9800GTX+ in SLI soon at a price that I would otherwise not be able to afford. 9800GTX+ SLI should last me another 2.5 years. Physx will be a big added value when newer games take advantage of it!

Actually I think it's the opposite, everyone was caught by surprise by the great price/performance ratio of the HD4850. And ATI seem in a better position now compared to say the last generation (6xx).

A bunch of people on anandtech forums already bought HD4850 cards for onlyhttp://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2199358&enterthread=y">$149.</a> The 9800GTX+ is not out till now, and won't be till another few weeks, with an expected price of $229. That is anywhere between $30-$80 more expensive compared to the HD4850.

I'm not saying the GTX+ won't compete well with the 4850, it probably will. But from the few reviews we have now on the net, if you are looking for absolute price/performance the HD4850 seems like the smarter choice.

About the GT200 55nm refresh, did you read somewhere it will release in 3 months? My guess if they do release a refresh this year (GT200 Ultra), it would be around Nov/Dec timeframe (NV usually releases a refresh 5-6 months after the initial release).

First of all, the $149 for the 4850 is a GREAT price for those FEW who were able to get at a FEW Best Buys. But in term of the global scale, you can't seriously think that a few 4850 @ $149 will take a bit out of the GTX+ market share. Until everyone can buy a 4850 at $149, then using $149 as a price threat to the GTX+ is silly. And who's to say that the GTX+ won't drop below $229?

And yes, there have been talk that NV is migrating everything to 55nm, because 1) NV investors want them to because it saves money, and 2) to keep ATI down. If they can produce the GTX+ on 55nm, then moving the GT200 to 55nm is just a matter of short time. But they NV sees no threat from ATI in the GT200 area, so they're taking their time to make sure nothing goes wrong with GT200 on 55nm. Why would Nv take chances when they don't have to yet?

I really wonder how long AMD can continue this desperate attempt to gain market shares by selling cheap? Certainly, AMD investors are anything but happy about it.

 

[shangshang]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shangshang
Believe it or not, but AMD/ATI is in deep trouble!!

Just when ATI thought they had a complete midrange winner with the 4850, Nvidia struck back virtually overnight with the 9800GTX+. Nobody saw the GTX+ coming! Basically, ATI spent a lot of R&D time and resources in the 4850, only to have Nvidia punch it in the mouth the GTX+ without spending a dime or research. Going 55nm doesnt cost Nvidia a dime.

I don't know how long AMD plans to play this game of trying to out competes Nvidia with lowering prices. Lowering prices has done nothing put pummel their stock. AMD didn't succeed against Intel by playing the lowering price game.

What will happen when the GT200 goes 55nm in 3 months? Hmm what's ATI's answer then?

But for now, I have to thank ATI for playing this lowering price game, because it'll enable me to get a pair of 9800GTX+ in SLI soon at a price that I would otherwise not be able to afford. 9800GTX+ SLI should last me another 2.5 years. Physx will be a big added value when newer games take advantage of it!

It is 20 dollars more for a 9800GTX+. If you have a budget of 200 dollars, then the 4850 is the obvious choice. If you have a bigger budget, the 9800gtx+ is the choice. So what you are saying is not true in other words.

If you're going to quibble over 20 bux for a better cooler and Physx, then it's your choice. But me, I rather put in half an hour at work than cheap out over 20 bux. Jesh, most people pay $60 to fill their gas for 5 days of work... and you're being a drama queen over 20 bux??? I guess that's your choice.

Perhaps you don't realize, but things are marketed according to their performance. So, fora little less performance you pay a little less. Is this a new concept to you? It seems that it is.

Maybe 20 dollars isn't a big deal to you, but it is to some. I guess what is most important to you is being a shill and a troll, obviously. I am going to get myself a 9800GTX+ unless the 4870 has something to offer, but I am not so stupid that I can't see the benefits of the 4850 if one has a properly ventilated case.

I didn't realize the mods here allowed people to make new accounts just so they could troll and not worry about getting their normal account banned.

For bugdet gamers, for college boys, then yes! the price/performance ratio could be everything. But not for some.

How am I trolling? Because I rub you the wrong way? I'm sorry, better?

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shangshang
Believe it or not, but AMD/ATI is in deep trouble!!

Just when ATI thought they had a complete midrange winner with the 4850, Nvidia struck back virtually overnight with the 9800GTX+. Nobody saw the GTX+ coming! Basically, ATI spent a lot of R&D time and resources in the 4850, only to have Nvidia punch it in the mouth the GTX+ without spending a dime or research. Going 55nm doesnt cost Nvidia a dime.

