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

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Rollo

DaPunisher, end your suffering with that "horrible" 5800 Ultra and it's slower AA/AF! Trade it to me for my 9800 Pro. Da Little Punisher has more sensitive ears than you, and no Sennheisers! Have mercy on his soul, and your eyes! Just ask BFG10K what the better card is, he'll say you're bending me over the coffee table!

Mine's been heavily overclocked at times and I've read how you feel about that Besides, I don't need the phone stuff and UT2k3 isn't on my games wanted list, so you'd have to throw in a VGA silencer given what each are selling for at the moment A 9800pro and VGA silencer for my 5800U sounds fair enough, though I'll cry later for letting my collectable go! *waits for Rollo to decide he doesn't want a 5800U that bad! *

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Rollo

DaPunisher, end your suffering with that "horrible" 5800 Ultra and it's slower AA/AF! Trade it to me for my 9800 Pro. Da Little Punisher has more sensitive ears than you, and no Sennheisers! Have mercy on his soul, and your eyes! Just ask BFG10K what the better card is, he'll say you're bending me over the coffee table!

Mine's been heavily overclocked at times and I've read how you feel about that Besides, I don't need the phone stuff and UT2k3 isn't on my games wanted list, so you'd have to throw in a VGA silencer given what each are selling for at the moment A 9800pro and VGA silencer for my 5800U sounds fair enough, though I'll cry later for letting my collectable go! *waits for Rollo to decide he doesn't want a 5800U that bad! *

That's it?!
Done.
Can you do me ONE favor? Can you ship first? I sold Shady my son's Ti4200 so I won't have a video card in my box if I cross ship or ship first.
PM me and we'll work out the details.
I'll order that Silencer thing from newegg on your say, looks like you want to OC the 9800 as well?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

PM sent. Yes sir, I want the silencer for overclocking and because it's just a great solution. I'm not sure wether you ordering it and shipping it with the card is the best *unless newegg will let you ship to me* or if just paypaling me the cash works better for you so I'll let you decide

 

[VIAN]

Download the 7 day trial of horizons from fileplanet on your precious R9800XT, run it at the lowest possible settings and view ATis driver team in all their glory. 15fps @ lowest possible rez, all low settings, everything disabled.

The card could run as slow as it wants at the lowest settings, but being that it runs like a beast at the highest settings, it's a kick ass card.

Since when are profile, power consumption, and heat the basis for buying high end graphics cards? NVIDIA has a better AF implementation, and the drivers are just different, what do ATi drivers have that nV doesnt?

-Low Profile: Looks nicer, people with smaller cases can fit something with more power than something with the same profile on Nvidia's lineup.
-Power Consumption: I don't really care about this one, all this means to me is that it might be a little better for the environment by .000000000000000001%. Some people however, are crazy about this stuff. Try arguing with an LCD fanatic.
-Heat: Cooler cases, easier to cool means that they can use quieter solutions, more potency for overclocking.

I don't think Nvidia has better AF implementation.

What ATI drivers have that Nvidia doesn't have:
Driver version Catalyst x.x. They all had it.

They have recommended settings.
They have the Vsync setting in D3D.
Tell you the max resolution you can play at with your chosen settings enabled.
GUI is nicer.

Things I like from the Nvidia drivers:
Driver version ForceWare 53.03.

GUI is pretty cool.
You are able to lock your refresh rate.

I wasn't very impressed with the new driver version either except for the new GUI.

Bugs? LOL... sorry, I just had to say it since so many people use the drivers as a reason not to buy ATI cards

I actually have experienced more bugs and crashes with Nvidia cards.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: 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

I believe it was right about the time the 9700 Pro came out and when ATI has since yet to look back. I'd think you'd be able to notice that BFG is most likely biased towards the card he has in his rig, however he almost always has the best high end card worth the price. ATI may not have the fastest card availble for every game out there, but they've yet to offer a product that is clearly a superior product to anything ATI has. If anything nVidia has at best matched what ATI has had since the 9700 Pro.

 

[Jeff7181]

I actually have experienced more bugs and crashes with Nvidia cards.

Yes, nVidia has had their share of buggy drivers with the 86 different driver versions last year, lol. The only thing that really pissed me off was the 53.03 release breaking 4XAA in a few games... it's fixed in the 56.64's though. The application preferences for all the image quality settings made up for it though... hehe, that rules!

 

[CaiNaM]

So you admit that it does. The only drivers I've ever used with the 5900 were the 53.03. It was there.

i admitted it did. i don't see it w/ the newer drivers, but everyone's eye's are different, and game textures are not always the same. if you want to split hairs, of course true trilinear is the best method, but since we're splitting hairs, ati doesn't use true trilinear filtering either (it's selective; doesn't apply it to all textures).

the point is, as stated in the article, the end result is there's little discernable difference even tho fanboi's like to claim there is.

