who regrets buying a 4850?

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Originally posted by: zod96
So your saying if I would have applied say 8xAA the 4850 would have blown away the GT even at 1680x1050?

are you running similar nvidia and ati desktop settings as well as ingame?

 

[IlllI]

guyz why doez my 4850 not get many fps as my nvidiar ti200? i am very angry at ati for misleading me about this card being better

 

[zod96]

Yes exactly

 

[lavaheadache]

Originally posted by: zod96
So your saying if I would have applied say 8xAA the 4850 would have blown away the GT even at 1680x1050?

thats what he's saying.... btw, I just installed my 4870 from sli'ed 8800GT's and this ah heck seems to be almost as fast. the only game I can say that it feels slightly slower in is crysis. But even then it seems just as smooth since I always noticed a little microstuttering here and there with the GT's

 

[zod96]

So at 1680x1050 the 4850 is bet

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: zod96

I had both the 8800GT and the 4850 for a week. I game at 1680x1050 with an Intel E8400 Overlcocked to 3.6 and 4gb PC1600 DDR3 Ram running 7-7-7-18 1T timmings and I have an intel X48 motherboard so not a low end system and no cpu bottleneck. Using windows Xp. When I tested the above mentioned games I used 4xAA and 16xAf and off I went with fraps to benchmark.

Like I said, you have a CPU bottleneck; your resolution is very low and your AA level is also low.

Of course you have a CPU bottleneck. Why else do you think review sites are painting a very different picture to what you?re telling us?

I wish this card was as fast as all the review sites say, but I found it just wasn't the case.

It is as fast as the review sites say it is, your settings just can't push the card properly.

At 1600x1200 with 8xAA the 4850 is 96% faster than a 8800 GT overall.

http://www.computerbase.de/art...nitt_performancerating.

Your system is too misconfigured to adequately test even mid-range GPUs.

 

[Cookie Monster]

How is a E8400@ 3.6GHz causing a CPU bottleneck?!?

And enabling AA on a card that is already chugging in performance?? wouldnt that kill performance even more (and the cards are already at like 20fps)?

 

[zod96]

That is what I'm wondering

 

[lavaheadache]

it is a cpu bottleneck because the card has left over power to do "free" AA. ie. Since the AA is having little performance impact there must be a cpu bottleneck

 

[natty1]

you're not very bright if you upgraded from an 8800GT and expected a significant performance increase

the reviews clearly show that a 4850 performs similar to a 9800GTX

 

[zod96]

Well if that's true than why does it preform as good as the GT and not better, let alone a GTX

 

[Elcs]

If you are running XP, that is a possible issue.

I have looked into an issue with Age of Conan whereby my HD4870 (not 4850) is performing equally to my 8800GT @ 1280x720. One thing that crops up a lot, between users with poor performance and ones with great performance (with almost any card, Nvidia 8/9/GT series included) is that one runs XP and the other uses Vista, usually Vista 64.

I do realise that this is only one game and that it is not something which fixes everyones problems but that is a strong link with certain games. Check the OS used in these benchmarks which show the 4850 outshining the 8800GT and I would stake some of my hard earned cash that most used Vista64.

We can talk about CPU and GPU bottlenecks all day in most games but I think we are now seeing a phase of bad drivers/bad engines or something just not drawing upon the resources available eg. AoC draws less than 50% of my X2 6000+ and when set to one core, doesnt draw a full 50%... GPU utilisation is 20-40% according to CCC, whether accurate or not, it leads me to suspect that something isnt allowing AoC to draw upon the full power available to it.

I am now in the process of a clean Vista 64 install.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: zod96
Well if that's true than why does it preform as good as the GT and not better, let alone a GTX

user error

seriously, this is like you saying a certain car is just as fast as a faster car, but the problem is you just really don't know how to drive the faster car...its been proven, accept it / get over it. If you're never going to take that car onto a real track and never push it, that's fine, that's a good choice to stick with the slower car and save some money

 

[AlgaeEater]

No way no how does the 8800GT to 4850 like night and day performance gain. I think expectations were a little too high and that's why the disappointment came honestly.

Also if zod96's computer doesn't have "the right stuff", then god damn I must have a computer not worth playing Solitaire on.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Elcs
If you are running XP, that is a possible issue.

I have looked into an issue with Age of Conan whereby my HD4870 (not 4850) is performing equally to my 8800GT @ 1280x720. One thing that crops up a lot, between users with poor performance and ones with great performance (with almost any card, Nvidia 8/9/GT series included) is that one runs XP and the other uses Vista, usually Vista 64.