I don't know how long AMD plans to play this game of trying to out competes Nvidia with lowering prices. Lowering prices has done nothing put pummel their stock. AMD didn't succeed against Intel by playing the lowering price game.

What will happen when the GT200 goes 55nm in 3 months? Hmm what's ATI's answer then?

But for now, I have to thank ATI for playing this lowering price game, because it'll enable me to get a pair of 9800GTX+ in SLI soon at a price that I would otherwise not be able to afford. 9800GTX+ SLI should last me another 2.5 years. Physx will be a big added value when newer games take advantage of it!

It is 20 dollars more for a 9800GTX+. If you have a budget of 200 dollars, then the 4850 is the obvious choice. If you have a bigger budget, the 9800gtx+ is the choice. So what you are saying is not true in other words.

If you're going to quibble over 20 bux for a better cooler and Physx, then it's your choice. But me, I rather put in half an hour at work than cheap out over 20 bux. Jesh, most people pay $60 to fill their gas for 5 days of work... and you're being a drama queen over 20 bux??? I guess that's your choice.

Perhaps you don't realize, but things are marketed according to their performance. So, fora little less performance you pay a little less. Is this a new concept to you? It seems that it is.

Maybe 20 dollars isn't a big deal to you, but it is to some. I guess what is most important to you is being a shill and a troll, obviously. I am going to get myself a 9800GTX+ unless the 4870 has something to offer, but I am not so stupid that I can't see the benefits of the 4850 if one has a properly ventilated case.

I didn't realize the mods here allowed people to make new accounts just so they could troll and not worry about getting their normal account banned.

For bugdet gamers, for college boys, then yes! the price/performance ratio could be everything. But not for some.

How am I trolling? Because I rub you the wrong way? I'm sorry, better?

Seriously, cut it with the snide remarks and sarcasm. There is NO ONE on your side right now. If I had $230 to spend on a card, I'd have a hell of a time deciding on a $230 GTX+ and $200 4850. I'm sure any other sane person will have the same situation.

-$30 more for better performance with less AA
-$30 more for somewhat better linux support
-$30 more for a better stock cooling solution
-$30 more to not give money to AMD

-$30 less for better performance with more AA
-$30 less for somewhat better HD support
-$30 less to not give money to nvidia

Last two points included for the fanboys.

 

[Kuzi]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shangshang
Believe it or not, but AMD/ATI is in deep trouble!!

Just when ATI thought they had a complete midrange winner with the 4850, Nvidia struck back virtually overnight with the 9800GTX+. Nobody saw the GTX+ coming! Basically, ATI spent a lot of R&D time and resources in the 4850, only to have Nvidia punch it in the mouth the GTX+ without spending a dime or research. Going 55nm doesnt cost Nvidia a dime.

I don't know how long AMD plans to play this game of trying to out competes Nvidia with lowering prices. Lowering prices has done nothing put pummel their stock. AMD didn't succeed against Intel by playing the lowering price game.

What will happen when the GT200 goes 55nm in 3 months? Hmm what's ATI's answer then?

But for now, I have to thank ATI for playing this lowering price game, because it'll enable me to get a pair of 9800GTX+ in SLI soon at a price that I would otherwise not be able to afford. 9800GTX+ SLI should last me another 2.5 years. Physx will be a big added value when newer games take advantage of it!

It is 20 dollars more for a 9800GTX+. If you have a budget of 200 dollars, then the 4850 is the obvious choice. If you have a bigger budget, the 9800gtx+ is the choice. So what you are saying is not true in other words.

If you're going to quibble over 20 bux for a better cooler and Physx, then it's your choice. But me, I rather put in half an hour at work than cheap out over 20 bux. Jesh, most people pay $60 to fill their gas for 5 days of work... and you're being a drama queen over 20 bux??? I guess that's your choice.

Perhaps you don't realize, but things are marketed according to their performance. So, fora little less performance you pay a little less. Is this a new concept to you? It seems that it is.

Maybe 20 dollars isn't a big deal to you, but it is to some. I guess what is most important to you is being a shill and a troll, obviously. I am going to get myself a 9800GTX+ unless the 4870 has something to offer, but I am not so stupid that I can't see the benefits of the 4850 if one has a properly ventilated case.

I didn't realize the mods here allowed people to make new accounts just so they could troll and not worry about getting their normal account banned.

The 9800GTX+ is a little slower than the HD4850 when using AA4x, but we need more reviews to verify that.

