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

[perpetualdark]

I am going to be very careful how I word this.

I am under an NDA for a beta, so I will not mention game titles or anything..

The beta I am in is DX9 required, and it stresses even those people using ATI 9800 pros. I am using a GF4 4400 currently, and with graphics settings in the mid range, I am lucky to stay above 10 fps in certain areas. Most areas I am at a constant 20-28. The game is extremely playable at 25-28 fps. I refuse to play at lower settings than I now use, because the game is worlds better at higher range settings and with volumetric shadowing.. I want to run this game with fsaa and aniso, and I want to jack up settings a bit more so the further range graphics look better. At max settings, no aa and aniso, I average about 12-18 fps with my current setup, but certain key areas in the game drop me to less than 1 fps..

I am thinking that going from the 2.26 p4, 1gig ram, and gf4 to a 2.8 or 3.0 800mhz p4, 1 gig ram, and gf5900. I dont like to buy the extreme top end of cpu's and vid cards, so I will probably avoid the 500 dollar ultra and the 3.0 p4. BTW, the game in question does take advantage of HT cpu's, and I think a BIG performance increase would come from that.

I am about 6 months behind on my tech right now, and trying to catch up, so bear with me.. Here are my main questions, some of which dont belong in this video forum, but heck.. might as well ask.

Video card: when are the 5600 ultra built on the flip chip packaging going to be available and how can you tell the difference? I know the main difference is the memory bus size, but even finding this info from a card manufacturer has been like pulling teeth. I am assuming that all current 5600 ultras are on the older chip with 128 bit memory bus. The last Anandtech article on the 5900 had a blurb on the 5600u and said a new article on it was in the next week, but I cannot find anything.
Does anyone know when the 5900 based cards are going to hit the streets? I would really rather get into a 5900 or 5900 value over a 5600u, but if I have to wait until Xmas or something, then forget it..

Memory: I apologize for asking a memory question in here, but since I am already onthe subject, perhaps someone can offer a hint of info about this. I currently have 2 sticks of corsair pc2700 cas2 ddr ram. What is the deal with the matched sets? is there something special about them? I hate to go spend another couple hundred dollars to get the same ram for the newer mobos. I realize these sticks are only 333, but I already have them and hate to pass them on to my kids computer or something.. as it is their computer right now has a very spendy stick of mushkin pc133 sdram that I paid about $300 for a few years ago, and I condsidered that a waste when I passed that system on.. BTW, I had to upgrade to 1G Ram because 512 was just not enough, for my standards anyway.. it made a substantial difference..

Mobo: Once again, I apologize for having this in this post, but if someone can answer this question here, it would save me some time. I read that the 865 chipsets are being exploited by manufacturers by enabling the key difference between the 875 and 865. Has anyone actually had experiences with these boards (ie Asus and Abit)? My concern is that the majority of 865 chips from Intel are the 875 cores that did not pass the test for the enhanced memory path. If the mobo manufacturers are using the chips intel did NOT have a problem with, but simply stamped '865' instead of '875' on them to fill sales orders, that is fine, but I dont wanna get a 865 mobo and find that it is unstable as hell when the feature is enabled because the chip is one that failed the PAT test and got tossed into the '865' bin. This seems way too much like ABIT's old BX133 idea. I don't want a chipset that is tweaked in such a way that it may be unstable. I would rather play games that run stable than ones that get 4% more perfomance at the cost of reliability.


As a side note to the whole question thing, I noticed in a few places in this forum that people stressed that DX9 was something coming in the future, and buying cheaper cards was perfectly reasonable. I thought this until I started with this beta.. I have to say that very soon, the whole DX9 thing is gonna be a requirement, and I am moving up my normal upgrade schedule by about a year. You just sacrifice too much without hardware support for dx9. I wish I could go on and on about this game, but the NDA doesnt allow it.. I dunno how the guys at Anandtech can stand to write articles about hardware and software when they are under an NDA.

