The 9800gtx+ vs HD4850

[Badbonji]

These cards are pretty equal in performance with a small price difference.

The 9800gtx+ takes a lead in most of the games and 3dmark benches, and looks promising. Could a 9800gx2++ be next? :beer:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=580&type=expert&pid=7

[cabose1227]

looks interesting, the 9800gtx+ looks like a winner if its got a good enough price like $230.

[WorshipMe]

A lot of other reviews have it differently:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/731/7/

And that's a site I trust.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3338&p=12

[Hmoob]

Looks like Nvidia won again with their new 9800GTX+...I really wanted ATI to take this generation.

[blazed]

Won again, the cards not even released yet lol.

If anyone is winning from any of these scenarios its the consumer as nVidia is forced to lower the price from $300 for the 9800GTX and $350+ for a GTX+.

Now the buyer has a choice and at a good price, but one thing no one is buying is a peice of paper that says "9800GTX+" on it.

[WorshipMe]

Looks like Nvidia won again with their new 9800GTX+...I really wanted ATI to take this generation.
Excuse me? The HD 4850 and the 9800GTX+ are around equal in performance, the HD 4850 is cheaper though and is available NOW. The + won't be here until late July, and by then, the 4850's price will have dropped and the 4870 will be here.

Not only that, but I doubt Nvidia is making much profit on their G92 cards anymore because of the poor yields. The 8800GT is already making a loss to keep the HD 3870 down and the GTX is making much at $199. AMD are reportedly getting great yields from RV770.

[wingless]

I'd really like to see how much ATI will improve performance in their drivers. ATI launch drivers are never the best performing driver. Things may look different this time next month.

[ratbuddy]

Won again, the cards not even released yet lol.

If anyone is winning from any of these scenarios its the consumer as nVidia is forced to lower the price from $300 for the 9800GTX and $350+ for a GTX+.

Now the buyer has a choice and at a good price, but one thing no one is buying is a peice of paper that says "9800GTX+" on it.

The 9800GTX hasn't been $300 for a while. More like $200-$220.

Not only that, but I doubt Nvidia is making much profit on their G92 cards anymore because of the poor yields. The 8800GT is already making a loss to keep the HD 3870 down and the GTX is making much at $199. AMD are reportedly getting great yields from RV770.

I keep seeing the ATI guys say the G92 or 8800GT are selling for a loss. I'd like to see a reliable source on that, please.

GTX+ will have better yields per wafer than any current G92 due to the 55nm process btw..

[OBLIVIONLORD]

I am a fan of the 9800gtx+ but, considering that it is scheduled mid-late July.. more manufacturers will have their hands on the 4850 for that much of a longer time to put on a dual slot and make Oc'ed versions to beat the 9800gtx+ on release. The prices on an oc'ed 4850 will probably not even be $30 more but, equal the same price as 9800gtx+.

Nvidia should release the stuff now because this wait just gives ATI that much more an advantage in sales since there isn't any reason now to buy anything Nvidia unless you are an extremist that wants to do SLI with the 280 or 260.

4850 already proved itself to out weigh the price/performance of the 9800GTX which is why the 9800gtx is now being sold for $200.

[WorshipMe]

I keep seeing the ATI guys say the G92 or 8800GT are selling for a loss. I'd like to see a reliable source on that, please.

GTX+ will have better yields per wafer than any current G92 due to the 55nm process btw..

I really can't remember where I saw it, but don't worry, it wasn't Fud, I'll do a little Googling to see if I can find it for you.

[ratbuddy]

I really can't remember where I saw it, but don't worry, it wasn't Fud, I'll do a little Googling to see if I can find it for you.

I'd appreciate that. It's been repeated enough here that it seems to go without question when someone says it. I've never seen a legitimate source on this, just forum posts.

[WorshipMe]

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7495.html

There it is, I remember seeing it there.

I think they're generally quite reliable, and they were at least right about Nvidia shrinking G92 to 55nm.

[ratbuddy]

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7495.html

There it is, I remember seeing it there.

I think they're generally quite reliable, and they were at least right about Nvidia shrinking G92 to 55nm.

Maybe I'm not reading it right, but I don't see anything about Nvidia selling chips below cost?

[technoViking]

I'm confused....
How come the ATI 4850 has like a TON more stream processors, and it looks like a higher core and everything. Whats holding it back?

