The Short List: the Best Gaming Videocards for the money - Page 19

Last message on previous page:
Benchmarks seem to disagree with you; the 4850, in Crysis, (pretty much the only game there's a difference at with such potent cards) averages a 35-38% lead over the 9800GTX+ when anti-aliasing is enabled.

The chart doesn't mention the Radeon HD3650 or the GeForce 9500GT. Where would they fit in? Which is the better card?

Even the 9800GTX+ ges PWND buy the 4850. Its a real good mid range GPU!!

I wouldn't called it "PWND" unless you were speaking of situations like Crysis with AA enabled, where it does hold a ~35-38% lead over the 9800GTX+, depending on resolution. In other games, it holds closer to something like an 8-10% lead with AA enabled, and a thin margin with AA disabled. However, the results I see seem to suggest that the 4850 would be a more "future-proof" card, as it can be said that Crysis is an example of how more and more games will be like, graphically and computationally, in a few years' time.

I have the least bit of interest in playing Crysis, Bioshock or any of those games.

I love racing games and GRID is my target game for a graphics upgrade. My IGP is not strong enough to play it, even at low detail. I have one slot available currently and I want to spend the least amount of money and get the highest performance possible. Until the rumors of the ATI HD4670 started floating around the 'net, I was focused on purchasing ATI's previous top dawg card - HD3870. I bought one locally for less than current $130 best buy limit ($119, $129 after tax) but it was Rev. 3 which featuring the Zero Thermal cooling solution making a one slot card, truely a two slot graphcis card even if there's only one single slot bracket on the back. It covered my upper PCI slot, so I had to remove one of my TV Tuner cards.

The HD46xx will surpass -

• HD2600XT

• HD3650

• HD3850 (DRR2 256MB)

• 9400GT

• 9500GT

I don't believe it will beat a 9600GT, but come close enough that price point might effect purchasing decisions.

So when the List is updated, it will contain HD4650 and HD4670 as your best buys below $150.... The HD38xx have stop production and would be nice pickups if they can be had for less than $130. HD3850 is under $100 at New Egg. No HD3870 with a single slot cooler (ATI Reference board) is available for under $130, dual slot versions as much as a HD4850 in some cases (Like the Diamond 1GB version of the HD3870)

If there's some reason you have to have Nvidia, then depending on budget the 260GTX is more than likely the best buy.

With that said, Sapphire released a 1GB version of the HD4850 that performs pretty well I have heard, haven't seen it tested/reviewed yet however. That would beat a 9800GT

The HD4850x2 is coming out soon and that will beat a 260GTX hands down and tap on the head of the 280GTX for $399

Personally, I'm a bit skeptical over the Radeon 4600 series. At first, I thought it might be a good idea, bringing the 4600's advantages (particularly AA performance) and effectively subplanting the Radeon HD 3800 series, potentially offering superior performance due to the architectural improvements in the RV7xx series over RV670.

However, upon learning that the 4600 series will sport only a 128-bit memory interface, contrary to the 256-bit one that had been suspected, as well as the size that was used in the 9600GT,

Generally over-priced for what they deliver. The GTX 260 only a bit more, but it's widely considered that the GTX 280 serves no purpose whatsoever; sure, it may be the most-potent SINGLE-GPU card out there, and the most potent multi-card setups involve it, but it comes at an unnacceptable price.

The difference the VRAM will make will depend on what game you'd be playing. At 1920x1200, I have some doubts that the 260 would have an advantage with 896 MB of VRAM. Even in Crysis, the 260 only shows a razor-thin (0.2 fps) lead over the 4870 once you enable AA; with it disabled, the lead reverses to 0.4 fps in favor of the 4870. The advantage doesn't really go to the 260 there until you hit 2560x1600 with AA enabled, where the 260's extra memory pays off for a 120.4% framerate advantage, though it's largely a moot point since even the 260 gets only 10.8 fps, making it utterly unplayable.

In Race Driver: GRID, the 4870 holds a substantial across-the-board advantage over the 260, and only loses to the 280 once you crank it to 2560x1600.

It's a similar story across most games, it seems; the extra memory, given that it doesn't come with higher memory bandwidth, only really comes into play to edge the GTX 260 past the 4870 in a handful of cases, and thes cases pretty much never show up if you're running at "only" 1920x1200.

As far as the 1GB 4870 goes, I believe specifications from AMD called for such a card to come into existence, but they've been holding it back as for now due to balancing between GDDR5 costs and demand for the 4870. Remember that the 4870X2 is effectively a CrossFire setup of two such theoretical 1GB 4870s on a single card, since it has a whopping 2GB total memory crammed on it.

Yes, I feel that the extra 512MB of memory would erase pretty much any advantage the GTX 260 holds over the 4870, pretty much anywhere, but that would only be once the card actually comes out. Given that you're gaming at 1920x1600 rather than 2560x1600, I doubt that you'd really have all that much need for the extra 512MB.

Thank you for the detailed reply Not, that was pretty much what i was looking for. As i stated though, 1920x1200 would be the MINIMUM that i will be considering; i am looking at investing in a 30" monitor as well, hence the interest in the extra memory for the 2560x1600.

