GTS 250/9800 GTX+ vs ATI HD4850: Which has more OC headroom?

[cbn]

I am considering the 512MB versions of the GTS 250/9800 GTX+ vs. ATI HD4850 512 MB.

I know the cards are roughly equivalent @ stock clocks but which one has more OCing Headroom? I hear the HD4850 runs a little hot.

Any special edition cards @ newegg that I should also look at (that have improved cooling). I am trying to stay away from Aftermarket coolers (which don't seem to be very cost effective compared to the products already installed by third party CPU manufacturers).

Also which card uses more power? (I have a 550 watt PSU so I don't think this will be an issue but I am still curious)

 

[TC91]

GTS 250 only needs one power connector compared to the 9800gtx+ and uses quite a bit less power (see AT's review).

 

[AzN]

It's about same in power consumption. You should flip a coin honestly. Get which ever is cheaper.

Some facts:
4850 is better at managing vram for higher resolutions and AA settings
GTS is faster in raw frame rates majority of the time and ties it with 4xAA
GTS has physx which has couple games out with the effects
4850 has more AA options and better at higher level of AA settings

 

[error8]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814500099 GTS 512mb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814143179 - 1gb 9800gtx+ which is basically a gts250 1gb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814127401 -4850 512mb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814161268 -4870 512mb at 154$ after MIR. Faster then those above, but I don't know if you are on a tight budget.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Azn
It's about same in power consumption. You should flip a coin honestly. Get which ever is cheaper.

Some facts:
4850 is better at managing vram for higher resolutions and AA settings
GTS is faster in raw frame rates majority of the time and ties it with 4xAA
GTS has physx which has couple games out with the effects
4850 has more AA options and better at higher level of AA settings

I would say the GTS has more AA options, but not many of them being usable. But everything else is spot on. If your sticking with the stock cooling of a HD4850, Id say grab a GTS if heat is a issue. The stock cooling on the HD4850 is good for stock, but not so much for OCing.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
The stock cooling on the HD4850 is good for stock, but not so much for OCing.

Yes, but you can hardly find any stock 4850 right now. Most of them are custom cooled, so with improved overclocking headroom and better temps.

 

[MarcVenice]

If you are going to go Nvidia, at least get the GTS250, you will be idling with 30W less, and loading 30W less.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Azn

4850 has more AA options and better at higher level of AA settings

This is not true. nVidia has more options, and their best options look better than ATi's best options.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Azn

4850 has more AA options and better at higher level of AA settings

This is not true. nVidia has more options, and their best options look better than ATi's best options.

But on a GTS250, I doubt you could use some of the tasty AA modes

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Azn

4850 has more AA options and better at higher level of AA settings

This is not true. nVidia has more options, and their best options look better than ATi's best options.

But on a GTS250, I doubt you could use some of the tasty AA modes

That depends on the game library.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Just learning
I am considering the 512MB versions of the GTS 250/9800 GTX+ vs. ATI HD4850 512 MB.

I know the cards are roughly equivalent @ stock clocks but which one has more OCing Headroom? I hear the HD4850 runs a little hot.

Don't know about the 4850, but the GTS 250 IMO does not have a huge amount of headroom for completely stable overclocks on the shader. Maybe just a notch or two.

 

[Shmee]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: Just learning
I am considering the 512MB versions of the GTS 250/9800 GTX+ vs. ATI HD4850 512 MB.

I know the cards are roughly equivalent @ stock clocks but which one has more OCing Headroom? I hear the HD4850 runs a little hot.

Don't know about the 4850, but the GTS 250 IMO does not have a huge amount of headroom for completely stable overclocks on the shader. Maybe just a notch or two.

This I find kinda hard to believe, assuming the GTS 250 OC's anything like the 65 nm 9800 GTX. I got mine stable at about 2000 Mhz shader. I believe that is about 500 mhz above stock.

Honestly, I still have the card, and would consider buying a GTS 250 to SLI with it, if it were allowed, which IDK if it works.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Shmee
Honestly, I still have the card, and would consider buying a GTS 250 to SLI with it, if it were allowed, which IDK if it works.

techreport:
There are some benefits to GPU continuity. As you can see in a couple of the pictures above, the GTS 250 retains the dual SLI connectors present on the 9800 GTX, and Nvidia says the GTS 250 will willingly participate in an SLI pairing alongside a GeForce 9800 GTX+ of the same memory size. Unfortunately, though, 512MB and 1GB cards will not match, and Nvidia's drivers won't treat a 1GB card as if it were a 512MB card for the sake of multi-GPU cross-compatibility, like AMD's will.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16504

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Azn

4850 has more AA options and better at higher level of AA settings

This is not true. nVidia has more options, and their best options look better than ATi's best options.

