Nvidia Geforce FX 5950 VS ATI Radeon 9700 Pro Whats better??

[McArra]

Originally posted by: Childs
Keep the 5950...Doom 3 is just around the corner. Then may upgrade when HL2 comes around...the 9800/9700 class cards will be cheap then...assuming that they're suitable for HL2. You probably won't even need to...my 4200 seemed to like HL2 alright (dont ask me how), and Valve supports everything under the sun, so I'll bet they make the performance better on Nv cards.

Performance hits come with all graphical effects, which only are avaible with DX9 hardware, what you don't have. You're using Pixel Shader 1.1 not 2.0, that's why your performance is ok. Problem with FX line is their PS2 are weak and Ati's are quite stronger, so you can run (based on those old benchmarks) Ati with PS2 at the same or better performance than Nvidia in PS1.4.

 

[Corporate Thug]

for anyone who thinks a 9700 pro is faster, i would very happily trade my 9800 pro for a 5950. i like to try new things

 

[Laui]

wrong comparsion
5950U vs 9800XT is a better idea

 

[BFG10K]

My first impulse was to recommend keeping the 5950U for games, but after reading XbitLabs' latest 3D roundup, I'm inclined to recommend the 9700P.

ATi is really dominating a lot of those benchmarks. I wonder how much more evidence will be dimissed by those who claim ATi's shader superiority is non-existant?

 

[Schadenfroh]

no comparison, 5950 all the way

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

My first impulse was to recommend keeping the 5950U for games, but after reading XbitLabs' latest 3D roundup, I'm inclined to recommend the 9700P.

ATi is really dominating a lot of those benchmarks. I wonder how much more evidence will be dimissed by those who claim ATi's shader superiority is non-existant?

i don't recall anyone saying it was non-existant. it's obviously more important to some than others, but no one has said ati's shader performance did not offer superior performance.

 

[nRollo]

And in response nVidia fanboys will post benchmarks @ 1024 x 768 with 0xAA and 0xAF to proclaim its superiority.

Everyone look in Google for "pot calling kettle black". BFG, you do this more than anyone and always have.
Back when you had a Ti4600 and I had a Ti4400, you would always say the 4400 was worthless because "the 4600 can run 2X AA and 2X AF 8fps faster! Nyeah!". Then, when you went 9700 Pro and knew 5900s could run 4X8X at about the same speed at most resolutions on most games, and review sites started saying the IQ was pretty similar, you started opining,"Well those setting don't mean anything anyway. You have to run nVidia at 8X AA, because that's it's maximum, and ATI at 6x because that's it's maximum. And the AF has to be at max too, or it just suxorz." You even do it in this thread!
Of course, after Shady Days you were among the many bleating "Look at the 10X7 No AA/AF in HL2 on the 9800!", again, because it suited your argument and pimped your card.
I'm starting to wonder if you even know what matters anymore and actually help people.

The 9700 Pro might not be faster than the 5950 but crank up both cards to their maximum AF and AA and use a decent resolution like 1600 x 1200 and the gap will be much smaller than you think, not to mention that the 9700 Pro will have better image quality and it also doesn't cheat.

Geez dude. Give it a rest. If you honestly think a 9700 Pro is better than a 5950, that's fine, but I truly doubt most people would notice the difference. If you're not an ATI sales rep, you should be.

 

[BFG10K]

i don't recall anyone saying it was non-existant.

Well whenever ATi came ahead in any shader based game it was dismissed using a variety of recycled reasons.

Back when you had a Ti4600 and I had a Ti4400, you would always say the 4400 was worthless because "the 4600 can run 2X AA and 2X AF 8fps faster! Nyeah!".

I don't remember that at all; in fact I've always complained about AF speed on NV25s in general.

Then, when you went 9700 Pro and knew 5900s could run 4X8X at about the same speed at most resolutions on most games, and review sites started saying the IQ was pretty similar, you started opining,"Well those setting don't mean anything anyway. You have to run nVidia at 8X AA, because that's it's maximum, and ATI at 6x because that's it's maximum.

Now I know I never said that for a variety of reasons:

(1) The 9700 Pro is faster than the 5900 in a wide variety of games at those settings.
(2) I never use AA in modern games.
(3) I use maximum AF because it's essentially free on ATi cards. That has absolutely nothing nothing to do with nVidia, though it is another advantage for ATi.

