kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
hey Ben, ya i know what goes on at b3d; i am kyleb over there.
i don't see why you say that the degraded image quality is not a valid concern though.
well maybe in the same sense that i am assuming that the sun will rise again tomorrow, if you don't see any wisdom in that i don't really know what to say. honestly, nvidia released drivers that score produce an image that matches the dx reference raster just fine but score really low, and then they have other drivers that score high but the image looks washed out, to say that they are sacrificing precision is not much of an assumption, it would be much more of a stretch to assume that they are not.
So nVidia is selling the 5800 Ultra like hot cakes eh? How about no. ATI can afford to drop their prices and the only reason they do so is to put a lot of pressure on nVidia. I can guarantee you that there will be a lot more consumers willing to pay $299 for a 9700 Pro rather than fork over an extra $100 for the extra noise and minimal performance incease. For those that just have to have the fastest part, ATI is selling the 9800 Pro for $399.
$100 can get you a new motherboard, HDD, CPU, almost a gig of DDR, or even a nice sound card such as an Audigy 2. And depending upon what you need as far as upgrade, any of those $100 options + a 9700 Pro could ultimately go a lot farther than just a 5800 Ultra. Heck, $100 could be spent on an elaborate cooling system to overclock the Radeon to 450/350 which would really kick the bajeezes out of a 5800 Ultra. Money does matter.
"$100 can get you a new motherboard, HDD, CPU, almost a gig of DDR, or even a nice sound card such as an Audigy 2."
Of course, no one would give me a 5800 Ultra for my 9700 Pro +$100? No one who has a 5800Ultra seems to care about the extra stuff, money they could have....
Of course, no one would give me a 5800 Ultra for my 9700 Pro +$100? No one who has a 5800Ultra seems to care about the extra stuff, money they could have....
Yeah, no one would trade with you. One of what? Maybe four? Five? I'd probably sure as hell trade you a 5800 Utlra for a 9700 Pro and $100, but then if I could afford a 5800 Ultra I probably would have the cash the throw around I wouldn't need to mess around with the hassles of such a trade.
"but then if I could afford a 5800 Ultra I probably would have the cash the throw around I wouldn't need to mess around with the hassles of such a trade. "
Sometimes even when you can afford it you do strange things like this to give your wife the illusion you're not spending lots of money on computer parts you don't need...
Sometimes even when you can afford it you do strange things like this to give your wife the illusion you're not spending lots of money on computer parts you don't need...
My wife doesn't know what the inside of a computer looks like and since I can buy without her finding out the only way she could possibly find out is by looking inside the case and NOTICING that the video card looks different! Or in the case of the FX, "honey why is your computer so loud?"
ROGO
ROGO
It could be a good thing!
"Honey is that you vacuuming downstairs? Thanks so much for doing that for me!"
"Honey is that you vacuuming downstairs? Thanks so much for doing that for me!"
My wife would notice because she is an accountant and does our books. ( a chore I find as much fun as say, mowing the lawn) Then she'd notice again in a couple months when I buy an nV35.
Oh well, I've lost interest in the trade anyway. Those who have 5800s are welcome to keep them, I'll stick with my 9700Pro.
Oh well, I've lost interest in the trade anyway. Those who have 5800s are welcome to keep them, I'll stick with my 9700Pro.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,007
- 126
No question, get the 9700 Pro.
Oh and Rollo, when looking at benchmarks don't forget to factor in image quality, otherwise they're meaningless. Sure the FX might beat the 9700 In some cases but that's usually when it's using the butt ugly aggressive settings. Bring out the true eye candy and the 9700 Pro will demolish the FX in looks, speed, price and quietness.
Oh and Rollo, when looking at benchmarks don't forget to factor in image quality, otherwise they're meaningless. Sure the FX might beat the 9700 In some cases but that's usually when it's using the butt ugly aggressive settings. Bring out the true eye candy and the 9700 Pro will demolish the FX in looks, speed, price and quietness.
"Sure the FX might beat the 9700 In some cases but that's usually when it's using the butt ugly aggressive settings. Bring out the true eye candy and the 9700 Pro will demolish the FX in looks, speed, price and quietness. "
Does the 9700 "demolish" the FX when comparing quality to balanced BFG?
Beyond that, you say this because this site says it. Another site, Tom's, shows the FX Ultra on medium detail, balanced settings winning all* the AA/AF benchmarks where the fps are above 60. Does anyone want to play games where the AVERAGE is below 60? Where does that put the minimum?