In the anandtech review, I calculated the performance difference between the GTX260 and HD4850 @1920x1200 resolution. The GTX260 was about 14% faster on average for the games tested. If we consider that the 4870 will be 20% faster than the 4850, then it should be even faster than the GTX260 while costing less. So the 4870 will not even be in the same league of performance compared to the 9800GTX+, but of course it will cost more than the GTX+.

 

[shangshang]

^ sorry but I'm not here to look for anyone to take my side! I'm not looking for pathetic support.

What I have said I have given my reason why. Did I say anything without giving a reason? I just think some of you are too sensative!

 

[shangshang]

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: Conroe

Originally posted by: shangshang
Believe it or not, but AMD/ATI is in deep trouble!!

Just when ATI thought they had a complete midrange winner with the 4850, Nvidia struck back virtually overnight with the 9800GTX+. Nobody saw the GTX+ coming! Basically, ATI spent a lot of R&D time and resources in the 4850, only to have Nvidia punch it in the mouth the GTX+ without spending a dime or research. Going 55nm doesnt cost Nvidia a dime.

So the 9800gtx+ is on sale now? Overnight is sure not next month. Three months for the 55nm GT200? I doubt that too, along with the rest of your post. Can't wait for the GTX 260+, lol.

July is only a few weeks away.

Nvidia can release the GT200 on 55nm next month if they had to. But why would the rush to do this when the BEST Ati has up its sleeve is the 4870 which is nowhere in the ballpark of the GT200. Nvidia ain't dumb to show their hands early. You obviously don't understand.

AMD gotta be a bit demoralized though. They originally hoped to release the 4850 at $230. Then went to $199. And now even going as low as $160 AR. All this within a week of release, all due to the GTX+ coming out. Good for the consumers, but bad for the long term health of the company. Take a look at AMD stock lately?? Deep in debt. Can't compete with Intel. Can't compete with Nvidia. AMD employees looking to defect to Intel or Nvidia when the opportunity exists. Stock price is virtually where it was 5 years ago.

You do realize that Nvdia didn't waste a dime of R&D to release the GTX+ right?

LOL @ Nvidia can release the GT200 on 55nm next month if they had to. I'm sure this is the thought process over at nvidia: "Oh wow, we're producing a 65nm behemoth, but you know, it's fine, we don't need better margins, F releasing it next month on a 55nm process."

You obviously don't understand. NV wanted to play it safe with the GT200 and 65nm. They play it safe because the 65nm is a proven process, and until ATI steps up to this performance sphere, NV has to reason to rush out anything and potentially introduce process bugs.

Case in point is, nobody saw the GTX+ came did they? NV just drop the GTX+ bomb on the 4850 like nothing. Like I said, if NV is forced, they will step up.

Now, what does ATI have up their sleeve for the coming 55nm GT200? Oh the sound of cricket chirping.

What the hell are you talking about? YOU obviously don't understand. I'll agree that nvidia anted to play it safe with the 65nm process since they completely screwed the pooch with the FX series when trying to downsize. But you can't release a product on 65nm, and then in a one month turnaround have the downsized product in volume for launch. I'm sure it's possible to have samples ready for next month, but do you want a 4+ month paper launch?

ATi will have the R700 which will be > the GTX280 and cheaper, to boot.

Let's wait and see the R700 out first.

But NV has stated that the 55nm is coming for the GT200 in their investor conference call. Unless Nv CEO lied, I will assume it's coming in 3 months! That's that simple.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shangshang
Believe it or not, but AMD/ATI is in deep trouble!!

Just when ATI thought they had a complete midrange winner with the 4850, Nvidia struck back virtually overnight with the 9800GTX+. Nobody saw the GTX+ coming! Basically, ATI spent a lot of R&D time and resources in the 4850, only to have Nvidia punch it in the mouth the GTX+ without spending a dime or research. Going 55nm doesnt cost Nvidia a dime.

I don't know how long AMD plans to play this game of trying to out competes Nvidia with lowering prices. Lowering prices has done nothing put pummel their stock. AMD didn't succeed against Intel by playing the lowering price game.

What will happen when the GT200 goes 55nm in 3 months? Hmm what's ATI's answer then?

But for now, I have to thank ATI for playing this lowering price game, because it'll enable me to get a pair of 9800GTX+ in SLI soon at a price that I would otherwise not be able to afford. 9800GTX+ SLI should last me another 2.5 years. Physx will be a big added value when newer games take advantage of it!

It is 20 dollars more for a 9800GTX+. If you have a budget of 200 dollars, then the 4850 is the obvious choice. If you have a bigger budget, the 9800gtx+ is the choice. So what you are saying is not true in other words.

