-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Anyone using a Radeon HD4850?
- Thread starter Pips
- Start date
G
GlobalExplorer
Guest
see here
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=554
no longtime experience though but its a very good card
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=554
no longtime experience though but its a very good card
C
Camel_Moe
Guest
Not exactly what your asking, but....
I tell you what. I was originnally going for that card, but I ended up deciding to shell out the extra $$$ for the 4870. I replaced my GF8600 GT OC, and have been very happy with the new card.
From this I experience, I feel I should warn you, if you don't have a 500 watt or higher power supply, with two six pin, 75w PCI express power plugs, to hook into the card, your in trouble. I ended up with a 700 watt supply that cost me an additional $100, because my old 400 watt was having a hissy with the new card. I expected so much from reading the box, but the difference was noticable with a proper power supply.
Another thing, my 4870 runs considerably higher temprature than my old GF8600. By 20 or 30 degrees under high loads like MSFSX. If you don't have good cooling, start thinking about it. I don't know about the 4850's design, but my 4870 has a huge cooling duct that in itself takes up a slot in the computer. I have Rivatuner set to kick the fan 100% at 85 degrees, and though it doesn't do so often, when it does, it sounds like a bloody jet turbine. It'll cool to 65 degrees rather quickly though. I've still got to tweak it so it doesn't go from one extreme to the other.
Anyway, I know this wasn't quite what you where asking, but I thought I should share just in case it is applicable.
Camel
I tell you what. I was originnally going for that card, but I ended up deciding to shell out the extra $$$ for the 4870. I replaced my GF8600 GT OC, and have been very happy with the new card.
From this I experience, I feel I should warn you, if you don't have a 500 watt or higher power supply, with two six pin, 75w PCI express power plugs, to hook into the card, your in trouble. I ended up with a 700 watt supply that cost me an additional $100, because my old 400 watt was having a hissy with the new card. I expected so much from reading the box, but the difference was noticable with a proper power supply.
Another thing, my 4870 runs considerably higher temprature than my old GF8600. By 20 or 30 degrees under high loads like MSFSX. If you don't have good cooling, start thinking about it. I don't know about the 4850's design, but my 4870 has a huge cooling duct that in itself takes up a slot in the computer. I have Rivatuner set to kick the fan 100% at 85 degrees, and though it doesn't do so often, when it does, it sounds like a bloody jet turbine. It'll cool to 65 degrees rather quickly though. I've still got to tweak it so it doesn't go from one extreme to the other.
Anyway, I know this wasn't quite what you where asking, but I thought I should share just in case it is applicable.
Camel
G
gimpyguy
Guest
As I discovered with my AGP, when I upgraded from a 6600GT, to an X1950, I was forced to buy a New PSU to power it.
( wasn't aware it contained beads of sweat for my forehead )
Today in PCI-E my 8800GT with a New 500 watt PSU, awaits.
Only because my Hamhock hands, don't fit with the confines of my DELL computer. So I'll content myself with my 8600GT, until I save enough to pay for the pro.
Bottom Line. . you might need a Higher Wattage Power Supply.
Upgrading from the 6200
( wasn't aware it contained beads of sweat for my forehead )
Today in PCI-E my 8800GT with a New 500 watt PSU, awaits.
Only because my Hamhock hands, don't fit with the confines of my DELL computer. So I'll content myself with my 8600GT, until I save enough to pay for the pro.
Bottom Line. . you might need a Higher Wattage Power Supply.
Upgrading from the 6200
G
GlobalExplorer
Guest
Firstly a good powerful PSU is mandatory anyway, on should not forget to get one with quality cables, in my last PC loose cables were the stability issue number one. If you want a recommendation have a look at the Corsair range I finally got the 650TX http://www.corsair.com/products/tx.aspx
Secondly if you do some reading you will find that the 4870 has a lot more performance but this comes at the price of power consumption and heat. The 4850 runs very hot too, but power consumption is rather normal, at least not extreme when compared to a ATI 3870 or NVidia 9600 which are the most efficient cards.
If you want a perfect cooling solution on the 4850 you can still buy this http://www.arctic-cooling.com/vga2.php?idx=147
and a 500-800 upm fan, some people even run it passive but that's not a good idea. I have ordered a set, but so far not installed it yet, because the stock cooling is actually rather quiet.
Conclusion = I definitely recommend the 4850 for a price and performance compromise, also don't forget ATI drivers are said to have better image quality.
Secondly if you do some reading you will find that the 4870 has a lot more performance but this comes at the price of power consumption and heat. The 4850 runs very hot too, but power consumption is rather normal, at least not extreme when compared to a ATI 3870 or NVidia 9600 which are the most efficient cards.
If you want a perfect cooling solution on the 4850 you can still buy this http://www.arctic-cooling.com/vga2.php?idx=147
and a 500-800 upm fan, some people even run it passive but that's not a good idea. I have ordered a set, but so far not installed it yet, because the stock cooling is actually rather quiet.
Conclusion = I definitely recommend the 4850 for a price and performance compromise, also don't forget ATI drivers are said to have better image quality.
Pips
Charter Member
The 4870 is a really good card, but the besides the drawback of very high price it requires two six pen connectors and it runs really hot unless you use Rivatuner or speedfan to get the fan speed up to 50% or better. You would also want at least a good 600watt power supply that is 80% efficient and puts out 20A or better.
The 4850 only runs one six pen connector and the temp and power draw is much lower, well within my system capability.
The 4850 only runs one six pen connector and the temp and power draw is much lower, well within my system capability.
P
Polovski
Guest
Only downer for ATI is some reflections (mirror etc) don't look right in OFF and look great in Nvidia but otherwise these days all the newer ones are pretty good. If the card has 1GB GPU memory then should be good.
G
GlobalExplorer
Guest
Is there really some evidence for this? I went for the 1GB version, though every one told me otherwise. With my last card I had listened to the experts and ended up with a GF6800 128MB version, which would still run a lot more games if it only had more memory.
P
Polovski
Guest
I mean for OFF, don't buy a really cheap card with lots of memory, but a good mid to high end that ALSO has more than 512MB will be MUCH better for OFF.
G
GlobalExplorer
Guest
Do you know for certain that OFF will benefit from memory over 512MB or do you just think it is?
P
Polovski
Guest
No I'm making it up completly - I really must stop posting
W
Winder
Guest
No we know it is..... if you ever see posts about white out of scenery objects etc then that is because OFF is exceeding the GPU mem capacity - users then normally have to scale back terrain and scenery sliders - pity SOH lost a lot when they lost those posts so I cannot tell you to search.
But anyway now you know!!
The good thing is that its all scaleable anyway.
HTH
WM
W
Winder
Guest
Pol it has been a long night you are right!
F
Fortiesboy
Guest
Pol- appreciate you are working hard, but I think Global explorer is new to OFF- he joined in Oct 2008? - so he probably didn't know who you are.:costumes:
However, it is nice to see so many new OFFers, I'm sure you'll agree.
G
GlobalExplorer
Guest
I know very well who he is but I don't care if he's the king of Spain. For some reason he did not want to answer my question ..
Winder thanks I guessed as much for it still doesn't say if this a 512MB vs. 1024MB issue, or rather something that happened in connection with 128MB or 256MB cards. A lot of people say 1024 MB is useless in connection with ATI 4850 and other cards, something to do with the memory interface.
F
Fortiesboy
Guest
I know very well who he is but I don't care if he's the king of Spain. For some reason he did not want to answer my question ..
.
Global explorer- I was giving you the benefit of the doubt here. When one of the major developers of this sim says that it will benefit from 512mb, or whatever he says it will benefit from, then most of us, knowing that he must know the sim intimately, give him the respect of accepting that advice.
Your reply of "Are you sure.. etc " was reasonable if you were not aware that he was a major developer, but, as you say you are aware of his credentials, then your reply of "Are you sure ( you know what you're talking about ) ...", was a little bit off- if you'll pardon the pun.
C
CaptainScott
Guest
I have the GeForce 9800 GTX and really like it a lot. Have had no issues and I am sure that it will handle P3.
That having been said, I have not played any P2 (campaign bugs in it just bother me too much) using it.
I regard GeForce as the industry standard--just my opinion, and was reluctant to switch over to Radeon.
That having been said, I have not played any P2 (campaign bugs in it just bother me too much) using it.
I regard GeForce as the industry standard--just my opinion, and was reluctant to switch over to Radeon.
P
Parky
Guest
I know very well who he is but I don't care if he's the king of Spain. For some reason he did not want to answer my question ..
I'd say that's inaccurate. Pol had already answered your question before you even asked it. He didn't say he "thought" OFF would benefit from additional memory on a mid to high-end card. He clearly stated that it "would". Not sure if your question was designed to call his credibility into question, but it certainly appeared that way, and quite frankly, I don't blame him for getting a wee bit annoyed.
There are also a "lot of people" who don't know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to this sort of thing. Rather than listen to them, you'd be better OFF to listen to the few that do. The additional memory on the higher end cards IS beneficial in almost any graphically demanding environment. Specific benchmark results may vary depending on the application in question, but you WILL see improved performance in a number of cases. The most obvious differences will show up when you run comparisons at high, or extremely high resolutions. If you're going to be running OFF at 640x480, you might as well stick with less memory on the card. Once you start getting up to 1920x1200 or above, the additional memory will make a significant difference.
Oh.....and no, I don't just "think" so. The lab tests speak for themselves.
Cheers, and welcome to the OFF forum.
Parky
G
GlobalExplorer
Guest
Don't want to step on any ones toes, but I'm still not a bit smarter than at the beginning of the thread.
I know that 1024 MB graphics RAM are more than 512 MB, and that a lot of people think more is always better. If you don't know why I asked Polovski if OFF was to see a definitive advantage from a GB card, I recommend you to read some reviews ( e.g. http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-radeon-hd-4850-1gb-gvr485oc1gi-review/7 ) and you will see that with most games there is zero difference in performance. These cards cost up to dollar 50 more, so I think it is bad style to recommend one to someone who doesnt need it.
Nothing against Polovski, but some people here were suggested I should accept anything that's said by him at face value, but that's not my style.
Actually in my country it is considered impolite if you answer on a question with a joke, when all you have to say is: yes, no or I don't know.
I think there is no need to have a big argument about this. I think it is not important, just wanted to clarify my point on this.
Therefore: Sorry.
I know that 1024 MB graphics RAM are more than 512 MB, and that a lot of people think more is always better. If you don't know why I asked Polovski if OFF was to see a definitive advantage from a GB card, I recommend you to read some reviews ( e.g. http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-radeon-hd-4850-1gb-gvr485oc1gi-review/7 ) and you will see that with most games there is zero difference in performance. These cards cost up to dollar 50 more, so I think it is bad style to recommend one to someone who doesnt need it.
Nothing against Polovski, but some people here were suggested I should accept anything that's said by him at face value, but that's not my style.
Actually in my country it is considered impolite if you answer on a question with a joke, when all you have to say is: yes, no or I don't know.
I think there is no need to have a big argument about this. I think it is not important, just wanted to clarify my point on this.
Therefore: Sorry.
P
Parky
Guest
Certainly no need for an argument here as far as I'm concerned. To clarify......I've seen a number of different graphs and benchmark results comparing the differences between cards with varying amounts of onboard memory. As I indicated earlier....results will vary depending on various parameters. Usually the most obvious advantages to greater graphics card memory will show up at higher resolutions...particularly where heavy use of antialiasing is concerned. A lot can actually depend on the specific graphics engine involved and wether the application is shader intensive or not.
It is my firm belief that due to the inherent fillrate issues that can be found within the CFS3 graphics engine (which is not all that shader intensive), the more memory you have (both system memory AND graphics card memory), the smoother the game will run....particularly at higher resolutions. You'll also notice the improvements are more obvious if you happen to be a TrackIR user (with specific regard to the fillrate related blue/grey triangle phenomenon that most TrackIR users are familiar with).
Let's face it.....if you're averaging 85FPS across the board, an increase of 4 or 5 frames per second is not going to make or break your gaming experience. If on the other hand, you're only realizing an average of 30 or so FPS at your chosen settings, half a dozen or so additional frames per second could make a fairly substantial difference to your overall enjoyment.
I think it only fair to also mention that the consensus seems to be that CFS3 in general is really more CPU than GPU reliant anyway (as are most of Microsoft's flightsim related software products). Basically, what you want is the fastest central processing unit you can afford before you even start to think about which graphics card to buy.
Cheers,
Parky
It is my firm belief that due to the inherent fillrate issues that can be found within the CFS3 graphics engine (which is not all that shader intensive), the more memory you have (both system memory AND graphics card memory), the smoother the game will run....particularly at higher resolutions. You'll also notice the improvements are more obvious if you happen to be a TrackIR user (with specific regard to the fillrate related blue/grey triangle phenomenon that most TrackIR users are familiar with).
Let's face it.....if you're averaging 85FPS across the board, an increase of 4 or 5 frames per second is not going to make or break your gaming experience. If on the other hand, you're only realizing an average of 30 or so FPS at your chosen settings, half a dozen or so additional frames per second could make a fairly substantial difference to your overall enjoyment.
I think it only fair to also mention that the consensus seems to be that CFS3 in general is really more CPU than GPU reliant anyway (as are most of Microsoft's flightsim related software products). Basically, what you want is the fastest central processing unit you can afford before you even start to think about which graphics card to buy.
Cheers,
Parky