GeForce GT 130 vs Radeon HD 4850

[open0source]

I'm going to be ordering my new iMac within the next couple days but need a little advice first. Obviously, the 4850 is more powerful, but if these two cards had the exact same specs, would ATI or nVidia be the better choice? Which company is Apple leaning towards, which company produces better Mac drivers, how will OpenCL play into this, etc. Any information is greatly appreciated!

[11800506]

Apple recently seems to prefer Nvidia, however traditionally ATI cards' drivers have been much better as ATI actually writes them while Apple has recently written the Nvidia drivers. I presume both cards will be able to use Open CL, but then again no one knows that for sure, but there is no reason why they wouldn't. It's important to note though that CTOing an iMac with the Radeon 4850 bumps the shipping time to 4-6 weeks presumably because of either production issues or because it requires 10.5.7 like the 4870 in the Mac Pro.

[synagence]

The delay has to be purely a software one ... its not like the 4850 hasn't been out a while ... its until they've nailed 10.5.7

[gonzaload1987]

Do you think ati 4850 is better than the 8800gs?

[thedarkhorse]

I'm pretty sure the 4850 would run circles around an 8800gs

[Moriarty]

Do you think ati 4850 is better than the 8800gs?

Yes. 3870 is more powerful than an 8800 GT... 8800 GS was only about 2/3 as powerful as an 8800 GT.

4850 will be quite a bit faster. I think the Nvidia GT 130 will be about equal to the 8800 GS.

[synagence]

Would love to see a benchmark of the 4850HD vs mobility 4850HD .... i looked on futuremarks results browser but i couldn't see either

[Jethryn Freyman]

Definitely get the ATI card. Better drivers and a faster card. The GT120 is a 9500M GT, and GT130 is a 9600M GSO (I think.)

[Moriarty]

Definitely get the ATI card. Better drivers and a faster card. The GT120 is a 9500M GT, and GT130 is a 9600M GSO (I think.)

And presumably clocked higher than the Macbook Pro's underclocked GPU's because of less thermal constraints.

[gonzaload1987]

thx for your quick answer to my question, finally i would like to ask you if you think that is possible to upgrade my 8800gs card for this new one?

[Moriarty]

Nope, you can't upgrade the GPU.

[gonzaload1987]

Nope, you can't upgrade the GPU.

Are you totally sure? I tell you because my imac comes initially with the ati 2600, and i upgraded for my current video card. Obviously, all this i did it with an official apple store.

Is there any limitation in the hardware or incompatibility of the early 2008 imac?

[medic349]

I bought a 3.06 imac almost 2 weeks ago that was stock with the 2 gigs of ram and the 500 gig hard drive and the 8800 gt. Exchanged it this morning for the new model with the the GT 130. So far the only game I play consistently is WOW and I know that while it is a game that can run on pretty much anything, after the LK expansion it did get choppy in certain areas with everything maxed out. I did notice a pretty significant increase in graphic performance with the new machine. I've heard that WOW is more processor and RAM dependent than video but can't honestly comment on that. So far though for an even swap, the extra 2 gigs of ram and extra 500 gigs on the hard drive was well worth it

[mikeyredk]

does the GT have any HD acceleration capabilities like the Radeon does?

[Potcaster]

According to a new article on Barefeats.com (http://www.barefeats.com/other01.html) the Gt 130 is the Nvidia 8800Gs.

So those of you who have been posting that you have gotten better results with the Gt 130 then on the 8800 gs iMac, may be suffering from "car-wash" syndrome (When you feel that your car drives better after you get it washed).

[Theraker007]

According to a new article on Barefeats.com (http://www.barefeats.com/other01.html) the Gt 130 is the Nvidia 8800Gs.

So those of you who have been posting that you have gotten better results with the Gt 130 then on the 8800 gs iMac, may be suffering from "car-wash" syndrome (When you feel that your car drives better after you get it washed).

couldnt it just be that the old rigs just have normal slowdown from software clutter and they actually do notice a better performance because the machine is running better just from not having much installed on it?

its not necessarily that theyre lying

[Tesseract]

Keep in mind that there are usually mobility versions of the cards which have around a 25% performance drop to reduce heat and power consumption. Apple never labels their cards "mobility" even when that's usually what is in the iMac line.

