Just bought FX 5900XT - confused!

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Here is how I laid it out, word for word.

"As for OEM prices, the 9600XTs run $150+, the 5900XT (still getting into the retail channels) are $160 (the XFX was, but is OOS) and most others are ~$180. One 9800 Pro is $208 at one location, the rest are $230+. Like I said, the 5900XT basically fills the void of the 9600XT and the 9800 Pro. "

I did not say the 5900XT/SE cards were great deals, they just are the best choice in that limited price range. So what doesn't stack up?

Waste of bandwidth = you sent like 1KB over the net and added nothing to the conversation.

Here's what you said as well:

Of course the 9800 pro is a faster card overall, but it's $100 more expensive in retail. The 5900XT sure whoops the 9600XTs in every way, so it fills the void between the 9600XT and the 9800Pro, exactly where it's priced.

The 5900xt is not $100 more than the 9800pro. The 5900xt is not $160 either. Its priced ~$185 or so, placing it at the low end of todays higher end cards, right where it should be. Comparing cards outside their class is ignorant at best. The 5900XT is a great buy over a 5700U (or lessor so, the 9600xt), but its not as great a deal when stacked up against cards in the same class. I get it, you got a new card. Way to go!

Waste of bandwidth = you sent like 1KB over the net and added nothing to the conversation.

Maybe I should run my posts by you before I post them here

 

[rbV5]

Today at Mwave:

XFX GEFORCE FX 5600 ULTRA $216
ATI RADEON 9800 PRO 128MB $209
XFX GEFORCE FX 5900 128MB $205
POWER COLOR/ATI RADEON 9700PRO $191
ASUS RADEON 9600XT-VTD 128MB DDR $189
ATI RADEON 9700 PRO 128MB 8XAGP DDR $182
CHAINTECH FX5900XT 128MB DDR $179

Link

 

[rbV5]

5900XT $183 +
9700pro $190+
9800pro $208+

 

[Todd33]

"The 5900xt is not $100 more than the 9800pro. The 5900xt is not $160 either. Its priced ~$185 or so, placing it at the low end of todays higher end cards, right where it should be. Comparing cards outside their class is ignorant at best. The 5900XT is a great buy over a 5700U (or lessor so, the 9600xt), but its not as great a deal when stacked up against cards in the same class. I get it, you got a new card. Way to go!"

Jesus, people are dense. I said $100 in retail, ie. BestBuy, not the grey market stores online like Newegg. Next, the XFX 5900XT was $159 on Friday at newegg, but they sold out, most are $180, like I said. So to repeat myself again... The 9600XT (~$150+) < 5900XT (~180+) < 9800 pro (~210+). It is priced in between the two, but is much closer to the 9800 pro in performance. So in that respect it's a good deal.

The 5900XT cards have barely begun to hit the market, they may be $160 standard (online) in the next few weeks, in that case the 9600XTs will be a poor choice.

I myself have no stock in either ATI or Nvidia, the last card I recommmended to my friend was a 9600XT and I will probably pick up the 9800 pro myself soon if my wife will go for it, but lets not just bash a Nvidia cards just becuase you like ATI. Both companies have competitive cards in the market. ATI was stronger this generation, but they are not the clear choice for every price point.

 

[Engineer]

Just for reference, the XFX 5900XT has been $159.00 at Newegg for a week. It has been sold out for a few days, but for a decent card at a decent price, nothing to complain about. While the 9800pro may indeed be worth $49.00 more (based on Newegg's price today), it's up to each individual.

As for the 3DMark 2001 scores, I haven't a clue. If it runs the games that you enjoy at an OK speed, then all is well.

Maybe I'm wrong here (have been many times! ), but the 5900XT has the same GPU (speed also) as the regular 5900, but has 2.8ns ram vs 2.2ns ram of the 5900. It also has lower latencies than the 5900, which makes up for some of the ram speed difference of the regular 5900.

 

[rbV5]

myself have no stock in either ATI or Nvidia, the last card I recommmended to my friend was a 9600XT and I will probably pick up the 9800 pro myself soon if my wife will go for it, but lets not just bash a Nvidia cards just becuase you like ATI. Both companies have competitive cards in the market. ATI was stronger this generation, but they are not the clear choice for every price point.

I'm not bashing NVidia at all. I'm simply disagreeing with your observations, simple as that.

Jesus, people are dense

Dude, you are winning me over.

