Need a DX9 card .. anyone know about release dates?

[perpetualdark]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
For the particular title you are beta testing, are the volumetric shadows dependant on stencil fill?

In terms of availability, it appears that the eVGA 5900U has shown up at one on line vendor as of now(they claim to have it in stock anyway) however being the only place to have it they are asking $550 for it at the moment, not that I would reccomend it anyway. I would expect that the 5900s should start showing up in volume shipments within the next three to four weeks for most of the vendors with a few falling back to late July. The 5900Value likely won't hit until roughly the mid August range.

In terms of comparing the new 5600U to the other offerings, I would reccomend holding out for the 5900 Value or see where the 5800 non Ultra(without the noisy fan) lands in terms of price or at the very least see what price point they materialize at. With the 5900 Value having a MSRP of ~$300 and the 5600U in the $200 range more then likely the performance rift will justify the added cost. That may not end up being the case, but I would hold out and see what the 5900V offers if you are thinking about the new 5600U.

If you are thinking about one of the more powerful offerings, the 5800 level boards are now available in the $300 and sometimes lower price range, and the non Ultra boards don't have the issues with noise. It may be a good choice to get one of those if you are looking in that range.

If you aren't price sensitive, I would advise to go with the 5900Ultra 256MB.

Edit-

ATI had some driver problems in the past. Why do you think they still do? If you spend just a few minutes in the forums, you would find out how wrong you are.

I listened to people such as those that post on this forum and then found at first hand how wrong they were. ATi still has a lot of driver issues, so much so that I got rid of my R9500Pro because of them.

Thank you for the response. I wish all responses on a forum were more like yours (ie actually about the question). I agree with you that I would be more happy with the 5900 value over the 5600u, and the only thing that may sway my decision is timing of the releases, and how much I can sneak past my wife. That is primarily why I am even debating which card to get.

I am unsure how the vol. shadowing is handled in this beta, but I am guessing that what hardware is available will actually determine a lot of how the entire graphics process is handled. I am also guessing you know exactly which game I am testing.

It seems to me that every time I am about to upgrade my own system, the entire technology of computers is in a transition phase. Then again, for the last few years, that has been the case almost every day... Hard to draw a line and say "today the best hardware is X Y and Z, and last quarter it was A C and Y, and if you want the best for your dime, X and Z are a must, and Q might be a better choice." Nowadays its more "X Y and Z are the best today, but tomorrow Z will be beaten by R, and ABC company will be revising Y with T in a week, so going with X is not a good choice now because the new R will require M instead, and it will mean a 4% gain in performance. Don't forget that the Q you have now will not be compatable with X, but it would be with C, although C underperforms X by 2%, and cannot be overclocked." It is quite frustrating sometimes, and given that I have been a little relaxed about keeping on top of it all for the last 6 months, trying to catch up is difficult, made worse so by flaming posts.

I am a little price sensitive only because I recently told my wife she was spending too much money, and now I am looking at spending 500+ on a stinking graphics card to gain a little more smoothness in a game that I am only testing (but will play when it releases.. ).
Well, that plus I hate it when 6 months later I can get the same card for 40% less.. makes me feel like I made a bad decision, especially when the next $500+ dollar card comes out, and I want it..

Perp

 

[perpetualdark]

Originally posted by: Richdog
If you had half a brain perpetualdarkness youd shorten your incredibly long and tedious posts and buy a 9700 Pro/Non-pro which will last you fine until the next latest and greatest card comes out. Video card technology is not up to scratch yet. When you can play at 1600*1200 with AA and AF enabled and get over 60fps in every game THEN therell be justification to buy the latest and greatest card, until then its just a matter of buying a card good enough to tide you over.

OK, since you obviously did not read my original post, I will give you a brief overview.

I am not going to buy an ATI unless the 5900's are delayed into late july, at which time I MAY look at an ATI. I am PLAYING a GAME that, with even a 9800PRO, runs sub 30 fps regularly, and since I am not going to wait until hell freezes over to get a video card that can play THIS game in 16x12 with fsaa and aniso at 60 fps, I think I have perfect justification for buying a new card. I am sorry if your ADD brain cannot pay attention long enough to read all that I have to say, but if it bothers you that much, please don't read my posts, and keep your weak opinions to yourself.