A desktop 4850 would be better than a 8800 GS, but a MOBILITY 4850 would be around the same performance as a non-mobility 8800 GS. The GT 130 is basically a MOBILITY 8800 GS. Thus, the mobility 4850 would be better than a GT 130 by about 30%.

[chewietobbacca]

Keep in mind that there are usually mobility versions of the cards which have around a 25% performance drop to reduce heat and power consumption. Apple never labels their cards "mobility" even when that's usually what is in the iMac line.

A desktop 4850 would be better than a 8800 GS, but a MOBILITY 4850 would be around the same performance as a non-mobility 8800 GS. The GT 130 is basically a MOBILITY 8800 GS. Thus, the mobility 4850 would be better than a GT 130 by about 30%.

Just nitpicking here but even 25% less out of the 4850 should still be ahead of the 8800GS desktop by a good amount.

[mac.andy]

I'd recommend the ATi option and wait the 4 to 6 weeks, you're getting a far better graphics processor and OS X 10.5.7 too. :cool:

[Wormy23]

Anyone faced with this question should just check these benchmarks:


http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/9914/4850perf.th.png (http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4850perf.png)

Source: http://www.apple.com/imac/features.html click "View iMac Performance Graphics Chart"

However, what we really need is Barefeats to do their benchmarks.

[itommyboy]

According to a new article on Barefeats.com (http://www.barefeats.com/other01.html) the Gt 130 is the Nvidia 8800Gs.

So those of you who have been posting that you have gotten better results with the Gt 130 then on the 8800 gs iMac, may be suffering from "car-wash" syndrome (When you feel that your car drives better after you get it washed).

I would agree with you if you were not forgetting the simple fact that the new DDR3 1066 Mhz RAM on the latest iMacs alone would help produce a better gaming experience. The new iMacs with the Gt 130's will (and do) run a bit better/nicer/smoother/faster than the previous model with the gs 8800, hands down. Is the older 8800 GS and the newer Gt 130 virtually the same? It would seem so (in this case/discussion of Apple iMacs) but you will indeed see better performance out of the new machines based on the upgraded RAM alone.

[Eidorian]

It's all mobile video components in the iMac once again.

[chewietobbacca]

If both are indeed mobile parts, then expect the 4850 to be 25 to upwards of 40-50% faster than the GT130 if the desktop comparisons are valid

[itommyboy]

If both are indeed mobile parts, then expect the 4850 to be 25 to upwards of 40-50% faster than the GT130 if the desktop comparisons are valid


No way - no how - is the mobile 4850 is even remotely close to 50% faster than the mobile gt130. Day to day use 30% maybe - gaming/graphic intense apps 20% better at best.

[netkas]

Anyone faced with this question should just check these benchmarks:


http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/9914/4850perf.th.png (http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4850perf.png)

Source: http://www.apple.com/imac/features.html click "View iMac Performance Graphics Chart"

However, what we really need is Barefeats to do their benchmarks.

they compare it at different cpu speed.

gt130 is g94 based card, so it's renamed 9600gt, not 9600gso(gt was a bit faster than gso tho)

[medic349]

With the new 3.06 Imac with the Gt 130 card I got yesterday I ran a full 25 man Naxx raid in WOW last night with everything set to maximum including full real time shadows @ 1900 x 1280 with 24 Bit Color -24 Bit Depth 4x multisample, V-Sync ON (which I am told on a mac slows it down some) and never had a drop below 55 fps. On the Imac with the 3.06 and the 8800 card I bought a few weeks ago and exchanged the new one for, I was getting an average of 32-38 FPS running the same settings. For fun this morning I ran a similar instance in WOW on my PC which has a very close Dual Core 2 processor, 4 gigs of RAM and a 640 meg 8800 Nvidia card. With that machine set on the same settings on a 24" Samsung HD monitor, I was getting an average of 18-25 FPS.
I don't know what exactly the stats are between the GT130 and the 8800 that was in the last model but in my real world test the latest version "stock" 3.06 Imac ran circles around the previous version with the 8800. The only other difference between the two is the extra 2 gigs of RAM that are in the new model, but I don't know for sure if i would see that big of an increase from RAM alone.
Plan on getting a copy of COD4 today and comparing it to a friends stock previous model and my new one.

