Geforce FX 5900 Ultra VS Radeon 9800 Pro 256 mb

[touchmyichi]

Nvidia really came back, I knew that this card had potental, but it really caught me off guard. ATI still has the advantage in many games though. Picking from either of these cards is really hard. We are about to enter a very bloody debate between them. I think that the Doom III results were off for radeon 9800 pro, they haven't had time to optimize their cards for that title, so I wouldn't truely count that as Nvidia's win. The AA and AF were really impressive, definently up to ATI's level. I think the FX 5900 is a little more powerful, but it is so close that I will call it a draw. What do you guys think?

 

[nick1985]

after seeing this latest article about the 5900, i would say it is deffinately the top dawg right now.

 

[Genx87]

Almost every review I read had the 5900 Ultra faster pretty much hands down. Commanche seems to be its only hard spot. At some points like the Quake III benchmarks on this website the 5900 Ultra is nothing short of amazing. 223 FPS and maxing out the 3.06Ghz P4 while the 9800 Pro could only manage 103 FPS.

And the AA\AF is superb. What many are talking about is how the NV30 also jumped up a notch in performance in many areas due to the new drivers. Suddenly the NV30 isnt looking that bad against the 9800 Pro either.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Since Doom3 is the only game to really challenge the ATI and nVidia mid-to-high end (who really needs 200 FPS in Q3?) it will be very interesting to see whether ATI can improve their Doom3 performance, and in particular without resorting to another "quack3" reduced-image-quality cheat.

It was also interesting to see how badly the Ti4200 / 9600 level cards were hammered by Doom3 -- it's enough to make me consider waiting to get a new card (and probably Doom3 too) until after nv35 has been out long enough for at least the first price drop (with matching ATI cuts). No way I'll pay $500 for 9800 / 5900 performance, but $250 would be worth it.

 

[SDOG34]

The important thing here is that nvidia will be releasing value 5900 cards a la the geforce 4 ti4200. Now that is worth getting excited about. These $400-500 vid cards and their benchmarks can piss off...hardly anybody but super hardcore gamers will buy them.

 

[PCHPlayer]

I would be interested to see benchmarks with the two cards running at the same core/memory speed. This would give a good indication of how well ATi's response (Radeon 9900) can compete. At this point all ATi can do it crank up the clock and perhaps add some minor tweaks to the core.

 

[Intelman07]

Then "new" Geforce FX 5600 Looks neato....I might get one. (seems faster than the ATI 9600)

 

[dayg]

I was beginning to wonder why da hell the NVDA stock spiked up last week. Now I know.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Since Doom3 is the only game to really challenge the ATI and nVidia mid-to-high end (who really needs 200 FPS in Q3?) it will be very interesting to see whether ATI can improve their Doom3 performance, and in particular without resorting to another "quack3" reduced-image-quality cheat.

It was also interesting to see how badly the Ti4200 / 9600 level cards were hammered by Doom3 -- it's enough to make me consider waiting to get a new card (and probably Doom3 too) until after nv35 has been out long enough for at least the first price drop (with matching ATI cuts). No way I'll pay $500 for 9800 / 5900 performance, but $250 would be worth it.

the problem is...the Doom3 test was setup by Nvidia...even if you can change settings the app may be built straight for the Nvidia GPU

 

[cmdrdredd]

I expected it to be faster anyway. No surprise for me the problem I have is it is $500 for the card, and there is a new ATI card on the way. My 9700Pro does me fine for now. I'll wait untill Doom 3 is actually released. or Spring of next year

My real decision will be made by IQ more than pure speed. Right now ATI is still better, but Nvidia is getting better every release

 

[Keysplayr]

nVIDIA said flat out, that the NV35 was built for Doom III. So they are making no bones about it.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
nVIDIA said flat out, that the NV35 was built for Doom III. So they are making no bones about it.

so does that mean that every other game will suck with it?

it's been done before...build based on one game or benchmark. My point was that ATi has had absolutely 0 time to even test the game with their cards drivers. This is clearly a disadvantage. Anyway like I said IQ is very important to me and if ATi still gets great visuals (still better than Nvidia's best) and is only a smidge slower then I know what I'm buying.

 

[Harabecw]

Actually, Anand's D3 test was from ID. they made their own and rejected the one made by nVidia. its all in the review

 

[nRollo]

CMDREDD

My real decision will be made by IQ more than pure speed. Right now ATI is still better, but Nvidia is getting better every release

LOL apparently you know something without even seeing the cards that the guys reviewing them don't?

Anand says nVidia's performance is BETTER than ATIs

Finally, NVIDIA's claim that their "performance" mode offers equal to or greater quality than ATI's is actually true. The tables have turned and now it's ATI's turn to play catch-up and make their performance mode look better.

What the? Anand likes the quality as much too...

Both ATI and NVIDIA's quality modes are virtually identical, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference between the two.

I see what you mean CMDREDD. If nVidia works real hard, their IQ will someday be as good as ATIs....

I don't think there's any "too close to call/draw" situation going on here. The 5900 owns all Radeons. I'll be a happier Rollo when one is sitting in my box.