Perp

 

[tkdkid]

Well you don't need a DX9 card because you're playing right now with a card that doesn't have it. Anyway, if the 4400 can get you 20-28 fps, then the 9800 pro should double that at least and you'll be all set.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

The FX5600U with the 256-bit bus should be available in a few weeks, and should handle things nicely.

- M4H

 

[Lonyo]

The Radeon 9700 pro or non pro would be fairly inexpensive, are available now and would give quite a performance boost.
They are DX9 and can do AA/AF well.

The 5900's won't be out until probably mid-July (24th June is Japanese release, and cards won't be easily available until after then).

I don't see why you've only mentioned nVidia cards when the current, fairly inexpensive ATi cards do exactly what you want.

If you get a P4c, then it will want a 200MHz FSB and your 166MHz RAM might not be able to hit that speed, but you *should* be able to run the RAM out of sync with the FSB and have it at 166 and the CPU at 200MHz (haven't had experience with those motherboards though).
Your DDR SDRAM may also not be useable on a system that takes PC133 SDRAM, because one has 168 pins and the other has 184 pins.

Abit and ASUS and others have found ways of enabling PAT on the 865 chipsets, and if it's enabled, I doubt it would be unstable, I doubt the motherboard manufacturers would sell something that might not work. They may only enable it on boards that will work with it and sell them as special editions or something, but I don't really know. All I can say is that the chances of the manufacturers selling a board that might have stability problems due to enabling PAT on an 865 is fairly low.

 

[grabadude]

The Leadtek 5600 Ultra with TV-out and VIVO is for sale now for $215 on Newegg.com

Linky

 

[perpetualdark]

aww cr*p.. I was about 50 lines into a response and clicked quote and lost it all... hehe..

I wont go into a lot of detail since I am at work and already spent a long time explaining things,and now I have to start over..

In a nutshell, I have owned almost every version of nVidia cards made since the riva 128. I owned ATI cards previous to that, and was never impressed by the horrible drivers they put out. I have been in the computer business for a LONG time, and a hobbyist for even longer. I have loyalties to product lines that I have had good luck with, and I have tested most different types of hardware extensively. I currently build and maintain about 40 workstation type computers, and when you find hardware that works without difficulties, you stick with it. When it comes to gaming machines, I try to stay well informed, and make my own decisions based mostly on personal experience. I have owned or worked with most graphics cards that have come out, and nVidia has always produced a solid product, and only until very recently, nVidia has been the only company to back up their product with really good drivers. The tables were turned when ATI got their r300 core out, and the nv30 turned into a nightmare for nVidia. I dont want to start a flame war or anything, so I will leave it at that. There is nothing wrong with owning an ATI card, and recently (the past 9 months anyway) ATI is actually backing up their marketing with a working piece of hardware. (I got burned in the past when 3D was just developing and ATI was claiming all sorts of things about their chipsets. After a year of watching people play OpenGL apps all the time, and ATI not caring enough (or skilled enough) to add OpenGL support to their cards, I dropped the brand and tried something new.. turned out I made a good choice..)

So anyway, I stick with nVidia because of brand loyalty. If nVidia had not been able to respond to the r350, I may be looking at ATI right now.. I think that after reading many reviews and opinions on the latest chipsets, that nVidia will be holding the crown for the best card as soon as it comes out. I am really anxious to see how the next year pans out, and I think it will be an interesting battle between the rival companies. I do happen to own stock in nVidia, and hope they come out ahead. I could say a lot about my view of ATI fans, but it would only spur on a flame war, so I will just leave it as my preference is nVidia, and it is a very informed decision. Moving from nVidia to ATI would be like moving from Intel to AMD.. I just wont do it, and I have my reasons, and if someone really wanted to hear them, I could go on and on and on..

I know that the game I am playing does not REQUIRE a dx9 card, but it does require dx9 to be installed, and many features are only available with hardware that supports dx9 natively. To me it is a question of whether I would play DoomIII with a dx8 card. I am missing out on a lot of eye candy, and much smoother performance without a dx9 card. I can run 3dmark03 with my gf4, but even an fx5200 will score better. So now I have an opportunity to upgrade my system, and a craving to see this game in all its dx9 splendor, but I hate waiting. So my dillema is spending 3-400 dollars on a card that can be outperformed for the same dollar in a few weeks, or wait the few weeks to make the smarter choice. In case you are wondering, the 9800 pro and 9700 pro cards are not running above 28 fps in this game, partly because there is a lock at 30 fps, and partly because if you got the dx9 capability, there are more things happening, and the game is running smoother and prettier, but not necessarily faster.. Also many of these card owners are reporting the problem areas as being less severe, and framerates dropping only to 12-18 instead of to 1-8 like for me. The game actually detects the card you are using and allows degrees of control based on your cards capabilities.. so ~50% settings for me would be like ~30% for a dx9 card owner..

Lonyo.. If I had not had to return 10 mobo's to Intel for the whole 820 MTH debacle, I would think the same as you do about manufacturers not selling mobos that dont work. Especially in an area that affects memory performance. I just have to decide if spending 50-70 dollars more for the 875 is worth it.. I wont buy an fx5600 only so I could save 20 dollars and overclock it to the same speed as a 5600ultra. I would rather buy an ultra and have a more stable system. I just wonder if these manufacturers are being thorough enough to release 865 chips with 875 features enabled and guarantee that it isnt gonna fail as soon as I stress it for a week..

As far as memory, obviously a mobo with sdram slots wont work with ddr, but I was really wondering about the whole dual channel thing and the matched sets.. is the matched sets really that important? I mean I have 2 sticks that are the same from the same manufacturer, just purchased 5 months apart. I know the speed thing is an issue, but if I can at least get compatability for now, I can worry about getting the better RAM down the road, after I am able to sneak the rest of the upgrade past my wife.. (hehe). I have too many things to do to my house this summer to spend so much on a computer that works pretty damn good now.. but I hate to skimp too.. hence the dilemma.

Thanks for the responses all..

Perp

 

[perpetualdark]

Originally posted by: grabadude
The Leadtek 5600 Ultra with TV-out and VIVO is for sale now for $215 on Newegg.com

Linky

But, is it the 256bit memory buss with the flip chip package, or is it the older pga package with 128 bit buss? how do I tell?

Perp

 

[Lonyo]

D'oh :/

 

[Lonyo]

$215 for a 5600Ultra, or $229 for a 9700Gold (speeds in between the Pro and non-pro - newegg) or $205 for a 9700 non-Pro from mwave.com

I know you may want to go with brand loyalty, but going with brand loyalty is a little silly, if for about the same money you can get a better performing product.
They also have a refurb 9700Pro for $225

I can understand having brand preference, but the truth is, your choices should be dictated by the product which is best, not who it's made by.

I like Abit motherboards, but for the system I'm going to build for a friend, I'm going to use Epox because it's cheaper.

 

[Rogozhin]

I've a long history of building computers and through all the video cards I've owned the two that most stick out in my mind are the radeon 8500 and geforce 4 ti4200 (both were and are great cards).

With all the bs that nvidia is spouting about it's current lineup of FX cards I'd STHA from them and pick up a 9700 (even though you are saying that a 9800 is being brought to its knees).

If a 9800 is having trouble then I'm sure that a 5900 is going to do no better (so why spend the extra money?)


Pick up a cheap 9700 to hold you over until the r400 and nv40 are on the scene.


rogo

 

[perpetualdark]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
$215 for a 5600Ultra, or $229 for a 9700Gold (speeds in between the Pro and non-pro - newegg) or $205 for a 9700 non-Pro from mwave.com

I know you may want to go with brand loyalty, but going with brand loyalty is a little silly, if for about the same money you can get a better performing product.
They also have a refurb 9700Pro for $225

I can understand having brand preference, but the truth is, your choices should be dictated by the product which is best, not who it's made by.

