Jesper Poulsen wrote:
> Det er testet mod et 8800GS som ydelsesmæssigt ligger markant under et
> 8800GT.
Det er jeg klar over.
Men manden har en ældre cpu, så jeg tænkte det var rimeligt at vise ham hvad
han kan forvente med dén.
Mine bemærkninger stammer fra dette review:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTUyOCwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
Citat:
"The gameplay experience in Crysis was greatly improved by using an ATI
Radeon HD 4850. Not only were we able to run Crysis at a higher resolution
with the Radeon HD 4850 than with the BFGTech video card, we were even able
to increase object detail quality. Whereas we had to leave it at medium, on
the two GeForce 8800 GT based video cards, the ATI Radeon HD 4850 had enough
performance headroom to allow us to bump it up to high."
Med andre ord: 4850 giver mulighed for bedre detaljer i spillene pga. sin
bedre hastighed.
Direkte hastighedsammenligninger:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTUyOCw2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
Pointen er, at qua sin nyere arkitektur, håndterer 4850 bedre de mere
avancerede funktioner, der er ved at dukke op i spillene i dag:
"But framerates don't tell the whole story. With bloom enabled at 1600x1200,
the BFGTech GeForce 8800 GT OCX exhibited considerably choppiness and a
noticeable input lag, resulting in an unpleasant gameplay experience. Those
problems were absent from the ATI Rdeon HD 4850, however. Age of Conan
remained fluid and responsive on the ATI video card, with bloom enabled."
(I spillet Age of Conan.)
Så efter min mening er et 4850 et bedre køb idag, med mulighed for senere at
følge med i en evt. opgradering.
Og kortet i testen er endda med 512 MB ram, det ser ud til at 1 GB vil give
større fordele fremover:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-radeon-hd-4850-1gb-gvr485oc1gi-review/8
Kig på Crysis forneden.
(Jeg har set tilsvarende i andre tests, det er ikke kun her.)
Når kortene er prissat ens, kan jeg ikke se nogen grund til at købe det
ældre 8800GT.
Venlig hilsen
Henrik