Actually you were the one complaining that AF and AA speeds were too slow on the 9700 Pro and your solution was to pay extra for a card that runs them even slower. And when questioned basically you started saying that the cards were equal when using the low resolutions you run at (except they're not equal, they're CPU limited), depsite the fact that nobody in their right mind would buy a $400 card to run at those VGA resolutions.

Of course, after Shady Days you were among the many bleating "Look at the 10X7 No AA/AF in HL2 on the 9800!",

Because it was double the speed of the NV3x using the same path. I'd consider that important evidence when considering the capabilities of shader performance, wouldn't you?

again, because it suited your argument and pimped your card.

No, the evidence I use is obviously best suited for the argument I'm trying ot make. I mean (for example) if I was talking about GPU limitation why on earth would I be pulling up 640 x 480 benchmark results?

If you honestly think a 9700 Pro is better than a 5950, that's fine, but I truly doubt most people would notice the difference

Look at the X-Bit labs link that Pete posted. Not only is the 9700 Pro around the same speed of a 5950, it probably costs only half the price. Everyone will notice that.

 

[nRollo]

Now I know I never said that for a variety of reasons:

You said it BFG, not me. You even said that it's not fair to compare nVidia's 8X AA to ATIs 6X AA, because the quality of ATIs is better anyway. You used to be pimpin the nV25 stuff back in the day as well, you would tell people you had to have the Ti4600 because you have to have the best there is and all the other settings EXCEPT the ones the Ti4600 could run were "butt ugly". LOL you haven't changed for years dude.

Because it was double the speed of the NV3x using the same path. I'd consider that important evidence when considering the capabilities of shader performance, wouldn't you?

Sure but that's not the point. The point is that you have a very selective set of criteria when it comes to this stuff. You consider 10X7 no AA/AF a pointless setting in comparing performance because no one would want to look at "butt ugly settings" like that- unless of course that's all your beloved ATI could run, then it's just fine.
Like I've said all along, 9800/5900 DX9 PS 2 shader performance is irrelevant because a. it's so poor* b. when the games are here, the second gen DX9 cards will be as well, and all 9800/5900 performance will be pathetic
*and I don't consider being half as pathetic, but still pathetic, a selling point

No, the evidence I use is obviously best suited for the argument I'm trying ot make. I mean (for example) if I was talking about GPU limitation why on earth would I be pulling up 640 x 480 benchmark results?

The point is you selectively cull minute differences and play them up like deal breakers. "nVidia's AA plainly has 3 more jaggies when you look at this magnified screenshot!" or "Well, nVidia may lead at 10X7 and 12X10 4X8X, but the only benmchmark that matters is 16X12, and ATI leads by 5 whole fps there!" etc..

Actually you were the one complaining that AF and AA speeds were too slow on the 9700 Pro and your solution was to pay extra for a card that runs them even slower. And when questioned basically you started saying that the cards were equal when using the low resolutions you run at (except they're not equal, they're CPU limited), depsite the fact that nobody in their right mind would buy a $400 card to run at those VGA resolutions.

LOL- you still don't get this. Some people just like to try different hardware BFG. Believe it or not, something doesn't have to be the very best to be worthwhile. (gasp) That's why a car collector might have a MG when a Miata is clearly a superior little convertible, or a gun collector might shoot a Browning A5 when a Benelli Super Black Eagle is a better gun in every way. I think you must be a very literal person.

Look at the X-Bit labs link that Pete posted. Not only is the 9700 Pro around the same speed of a 5950, it probably costs only half the price. Everyone will notice that.

Wrong again. I can links to reviews where the 5950 is the faster, no disrespect to Xbit. Does a man who $200 or $400 means nothing to notice the difference? Or isn't he among "everyone"?

 

[CaiNaM]

Well whenever ATi came ahead in any shader based game it was dismissed using a variety of recycled reasons

there's truth in the above statement, but that's not what you originally stated, which is why i pointed that out.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I'm going to approach this a tad bit differently-

I Already have both these cards so Cost is not an issue. What card do you think i should keep ...the 1 i get rid of is going into a comp at work, That will never be used for playing games but will use some AutoDesk Viz ( 3Dmax ) and CAD programs.

The 5950 should demolish the R9700Pro(or R9800XT for that matter) for viz, and you have close to a wash on the gaming end of it. Honestly for me with their relative proximity in gaming I would have the work end be the deciding factor which would end up with the R9700Pro in my rig and the 5950 in my rig at work.