Like for example the new gx280 has:

Chipset
Chipset Manufacturer NVIDIA
GPU GeForce GTX 280
Core clock 602 MHz
Stream Processors 240
Memory
Memory Clock 2210MHz
Memory Size 1GB
Memory Interface 512-bit
Memory Type GDDR3



and the ati

hipset
Chipset Manufacturer ATI
GPU Radeon HD 4850
Core clock 625MHz
Stream Processors 800 Stream Processing Units
Memory
Memory Clock 1986MHz
Memory Size 512MB
Memory Interface 256-bit
Memory Type GDDR3


This card looks on par with the x280 if you overclock the memory, besdies the nvidia has 1 gig of vram but what I'm confused on is how does the ATI have like a TON more stream processors?
why can't nvidia do that?

EDIT: Ahh I see now the memory interface is only 256 and nvidia's is 512

but still 800 stream processors versus only 240 stream processors, whats up with that number?

[Badbonji]

ATi is sucky and needs tons more processors :P

Nah it is jut they are clocked alot lower, or are just less effiecient. Also the memory bandwitdh limits the performance. Should see a nice increase with GDDR5 ram, maybe on par with GTX260? who knows :P

[jason4207]

They count SP's differently. [1 nVidia SP != 1 Ati SP]

[WorshipMe]

but still 800 stream processors versus only 240 stream processors, whats up with that number?
ATI's SPs are in sync with the core clock speed (625MHz).

The GTX 280 also has twice the TMUs of RV770.

[technoViking]

ahh alright thanks for the explanation guys!

[blazed]

The 9800GTX hasn't been $300 for a while. More like $200-$220.

$200 for a 9800GTX? You must be thinking about the GTS 512mb, easy to confuse I know seeing as they're practically the exact same card just with different clocks.

No they've been quite steady around $300 for a while, on the rarest occasions I saw them for about $260 AMIR, but they only dropped to $200 once the 4850 came out and the card stopped being competitive at all.

Feel sorry for the people who bought a 9800GTX since its launch.

[Hmoob]

$200 for a 9800GTX? You must be thinking about the GTS 512mb, easy to confuse I know seeing as they're practically the exact same card just with different clocks.

No they've been quite steady around $300 for a while, on the rarest occasions I saw them for about $260 AMIR, but they only dropped to $200 once the 4850 came out and the card stopped being competitive at all.

Feel sorry for the people who bought a 9800GTX since its launch.

I read somewhere that the 9800 GTX+ will be in the price range of the 4850 (200 - 220).

[>HyperlogiK<]

Excuse me? The HD 4850 and the 9800GTX+ are around equal in performance, the HD 4850 is cheaper though and is available NOW. The + won't be here until late July, and by then, the 4850's price will have dropped and the 4870 will be here.

Not only that, but I doubt Nvidia is making much profit on their G92 cards anymore because of the poor yields. The 8800GT is already making a loss to keep the HD 3870 down and the GTX is making much at $199. AMD are reportedly getting great yields from RV770.

For the most part I agree, but the 9800GTX+ isn't meant to be a money maker, it is a test of the 55nm process and a rushed attempt to hurt the launch of the 4850.

[Illyest]

Current 9800GTX @ $200 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130350.

Tri-SLi for $600....hum....

[Freshmir]

Ya im gonna have to refund my 8800gts while I can get my 200$ back and decide which one of these cards is best to get. Id rather go Nvidia bit if ATI is that much stronger I will go with them. Even though I have gone ati since the golden age of amd cpu and ati gpu. Those were nice.

[penixor]

A lot of other reviews have it differently:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/731/7/

And that's a site I trust.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3338&p=12

the legit reviews site doesnt make a lot of sense espcially because one the card isn't out yet and niether are the drivers and two they have the GX2 beating the 280 and i dont know about you but im calling bull **** on that espcially when you look at the crysis and other DX10 games in there review

[Mr.Guvernment]

Gx2 has been shown to beat the 280 in some places, the 280 and such is just another nvidia re-hash, nothing really new, more speed with more heat, nvidia throwing things out, they NEED to get to 55nm NOW to compete with price , performance that ATI has out now

[z0n3]

Gx2 has been shown to beat the 280 in some places, the 280 and such is just another nvidia re-hash, nothing really new, more speed with more heat, nvidia throwing things out, they NEED to get to 55nm NOW to compete with price , performance that ATI has out now

All those problems and while ATI claims they aren't even trying. :D
I was hoping buy get a new GPU this fall and if this little war continues I will be able to get a dang good one on the cheap!

[ratbuddy]

$200 for a 9800GTX? You must be thinking about the GTS 512mb, easy to confuse I know seeing as they're practically the exact same card just with different clocks.

No they've been quite steady around $300 for a while, on the rarest occasions I saw them for about $260 AMIR, but they only dropped to $200 once the 4850 came out and the card stopped being competitive at all.

Feel sorry for the people who bought a 9800GTX since its launch.

I know what card I'm thinking of. The GTS has been available for well under $200 for several months now. The 9800GTX is available at $200 or less and has been for a while. Yes, it used to cost $300, but that's no excuse for you to call it a $300 card today.

[Mr.Guvernment]

4850 is looking dam good to me @ $200, was thinking 2 in Xfire but i figure one is more then enough for me for now, and see how the 4870 does.

[>HyperlogiK<]

Gx2 has been shown to beat the 280 in some places, the 280 and such is just another nvidia re-hash, nothing really new, more speed with more heat, nvidia throwing things out, they NEED to get to 55nm NOW to compete with price , performance that ATI has out now

The 280 really is something new, but it's something of an NV30 or R600, very expensive, very hot and while not a disaster it is pretty disappointing.

[WorshipMe]

It's not a totally new architecture, just an enhanced G80.

[thideras]

It's not a totally new architecture, just an enhanced G92.Fixed that for you, it's based off the 8800gts 512 ;)

[WorshipMe]

Yes, and G92 is a die shrink of G80, so you could say it's based on G80.

[thideras]

Yes, and G92 is a die shrink of G80, so you could say it's based on G80.G92 is not a die shrink of G80, hence the different name.

[WorshipMe]

G92 is not a die shrink of G80, hence the different name.
What is it then?

[Hardin]

What is it then?

There are actually several changes in the architecture of the g92 and the gt200 so calling it a die shrink of the g80 is grossly inaccurate. http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334&p=3

[WorshipMe]

I'm not talking about GT200, but about G92 and G80.

[Hardin]

I'm not talking about GT200, but about G92 and G80.

Did you even bother to read my link? It has a comparison of the g80, g92, and the gt200.

[WorshipMe]

Sorry, I only read the title, and thought it was all about GT200. Never expect too much of lazy people like myself.

I guess that G92 was a "subtle" refresh of G80... with a die shrink.

[Hardin]

Sorry, I only read the title, and thought it was all about GT200. Never expect too much of lazy people like myself.

I guess that G92 was a "subtle" refresh of G80... with a die shrink.

I wouldn't have linked to it if it wasn't pertinent, but whatever it's not a big deal.

[blazed]

I know what card I'm thinking of. The GTS has been available for well under $200 for several months now. The 9800GTX is available at $200 or less and has been for a while. Yes, it used to cost $300, but that's no excuse for you to call it a $300 card today.

The 9800GTX hasn't been $300 for a while. More like $200-$220.

No they've been quite steady around $300 for a while, on the rarest occasions I saw them for about $260 AMIR, but they only dropped to $200 once the 4850 came out and the card stopped being competitive at all.

When did I "call it a $300 card today"? Please read carefuly.

[ratbuddy]

When did I "call it a $300 card today"? Please read carefuly.

You said Nvidia was 'forced' to lower the GTX from $300 and the GTX+ from $350+. GTX+ was announced at $329, and GTX hasn't been $300 in a long time. They weren't 'forced' to do anything, and I'm starting to suspect you're just trolling here ;)

[thideras]

You said Nvidia was 'forced' to lower the GTX from $300 and the GTX+ from $350+. GTX+ was announced at $329, and GTX hasn't been $300 in a long time. They weren't 'forced' to do anything, and I'm starting to suspect you're just trolling here ;)Guys, please >.<

Who cares what it *was*, it matters what it is now.

[dicko555]

Sometimes i wish i lived over in the U.S.A you get everything so much cheaper than us in Aus a good 8800gt over there about $150.00 at newegg here about $250.00 and for the new cards you get them for $300-350 for us $600++ I envy you all:drool:

[ratbuddy]

Sometimes i wish i lived over in the U.S.A you get everything so much cheaper than us in Aus a good 8800gt over there about $150.00 at newegg here about $250.00 and for the new cards you get them for $300-350 for us $600++ I envy you all:drool:

I don't really get why computer parts are so much more expensive elsewhere in the world.. You'd think it'd be cheaper to ship from China to Australia anyway..

[dealmaster]

Shipping an individual part may be cheaper, but the US probably buys massive, massive amounts of these products, so shipping in bulk is way cheaper than shipping only 100 or so items. That's likely why parts are cheaper in the US, simply because we buy more.

[Badbonji]

I am moving to America after going to uni hopefully. Seems so much better than the UK, a lot less tax, cheaper cost of living, and the average wage is still the same as in the UK. UK is teh suck

[Hardin]

Anandtech's (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3340&p=1) preview of the 9800 gtx+ is up. They say $30 extra over the 4850 isn't worth it.

[Shiggity]

Anandtech's (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3340&p=1) preview of the 9800 gtx+ is up. They say $30 extra over the 4850 isn't worth it.

+1, 4850 beats it in price : performance easily

In most benches it only lost by 2-5 fps.

[ratbuddy]

Wish they had some 4850s in crossfire in that article. I was quite amused to see how much of a lead the GX2 still has over everything else. I'd like to see what 4850/4870 crossfire can do to compete on the dual GPU front.. 4870X2 seems a while away still :(

[Badbonji]

9800gx2 is just an amazing single PCI-e card. Still top of the hierarchy, when the gtx 280 was supposed to be better. Hopefully ATi and Nvidia are going to keep up with each other and then there will be a good competition between the two, keeping the card prices down hopefully too.

[blazed]

You said Nvidia was 'forced' to lower the GTX from $300 and the GTX+ from $350+. GTX+ was announced at $329, and GTX hasn't been $300 in a long time. They weren't 'forced' to do anything, and I'm starting to suspect you're just trolling here ;)

Trolling please lol, surely you can do better then that. Yes they were forced to drop the price to $199 cause no one with all the facts would continue paying $300 for a 9800GTX once the 4850 was out at less then $200. Same as AMD was forced to offer their Phenom 9850 at a simmilar price as Intel's Q6600, simple economics really. You think nVidia dropped the price to do as all a favor? Doesn't work that way.

You keep saying its been $199 for a "long time" and "a while" but really the 4850 hasn't been out for that long, see the connection there? Infact anywhere outside of Canada and US is still paying the old prices for the 9800GTX, and even a few places here haven't adjust their prices yet.

[chrome-187]

i beg to differ..i believe they were forced to drop the 9800gtx in price to 200 cuz of the 4850 smashing the 9800gtx @ 199...AND LOL @ you ratbuddy by sayin the 9800 hasnt been 300 in a long time...they were just 300+ last week...if they did not drop the gtx to 200 No educated person would buy them if there is a better card for $100 cheaper...if you would have bought a $300 gtx over a $200 4850 when its faster i'd def label the buyer either the biggest fanboy ever...or just plain ignorant...

dropping the gtx was the only way they could compete with the 4850...and u can put money on it if the 4850 was $300 nvidia would not have dropped the gtx to $200...come on now, use a little common sense

[ratbuddy]

i beg to differ..i believe they were forced to drop the 9800gtx in price to 200 cuz of the 4850 smashing the 9800gtx @ 199...AND LOL @ you ratbuddy by sayin the 9800 hasnt been 300 in a long time...they were just 300+ last week...if they did not drop the gtx to 200 No educated person would buy them if there is a better card for $100 cheaper...if you would have bought a $300 gtx over a $200 4850 when its faster i'd def label the buyer either the biggest fanboy ever...or just plain ignorant...

dropping the gtx was the only way they could compete with the 4850...and u can put money on it if the 4850 was $300 nvidia would not have dropped the gtx to $200...come on now, use a little common sense

I was actually looking at 9800GTX on newegg for ~$230 2 weeks ago. In ATI world, 9800GTX is $300, GTX 280 is $650, and 4850 is $150. Best case for ATI cards, worst for Nvidia. Just try to be fair in your comparisons, please.

Yes, cards aging and new technology performing better causes prices to drop. Same as 3870X2 had to drop way down in the face of being outperformed by 9800GTX. No reason to distort facts/prices.