[winclip]

With the new 3.06 Imac with the Gt 130 card I got yesterday I ran a full 25 man Naxx raid in WOW last night with everything set to maximum including full real time shadows @ 1900 x 1280 with 24 Bit Color -24 Bit Depth 4x multisample, V-Sync ON (which I am told on a mac slows it down some) and never had a drop below 55 fps. On the Imac with the 3.06 and the 8800 card I bought a few weeks ago and exchanged the new one for, I was getting an average of 32-38 FPS running the same settings. For fun this morning I ran a similar instance in WOW on my PC which has a very close Dual Core 2 processor, 4 gigs of RAM and a 640 meg 8800 Nvidia card. With that machine set on the same settings on a 24" Samsung HD monitor, I was getting an average of 18-25 FPS.
I don't know what exactly the stats are between the GT130 and the 8800 that was in the last model but in my real world test the latest version "stock" 3.06 Imac ran circles around the previous version with the 8800. The only other difference between the two is the extra 2 gigs of RAM that are in the new model, but I don't know for sure if i would see that big of an increase from RAM alone.
Plan on getting a copy of COD4 today and comparing it to a friends stock previous model and my new one.

Sounds like the GT 130 is slightly/or much better than the 8800 GS?

[Eidorian]

Sounds like the GT 130 is slightly/or much better than the 8800 GS?I'm thinking it's the video drivers.

[ColeSQ]

So how does the difference play out for someone who isn't a gamer but tries to run a Handbrake DVD transcode while doing the same with and EyeTV show that's being moved to ATV compatible format? Any reason to bump the GPU for these apps, and if so how far (GT 120, 130, 130 512, 4850)? Same playing field under Snow Leopard?

Thanks.

[alkar]

@medic349 : would you mind sending the new drivers somewhere ? Thanks.

[synagence]

No way - no how - is the mobile 4850 is even remotely close to 50% faster than the mobile gt130. Day to day use 30% maybe - gaming/graphic intense apps 20% better at best.

I've seen many reports that on normal graphics tests the ATI's don't do much significantly better than the equivalent nVidia ... however, when the AA was cranked up the ATI's started to scale a lot better.... hence why you might see the increased performance on a very new benchmark that includes AA testing.

[Eidorian]

The GT130 is sounding more like the GeForce 9800M GS which is a slightly higher clocked 8800M GTS.

[ColeSQ]

The GT130 is sounding more like the GeForce 9800M GS which is a slightly higher clocked 8800M GTS.

So we're still talking miles from the 4850 if I recall seeing the numbers, don't you think?

[Eidorian]

So we're still talking miles from the 4850 if I recall seeing the numbers, don't you think?To be honest I don't believe that nVidia has anything that can compete with the HD48xx in the mobile space. The top of the line is just a mobile 9800GT/G92.

[ColeSQ]

To be honest I don't believe that nVidia has anything that can compete with the HD48xx in the mobile space. The top of the line is just a mobile 9800GT/G92.

Appreciate the validation. Looks like we'll be jumping into the 4-6 week iMac queue today.

[rittchard]

So we're still talking miles from the 4850 if I recall seeing the numbers, don't you think?

Actually it's pretty much confirmed to be some form of 9600GT (see my other thread). It registers as a G94 rev. A1, "pre-release 9600GT". Presently at Newegg the full cards run for about $85-100. The HD4850 cards run for $140-180, so the $50 price differential is about correct looking at the low end. Performance wise, I would say the ATI should be a pretty huge step up over the nVidia.

Still, it will be very interesting to see what version the final HD4850 release is. My guess is it will either be an underclocked or variant of the mobile version for power/heat savings. The results Apple showed don't seem to indicate it is vastly better than the 130. My guess is it will be something like 20% better benchmark wise, so maybe a 3DMark06 in the 11-12000 range.

[Eidorian]

Actually it's pretty much confirmed to be some form of 9600GT (see my other thread). It registers as a G94 rev. A1, "pre-release 9600GT". Presently at Newegg the full cards run for about $85-100. The HD4850 cards run for $140-180, so the $50 price differential is about correct looking at the low end. Performance wise, I would say the ATI should be a pretty huge step up over the nVidia.