The pictures that show Anisotropic Filtering didn't even go far. How muc AF did they use. And much of a difference would it be if you had a wall 2 feet in front of you. 8xAF went far - much farther than that corner. He also claims that ATI's AA is noticeably better.

you'd have to ask the reviewer.. there's a feedback link at the bottom of the article. go use it.

as for the aa, once again you're taking the fanboi exaggeration stance and misquoting to suit your view better (which was the entire point of my rant in the first place). he doesn't "claim at ati's aa is noticeably better", he claims that in certain areas he thinks it noticeably better, making it marginally better overall. i've stated that all along - ati's aa methos is better imo. the reality is overall there pretty similar in the results, tho you'd have to (rightly) give the not to ati.

I think a better value would be the 9700 Pro if you can find one that isn't refurbished.

why, because it's what you have at the moment? frankly the 9700pro is still a great card, but for $18 more you can get a 9800pro (according to pricewatch), and to me that's a better deal as 9800pro is improved somewhat in several areas.

It's greener in almost every way. I would say that ATI cards are a much better value compared to Nvidia cards.

no it's not. again, the fanboi stance would be to exaggerate all the benefits while ignoring any negatives, which is exactly what you are doing. they both have the strengths and weaknesses, and ignoring price, the ati is the better card overall.

if you take the 5900xt/nu and their overclocking strengths out of the equation, and compare 5950u vs 9800xt, at current pricing i'd say the 9800xt is "marginally better". compare the 9800pro 256mband the 5900ultra, and i'd say the ati is marginally better. compare the 9800pro and the 5900ultra and their pricing, i'd say due to the pricing the 9800pro is substantially better (even tho the 5900u is a 256mb part - i don't think the extra 128mb ram justifies a $100 premium in price).

toss the 5900xt/se's back into the equation at their pricepoints, and it gets a bit more interesting... but the point is, regardless of which of these cards you have, you have a decent card, and if you want to stand on your soapbox and shout to the world you have the "far superior ati", you just make yourself look desperate for an ego boost.

yea, i think the ati is the better overall product, but not so much so there aren't valid reasons to buy an nvidia (5900 or better). perhaps you like the drivers better, or the color saturation, or it works better with your hardware combo... or you just haven't had good luck with ati in the past... either way, you have a damn good card that will play the current games with acceptable performance and IQ.

if you have an r3xx, great.. you have a little better card which offers a bit more performance and a bit better IQ in certain situations. either way, in a few weeks when the next-gen cards come out, we'll all have "has-beens" when it comes to DX9 perfromance until we buy the next greatest video card. and life goes on.....

 

[CaiNaM]

I actually have experienced more bugs and crashes with Nvidia cards.

lol.. but of course you have

 

[VIAN]

I have to go somewhere right now, but I'll be back to respond to all of that.

 

[CaiNaM]

I believe it was right about the time the 9700 Pro came out and when ATI has since yet to look back. I'd think you'd be able to notice that BFG is most likely biased towards the card he has in his rig, however he almost always has the best high end card worth the price. ATI may not have the fastest card availble for every game out there, but they've yet to offer a product that is clearly a superior product to anything ATI has. If anything nVidia has at best matched what ATI has had since the 9700 Pro.

wow.. a reasonable observation! i would however go a bit further and say overall the ati is a bit better.. not enough to justify a $130 price difference imo as it was a couple months back, but enough to justify the $30ish premium it now carries ($180ish for the 5900xt/se and $210ish for the saph 9800pro).

tho the interesting speculation for me now is what will the next gen cards offer in the $2-300 price range?

 

[futuristicmonkey]

I find it hilarious that a simple question has turned this whole thread into one hell of a flame war. IMHO, when you sign up for the Anandtech Forum, you should specifically state whether you are an ATI or an Nvidia fanboy. (And) it should say that just under your name/pseudonym. In response to the real question here, what games are you going to be playing, videoclone? If you are going to be playing next-gen DX9 games, you should go with the 9700Pro. If older games or a mix, I don't really know, due to a lack of first-hand experience with Geforce FX-class video cards. Actually, if I were to use second-hand experience (gained from reading articles at websites such as Anandtech.com) I would still say to go with the 9700Pro. I AM AN ATI FANBOY !!! There, I said it.

 

[VIAN]

ATI may not have the fastest card availble for every game out there, but they've yet to offer a product that is clearly a superior product to anything ATI has.

Yes, nVidia has had their share of buggy drivers with the 86 different driver versions last year, lol.

I've only used the 53.03. To me, the driver had so many problems and it took them about 3 months to release a new one.

why, because it's what you have at the moment? frankly the 9700pro is still a great card, but for $18 more you can get a 9800pro (according to pricewatch), and to me that's a better deal as 9800pro is improved somewhat in several areas.