 

[nRollo]

I wonder how much more evidence will be dimissed by those who claim ATi's shader superiority is non-existant?

Who knows BFG- the world is a strange place.

It will all be dismissed by me, because all of the current cards are feeble in their shader functionality. I'll buy a nV40 or R420, we'll talk about it then.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Honestly for me with their relative proximity in gaming I would have the work end be the deciding factor which would end up with the R9700Pro in my rig and the 5950 in my rig at work.

That's my thinking. It's a pity to use the 5950U "just" for work, but it'd probably be better than the 9700P in that capacity.

 

[BFG10K]

You said it BFG, not me.

Except I didn't.

You even said that it's not fair to compare nVidia's 8X AA to ATIs 6X AA, because the quality of ATIs is better anyway.

Well that's true to some degree I guess but if both are on maximum that's as fair as the comparison is going to get, much like AF.

Actually what i really object to is AF IQ comparisons done when the ATi card is left on 8x because nVidia can't go higher. If you wanna do IQ comparisons then go as as high as each each vendor allows instead of crippling one on account of the other.

You used to be pimpin the nV25 stuff back in the day as well,

That's because back in the day it was pretty much the best card around. I have no problem admitting to that.

LOL you haven't changed for years dude.

What, you mean praising hardware when it deserves praise and pointing out inferiorities when it doesn't? No, I guess I haven't changed that much.

Sure but that's not the point.

Actually it is because if it wasn't I wouldn't have been looking at shader performance. Or what, you expect me to argue something and then use totally unrelated evidence to back up the argument? Sorry, but that's called being illogical.

The point is that you have a very selective set of criteria when it comes to this stuff.

The criteria depends on what I'm trying to argue.

You consider 10X7 no AA/AF a pointless setting in comparing performance because no one would want to look at "butt ugly settings" like that

I consider that setting invalid in the majority of games when comparing top of the line $400 cards, yes (unless you're talking about very stressful new games like Halo). Using such settings on those cards and then proclaiming their equality is totally invalid because they're only "equal" due to CPU limitations which means you aren't comparing the cards at all.

Or shall I go back to using 320 x 240 and proclaim a GeForce3 is as good as your 5800? Because that's exactly the kind of logic you use.

unless of course that's all your beloved ATI could run, then it's just fine.

If that was all ATi could run then I'd be the first person to run to the store and pick up something better.

The point is you selectively cull minute differences and play them up like deal breakers. "nVidia's AA plainly has 3 more jaggies when you look at this magnified screenshot!" or "Well, nVidia may lead at 10X7 and 12X10 4X8X, but the only benmchmark that matters is 16X12, and ATI leads by 5 whole fps there!" etc..

The point is that you ignore all differences and proclaim equality when there is none. You also you use invalid scenarios to back your claims.

LOL- you still don't get this. Some people just like to try different hardware BFG. Believe it or not, something doesn't have to be the very best to be worthwhile. (gasp)

I understand you like trying hardware Rollo and I have no problem at all with it. I take issue with your "equality" and "no difference" arguments.

I can links to reviews where the 5950 is the faster,

No doubt using old school games running at the VGA settings you like to run your $400 boards at. Again I could show you 320 x 240 benchmarks of a GF3 being equal to a 5800; does that mean the former card is as good as the latter?

Of course the games also can't have any shaders either because we know that you've magically deemed all shader games invalid.

To sum up your stance: "there is no difference between ATi and nVidia except when ATi is better but when that happens, it doesn't count."

 

[Acanthus]

Again I could show you 320x240 benchmarks of a R9800XT being equal to a FX5950U @ 1600x1200; does that mean the former card is as good as the latter?

 

[BFG10K]

Again I could show you 320x240 benchmarks of a R9800XT being equal to a FX5950U @ 1600x1200; does that mean the former card is as good as the latter?

That question makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[VIAN]

Acorrding to VGAIII, at 10x7 4xaa, 8xaf, the 9700 beat the 5950 In all tests tested.

I can't believe I have the power of a 500 dollar card in my hand for 200 bucks.

 

[BFG10K]

Yeah but Rollo doesn't like AA or AF; he likes running his $400 cards at settings that make them look like they came from the Voodoo1 era.

