ATI 4850 - $154.99!!!!!!!!! Wow!

[SUBMAN1]

If anyone wants to supercharge their system on the cheap, this is the board! Can you believe that kind of power for $150?????

http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/15017

-S

[SUBMAN1]

In case you care, here are some COD 4 numbers for a typical 1680x1050 res:



-S

[Raptor1]

That cheap, huh?

I'm going to have to take seriously look at upgrading my computer sooner than expected

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

That cheap, huh?

I'm going to have to take seriously look at upgrading my computer sooner than expected

Myself included! Cheap and fast always makes my day!

Problem is, this deal may be for today only, but it will come around again guaranteed. It's pretty easy to find this board for $179, but $154 is even better!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I think this conclusion says it all on the 4850.

You know what the scary part is? You haven't even seen ATI's R700 yet - they are holding it back. NVidia is in for some bad times. The 4850's price tag should show them that the R700 is going to slaughter them!

-S

We can’t help but be impressed by the Radeon HD 4850. Priced at $199, the Radeon HD 4850 completely shatters what you expect out of a $200 graphics card: just a few months ago a card with this kind of performance would have set you back at least $400. At its worst, it performs on par or slightly slower than NVIDIA’s GeForce 9800 GTX. The GeForce 9800 GTX ran up to 13% faster than Radeon 4850 in Lost Planet, although by 2560x1600 the 4850 had surpassed the 9800 GTX+ in performance. The Radeon 4850 also traded blows with the 9800 GTX in our testing with Company of Heroes DX10, with both cards posting wins at different resolutions. At its best though, there are games like BioShock where the Radeon HD 4850 outperformed NVIDIA’s $400 GeForce GTX 260!

The Radeon 4850 also outgunned the 9800 GTX+ in our Crysis tests with AA, and the 4850 also outperformed the GeForce 9800 GTX in the majority of our DX9 tests.

[Steel_Tomb]

I'm thinking of upgrading to a quad core soon, but this is a VERY good price. I've got an 8800GTS, its ok... but not the best. If this is as good as it looks, I think I'll be switching back to ATi instead of getting the GX2.:hmm:

Getting the Quad Core first though, as FSX and Falcon 4.0 are more CPU dependent than say Crysis which is just a graphics whore by comparison!

[Raptor1]

I've been with ATI since I switched from that old GeForce 2 MX400, I don't think I ever had any serious problem with their cards

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

I'm thinking of upgrading to a quad core soon, but this is a VERY good price. I've got an 8800GTS, its ok... but not the best. If this is as good as it looks, I think I'll be switching back to ATi instead of getting the GX2.:hmm:

Getting the Quad Core first though, as FSX and Falcon 4.0 are more CPU dependent than say Crysis which is just a graphics whore by comparison!

Stick with your 8800 GTS for a bit longer. The 4850 is just a tad faster than a 9800 GTX, so if a 9800 GTX is worth the upgrade, then a 4850 is. Its a nice jump, but maybe not worth the $$$ yet in my book.

Just my opinion.

-S

[HunterICX]

I personally wouldnt even take a ATI card if it where for free.

Also for the moment I'm not font of the new Nvidia cards even...what the hell are they trying to do with those big overloaded cards? Blow a fuse of the house?
it aint normal the amount of power they use just to have that stupid thing running.
really, wake me up when they start to make cards that use less energy for a better output.

HunterICX

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

I personally wouldnt even take a ATI card if it where for free.

Also for the moment I'm not font of the new Nvidia cards even...what the hell are they trying to do with those big overloaded cards? Blow a fuse of the house?
it aint normal the amount of power they use just to have that stupid thing running.
really, wake me up when they start to make cards that use less energy for a better output.

HunterICX

Get a 4850 - uses only 120 Watts of power under max load. I've loved ATI cards and have bought them almost exlusively for some time. I've had G1 G2 G3 G4 and a 6600 (or was it a 6700? Forgot - traded it for my Tivo). My ATI cards have been rock solid and they have given me excellent support too.

Not sure what the problem is. What kind of turned me off to NVidia is them tweaking the visuals for the sake of FPS and making a scene look ugly. ATI never did that. Crysis comes to mind - the fog. Put an ATI next to a NVidia board and run Crysis - It looks better on an ATI!

-S

[Zachstar]

I will admit it. AMD was down for the count but they came back with a stunner. Bravo!

I'm going to stick with Nvidia for now but at this rate it will be harder to do so as time goes on.

And as this battle goes on the price of game making will skyrocket.

This is mainly why EA is almost dominating the video game world now.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

I personally wouldnt even take a ATI card if it where for free.

Also for the moment I'm not font of the new Nvidia cards even...what the hell are they trying to do with those big overloaded cards? Blow a fuse of the house?
it aint normal the amount of power they use just to have that stupid thing running.
really, wake me up when they start to make cards that use less energy for a better output.

HunterICX

Not going to happen for some years until 3D transistors come online and even then the low power will only be for a short time before they want to make COD4 run at 1000 FPS

[danurve]

Before you get all hard and buy one of these cards check it's consuption and see if your current PSU can deal with it.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by danurve

Before you get all hard and buy one of these cards check it's consuption and see if your current PSU can deal with it.

This one sucks in about 120 Watts under load. I'd say have at 450 WATT PSU or better.

-S

[Dowly]

Gah, no ATI product will set it's chip to my house anymore, never ever.