I am in a real quandry after going thru so many forum posts, on monitors especially. The afficionados (i'm sure i spelled that incorrectly, please be gentle) denounce any interest in TN panel models, save for the competitive 1st person shootists, but if i look at "superior" panel models, they are nearly double the price of otherwise similar TN monitors ... and if i jump up that high in price for a quality 24", then it's not THAT much of a stretch to jump for the 30" for another half again more ... but, on the other hand, seriously?!? a monitor for over $1000 .... though it is basicly the equivilant of a large screen HDTV ... which go for about the same ... ARGH!

Though, again interestingly, monitors, by and large, seem to have some of the highest customer satisfaction ratings of any PC hardware. Most people will rave about their $379 TN panel 24" unit like it is the most amazing thing ever ... and the next self proclaimed expert will relay that it is the champion of marginal mediocrity! (again, i am a horrible speller, sorry)

Long story short, i would love a 4870x2, but since i have to cut somewhere, i wish they had the 4870 in a gig flavor to supplement later, hehe ... it seems probable that they would ... but i have waited for the next big upgrade for far too long! (Months of "oh, but this next xyz upgrade should come out in 2 weeks!) And, like you said, if the 260 has any advantage anyway it is slight ... guess i am probably going to jump on the 4870 bandwagon soon :-)

Thanks again for taking the time to respond!

P.S. i love these BVCFTM articles! i have to agree with several that gave the idea of BVCFTM ... at every given resolution; i understand the author's opinion that after a certain point, your framerates per dollar aren't worth it ... Unless you jump a whole performance level, i.e. 2560x1600, which seems to be more and more common. Still kudos on the effort and information, keep it coming!

PPS i think an efficiency comparison article, while great for motivating companies to become more aware of the concern from prospective customers and hence improve upon their designs, would be pretty silly to worry about for an article people go to when looking for the best gaming performance they can find for their money. I mean seriously, you are going to worry about spending a dime a day on the extra electricity 1 model uses over another when you are spending hundreds of dollars to get a great card that you will likely replace when it's newer improveder (yea, not only am i a bad speller, but i make up my own words too, hehe)?!? ... ok, there are a few out there ... i guess it takes all kinds :-)

8800gt 512 > HD 3870
I think u mean HD 4850 right?

just fud.

it would depend on how high resolution you want to go and whether you want AA.

then I would say actually neither- get an nvidia gtx 260 for $250 at newegg. However, if you have a motherboard with an ati chipset, get an hd 4870, in case you want to buy another one and go dual-card in the future. (the difference between the two isn't that much)

and as to you second question, spend an extra $20 from the E8400 and get an E8500 ($190). If you mostly play games, that is.

thank's for tips

Hello and welcome to the forums mate
Instead of 2xHD 4870 get one HD 4870X2

Read some reviews comparing HD 4870X2 vs 2xHD 4870 CF:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3372
http://www.guru3d.com/article/rade [...] crossfire/
http://techreport.com/articles.x/15293

1GB wont make a noticeable difference so the benchs are actually the same.

If u can afford all go for the best one which is HD 4870

Hello everyone.

I'm having trouble deciding what to do for a future upgrade (namely gpu). Currently, I have a 8800 gts (g92), and I'm toying with the idea of getting a second one as I have a 680i sli board. But after looking up the benchmarks, I saw to my disappointment there was only a marginal increase in performance. So my question is, should I get a second 8800 gts? Or should I spend more and buy a better card?

Thanks for the insight.

A sticky shouldn't have mistakes on it... and should be current
I don't think a card cost $3,000
and dead links???
VIDEOCARD HEIARCHY CHART:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/1 [...] page6.html

Doesn't look like this is updated monthly like it claims. Maybe take it off sticky?

well that's a pretty freakin good card in the first place ( i have a 7600 gt ) but if you have to have an upgrade then spend some money and get a gtx 260. You can get one for like $225 now.

ok this is off-topic and I know I sound like a total noob, but when does your profile status thingy change from "stranger"? cause I've been a member for like 6 months and posted 20+ times and I'm still a "stranger".

Yeah, I know it doesn't matter, it was just kinda bugging me. Thanks for the reply though.

For 220V........ GeForce FX 5500/5600

Can someone update a 2009 list. Thanks

I'm building my first computer and think I have a pretty good understanding of all of the parts except for the video cards. Can somone explain the difference between a 9800 and a 4850? Newegg has a ASUS Radeon HD 4850 and a MSI N9800 GT 512 OC for both around $115 after rebates and discounts. What's the difference and which is better? I will finally start gaming in my spare time. Will someone explain the basics and differences between the different series? I'm not so interested in the vendor as I am the different types? I've bought a Gigabyte P45 UP3P motherboard so either should work. I haven't bought the PSU yet until I have all of my componets. Thanks for any input.

I think we forgot 2x4830 in crossfire.

It kicks gf280 in 2 out of 4 tests...

178$ vs 300$

its true my friends

Also the OC on the 4830 cards are good