GF FX 5800 Ultra Vs. Radeon 9700 Pro

[Rogozhin]

Reading THIS review I would have to conclude that the FX is not holding up so well.

Anandtech is basically telling the same story that the IQ on the 9800 and 9700 is much better than the FX, the ati drivers are solid, and the increase in performance from the 9700 to the 9800 is enough to give 9700 owners a second thought (let alone fx and any other nvidia owners).

Rogo

 

[bedrocked]

funny how everyone wants to compare the 5800 to the 9700P. how longs the 9700 pro been out?

 

[nRollo]

"funny how everyone wants to compare the 5800 to the 9700P. how longs the 9700 pro been out?"
Why is that "funny"? I didn't know cards had to come out the same day to be compared?

The R7500 was always compared to the GF2 series, even though it came out months later. The R8500 came out 5 months after the GF3s, but was always compared to the GF3s.
I personally compare the two because many here post nonsense like "The FX sux. The 6 month old 9700 destroys it!" etc.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: bedrocked
funny how everyone wants to compare the 5800 to the 9700P. how longs the 9700 pro been out?

Because its the same generation hardware that will soon be filling the same market segment when NV35 is released. Can't fault nVidia for TSMC's troubles, you can only applaud them for contracting with IBM for future GPUs.

Chiz

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Rollo
"funny how everyone wants to compare the 5800 to the 9700P. how longs the 9700 pro been out?"
Why is that "funny"? I didn't know cards had to come out the same day to be compared?

The R7500 was always compared to the GF2 series, even though it came out months later. The R8500 came out 5 months after the GF3s, but was always compared to the GF3s.
I personally compare the two because many here post nonsense like "The FX sux. The 6 month old 9700 destroys it!" etc.

well, that nonsense seems not to be so much nonsense when looking at that hardocp review. 6xaa and 8xaf at 1024x768 is faster in UT2k3 on the 9700Pro than the GFFX 5800Ultra at 2xAA 8xAF

 

[funks]

This should answer it.

 

[nRollo]

"well, that nonsense seems not to be so much nonsense when looking at that hardocp review. 6xaa and 8xaf at 1024x768 is faster in UT2k3 on the 9700Pro than the GFFX 5800Ultra at 2xAA 8xAF "
Which review is that? Link?

You've certainly proved your point: The 9700Pro faster at 6XAA/8XAF?! Man, what was I thinking? It's CLEARLY superior.

 

[oldfart]

Here is a reiview of the Gainward 5800 U. They get pretty in depth on the IQ AA/AF stuff.

 

[Rogozhin]

Okay

This is the low down.

You buy an fx for these reasons only.

1.You want to fiddle with new tech (i would myself, short on money at the moment)
2.You are truely a nvidiot and don't care about price.
3.You simply don't know any better.


For two and three the PRICE is probably a factor and the price right now of a radeon 9700 pro is about $250 and the price of a Geforce FX is (at newegg.com they have three models) from $400, $450, and $500.

Now. Anyone else not listed in the catagories above that is in the market for a video card is going to look at ANY posted benchmarks and think to himself, 'hm the fx is a little faster than a 9700pro in non af and aa, but the 9700 pro is a little faster with aa and af enabled, I guess that 10-20% increase is worth another $150-$250, definately not.

I expect the fellas that want to fiddle with the card to probably shell out the money for it, since they are hardcore useres, but your average nvidiot probably won't want to fork out that much money (even though there are one or two at nvnews.net that have), and your number 3 sure won't spend $400 on a card that costs half as much (in all likelyhood) as their computer (in that case he or she will probably pick up a geforce 4 MX series or radeon 9000 series).

Sorry bout the rambling.

rogo

 

[bedrocked]

denial:

2 a (1) : refusal to admit the truth or reality (as of a statement or charge) (2) : assertion that an allegation is false b : refusal to acknowledge a person or a thing

 

[Rogozhin]

"The R8500 came out 5 months after the GF3s, but was always compared to the GF3s."

Actually it was always compared to the geforce 4 ti series, even though it was aimed at the Geforce 3 Ti500.

Rogo

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Rogozhin
"The R8500 came out 5 months after the GF3s, but was always compared to the GF3s."

Actually it was always compared to the geforce 4 ti series, even though it was aimed at the Geforce 3 Ti500.