If you're going to quibble over 20 bux for a better cooler and Physx, then it's your choice. But me, I rather put in half an hour at work than cheap out over 20 bux. Jesh, most people pay $60 to fill their gas for 5 days of work... and you're being a drama queen over 20 bux??? I guess that's your choice.

Perhaps you don't realize, but things are marketed according to their performance. So, fora little less performance you pay a little less. Is this a new concept to you? It seems that it is.

Maybe 20 dollars isn't a big deal to you, but it is to some. I guess what is most important to you is being a shill and a troll, obviously. I am going to get myself a 9800GTX+ unless the 4870 has something to offer, but I am not so stupid that I can't see the benefits of the 4850 if one has a properly ventilated case.

I didn't realize the mods here allowed people to make new accounts just so they could troll and not worry about getting their normal account banned.

For bugdet gamers, for college boys, then yes! the price/performance ratio could be everything. But not for some.

How am I trolling? Because I rub you the wrong way? I'm sorry, better?

I'm not a budget gamer or a college boy, but I still care very much for price/performance nonetheless. If I can get equal performance for less money then I'll do it; if I can get 85% of the performance for 1/2 the price then I'll do that too. What's so complicated about this? Unless you are made of money you probably make the same decisions on a daily basis. No, unless you are a spoiled rich kid you probably make the same decisions on a daily basis because anybody who has worked his ass off for years and years to amass a little bit of wealth certainly understands more about the value of a dollar (or yen, lb, euro, etc) than some 23 post nvidia shill who registers for an account just to chant "nvidia rulz" after a half-assed paper launch.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Ok. I used C8xQAA

Snow: 68
Cave: 75

Now what?

Did you use dx10 or dx9?

What were you trying to find about anyway? You wanted to prove Computerbase benches are bogus?

DX10.

Bogus or legit. Either way. So far, looks bogus. If I got the same scores they did, I'd say they were legit. But I'm not, so I can't.

Steel Six, are you around? Have Lost Planet?

People have different way of testing.
True, but that is why I asked how the testing was done.

if you got 70 some fps with your "free" 280gtx
Didn't computerbase get their GTX280/HD4850 for free?
Or did they have to go and buy them at retail stores?
Free, has no bearing on the benchmarks I am getting. Free cards are not any faster
or slower than ones you pay for. Unless of course there was some underlying sentiment saying I'm lying about my scores? If so, what gives? You want truth? Or do you want BS?
Your call.

than you should also get 50 some fps with a 4850 the same way you benchmarked.
Which is why I plan to hook up with Steel Six who has just got himself two 4850's.
Lets test that theory shall we?

Computerbase is pretty much point on with their testings. I don't have any doubts about them.
Well, that's your call once again. I choose to test for myself. I believe me. LOL.

By the way, I just ran the bench at 1600x1200 C16xQAA 16xAF.
Snow: 56 Cave: 74

All this with a CPU running 1600MHz slower Quad core than computerbase (they ran a Q9770 o/c'd to 4GHz)

Computerbase might get the card free but I don't think they are members of any focus group and have allegiance to x company.

You seem very doubtful of the new 4850 but every major website including Anandtech says other wise. Your call. :brokenheart:

Wow. You're just full of opinions aren't you?
So, lets talk bluntly please. No beating around the bush sugar coating. Do you think I am reporting my results incorrectly? Do you think I am lying? Do you want to believe I am lying? Which is it?
Two things you have said now lead me to believe you are more biased than you "think" I am.
"Free". and "Allegiance".

YOU are the one bringing up these things. To what end?

This is the story:

I saw Tuteja's post with the CB benches for the HD4850, 9800GTX and GTX280.
I said to myself, "Self, let me try out the bench and see what I get a the same settings."
I did. Let Tuteja know what I got. I asked if I was doing anything wrong with my settings because they did not "jive" with CB's numbers. Just to make sure.

We discussed different AA modes and what they were. I tried them all and reported marks.
We noted that I was using DX10.
Then for some reason, you mention I had a "Free" card. And now you mention that I have an "allegiance". Highly improper for this conversation, don't you think?

And NOT ONCE did I say that the HD4850 marks were incorrect. How could I? I don't have one. YOU said it. Not me. I do not doubt the 4850's marks. Nor can I endorse them. Again, I don't have one. I do however have a 9800GTX and a GTX280. Those, I can comment on.

You are showing some colors here I do not care for. Far more biased than you would have us believe my friend. Far more than I could ever be. Sorry to tell you.

Do me, yourself, and the rest of this forum a favor. Keep your sour focus group propaganda to yourself when we are discussing tech. If you have an issue with me being in the focus group, start a personal forum issues thread. But you should probably have some kind of complaint first.

