Dilemma between the 9600gt and HD 4850

Before reading the entire post ,

lets not jump to any conclusion.
I know the HD 4850 is way better than the 9600GT

But I am interested only in playing in low res of 1024x768 or 1028x1024 with medium-high settings.

For that Is it worthwhile to shell out about 3500 bucks more for the HD 4850.
Or for this low res a 9600 Gt is more than enough

H

get the HD4850.sud last u longer than the 9600GT.

If you're into low resolution then a 9600GT would suffice. The single slot HD4850's a complete pile of junk. They run hot as hell & will eventually face issues. Getting a dual slot one from Palit is again shelling out a bit more. So I'd say go for the 9600GT if you plan to game on such a low scale. But also do bear in mind what hellgate said.

Well On such low resolutions, are there major performance differences?

H

^^^ there will be differences in the amt of AF & AA that u can apply and aslo in how much eye candy u can enable in games.
i think u sud get a Palit HD4850 512MB GDDR3 for something like 10k.
had this card,didnt face any heating probs.

and if ur interested in buying 2nd hand then i'm selling my 1month old HD4870 for 15k

Did U get it from Tirupathi Then?

junk both and get a palit 9800gt... way better than 9600gt but only 7.8k....

Several benchmarks show that RV770 series cards perform BEST only at higher resolutions. A good example is the 9800GTX+ vs HD4850 battle. The former pwns the later at resolutions upto 1280x1024, and sometimes also at 1440x900, but above that, HD4850 starts to rule.

That would mean that at the resolutions you want to game, nVidia is a better choice.
At 6K to 6.5K with great overclockability would be an ideal buy.

MetalheadGautham said:
Several benchmarks show that RV770 series cards perform BEST only at higher resolutions. A good example is the 9800GTX+ vs HD4850 battle. The former pwns the later at resolutions upto 1280x1024, and sometimes also at 1440x900, but above that, HD4850 starts to rule.

That would mean that at the resolutions you want to game, nVidia is a better choice.
At 6K to 6.5K with great overclockability would be an ideal buy.

+1

A

u can also consider....the 4830 (sapphire).which are showing pretty good benchmarks....also it will cost 1k less than 4850......also palit 4850 which runs hot....whereas saphire 4830 runs cool.which will last for more.....also one more important thing saphire 4830 havind very good overclocking capability....and with that it goes very near to 4850.....i am sure ur not much hardcore gamer...so saphire 4830 should be best choice for u!!!!

The 4830 is really not worth it with its price and since the performance is almost similar to a 9600 GT at low resolutions, it is hardly worth it.

Anybody tried the 9600 GSO seeming as it has 96 stream processors as compared to 9600gt s 64. Moreover although it may have less video memory, mem more than 256 mb is hardly needed at these low res

A

but 4830 is more futuristic than 9600gt .........since 9600gt can run todays game.....but 4830 can run the next 1.5 year.games at high setting with that low resolution!!.also dont forget its temp low.......also power consuption very much low compare to 4850

Dude, u r wrong there. Cuz HD4830 OVERHEATS

Well actually I went ahead and bought the 9600 gso sonic Palit from Tirupati Enterprises.
However i have a problem now as it seems the computer restarts without any error or the game crashes after extended playing time.

I checked the temp its 40-45 celcius so should be fine.
As this is not overclocked what could be the problem?
Is it my PSU since it is a generic 400W that i got with the iball cabinet.

System Specs are :
Q6600
2 GB ram
9600 GSO 384 mb
nforce 630i

comp@ddict said:
Cuz HD4830 OVERHEATS

Nope
There are lot of misconceptions about ATI that needs to be corrected. Any gaming grade graphic card heats up. It takes power and on when its on load- it produces heat. Anyways ati can take a big temps upto 90 degrees celcius- because its made to run hot. Anyways for a gaming card 70-85 degrees is not hot. There are solid capacitors, copper heatsinks, fans AND thermal paste between the core to protect it from going kaboom.
---
In regards to 4830, a reference model has 575MHz core and 900MHz memory. On idle ati 4830 takes as low as 32w degrees on load and as high as 85 w. That's why it requires a 6 pin pcie. n 44c idle and 69c load.
4830 also overclock MUCH higher than 4850 and its proved to be faster. Every manufacturer has the right to make their own non reference model. 9600gt wasnt a competition with the 4830 in the first place, mayber 4670 but not 4830.

Darthvader said:
Is it my PSU since it is a generic 400W that i got with the iball cabinet.

Change the power supply dude. Just be glad it didnt blow up your investment. Here's the guide:
*thinkdigit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104472
If your budget is pretty low I would recommend cm 460w. It will do fine for this system.
I was wondering what's the resolution the OP is running on. That way we will know it better.

would 4670 a better choice in terms of future gaming for atleast 1-1.5 years..or it would be worth to shell out few bucks more and get 9600GT ???

Well I would say the 9600 gt as the only advantage the 4670 has over it is dx 10.1 support. But seeing the stagnant condition of dx 10 gaming and already the announcement of dx 10.1 i would bet on the 9600 gt since it beats the 4670 in most games
@ the sorcerer : I am running it on 1280*1024 as i am stuck on a 17 inch monitor. SO my power supply is at fault?

I wouldnt trust those power supply if I were you- I rather trust those vip 400 silver which has an active pfc. Those tin cans are worth 500 bucks so I am really sure they arent given good for average syste. But according to you system specs You allready have a 9600 gso so I dont know why you want a new card now.
*www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-9600-gso-386-mb-review-point-of-view/14
Atleast change the power supply to something like the one I mentioned or better vip 390w or 460w. Dont change the card now now- as it is the screen's resolution is low compared to what we get now.

Well, I wan't talking about CUSTOM DESIGNS. Reference it suks, and it was there in CHIP, unless u read it.

And about the OC, well after it's stable OC, it beats HD4850 by what 1-3%, HD4850 OCed coos any doubts btwn 9800GTX+ and HD4850 too. So we can go on and on with this topic with no end.

The Sorcerer said:
I wouldnt trust those power supply if I were you- I rather trust those vip 400 silver which has an active pfc. Those tin cans are worth 500 bucks so I am really sure they arent given good for average syste. But according to you system specs You allready have a 9600 gso so I dont know why you want a new card now.
*www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-9600-gso-386-mb-review-point-of-view/14
Atleast change the power supply to something like the one I mentioned or better vip 390w or 460w. Dont change the card now now- as it is the screen's resolution is low compared to what we get now.

You misunderstood. I made this thread before purchasing a card and after thinking about the GT went for the GSO due to its superior shaders count. So i just got the new card.
And So thanks for the answer anyways, Looks like i Gotta change the psu then,
A cooler master 500w will suffice will it? what is its actual wattage output ? (75%?)

cm extreme plus 500w (RS500-PCA-RA3) gives 18 amps on +12v rail and output of 360w.
Cm 460w (460-pmsr-a3) gives 18 amps on +12v rails as will but it has only 316w.
They both have 70% effiency rate so it should be enough. cm 460 is for 2.4k and extreme plus 500 is 2.8k. Stick between these 2. I would take extreme series but both are enough for this config.
Stay out of extreme series though. CM totally screwed up psu logic in their extreme series so they are flooding the market with decent supplies in extreme plus.

I would take extreme series

Stay out of extreme series though

???

I think he meant the extreme plus and asked me to stay out of only extreme.
Anyway the cooler master one has dual rails so is it good enough.
How is The Corsair 400CX 400 w?
It has 30a on a single 12v rail.
Does that mean it has 90% efficiency !!!! 360w on 400w

Its VX450W and its one the best PSUs.

Nope the cx400 is about 1000 bucks cheaper than the vx450

Darthvader said:
You misunderstood. I made this thread before purchasing a card and after thinking about the GT went for the GSO due to its superior shaders count. So i just got the new card.
And So thanks for the answer anyways, Looks like i Gotta change the psu then,
A cooler master 500w will suffice will it? what is its actual wattage output ? (75%?)

Sorry to say, you have fallen victim to the shader count of 9600GSO. Actually, performance wise, its quite BELOW the 9600GT, mainly since it has a lower clock speed, only 192bit memory instead of 256bit in 9600GT and lesser RAM.

And more shaders matter only at higher resolutions, and even then, 9600GT is ahead of 9600GSO.

At the price range of 9600GSO, HD4670 would be the best choice available, but sadly none of them are serious gaming cards.

Anyway, since you have already bought it, you just need to make the best use out of it.

I would like to differ on that point.
Shaders come into play at low resolutions where it actually gets better results and is ahead of the gt in most games at low res.
However at high res as u said the memory bandwith and the amount is pretty low and it is behind the gt.
*www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/video/Palit_9600GSO_Sonic/
*www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/palit9600gso/
*techgage.com/article/palit_geforce_9600gso_sonic_768mb/
*lly316.blogspot.com/2008/11/8800gs-vs-9600gso-vs-9600gt-bechmark.html