Some time ago, I benchmarked an HD 4850 I ordered on behalf of a friend in Peru (cheaper for him that way), and it actually performed WORSE than my 8800 GT (which is nigh identical to a 9800 GT), so I don't know how you guys are saying it's faster. Then again, perhaps Catalyst 8.10 just sucked, and there were massive improvements in later driver revisions for all I know. That's the only explanation I can think of.
[QUOTE="NamelessPlayer"]Some time ago, I benchmarked an HD 4850 I ordered on behalf of a friend in Peru (cheaper for him that way), and it actually performed WORSE than my 8800 GT (which is nigh identical to a 9800 GT), so I don't know how you guys are saying it's faster. Then again, perhaps Catalyst 8.10 just sucked, and there were massive improvements in later driver revisions for all I know. That's the only explanation I can think of. Or your testing was limited. Like maybe you only tested Crysis or something. lol
[QUOTE="Captain__Tripps"][QUOTE="NamelessPlayer"]Some time ago, I benchmarked an HD 4850 I ordered on behalf of a friend in Peru (cheaper for him that way), and it actually performed WORSE than my 8800 GT (which is nigh identical to a 9800 GT), so I don't know how you guys are saying it's faster. Then again, perhaps Catalyst 8.10 just sucked, and there were massive improvements in later driver revisions for all I know. That's the only explanation I can think of. Or your testing was limited. Like maybe you only tested Crysis or something. lol Could be that as well...but I also tested some older games that were being problematic on the 8800 GT. The HD 4850 exhibited the same graphical glitches on one, while it outright crashed in another. However, one of those games has already been fixed for modern systems (thank you very much, Timeslip of DDfix fame!), and the other now just outright crashes on my 8800 GT as well, making those comparisons irrelevant. Other than that, Crysis was the only game I had that would really hammer those cards. Bioshock would've run smooth as butter on either, as would Battlefield 2 and IL-2: 1946. I didn't have ArmA then, so I couldn't have tested that.
The Gts 250 is the same as a 9800GTX+ - - except - - it's a different size, has a different power architecture, uses less power, has better performance, and runs cooler.
'
Yep - sounds the same to me
'
Sometimes this board is hilarious
Born_Lucky
What's even more hilarious is that no-one does their research before posting. Both the 55nm 9800GTX+ and GTS250 consume the same amount of power; they're essentially the same card.
[QUOTE="A_9"][QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="A_9"] Go for HD4850. Cheaper, faster and don't get hot ^_^ My 4850 idles at like 67C =\ Oh, idling at 67C? Well, first, take out ALL dust. Then get a FAN, for gods sake. And your cards fan are probably broken to, since my friends HD 4850 are in full load at 65C. My PC has 5+ fans and I dust it out every two weeks. The card just has a ridiculously poor fan. Either the cards runs hot, or the fan runs loud. Your pick.
[QUOTE="NamelessPlayer"]Some time ago, I benchmarked an HD 4850 I ordered on behalf of a friend in Peru (cheaper for him that way), and it actually performed WORSE than my 8800 GT (which is nigh identical to a 9800 GT), so I don't know how you guys are saying it's faster. Then again, perhaps Catalyst 8.10 just sucked, and there were massive improvements in later driver revisions for all I know. That's the only explanation I can think of. My 4850 performs worse than my 9800GTX too. It probably performs worse than the GTS250, which I'd recommend wholeheartedly of the 4850.
Well, a gts 250 != a 8800gt... But yeah I think a gts 250 is a better buy than a 4850 nowadays, since you can usually find it for the same or less, wasn't always the case though.
Log in to comment