Thanks

Now I'm not supposed to have an opinion? :disgust:

I think you have very compelling reasons to bend the facts around you just like nRollo does. You are a member of Nvidia focus team are you not? Isn't this same reason why you stopped being Video Card moderator? What does this Focus group do anyway? Constantly praise Nvidia's products over it's competitors in forums?

I don't think you are lying about your benchmarks but like I said you getting somewhere in the 70fps range and Computerbase getting 40fps is because your testing might be different.

Like I said, start a personal forums thread if you have any issues with me.
There is no fact bending dude. Take off your tinfoil hat. I just ran a simple benchmark.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: shangshang

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: shangshang

All valid points, but how sad that nVidia's last generation card will be their savior. What are they thinking over there with their designs?

You do realize that Nvdia didn't waste a dime of R&D in the GTX+ right? In the meantime, AMD is deep in debt. Nvidia is spending their R&D money innovation, while keep their opponent at bay with their last gen product. If you're the Nvidia CEO and investors, you would love the situation you're in now. I don't think you realize what you were saying.

They spent all that money on GT200 only to have not so superior performance.

What do you define as "superior performance?" Superior to whom? and by what factor? It seems to me that you have no reference point to your "superior performace" phrase. This is not science fiction ok, where a discovery can take man from the cave to time traveling ok, and if you expect this kind of superior performance, then go watch star trek.

But what I do know based on AMD's own financial reports is that AMD is losing money left and right selling their cards for cheap in trying to compete with NV.

::::sigh:::: Just fantastic. Another one hits AT forums.

 

[shangshang]

man, I really wonder how long AMD can keep selling products at a loss. They have 1.75 billion in cash with a 5.28 billion in debts. NV has 1.65 billion in cash and ZERO debt. I can only attribute the 4850 as a desperate attempt to gain market shares at all cost! I just hope they dont go tits up, because what they are doing can't sit too well with the investors.

AMD
Profit Margin (ttm): -49.74%
Operating Margin (ttm): -15.94%

NV
Profit Margin (ttm): 19.11%
Operating Margin (ttm): 20.38%

I'm actually amazed that AMD can keep doing what they're doing. Like I said, NV profit is so huge that unless AMD raise the threat a few nothces, NV is not going to rush it. My point is to show that NV is not in a desperate mode to act when their profits are overwhelming. NV long term strategic is to spend R&D in CUDA, which is beyond video gaming. I'm a bit off topic.

Yes, you are way off topic. Any more shenanigans out of you and you can enjoy a vacation. This is your one warning

-ViRGE

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I'm not a budget gamer or a college boy, but I still care very much for price/performance nonetheless. If I can get equal performance for less money then I'll do it; if I can get 85% of the performance for 1/2 the price then I'll do that too. What's so complicated about this? *snip*

See that's my problem with the 4850 launch. Everyone who claims to be unbiased and claimed the above seems to conveniently overlook the 8800GT and 8800GTS that offer exactly this or better relative to the 4850. Its like they're claiming 4850 is the best thing since sliced bread, but forgot that sliced bread came in the form of the G92 only 7-8 months ago. Like I've said the GTX+ only drives the point home as all it took for NV to reclaim that marginal lead over G92 was a small clock speed increase on a smaller process. Anyways, carry on.

 

[BenSkywalker]

While it may seem that logically 0xAA/AF means no AA/AF, technically it's really 1xAA/AF, due to the number of samples used, i.e. 2x AA means 2 z-samples per pixel, and so on. Without AA/AF, the hardware is still taking 1 z-sample per pixel, otherwise it wouldn't display the correct results.

Technically, you are incorrect. 2x AA does not indicate the number of Z samples- that would be 2x MSAA. 2x AA indicates the sampling utilized prior to downsampling for the purpose of anti aliasing. This number, with no AA, is 0. You could call is 1xMS(which itself is an oxymoron) but you can not correctly call it anti-aliasing as there is no anti aliasing happening with only native samples being utilized.

AF it is FAR more clearly pronounced. 1x AF is a complete oxymoron. A normal sampling footprint is isotropic- by definition it can not be anisotropic.

GT200@55nm taped out a while ago. This in and of itself doesn't mean anything conrete, they may have had to retape numerous times to get it proper. No idea honestly, but given the timelime on when this part was taped out it is possible that this part could hit the market in a relatively speaking short amount of time.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: shangshang
man, I really wonder how long AMD can keep selling products at a loss. They have 1.75 billion in cash with a 5.28 billion in debts. NV has 1.65 billion in cash and ZERO debt. I can only attribute the 4850 as a desperate attempt to gain market shares at all cost! I just hope they dont go tits up, because what they are doing can't sit too well with the investors.