No. The last price I saw for the 9700 Pro is 183. The last price I saw for the 9800 Pro is 220+. According to Newegg. So about a 40 dollar difference.

no it's not. again, the fanboi stance would be to exaggerate all the benefits while ignoring any negatives, which is exactly what you are doing. they both have the strengths and weaknesses, and ignoring price, the ati is the better card overall.

I think price is one of the reasons that makes the ATI cards much better.

lol.. but of course you have

I'm serious... is your fanboyism now gonna deny my experience.

but enough to justify the $30ish premium it now carries ($180ish for the 5900xt/se and $210ish for the saph 9800pro).

Well see, the 30 dollar premium on a card that is supposed to be put up against something much more expensive - 5900 Ultra. 5900 is no match for 9800 Pro, but the 5900 Ultra gives it a bit of competition.

All I can tell you is that my experience with ATI was much better than with Nvidia.

 

[BFG10K]

Download the 7 day trial of horizons from fileplanet on your precious R9800XT, run it at the lowest possible settings and view ATis driver team in all their glory. 15fps @ lowest possible rez, all low settings, everything disabled.

(1) I don't think you understand what I was trying to say with my example. My example wasn't even a comparison of ATi and nVidia, rather I was pointing out how using CPU limited settings to test GPUs is an invalid course of action.

(2) Such slow performance is probably an application and/or driver issue, both of which can be fixed.

 

[CaiNaM]

I've only used the 53.03. To me, the driver had so many problems and it took them about 3 months to release a new one.

see.. therein lies the problem. i have not had a single issue with those drivers. most haven't had any problems either. biggest issue seems to be a "sharpening bug" which hadn't really bothered me, and apparently was fixed with 56.63. at any rate, your experience with a single driver revision, which goes against general consensus is but one example of you taking limited experience and proudly applying it to everyone with your "ati demolishes" nv kind of BS rants.

my favorite ati driver has been the cat 3.10, and overall i haven't had many ati issues (i don't play CoD, but i know many ati users waited months for a fix for that) until BF:V, which just sucks on ati hardware atm..

at any rate, here's a list of ati known issues being resolved in 4.10:

Playing the game Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 under Windows XP with an ATI RADEONTM 9000 series card installed no longer results in the skaters' shadow not being completely drawn
Playing the game Line of Sight Vietnam under Windows XP with an ATI RADEONTM 9200 series installed no longer results in the game menu appearing black when setting the Anti-Aliasing option to 1 or 2
Changing the resolution in Halo while playing in the middle of a Campaign no longer results in a reboot of the machine. This issue was known to occur under Windows XP with an ATI RADEONTM 9000 series installed
Running the game Halo PC under Windows XP with an ATI RADEONTM 9700 series installed no longer results in display corruption being seen on the barrel of the shot gun
All cars are now being drawn properly when Anti-Aliasing is enabled and playing the game Race Driver by ToCA
The game Ford Racing 2 no longer stutters when Anti-Aliasing is enabled
The Star Wars game; Knights of the Old Republic is no longer failing to respond when moving the mouse to view the shore
Setting the display resolution to 1024x768 32bpp and playing the game Nascar Racing 2003 demo, no longer results in the game failing to respond when OpenGL is enabled
Setting the graphics option to 1024x768 in the game Beach Head 2002 no longer results in the game failing to launch and displaying an error message
The Windows 2000 operating system no longer fails to respond when ending the game World Racing in a windowed mode
Playing the game Neverwinter Nights under Windows XP with an ATI RADEONTM 9600 series card installed no longer results in the game failing to respond
Playing the game IL2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles in OpenGL mode no longer results in flashing triangles and textures when playing the Black Death Track

and of course, there's the issues ati has not even acknowledged/verified. now, i'm not saying nv drivers don't have issues as well; they certainly do. but don't run around acting like there are no problems whatsoever with ati drivers. it's simply another example of the selective reasoning you use to pimp your own views to others..

No. The last price I saw for the 9700 Pro is 183. The last price I saw for the 9800 Pro is 220+. According to Newegg. So about a 40 dollar difference.

well, again, if your intention is to split hairs (lowest price on pricewatch):

PowerColor (Video Cards) - POWER COLOR/ATI RADEON 9700PRO 128MB 8XAGP DDR W/TV & DVI
TotalCost $189.00 (Price - $179; Shipping - $9 - 10 ground)

ATI (Video Cards) - ATI 9800PRO 128MB (RTL) Celestica- Liteversion
Details:
-ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB DDR AGP8X
Updated - 3/23, 3:07 PM TotalCost $209.00 (Price - $ 209 Shipping - Free fedex 3 days)

about $20 dollars...

I think price is one of the reasons that makes the ATI cards much better.

well, as i said earlier, with ati prices dropping as they have the past few weeks, it makes the choice much harder imo. as i said, i could easily see the justification for paying $10 more for a 9700pro or $30 more for a 9800pro over a 5900xt, especially for a person who has no interest in overclocking (it's a no brainer). the flipside tho, is that there are certainly valid reasons why someone might get the 5900xt while saving $10-30.