I haven't used 4850 but from what I read it has 24xAA while Nvidia has 16xAA.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Since nobody directly answered this part of your question yet: The rated TDP for the GTS250/9800GTX+ is 145W, and for the 4850 it's 110W.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Shmee

Originally posted by: Zap
Don't know about the 4850, but the GTS 250 IMO does not have a huge amount of headroom for completely stable overclocks on the shader. Maybe just a notch or two.

This I find kinda hard to believe, assuming the GTS 250 OC's anything like the 65 nm 9800 GTX. I got mine stable at about 2000 Mhz shader. I believe that is about 500 mhz above stock.

Stock shader on the GTS 250 is 1836MHz, so it starts out way up there already.

I think part of the issue is that there has been a lot of cost cutting between the original 9800 GTX and the current/upcoming GTS 250. For instance the original PCB was a huge 10.5" with many layers (maybe 14? someone can correct me) and was a straight-from-NVIDIA reference at higher prices. That was fitting for a top end card. To get these things down to $130-150 required some cost cutting so we're now at somewhere around an 8 layer board with fewer components to hit lower price points.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: Shmee
Honestly, I still have the card, and would consider buying a GTS 250 to SLI with it, if it were allowed, which IDK if it works.

techreport:
There are some benefits to GPU continuity. As you can see in a couple of the pictures above, the GTS 250 retains the dual SLI connectors present on the 9800 GTX, and Nvidia says the GTS 250 will willingly participate in an SLI pairing alongside a GeForce 9800 GTX+ of the same memory size. Unfortunately, though, 512MB and 1GB cards will not match, and Nvidia's drivers won't treat a 1GB card as if it were a 512MB card for the sake of multi-GPU cross-compatibility, like AMD's will.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16504

The 9800GTX+ is the 55nm variant. Shmee has the 65nm, which won't SLI with a GTS 250. That's assuming he doesn't want to do some creative card BIOS flashing.

 

[Concillian]

As far as OC headroom, mine is only one case, but my 4850 OCs virtually nil on memory and over 100 MHz on core. Note that that was heavily dependent on strong *VRM* cooling. No matter what I did to the core temp, it wouldn't OC well until I made the VRMs happy. Note that very few of the 3rd party coolers on 4850s cool the VRMs very well, you will almost certainly need to do some work on your own for this to be possible for you.

I have no experience on the 250 and don't know it's limits or what speeds you'd need to OC to to be comparable to a 4850 at 740 MHz, but that's what I was able to get mine to with an Accelero, and some special attention to the VRMs. This compared with 625 stock, and I have been running that 740 in all games for several months now with no issues (mem speed at the stock 993 MHz / 1986 effective)

 

[evolucion8]

I would recommend the HD 4850 as in some game scenarios like in GRID and Quaker Wars, it can reach the GTX 260 performance, that's something that you will never see with a GTS 250 regardless of the game. So there's more potential in the end with driver optimizations to untap more performance in the HD 4850, and both has lots of FSAA options, the AF quality edge goes to the GTS 250 but the FSAA quality edge goes to the HD 4850 which performance impact is quite minimal compared with the GTS 250 which high CFAA modes will hurt the performance greatly.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=3188&page=2

 

[Wreckage]

http://www.overclockersclub.co...s/bfg_gts250_oc/15.htm

Performance wise, the BFG GTS 250 outperformed the overclocked HD4850 in the majority of our benchmarks.

The card they tested was already factory overclocked and they were still able to push it a little further.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
http://www.overclockersclub.co...s/bfg_gts250_oc/15.htm

Performance wise, the BFG GTS 250 outperformed the overclocked HD4850 in the majority of our benchmarks.

The card they tested was already factory overclocked and they were still able to push it a little further.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-geforce-gts-250/6660-15.html

Nvidia GeForce GTS 250 1GB

The raw processing power of the HD4870 512MB exceeds that of the GTS 250 1GB, so Nvidia is obviously banking on the extra 512MB to give it an advantage. Unfortunately this doesn't happen much at all.

Only on more graphically demanding games (Crysis Warhead, Far Cry 2), and at very high resolutions with AA and/or AF enabled does the added memory come in useful. But any advantage that the GTS 250 1GB gets over the HD4870 512MB turns out to be an empty victory when neither card is able to muster playable framerates anyways.

In all other cases, the HD4870 512MB is the clear winner, and provides much better bang for the buck than the GTS 250 1GB. Pairing a mid-range card with a 30" LCD monitor just doesn't work very well, and if you must have all your eye candy at 2560x1600, be prepared to revise your graphics card budget upwards.

Nvidia GeForce GTS 250 512MB

Moving slightly down the price range, we have the GTS 250 512MB and HD4850 512MB neck and neck in terms of both performance and price. If you're going to base your purchase solely on those two factors, then go for whichever brand you like.

In secondary areas of concern, the GTS 250 512MB has lower power consumption and lower noise (even the reference design), but the HD4850 512MB is the slimmer card, taking up just a single slot.

Some Thoughts...

If this review shows anything apart from Nvidia's desperation, it's that slapping more memory onto a card cannot make up for raw processing power.

Some time back, several AMD partners released 1GB versions of the HD4850. These cards turned out to be nearly as expensive as the HD4870 512MB. Quite unsurprisingly, those models flopped. And the GeForce GTS 250 1GB from Nvidia follows in their footsteps.

http://www.pcper.com/article.p...=674&type=expert&pid=9

The more important comparisons obviously come when we look at the Radeon cards that we used in our benchmarks. The Radeon HD 4850 512MB was actually surprisingly competitive with the GTS 250 1GB in titles like World in Conflict, Call of Duty: World at War and even Crysis! At the lower and upper resolutions the two cards are within a few frames per second of each other. Our two newest gaming tests though, Far Cry 2 and Left 4 Dead, did show a noticeable performance advantage for the new GTS 250 card across the range of resolutions.

You might be able to guess then how the GTS 250 fares against the Radeon HD 4870: not that well. In fact, the only title that NVIDIA's offering shows any kind of spark is on Far Cry 2 where both AMD cards simply choke. Sadly, even though the performance gaps between the GTS 250 and HD 4870 512MB card do lessen as the resolution increases, very few gamers are going to care as gamers with $149 GPUs rarely have 30" 2560x1600 displays.

So in my opinion overall, the sligh edge would go to the GTS 250 overclocked, in stock the performance difference between the HD 4850 and the GTS 250 will depend greatly on the games played, but with high anti aliasing modes in high resolutions, the HD 4850 still better overall.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
http://www.overclockersclub.co...s/bfg_gts250_oc/15.htm

Performance wise, the BFG GTS 250 outperformed the overclocked HD4850 in the majority of our benchmarks.

The card they tested was already factory overclocked and they were still able to push it a little further.

From the review:

This also concerned me when I started to push the clock speeds and promptly hit walls on the memory, shaders and core pretty quickly. 65MHz on the core, 84MHz on the memory, and 42MHz on the shaders were all that the GTS 250 would yield. Anything higher and it was corruption city. I have to wonder if the lack of that second power connector limited the overclock

The first thing is yes, the lack of extra power probably in some small way limits the overclock. I was just reading a couple days ago about a Galaxy 9500 GT video card that comes with a 6 pin PCIe power input. The 9500 GT does not need extra power, but this card came with one. With a volt-mod the card was able to overclock probably 1/3 higher than stock clocks. I doubt it would have been possible (to that degree) if it weren't for the extra available power.

The second thing is that I've already mentioned I didn't think there was much headroom in the shader. This review certainly indicates similar results.

Now, on a per-card basis overclocking is luck of the draw and of course some lucky person out there will get a GTS 250 that can clock another 100-200MHz more on the shader. However, unless the manufacturer implements higher voltages than NVIDIA's spec for the GPU or implements a more agressive fan profile (or both), I think it will be more the exception rather than the rule to get high overclocks on the GTS 250. Small overclocks? Certainly. Boost voltage and crank fan? Maybe. Stock voltage on auto fan? Don't expect too much.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Zap


The first thing is yes, the lack of extra power probably in some small way limits the overclock.

Don't forget that the card already had a factory overclock on it. So it should give some idea of how far you can get from stock. Also the benchmarks are a good comparison.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Azn

I haven't used 4850 but from what I read it has 24xAA while Nvidia has 16xAA.

You?re correct that 24xAA is better than 16xQ, but both modes are limited to polygon edges.

nVidia has combined AA modes which include full scene super-sampling that anti-aliases everything, hence generating superior IQ overall.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

But on a GTS250, I doubt you could use some of the tasty AA modes

That depends on the game library.

Not only that, but the performance hit is a bit of a misnomer these days; 8xS actually has a smaller performance hit than 16xQ and 24xAA, and probably 12xAA too.

Having said that, ATi still has very strong 8xMSAA performance relative to their specs, especially in OpenGL.