 

[BoddoZerg]

nVidia's anisotropic quality always has been as good or better than ATis. The only difference is that they got rid of the stupid "Application, Balanced, Performance" settings, and re-named them to what they really are. The image quality problem before was because people kept comparing nVidia "Balanced" to ATi "Quality", which really ain't fair at all. They also seem to have significantly improved the aniso speed, confirming what everyone was speculating - that Application (Quality) AF on the NV3x was buggy.

I'm still slightly worried about the GeForceFX's antialiasing quality. While its AA is clearly the fastest on the market, the screenshots I've seen on FiringSquad are really unimpressive. (quality wise) Looks like they still do not have the sparse sampling patterns and gamma correction that R3xx has. Comparing R3xx 4x antialiasing to NV3x antialiasing isn't fair at all. On certain games, especially UT2k3, the NV30 antialiasing is worthless. I haven't seen that many NV35 AA screenies, but the quality still seems closer to NV30 than to R3xx.

However, with the speed advantage of NV35, I gotta hand it to nVidia. Job well done, you have redeemed yourself for NV30. Now let's see what ATi will respond with. It doesn't look like R400 will be ready anytime soon. But with the success that people have had with R350 overclocking, I'd like to see how a Radeon 9800 "Ultra" would do against a GFFX5900U.

Now if only they would release some games that make full use of these nifty graphics cards... not UT2k3 or Splinter Cell, those are bloatware. Give us DOOM3 and Deus Ex 2!!!

 

[touchmyichi]

I was kind of dissapointed by the 256 ati. I wish they would of had time to up the clock speeds a little as a bonus to people who shell out the extra 100 dollars. The best value in the market right now is the 9700 non pro, you can't beat this card for only 200 dollars.

 

[SDOG34]

Originally posted by: touchmyichi
I was kind of dissapointed by the 256 ati. I wish they would of had time to up the clock speeds a little as a bonus to people who shell out the extra 100 dollars. The best value in the market right now is the 9700 non pro, you can't beat this card for only 200 dollars.

Please show me where you can get a 9700 for $200. I will be all over it.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Yeah but rollo, where's this crushing defeat you and your kind have promised? What was it? 50% accross the board? Still takes up two slots and the fan still isn't very quiet, my shuttle XPC would have to settle for a 9700 or 9800

Actually these reviews excited me, sort of reboosted my interest in nVidia as far as graphics chips are concerned (all boring stuff since the first news about the GF3). Reading the reviews have made me druel thinking "I WANT ONE, I WANT ONE!!!" But then I caught a glimpse of the price: $500 YIKES!!! I'll have to hold back until prices come down or just get a 9700 now... my 8500 is still good, no new games yet for me (cept maybe Enter the Matrix), I think I'll wait...

 

[Wurrmm]

Man....as long as they fix the analog blur, I am gona be all over this thing like a kid on a candybar!!

 

[touchmyichi]

SDOG34, the 9700 non pro currently goes for around 220 off of newegg. I expect the price of it to dip even more after the introduction of these new cards. Its the FIC model and it looks pretty decent, check it out.

 

[nRollo]

Bunny:
I never promised "50% across the board" and I don't know what "my kind" did. (I didn't know I had a "kind")

Anyway- you've got more to worry about than $500 VGAs. Shuttle XPC? I don't think nVidia is too worried about the Shuttle XPC market Bunny, they probably figure most people who have $500 for a VGA have a decent case?

I was just happy to see they fixed the aniso and the noise, not so much because I cared much, but the rest of the world seemed to.

 

[SDOG34]

Originally posted by: touchmyichi
SDOG34, the 9700 non pro currently goes for around 220 off of newegg. I expect the price of it to dip even more after the introduction of these new cards. Its the FIC model and it looks pretty decent, check it out.

Yeah, I am eagerly awaiting a price drop. I am with you though, once it hits $200, I will bite.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Rollo
CMDREDD

My real decision will be made by IQ more than pure speed. Right now ATI is still better, but Nvidia is getting better every release

LOL apparently you know something without even seeing the cards that the guys reviewing them don't?

Anand says nVidia's performance is BETTER than ATIs

Finally, NVIDIA's claim that their "performance" mode offers equal to or greater quality than ATI's is actually true. The tables have turned and now it's ATI's turn to play catch-up and make their performance mode look better.

What the? Anand likes the quality as much too...

Both ATI and NVIDIA's quality modes are virtually identical, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference between the two.

I see what you mean CMDREDD. If nVidia works real hard, their IQ will someday be as good as ATIs....

I don't think there's any "too close to call/draw" situation going on here. The 5900 owns all Radeons. I'll be a happier Rollo when one is sitting in my box.

when you get 2D as good as ATI then come back and talk buddy. Plus performance is crap...I run Quality

 

[Shamrock]

WHy is everyone complaining about NVidia's $500 price tag....take another look, the ATI 9800 Pro 256MB is EXACTLY THE SAME PRICE! with poorer performance. And as Rollo and Anandtech both have said, the IQ of Nvidia is virtually identical. Even with AF, and AA on. About teh ONLY advantage ATI has over NV is the 16x AA, and who wants to play games at 9 FPS (1600X1200x32 4xAA) Not me...8x is enough for anyone. No matter what card you get

 

[larciel]

the test 5900U board seems as long as good old v5 5500 !!!