BTW, I would like to see you post something when you find the vid card that can do 16x12 aa, af, etc at 60+ frames in every game. I think I will be reading it in .. oh.. 5 or 10 years..

Not to go off on a tangent, this post is already too long and I am sure you arent gonna read this far anyway, but if a vid card company came out with the card you described, they would go out of business, because once everyone owned it, there would be no need for a better card.. If the tech existed to do this, they would not do it anyway.. that would be business suicide. You really think that manufacturers are trying to satisfy customers? If customers are satisfied, they wont be looking to upgrade. c'mon man.. you gotta come up with better than that..

Perp

 

[perpetualdark]

Originally posted by: jiangy

i dont believe he asked for any opinions on what card to purchase, he asked if anyone knew any release dates for the newer geforcefx line.

anyways, as far as I know and read, late june/early july is the tentative release date for the 5900u and the 5600u. You can tell if it's the newer revised 5600u b/c it's memory and it's core are both clocked at 400mhz (correct me if I'm wrong) More info can be found in this hardocp review . hope this helps

Thanks!

Perp
(short enough for you richdog?)

 

[perpetualdark]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
$200 5600U vs $205 9700 non-pro.

Apples to apples in terms of price, apples to oranges in terms of performance (assume you prefer oranges).

200 is suggested list for 5600u with 256 mb ram, 205 is street price of 9700 non-pro 128mb after it has sat on some shelf for 6 months.

I have seen the 5600u's (256) for ~180, and comparing that price difference, although it is a mere 25 dollars, puts the 5600u in the competitive class of the 9600, not the 9700.

AND, with the latest drivers from both nVidia and ATI, the 9700 non-pro does not "whoop up" on the 5600u, but overall seems to do a little better (a few percent), and the 5600u does seem to be a competitive card considering it was never intended to be a competitor to the 9700. In games where 256mb of texture ram is important, like the one I am beta testing now, the 5600u is VERY competitive with a 9700 non-pro 128mb card, although I wont say it is better, just comparable.

How do you like them apples?

Perp

 

[Pete]

Two things, if I may tread on concrete opinions:

Anand's 5900U review shows the 9700P handily beating the new 5600U (v.2). Thus you can expect the 9700NP to be comfortably ahead, as it should be with almost half as much fillrate, shaders, and bandwidth. It also offers better FSAA. So I really think a $200 9700NP is a better deal than a $300 5600U. I'm guessing $300 as the only preview of the card that had a price was hardware.fr, and they said 299 euros--it's usually a dollar-to-euro rate. Anand and [ H ] were conspicuous in their lack of pricing--or maybe I'm being conspicuous in my poor reading ability, but I couldn't find a price in their reviews. Still, $300 seems a high MSRP, especially considering the 5900V will weigh in at that price, so I expect the 5600U to dip to ~$250MSRP--$200 just seems too low, considering the 9600P ships with much slower memory and without the need for external power at that price.

But if you're going to base your opinion of ATi on their first forays into 3D (what if people did the same with nVidia's Edge or Riva?), and prefer to stick with nVidia, that's fine--it's understandable you'd want to see them work well twice before jumping ship. I'm not sure you're going to see a 5900 Value before early August, though. So if you want to buy by mid-July, you're probably left with the 5900U or 5900R, the latter having half the memory and being slightly slower.* Your call whether you want to pay an extra 25% for twice as much memory and 10-15% higher clocks--in this case, I think it may be worth it. The 5900/U looks to be a better and more future-proof card than the 5800, anyway, so I don't think you'll make a mistake buying it. Still, I'd wait for Anand's and everyone else's review of the Detonator 50.xx drivers to decide on what to buy. The rumors are positive so far in terms of precision.

But, again, I do think you'll be mistaken buying a 5600U over a 9700NP. The latter will be faster in every way, and will have better FSAA. BTW, I'm comparing a "loaded" 5600U (v.1, 350/350--check the customer reviews and check the Leadtek website specs) to a similarly "loaded" 9700NP. I'd be interested to see a 5600U for $165--and I hope you're not talking about Gainward's "Ultra," as they slap that moniker on everything.