I'm serious... is your fanboyism now gonna deny my experience

how's that? cause i currently own and use 3 ati cards and 2 nv cards? cause i say the ati is moderately better in most cases? no, you have it turned around. i don't see how i'm being either inaccurate nor unobjective.

Well see, the 30 dollar premium on a card that is supposed to be put up against something much more expensive - 5900 Ultra. 5900 is no match for 9800 Pro, but the 5900 Ultra gives it a bit of competition.

sure it is.. overall, mine is within 15% or so of my 9800pro in most DX9 apps, and about the same in older games: faster in some, slower than others, but overall pretty close.

All I can tell you is that my experience with ATI was much better than with Nvidia.

i have no problem with that statement. many people have different experiences, not to mention different hardware, monitors.. hell, even eyesight. the point tho, is that's not how you approach these things, rather you make simplistic (and imo quite inaccurate) statement such as "ati demolishes nvidia".

you pick and choose what information to give, often exaggerate the impact of it, and even when replying you only selectively reply to points made by others - and i'm hardly the first person to point that out.

it's great you like your radeon; it's a damn good card, but it doesn't mean it's the only right choice for everyone, nor that there aren't valid reasons to own and enjoy something other than an ati.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Download the 7 day trial of horizons from fileplanet on your precious R9800XT, run it at the lowest possible settings and view ATis driver team in all their glory. 15fps @ lowest possible rez, all low settings, everything disabled.

(1) I don't think you understand what I was trying to say with my example. My example wasn't even a comparison of ATi and nVidia, rather I was pointing out how using CPU limited settings to test GPUs is an invalid course of action.

(2) Such slow performance is probably an application and/or driver issue, both of which can be fixed.

I said it was a driver issue... my point was the lovely ATi drivers.

 

[nRollo]

Punisher: You da man, not da punisher.

Thanks dude, I am most excited to be trying the 5800 Ultra. Doubt I'll even notice the sound, my case already has 3 fans, plus the 2 in the psu, one on the video card and one on the cpu.

Am anxious to fire up the big dog.

BTW- in response to the inevitable 9800 vs 5900 posting, IMO these two are too close to call unless you factor in long term DX9 performance. As we all know, ATI will do that better, it will depend on the game as to whether it does it well enough to matter much. (i.e. I personally don't like my minimums near 30fps)

 

[VIAN]

your experience with a single driver revision

Sure it was a single driver revision. I didn't say the card was a terrible card. I think it is a good card and worthy successor to the GF4 family. But I also think that overall, ATI is the better performer.

limited experience and proudly applying it to everyone with your "ati demolishes" nv kind of BS rants.

I've also had a GF4 and it was a good card with excellent performance. Nothing really messed up about their drivers. I gave that card shelter for about more than half a year. The GF4 was the best card until the R300 series came about and I believe it still riegns supreme.

my favorite ati driver has been the cat 3.10, and overall i haven't had many ati issues (i don't play CoD, but i know many ati users waited months for a fix for that) until BF:V, which just sucks on ati hardware atm..

BF1942 is supposed to be a bit better on ATI's hardware as opposed to Nvidia's according to VGAIII. The 9800 Pro beats the 5950 Ultra.

None of the driver issues you listed pertain to me. I am also quite aware that both sides have about an equal amount of driver issues.

now, i'm not saying nv drivers don't have issues as well; they certainly do. but don't run around acting like there are no problems whatsoever with ati drivers. it's simply another example of the selective reasoning you use to pimp your own views to others..

It's all luck. I never mentioned driver issues. I mentioned picture quality and fps. That's all I'm saying.

well, again, if your intention is to split hairs (lowest price on pricewatch):

PowerColor (Video Cards) - POWER COLOR/ATI RADEON 9700PRO 128MB 8XAGP DDR W/TV & DVI
TotalCost $189.00 (Price - $179; Shipping - $9 - 10 ground)

ATI (Video Cards) - ATI 9800PRO 128MB (RTL) Celestica- Liteversion
Details:
-ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB DDR AGP8X
Updated - 3/23, 3:07 PM TotalCost $209.00 (Price - $ 209 Shipping - Free fedex 3 days)

about $20 dollars...

I don't like pricewatch. Newegg is better. The 9700 Pro is cheaper at Newegg and who knows what kind of Liteversion 9800 Pro is.

there are certainly valid reasons why someone might get the 5900xt

Such as.... The overclocking fever is supposed to be dead with this card as compared to the 5900. So what other specific situations could there be that they are so important.

Plus, I never said you couldn't buy Nvidia. I say what I have to and if you still think Nvidia is the better choice then power to ya.

how's that? cause i currently own and use 3 ati cards and 2 nv cards? cause i say the ati is moderately better in most cases? no, you have it turned around. i don't see how i'm being either inaccurate nor unobjective.

I have owned 4 Nvidia cards and 2 ATI cards. You made a remark suggesting that I was lying about my experience that Nvidia cards were more buggy to me than ATI cards. Also that I feel that ATI's improvements aren't moderate. They aren't - OMG this is F-ing crazy, generations ahead of it's time - but they are good enough to be noticeably better and providing better enjoyment for me.

sure it is.. overall, mine is within 15% or so of my 9800pro in most DX9 apps, and about the same in older games: faster in some, slower than others, but overall pretty close.

Then it should be about the same percentage away or less from the 5900 Ultra. I happen to think the 5950 is a totally useless release, but that's just me. The 5950 Ultra is to the 5900 Ultra what the P4 3.2EE is to the P4 3.2C.

you pick and choose what information to give, often exaggerate the impact of it, and even when replying you only selectively reply to points made by others - and i'm hardly the first person to point that out.

I pick and choose what information to give because it is most important to me. I don't understand how AA can look good some of the time, it's not variable or selective like AF. It's either better or not. Maybe when high contrast occurs ATI's AA is noticeably better, but that just means it's noticeably better, not just some of the times. I select which points to reply because they are the most important. Sometimes I agree with points, sometimes I don't bother enough to answer. Sometimes I don't know how to approach it. I don't have all the answers to all the questions or a counter to every point.

it's great you like your radeon; it's a damn good card, but it doesn't mean it's the only right choice for everyone, nor that there aren't valid reasons to own and enjoy something other than an ati.

They ask what a good card is for a certain price without going over. 150 - 9600 Pro or 5700. 9600 Pro wins. 200 - 9700 Pro or 5900 XT. the 9700 Pro is a better performer here to for about the same price. 250 - 9800 Pro or 5900 XT. 9800 Pro wins this one too.
If you notice that the 5900 isn't meantioned is because performance is similar and they are discontinued. What do you think about these decisions. Do you agree. Looking at the benches and the prices and the cards, ATI wins. If they want an Nvidia card for a specific reason then I will recommend a good Nvidia card, but most people come here and ask for cards just for kick ass gaming performance and great IQ and for that I will recommend the ATI cards.

 

[Acanthus]

The 9700 is discontinued as well VIAN... WTG.

 

[CaiNaM]

Sure it was a single driver revision. I didn't say the card was a terrible card. I think it is a good card and worthy successor to the GF4 family. But I also think that overall, ATI is the better performer.

i can't argue when you state it like that.. problem is, that's not what you say....

I've also had a GF4 and it was a good card with excellent performance. Nothing really messed up about their drivers. I gave that card shelter for about more than half a year. The GF4 was the best card until the R300 series came about and I believe it still riegns supreme.

guess that would depend on how you define "supreme".. yea, like i said, ignore price, and the ati is the better overall product. imo if you spend over $200, overall ati is the way to go.

BF1942 is supposed to be a bit better on ATI's hardware as opposed to Nvidia's according to VGAIII. The 9800 Pro beats the 5950 Ultra.

well, the 9800 also performs just like the 9800xt in bf1942... does that mean the 9800xt is a piece of crap? and the 5950 is 2fps slower than 9800xt/pro at 1280 8xaf 4x aa. the field seperates at 1600 8x af 4x aa, tho i don't run it at 1600 with my r9800, and if i did, not sure why i'd run 4xaa...

quote from THG, "At first the FX 5950 does a good job of keeping up with ATi's Radeon 9800 family, but has to cede more and more ground at the higher resolutions. In Battlefield 1942, the FX 5700 Ultra is clearly slower than the Radeon9600 XT."

and the 5700 kicks the 9600's ass here, yet you still recommend the 9600 as "best" (and no, im not fond of the 9600pro i have, but i wouldn't buy a 5700 either; just an example you use a reference to back up one of your views, but ignore it on another occasion where it doesn't fit your opinion).

at any rate, benchmarks can give you an idea, but not necessarily a clear picture as they're often misleading in that when being referenced there are often old or using outdated games - and many online contradict each other anyways... for every one you can point to where card a has an advantage, someone can often find one that shows card b is better.

It's all luck. I never mentioned driver issues. I mentioned picture quality and fps. That's all I'm saying.

well, it's not luck per se, and i believe you've brought it up.. but fps and quality mean little if driver issues keep it from performing or looking right... bf:v is a good example.

I don't like pricewatch. Newegg is better. The 9700 Pro is cheaper at Newegg and who knows what kind of Liteversion 9800 Pro is.

well, again, because you "don't like pricewatch" does not mean it's irrelevant and doesn't apply (btw, newegg is great; i get the majority of stuff online from them, but again, irrelevant). there's also

PowerColor (Video Cards) - ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB DDR AGP8X TV & DVI-Out (OEM) (XR98-C3)
Details:
-ATI RADEON 9800PRO 128MB DDR DVI + CRT + TV 8X AGP XR98-C3
Part - VC-POWERC-029
Updated - 3/12, 6:59 PM TotalCost $208.00

and 7 other 9800pro's from various vendors (incl newegg) between $208 and $215 shipped, so i'm not sure why you keep trying to prove me wrong on this....

