Hd 4850 vs 9800 gtx+? Ur opinion?

[ricanflow]

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.

 

[thirdshiftdj]

everyone is in competition mode eh?

 

[NosBoost300]

4850 and 9800 can both suck it.. woooo gtx260

 

[veg1992]

yup, they're gone.. gtx 260 shipping out tomorrow... imma stick to the green! 780i coming maybe next paycheck

oh god....

I know first hand how RV770 scales with AA. I am the owner of two (2) 4870's.

Now I just need to get a more powerful PSU so I can run both of them at once (Corsair TX-750 ordered)

but ****, I barely saw any performance hit with 8X AA compared to 0X AA, with a single card.

You already moved to two HD 4870's? Any plans on the Quad sooner or later?

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.



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.



I play warhead @ 1440x900 with 2xAA on mainstream smoothly. Looking at the results in the benchmark thread, Nvidia still has the advantage.



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".



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.



I never stated you did, i was just staing an advantage that the product you claim to be "inferior" has.



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??



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.



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.



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.



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.

The HD 4850's price is going up and the 9800GTX+ is pretty affordable now.. only $20 more than a 9800GT

 

[Nagasama]

I know first hand how RV770 scales with AA. I am the owner of two (2) 4870's.

Now I just need to get a more powerful PSU so I can run both of them at once (Corsair TX-750 ordered)

but ****, I barely saw any performance hit with 8X AA compared to 0X AA, with a single card.

i have exactly 0% performance loss ruinning 8x AA 16 AF. and lets be honest...this is only the second ATI card i have owned, i didnt like my hd2900 pro very much...but i will say, the image quality is MUCH better with this card than it was with ANY of the nvidia cards i have had, including the gtx280.

 

[ricanflow]

If the 9800GX2 wasnt so affordable right now, i would be looking at getting a 4870X2.

Ive been gaming more often lately, and its really hurting my ppd. So my plan is to move to a 9800GX2 so i could fold on one gpu, while i game on the other...and fold on both while not gaming at all.

 

[thirdshiftdj]

is folding that addictive?

 

[ricanflow]

Yes...look at this guys setup:
Folding Forum • View topic - Folding Farms

 

[thirdshiftdj]

lol , I asked the folding addict if it was addictive.

 

[zmatt]

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??

You are taking that out of context. I was saying that as a rebuttal to claims that Nvidia cards have an overwhelming advantage in Crysis. They have an advantage, but not as large as everyone says.

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".

I cannot ocunt the number of times I have said jsut that. I completely agree with the argument that the 4850 does not fit everyone's situation. I have even used you as an example to argue such a point. But instead you are making me out to look like someone who asserts the 4850 is the only option. I only say that is it the right option for 90% of the chaps building pc's. Simply because the paired advantage of only playing Crysis and folding is not together that common, and I believe that two merits do not out weigh the 4850's multiple ones. Yes there are circumstances where a 9800GTX+ or any Nvidia card for that matter would work best, but they are few and far between. And the instance on pushing them is annoying. If someone comes to the forums and says "I need a new video card. I play crysis and I am part of a folding @ home team" Then I would immediately chime in recommending Nvidia. But like I said, that doesn't happen much.

I play warhead @ 1440x900 with 2xAA on mainstream smoothly. Looking at the results in the benchmark thread, Nvidia still has the advantage.

And today I was running mainstream with 4x AA at 1280x1024 and getting between 30-40 fps.

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.

Funny how you skipped the 1st definition and used the 2nd and 3rd. I didn't say the 9800GTX+ was of poor quality or mediocre, anyone who says that is full of ****. I said it was Inferior, which as per the definition you provied means " situated lower down" or "of low or lower degree or rank". Well guess what, it is. There is no Bias in that. its a slower card. not a slow card, or an incredibly badly built card, just a slower card.

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.

And the 4850 has Havok and does better in more games. Also a fact.


I'm not bashing the card, I'm countering the unrealistic assertions by Nvidia Fanboys.
And, Nos didn't switch because they were better per se, he switched because he loves crysis and wants to max it. he said so himself, and that makes perfect sense.