 

[rbV5]

myself have no stock in either ATI or Nvidia, the last card I recommmended to my friend was a 9600XT and I will probably pick up the 9800 pro myself soon if my wife will go for it, but lets not just bash a Nvidia cards just becuase you like ATI. Both companies have competitive cards in the market. ATI was stronger this generation, but they are not the clear choice for every price point.

I'm not bashing NVidia at all. I'm simply disagreeing with your observations, simple as that.

Jesus, people are dense

Dude, you are winning me over.

 

[Todd33]

What's to disagree with? It's faster and cheaper than a 9700 pro and you still think it not worth looking at? You sound like an ATI loyalist, to me.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1543&page=3

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: Todd33
What's to disagree with? It's faster and cheaper than a 9700 pro and you still think it not worth looking at? You sound like an ATI loyalist, to me.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1543&page=3[/q

I didn't say it wasn't worth looking at. I disagree with how much cheaper you say it is than its competitors, which comprise of offerings from ATI and Nvidia btw, and with your inference that it is somehow competition for a cheaper midstream 9600XT, while ignoring the fact that there is a 5700U at all. Most of 5900XT cards are ~$180, 9700pro's are $190 and 9800pro are $210. Thats where it sits in the market, and it competes very well at that level.

Oh, and I don't think I'd hang my hat onto just that benchmark to judge the relative performance of those cards.

 

[SilverBack]

Todd
Wierd way to try and prove a point by showing an overclocked card.
Just overclock a 9700 pro and that card is down 15% in all benches.
Overclocked 5900XT where is the ATI OC's?

 

[BlvdKing]

How far does a 9700 Pro overclock on average? The 5900XT is supposed to be a very good overclocker. Even still, the 5900XT at stock speeds is still faster in most benchmarks than a 9700 Pro at stock. It's is just under the 9800 Pro at stock speeds.

I bought the XFX 5900XT from newegg for 158.00 free shipping on Saturday. I'll report back how I like it when it gets here Thursday. It's hard to beat a card of that caliber especially for that price!

 

[SilverBack]

Yeah it's a good card, you'll enjoy it

You gotta love NewEgg.
I think I've spent 10k there since Jan 1st LOL
Not all of the was mine don't get excited LOL

 

[Todd33]

"Wierd way to try and prove a point by showing an overclocked card."

I'm not sure what you were reading, but the non-OCed scores were there. Maybe you should read slower. The reason OC scores were there is too show how the card OCs, it was a 5900XT review, not a OCing article. So, go back, reread, see how the 5900XT beats the 9700 pro in almost all benchmarks.

 

[SilverBack]

Thats funny Todd
You were comparing it to the 9800 Pro not the 9700.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SilverBack
LOL Todd

My 9800 Pro does 6900 in 3DMark 2003
and 20500 in 3D Mark 2001. The lower 5900's can't touch that. The highend 5900 with the better memory surely can, but not the lower ones.


MidnightMick,
The card should be great for gaming, the higher end cards are just for bragging rights don't worry about it if you have playable games.

I cant even begin to tell you how much I seriously doubt that without an insane rig and vid card o/c.

 

[Keysplayr]

Oh and are you guys done trashing each other yet? Would ya mind getting back to helping the OP?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Todd33]

Silverback , go back and read the posts, you are not following things. The point was implied that the 9700 pro was a better deal at the price point. You even replied with a line about OCing the 9700 pro, so you must have been following things at one point.

People were buying 5900XTs for $159, instead of saying 'good deal', the ATI fanboys jump into 5900 thread just to get into a brand war. The original poster just wanted info on a bum benchmark score, instead it turns into a 'your cards sucks' or 'my 9800 scores..' thread.

 

[SilverBack]

My rig isn't insane, fun perhaps

CPU-Z of my system
The CPU-Z was taken today, I just installed a new 2.8C

My highest 3DMark 2003 score, 6994 3DMarks

My highest 3DMark 2001 score, 20540

 

[SilverBack]

Jeez Todd you have done about zip to help this guy.
You're just following the thread so you can argue.

What I have asked or said:

You may want to make sure that your card is not using the AA when benchmarking.

The card should be great for gaming, the higher end cards are just for bragging rights don't worry about it if you have playable games.

What card were you runing before? The reason I ask if you had coolbits enabled for the nVidia cards you may be under clocking your card now.

What about your BIOS? is it set to 4x/8x AGP? Oh and also do not using video shadowing or video memory caching in the BIOS with nVidia cards. The cards do this themselves and the redundentcy(sp) can hurt performance.