Such as.... The overclocking fever is supposed to be dead with this card as compared to the 5900. So what other specific situations could there be that they are so important.

Plus, I never said you couldn't buy Nvidia. I say what I have to and if you still think Nvidia is the better choice then power to ya.

you obviously have little knowledge in this area. read the posts from owners, as well as articles like ananad's overclocking comparison, among others. the xt/se oc just as well as any other nv35, and while memory speed is indeed lower, the latency of the 2.8ns ram is much lower resulting in for all intensive purposes the same performace.. within 2-3% of the 2.2ns ram.

i don't think i've seen a negative review of the 5900xt.. they all pretty much rave about it.. is it faster than a 9800pro? no, but for the most part it's fairly close, and about 20% less in price, making it a viable alternative.

I have owned 4 Nvidia cards and 2 ATI cards. You made a remark suggesting that I was lying about my experience that Nvidia cards were more buggy to me than ATI cards. Also that I feel that ATI's improvements aren't moderate. They aren't - OMG this is F-ing crazy, generations ahead of it's time - but they are good enough to be noticeably better and providing better enjoyment for me.

dunno where you're going here with this.... improvements over what? "generations ahead of its time"? well, then so are the nv cards, perform is about the same, with the comparable ati part sometimes having a slight edge, tho at times a greater one. there are certainly situations where nv has an edge in performance as well, but when all is said and done, when comparing nv35 and r3xx, ati is certainly the performance leader overall.

Then it should be about the same percentage away or less from the 5900 Ultra. I happen to think the 5950 is a totally useless release, but that's just me. The 5950 Ultra is to the 5900 Ultra what the P4 3.2EE is to the P4 3.2C.

i don't follow you line of thinking here, but okay...

I pick and choose what information to give because it is most important to me. I don't understand how AA can look good some of the time, it's not variable or selective like AF. It's either better or not. Maybe when high contrast occurs ATI's AA is noticeably better, but that just means it's noticeably better, not just some of the times. I select which points to reply because they are the most important. Sometimes I agree with points, sometimes I don't bother enough to answer. Sometimes I don't know how to approach it. I don't have all the answers to all the questions or a counter to every point.

again, that's part of the big problem. if you're going to "advise", it's not what's important to you, it's what's important to the person seeking advice. that's the problem with taking a 'fanboi' approach to this stuff. tell it like it is, be objective, and let the person who is asking for advice decide what's important to them.

as far as how aa can look, alot depends on the angles. in pure and horizontal angles, there's really no discernable difference, however at certain angles, ati's method handles it better.. depending on the scene being rendered there may or may not be a noticeable difference; it just depends. yea, overall, ati is better, but often you have to REALLY scrutinize a scene or even magnify it in order to tell a difference.

as far as not always know how to answer a point, the problem is when someone says something quite logical that directly contradicts or refutes your statement, and you simply ignore it.. well, what does that look like? if you're going to make statements, you should be knowledgeable enough to discuss them

They ask what a good card is for a certain price without going over. 150 - 9600 Pro or 5700. 9600 Pro wins. 200 - 9700 Pro or 5900 XT. the 9700 Pro is a better performer here to for about the same price. 250 - 9800 Pro or 5900 XT. 9800 Pro wins this one too.

but again you're being selective to fit your own view of how things are. how about a $160 5900xt or a $210 9800pro? if someone says he can't spend over $170, you'll say something like "spend $210 on the ati, it demolishes the 5900xt", or if someone asks what 5900xt is the best, you'll jump in and say "but the 9700pro"... that's being a fanboi, not giving objective advice. see..

you like ati, and that's great. i happen to like my 9800pro, but i don't tell everyone buy the 9800pro the 5900xt is no comparison....

If you notice that the 5900 isn't meantioned is because performance is similar and they are discontinued. What do you think about these decisions. Do you agree. Looking at the benches and the prices and the cards, ATI wins. If they want an Nvidia card for a specific reason then I will recommend a good Nvidia card, but most people come here and ask for cards just for kick ass gaming performance and great IQ and for that I will recommend the ATI cards.

again, selective reasoning... the 9700pro is discountinued as well, tho there are more available still in channels than the 5900.

 

[VIAN]

i can't argue when you state it like that.. problem is, that's not what you say....

Show me an example.

guess that would depend on how you define "supreme".. yea, like i said, ignore price, and the ati is the better overall product. imo if you spend over $200, overall ati is the way to go.

Supreme just means: at the top. I am not ignoring price.

well, the 9800 also performs just like the 9800xt in bf1942... does that mean the 9800xt is a piece of crap?

