• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A capitalist: FX5900Ultra or Radeon9800PRO?

F

Foukaish

Junior Member
😕

Ok ok i have 700 Euros (for which i worked hard!) and i DO NOT know were to spend them!
I am going to buy a serious beast PC, yet i don't know what to buy exactly...
I have heard that the Nvidia one is faster,but the ATI one is more quality based (you know with better Drivers-antialising).Is it true? I am talking for the 256Mb versions!
Please for any help i would be grateful! All the reviews are confusing me more than helping me
 
You can ask this question just about anywhere. If 50 people reply, you may get 50 different answers! Well, not really. Most people here will tell you the 9800 pro is better. I have both. I'm using the 5900 Ultra. It seems better suited for what I do! Both cards have their advantages and disadvantages. Neither is perfect.

IF you buy the 9800 Pro, you can save nearly 100 greenbacks and go with the 128MB version. It seems that the 256MB version is ONLY worth it if you like running beyond 1280x1024 with all the eye candy ON. Otherwise, you will see NO benefit of the extra RAM! You could use that leftover cash to add more RAM to your box or similar.

-DAK-
 
Thanks, but i think you preferred not to take place, right?
i am going to have all the eye candy on and run the programs(emmm...games) @ 1280*1024. I want this pc to play DOOM3 with everything at MAX just for fun! Am i asking to much? I mean, come on, i am going to spend a lot of money (sniff) here!
 
Thanks, but i think you preferred not to take place, right?
i am going to have all the eye candy on and run the programs(emmm...games) @ 1280*1024. I want this pc to play DOOM3 with everything at MAX just for fun! Am i asking to much? I mean, come on, i am going to spend a lot of money (sniff) here!
Click to expand...

Don't expect any hardware you buy today to run that game at its best! When Q3 first came out, the fastest video cards (TNT2 Ultra) ran it basically like crap. It will probably take two generations of video hardware to get Doom3 to really acceptable levels for hardcore gamers that like to actually play the game AND have eye candy at highest levels.

I don't think either card will be a slideshow, but without a doubt anything higher than "middle" is going to look like a slideshow. (especially to users like BFG10k! 😉 )

-DAK-
 
> i am going to have all the eye candy on and run the programs(emmm...games) @ 1280*1024.
The ATI only needs 256 MB for resolutions higher than 1280 * 1024. At 1280 * 1024 the 128 MB is the same speed as the 256 MB.

Based on the old tests with nvidia-optimised drivers the fx5900 is much better for Doom3. But the 9800 is about as fast as the fx5900 in every other game so once ATI and/or id do some optimizing of code the ATI will probably catch up.

So neither card is bad and both cards are really about the same. The fx5900 just costs $100 more.
 
Theres the FX5900 non-Ultra which is the 128MB version of the 256MB FX5900 Ultra and is priced the same as the 128MB 9800 Pro.

I have a 9500 Pro and I cant wait to get rid of this ATI card once Nvidia has a decent card under $200. ATI drivers have been very problem filled for me.

Having used both Nvidia and ATI cards I would say go with the Nvidia, the performance is a little better with the 5900 series vs 9800 series
 
Skip both cards and wait for the next generation cards. The NV40 and R420 (I think...) should rock the currect directx 9 cards.
 
You could go either way, but don't waste your money on the 256mb, since it provides NO benefit even at high settings for the foreseeable future. I'd personally go with the Radeon, but again, either way would be great.
 
Don't expect Doom3 to run great at 1600x1200 with 6xAA until NV50 or 55 comes out (and it's corresponding ATI card). id is good at putting hardware to shame with its releases.
 
if you want doom3 to run best on it then i suggest you not get a card until doom3 is out and being benched
 
Originally posted by: Foukaish
Thanks all of you guys! I am not going to buy anything, until half life 2 comes at least...
Click to expand...

Mmmm...HL2....

Sorry, got me all excited.

I'd have to scond that opinion, I don't think there are any really compelling titles out to drive me to buy new hardware right now, especially a $300+ video card. My Ti4600 works fine for every game but Splinter Cell, and even that's ok if I turn off some of the eye candy. Buying hardware in preparation for software that's not out, when that hardware has a lifecycle of about 6 months isn't the best idea, I think.

Anyway, good choice.
 
If you are looking to play Doom3, so far it seems its going to play better on a nvidia 5900, Doom3 is tailor made for nv30+. The 5900 also plays current games very well and should do ok on future titles

If you are looking forward to half life2 and other DX9 games that use shaders go with the Radeon 9800+, half life2 is tailor made for the r300+. The 9800 plays current games very well also and should do fine on future titles

Some people say the Nvidia card is more future proof but its actually the ATI card that is. It has a far superior shader and dx9 engine than its nvidia counterpart.
 
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
> i am going to have all the eye candy on and run the programs(emmm...games) @ 1280*1024.
The ATI only needs 256 MB for resolutions higher than 1280 * 1024. At 1280 * 1024 the 128 MB is the same speed as the 256 MB.

Based on the old tests with nvidia-optimised drivers the fx5900 is much better for Doom3. But the 9800 is about as fast as the fx5900 in every other game so once ATI and/or id do some optimizing of code the ATI will probably catch up.

So neither card is bad and both cards are really about the same. The fx5900 just costs $100 more.
Click to expand...
Thats an accurate description.
Originally posted by: clarity
Skip both cards and wait for the next generation cards. The NV40 and R420 (I think...) should rock the currect directx 9 cards.
Click to expand...
I personally would wait for the ATI Loki (R420). The nV40s comes out sooner, which means that theres a good chance that R420 would be faster.

IMO, wait until January before buying. By then the nV40 should be out, maybe the R420(not sure of the exact release date, but it IS after the nV40). Also, by which time, the yields of each chip should have matured more, allowing cooler running, better OCs, and there will be more manufacturers to choose a card from.


 
Originally posted by: Dean
If you are looking to play Doom3, so far it seems its going to play better on a nvidia 5900, Doom3 is tailor made for nv30+. The 5900 also plays current games very well and should do ok on future titles
Click to expand...
Doom3 isnt tailor made for nV30+ cards, Its just got a seperate rendering path for nV30 cards, something which by the time Doom3 is released, R300+ cards will have their own render path, or a generic render path that performs the same as the nV30 one.
If you are looking forward to half life2 and other DX9 games that use shaders go with the Radeon 9800+, half life2 is tailor made for the r300+.
Click to expand...
Half-Life 2 aint tailor made for R300+`s either. Its just been demoed on a R350. Which doesnt mean it`ll run better on ATI hardware, as above, it`ll run around the same on an equilivent nVidia card.
The 9800 plays current games very well also and should do fine on future titles
Click to expand...
True. Hell, even the 9500pro is fast enough for quite some time.
Some people say the Nvidia card is more future proof but its actually the ATI card that is. It has a far superior shader and dx9 engine than its nvidia counterpart.
Click to expand...
Actually, they are about the same. ATI`s pixel & vertex shaders are faster than nVidias, and support longer instructions, but it does not make it more futureproof. A developer is likely to program a game to use the lowest common denominator, in this case the Pixel/Vertex capibilites of a R300, which then allows the game to run on R300+ cards, and nV30+ cards.

BTY, are the nV35s true DX9 parts?
Cos the nV30`s wernt, cos they did`nt support displacment mapping.
So does the nV35 now support Displacement mapping or not? I havnt heard much about it.
 
It looks like that the NVIDIA cards won't be able to run Half Life 2 with FSAA enabled, while the ATI cards will. This may help with your decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top