Radeon HD 3850 or GeForce 9600GT

[tom_gymrat]

Radeon = http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/Graphics+Cards/PCI-E/ATI+Radeon+3000+Series/ATI+Radeon+HD+3850+512MB+PCI-E2.0+?productId=29977

GeForce = http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/Graphics+Cards/PCI-E/nVIDIA+GeForce+9+Series/nVidia+GeForce+9600GT+512MB+PCI-E+?productId=30589

They're both 512mb cards, and both similarly priced. The GeForce has faster memory speed yet slower core speed.

What would be your choice?

[wonderlust]

9600gt beats the 3870 in a few benchies so should beat the 3850 in all!

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3235

[tystar]

Neither i'd get a 8800gt, wouldnt waste my cash on either, sooner hold of a little to get the extra £30 and buy the 8800gt

http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/Graphics+Cards/PCI-E/nVIDIA+GeForce+8+Series/nVidia+GeForce+8800GT+512MB+PCI-E+?productId=29148

[wonderlust]

but then again the 8800gts is only another £30 on top of that!

http://www.aria.co.uk/SuperSpecials/Other+products/nVidia+GeForce+8800GTS+512MB+PCI-E+?productId=29750

The question is where do you stop!

[tystar]

not at the 9600gt :mrgreen: bloody hate the 8600 & the 9600 range not gamers cards yet marketed like they are and people buy them thinking there getting something really good.

[Mul.]

The 9600GT's seem to be good cards that perform suprisingly similar to the 8800GT in a lot of games, purely due to the fact that many aren't too shader intensive and the only other area where the 9600GT lacks is the number of ROP's. If the budget allows of course, 8800GT for sure. I'd say the difference in streams + rops is worth the extra cash.

Between the two I'd go for the 9600GT but you can't go wrong with the HD 3850 either so long as you opt for the 512mb version.

[tom_gymrat]

Thanks for the replies. Unfortunately I'm stretching myself going to £100 so £135 is out of the question. I think I'll be buying the 9600.

Thanks again!

[bigdan676]

Thanks for the replies. Unfortunately I'm stretching myself going to £100 so £135 is out of the question. I think I'll be buying the 9600.

Thanks again!

Nothing wrong with the 9600GT used one for a couple of builds now and prformance of these cards is great. Only when you add AA and highering the graphics settings is when the 9600Gt strugles. If you are planing on using this card to play COD4 then you will be fine mate,

Regards
dan
:)

[theBishopp]

Nothing wrong with the 9600GT used one for a couple of builds now and prformance of these cards is great. Only when you add AA and highering the graphics settings is when the 9600Gt strugles. If you are planing on using this card to play COD4 then you will be fine mate,

Regards
dan
:)

Therein lies the problem Dan, they are NOT cards for gamers. Who wants to play a game with decent frame rates if it looks awful?

Of the 2 cards chosen, the 512 HD3850 would be my vote by a long way. DX10.1, and if you have enough cash for a better card at a later date, you can crossfire a HD3850 and a HD3870 together (assuming you have a crossfire motherboard)...

The other advantage that people marginally less technical ALWAYS overlook, even when it is pointed out to them and explained in detail the difference, is the ATI cards while appearing to lag behind nVidia, actually perform almost exactly the same but with better visuals...

Of course, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, and show how it is ignored by reviewers, people will always take the word of the reviewers because they are "authorities" on the subject. Personally, I am fairly certain it is all psychology and the fact a website that reviews stuff has it in writing that makes the difference. Websites have a - subconcious - feel of permanence about them, in the same manner a book or magazine does. Forums, on the other hand are much more transient, and therefore seem to project less "weight"...

I am no longer surprised by the continuing ignorance of these apparent "expert" review sites.

If you know anyone with both of these cards, see if you can borrow them, explore the settings on each card, and decide for yourself in the flesh.

My only regret in my HD3850 is it is the 256MB card, not the 512MB one. Then again, it is a temporary measure that will be decanted into my childrens PC once I have the spare fundage for a better card... Can't wait for the 4XXX series (assuming that is what they will be called).


Just re-read that - oops! - [\rant]

[Mul.]

Sorry if I've misunderstood but are you saying that the GeForce 9600GT is not a card for gamers? Performance wise it is at HD 3850 levels.

I've owned a mix of ATi and nVidia graphics cards and have played on systems with upper end GeForce 8's and HD 2900's and 3800's and never did it cross my mind that either had poor image quality as such. There's a lot of talk of ATi's having superior Image Quality but I just don't seem to see it. It must be subjective.

That being said, I wouldn't be one to discount the Radeon HD 3850/3870 as such. Both of these cards are pretty much on par with each other.

[theBishopp]

It's not about poor image quality as such, just a very large amount is made of frame rates, but over a certain amount (some debate about this, but I honestly don't think people can tell above 30 to 40 frams a second - bar some very very few with exceptionally fast visual processing) is total waste. If you get a stock ATI card you can play with all the settings in Catalyst Control Centre or ATI Tray Tools. Enable Catalyst AI and the boost in frame rates puts it on a par with the equivalent nVidia card, but with distinctly better visuals. The visual cutbacks are softweare based on the ATI offerings, and can therefore be re-enabled. On nVidia cards, the cutbacks are encoded at a hardware level, so you don't get the choice.

This is why I will always favour ATI over nVidia until it changes. other than that, I have no particular loyalty to either, whichever is the best value for money and gives fantastic performance will be my choice of the moment.

You can test all this yourself, and if you do you will SEE the difference in visual quality. The difference is bigger at lower resolutions, but things like AA and AF are a must with games these days...

[Mul.]

Each to their own I guess. This is something that I'll be looking into again but at least from what I've seen, if the differences in image quality is there it must be quite small.

As for the framerates, to an extent you're right. I believe one's vision can actually see the difference in framerates over 30 but will vary in the nature of the game. For example, in flight simulators anything as low as 25fps is often regarded as very smooth while 25fps in a first person shooter will have you killed quite quickly.

[wonderlust]

to the original poster, you may want to take a look at Aria's super specials.

They are now offering an 8800Gt 512Mb at the same price point!

So to me there is only one choice:-

http://www.aria.co.uk/SuperSpecials/Other+products/nVidia+GeForce+8800GT+512MB+PCI-E+?productId=29148

BTW ordered mine a little earlier, so now have a 6800GT to retire.

[tom_gymrat]

Thebishopp: Thanks for your input, your argument has swayed my decision and I shall go for the ATI card.

Thanks everyone!

[Lynx]

A few frames lost for better image quality is definatley what i would choose.

[marsey99]

personally i think the iq argument is abit of a mute point tbh, yea some games look nicer on one or the other but this is due to them being onboard with the game dev whislt they were making it.

buy the card that performs and looks the best in the games you play.

[Aelred89]

Can't go wrong with this (http://www.aria.co.uk/SuperSpecials/Other+products/Asus+GeForce+8800GS+384MB+DDR3+PCI-E+?productId=30168) matey, overclocks to, and beyond, GT speeds too! And the less RAM isn't a problem unless your res is higher than 1680x1050 :)

[lukeharvest]

Both are good cards, but at higher resolutions the Nvidia seems to be able to handle games more successfully, on the other hand, I have a 3850 512mb, and run everything at 1920*1200 and are more than satisfied considering the price of the card.