*except one, where it loses by two fps
It's pretty obvious to me that the settings you choose as "equivalent IQ" varies by reviewer, and totally skews the results. For your staement to be "true" you have to take it on faith that nVidia's highest quality AA/AF settings provide similar IQ to ATIs lowest quality settings, and YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THEM SIDE BY SIDE.
Furthermore, "demolished" is a GROSS exaggeration.
I don't call the difference between ~100fps and ~110fps "demolished", why do you?
At the only resolutions that matter, Ultra is in the middle between 9700 qaulity and performance
You just want to pimp your card BFG, because you like to think you have the "best" hardware. If you had an Ultra, you'd be saying that "demolishes" the 9700 and you can't hear it above the games anyway.
Does the 9700 "demolish" the FX when comparing quality to balanced BFG?
Beyond that, you say this because this site says it. Another site, Tom's, shows the FX Ultra on medium detail, balanced settings winning all* the AA/AF benchmarks where the fps are above 60. Does anyone want to play games where the AVERAGE is below 60? Where does that put the minimum?
*except one, where it loses by two fps
It's pretty obvious to me that the settings you choose as "equivalent IQ" varies by reviewer, and totally skews the results. For your staement to be "true" you have to take it on faith that nVidia's highest quality AA/AF settings provide similar IQ to ATIs lowest quality settings, and YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THEM SIDE BY SIDE.
Furthermore, "demolished" is a GROSS exaggeration.
I don't call the difference between ~100fps and ~110fps "demolished", why do you?
At the only resolutions that matter, Ultra is in the middle between 9700 qaulity and performance
You just want to pimp your card BFG, because you like to think you have the "best" hardware. If you had an Ultra, you'd be saying that "demolishes" the 9700 and you can't hear it above the games anyway.
There you go folks, the true reason to buy FX 5800Ultra.
But serrious, buy whatever you think is better, I mean really, there is no point arguing this back and forth anymore. It's your money, spend it anyway you like.
If I were to start a company, the first people I hire would be the NV PR dept. The held off would be buyers for R9700Pro for 7 month with just promises and no substance, and lone and behold, it comes out, even Anand recognized that he has been jerked around. But, still, there are believers.
Whatever NV is paying them right now, they should double/triple their salarys. Who needs Dev Teams when your PR can work miracles.
While I am still running tests and stuff on it I would like to add somehitng, it may not be an important issue for others while it is important for me. There is a known compatibility issue of 9700 Pro with intel's 7205 chipset.
Since I have a board based on that chipset I was kinda forced to switch to Nvidia based video card. All my problems got resolved.
9700 pro is still an awesome card and worth the buck.
Since I have a board based on that chipset I was kinda forced to switch to Nvidia based video card. All my problems got resolved.
9700 pro is still an awesome card and worth the buck.
"behold, it comes out, even Anand recognized that he has been jerked around. But, still, there are believers"
LOL- Oh ANAND says it, it MUST be so!
I would never take away from Anand's skill as a reviewer, or his achievement in creating this business.
BUT: He is only one reviewer, and benchmarks can pretty much be skewed to make whatever point you want to. Notice we only have 4X AA, 8X AF in the Ultra review, and those settings happen to not favor the Ultra? And how we ONLY have nVidia's "quality" settings, but both quality and performance for the 9700/9800? And how this is the first time ever the review doesn't have more non AA/AF results?
I'm not trying to say how Anand should run his site, nor would I presume to. He's a respected, successful reviewer and businessman. However, I am saying that unless you agree with his new review philosophy 100%, and his conclusion that ATI low quality = nVidia high quality, you're going to have to look elsewhere for relevant review info?
Where's the Quincunx AA? Where's the 2X AA? Where are the performance setting benchmarks? Where are the non AA/AF? Where are the 2,4,6X AF? What about nVidia's claim ATI AF isn't as precise as theirs? Etc.
Some of you are starting to sound like a bunch of hillbillies on Friday night down at the Hootenanny(sp?)- "Yeeehaaawww!" <bang!bang!> :"Anand done de-clared ATI "performance" as good as durn ol' nVidia's "quality", an' that non AA/AF benches don' mean shucks, an' the 9700 done stomped a mudhole in nVidia's a$$! Yeeeeehaaaaawwww!"<bang!bang!>
LOL
LOL- Oh ANAND says it, it MUST be so!
I would never take away from Anand's skill as a reviewer, or his achievement in creating this business.
BUT: He is only one reviewer, and benchmarks can pretty much be skewed to make whatever point you want to. Notice we only have 4X AA, 8X AF in the Ultra review, and those settings happen to not favor the Ultra? And how we ONLY have nVidia's "quality" settings, but both quality and performance for the 9700/9800? And how this is the first time ever the review doesn't have more non AA/AF results?
I'm not trying to say how Anand should run his site, nor would I presume to. He's a respected, successful reviewer and businessman. However, I am saying that unless you agree with his new review philosophy 100%, and his conclusion that ATI low quality = nVidia high quality, you're going to have to look elsewhere for relevant review info?
Where's the Quincunx AA? Where's the 2X AA? Where are the performance setting benchmarks? Where are the non AA/AF? Where are the 2,4,6X AF? What about nVidia's claim ATI AF isn't as precise as theirs? Etc.
Some of you are starting to sound like a bunch of hillbillies on Friday night down at the Hootenanny(sp?)- "Yeeehaaawww!" <bang!bang!> :"Anand done de-clared ATI "performance" as good as durn ol' nVidia's "quality", an' that non AA/AF benches don' mean shucks, an' the 9700 done stomped a mudhole in nVidia's a$$! Yeeeeehaaaaawwww!"<bang!bang!>
LOL
Yeah, that and the fact that if you were smart you got to use your 9700pro for 5 months before the Ultra.
Budmantom
Lifer
- Aug 17, 2002
- 13,103
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: Rollo
"behold, it comes out, even Anand recognized that he has been jerked around. But, still, there are believers"
LOL- Oh ANAND says it, it MUST be so!
I would never take away from Anand's skill as a reviewer, or his achievement in creating this business.
BUT: He is only one reviewer, and benchmarks can pretty much be skewed to make whatever point you want to. Notice we only have 4X AA, 8X AF in the Ultra review, and those settings happen to not favor the Ultra? And how we ONLY have nVidia's "quality" settings, but both quality and performance for the 9700/9800? And how this is the first time ever the review doesn't have more non AA/AF results?
I'm not trying to say how Anand should run his site, nor would I presume to. He's a respected, successful reviewer and businessman. However, I am saying that unless you agree with his new review philosophy 100%, and his conclusion that ATI low quality = nVidia high quality, you're going to have to look elsewhere for relevant review info?
Where's the Quincunx AA? Where's the 2X AA? Where are the performance setting benchmarks? Where are the non AA/AF? Where are the 2,4,6X AF? What about nVidia's claim ATI AF isn't as precise as theirs? Etc.
Some of you are starting to sound like a bunch of hillbillies on Friday night down at the Hootenanny(sp?)- "Yeeehaaawww!" <bang!bang!> :"Anand done de-clared ATI "performance" as good as durn ol' nVidia's "quality", an' that non AA/AF benches don' mean shucks, an' the 9700 done stomped a mudhole in nVidia's a$$! Yeeeeehaaaaawwww!"<bang!bang!>
LOL
Rollo your too funny.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,007
- 126
Eh? Why should I be running anything "balanced" when I have a 9700 Pro card that can easily do maximum image quality?
The issue here is image quality and speed, not just speed.
And those that care will be running 8500/4200 boards and achieving the same thing. You don't buy a high-end card to run anything on medium.
No, all I have to do is look at 1600 x 1200 (or higher) benchmarks with full anisotropic and/or FSAA and I can see the 9700 Pro winning. I also know that at those settings the Radeon looks better than the FX.
All you seem to be doing is picking settings which are more CPU limited than anything else and are content to point out that the FX wins, totally ignoring price, noise and totally ignoring that you're using settings that were designed for mid-range cards. You don't buy high-end cards to run at such crappy settings; it's like me saying that a Voodoo3 is better than the GF4 Ti200 because it beats it at 320 x 240 x 16. Sure it's true but it's totally meaningless.
I don't have the best hardware because that's the 9800.
BFG:
"Eh? Why should I be running anything "balanced" when I have a 9700 Pro card that can easily do maximum image quality?"
You would run "balanced" on the FX BFG; and compare it to your "quality". Not everyone is as convinced as you are that ATIs "performance settings (actually any settings) for AF don't result in image degradation.
Digit Life shows how "accurate" our 9700's AF really is- and not with a screenshot of Quake
"And those that care will be running 8500/4200 boards and achieving the same thing. You don't buy a high-end card to run anything on medium."
Again, "balanced" is nVidia's "quality" setting, and what Toms sight judged the equivalent of ATI quality. You would NEVER see this kind of performance on a 8500/4200, I'm not even going to bother posting links. (this is just too ridiculous to bother)
"No, all I have to do is look at 1600 x 1200 (or higher) benchmarks with full anisotropic and/or FSAA and I can see the 9700 Pro winning"
What a joke. A fps player would NEVER use those settings, because even mediocre players like me would have plenty of time to dance around him blasting away as his overloaded VGA stuttered.
