HD 4850 or 9800 GX2

See sig. for current specs. I'm unhappy with the graphics. Thinking of getting a 9800 GX2 or a HD4850 512 MB
What versions of the 9800 GX2 are available. Only the 2 x 512 MB version? Also, will it work with my motherboard? Will I need a 500 W PSU?

Your 19" monitor is either 1280x1024 or 1440x900, right?

A 9600GT is twice as fast as your 8600GT, and can be had for less than $80 with rebate. A 9800GT can be had for $100 with rebate. Either card will play games well at your monitors resolution and don't require much power.

A 4850 or 9800gx2 will definitely need a better PSU than what you probably have.

What kind of PSU do you have? How many amps on the +12v rail?

you can run a 4850 on a good 500w PSU and with all the dx10.1 games coming out its going to get better, unlike nvidia's cards

Of the two, the 9800GX2 would be the faster card.
With either of those cards you would need an upgraded PSU.
No name PSU's are a time bomb waiting to take down your system.

With a low resolution 19" monitor, you don't really need either of the above cards.
Look into a low power 4870 that can run with your current PSU.
Plenty of gaming power for your resolution for under $100.

I have a Mercury PSU which came with my case Mercury KM 08. I know its not great, but it does the job. I'm not sure about those rails though.

Well, I've decided to get the Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 512 MB GDDR3. Hope it works well! Posts and comments still welcome!

And I can't get a CF board as I'd have to buy a new product key for Vista (Its OEM)

+1 to Noya. I'd go for the 9800GT. It's no slouch for gaming, especially in it's price range. Then you could take the extra money and buy yourself a nicer PSU. A good stable PSU is a very important.

Looks like i found this too late. The GX2 will crush a 4850 one on one. Yes, the 512MB per card hurts it, but it should be fine at resolutions 16x12 and below.

I've heard of Physx. It actually seems to work playing GRAW2 on my 8800GT.
If I need a card now though, I'll agree with most and get a 4850 / 4870/ X2.
However, the Physx is still a good point. I heard ATI is supporting the Intel / Havoc.
So, when will ATI start making Havoc demos?
Will there be a Microsoft "Direct Physics" that will wrap/contain Physx, Havoc, and AGEIA? Or make a new standard?
Which standard is best anyway? There is still a LOT of room for improvement in PC physics.
Any ideas? Thanks!

What? You can install as many mobos as you want, dude. OEM and Retail are identical.

You shoot down PhysX, a proven codebase that's in quite a few games, yet then you recommend a card based on DX10.1 (which doesn't even exist outside a few PPD slides)

Tell me, what "visable power" will DX10.1 add to my games? I'm curious.

Well said old chap, good show!

Cherrio!

ho ho ho?

Shalom Santa!

PhysX is pointless for buying a graphics card.

If you care about it, buy a dedicated Ageia PPU off eBay, which gives you a better boost than canabalizing the resources of your primary graphics card and doesn't send your CPU skyrocketing. And then you aren't stuck with either vendor you can buy the best graphics card (which in this case will be the GX2 9 times out of 10).

If you care about PhysX that much, get a PPU, but it's so minor as to be irrelevant right now.

Things may change in the future for both, but right now, it's a non-issue.

BTW, g316, what are you talking about Hovok2? Get with the program boy we're at 5.5 now, even GRAW, the 'shinning star' of PhysX, runs on the Havok engine, the PhysX is tack on shiny-bits type of physics, just like it is in UT3.

Right now none of the options are worth mentioning anymore than as a tech demo.

Exactly. I loved the idea of GPU physics when we were originally talking about it in the Brook GPU days, but it turned from realistic interactive explosions and bullet-drop, etc, into playing a game in a tornado from the wizard of OZ with debris everywhere. M'eh! I would prefer that the physics involve stuff that interacts more, and the whol PPU vs GPU argument is pointless since it's no longer a barrier to host communication, yet we're still stuck with the lame 'oh look at the shiny debris' examples.

Hopefully things will change, but for now, it's not a major factor for anyone, and when it is a killer app, then people will likely be willing to spend $50-100 for another card just to run the physics, if not an SLi rig.

Hence the issue, as niether uses a dedicated physics engine. I want bullets to deviate in speed/angle as i shoot through stuff. I want explosions to create debris that can kill people in its own right. I want people to collapse if i fly a jet next to them at high speed. Thats what PhysX can do when fully matured. Problem is, since ATI can't use it, no one will implement it except as an addon with none of these type of interactions.

As for Havok 2, I meant to say Havok FX.

450W is the minimum for the 4850.

i've had a 8600 GT XXX from XFX and it was really a quite a joke. try to sell your card on craigslist maybe for like 50 bucks or something, thats what i'm doing with mine.

look into the 9600/9800 which require 400W.

EDIT:
@PhysX discussion, seems like since ati is on top atm nvidia will not be able to devote as much time to it as already stated. ati will surely come back with something as was the case with SLI/crossfire. surely games will start to use dx10.1 and PhysX in the future...but its not the future yet. its like hardware and software are always traveling on different timelines (which i suppose is good because the industries push each other).

and @outlaw i lol'd@your sig, "If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce today would cost $100, get a million miles to the gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside." the 3870X2 was like $400+ 4 months ago. and now it can be had for <$200. quite ridiculous...we'll see about this whole PhysX and the developing hardware etc...should be a good several months coming up, especially now that nvidia can't simply rebrand their cards and make money anymore...

As I said, no such engine exists yet. PhysX had the ABILITY to do these calculations (although I doubt such interactions are possible, even on todays graphics cards).

As i said before, current "physics" implementations are based on linear functions, which are relativly easy to execute on a CPU without too much of a performance loss. For example, bullet drop is always linear. Even if you shoot into a tornado and through a slab of wood, I can tell you exactly where the bullet will end up. Thats not Physics, and thats the point i'm trying to make.

I want to start getting to the point where each object has its own makeup and its own mass. As such, a big enough explosion should be able to blow up any object on the map on its own. Think about the uses that has: Degradable cover in FPS, weather conditions becomes more than a visability concern, chain reactons from multiple explosions (endless fun with shrapnal ), etc.

One company is trying a system like this already: Naturalmotion's Euphoria, which was used in parts of GTA 4 (most notable for the dynamic reactions when hit by a car, none of that was scripted). That same engine will be used in its upcomming (hopefully...) football game, Backbreaker, will every single tackle in game is dynamically generated. THATS where I want in-game physics to go, and Havok isn't capable, and never will be capable, of that level of interaction.

Will PhysX end up being the API? Probably not, especially since ATI can't use it on their cards. But its a step in the right direction, and its getting people thinking on the subject.

I thought we were not allowing in tech demo's?

3/4th of HL2 is "Look at our physics engine! Isn't it great! Look again! Just in case you missed it, do this puzzle where you move the box again! Wasnt that cool? Do it again!"

HL2... most over hyped, over rated games since Daikatana, the only difference being that Valve somehow managed to pull it off at the very, very end

Now Bloodlines... there was a Source Engine game worth playing.

Anywho, Rah rah rah, rabble rabble rabble.

[Insert ATI/nVidia Fanboi statement here]