* Actually, looking at Leadtek's website, I think nV just lowered the core speed for the NV35, and the Ultra and regular will be the same speeds (400/425 core/mem), only differing in amount of memory.

 

[perpetualdark]

Originally posted by: Pete
Two things, if I may tread on concrete opinions:

Anand's 5900U review shows the 9700P handily beating the new 5600U (v.2). Thus you can expect the 9700NP to be comfortably ahead, as it should be with almost half as much fillrate, shaders, and bandwidth. It also offers better FSAA. So I really think a $200 9700NP is a better deal than a $300 5600U. I'm guessing $300 as the only preview of the card that had a price was hardware.fr, and they said 299 euros--it's usually a dollar-to-euro rate. Anand and [ H ] were conspicuous in their lack of pricing--or maybe I'm being conspicuous in my poor reading ability, but I couldn't find a price in their reviews. Still, $300 seems a high MSRP, especially considering the 5900V will weigh in at that price, so I expect the 5600U to dip to ~$250MSRP--$200 just seems too low, considering the 9600P ships with much slower memory and without the need for external power at that price.

But if you're going to base your opinion of ATi on their first forays into 3D (what if people did the same with nVidia's Edge or Riva?), and prefer to stick with nVidia, that's fine--it's understandable you'd want to see them work well twice before jumping ship. I'm not sure you're going to see a 5900 Value before early August, though. So if you want to buy by mid-July, you're probably left with the 5900U or 5900R, the latter having half the memory and being slightly slower.* Your call whether you want to pay an extra 25% for twice as much memory and 10-15% higher clocks--in this case, I think it may be worth it. The 5900/U looks to be a better and more future-proof card than the 5800, anyway, so I don't think you'll make a mistake buying it. Still, I'd wait for Anand's and everyone else's review of the Detonator 50.xx drivers to decide on what to buy. The rumors are positive so far in terms of precision.

But, again, I do think you'll be mistaken buying a 5600U over a 9700NP. The latter will be faster in every way, and will have better FSAA. BTW, I'm comparing a "loaded" 5600U (v.1, 350/350--check the customer reviews and check the Leadtek website specs) to a similarly "loaded" 9700NP. I'd be interested to see a 5600U for $165--and I hope you're not talking about Gainward's "Ultra," as they slap that moniker on everything.

* Actually, looking at Leadtek's website, I think nV just lowered the core speed for the NV35, and the Ultra and regular will be the same speeds (400/425 core/mem), only differing in amount of memory.

GRRRR.. I am no longer at work, and I typed a nice replay here, only to realize there was no login info already in, after I clicked reply to topic. So I lost my post.. lets try again..

OK.. First, lets talk prices. I spent some more time researching what is out there after my previous posts. After looking at some of the cards that were advertised as 5600 ultra, I found that most if not all are actually not ultras. This is why I avoid pricewatch and sites like newegg. You really have to watch out for what you are getting. I have seen 5600 ultras for as low as 144 (128mb versions) but I am pretty sure that although they specify 5600 ultra, the manufacturer number referenced against the manufacturer website does not specify ultra in the chipset, and most of these cards were clocked at 325, not 400. The only 5600 ultra cards I found from manufacturers had a 400/400 clock speed, and the model numbers are not anywhere to be found. Of course, there were the gainward ultra series as well, but I know they label all their nvidia cards as ultra, so I wasnt fooled there. The 5800's were no where to be found, and the 5800 ultras are still in the 310+ dollar range. There was one site that claimed they had 5900 ultras in stock, and that they were getting more on the 13th and 16th of this month. They were selling for $550. The msrp on the 5900ultra is 500, but street prices are going to be up for the first week or two for places that get early shipments. This is normal from what I have seen in the past. I have come to the conclusion that nVidia pulled the 5600 ultra chips very early on, and that is why there is a complete lack of them available. All the reviews I have read say 200 dollars will be the msrp for the 5900u v2, and it seems that if I am right about the lack of cards out there, actually finding one in a store in a few weeks will probably mean it is an actual v2. Most manufacturers are specifying the memory bus width now at 128, so it is easy so far to see if the ultra they are selling is the v2. Not one reseller out there is specifying this info, and most are trying to sell the 5600's as ultras.

I agree with you that the 5900ultra and 5900 are going to be the same clock with different amounts of memory, as the research I did today pretty much implied that. The 5900 value will be clocked lower obviously, and only come in the 128mb flavor. So how about some comparisons of price to performance? The 5900u is listing at 500, and I believe once there are some out from more than one manufacturer, street price will meet the msrp, and slowly start to fall. The 9800pro 256mb version lists at 500 also, and streets for around 495-550. The 5900 (128mb) lists for 400, and the 9800pro (128m) lists for the same, with street prices between 375 and 425. The 5900 value (128m) lists at 300, but I (as you) dont expect to see it out until late july or august. The 9700 pro (128m) streets for 265-350 (with shipping). The 9700 gold (128m) streets for 220-260 (with shipping) and the 9700 (128m) is streeting for 201-250. The 5600 ultra (256mb) is supposed to list around 200, and the v2 is as well, but with lack of availability of a REAL 5600u, let alone a v2, I can only speculate that in the next 3-4 weeks we will see them streeting for around 190-230. The 5600's are streeting at 130-160 (128m) and 145-210 (256m). The 5600u v2 in anands review showed performance roughlye between the 9600 pro (around 180 street) and the 9700 pro. I suppose this puts it on par with the 9700np. Which means that for price to price, performance to performance, the v2 5600u will be close to the 9700 in every respect. The 5600u will ahve 256mb at that price though, but until these are actually out, and as you say, new drivers, etc,etc it is tough to judge. I was considering the 5600u v2 as an alternative earlier, and although I defended it against accusations that the cost/performance was well below the 9700, the lack of availability has had to sway me here. The current 5600's just dont cut the mustard right now, even with the new drivers, and I just dont want to take a step back, even at 140 dollars.

My situation came to a head this afternoon when I had the opportunity to sell my current setup for current list price. I replaced the motherboard with the Asus 4p800 (865 with PAT enabled), the 2.26ghz p4 with a 2.8 ghz 800mhz HT p4, the 2 sticks of 2700 corsair cl2 512mb with 2 sticks of matched hyperx kingston cl2 400mhz 512's, and I will stick with my 2 IBm ds120gxp's (60g each) in raid, as the asus supports ata raid as well as sata raid. As for the sound, etc, the usual sb audigy, etc. The vid card was a tough choice. The 5900 ultras are almost if not immediately available, but as I said in the beginning, I want to shy away from the very cutting edge, and buy just below. The 5900's and values are not out yet, and neither are the 5600u v2's, although the value would have been my first choice all along. However, all the shopping I did told me one thing: for abother 3-8 weeks, there is a big hole in nVidias lineup in the 200 dollar range cards. The current 5600's just dont do much over the gf4 4400's to warrant buying one as even an interim card. So that left me with the ATI 9700's. I decided that the 9700 gold was a good choice as a "tide me over" card until the 5900's are out, and the timing fit, so I got one for 220 shipped. (201 +18 dollars 2 day air). I figure this card will be a little above the 5600u v2 across the board, and about dead on performance in dx9 apps, given ATI doesnt screw up the catalyst drivers as anands article was hinting at. Once the 5900's are out, and have a chance to settle the pricing down a bit (about mid august I figure) I will either sell the 9700 gold on ebay, or stick it in my kids computer..

In case you are wondering, the whole system upgrade is costing me 166 dollars. I figure it will be a nice boost to performance for a small investment. Now I just have to prove it to my wife, or sneak it around her.. hehe

Perp

 

[1ManArmY]

So now you have crossed over to the dark side with the purchase of the ATI 9700 gold, just kidding. I built my system in early marchl and the video card was the hardest decision to make. I went with the ATI 9700 Pro and have never looked back. I am using cat 3.2 and am very happy with the results.

P4 3.06
ASUS P4T 533-C
512 RDRAM
AUD 2 Platinum
ATI 9700 Pro

The card you purchased will hold you over with your beta testing and it will run fine in HL2, DOOM3, and DX2. I will wait until those games release then make the decision to go with the NV35 or stay with my ATI 9700 either way its a win win situation.