If the minimum fps is down to 52 at 12X9, where do you think it will be for 16X12? "unplayable"
This is with a P4 3.06 too, which how many people have? LOL the two ancient Q3 engine games are the only ones playable at that resolution of the 5 benched, and we don't get to know what their minimums are. (so they may not be)
"You don't buy high-end cards to run at such crappy settings"
No I don't buy high end VGAs to run games all choppy and jerky like you apparently do. Since we have the same system specs, you can't really say I don't know what you're talking about, can you? All I have to do is fire it up with your settings and watch it wheeze, and think "Why the heck would anyone put up with this crap?"
"I don't have the best hardware because that's the 9800. "
The 9800 is probably the best card all around, the 5800 Ultra second, our 9700 Pros lingering in 3rd. Oh well. In two months I'll have an nV35, then maybe I'll actually be able to use the settings you harp on without getting epilepsy from the from the strobe light show.
"Eh? Why should I be running anything "balanced" when I have a 9700 Pro card that can easily do maximum image quality?"
You would run "balanced" on the FX BFG; and compare it to your "quality". Not everyone is as convinced as you are that ATIs "performance settings (actually any settings) for AF don't result in image degradation.
Digit Life shows how "accurate" our 9700's AF really is- and not with a screenshot of Quake
"And those that care will be running 8500/4200 boards and achieving the same thing. You don't buy a high-end card to run anything on medium."
Again, "balanced" is nVidia's "quality" setting, and what Toms sight judged the equivalent of ATI quality. You would NEVER see this kind of performance on a 8500/4200, I'm not even going to bother posting links. (this is just too ridiculous to bother)
"No, all I have to do is look at 1600 x 1200 (or higher) benchmarks with full anisotropic and/or FSAA and I can see the 9700 Pro winning"
What a joke. A fps player would NEVER use those settings, because even mediocre players like me would have plenty of time to dance around him blasting away as his overloaded VGA stuttered.
If the minimum fps is down to 52 at 12X9, where do you think it will be for 16X12? "unplayable"
This is with a P4 3.06 too, which how many people have? LOL the two ancient Q3 engine games are the only ones playable at that resolution of the 5 benched, and we don't get to know what their minimums are. (so they may not be)
"You don't buy high-end cards to run at such crappy settings"
No I don't buy high end VGAs to run games all choppy and jerky like you apparently do. Since we have the same system specs, you can't really say I don't know what you're talking about, can you? All I have to do is fire it up with your settings and watch it wheeze, and think "Why the heck would anyone put up with this crap?"
"I don't have the best hardware because that's the 9800. "
The 9800 is probably the best card all around, the 5800 Ultra second, our 9700 Pros lingering in 3rd. Oh well. In two months I'll have an nV35, then maybe I'll actually be able to use the settings you harp on without getting epilepsy from the from the strobe light show.
Umm...
Why bother comparing the FX 5800 Ultra with the 9700 Pro? Its true competitor is the 9800 Pro.
Why bother comparing the FX 5800 Ultra with the 9700 Pro? Its true competitor is the 9800 Pro.
Now heres a NV believer!!!
I bet you were among the ones that said "The NV30 will be out in september....no wait Oktober....no wait November.....December for sure!!"
Now I know im new at this forum, so it might not be the best idea to start like this, but hey...its all in good fun
Iv kept my mind pretty open about these cards, but Iv decided to go for the 9700Pro for these reasons:
1) In 2D...theres no question about it - ATI is best. And it doesnt even matter from what company you buy it.
At 1600*1200 in 2D the NV cards gives a fuzzy picture...and I dont know about you people, but I use my PC for much more than gaming.
2) Price vs Speed in the highend market
3) Better speeds at higher res+FSAA
Thnx
McBeck
If you check only 3 sites and two of them post benchies with the fx pulling ahead then you better find some more, try hardocp and nvnews.net.
Toms has some people on his staff that have recently been in big trouble because of their nvidia bias (not by tom but by the community, Lars is a big culprit), so I trust them much less than I trust anand and hardocp (since Kevin has almost always been an nvidia man).
You need to find some other pastures to graze in rollo.
rogo
Toms has some people on his staff that have recently been in big trouble because of their nvidia bias (not by tom but by the community, Lars is a big culprit), so I trust them much less than I trust anand and hardocp (since Kevin has almost always been an nvidia man).
You need to find some other pastures to graze in rollo.
rogo
Here is the hardocp url for the 9800, 9700, and fx comparison.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDM5LDM=
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
rogo
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDM5LDM=
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
rogo
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter