ricanflow
Golden Master
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Euless, Tx
The HD 4850 is faster than the 9800GTX+ overall, as evidenced by it's higher position on the graphics card rankings, so zmatt's opinion is not biased. He may have been harsh in saying the 9800gtx+ is "inferior" but it doesn't change the fact what he said is true.
Im not saying it isn't better overall, but like i said certain games do better with 9800 series cards, and they have cuda and physix, which is a fact.
I wouldn't have to use words like inferior, if you guys weren't so stubborn about it.
Its not being stubborn, inferior is not the way to say it. You can say better overall, but not inferior. That makes me think of something that shouldn't be on the market.
Turn on AA, then watch how RV770 scales against G92 or G200
RV770 is actually powerful enough to use AA with, in Crysis
I play warhead @ 1440x900 with 2xAA on mainstream smoothly. Looking at the results in the benchmark thread, Nvidia still has the advantage.
Crysis isn't the only game in the world. The reason Nvidia cards are better at it is because Nvidia paid for it to be "optimized" for them. thats a fact.
And i never said it was. Im just trying to point out that the fastest overall gpu isnt right for everyone, as you can see even nos is going back to GTX cards, because for his purposes theyre better.
We should take this into consideration, not just simply saying "this is the best card, get this one".
Its also a fact that the general performance of the 9800GTX+ is lower than that of the 4850, so yes technically that makes it inferior. I'm sorry if you don't liek that word, but I am following the definition.
in·fe·ri·or Pronunciation: \in-ˈfir-ē-ər\ Function:adjective Etymology:Middle English, from Latin, comparative of inferus lower — more at underDate:15th century 1: situated lower down : lower2 a: of low or lower degree or rank b: of poor quality : mediocre3: of little or less importance, value, or merit
A 9800GTX+ is not a mediocre card, it is a fast card, simply not as fast overall as the 4850, but faster in other areas.
nvidia does have better drivers on average and they do get released more often. But when did I ever say that ATI's were better? In fact, you can find me in several places on the forums saying the catalyst 8.9 sucks. That is also a well known fact.
I never stated you did, i was just staing an advantage that the product you claim to be "inferior" has.
The 4850 is higher on the list for a reason, and that reason is it is simply a faster card. I'm sorry, but even if it is 1fps faster, its still faster.
I believe you were the same person who posted "so you have a 4 fps advantage over me, so much for an nvidia advantage".
So if 4 fps doesn't matter to you in that case, why does 1fps matter so much now??
I'm not saying anything new here. This has been beat into the ground. The 9800GTX+ isn't bad by any stretch, but the attempts to recommend it over better cards when it really only has two things going for it is a little foolish and biased.
Its not biased.
I find it biased ignoring the advantages of one card over the other, simply because your card is "faster overall" when the person may not care or play games where it is faster.
I don't even own a 9800GTX or 9800GTX+, and i have used ATI cards in the past and may in the future, so my opinion is not biased.
I don't see why I always end up being devils advocate, but I will defend the logical choice as long as I can. Crysis is the only game where Nvidia cards show a clear advantage (and IMO its an unfair one) and F@H is not used by the vast majority of pc owners or even gamers. I tried it. Then realized the talk of it scaling back when I played a game was a lie, as my fps fell through the floor. Not only that, but it hasn't actually cured anything. They have many times the power of the most powerful super computer and they can't cure a disease? Please, I'll believe all of your effort Rican when something comes out of it. In fact. The day they come out and say they have cured a Major disease, I will eat my words and will go to newegg and buy a folding system. I doubt it will happen any time soon.
F@H wasn't even in the original debate, but i guess ill throw it in. Nvidia shines here, and its great. Yes they have loads of power and haven't cured anything, but its not up to Pande Lab to do this.
They simply make the information and results available. Its up to scientists from around the world to take the results and apply them to their own research and find a cure for diseases.
They have only started focusing on this since 2006, because the first 5 years of F@H was shaky ground, and they focused on getting the code more stable and results quicker.
But many gamers are in fact running F@H, just look at the teams list and youll see all the large forums have a team.
Since it is only superior in Crysis, and F@H isn't taking the world by storm, I think its safe to say that 90% of the situations would warrant an r700.
crysis isn't the only game, ive seen advantages in several games actually. not to mention you can run geforce physx as well, without having to spring for an additional card.
You know its funny, I would have expected the AMD fanboys to be ATI fanboys also. It must have something to do with the color green.......
Lets not start this. I really hope you weren't talking about me, cause there's an LGA 775 system in my closet on right now. My centrino lappy is in my laptop bag as well.