I can OC my 9700 Pro to 370/690. I've heard 5900s can OC to 500/1000. Being optimistic, lets say 450/900. On raw fps, which one do you think would win.
9700 Pro OC vs 5900 OC?
- Thread starter VIAN
- Start date
OC doesn't stand for OverClocking anymore. That new OC TV show ruined it for us all. :brokenheart:
That said, the 5900 would probably "OC" better, as in, it would win most of the benchmarks.
That said, the 5900 would probably "OC" better, as in, it would win most of the benchmarks.
i would say 450/900 is fairly conservative OC for the 5900 (assuming its not an XT/SE) i can easily get mine to 475/950 (BFG)
It depends on the benchmark. The 5900 series seems to have alot of raw power, while the 9700 series seems to be very good at shaders. My "guess" is that in UT2K4 the 5900xt (im assuming ur using the xt for comparison due to the similar price) would win but in Farcry the 9700p would win. This "guess" is based on the shader performance of both cards.
Gamingphreek
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 11,679
- 0
- 81
Good god, dont troll. If your going to say something as rash/extreme as that back it up!!!! Im not going into it right now but the 9700Pro is not faster than the 5950U. In quite a few cases the 9800Pro is but nonethe less....
I would pick the 5900OC. THe 9700Pro would probably win in most test at stock speed, however if you OC both cards the 5900 has much more headroom, and as a result of Nvidias longer instruction pipeline (more dependant on mhz), they benefit more from OCing. So after OCing the sh!t out of that both cards i would be willing to bet that the 5900 would be faster.
9700pro.
The problem with the FX cards is similar to the Ti 4200-4600 series in that they take a huge performance hit with AF (if they are actually doing 8AF which in a lot of benches with the newer drivers they aren?t.) It?s not as bad as the Ti?s -- but still a really bad performance hit nonetheless. The more angle dependent AF on the 9700 hardly hits performance at all. It works so good NV copied this on the 6800?s.
Same situation with AA -- NV had to hack down 4AA so it?s barely better than 2AA. ATI?s 2AA on the 9700 is as good as NV?s 5900 4AA on most angles. The rotated-grid 4AA on the 9700 is much better -- NV copied this on the 6800?s.
And then there is the lousy shader performance of the FX. Any new game with even a moderate amount of shaders will choke the 5900. The shader engine on the 9700 is about 2x as fast. The trend in new games is more and more shaders so the performance of the 5900 in newer games is going to suffer a lot. To cope in a lot of games NV writes a separate shader path (Halo) or just runs a much lower shader path (HL2, Farcry). But how much support in future games you will get for these separate shader paths on a 5900 is probably minimal.
In summary ?on the 5900 you get ?
Lower Trilinear Filtering (Brilinear)
Lower AA
shader replacement targeted at specific games /benchmarks
lower shader paths
lower precision
8AF lowered down to about 2AF in a some benchmarks and even games.
The FX cards ?well ? they just stink. IQ had to be sacrificed for speed because they are so far behind the R300?s technically. This is why NV went to a 8x1 pipeline design (x2 on the 6800U) and didn?t double the 4x2 of the 5900 series to a 8x2 design.
If you want to run without any AA/AF -- raw fps then the 5900 is a half decent card and probably a little faster than the 9700 in older games.
The problem with the FX cards is similar to the Ti 4200-4600 series in that they take a huge performance hit with AF (if they are actually doing 8AF which in a lot of benches with the newer drivers they aren?t.) It?s not as bad as the Ti?s -- but still a really bad performance hit nonetheless. The more angle dependent AF on the 9700 hardly hits performance at all. It works so good NV copied this on the 6800?s.
Same situation with AA -- NV had to hack down 4AA so it?s barely better than 2AA. ATI?s 2AA on the 9700 is as good as NV?s 5900 4AA on most angles. The rotated-grid 4AA on the 9700 is much better -- NV copied this on the 6800?s.
And then there is the lousy shader performance of the FX. Any new game with even a moderate amount of shaders will choke the 5900. The shader engine on the 9700 is about 2x as fast. The trend in new games is more and more shaders so the performance of the 5900 in newer games is going to suffer a lot. To cope in a lot of games NV writes a separate shader path (Halo) or just runs a much lower shader path (HL2, Farcry). But how much support in future games you will get for these separate shader paths on a 5900 is probably minimal.
In summary ?on the 5900 you get ?
Lower Trilinear Filtering (Brilinear)
Lower AA
shader replacement targeted at specific games /benchmarks
lower shader paths
lower precision
8AF lowered down to about 2AF in a some benchmarks and even games.