AMD
Profit Margin (ttm): -49.74%
Operating Margin (ttm): -15.94%

NV
Profit Margin (ttm): 19.11%
Operating Margin (ttm): 20.38%

I'm actually amazed that AMD can keep doing what they're doing. Like I said, NV profit is so huge that unless AMD raise the threat a few nothces, NV is not going to rush it. My point is to show that NV is not in a desperate mode to act when their profits are overwhelming. NV long term strategic is to spend R&D in CUDA, which is beyond video gaming. I'm a bit off topic.

So, have anything to add about the 9800GTX+? Or are you going to go on about AMD's finances?

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Ok. I used C8xQAA

Snow: 68
Cave: 75

Now what?

Did you use dx10 or dx9?

What were you trying to find about anyway? You wanted to prove Computerbase benches are bogus?

DX10.

Bogus or legit. Either way. So far, looks bogus. If I got the same scores they did, I'd say they were legit. But I'm not, so I can't.

Steel Six, are you around? Have Lost Planet?

People have different way of testing.
True, but that is why I asked how the testing was done.

if you got 70 some fps with your "free" 280gtx
Didn't computerbase get their GTX280/HD4850 for free?
Or did they have to go and buy them at retail stores?
Free, has no bearing on the benchmarks I am getting. Free cards are not any faster
or slower than ones you pay for. Unless of course there was some underlying sentiment saying I'm lying about my scores? If so, what gives? You want truth? Or do you want BS?
Your call.

than you should also get 50 some fps with a 4850 the same way you benchmarked.
Which is why I plan to hook up with Steel Six who has just got himself two 4850's.
Lets test that theory shall we?

Computerbase is pretty much point on with their testings. I don't have any doubts about them.
Well, that's your call once again. I choose to test for myself. I believe me. LOL.

By the way, I just ran the bench at 1600x1200 C16xQAA 16xAF.
Snow: 56 Cave: 74

All this with a CPU running 1600MHz slower Quad core than computerbase (they ran a Q9770 o/c'd to 4GHz)

Computerbase might get the card free but I don't think they are members of any focus group and have allegiance to x company.

You seem very doubtful of the new 4850 but every major website including Anandtech says other wise. Your call. :brokenheart:

Wow. You're just full of opinions aren't you?
So, lets talk bluntly please. No beating around the bush sugar coating. Do you think I am reporting my results incorrectly? Do you think I am lying? Do you want to believe I am lying? Which is it?
Two things you have said now lead me to believe you are more biased than you "think" I am.
"Free". and "Allegiance".

YOU are the one bringing up these things. To what end?

This is the story:

I saw Tuteja's post with the CB benches for the HD4850, 9800GTX and GTX280.
I said to myself, "Self, let me try out the bench and see what I get a the same settings."
I did. Let Tuteja know what I got. I asked if I was doing anything wrong with my settings because they did not "jive" with CB's numbers. Just to make sure.

We discussed different AA modes and what they were. I tried them all and reported marks.
We noted that I was using DX10.
Then for some reason, you mention I had a "Free" card. And now you mention that I have an "allegiance". Highly improper for this conversation, don't you think?

And NOT ONCE did I say that the HD4850 marks were incorrect. How could I? I don't have one. YOU said it. Not me. I do not doubt the 4850's marks. Nor can I endorse them. Again, I don't have one. I do however have a 9800GTX and a GTX280. Those, I can comment on.

You are showing some colors here I do not care for. Far more biased than you would have us believe my friend. Far more than I could ever be. Sorry to tell you.

Do me, yourself, and the rest of this forum a favor. Keep your sour focus group propaganda to yourself when we are discussing tech. If you have an issue with me being in the focus group, start a personal forum issues thread. But you should probably have some kind of complaint first.

Thanks

Now I'm not supposed to have an opinion? :disgust:

I think you have very compelling reasons to bend the facts around you just like nRollo does. You are a member of Nvidia focus team are you not? Isn't this same reason why you stopped being Video Card moderator? What does this Focus group do anyway? Constantly praise Nvidia's products over it's competitors in forums?

I don't think you are lying about your benchmarks but like I said you getting somewhere in the 70fps range and Computerbase getting 40fps is because your testing might be different.

Like I said, start a personal forums thread if you have any issues with me.
There is no fact bending dude. Take off your tinfoil hat. I just ran a simple benchmark.

I have no issues with you. I just think you came off as a Nvidia supporter. Nothing wrong with that but now I don't think I can take your comments seriously.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: shangshang
^ sorry but I'm not here to look for anyone to take my side! I'm not looking for pathetic support.

What I have said I have given my reason why. Did I say anything without giving a reason? I just think some of you are too sensative!

Generally if valid points are made, people agree with you. You can keep on yammering away but don't expect anyone to think you're making a strong case for yourself.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I'm not a budget gamer or a college boy, but I still care very much for price/performance nonetheless. If I can get equal performance for less money then I'll do it; if I can get 85% of the performance for 1/2 the price then I'll do that too. What's so complicated about this? *snip*

See that's my problem with the 4850 launch. Everyone who claims to be unbiased and claimed the above seems to conveniently overlook the 8800GT and 8800GTS that offer exactly this or better relative to the 4850. Its like they're claiming 4850 is the best thing since sliced bread, but forgot that sliced bread came in the form of the G92 only 7-8 months ago. Like I've said the GTX+ only drives the point home as all it took for NV to reclaim that marginal lead over G92 was a small clock speed increase on a smaller process. Anyways, carry on.

The point of it is that for people who had cards between a 7800GTX and G80 640MB card had no real reason to upgrade. However, now that the 4850 is out, it offers unparalleled price/performance and a healthy boost over G92, which is good enough to justify an upgrade from the two previously mentioned cards to a 4850.

 

[CorCentral]

Originally posted by: shangshang
man, I really wonder how long AMD can keep selling products at a loss. They have 1.75 billion in cash with a 5.28 billion in debts. NV has 1.65 billion in cash and ZERO debt. I can only attribute the 4850 as a desperate attempt to gain market shares at all cost! I just hope they dont go tits up, because what they are doing can't sit too well with the investors.

AMD
Profit Margin (ttm): -49.74%
Operating Margin (ttm): -15.94%

NV
Profit Margin (ttm): 19.11%
Operating Margin (ttm): 20.38%

I'm actually amazed that AMD can keep doing what they're doing. Like I said, NV profit is so huge that unless AMD raise the threat a few nothces, NV is not going to rush it. My point is to show that NV is not in a desperate mode to act when their profits are overwhelming. NV long term strategic is to spend R&D in CUDA, which is beyond video gaming. I'm a bit off topic.

I agree. Amd has been lagging behind Intel for some time now. They had their hurrah back in the early 2000's, but Intel has been ruling the roost for a long time now!

Same for Nvidia vs/ATI ........ Can't last that much longer for AMD!

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I'm not a budget gamer or a college boy, but I still care very much for price/performance nonetheless. If I can get equal performance for less money then I'll do it; if I can get 85% of the performance for 1/2 the price then I'll do that too. What's so complicated about this? *snip*

See that's my problem with the 4850 launch. Everyone who claims to be unbiased and claimed the above seems to conveniently overlook the 8800GT and 8800GTS that offer exactly this or better relative to the 4850. Its like they're claiming 4850 is the best thing since sliced bread, but forgot that sliced bread came in the form of the G92 only 7-8 months ago. Like I've said the GTX+ only drives the point home as all it took for NV to reclaim that marginal lead over G92 was a small clock speed increase on a smaller process. Anyways, carry on.

The point of it is that for people who had cards between a 7800GTX and G80 640MB card had no real reason to upgrade. However, now that the 4850 is out, it offers unparalleled price/performance and a healthy boost over G92, which is good enough to justify an upgrade from the two previously mentioned cards to a 4850.

I'm not following you. Certainly you're not saying the upgrade from a pre-G80 GPU to the 8800GT is less difference than an 8800GT to a 4850. That means 4850 is ~2x faster than the 8800GT and its simply not, its just a marginal increase. If they didn't have a reason to upgrade to 8800GT than I'm not sure how 4850 suddenly becomes such an attractive option. The only reason that might make sense (to me) is having a CF board vs. SLI board and wanting to run the 4850s in CF.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I'm not a budget gamer or a college boy, but I still care very much for price/performance nonetheless. If I can get equal performance for less money then I'll do it; if I can get 85% of the performance for 1/2 the price then I'll do that too. What's so complicated about this? *snip*

See that's my problem with the 4850 launch. Everyone who claims to be unbiased and claimed the above seems to conveniently overlook the 8800GT and 8800GTS that offer exactly this or better relative to the 4850. Its like they're claiming 4850 is the best thing since sliced bread, but forgot that sliced bread came in the form of the G92 only 7-8 months ago. Like I've said the GTX+ only drives the point home as all it took for NV to reclaim that marginal lead over G92 was a small clock speed increase on a smaller process. Anyways, carry on.