Still, it will be very interesting to see what version the final HD4850 release is. My guess is it will either be an underclocked or variant of the mobile version for power/heat savings. The results Apple showed don't seem to indicate it is vastly better than the 130. My guess is it will be something like 20% better benchmark wise, so maybe a 3DMark06 in the 11-12000 range.Still no GPU-Z. :(

[ColeSQ]

...it will be very interesting to see what version the final HD4850 release is. My guess is it will either be an underclocked or variant of the mobile version for power/heat savings. The results Apple showed don't seem to indicate it is vastly better than the 130. My guess is it will be something like 20% better benchmark wise, so maybe a 3DMark06 in the 11-12000 range.

Even at modest benchmark estimates it still sounds like it's worth the 4-6 week wait. Would you agree?

[rittchard]

Even at modest benchmark estimates it still sounds like it's worth the 4-6 week wait. Would you agree?

If you are patient and don't mind the wait, I would say it's definitely worth $50 for the upgrade. I'm kind of an nVidia fanboy myself, as well as being incredibly impatient, so I basically went to the store and decided if they had the GT130 in stock I'd bring it home right then and there.

If I were going strictly for bang/buck, I'd actually order the 2.93GHz, 640GB with 4850 for $1999. The processor bump is negligible IMHO and I don't really need the extra hard drive space.

On a side note, it's funny people bitch about Apple's prices, but if you go look for an "all-in-one" design comparable to the 24" iMac in the PC world, you'll find there is nothing much comparable in price/power. Sony has a nice entertainment based unit for $1899:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9097149&type=product&id=1218021922902

but it has 9300M GS graphics lol. Of course it does have Blu-Ray and other bells/whistles which is nice, but I wonder how good it will work all in all with the 9300.

[zorcky]

With the new 3.06 Imac with the Gt 130 card I got yesterday I ran a full 25 man Naxx raid in WOW last night with everything set to maximum including full real time shadows @ 1900 x 1280 with 24 Bit Color -24 Bit Depth 4x multisample, V-Sync ON (which I am told on a mac slows it down some) and never had a drop below 55 fps. On the Imac with the 3.06 and the 8800 card I bought a few weeks ago and exchanged the new one for, I was getting an average of 32-38 FPS running the same settings. For fun this morning I ran a similar instance in WOW on my PC which has a very close Dual Core 2 processor, 4 gigs of RAM and a 640 meg 8800 Nvidia card. With that machine set on the same settings on a 24" Samsung HD monitor, I was getting an average of 18-25 FPS.
I don't know what exactly the stats are between the GT130 and the 8800 that was in the last model but in my real world test the latest version "stock" 3.06 Imac ran circles around the previous version with the 8800. The only other difference between the two is the extra 2 gigs of RAM that are in the new model, but I don't know for sure if i would see that big of an increase from RAM alone.
Plan on getting a copy of COD4 today and comparing it to a friends stock previous model and my new one.

Well it looks like you have on your pc a real problem? If you know that WoW is a bad example to do a test on your GPU. WoW is more CPU related then GPU. Just take a look on the box, you see that the recommended GPU is a Radeon 1600 or nVidia 7600 with 128 Mb Vram (those are specs from WotLK). You can take a look on your system stats and you will see that Wow really uses your CPU and just a small part of your GPU.

[sgtbilko28]

http://www.barefeats.com/imac09c.html

Cod4 and Xplane with the 4850 vs GT130. Basically, the 4850 eats the 130.

I don't understand this discussion. This GT130 is a rebrand of a low-end midrange card, and the 4850 is a brand new, modern low/mid-end highrange card.

Apple wouldn't have it as a BTO option unless there was a significant difference. (yes the small price is confusing but not everyone got the 3.06!)

[itommyboy]

http://www.barefeats.com/imac09c.html

Cod4 and Xplane with the 4850 vs GT130. Basically, the 4850 eats the 130.

I don't understand this discussion. This GT130 is a rebrand of a low-end midrange card, and the 4850 is a brand new, modern low/mid-end highrange card.



Chances are that you don't understand this discussion because you necro'd it from 2 months ago when nobody knew what anything really was quite yet. ;)

[gjw4u]

Chances are that you don't understand this discussion because you necro'd it from 2 months ago when nobody knew what anything really was quite yet. ;)
itommyboy, it was zorcky & not sgtbilko28 who woke this thread from the dead.