The FX cards ?well ? they just stink. IQ had to be sacrificed for speed because they are so far behind the R300?s technically. This is why NV went to a 8x1 pipeline design (x2 on the 6800U) and didn?t double the 4x2 of the 5900 series to a 8x2 design.
If you want to run without any AA/AF -- raw fps then the 5900 is a half decent card and probably a little faster than the 9700 in older games.
Depends on what you want to play. For anything DX9, the 9700 Pro by a mile, or more like several. For anything else, the 5900 will probably be slightly faster.
I'd get the 9700 Pro.
I'd get the 9700 Pro.
You are so wrong dude.
For anything OpenGL, the 5900 by a mile, or more like several. For anything else, the 9700 Pro will be slightly faster to much faster, just not up to a mile.
A common misconception is that the 5900 runs in DX8 and OpenGL, but their turf is only OpenGL and one OpenGL games is conquered by the 9700 Pro.
For anything OpenGL, the 5900 by a mile, or more like several. For anything else, the 9700 Pro will be slightly faster to much faster, just not up to a mile.
A common misconception is that the 5900 runs in DX8 and OpenGL, but their turf is only OpenGL and one OpenGL games is conquered by the 9700 Pro.
the 5900 is a more powerful card. not to say the 9700 Pro is not, but I think the 5900 is better. (and yes I do love ATi)
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,005
- 126
The 9700 is usually faster when AA/AF is cranked and also absolutely demolishes the 5950 in shader intensive titles.
I will admit though, newer drivers have pushed the card's performance up quite a lot, but think about what would've happened if the executables were renamed.
Gamingphreek
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 11,679
- 0
- 81
Hey BFG did you check which drivers they are using iin that benchmark. Duh the 5950 is gonna lose more than normal, theyre using the 52.16!! What we need it one big graphics card roundup with most of the cards using the latest drivers beta or no.
-Kevin
-Kevin
5900 OC rocks! Especially if you get the 5900 regular board (not XT or SE or Ultra) that uses 2.0ns samsung or hynix rams. OC it to 500/950 and you pretty much get close to the pixel fill rate of a 5950 ultra.
By the way, I finished the FarCry game on 5900 OC even though I have the x800 Pro on my main system. The only time you get that nauseating feeling on 5900OC is indoor night levels with the flashlight on while during a fire fight.
By the way, I finished the FarCry game on 5900 OC even though I have the x800 Pro on my main system. The only time you get that nauseating feeling on 5900OC is indoor night levels with the flashlight on while during a fire fight.
Certainly, but people don't care about 59xx performance now with the nextgen cards around the corner. Back when it was the top of the line card for Nvidia (around a year ago) , it was getting beat badly by the Radeons. It's not like the 5900s were new cards when that review was written last december.
Found my notes on 5900 OC experience. My focus was image quality in Dx9 game FarCry.
Performance and Quality Comparison from Flashing an eVGA Geforce FX 5900 128MB (May 3, 2004)
Flash Core Mem 3Dmark03 IQ with FarCry
stock bios 5900 300 850 5177 No artifacts
stock bios 5900 400 850 5162 No artifacts
stock bios 5900 449 850 5446 No artifacts
stock bios 5900 436 922 5032 Locks up
flashed to 5900 ultra 450 850 5428 No artifacts
flashed to 5900 ultra 450 850 5480 No artifacts
flashed to 5900 ultra 450 850 5242 No artifacts
flashed to 5900 ultra 450 850 5397 No artifacts
flashed to 5900 ultra 459 869 5489 Image artifacts
flashed to 5900 ultra 466 883 5517 Artifacts/snow flickers
flashed to 5950 ultra 470 850 5351 No artifacts
flashed to 5950 ultra 500 950 5632 Artifacts/snow flickers
Performance and Quality Comparison from Flashing an eVGA Geforce FX 5900 128MB (May 3, 2004)
Flash Core Mem 3Dmark03 IQ with FarCry
stock bios 5900 300 850 5177 No artifacts
stock bios 5900 400 850 5162 No artifacts
stock bios 5900 449 850 5446 No artifacts
stock bios 5900 436 922 5032 Locks up
flashed to 5900 ultra 450 850 5428 No artifacts
flashed to 5900 ultra 450 850 5480 No artifacts
flashed to 5900 ultra 450 850 5242 No artifacts
flashed to 5900 ultra 450 850 5397 No artifacts
flashed to 5900 ultra 459 869 5489 Image artifacts
flashed to 5900 ultra 466 883 5517 Artifacts/snow flickers
flashed to 5950 ultra 470 850 5351 No artifacts
flashed to 5950 ultra 500 950 5632 Artifacts/snow flickers
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter