sumant30 Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Test System Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 @ 3.00GHz ASUS P5E3 Deluxe 2×1GB OCZ DDR3 1333MHz 9-9-9-26 Western Digital 250GB 16MB SATA2 7200RPM 1GB GeForce 9800 GX2 - 600/1500/2000mhz 512MB ATI HD 4870 - 800/3400mhz What do you think about this people? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashad Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 If these results are true it would be a great news, but unfortunately these results are not verified Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shought Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Nice to see ATI is fighting back... But for the moment i'm with Nvidia, and i won't be buying any of these Highest End cards any time soon :rolleyes: I'll just stick with the 'runs great on normal graphics and isn't able to render 1.000.000 moving grass sprites a second' cards. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demonon Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 As stated in rasad's link, these graphs aren't verified. So I just will keep waiting.But I think I will stay with my 8600 GT 256mb for a long time, so it doesn't bother me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shought Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 As stated in rasad's link, these graphs aren't verified. So I just will keep waiting.But I think I will stay with my 8600 GT 256mb for a long time, so it doesn't bother me.I've got exactly the same card! 8600GT 256MB. Mines from Zotac and it's the !AMP Edition(Factory overclocked). I like it, runs F.E.A.R. with everything on High and Volumetric Lights off with 2x AF and 2x AA great! It's a good card, but I think the fan is really a noisemaker when set to 100 %, but when put to 50 % you don't hear it. Max temperatures without playing a game lies about 50 degrees and whilst playing a game about 65 degrees. So it's fine :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demonon Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 I put the most cash on my processor, Ram and Mobo.I saw the 8600 and I thought it would be a good card so I bought it.I don't see myself playing games on ultra high settings. High or medium is good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shought Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 I put the most cash on my processor, Ram and Mobo.I saw the 8600 and I thought it would be a good card so I bought it.I don't see myself playing games on ultra high settings. High or medium is good enough for me.Hmmmm, I was used to integrated graphics and I thought buying a card for 69,- was quite cheap. So I expected the result not to be astonishing, but it was :dance2:Going to upgrade in a year or two to a new card, probably have some money by then to buy an even more high-end card, since this is amazing for me :D I'm really happy with my new PC, and now using SystemBooster and UD in combination it's even more fast than when I got it :D :dance2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demonon Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Yeah but with my settings I really don't need that much optimisation.I see myself buying the new cards in like 1 year.I think my q6600 will survive for pretty long, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demonon Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Check this out:http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_radeon_hd_4850_geforce_9800_gtx+/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shought Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Check this out:http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_ra...orce_9800_gtx+/(I can't do it in Url tags because it won't accept the +)I think these are some real results.Do it like this then: (Above link didn't work either ;))http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_radeon_hd_4850_geforce_9800_gtx+/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrVoice Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I don't get it. This link goes to an article that shows me benchmarks in which the Radeon is beaten by the nVidia in 90%+ of the tests... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shought Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I don't get it. This link goes to an article that shows me benchmarks in which the Radeon is beaten by the nVidia in 90%+ of the tests...Do you see any HD 4870 listed there? These are just some more comparison charts with other cards :welcome: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demonon Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Just go ahead some pages and you will see comparing them these 2 new cards and some other ones.I still don't what I really need to believe, I just will wait until I see something official.Edit, when you look closely at the page I posted it's a single Radeon HD 4850 (512mb) versus a GeForce 9800 GTX+And this are the final thoughts:ConclusionHad their launch gone off unopposed, AMD would have made a huge splash with the introduction of the Radeon HD 4850. Priced at $199 this card would have been a GeForce 8800 GT killer. Our testing reveals that the board runs up to 22% faster than the GeForce 8800 GT. But unfortunately for AMD, it appears that the Radeon HD 4850 won’t be going up against the GeForce 8800 GT. Instead, as a result of NVIDIA’s latest price cuts, the 4850 will be going head-to-head with the much mightier GeForce 9800 GTX.This battle is a neck-and-neck race. In games like Quake Wars, F.E.A.R., and Call of Duty 4, our testing gave the edge to the 4850. But in Lost Planet DX10 and BioShock DX10 the GeForce 9800 GTX ran faster than the 4850 (in Company of Heroes, the 4850 and 9800 GTX traded wins). Meanwhile Crysis, HL2 Episode Two, and Oblivion were too close to call. Depending on which games you play (and perhaps certain levels in the same game) the edge could go to AMD or NVIDIA in our preliminary testing.Clearly the moral of this story if you’re AMD is to keep your plans quiet. If AMD had done a better job of keeping the details on RV770 under wraps, NVIDIA wouldn’t have had the opportunity to spoil their big launch. NVIDIA’s lesson learned is to not underestimate AMD. We along with everyone else in the online media were extremely disappointed by the original 9800 GTX launch: the card offered little over the GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB, much less an 8800 GTX or 8800 Ultra. The GeForce 9800 GTX+ is what the original 9800 GTX should have been in our opinion. The 9800 GTX runs about 8 or 9% faster than the 9800 GTX, which still isn’t always enough to overtake the 8800 Ultra, but it’s definitely an improvement. The disappointing part about the 9800 GTX+ is that these cards won’t hit shelves until sometime in July.The Radeon 4850 will hit retail as soon as June 25th, giving it a few weeks head start over the GTX+. And we don’t know when NVIDIA’s new pricing will take effect. A quick glance at Newegg right now reveals that 9800 GTX boards are still selling for well over $199.We’ll have more benchmarks with the 4850 and GTX+ next week, as well as AMD’s higher-performing Radeon HD 4870. If a Radeon HD 4850 can outrun a GeForce 9800 GTX in some cases, imagine what a 4870 can do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsychoticxBloodxLust Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 all i can say is ati had vidia for as far as built in physics but now that nvidia has there 200 series is even a need for a ageia add-in phys-x processor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumant30 Posted September 16, 2008 Author Share Posted September 16, 2008 I think its unfair to compare 4850 with 9800 gt because 4850 is a lower end card and 4870 now has beaten 9800 gt x2 in almost all games and that too 4870 single core . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.