Grasping at straws here, will the 5900's even work if the molex connector isn't installed?? know I once forgot to connect mine on the ATI card after replacing a case. BTW it wouldn't boot LOL

I wasn't knocking his purchase and I'm trying to help him with his problem. ALSO I happen to like nVidia drivers and this next roll out I'll be purchasing the newest nVidia card.

 

[Todd33]

You also called his card low end and boasted about your 9800 pro scores.

I'm glad you helped too, but if others read this thread without me and some others arguing against the anti-5900 propganda, they might think the card is junk, when it clearly is the best card for its price.

 

[rbV5]

I'm glad you helped too, but if others read this thread without me and some others arguing against the anti-5900 propganda, they might think the card is junk

Anti-5900 propaganda? My complaint is you try to align it against Mainstream ATI cards (which are cheaper and available at the cheaper price) and use benchmarks clearly favoring Nvidia cards to prove your point. You totally ignore the fact that the 5700U is Nvidia's Mainstream card, and it basically will get killed in the market if there is any supply of these 5900xt's at those prices. There is going to be pressure on the entire 5900 line if there is a bunch of these dumped into the market.

5900xt is a great deal if you can get it at $160, at $185 it may or may not be the best card at its pricepoint, at $200 no question its not (there's not alot of room there, you'll notice). You don't have to defend the 5900XT, it will speak for itself.

 

[Keysplayr]

Use driver cleaner 2.7 to get rid of any left behind drivers from the last card you had in there. Be it Nvidia or ATI doesn't matter. Follow the directions to the letter in the included readme file with DC 2.7.

Then install the 53.03 Forceware drivers from the Nvidia site.

Good Luck.

Let us know how you do.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: rbV5

I'm glad you helped too, but if others read this thread without me and some others arguing against the anti-5900 propganda, they might think the card is junk

Anti-5900 propaganda? My complaint is you try to align it against Mainstream ATI cards (which are cheaper and available at the cheaper price) and use benchmarks clearly favoring Nvidia cards to prove your point. You totally ignore the fact that the 5700U is Nvidia's Mainstream card, and it basically will get killed in the market if there is any supply of these 5900xt's at those prices. There is going to be pressure on the entire 5900 line if there is a bunch of these dumped into the market.

5900xt is a great deal if you can get it at $160, at $185 it may or may not be the best card at its pricepoint, at $200 no question its not (there's not alot of room there, you'll notice). You don't have to defend the 5900XT, it will speak for itself.

In any case, NVIDIA?s GeForce FX 5900 XT core has been popular since its inception due to its attractive pricing and good performance in today?s titles. NVIDIA has certainly delivered a card that has given the mainstream market what it wanted, a graphics solution that offers all the features of the flagship cards and much of the performance, but at a price point that is much more attractive to the wallet. The GeForce FX 5900 XT is one of the best bargains on the graphics market right now, and is truly a worthy successor to GeForce4 Ti 4200.

link

it is a "mainstream" card. you have to think "outside the box" and quit ignoring the fact that online sales is a very small % compared to b&m sales, where the 9800pro pretty much remains at $299. i agree however, that if you're comparing online, @ $200 there are better values available (sapphire 9800pro for $210ish).

 

[BlvdKing]

Thanks, I was wondering about that. Manually clearing out registry entries is not fun. BTW, my last card was a 9600 NP, so this is quite an upgrade. I'll post some benchies when I get the card.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Use driver cleaner 2.7 to get rid of any left behind drivers from the last card you had in there. Be it Nvidia or ATI doesn't matter. Follow the directions to the letter in the included readme file with DC 2.7.

Then install the 53.03 Forceware drivers from the Nvidia site.

Good Luck.

Let us know how you do.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: SilverBack
I would think that that you would be in the 5000 area.

What card were you runing before?
The reason I ask if you had coolbits enabled for the nVidia cards you may be under clocking your card now.

I just installed the XFX 5900XT card (Dell 3.2GHz P4 with 512MB PC3200 Dual Channel) and it scored 5,005 with no tweaking at all. Not even sure of what tweaks (other than Overclocking) are out there or what programs unleash them.

It plays UT2k3 much smoother with all details set to high than my TI4200 did...but, I discovered that my TI4200 had a dead fan, hence some of the problems with it.

Only got 11,500 on 3DMark2001SE. Again, no tweaks.