Kinda, it means that the 9800 XT is a waste of money.

and the 5700 kicks the 9600's ass here, yet you still recommend the 9600 as "best" (and no, im not fond of the 9600pro i have, but i wouldn't buy a 5700 either; just an example you use a reference to back up one of your views, but ignore it on another occasion where it doesn't fit your opinion).

I would never recommend and have not recommended a 9600 over a 5700. I would say that the 5700 would be a better card than the 9600. But according to Newegg (which I try to remember to tell everyone where I am getting prices, jus so they know) the 5700 is 119 at the cheapest, next highest being 127, and the 9600 is 93. That is 30 bucks away from each other. God damn, Newegg is such a slow website. Still waiting.... The 9600 Pro however is in the same price range as the 5700 at 129. So clearly the 9600 Pro wins for being the same price and performing better.

you obviously have little knowledge in this area. read the posts from owners, as well as articles like ananad's overclocking comparison, among others. the xt/se oc just as well as any other nv35, and while memory speed is indeed lower, the latency of the 2.8ns ram is much lower resulting in for all intensive purposes the same performace.. within 2-3% of the 2.2ns ram.

Yeah, you're right here. They are very overclockable too.

dunno where you're going here with this.... improvements over what? "generations ahead of its time"? well, then so are the nv cards, perform is about the same, with the comparable ati part sometimes having a slight edge, tho at times a greater one. there are certainly situations where nv has an edge in performance as well, but when all is said and done, when comparing nv35 and r3xx, ati is certainly the performance leader overall.

ATI's IQ improvements over Nvidia's IQ. I meant that ATI's IQ improvements are generations ahead of its time, but they do a lot to make gaming more enjoyable.

Then it should be about the same percentage away or less from the 5900 Ultra. I happen to think the 5950 is a totally useless release, but that's just me. The 5950 Ultra is to the 5900 Ultra what the P4 3.2EE is to the P4 3.2C.



i don't follow you line of thinking here, but okay...

The 5950 Ultra is an overclocked version of the 5900 Ultra with a bigger price tag. According to Pricewatch (I couldn't find a decent comparison in Newegg), the 5950 is 70 dollars more expensive, but it performs very similar. The P4 3.2EE is a P4 3.2C with 3MB of L3 Cache. It costs double and possibly more than the P4 3.2C and performs very similar. Price wise they are not worth spending the money. Similar with the 9800 Pro and the 9800 XT. The XT isn't that much quicker to justify the premium. According to Pricewatch with the 9800 case, the XT is 200 dollars more expensive. For within 10fps, one has to be joking. Well, seems to me that the only cards worth buying are still 128MB cards, them being the 5900 XT and the 9800 Pro.

again, that's part of the big problem. if you're going to "advise", it's not what's important to you, it's what's important to the person seeking advice. that's the problem with taking a 'fanboi' approach to this stuff. tell it like it is, be objective, and let the person who is asking for advice decide what's important to them.

I do take what they want into consideration. I just use the points most important to me to argue the case. If they want something because of this then let them have it.

as far as how aa can look, alot depends on the angles. in pure and horizontal angles, there's really no discernable difference, however at certain angles, ati's method handles it better.. depending on the scene being rendered there may or may not be a noticeable difference; it just depends. yea, overall, ati is better, but often you have to REALLY scrutinize a scene or even magnify it in order to tell a difference.

See, I don't have to scrutinize the scene. I remember having the 5900 and have a line that was like 5-10 degrees from perfection. Those were annoying. Now with the 9700 Pro, I don't notice them, and when I try to, it's not anwhere as noticeable as the Nvidia's method. This is only 2xAA.

as far as not always know how to answer a point, the problem is when someone says something quite logical that directly contradicts or refutes your statement, and you simply ignore it.. well, what does that look like?

That means I have lost. I can't come with a comeback.

but again you're being selective to fit your own view of how things are. how about a $160 5900xt or a $210 9800pro? if someone says he can't spend over $170, you'll say something like "spend $210 on the ati, it demolishes the 5900xt", or if someone asks what 5900xt is the best, you'll jump in and say "but the 9700pro"... that's being a fanboi, not giving objective advice. see..

I wouldn't recommend the 9800 Pro over the 5900 XT at those prices because the 5900 XT is obviously a better buy. The only thing I could have done was say: buy a 9700 Pro, but only if there was a 10 dollar price difference between the 5900 XT. Nvidia would win in this case.

again, selective reasoning... the 9700pro is discountinued as well, tho there are more available still in channels than the 5900.

I know that it is discontinued, but, like you said, more are available compared to the 5900. Also the 5900 XT performs similar to the 5900. The only card that performs similar to the 9700 Pro is the 9800, but that is non-existant.

 

[BFG10K]

said it was a driver issue... my point was the lovely ATi drivers.

ATi has driver issues for sure, but then so does nVidia.