I like Abit motherboards, but for the system I'm going to build for a friend, I'm going to use Epox because it's cheaper.

First off, I dont like to have price dictate what I get, unless it is the best choice for the application.

Second, I have seen the 5600 ultra (the current model, not the v2) for $164. And even the current 5600 ultra with the latest detonator drivers was very competetive with the ATI 9600 (with cat v 3.4).

Third, I wont buy a refurb anything.. especially a solid state piece of electronics.. If it failed once, it will fail again.. I know this from experience.

(I'm sorry if it seems like i'm ranting.. I'm not.. just responding..)

The 5600 ultra v2 is supposed to have a suggested retail of 200 dollars, and that probably means that the worst I would pay for it would be around 200, and most likely I will see it for around 180. I have seen 5800 cards in the 250 range, and if it werent for the fan, the new detonator drivers put the performance on par with the ATI cards. The 5800 ultra in both Anandtech's review, and THG, shows that with the latest detonator drivers, it can compete with both the 9700 and 9800 pro cards, and in some aspects do really well. If I were splitting hairs over 50 dollars, I would still take a 5800 over a 9700. But, I really want to get a 5900. If the 5900 value follows the past of nvidia's other cards, it will probably perform within 25-30 percent of the 5900 ultra. This puts it on par with an ATI 9800 PRO in dx9 applications. This is of course speculation, but I am confident the nv35 is going to be a decent chipset. The 5900 ultra is gonna have a suggested list of 300, so I forsee those cards going for around 275-325 on the street. If I can get withing 5% if the 9800 pro performance with this card at 100-200 less, then it would be silly to go with the ATI, don't you think?

The answer is going to be to wait for the 5900's to be released. I am confident we will not see an answer to the nv35 from ATI until year end, so waiting until mid-July is reasonable. I am only considering the 5600ultra to satisfy my immediate needs. If the 5600 ultra v2 does not hit the market by month end, I will either go with a basic 5600 at around 130-150 to get me by until the 5900's are out, or I will have convinced myself that it is worth waiting for and try to hang on for a few more weeks. If the estimated street date were in August or September, I might consider a 9800 pro card, but I still would have a hard time spending 400 dollars for technology that will be topped in a month or two..
As I said earlier (or maybe said in the post that went bye-bye) If nVidia did not have a 9800 killer about to be released, I would go with ATI.

If I were building this for a friend, and he didnt know much about computers and wanted the most bang for the buck, I might use an ATI, just to play around with it. Much of my experience over the years with alternative hardware came from building machines with other peoples money. On the other hand, building a machine I know I am going to have to maintain may prompt me to stick with something I am more familiar with. I build computers for my work all the time, and I would not touch an AMD for one of these because I know I would have problems. This is from experience.

If you always bought toyota vehicles for 20 years, and when your friends got new cars they bought suzuki's and daewoo's and Kia's and you got to see how they held up over time compared to your toyota (in case you didnt know.. not well..), would you make your next purchase a Kia just because Kia commercials say they make a better vehicle for less money? Now pretend (its a stretch in this analogy) that Kia actually made a vehicle superior to toyota for one model year, and nobody disputed the fact. Would your next purchase be a Kia? How about if car and driver magazine rated the next model year and said "Kia is still strong, but the new Toyota is gonna run circles around it in most tests"? I think you get my point. (Please just don't tell me you drive a suzuki or something..)

I don't find my reasoning "silly", but simply based on years of experience.

BTW.. I hope Epox has gotten better over the years.. I have an epox mobo in one of my computers at home and holy cow is it unstable.. It was a bad model year, but believe it or not I bought it after reading an anandtech review..

Perp

 

[perpetualdark]

Originally posted by: Rogozhin
I've a long history of building computers and through all the video cards I've owned the two that most stick out in my mind are the radeon 8500 and geforce 4 ti4200 (both were and are great cards).

With all the bs that nvidia is spouting about it's current lineup of FX cards I'd STHA from them and pick up a 9700 (even though you are saying that a 9800 is being brought to its knees).

If a 9800 is having trouble then I'm sure that a 5900 is going to do no better (so why spend the extra money?)


Pick up a cheap 9700 to hold you over until the r400 and nv40 are on the scene.


rogo

ok.. first off, I dont listen to press releases and read the manufacturer websites for info on hardware. I stick to websites like Anandtech, and read what people have to say about stuff they own on hardware forums like this one. I also use my past experiences with various manufacturers products to gauge how willing I am to try a particular product. I know there is some noise going on in the press about issues with nVidia's drivers, and everyones excuses for this, etc, etc. I do not like benchmarking with utilities like futuremark because they have a tendancy to be skewed. I like to see in-game benchmarks such as quake3, ut2003, doom3, serious sam, jedi knight, etc. These are games with various engines that havent catered to a particular chipset since the days of Glide. Marketing doesnt mean squat to me, pretty much ever since I believed what ATI was saying about their own product. I recall benchmarks on the back of the box showing their card doubling the performance of the current voodoo card.. I thought I made a good choice when buying their stuff, and time proved me different. The 8500 was a decent card, but ATI hyped it up to be another nvidia killer, and it fell WAY WAY short of the mark. Look back through the last 5 years of 3D cards and you will see that every manufacturer out there hypes up their product beyond any reasonable expectation, and the only one to ever live up to the hype time and time again was nVidia. The ONLY exception was the nv30, and even nVidia realized it early on, and started building the nv35 early. That is how this card is going to be out only a few months after the nv30 fell on its butt.

I have seen 3 reviews on the 5900, two of which were able to compare the ATI lineup with the FX lineup in DOOM3, which many think will be the first real test of dx9. The nv35 is doing a good enough job that you could maybe even say it is running circles around the 9800 pro. I also have confidence that both the r400 and the nv40 will not be out until year end, and seeing nVidia's past with pushing technology out fast (it is what they do best normally) I would not be suprised if ATI and nVidia are going head to head with these chipsets early on. Also, given the recent benchmarks seen on multiple review sites concerning the latest detonator drivers and latest catalyst drivers, the 5800 is actually performing very well against the 9700 and even the 9800, so if I were going to settle for a high end card, it would be the 5800. and BTW.. the 9800 and 5900 have the same suggested lists.

I really dont want to argue about which card is better. If you compare apples to apples, instead of a loaded 5600 to a bare, refurbed 9700, you see that the performance is very comparable in every respect. The latest batch of benchmarks suggests that the 5900 ultra is pulling ahead with a commanding lead, but dollar for dollar the cards are more or less the same for performance (perhaps with the exception of the 5800 ultra). The next few weeks will see the 5900's hitting the street, and ATI fans will cry bloody murder like the nvidia fans cried when the 9700 pro came out. Bottom line is that whichever card you like, you buy. If the 5900 ultra was priced 200 dollars more than a 9800 pro, it would be a different story, but nVidia is a smart company, or they would not be where they are. ATI had a HUGE market share ripped from them by nVidia a couple years ago, and obviously made some good decisions to replace the market share they lost. The game is on now, and the playing field is level. May the best marketing win. Meanwhile we will all sit back and buy things based on our experience and knowledge.

Perp

 

[Rogozhin]

then why ask us?

rogo

 

[Rogozhin]

I didn't mean marketing.

I meant the futuremark scandal and now this cheating on 3dmark2001 (a valid benchmark) verified by the progenitor of rivatuner.

I would also ask you to not use any 3dmark score to factor into your benchmarks, as well as doom3.

In that case the 5600 is pounded very very hard.

rogo

 

[Ketchup]

perpetualdark, please don't ask for advice if you don't want it. Your views of ATI is pure ignorance. 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 am neither an ATI fanATIc or an nVIDIOT, I like them both (listens to all the gasps from the audience.) I was very happy with my GF 4 Ti4400, and when it was time to upgrade, I bought a Radeon 9700 PRO and am very happy with it. No bad drivers, no problems at all. You really should consider all your options if you really want us to give you suggestions.

 

[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.

 

[TourGuide]

ATi still has a lot of driver issues, so much so that I got rid of my R9500Pro because of them.

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but I agree with you on this point. ATI has chronic unresolved driver issues among other problems that are keeping me away as well. Take for example the whole, driver installation debacle. Why in the name of sam hill does that procedure HAVE to be SO stinking complicated and laborious for owners of ATI cards? (listens to the sounds of crickets...) And the very idea that a reformat would be necessary in order to get it working at all is just a joke. I mean, really now - If you had to reformat and reinstall in order to get your new Microsoft Intellimouse 3.0 up and running most reasonable people would just say screw that!

I will say that ATI clearly has robust hardware, but their software engineering still lags sadly behind the best.

If ATI could steal away the software engineers from nVidia, they'd have the world by the nipples, er so to speak.

 

[Schneider]

The FX 5900 Ultra's are supposed to retail in 1-2 weeks.
If u're gonna get a FX 5600 u might as well get the 9700 pro as its only a few dollars more.

The only thing i'd worry about with ATI is the dropping to 640x480 res and not being able to run AGP 8x and FW
(Yes I know they don't give a substantial increase over 4x without FW)

 

[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.

 

[jiangy]

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.

he's already stated he's strongly against ati product and what i dont understand is why you guys can't respect that? ati left a "bad taste in his mouth" and so he doesnt want to take another "bite"(pardon the lame pun, hehe).

Originally posted by: ketchup79
perpetualdark, please don't ask for advice if you don't want it. Your views of ATI is pure ignorance. 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 am neither an ATI fanATIc or an nVIDIOT, I like them both (listens to all the gasps from the audience.) I was very happy with my GF 4 Ti4400, and when it was time to upgrade, I bought a Radeon 9700 PRO and am very happy with it. No bad drivers, no problems at all. You really should consider all your options if you really want us to give you suggestions.

Originally posted by: Rogozhin
then why ask us?

rogo

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

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: TourGuide

ATi still has a lot of driver issues, so much so that I got rid of my R9500Pro because of them.

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but I agree with you on this point. ATI has chronic unresolved driver issues among other problems that are keeping me away as well. Take for example the whole, driver installation debacle. Why in the name of sam hill does that procedure HAVE to be SO stinking complicated and laborious for owners of ATI cards? (listens to the sounds of crickets...) And the very idea that a reformat would be necessary in order to get it working at all is just a joke. I mean, really now - If you had to reformat and reinstall in order to get your new Microsoft Intellimouse 3.0 up and running most reasonable people would just say screw that!

I will say that ATI clearly has robust hardware, but their software engineering still lags sadly behind the best.

If ATI could steal away the software engineers from nVidia, they'd have the world by the nipples, er so to speak.

Apparently your experience with ATI cards hasn't been as nice as mine. I installed the Cats, rebooted, installed the Control Panel, rebooted, and that was it. Format? Only if you are switching from an nVidia card, and that is nVidia's fault, because their drivers will not uninstall, so maybe those sofware engineers aren't as glamorous as you think. Maybe other people know what you are talking about with the driver installation problems, but I do not. BTW, you also have to format and/or re-installl Windows if you switch from an AMD to Intel system or vice versa, who are you blaming for that one?

 

[TourGuide]

Maybe other people know what you are talking about with the driver installation problems, but I do not. BTW, you also have to format and/or re-installl Windows if you switch from an AMD to Intel system or vice versa, who are you blaming for that one?

Yes, and if I went from a Palomino to an Opteron I'd have to do a reformat (probably) as well, this is just a well known fact. I think there is blame for this video card debacle all over the place. MS, nVidia, and ATI all have a share in that problem. Yes, nVidia shares some of the blame, but you are one of the lucky ones if your install went that smoothly with ATI.

There are other problems with ATI cards too like games just plain not working properly for extended periods of time while ATI "works on it".

I supposed it all boils down to a person's experience with a certain brand. Mine with ATI hasn't been good. While with nVidia the problems have been minimal.

 

[perpetualdark]

Originally posted by: Rogozhin
I didn't mean marketing.

I meant the futuremark scandal and now this cheating on 3dmark2001 (a valid benchmark) verified by the progenitor of rivatuner.

I would also ask you to not use any 3dmark score to factor into your benchmarks, as well as doom3.

In that case the 5600 is pounded very very hard.

rogo

I am sorry if everyone misread my original post. I was asking if anyone knew when the release dates were for the 5900 and the new 5600u. I did not come here looking for advice on which brand to go with, especially when brand loyalty is always such an issue. I do not have a problem with people buying ATI, but I do have a problem with people that read one press release from a manufacturer, or worse yet, a couple statements from some hardware site about this company doing this to get this, and making a conclusion that the company in question is Satan incarnate, and anything they may do is obviously just to pull the wool over everyones eyes and force them to make a poor decision by buying their product.

I asked for a release date and was told I was silly for not considering ATI as an alternative to nVidia. I defended my decision by saying that I base my decision on 15 years of computer experience, and 10 years of building high end gaming machines using nearly EVERY piece of gaming hardware from EVERY (chip level) manufacturer at least once. Hell, I even tried a gaming machine built on a KYRO for crying out loud.. I also read reviews from various hardware websites that I have come to respect for accurate reviews, and compare what is written to my own experience with gaming systems. If I see a consistent lack of neutral standpoint in review articles from a given review site, I put a LOT less weight on what I read from them in the future. If I go to 4 different sites and see a given card outperform another given card by 30% average across the entire spectrum of software used to benchmark the given cards, and I have seen the same kind of performance domination for 5 years from the given card's manufacturer, I have a tendancy to buy that given card when I am shopping for a performance card. If this is not a logical way to look at things, then I need someone to redefine logic to me.

If you look at Anandtechs review of the 5900 ultra vs the 9800 pro, and even if you throw out the doom3 benchmarks since you OBVIOUSLY think anandtech and ID software are lying to you when they say the benchmarks were not geared toward EITHER card and when they say that they didnt use the catalyst 3.4 drivers because they performed 30% WORSE than the 3.2 drivers, then you still have the 5900 ultra beating the 9800 pro by a substancial margin in all tests except the commanche 4 test. They did not use 3dmark tests in their review. Look at THG's review and you will see the same results. I personally do not care what is going on with drivers and rebuilds and whatnot with futuremark. In the real world, drivers are written to make a given graphics card run optimally on a given game. The 5800 ultra performed like garbage when tested against the 9700 pro. EVERYONE knows this, and everyone knows the reasons have to do with a poor choice of packaging (pga vs flip chip) which led to having a 128bit memory buss and having to use ddr2 ram to compensate, which drove the yields down and the price up, and the poor choice of pushing for a .13 micron process too early, which lead to very poor yields, and a very poor driver, not to mention a fan louder than the stupid mufflers kids put on 45 horsepower hondas so they can pretend they are Vin Diesel. The driver issue was worked on, and in REAL games, performance jumped substantially on this crappy card. Prior to the r300 being announced, ATI couldnt write a driver to save its life, and it nearly cost them all their market share to nVidia.

Those are all facts, and not speculation. If you want to dispute them fine. Here are some more facts: The r300 and 350 are awesome chips. ATI beat the odds and came out with a superior product to nVidia, and held it at the top with superior drivers for over 9 months. ATI is now considered a contender in the 3d market where a year ago they were just the last bit of competition for nVidia to step on before they had a monopoly on the 3d market. 2 years ago, no serious gamer would own an ATI card over an nVidia card if they wanted the best performance possible.

Now here is the speculation: nVidia is releasing a new chip in a few weeks that according to benchmarks from many independent reviewers, is walking circles around the r350. Since nVidia was able to eliminate every other manufacturer but ATI over the last 5 years and gain the title as having the best 3d cards on the market, chances are good that they know what they are doing. ATI and nVidia are going to be duking it out over the next couple years, and one will come out on top. Personally I hope it is nVidia, being as I won stock in the company, and dont want to lose my money. The net result of this will be better graphics cards that cost less for everyone, and from a consumer standpoint, this is a good thing.

My speculation may be completely wrong, and it is of course biased by my personal experience, which is not by any means the end-all of knowledge on this subject.

Now, as to this particular post I am quoting, please show me how even without 3dmark scores, the 5600ultra (a $200 card) is pounded by the 9600. Take out doom3, since we know everyone at anandtech and ID is lying, and put this card in a purely dx8 (since dx9 is SO far away that it is irrelevant) test, with the newest drivers, and show me how it is pounded so bad. Sure, the 9700 (around $225-250) and the 9700 pro ($350-500) kill it in the very most extreme resolutions and settings, but my gf4 4400 kills the ATI 8500 in the same circumstances.. please dont compare apples to oranges, it only makes you look (how was that put?.. o yeah) "silly"

For anyone who actually answered my questions instead of calling me an idiot for not buying a 6 month old ATI card instead of waiting for something that might be better, I thank you for the info. I gathered from those people that the 5900 and 5600u will be released in the next 3-4 weeks, and I will consider this when making my decision today as to whether to stick it out with my lowly dx8 card, or buy an old 5600 or ATI 9700 as an interim card to tide me over. As to the off topic questions I had, Thanks for responding to those as well. I have a hard time trusting mobo manufacturers when 90% of the cutting edge, first on the market with this feature mobo's I have had turned out to be horribly bugged and unstable, and in hindsight, waiting a few weeks for a better spread and more feedback from people trying these products would have saved my weeks of pain in dealing with these issues.

Perp

 

[perpetualdark]

Originally posted by: ketchup79
perpetualdark, please don't ask for advice if you don't want it. Your views of ATI is pure ignorance. 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 am neither an ATI fanATIc or an nVIDIOT, I like them both (listens to all the gasps from the audience.) I was very happy with my GF 4 Ti4400, and when it was time to upgrade, I bought a Radeon 9700 PRO and am very happy with it. No bad drivers, no problems at all. You really should consider all your options if you really want us to give you suggestions.

I didnt ask for advice on which card to buy, as I elaborated in my earlier post. As stated above, I am hardly basing my views ignorantly. I am happy that you like your radeon 9700, and if I had been in the market to buy a new card 4 months ago, I would have bought the 9700 pro. It just so happens that I am looking for a card now, and with (according to reviewers) a superior product coming out in the next few weeks, I do not want to make a purchase I would regret hastily. I have spent 2 weeks researching and considering options, and trust me, the last place I would go for advice on which brand to get would be a forum, where as you can see from the responses, the mere mention of already having made up my mind spurs a hot debate on what brand is the best. But I appreciate everyone trying to look out for me.

Perp

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: perpetualdark

Originally posted by: Rogozhin
I didn't mean marketing.

I meant the futuremark scandal and now this cheating on 3dmark2001 (a valid benchmark) verified by the progenitor of rivatuner.

I would also ask you to not use any 3dmark score to factor into your benchmarks, as well as doom3.

In that case the 5600 is pounded very very hard.

rogo

Now, as to this particular post I am quoting, please show me how even without 3dmark scores, the 5600ultra (a $200 card) is pounded by the 9600. Take out doom3, since we know everyone at anandtech and ID is lying, and put this card in a purely dx8 (since dx9 is SO far away that it is irrelevant) test, with the newest drivers, and show me how it is pounded so bad. Sure, the 9700 (around $225-250) and the 9700 pro ($350-500) kill it in the very most extreme resolutions and settings, but my gf4 4400 kills the ATI 8500 in the same circumstances.. please dont compare apples to oranges, it only makes you look (how was that put?.. o yeah) "silly"
Perp

$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).