GF FX 5800 Ultra Vs. Radeon 9700 Pro

mroleg

Senior member
Nov 8, 2002
803
0
0
P4 2.53@3040
P4G8x-D
PNY Verto 5800 Ultra
3dmark03 results:
9700 Pro 4892
GF FX 5809
 

Quixfire

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2001
6,892
0
0
Originally posted by: mroleg
P4 2.53@3040
P4G8x-D
PNY Verto 5800 Ultra
3dmark03 results:
9700 Pro 4892
GF FX 5809
What kind of 9700 Pro did you use? What was the memory configuration on either card?

 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
You must not have read all the posts where it clearly says the 9700 pro is superior......


lol
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
FLAME BAIT

BTW, just to kick off the show, 5800 Ultra is superior on paper and in real life to the 9700 pro. only 5 - 10%, but IT IS FASTER.
 

YoungChowFun

Member
Feb 1, 2003
67
0
0
How are you going to base it only on 3dmark scores? 3dmark is a benching program for video cards, but it's not the best one. Just look up reviews on both cards in this website.
 

Eymar

Golden Member
Aug 30, 2001
1,646
14
91
Nice. Here are my scores for comparison:

P4 2.0a@3.2
P4T533
WinXP
3dmark03
9700 Pro - 4988 (default settings, ATI Cat 3.2)
GFFX - 5555 (default settings, Det. 43.45)
No overclocking

Oleg what are your Sandra 2k3 memory scores?
 

mroleg

Senior member
Nov 8, 2002
803
0
0
Sandra2k3 mem
2x512 OCZ 3500 EL
timings 2-2-2-5-1T
buffered 160FSB-3980
unbuffered 160FSB-3127

All video card testing I mentioned were done without AA AF @1024/768 32BPP
Built by ATI rev 3.0
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
you are obviously useing one of the driver sets that lowers the floting point percision if your fx is beating a 9700pro. also it seems you are getting a rather low score for your 9700pro as i get 4836 with an xp@1636.
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
Originally posted by: Rollo
You must not have read all the posts where it clearly says the 9700 pro is superior......


lol

$299 vs $399+, I'd sure hope the 5800 Ultra is superior/faster.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
you are obviously useing one of the driver sets that lowers the floting point percision if your fx is beating a 9700pro.

There has been some extensive testing over @B3D and the conclusion currently reached is that the FX has the same speed running FP16 or FP32. Some people have come to the conclusion that this means that they are running INT12, although if that is valid or not is not certain at this time.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
"$299 vs $399+, I'd sure hope the 5800 Ultra is superior/faster. "
The price of the 9700 has been $299for about a month. I paid $390 for mine last November. A company's flagship card often hits the market at $399.. Just the way it is. If a competitor has a less expensive product that is comparable and lessens demand for the new product, the price of the new product will shift downward until sales reach an acceptable level for the company.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
you are obviously useing one of the driver sets that lowers the floting point percision if your fx is beating a 9700pro. also it seems you are getting a rather low score for your 9700pro as i get 4836 with an xp@1636.


I don't think there is anything obvious about it. You are assuming at this point, which is fine, but it isn't a comment filled with wisdom.
IMHO

Keys
 

EdipisReks

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2000
2,722
0
0
i like being able to hear my music over my 9700 Pro. besides, 3dMark2003 looks like ass and isn't any fun to watch, unlike 2001: who cares what runs it the best? all i know is that my 9700 Pro runs Unreal2 with everything turned up (except for shadows, which are on low) and Anisotropic Filtering running at 8x and doesn't even cry too much. i doubt the FX, with its inferior anisotropic performance, could boast that.
 

gururu

Platinum Member
Jul 16, 2002
2,402
0
0
that is a huge difference. almost 1000 points. almost seems to good to be true, unless the settings or drivers aren't kosher.
gotta see the settings.


 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
either way it goes I can safely say this...

1)when you turn up the AA the 9700Pro looks better than the GFFX
2)when you turn up the AF the 9700Pro looks better
3)when you turn up the AA + AF the 9700Pro looks better and runs faster
4)when you turn up the AA + AF at high rez don't even think about comparing the two...the GFFX cannot compete in this category.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
"i like being able to hear my music over my 9700 Pro. "

So what? The FX ultra is probably QUIETER than your 9700 pro playing music. AFAIK, the fan doesn't even run when it's not playing 3d games.
 

nRollo

Banned
Jan 11, 2002
10,460
0
0
"either way it goes I can safely say this...

1)when you turn up the AA the 9700Pro looks better than the GFFX
2)when you turn up the AF the 9700Pro looks better
3)when you turn up the AA + AF the 9700Pro looks better and runs faster
4)when you turn up the AA + AF at high rez don't even think about comparing the two...the GFFX cannot compete in this category. "

Really? And I thought I had seen some benchmarks where the Ultra beat the 9700 Pro at AA/AF.

Like winning all AF settings here, and close enough on AA not to really matter

or

FX wins AA here- what up?

Of course here, we have to rely on this:
"In the end, we see that it is a fair to compare NVIDIA's Balanced mode to either of ATI's AF modes, however you cannot compare NVIDIA's Aggressive mode to either of ATI's options as NVIDIA's image quality is significantly worse."

Which I'm not so sure I do. If you compare balanced to ATI quality, results are about the same. IQ is pretty subjective, and I'd like to see soemthing other than a few screen shots before I take the ATI performance = nVidia Quality for granted.




 

Eymar

Golden Member
Aug 30, 2001
1,646
14
91
Originally posted by: Rollo
"i like being able to hear my music over my 9700 Pro. "

So what? The FX ultra is probably QUIETER than your 9700 pro playing music. AFAIK, the fan doesn't even run when it's not playing 3d games.

That is incorrect, at least with PNY's card. It will come on when the GPU reaches a certain temp even when in 2d mode. Maybe different case with the Gainward version.
 

blahblah

Member
Jun 3, 2001
125
0
0
Well consider the price,

FX Ultra $400 +, you have to buy online as there is no retail stores that have it. (last I heard, correct me if I am wrong)

Radeon 9700Pro $299 at big retail stores (Circuit City, Best Buy and so on). You may find it cheaper if you go online.

Performance, With AA + AF, there is really no comparision. Without, they are similar, but Ultra is faster. But you are also looking at $100 difference between the two. If you play games, why not turn on AA + AF since now you can do so without a huge performance hit. See the "light":)

With FX Ultra, regardless of what others say, here are disadvantages.

1. Noise (in 3D), but if buy this game and does play game, then why buy it at all.
2. Heat.
3. Price.

Honestly, I'd like it some one can explain to me logiically, why they would pay $400 for this card when the 9700 Pro is available for $299.

That's all.

Oh, the advantage of buying 9700Pro from the big guys is that you can try it out on your system for 15 days.

 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: blahblah
Well consider the price,

FX Ultra $400 +, you have to buy online as there is no retail stores that have it. (last I heard, correct me if I am wrong)

Radeon 9700Pro $299 at big retail stores (Circuit City, Best Buy and so on). You may find it cheaper if you go online.

Performance, With AA + AF, there is really no comparision. Without, they are similar, but Ultra is faster. But you are also looking at $100 difference between the two. If you play games, why not turn on AA + AF since now you can do so without a huge performance hit. See the "light":)

With FX Ultra, regardless of what others say, here are disadvantages.

1. Noise (in 3D), but if buy this game and does play game, then why buy it at all.
2. Heat.
3. Price.

Honestly, I'd like it some one can explain to me logiically, why they would pay $400 for this card when the 9700 Pro is available for $299.

That's all.

Oh, the advantage of buying 9700Pro from the big guys is that you can try it out on your system for 15 days.


Ok, I'll try.

1 Not all games/sims like ati cards.
2 Some want the highest 3dmark score.
3 If you are going to spend $300 whats another $100.
4 It's the newest and hardest card to get.



 

EdipisReks

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2000
2,722
0
0
Originally posted by: Budmantom

Ok, I'll try.

1 Not all games/sims like ati cards.
2 Some want the highest 3dmark score.
3 If you are going to spend $300 whats another $100.
4 It's the newest and hardest card to get.

1: name some.

2: stupid people don't count.

3: an extra $100 is a lot to me

4: hardest to live with, maybe.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
1. Nascar 2003 (looks better on the ati runs smoother on nvidea)
2. Stupid people do count because they spend money and that makes the world go around.
3. IF I have $300 to spend for a video card I can find another $100
4. I would guess it wouldn't be too tough, the people I have spoken to love em.