The next time you download a ForceWare driver take the time to read what has been fixed and what outstanding issues remain. I think you might be surprised.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Ah but when ATI had very bad drivers during the days of the Rage, certainly they couldn't have improved things since then, it isn't like their hardware has gotten any faster

 

[tastyeel2121]

The question is how much faster can you make them? Ive never used nvidia in my entire life so i dont how they perform but i do know that my 9600XT kicks ass especially when ive got it runing 590core/682mem with every setting cranked up and still getting a modist 95fps. Id personally stick with the ATi but hey what do i know.

 

[CaiNaM]

Show me an example.

comments such as, "If you're open to kinky things, then a 9800 Pro would demolish both" when someone asked which to get, a 5900 or 5900u... there's been other occasion, but i'm not going to go link to all of them.. not like it's uncommon

Supreme just means: at the top. I am not ignoring price.

okie

Kinda, it means that the 9800 XT is a waste of money

ditto

I would never recommend and have not recommended a 9600 over a 5700... <snip>

i only even mentioned that as you said it earlier in this thread, 9600 Pro or 5700. 9600 Pro wins

Yeah, you're right here. They are very overclockable too.

okie

ATI's IQ improvements over Nvidia's IQ. I meant that ATI's IQ improvements are generations ahead of its time, but they do a lot to make gaming more enjoyable.

hmm.. well, they're not exactly generations ahead of comparable nv parts.. so i'm not sure what you mean. i'll grant certain things are a bit better, but there are many others that complain ati colors are a bit washed out, while ati fans says the the nv is too "saturated" or the deeper colors are not as "realistic" heh.. i guess to each their own, these things are subjective for many reasons

That means I have lost. I can't come with a comeback.

heh.. okay, i'll try and remember that

The 5950 Ultra is an overclocked version of the 5900 Ultra... <snip>

hmm.. well, i know a couple of people who have the EE, and really like it.. in certain things there is a noticeable difference... but i'm not gonna argue that as it's a different subject altogether.. apparently we do agree on one area tho, the premium price on the nv ultras and 9800xt are not worthwhile for the performance gain (same with an $800 EE cpu i suppose... )

I do take what they want into consideration. I just use the points most important to me to argue the case. If they want something because of this then let them have it.

like pointing out ati in at least 2 threads where specifically people askes about which nv product is better? i guess our views just differ....

See, I don't have to scrutinize the scene.... <snip>

i always run 4xaa on both products, so i won't argue there.. however 4x is rather standard in all the benchies also.

I wouldn't recommend the 9800 Pro over the 5900 XT at those prices because the 5900 XT is obviously a better buy. The only thing I could have done was say: buy a 9700 Pro, but only if there was a 10 dollar price difference between the 5900 XT. Nvidia would win in this case.

okies, i'd agree with that... tho personally i think it's kind of a tossup.. if the extra cash doesn't bother you, the 9800pro is at least as good, if not a better bargain... tho imo the xt would edge it out in performance for the $.

I know that it is discontinued, but, like you said, more are available compared to the 5900. Also the 5900 XT performs similar to the 5900. The only card that performs similar to the 9700 Pro is the 9800, but that is non-existant.

 

[VIAN]

comments such as, "If you're open to kinky things, then a 9800 Pro would demolish both" when someone asked which to get, a 5900 or 5900u... there's been other occasion, but i'm not going to go link to all of them.. not like it's uncommon

"If you're open to kinky things" - meant, if you don't mind buying ATI.
9800 Pro would perform better than the 5900 and is cheaper than the 5900 Ultra while providing a bit better performance. It is true. The 5900 Ultra is 80-100 dollars more expensive and the 9800 Pro does indeed perform better than the 5900. The 5900 competes better with the 9800. It makes sense, maybe my choice of words throws you off.

i only even mentioned that as you said it earlier in this thread, 9600 Pro or 5700. 9600 Pro wins

The 9600 isn't the same as the 9600 Pro.

hmm.. well, they're not exactly generations ahead of comparable nv parts.. so i'm not sure what you mean. i'll grant certain things are a bit better, but there are many others that complain ati colors are a bit washed out, while ati fans says the the nv is too "saturated" or the deeper colors are not as "realistic" heh.. i guess to each their own, these things are subjective for many reasons

Goddammit, I wrote it wrong again. Here it is:

ATI's IQ improvements over Nvidia's IQ. I meant that ATI's IQ improvements aren't generations ahead of its time, but they do a lot to make gaming more enjoyable.

I happen to think that the ATI colors are more natural looking.

like pointing out ati in at least 2 threads where specifically people askes about which nv product is better? i guess our views just differ....

All some people know is Nvidia. I at least offer the choice. Then if they still want an Nvidia card they can say so. I've read threads where people were totally unaware and just say "I've heard of Nvidia." I'm just making sure they know their choices.

Ill be back to answer more questions.