Rogo

You must've slept through all of 2001 and the first half of 2002. The 8500 wasn't even mentioned in the same sentence as the Ti4200 until a year later when Cat 2.5 was released. ATi still doesn't have an answer for the Ti4200, which has been making a killing in the sub-$150 market.

Chiz

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Rogozhin
"The R8500 came out 5 months after the GF3s, but was always compared to the GF3s."

Actually it was always compared to the geforce 4 ti series, even though it was aimed at the Geforce 3 Ti500.

Rogo

You must've slept through all of 2001 and the first half of 2002. The 8500 wasn't even mentioned in the same sentence as the Ti4200 until a year later when Cat 2.5 was released. ATi still doesn't have an answer for the Ti4200, which has been making a killing in the sub-$150 market.

Chiz

I'd have to agree on that, the 8500 was meant to one of the GF3 but it failed to at first, and once the Ti 500 came things definately weren't looking good at all. Only until now is the 8500 very very rough competition for the Ti 500 with the GF4 Ti 4200 in a class of its own. I'd have to dissagree on it killing the sub $150 market. No doubt the 4200 is easily the king of sub $150 and by far the best solution, but I doubt people are buying them over GF4 MXs and other such lower budget solutions.

 

[Blastman]

At one point ATI driver improvement (summer 2002) had pushed the performance of the 8500 very close to the 4200 ?

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/200207181/radeon9000-08.html

Since then Nvidia?s driver improvement for the 4200 has been phenomenal and the 4200 had distanced itself again from the 8500. The performance of the 4200 is so good now I sometimes wonder what ? ?tricks? ? Nvidia employed to do it.

 

[Rogozhin]

I had the choice of buying a radeon 8500 or a geforce 3 ti500 when the 8500 was available, when the geforce 4 series came out I bought two of them, a gainward 64mb ti4200 and a 128mb ti 4400 from msi. So I know what was available when.

At the time, reviewers (with the 6057 series drivers for the 8500) were benching the geforce 4s against the 8500 since it was ati's high end card at the time.

So chizzow, don't think you have a monoply on knowlege alright buddy.

Rogo

 

[Rogozhin]

Reviews of the 8500 were springing up in late december and reviews of the Geforce 4 were out in january of 2002

In all the reviews I've looked at the geforce 4s were benchmarked comparing both the geforce 3 ti 500 and the radeon 8500. In those benchmarks the radeon is faster than the geforce 3 ti500 and relatively close to the geforce 4 ti4600.

So what is your point again big guy?

Rogo

 

[Rogozhin]

I had personall exprience with two geforce 4 cards and a radeon 8500LE

My own judgment (and perception) is more valid than anybody's post on a public form (to myself) or an online review.

The fact that I kept the 8500 and sold both the geforces is a testament to the 8500s staying power (only to me).

If you have run both the cards then I would be more than happy to hear what you have to say about them. As it stands I don't have any grounds to give a flying fook what you say.

Rogo

 

[nRollo]

Rampaging Rogo:
"Reading THIS review I would have to conclude that the FX is not holding up so well."
You can't just capitalize a word to make it work as a link.

"Actually it was always compared to the geforce 4 ti series, even though it was aimed at the Geforce 3 Ti500."
Bzzzt. Wrong. The First R8500 review on this board, 10/17/01 was out long before the First Ti review,2/6/02, four months later. So there's four months they weren't compared to Tis. After that they were for a while, only because ATI had no comparable part to the Ti generation. (much the same as the last half year where the Ti4600 has been compared to the 9700Pro)

"So chizzow, don't think you have a monoply on knowlege alright buddy"
He's right about this though. The Ti4200 came out months after the 4400/4600, and no one really considered 8500s competition for them.

"Reviews of the 8500 were springing up in late december and reviews of the Geforce 4 were out in january of 2002"\
Hmmm. Not on this board, see above.

"In those benchmarks the radeon is faster than the geforce 3 ti500 and relatively close to the geforce 4 ti4600.
So what is your point again big guy?"
Tonite my point is you must have put Quaaludes in your coffee. An R8500 close to a Ti4600?!
20%slower at 12X10, 30% slower at 16X12
55% slower at 10X7, downhill from there
25% slower and worse at hi res
32% slower here

If the 9700/9800 could pull off victories like these at anything except high res, very high AA/AF, I'd believe you guys.

"I had personall exprience with two geforce 4 cards and a radeon 8500LE
My own judgment (and perception) is more valid than anybody's post on a public form (to myself) or an online review.
The fact that I kept the 8500 and sold both the geforces is a testament to the 8500s staying power (only to me).
If you have run both the cards then I would be more than happy to hear what you have to say about them. As it stands I don't have any grounds to give a flying fook what you say."