I do realise that this is only one game and that it is not something which fixes everyones problems but that is a strong link with certain games. Check the OS used in these benchmarks which show the 4850 outshining the 8800GT and I would stake some of my hard earned cash that most used Vista64.

We can talk about CPU and GPU bottlenecks all day in most games but I think we are now seeing a phase of bad drivers/bad engines or something just not drawing upon the resources available eg. AoC draws less than 50% of my X2 6000+ and when set to one core, doesnt draw a full 50%... GPU utilisation is 20-40% according to CCC, whether accurate or not, it leads me to suspect that something isnt allowing AoC to draw upon the full power available to it.

I am now in the process of a clean Vista 64 install.

I think this is a very interesting theory. I realize that I haven't touched XP quite a while. I use XP only as VMs and there is no 3D acceleration there. We know NV used to have a reputation of "Golden standard" when it comes to drivers under XP. My SLI experience while back was a positive one, too. It became a totally diifferent story in Vista (64bit) and I feel like breathing again with games taking a different route this time (AMD/ATI).

I wonder how user experiences of RV770 differ by individual choice of OS. Maybe we could do a poll or something?

 

[Jessica69]

Originally posted by: AlgaeEater
No way no how does the 8800GT to 4850 like night and day performance gain. I think expectations were a little too high and that's why the disappointment came honestly.

Also if zod96's computer doesn't have "the right stuff", then god damn I must have a computer not worth playing Solitaire on.

Like has been said before, almost without exception, the benchmark testing on websites had one thing in common that zod's computer lacks.....Vista 64. And we're probably starting to see hardware that is performing better under a proper 64-bit environment than a 32-bit....drivers? Dunno....but I know my 4850 is durn fast....faster than the 8800 it had in it a while ago.

 

[Bateluer]

ATI releases new Catalyst every month, so its not like you're going to have to wait very long for the official 8.7 Cats.

I noticed a very definite speed bump when I upgraded to my 4870, but I previously owned a 2900XT. It was fast, but the 4870 blows it out of the water.

 

[The Odorous One]

4850 x 2....happy user now and it will only get better.....Vista x64

 

[BFG10K]

It has nothing to do with the OS, people!

It has everything to do with 1680x1050 + 4xAA being too low to tax even a mid-range video card like the 4850.

It's like testing GLQuake at 320x240 on a 8600 and GTX280, getting similar scores and then saying "gee, I thought the GTX280 is faster than the 8600, but I guess not", "I guess my expectations were too high", or "it must be XP causing the problem".

I already posted a link with the 4850 being 96% faster overall when using 8xAA in selected benchmarks. 96% is almost twice as fast.

This is simple CPU bottlenecking 101. He isn?t pushing his GPU so he?s basically testing his CPU and (surprise!) not getting any real difference between the cards.

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

How is a E8400@ 3.6GHz causing a CPU bottleneck?!?

By the fact that his system is only being run at 1680x1050 with 4xAA so it?s not taxing the cards enough to show the expected difference.

And enabling AA on a card that is already chugging in performance?? wouldnt that kill performance even more (and the cards are already at like 20fps)?

When was it established his card was doing 20 FPS? If it?s only at 20 FPS @ 1680 x 1050 then he?s got an even bigger issue with his system than I thought.

]Originally posted by: zod96

Well if that's true than why does it preform as good as the GT and not better, let alone a GTX

Because your CPU is holding it back.

It?s kind of like you buying a Ferrari, constantly driving in rush hour traffic, and then claiming you?re disappointed because you trip duration isn?t any shorter than your old Mini.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: shangshang
I got rid of my 8800GT 512MB to jump on the 4850 bandwagon when Best Buy had it for $150 without rebate. So Ebayed off the 8800GT, and in went the 4850.

Let's see. First there was the high temperature issue, with my 4850 hiting as high as 93-95C when my ambient room temp is 92F, causing random crashes in games. So had to pretty much stop gaming when room temp gets this high. But that was before the BIOS and fan mod, and after modding the BIOS/fan mod, temp. improved a bit and games stopped crashing. But the fact that I even have to do this for "fix" the issue is quite unacceptable.

Then comes unstable drivers issues. Now that the temp. issue is fixed, and I had more time to "game", I find that my games are now crashing because of shoddy drivers. None of them are crashing on my buddy's PC which has the 8800GT. This could only be one thing, it's the 4850 drivers. And speaking of drivers, AMD has yet to officially release them for the 48xx series yet. Wow, one month after the release of the 4850 hardware, the software portion is still a hack.

Other than the fantastic benchmarks of the 4850 posts on all the techie websites (such as this one), real life gaming (at least for me) stability remains elusive. So while I spend my time mucking with... oh let's see.. Catalyst 8.6, then 8.6 hotfix, then 8.7 leaked beta, my buddies are gaming without me on their ancient 8800GTs. I guess at the end of the day, I can comfort myself that my 4850 out benches their 8800GTs!

I reckon by the time AMD releases an official Catalyst for the 4850, the price will probably drop 20%. I guess AMD just want to get the hardware out asap and use end users as beta testers. I understand every releaese has its teething period with drivers, but what AMD is doing is crap.

Next time when I decide to buy AMD, I will make sure they post the drivers for their hardware on their site first. For those who haven't bought the 4850 yet, don't buy it until AMD releases stable drivers. For those with 8800GT 512mb, don't even think about buying this.

I know the AMD boys are reading this at work, and they better not be laughing!

My Gigabyte 4870 can reach 92C under the FurMark stress/stability test ,however in normal gaming all day ie Mass Effect,Mythos,Oblivion,UT2004 etc it never crashes or produces any artifacts on screen,I do live in the UK so we have the cooler weather(18c here at the moment) plus my 4x 80mm case fans and 120mm fan help keep the temps down.


I'm going to do some more futher game testing and try the profile hack later see how that goes,btw do try FurMark it stresses video cards like nothing else plus also gives you onscreen live GPU temps as it benchmarks etc...

End of the day I'm very happy with my 4870 it has not given me any issues so far.
I'm using the 8.6 hotfix drivers.

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
It has nothing to do with the OS, people!

It has everything to do with 1680x1050 + 4xAA being too low to tax even a mid-range video card like the 4850.

It's like testing GLQuake at 320x240 on a 8600 and GTX280, getting similar scores and then saying "gee, I thought the GTX280 is faster than the 8600, but I guess not", "I guess my expectations were too high", or "it must be XP causing the problem".

I already posted a link with the 4850 being 96% faster overall when using 8xAA in selected benchmarks. 96% is almost twice as fast.

This is simple CPU bottlenecking 101. He isn?t pushing his GPU so he?s basically testing his CPU and (surprise!) not getting any real difference between the cards.

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

How is a E8400@ 3.6GHz causing a CPU bottleneck?!?

By the fact that his system is only being run at 1680x1050 with 4xAA so it?s not taxing the cards enough to show the expected difference.

And enabling AA on a card that is already chugging in performance?? wouldnt that kill performance even more (and the cards are already at like 20fps)?

When was it established his card was doing 20 FPS? If it?s only at 20 FPS @ 1680 x 1050 then he?s got an even bigger issue with his system than I thought.

]Originally posted by: zod96

Well if that's true than why does it preform as good as the GT and not better, let alone a GTX

Because your CPU is holding it back.

It?s kind of like you buying a Ferrari, constantly driving in rush hour traffic, and then claiming you?re disappointed because you trip duration isn?t any shorter than your old Mini.

My OS suggestion comes from the fact that in Age of Conan, many people are having problems with high end cards AND QUAD CORE processors. You then have people with weaker systems playing the game flawlessly.

GPU and CPU usage in AoC is low under AoC and I am one of many having terrible performance problems at ANY resolution (1280x720 and 1980x1080, I get better performance at 1920x1080 same settings) under the XP OS. Most threads with people claiming no problems and good performance are those running Vista64 and their CCC is telling them their GPU usage is consistantly high.

Of course, not everyone has this problem on XP and some have it on Vista but there is a strong correlation between them both.

In this case, maybe the OP is CPU bound but XP performance in games MAY be different to Vista and that can explain differences between "reality" (the OP's experience) and benchmarks.

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: Elcs
If you are running XP, that is a possible issue.

I have looked into an issue with Age of Conan whereby my HD4870 (not 4850) is performing equally to my 8800GT @ 1280x720. One thing that crops up a lot, between users with poor performance and ones with great performance (with almost any card, Nvidia 8/9/GT series included) is that one runs XP and the other uses Vista, usually Vista 64.

I do realise that this is only one game and that it is not something which fixes everyones problems but that is a strong link with certain games. Check the OS used in these benchmarks which show the 4850 outshining the 8800GT and I would stake some of my hard earned cash that most used Vista64.