[WorshipMe]

Same as 3870X2 had to drop way down in the face of being outperformed by 9800GTX.
Proven fanboy, end of story:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14967/3

[blazed]

If there was a 9800GTX for less then $300 before the 4850 release it was the exception and not the rule.

Fact: 9800GTX was officialy dropped from $300 to $199 on the day of the 4850 release. Really don't see why you choose to argue that.

No ones saying the GTX cost $300 after that point, other then the places who haven't adjust their prices of course, of which there are many.

No they've been quite steady around $300 for a while, on the rarest occasions I saw them for about $260 AMIR, but they only dropped to $200 once the 4850 came out and the card stopped being competitive at all.

This seems to be the statement which is causing you some confusion, please read it carefuly as I did not say it costs $300 at any point after it was dropped to $199, but only at any point before that.

Lets try and keep personal brand preference out of it, price : performance is king!

[chrome-187]

there were no 9800gtx's 2 weeks ago for 230, lol..your talkin to someone that scrolls newegg every single day about 6 times...i've been watching the prices for the last 6 weeks on the gtx, cuz i was thinking about getting them...i saw some for 270 after rebate..but who wants to mess with rebates when your paying a str8 up price of $310...i'd rather buy a good card straight up at discounted price...and still 50% of the gtx's are 270+

[ratbuddy]

Proven fanboy, end of story:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14967/3

I'm not quite sure what that link is intended to prove. All I said was the 9800GTX was fast enough that 3870X2 had to come down in price. Linking to a bunch of synthetic benches makes for a proven fanboy? :rolleyes:

[ScottinIndy]

Geesh, Can we quit arguing over what prices used to be and the lowering of prices, Both vendors have lowered prices when the competition has caused them to do so, Look at the prices of the 3870 at release, And now today. How about the 88gt at release, And now today. The list goes on and on. I really don't understand what it proves, Both the major card makers have charged a premium when possible and lowered the price when necessary. It has been that way for years and will continue to be that way in the future. The market will always end up driving prices.
Man I really have a hard time understanding this fanboy stuff. Just keep hoping for competition and excellent bang for buck from both Ati and Nvidia in the future, Your wallet will thank you for it.

[ratbuddy]

Geesh, Can we quit arguing over what prices used to be and the lowering of prices, Both vendors have lowered prices when the competition has caused them to do so, Look at the prices of the 3870 at release, And now today. How about the 88gt at release, And now today. The list goes on and on. I really don't understand what it proves, Both the major card makers have charged a premium when possible and lowered the price when necessary. It has been that way for years and will continue to be that way in the future. The market will always end up driving prices.
Man I really have a hard time understanding this fanboy stuff. Just keep hoping for competition and excellent bang for buck from both Ati and Nvidia in the future, Your wallet will thank you for it.

Hah, my thoughts exactly, although I probably wouldn't have said it so nicely :p

[Farinorco]

So, in the end:

* The 9800GTX+ is, performance-wise, a 9% overclocked 9800GTX, with no other change. So, it's to expect that 9800GTX+ is around the levels of HD4850 in average, winning at some games, losing at others, always by a very little margin. Looking at several reviews (particularly the most trustworthy sites), that's what can be seen.

* Regarding power consumptions and temps, the die-shrink of G92 doesn't seem to come with any advantage, and the 9800GTX+ consumes more than 9800GTX. On the other hand it remains to be seen the power consumption of the 4850 with the PowerPlay working correctly. I've read about various vendors are including now a fixed bios that allows, for starters, the downclocking (and downvolting) to 160 MHz instead of 500 MHz in 2D mode.

* G92 is known to be more fragile (performance-wise) than RV770 to 3D stress, it tends to suffer more when you crank up the resolution, settings and all. 9800GTX+ seems to show it little less than 9800GTX, but probably because of it being stronger itself thanks to the OC, but the architecture is the same, so sooner or later this will show...

* Overclock capactity of 9800GTX+ seems to be somewhere around 15%. We already know that 4850 can be overclocked a 12% (what allows CCC) core and 15% memory, but we don't know if when we have 3rd party OC utilities we will be able to OC more than that.

* Features wise, NVIDIA has PhysX, what probably will mean a little performance bump with a selection of titles (yet it remains to be seen what kind of gains can be made by loading more the GPU than it's already to free the usually not so loaded CPU though). The main advantage of GPU processing physics would be to solve certain specific cases that can benefit of the massive paralel processing capability of a GPU (and they're very specific cases when talking about physics simulation -particle systems physics, fluids, soft bodies-) that will allow to include physics processing of things that are actually left out because are computationally complex with a CPU, but while there are people that don't have the capability to run it, developers are not going to invest much (if any) time or resources in programming those.