The point of it is that for people who had cards between a 7800GTX and G80 640MB card had no real reason to upgrade. However, now that the 4850 is out, it offers unparalleled price/performance and a healthy boost over G92, which is good enough to justify an upgrade from the two previously mentioned cards to a 4850.

I'm not following you. Certainly you're not saying the upgrade from a pre-G80 GPU to the 8800GT is less difference than an 8800GT to a 4850. That means 4850 is ~2x faster than the 8800GT and its simply not, its just a marginal increase. If they didn't have a reason to upgrade to 8800GT than I'm not sure how 4850 suddenly becomes such an attractive option. The only reason that might make sense (to me) is having a CF board vs. SLI board and wanting to run the 4850s in CF.

I'm saying if I had a card >= 7800GTX and <= 640MB G80, I wouldn't have upgraded yet. Purchasing a 4850 at this point provide a tangible enough increase to all those cards to merit an upgrade IMO.

PS: 7800, 7900, and 7950GTX's were probably pretty ripe for replacement come G92, and I'm sure a handful of people upgraded then. However, by the time G92 arrived, there was already news of nvidia's and ati's new cards coming, so people might've held off. The GTX280 is a beast of a card, but people might not want to drop $600+ on one. In that case, getting a 4850 right now makes perfect sense.

Edit: I hope this clears what I said up. In no way whatsoever was I trying to imply that a jump from 7800GTX -> 8800GT is akin to 8800GT -> 4850.

Edit 2: Anyone who IS upgrading from an 8800GT to a 4850, I'll take your 8800GT off your hands for you

 

[zod96]

As I found out testing the 4850 against my 8800GT, the 4850 is pretty much equal to an 8800GT/GTS so if you have one of those cards don't bother upgrading to the 4850

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: zod96
As I found out testing the 4850 against my 8800GT, the 4850 is pretty much equal to an 8800GT/GTS so if you have one of those cards don't bother upgrading to the 4850

Would you be interested in publishing your setup and benchmarks to go with that?

 

[zod96]

Got my Ati 4850 Today This is replacing my 8800GT. I ran benches comparing the two on the same system. I used Driver Cleaner to change out drivers. Ok here goes.

Everything set to High using Windows Xp and DX9, Nvidia drivers used were 175.16 and the Ati drivers used were the new ones released today 8.6. Benches were done at 1680x1050

1. 0xAA 0xAF

8800GT Min: 20 Max: 38 Avg: 32
4850 Min: 26 Max: 41 Avg: 35

2. 0xAA 16xAF

8800GT Min: 19 Max: 35 Avg: 28
4850 Min: 25 Max: 40 Avg: 31

3. 2xAA 16xAF

8800GT Min: 18 Max: 28 Avg: 23
4850 Min: 16 Max: 28 Avg: 23

4. 4xAA 16xAF

8800GT Min: 14 Max: 24 Avg: 19
4850 Min 15 Max: 27 Avg: 22

Here's my default 3dmark 06 score with both cards

8800GT: 12600
4850: 11950

 

[bryanW1995]

he's posted some info on different threads, and, frankly, I agree with him. going from a g92 8800gt(s) to a 4850 is just plain silly unless you have a cf mobo and plan to go cf, or unless you're just a few fps low on your favorite game and you don't want cf. zod said that he was only 3-5 fps faster in an earlier post, which was in agreement with most of the published reviews that included 8800gt(s) g92 in their tests. I hate to quote toms, but I think that they're right on the money when they say that you need to go up at least 3 levels in video card to make it worth your money. 8800gt(s) is only a single step below 4850, while 4850 cf is ~ 280gtx, which will probably be 3 levels above 8800gt and probably worth the cost to upgrade.

edit: zod, the one game tested was crysis, right?

 

[zod96]

You hit the bulls eye with that remark bryan. Going from a GT to the 4850 is like taking one step, which isn't alot. Going to a GTX260-280 or a 4870 is like 3 steps. So a worthy upgrade to a 8800GT/GTS is a GTX260 or 4870 I think the GTX280 is a huge huge step and only needed if you game at like 1900x1200. Actually I tested COD4, Company of Heroes and BF2. And in all of them the 4850 was only about 3-5 fps faster

 

[allies]

zod - given your monitor is 1680x1050 it seems like you're not getting the most out of your card. The gap between the 4850 and 8800GT seems to appear at resolutions pushing more pixels than yours. Not necessarily a bad thing; it might mean that the gap between the 4850 and 8800GT will continue to widen with future games.