in our countryu can get 4850 for 160€ and 9800GTX cost 250€

It would appear that 1% of TR's readership is so drunk that they can't click where they are aiming.

Looks like the 4850 incorporates fantastic tech at its price point. What I mean is that this card uses the same chip as the more expensive 4870. Furthermore, performance seems to be largely proportional to GPU clock speed and not very dependent on the difference between GDDR3 vs GDDR5. Sure, we can speculate that the chips on the 4870 are binned higher, but, well, maybe the vast majority of these new chips just scale really well.

It seems as though AMD has deliberately crippled the 4850 by strictly limiting the voltage to the core (not to blame them). However, an adventurous few have already been able to get high clocks with simple volt mods which only provide modest increases in voltage (As in 1.15V up to 1.4V) and have really seen these things take off.

For example, check out this 4850 churning out 30+ FPS in crysis at 1680 X 1050 with all settings on Very High. It even bests a GTX280...(6 posts down form top):

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=192690&page=2

Yes you saw correctly. 920 Mhz (up form 625 Mhz)

sure, most will not want to push their hardware this hard, but it means that running the 4850 at 4870 clocks might not be any stretch or even stressful at all on a day-to-day basis. Some have achieved this without any volt modding at all (simple bios mod only).

Also, these bios mods apparently enable more judicious use of the single slot cooler

Looks like the GTX 260 is going to be collecting dust.

This is an unusual poll. I am an AMD fan-person, but if I could pick any card to cram in my system, I would pick a GF280 (for which I voted).

If I had to pay for it, I'd probably grab a 4850. It's tough, since S-Video out without tearing is easy on Radeons, but on nVidia cards requires you to set your refresh rate to 60Hz which is painful on a CRT. But nVidia has Digital Vibrance (without which my monitor looks dull and washed-out, and it cannot be corrected even by custom contrast curves) and better drivers IMO.

wheres matrox's new graphics card on this poll? ;) I've heard they've finally reached the level of a geforce ti4200

280gtx is still the best raw performer however 4870 and 4850 would be people's champion when it comes to price performance it offers. 4870 superior AA performance even matches 280gtx at 8xAA. There really isn't a reason to buy 280gtx or 260gtx unless you have more money you don't know what to do with.

Having been burned by Nvidia's driver neglect more recently than I was burned by ATI, I'm tempted to go red team next time if the price performance is reasonably close - and with these cards it finally is.

if nv reduces the gt200 die and price, a war will commence.

9800 gx2 is the best. Play all kind of games with very high setting. I'll wait it drop down to $300 and i'll get one. It's curretly at $380.

I'd have voted 4850 if the cooler wasn't rubbish.

There is no way a card that sucks in 100+ watts should have a less substantial cooler than the 65W processor it would typically be paired with. The 4870 gets my vote for being a great technology with sensible cooling at a decent price.

I installed an benched my 4850 today and it rocks. I am hitting 25 FPS in Crysis with 4x AA @ 1680 x 1050 with everything at High. (Win XP so DX 9)...

Core 2 Duo E4600@ stock 2.4ghz 1.5 gigs Ram @667 22" Dell LCD put the smack on my old 8800GT which simply couldn't run these settings over 15 Fps!

Oh and don't hate on me but I only paid $150 at Best Buy on it's last day of Vision Tek 25% off sale!

This is the biggest bang for my buck EVER!

As others have noted, there's a wide range of possible definitions of "best."

For my personal machines I tend not to buy the "best" performance; I generally buy the best bang-for-the-buck under $200, provided it has decent thermals and a quiet cooling solution. I don't really game much anymore, and any competent GPU can handle my needs for work; being cool and quiet and not stupidly expensive is far more important.

For that reason, I'm not buying anything yet. I likely will buy a 4850 as my next video card, once there are some choices using something other than the reference cooler (and perhaps once the software has matured so they do better power management).

Going with the POV that 90 fps is adequate and 1600 x 1200 is the desired resolution 2 4850's is a much better deal than 2 4870's. Crossfired the cards performances are about the same, only at 2560 by 1600 do the 2 4870's make a difference. One more point crossfired 4850's use 80 watts less at load than 4870's.

So far I've got one 4850, and it's awesome, I'm not sure I need another, but it would be nice if the drivers allowed crossfiring between the 48xx, and the 38xx's.

