9700 pro or GFFX Ultra. Which truly has more power?

[Keysplayr]

I don't want opinions here. Just facts. I have read some articles and reviews. As far as I can tell, the GFFX Ultra comes out only slightly ahead of the 9700 pro in most of the tests. But when AA and FSAA are concerned, ATI moves ahead. Am I correct here? Please, please, please no fanboys in this thread.
I would very much appreciate input from people who can be honest with themselves and not biased. Keep the thread pure.

Forget about the heat. Forget about the noise. Forget about the price. Forget about not making it to retail (maybe ).
Forget about overclocking. Forget about next gen cards. Yadda yadda yadda.

GeForce FX 5800 Ultra and Radeon 9700 Pro. Standard clocks in equivalent Athlon or P4 systems.

WHICH ONE IS FASTER OVERALL EVEN IF THE SCALES TETER LIKE 51%/49% OR 49%/51%.

Thanks to everyone.

Keys

 

[Fallen Kell]

Doesn't matter...wait 3 weeks and get the 9900.

Or whenever CEBIT happens. Has an extra TMU per pipeline for a total of 16 per cycle. Also supports DDRII RAM and an increase in clock frequency. In otherwords, will completely kill GFFX.

 

[BoomAM]

The technically "better" core is the GFFX. As it supports more than the DX9 standard can do, where as the 9700pro sticks to the standard exactely.
The technically "better" memory system , is on the 9700PRO. Becuase it uses a 256bit memory bus rarther than the old 128bit on, hence double the bandwidth.

The core on the GF FX Ultra is 500mhz, and the memory 500mhz 128bit DDR2(1ghz) w/16.xx gb/s of bandwidth. DONT QUOTE ME ON THIS.
The core on the 9700pro is 325mhz, and the memory 310mhz 256bit DDR(620mhz) W/19.XX gb/s of bandwidth.

When it comes down to it, DDR2 is just DDR1 that has been optimised to run at higher frequencys.
IMO, a 256bit memory bus is the way forward.

 

[dxkj]

Like you said, the FX is slightly faster overall, unless you do the AA etc

also remember that driver maturity plays a part in this, since the 9700 has been out for a while

 

[glugglug]

GFFX has 75 watts.
Radeon 9700 has 50? watts.

So the FX has more power

 

[Glitchny]

Originally posted by: glugglug
GFFX has 75 watts.
Radeon 9700 has 50? watts.

So the FX has more power

this man is a genius

 

[Keysplayr]

LOL,

Thanks everyone. Yes even you Fallen Kell even though you tainted the thread with the old "will be" entry.
Not interested in future cards even if it is coming out right this minute. But I appreciate your desire to defy.

Keys

EDIT: Yes dxkj, I would like the GFFX to have mature drivers for a proper comparison. However we do not really know that the Nvidia drivers
are not mature. Nvidia has had about 2 years to tweak their drivers as far as I know. So. I am clueless.

I have always had nvidia cards ever since whenever, but I just ordered a Radeon 9500 pro and a GeForce 4 Ti 4600. I am going to compare them in my own way to satisfy my own eyes. I will test them in the same exact machine. P4 2.66 ASUS P4S533 512 DDR 2100 80 GB WD hard drive and SB Live. I will go as far as reinstalling the operating system for each card to get true results without the risk of ATI/NVIDIA driver washover. I will post my results when I get it all detailed.

Keys

 

[Bovinicus]

There is no definitive answer on which is faster. Though, if you had to declare an absolute winner, I would say the GeForceFX by a very slim margin.

Of course, for my purposes, the Radeon 9700 Pro is faster. I like the resolution, FSAA level, and AF level to be as high as they can. I play my games at 1024x768x32 2x Quality FSAA and 16x Aniso on my Radeon 8500.

 

[Richdog]

I'd go for the RADEON 9700 anyday, it's much more memory efficient and can handle AA and AF far better due to it's 256-bit bus. Nvidia just relies on brute force and a fan that sounds like a jet taking off. Plus it takes 2 PCI slots etc etc.

 

[nemesismk2]

I'd take a Ati Radeon 9700 Pro over a GF FX anyday although if someone from Nvidia is reading this I'll also take a GF FX over a Ati Radeon 9700 Pro anyday as well.

 

[Brian48]

I've had a 9700Pro for five months now. Prior to that, I had a ti4600 for about six months. Normally, I do upgrade frequently even though the gains may not be much. In this case, I think the gains with a GFX is so minimal, I'd have to pass. I certainly don't think it's worth the additional bucks with the street price at launch time anyway.

 

[scottrico]

The GFFX Ultra is a leaf blower!
THe GFFX ultra is a little better than the 9700.

But it does not matter how fast a card is if you cant hear the games your playing over the sound of the jet engin fans on the GFFX ultra.

Fo Sure

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Glitchny

Originally posted by: glugglug
GFFX has 75 watts.
Radeon 9700 has 50? watts.

So the FX has more power

this man is a genius

LMFAO.

Ive gota agree with Richdog though. nVidia has always relied on brute force to get performance, and in the past its worked, but ATIs inteligent core/memory design removes the need for brute force, to get good performance out of the card. nVidia should try being inventive. Im not a fanATIc, cos my last 3 video cards before my 9700pro were nVidia baced, so dont go down that road.

 

[nRollo]

Now, the GF FX be the Mac-daddy, an' the 9700 be the Daddy-mac. Confabulated? Let me set to 'splainin'.
De dope memory bandwit of de 9700 be def fo' yo anus- o-tropics filtren', while de five hunnert Meg of hurts of de FX be nice fo straight up gamin'.
You know what I'm sayin?