On the other hand, ATi has DirectX 10.1, a very useful standard API, that would give them a clear advantage if used by developers. Problem is that the market dominance of NVIDIA, which doesn't support the standard, has made developers to stay away from it until now. Maybe if AMD recovers part of their market this round (which seems perfectly possible) this could change in the near future, maybe not. Who knows. And then is the tesselation unit, one of this things that you know will never be used. It's a very smart technology that I'd love to see running because it really can rise the IQ without much performance hit, but while is a ATi exclusive technology nobody is gonna use it. Maybe if some day is included in DX11 or so, we can see it running... of course by then, the tesselation unit included at present cards it's going to be meaningless, as it's now. I'm only talking about the tech idea, the unit in HD series cards are wasted transistors.

* The price in theory is lower for the 4850 (199$ vs 229$ talking about MSRP). We will see how it ends up in the shops.

In the end I would not pay more for one of these cards than the other, as they are pretty matched. I'd tend to favour the 4850 because of a few details, but in the end it's going to be the same. At least, it seems that now NVIDIA has something to compete and not being left out of game as is seemed during the first previews of the 4850...

[OBLIVIONLORD]

3870 can do physics
http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-38137-135.html

It will only be a matter of time till the 4xxx series will gain the same benefit.

[jokers_greg]

to be fair, keep in mind that the 4850/4870 are still working with premature drivers. I think we will be seeing even better results within 30 days or so.

[jokers_greg]

And yeah, radeon can do Physx too now. (don't have the tomshardware link on me). I wonder if Havok is gonna be improved now?

[ChinStrap]

the 9800gtx+ overclocks like crazy too.

i think the guru3d review had it up to 864 core 24/7 stable on stock cooling and un-modded.

864. omfg.

[Farinorco]

Radeons (RV670, not RV770 by now) can do PhysX with some modified (by a guy) drivers without any kind of official support. So if you want PhysX support, you're stick with the drivers versions that this guy decide/it's able to modify and upload, and when it happens. OK, that's better than nothing. But I wouldn't consider that as "having PhysX support".

On the other hand, AFAIK, Havok is going to be optimized to run on Intel processors, and now for AMD to. They have said that the possibility to use an ATi card to accelerate some processes (I suppose that those that can take advantage of the massive paralel processing power of a GPU as those I mentioned earlier) is going to be studied. Maybe they consider it worthy, maybe not. Remember that Intel cancelled the project of the GPU accelerated version of Havok...

the 9800gtx+ overclocks like crazy too.

i think the guru3d review had it up to 864 core 24/7 stable on stock cooling and un-modded.

864. omfg.

17% over stock settings. It's very good, and all, but I think that it looks like much more than it is because you put it in the context of G92 65nm. If you consider the 738 MHz as stock, to compare the performance of the card to the 4850 (and taking its similar performance as base performance), and not a factory overclocked 9800GTX, then it's not that huge (great but not OMFG). A 65nm 9800GTX that was overclocked to 800 MHz, would be a higher overclock (18%) than that.

[ViperJohn]

Excuse me? The HD 4850 and the 9800GTX+ are around equal in performance, the HD 4850 is cheaper though and is available NOW. The + won't be here until late July, and by then, the 4850's price will have dropped and the 4870 will be here.

Not only that, but I doubt Nvidia is making much profit on their G92 cards anymore because of the poor yields. The 8800GT is already making a loss to keep the HD 3870 down and the GTX is making much at $199. AMD are reportedly getting great yields from RV770.

The 9800GTX+ has a definite edge over the HD4850 at stock reference clocks and the performance/price
ratio's at $199 (4850) and $229 (9800GTX+) are almost dead equal. Stock OC'ed The 9800GTX+ will
probably roll over the HD4850 as it's max OC's are not capped in bios like the 4850's are.

The 9800GTX+ will also be given the ability able to run NV's (Ageia) PhysX on the GPU in upcoming
drivers through CUDA which rips Intels Havoc on the CPU to shreds although I doubt Dammit is going
to strap itself to running only Havoc physics for very long.

Viper