We can talk about CPU and GPU bottlenecks all day in most games but I think we are now seeing a phase of bad drivers/bad engines or something just not drawing upon the resources available eg. AoC draws less than 50% of my X2 6000+ and when set to one core, doesnt draw a full 50%... GPU utilisation is 20-40% according to CCC, whether accurate or not, it leads me to suspect that something isnt allowing AoC to draw upon the full power available to it.

I am now in the process of a clean Vista 64 install.

I think this is a very interesting theory. I realize that I haven't touched XP quite a while. I use XP only as VMs and there is no 3D acceleration there. We know NV used to have a reputation of "Golden standard" when it comes to drivers under XP. My SLI experience while back was a positive one, too. It became a totally diifferent story in Vista (64bit) and I feel like breathing again with games taking a different route this time (AMD/ATI).

I wonder how user experiences of RV770 differ by individual choice of OS. Maybe we could do a poll or something?

When I get home from work, hopefully Vista64 will be on my PC (left it in the capable hands of my dad) and I will post links to some of my findings. The situation with AoC I am finding to be rather odd and some of what is happening is leaving me without an explanation (assuming exact same settings, 1920x1080 is providing better FPS than 1280x720).

 

[jiffylube1024]

No regrets here. I went from a 2600XT to a HD4850. I can notice a difference .

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
It has nothing to do with the OS, people!

It has everything to do with 1680x1050 + 4xAA being too low to tax even a mid-range video card like the 4850.

It's like testing GLQuake at 320x240 on a 8600 and GTX280, getting similar scores and then saying "gee, I thought the GTX280 is faster than the 8600, but I guess not", "I guess my expectations were too high", or "it must be XP causing the problem".

I already posted a link with the 4850 being 96% faster overall when using 8xAA in selected benchmarks. 96% is almost twice as fast.

This is simple CPU bottlenecking 101. He isn?t pushing his GPU so he?s basically testing his CPU and (surprise!) not getting any real difference between the cards.

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

How is a E8400@ 3.6GHz causing a CPU bottleneck?!?

By the fact that his system is only being run at 1680x1050 with 4xAA so it?s not taxing the cards enough to show the expected difference.

And enabling AA on a card that is already chugging in performance?? wouldnt that kill performance even more (and the cards are already at like 20fps)?

When was it established his card was doing 20 FPS? If it?s only at 20 FPS @ 1680 x 1050 then he?s got an even bigger issue with his system than I thought.

]Originally posted by: zod96

Well if that's true than why does it preform as good as the GT and not better, let alone a GTX

Because your CPU is holding it back.

It?s kind of like you buying a Ferrari, constantly driving in rush hour traffic, and then claiming you?re disappointed because you trip duration isn?t any shorter than your old Mini.

More cpu bottlenecks than 8800gt? He's supposedly getting about same fps as 8800gt? CPU isn't going to do too much at all at that resolution with AA. Sure his performance would improve with higher clocked CPU but it will be minuscule one at best. Turn down a resolution or two and faster CPU would improve more.

I don't get how the OP bought a card that is about 10-20% faster than his 8800gt thought it was going to be a huge improvement? He should try turning on 8xMSAA to all his games that would yield better results.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Azn
More cpu bottlenecks than 8800gt? He's supposedly getting about same fps as 8800gt? CPU isn't going to do too much at all at that resolution with AA. Sure his performance would improve with higher clocked CPU but it will be minuscule one at best. Turn down a resolution or two and faster CPU would improve more.

I don't get how the OP bought a card that is about 10-20% faster than his 8800gt thought it was going to be a huge improvement? He should try turning on 8xMSAA to all his games that would yield better results.

That would be CPU bottlenecking...if a GPU can seemingly perform much harder tasks without consequence, it isn't being given enough work to do fast enough by the CPU...

 

[SilentRunning]

Originally posted by: shangshang
...
Let's see. First there was the high temperature issue, with my 4850 hiting as high as 93-95C when my ambient room temp is 92F, causing random crashes in games. So had to pretty much stop gaming when room temp gets this high. But that was before the BIOS and fan mod, and after modding the BIOS/fan mod, temp. improved a bit and games stopped crashing. But the fact that I even have to do this for "fix" the issue is quite unacceptable.
...

Maybe if you had left the card alone it wouldn't be having issues.

Originally posted by: shangshang
...
I did change the thermal paste before even installing the card, so I don't know the temp with the old paste. But I did noticed the old thermal paste was a bit hard, so I just slap on a fresh patch.
...