Uh oh, careful what you wish for. I have owned and used a Ti4200, Ti4400, and a R8500 retail. The R8500 retail only lasted 3 weeks, because I got tired of it locking up in games after fdisk, fresh install, many drivers, bios flashes, etc.. I popped in the the Ti4400, did none of the above, and it ran FLAWLESSLY. (as did the GF3 I had before the R8500)
Willikers! Same box, and I had problems with my ATI, but not nVidia. In those days, the big workaround on Rage 3d was underclock your retail to LE speeds, and sure enough, that did seem to lessen the problem. (and performance)

 

[Rogozhin]

Rollo

I had an LE and after a bios flash and volt mod I was running 300/300 with no artifacts no bsods and no lock ups.

I am going to find the real release date of all the aformentioned cards.

I didn't capitalize the words for links, I capitalized them for emphasis.

My geforce 4 series cards had more problems than my 8500 and this was with the 6000 series ati drivers and the 30s and early 40 series dets.

1.Nascar 2002 hardlocked with the 30 series detonators. I finally did get them working but had to turn OFF AF, don't know why but that was the only thing that worked. As mentioned earlier I had major problems with those cards in IL-2. Also, this was on a freshly built system that I was making for my parents, so I was able to benchmark and compare using the same monitor but different systems (they were both K7S5A ecs mobos, 1600+ xp, 256mb PC2100 crucial and IBM 60GXPs.)

"He's right about this though. The Ti4200 came out months after the 4400/4600, and no one really considered 8500s competition for them."

Did you look at my link????

Even if i am off two months and so is the other guy, what does it matter to you? He's saying it wasn't benched against the geforce 4s until the 2.5 cats came along, and that is completely wrong given the review I've posted at Hardocp.

My point is that the 8500 WAS benched against the Geforce 4 series as soon as they came out. They were released in februrary and the chipset did very well against its targeted competetor the geforce 3 ti 500 even before the catalyst series came out, and now with the cats and the performance increase across the whole line of cards the 8500 holds its own against the geforce 4 ti 4200, a card it was never made to compete with.

You sure like to goad me Rollo

Rogo

 

[Rogozhin]

Also

I remeber in one of your posts that you don't believe that anand is a very good source of benchmark info. I will go find it. So why quote him?

Rogo

 

[Rogozhin]

Rollo

Your link to "this board 10/ whatever the date was) isn't working, and are you saying that was a true review of the card?

I bought mine in December of 2001 and it was one of the first batches of cards that newegg.com recieved.

So you are saying that someone posted a forum review of the card in October?

Rogo

 

[Rogozhin]

PS

I'm not rampaging I'm bantering. Had I rampaged your monitor would have exploded due to the kinetic energy I can use

Rogo

 

[Rogozhin]

jeez, after seeing all my post I suppose I am rampaging

Christ I need my wife to come back home!

Rogo

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Rollo
"well, that nonsense seems not to be so much nonsense when looking at that hardocp review. 6xaa and 8xaf at 1024x768 is faster in UT2k3 on the 9700Pro than the GFFX 5800Ultra at 2xAA 8xAF "
Which review is that? Link?

You've certainly proved your point: The 9700Pro faster at 6XAA/8XAF?! Man, what was I thinking? It's CLEARLY superior.

well, yes...because NOBODY that I know runs any games at 1024x768 without some form of AA and AF and from the rest of the hardocp review it shows an advantage in the 9700Pro in more than just AA/AF at one res. Why play the games at 120+fps when it's perfectly playable at 70 with AA and AF cranked for an awesome picture? Unless you're just a FPS geek like the old quake 3 "luzers" who thought that turning the game down to wireframe graphics with no textures at 300fps makes them better players.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Rogozhin
"The R8500 came out 5 months after the GF3s, but was always compared to the GF3s."

Actually it was always compared to the geforce 4 ti series, even though it was aimed at the Geforce 3 Ti500.

Rogo

You must've slept through all of 2001 and the first half of 2002. The 8500 wasn't even mentioned in the same sentence as the Ti4200 until a year later when Cat 2.5 was released. ATi still doesn't have an answer for the Ti4200, which has been making a killing in the sub-$150 market.

Chiz

well, with the 9500 NP out and around $200 at some retailers I'd go the extra $50