He's probably got some gigantic 21" monitor too when any 15" monitor will run the settings he runs it at. Wait, I guess that means that 15" monitors are equal to 21"monitors, right Rollo? I mean both can do 1024 x 768 so that must make them equal.

 

[nRollo]

I'm glad you and Vian are so into Toms Hardware group BFG. Of course, here at Anandtech (the board you're on, remember) the numbers tell a little different story:

C&C AT and nVidia too close to call in use
12X10, 16X12 4X8X, check out that .6 fps difference BFG! I think you know where your 9700Pro is going to fall, right? (hint: it's not near the big boys)

Ouch. neither card is playable at your favorite settings for the F1 challenge
That 36.2 and 31.9 at 12X10 are pretty sad. Both slow and unplayable.

LOL more of the same at GunMetal
Or can you tell the difference between 1-2fps BFG?

LMAO more identical performance at Halo

Errr What's up at Homeworld BFG? Oh yeah- more of the same

Same at JK as well, I see a trend

If you're unfortunate enough to like Neverwinter, you might like nVidia better

Well, the Radeon own SIM CITY :*-( LOL

Radeon owns Splinter as well

Why they did this at TRAOD, who knows?

ATI ownxors Tron
Has anyone played Tron since the 80s?

Back to indiscernible for UT2003

Radeon P3Wns some Warcraft

Back to indiscernible for Wolfenstein

More of the same for X2

I've never heard of Eve, but ATI owns it

So there you have it. Lots of games benched at settings that can no way be construed as cpu limited.

What up "wise" BFG? ATI winning at Eve, Tron, TRAOD, Splinter and Warcraft means they're "superior"? Bah. Warcraft and Splinter are the only two there anyone plays.

Or should we just ignore Anand and focus some on those odd Toms Hardware benches?

I don't think you have any contact with reality any more BFG. I truly hope nVidia stomps ATI flat in the next round, just because you'll have to buy it then and start pimping them again. LOL- "I love nVidia!...errr, no....ATI.....errr, nVidia!"

You know me though, I'll buy whatever is best, then get a V5 just to confuse you. LOL

 

[nRollo]

He's probably got some gigantic 21" monitor too when any 15" monitor will run the settings he runs it at. Wait, I guess that means that 15" monitors are equal to 21"monitors, right

Technically I have a 22" monitor- NEC FE2111, but 20" viewable makes it like a 21".

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Yeah but Rollo doesn't like AA or AF; he likes running his $400 cards at settings that make them look like they came from the Voodoo1 era.

He's probably got some gigantic 21" monitor too when any 15" monitor will run the settings he runs it at. Wait, I guess that means that 15" monitors are equal to 21"monitors, right Rollo? I mean both can do 1024 x 768 so that must make them equal.

So when did you descend from a legitimate poster to an ATi zealot BFG

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: Pete

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Honestly for me with their relative proximity in gaming I would have the work end be the deciding factor which would end up with the R9700Pro in my rig and the 5950 in my rig at work.

That's my thinking. It's a pity to use the 5950U "just" for work, but it'd probably be better than the 9700P in that capacity.

I'd agree with that.

Originally posted by: VIAN
Acorrding to VGAIII, at 10x7 4xaa, 8xaf, the 9700 beat the 5950 In all tests tested.

I can't believe I have the power of a 500 dollar card in my hand for 200 bucks.

But VIAN, you're card only has 128mb! Just think of the huge performance hit you'll take in all those games that need 256mb

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: VIAN
I can't believe I have the power of a 500 dollar card in my hand for 200 bucks.

I cant believe that card still works after you touched it with your severe lack of knowledge.

 

[VIAN]

I'm glad you and Vian are so into Toms Hardware group BFG. Of course, here at Anandtech (the board you're on, remember) the numbers tell a little different story:

The benches at Anandtech in that article are very controversial and unsuited for this discussion.

But VIAN, you're card only has 128mb! Just think of the huge performance hit you'll take in all those games that need 256mb

F the 256MB.

I cant believe that card still works after you touched it with your severe lack of knowledge.

Well, what really happened is that I broke the card in half when I first got it. But then I when to my radio and played "I need a miracle," by Fragma. After hours of singing along a miracle happened.

 

[hytek369]

Originally posted by: shady06
overall 5950
dollar for dollar 9700 pro

i agree, although i have seen some 5900 that can overclock to 5950 specs by flashing the BIOS