Heh, I am a lazy ass who just comes here so that *you* can tell *me* what the best video card is

I voted 4850. But I would wait for 4650 vs 9600GT at the $99 market. It seems 4650 is going to beat 3850.

Radeon 3870 Mac&PC Edition!

Seriously though - as a Mac user, I'm just happy to get something a gen behind you guys. It'll do what I need, and it's already pre-ordered.

Intel x3100. I tend to think PC gaming and the need for a dedicated video card is the minority these days.

Integrated saves power and produces less heat/noise.

The best card will be the 280 when it gets its die shrink along with 1gig of DDR5 memory.

I just picked up a pair of 4850's to Crossfire, so I guess you can imagine what I voted...;)

HD4870 because the wow factor and the very enthusiastic reception it has had from almost all sides of the great GPU debates makes it the "Conroe of 2008".
Class leading performance/price..DX10.1,brand new UVD circuitry and excellent AA performance...what's not to like?

from any perspective other than pure performance with money to burn, i'd have to pick ATI's 4800's.

as a consumer:
best price/performance
best performance/watt

as a tech enthusiast/engineer:
best performance/die size
newest technologies

as a shareholder:
greatest improvement from previous generation
better moneymaker than the competition

personally, i picked the 4850, because i'm paying for my card. the 4870 is cool, but ~20% more performance for ~50% more money isn't really worth it, especially when the 4850 performs good enough at everything except crysis.

I was sure the GTX260 was the card for me, and my avenue of purchase was initially to be a GTX9800, then Step Up to the GTX260 after letting the rest of the new cards come out, but the 4870 has completely changed my buying strategy, and for the first time ever I am going ATI. I've been 'rolling my own' rigs since '97, so this truly is a big deal to me.

My only concern is, I really do want to wait for the 1gb cards to come out, and I want to buy a card with a better heatsink setup, which will dump the air out of the case. Yea, I'll pay $420 for it, but my last video card purchase was a $440 eVGA 8800GTS ACS3 card, so thats fine with me.

4850, the bang for the buck is just too good. That said, if AMD gets this hybrid graphics deal working correctly (meaning shutdown the card and use on-board when not gaming), I am finally going to build a new setup and quit riding this AXP system into the ground.

Everybody griping about 4800 heat: Don't even look at the idle heat/power usage numbers. AMD is working hard on getting 8.7 out sooner than planned with fixed PowerPlay to correct the overly low idle fan settings. Some of the OEMs are working on firmware updates that will lower the current 80C ceiling as well, in an attempt to get the temps sorted.

Basically the hardware has only one instruction: Temps > 80C, increase fan speed. Repeat till condition is cleared.

The drivers have control over the clocks and volts, and are supposed to override the cards with more detailed fan/volt/clock management instructions. The 4850 was supposed to just be trickling into stores now, with the 4870 to follow in a week and a half. I'm guessing AMD was planning on having the drivers ready for the 4870 launch and let the 4850 folks wonder and scratch heads for a week or two.

The real bottom line here is that 80C is hot, but not unreasonable. The cards seem to be dealing with it just fine, and if they don't there's the warranty. The OEMs are rushing more aggressive fan settings to you, and AMD is doing much the same. Just be chill for a little bit and your card will likely join you shortly.

The HD4850 delivers the right performance for the right price. It might not perform as well as the HD4870 and the GTX2xx, but I'll bet money that more people will buy the HD4850 than any other of those listed.

I've been a graphics card nut, and compulsive upgrader since the ATi Ultra Pro in the Early 90's. Milleniums, Voodoo's, Rivas, Geforces, Rages, Permedias, Radeons, FireGl's, Quadro's; I've had them all and I think I've had a good sample.

I can say that my new 4850 is the most satisfying GPU update yet. Its the biggest leap forward over a previous generation yet. I can't wait to Xfire this biatch. $200 well worth spending.

-A-

Given the money-- I'll grab a Radeon HD 4850 or a 9800GTX+.

Depends on the performance of the factory OC'ed versions...

4870 is nice and fast but it's not a huge difference in most of my use, not 50% more worth. (now if I was gaming at 2560x1600 I would grab a pair :-p ).

If I were buying today, it would be 4850. So that's my vote. But, I'm hell-bent on getting at least a year out of my 8800GT, so by the time I'm ready to spend money all these cards will be old news anyway.

The 4580 by far. Price/Performance + Crossfire option makes it a clear winner at all levels.