2900XT 1GB vs 4850 512MB

[magikn00b]

This one dude I know is determined to argue with me that a 2900XT is more powerfull than a 4850.... What rubbish, Is this true??
I dont belive this, the 2900XT was highly criticised for poor Performance, esp when AA is applied. Is this dude talking the truth or rubbish?? I highly doubt it is faster....

Id like your guys response to this, cause this is the Only forums where I can come and say something without being attacked. I love Mybroadband

So what you guys think??

 

[DOOMIE61]

theres more power in the 4850 512mb.. here a link to support that

http://www.overclock.net/ati/428857-how-much-improvement-2900xt-vs-4850-a.html

 

[magikn00b]

Thanks thought so.... im gonna put that link in the dudes face

 

[Nameite]

Well the 2900XT does chow more power...doesnt deliver more power though

 

[scotty777]

the 2900xt:
less stream processors,
much bigger fabrication process(90nm or something like that )
it's transistors are really unrefined
it's got a lower clock
it's large bit rate is like having a Formula 1 car with a 1.4 VW polo engine in it... help's f'all
architecture that would make most electronic engineers puke

the HD4850
much more refined transistors and architecture that is very well desinged
more stream processors that actually do work... not just sit back and drink electricity
the AA performance is phenomenal, why? because the chip allocates processors to do this
the clocks are higher
the Fabrication process in lower (55nm) which means less power becomes heat and less electrons go off to party with out paying there rent


the HD4000 series architecture is a work of shear genius, and you can see that because it not only made Nvidia squirm, it made them almost cry... This series made Nvidia cut prices, release new cards(they rushed these) and really make Nvidia hurt pretty bad... now if that's not saying enough, then you might want to consider the fact that Nvidia is the most powerful graphics chip manufacturer and AMD/ATI were about to go bankrupt


edit:
i think I went a bit far here

 

[Browser]

The 2900XT uses more power and isn't as good as a 4850 even if it has 1GB of RAM, on paper it has a few advantages but those don't help if the rest of the card can't deliver.

THG has a good list which has benchmarks for both...

for example in Call of Duty 4, HD4850 = 75 FPS 2900XT (512MB)= 45 FPS

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Call-of-Duty-4-v1-6,746.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Assassins-Creed-v1-02,740.html

 

[tinman]

There is no comparison...


Your friend is totally and utterly wrong.

 

[killadoob]

2900xt is more than likely the worst vga card made , considering its price back then.

 

[tinman]

2900xt is more than likely the worst vga card made , considering its price back then.

no ways...

I vote 8600/8500GT/S

 

[killadoob]

The 2900xt was over 4k and its performance was shocking, although i agree the 8600 is right up there as well.

 

[magikn00b]

tNvidia squirm, it made them almost cry... This series made Nvidia cut prices, release new cards(they rushed these) and really make Nvidia hurt pretty bad...

edit:
i think I went a bit far here

Its about time they suffered a little. I hope theres more to come in the future. Like the Phenom II combined with a 4000 Series card in the Dragon Platform have you guys seen the COD4/5 results?? i7 about 20fps behind :O Other games well, all Nvidia loving games Makes me naaaarrrrr

I think worst card ever = 8600GT FTL!! What utter rubbish that thing is

Dude, you didnt go to far you just said it right