Custom Cooled Msi R4850 Reviewed

[ccokeman]

There is no preference to one manufacturer or another. As an overclocked card the Toxic is expected to do better and expectations are higher. In some benchs it lost to a stock clocked card. It is still a very nice card with a nice bundle. While the MSI is a nice card it is a stock clocked card with a really nice aftermarket cooling solution. As such there is the expectation that it will perform comparably with the rest of the reference based cards. That it does, also it overclocks better than any of the stock clocked cards we have tested. Add in the price to the equation and the card just looks more attractive. At the time of the review it was $30 dollars cheaper than the toxic and now is still cheaper at $162. Compared to a stock card it is a bargain, will perform better when OC'd and run much cooler than the carryover 3850 reference heatsink on the 4850s.

[gotdamojo06]

Sorry about delay in responding dunno

 

The reason that the Toxic is ranked lower than the MSI R4850 is due to the fact that I did the review on the Sapphire HD4850 while Alan did the Toxic Review. I did look at the data for both of them while I was deciding which award to give the card as well as the prices and Frank named my number one reason as to why the card was ranked higher, it does carry a little better bang for the buck as its price is lower. I was very impressed with the way the card was able to perform and how cool it was able to stay with the aftermarket cooling solution added. I hope this answers any concerns you have and again there is no bias towards one manufacture over another, just two different reviewers preferences and thoughts.

[dunno]

Thank y'all, it makes perfect sense. I didn't mean to throw imply any "bias" and realize in retrospect how that could be read wrong. I was more thinking about possible customer service / warranty differences between the manufacturers (if there are any). Such a difference would lead me to favor one over the other if giving an award I definitely didn't mean to imply any "fanboyish" devotion to one manufacturer or the other, or that I saw any bias in either article.

 

I'm sorry for the late reply, I got to read Ccokeman's response over the weekend but couldn't reply until today, and I am glad I caught your response too damo (I hope everything bosco mentioned is working out ok). The difference makes sense to me given the different comparisons. I guess for me, the (now) $10 difference between the cards isn't a large deciding point (and could be explained by the cost of the coolers), but the warranty at the higher clocks are nice, and if the Toxic OCs farther and better, I think that's worth the extra $10. But, there's a reason y'all do this for a living. Thank you for the responses, sorry for the annoying prodding, but it was definitely worth it to see what you guys think about these two cards.

[ccokeman]

Thanks for taking the time to read the reviews. A good discussion is always welcome.

[gotdamojo06]

ask Frank has already said, I appreciate any input I can get from the readers and I appreciate someone paying that close of attention to my (as well as others) reviews.

 

Hope you make your decision between the two cards

[tcool93]

Do you happen to know what the length of the warranty is on this card? I sent MSI an email, but they never did reply.

 

EDIT: I found their warranty on their website. It looks like its 3 years, but only the first two years include parts and labor.

 

The card I received today from Newegg, has a larger/longer heatsink on the chips that are on the end of the card, compared to the one in the review. Newegg is out of stock now.

 

 

 

.

Edited August 29, 2008 by tcool93