' Wrote:i am aware of the threads topic. i wasnt arguing with you, i was arguing with McNeo and his copy/paste post. he was trying to compare cards performance. as for price
True for us. But Rayne is in the UK, we're lucky in that being on the West Coast of North America we do a lot of commerce with Asia, as a result we see a lot of payoffs in how much technology we can access and how cheap it is. You more so than I being in the states.
You should price check a comparison in his locale, or even his country. I guarantee you'll notice a marked increase in costs.
I was doing it from memory? If you know me, my memory = fail. Fair point about the GTX 290 not existing
That said...
Quote:And you said the 8800gt=9800gt=gtx250. You are so wrong its not even funny. I have an 8800GT, It is an amazing card, but the 9800 and the 250 dominate it in everything, Better CPU, more Ram, More everything.
Duh. Of course they wouldnt make any cash if they only changed the name.
So yeah, they shrink the die, add a few hertz and swap the memory chips around.
In fact, the only major change between the 8800GT and the 9800GT was a die shrink. And perhaps support for one or two useless features.
Quote:They are not the same card with a different cooler and tag just strapped on. And the 4850? piece of junk. ATI has the worst graphics drivers support in history.
A piece of junk?
The best mid-range card when it came out, actually.
Same core as the much better equipped HD 4870, of which the HD 4890 is derived.
Quote:The only game i saw that the 4770 beat an 9800gt was FAR CRY 2, and thanks because that game was built around an ATI card.
Pull out some benchmarks and prove it. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/...hd-4770-512mb/4
That page starts with benchmarks of Crysis, Fallout 3, STALKER: Clear Sky, Call of Duty: world at war and Racedriver: GRID. The FPS values you should be interested in are the minimum frame rate values, as they determine whether the game is playable or not.
Transistor number
HD 4770: 826 million transistors
9800 GT: 754 million transistors
Raw processing power (theoretical maximum)
HD 4770: 960 Gigaflops
9800 GT: 338 Gigaflops
Of course, it all depends on how that processing power is used, both cards closely match each other despite their huge theoretical difference.
Rated Thermal Design Power (basically, a figure on how much power is converted into heat)
HD 4770: 80 watts
9800 GT: 110 watts
Regardless, you'll be better off with either of these cards than with a 9600 GT.
Quote: Just because you read that ATI is better then Nvidia on the internet, Doesn't make it true.
Yes, I was an Nvidia fanboy just like you. I bought an 8800 GTX for 400 pounds. Awesome card at the time, I was amazed at what it could do.
Then I bought a HD 4870 after the 8800 GTX died (got it replaced for free) and noticed a small increase in my frame rates. From a card that cost... 160 pounds when I bought it. Price rose since then, unfortunately.
Quote:I also noticed that you argued the lowest end of the Nvidia cards. those being the GTX250 and the 9800 GT.
the GTX version of the 9800 keeps well up with the 4770, and not to mention the 9800 GX2 which well over powers both the 4850, and the 4770.
The 9800 GTX is in a different range compared to the 4770. As is the 9800 GX2. Its a pointless comparison. I mean, how would Quadro cards fit into this discussion, for instance?
The GTX295 costs HOW MUCH? ~340 pounds.
The HD 4870X2 costs... ~270 pounds.
If you're going to make a point, don't bring in cards from irrelevant price ranges.
We're talking about a price range from about 90 quid downwards. That covers the 9800 GT and the HD 4770 as the best cards that kind of money can buy at this time.
Or you might try waiting for the DX 11 cards to come out.
Yeah your talking price/proformence, But that doesn't matter when you spend less money on a worse card that breaks down every what.... 2 months? My brother has a 4870, And i have a 8800gt, i can play all the same games better than he can.
[12:51:19 PM] Sean: Actually, Alex is cool, I forgot 8-)
For price/performance, and the proposed price range the Nvidia GTS250 is a better choice than the HD 4850,
1. Because it has overall better performance
2. Nvidia always has better support
On another note. i was all for ATi cards. but the simple fact is, Nvidia is better for all their releases to date.
and there are no "Quadro" cards as you put it, the 9800 GX2 and the GTX 295 are dual GPU cards. the prefix Quad does not come into the equation unless running SLI on 2 of these cards, which would then be called Quad-Sli.
Quote:and there are no "Quadro" cards as you put it, the 9800 GX2 and the GTX 295 are dual GPU cards. the prefix Quad does not come into the equation unless running SLI on 2 of these cards, which would then be called Quad-Sli.
Those are Quadro cards. Pointless to bring into this discussion? Yes? Yes. As are high end products such as the 295 GTX and so on. I brought my examples in originally to show my case for why ATi is currently better than Nvidia (which you do not agree with), not to prove a point about who can smash the most data together on to a screen the fastest >_>
Quote:For price/performance, and the proposed price range the Nvidia GTS250 is a better choice than the HD 4850,
Quote:We're talking about a price range from about 90 quid downwards. That covers the 9800 GT and the HD 4770 as the best cards that kind of money can buy at this time.
Also, the GTS250 and the HD 4850 are no longer in the same price range. Hence, again, sure the GTS 250 hands backside to the HD 4850, but it means nothing since they're each meant for different budgets.
![[Image: LibreIISuper_Small.png]](http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y287/Adelphus/LibreIISuper_Small.png)
![[Image: 61207_s.gif]](https://signavatar.com/61207_s.gif)