Well first of all you are saying that the 4850/4870 is a slower card than the 8800gtx which is what leads me to think you are just upset that the 4800 series came along and made your 8800gtx resale value plummet the truth is staring you in the face the 4850 is the better card.
I think these days peoeple want to max their game and have nice AA and Af and that is why the 4850 is great because you can do that without taking much of a hit in frames added to this the 8800 series are at their peak in terms of drivers .The 4800 series aren't even optimized yet and therefore can only get faster.
I'm no fanboy I got rid of my overclocked 8800gt to get a 4850 because the gt was starting to feel the pinch and forget AA couldn't have any of that nice stuff on with the gt in recent games.
As for tomshardware I am more than sure I could go grab some graphs showing you the 4850 being 30 fps better than any 8800gtx in certain games.
The fact is that the 8800gtx is old hat now and if you can get a decent price for it say £100 there's really no reason not to upgrade it to a 4850 which can be had for about £125 delivered.
Your expectations are far too high to expect a 200% increase that just isn't going to happen this generation.
I'm all for upgrading at the right time and this was definitely a right time to sell on your 8800 and move to a 4850 at a minimal loss.
Afraid you're WAY wide of the mark with the reslae business..... my GTX has a buggered DVI port (no green, so everything looks purple....and I think it's in the socket itself), so it's resale value is nil anyway.
But I've benched a 4850 against my GTX, and it was, well....ish. Bit faster in some things, bit slower in others (hammered the GTX to death in furmark).
As I said, I LOVE the idea that AA causes little or no hit, even a modest 16x setting knackers the GTX. BUT, the GTX can do 32x, but the 4850 only manages 24x....although presumably with a better framerate.
I just took exception (and still do), to the idea that the 4850 murders the GTX, it doesn't, it's a bit quicker here, a bit slower there. While it may be a better card to buy, I'm not sure I'd call it an upgrade from the GTX...lower scores in 3dmark, call of duty4, doom3 and Crysis. £100 for less FPS is a bit silly.
Of course, if it can get the same or close FPS with full AA (ie 24x), then it would be a very good upgrade. There must have been something wrong with the one I was fiddling with, because 24x was as much of a slideshow as 32x on the GTX (only tried AA test in COD and Aquamark).
In fairness to the 4850, was running on a CPU at 3.2 instead of 3.4 like mine, and had DDR2 not 3 like mine (DDR3= no performance increase WHATSOEVER by the way...save your money). But I repeat that it did NOT out perform the GTX at every turn, and certainly not by £100 worth.
I don't think I suggested a 200% increase, a simple doubling of performance is all one should expect for a component some 2years+ younger. But the 4850 is not significantly faster at all.
The 4870 appears to be 50% faster than the 4850, so it should be 1.5x what the GTX is doing as well.....correct? And that's by MY measure of the 4850 vs GTX.....by yours it should be getting on for 2x??? (after all you consider the 4850 a significant upgrade in performance to the GTX).
I do not think anyone should be ditching a GTX (particularly not an OC2 like mine....with it's MASSIVE 7% over stock speed.....before anyone starts with the "you tested an oc card against stock"....fine, I added 7% to everything the 4850 did), for a 4850. a 4870 maybe.
NOTE: just occurred to me that in fact many of the comparisons I made were with my machine clocked back to 3.2 anyway, so CPU was like-for-like.
One final point about the AA....I keep seeing "lilttle or no AA performance drop" and "better for playing at very high AA" and "much better IQ". But yet all the benches out there only measure up to the very low setting of 8x....never seen a bench showing the decent modes like 16 and 24 (and of course it cannot actually DO 32, so unless ATI's 24x is STUNNINGLY good, I cannot see how the IQ is better), BUT I also keep reading ATI users telling each other "don't bother with anything over 8x, it's broken" or "don't bother with anything over 8x, it looks the exact same".
So I am unconvinced.
SHORT version:
If buying a new card, buy a 4850, it's as good as, or a tiny tiny teeny weeny bit better than an 8800GTXOC2.
If you are upgrading, there are no true 2x performance upgrades available, but unless you have a 5 MW power supply for a 280GTX, buy a 4870.
Now if you still insist the 4850 will run away from the GTX, would you be willing to put cash where gob is.....as I said, if I buy one and it scores less than the GTX in any game (we'll forget benches like 3dmark to keep "3dmark is secretly coded by nvidia to make ATI look bad" crap to a minimum)....will you buy it off me at cost?
Tests run at 16xAA, the highest common mode.
Bet you say no
Fine, fine cards, and a much better option than NV's new monsters, but you are overplaying it bigtime. I was VERY impressed with the 4850, I just think you're making a great card seem like a REALLY great card.
(one other reason I wouldn't but one myself but would consider a 4870 (and indeed I AM), is the stupid STUPID cooler dumping all the heat into the case).
