• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

**Official NV35 preview/review thread**

L

Leon

Platinum Member
AV just posted preview

It's 2 PCI slots, at least for Ultra, and they claim the fan is quiter than 4600 series, which is a good sign.

Keep in mind, some of their info is plain wrong (5900 have 13Gb memory bandwdith), so I would wait for better articles.

We should see more in the morning.

Edit - More reviews

AnandTech (yeah, start visiting the home page you forum freaks)
ExtremeTech
Hexus
Hot Hardware
Neoseeker
Sudhian Media
The Tech Report
Tom's Hardware
3DGPU
X-Bit Labs
bjorn3d
 
yeah, they calculated the bandwidth by half
probably they forgot to factor in the 256-bit bus in their calculations
 
This site has the worst method of posting benchmarks I have yet seen. Their large spread sheets make it very difficult to pick out certain settings and compare different cards. Looks like a rush job to be the first out there. The large number of typos point in that direction too. And what's with the UT 2003 benchmarks? They post every AA/AF setting for the FX5900 and the one ATi setting they use the NVidia card doesn't have making the comparison worthless. From what I could gleen it looks like NVidia has taken back the performance crown. ATi should have been a bit more ambitious with the 9800Pro.
 
Not sure if their results are completely accurate, but in UT2k3 at the highest setting they are showing the R9700Pro twice as fast as the 5800U and the 5900U twice as fast as the R9700.....
 
notice how they say the 5900U has lower memory speed than the radeons. they forget to mention thats not counting x2 (DDR) while the radeons are already multiplied by 2.
 
I would advise ignoring anything on the tech end for this review. I'm sure the guy gave it his best shot, but it is loaded with screw ups.
 
Hmmm pretty bad preview, some of those results seem way off. The 5900U is faster with 8x anso than without in 3dmark 2001? I dont think so. Come on Anand surely u can lift that NDA a little early? 🙂
 
Oh my gosh, from what I've read. Nvidia > ATi, espically with the AF/AA settings. This looks like my next videocard... or at least, some "budget" version of NV35 🙂. Hopefully Nvidia can still improve on the speed with some driver updates when released.

/me awaits Anand's review!
 
I must say I prefer Kyle's review over Anand's, specifically because Kyle paid a lot more attention to IQ. nVidia did NOT take the IQ crown from ATi:

Looking at AA Quality, we came to the conclusion that the ATI 9800 Pro 256MB card still has hands down the best AA quality. You cannot beat ATI?s rotated grid with gamma correct AA. NVIDIA still uses an ordered grid sampling pattern on the NV35. They do get marks though for implementing Multi-Sampling + Super-Sampling modes. However, even though those options exist, ATI?s AA still looks better, even though its just Multi-Sampling...

Overall, when judging image quality, we have to give the hat to the 9800 Pro. There isn?t a huge noticeable difference in the Anisotropic quality, even though ATI?s may not be filtering certain angles "correctly". Most games have straight 90 degree angles or long hallways or ceilings or walls, etc. At 16XAF the ATI 9800 Pro 256MB looks awesome in games like Medal of Honor or Battlefield 1942. On the 9800 Pro 256MB we did not notice as many jaggies whereas on the 5900 Ultra, aliasing is quite apparent when you are given a static screen shot to gaze at...

Given those facts, the 9800 Pro still holds the IQ crown, but NVIDIA is right behind them.

It almost seems like in every benchmark the cards go back and forth, dancing around each other. One map will run one card faster, another map will run the other one.

Both cards offer exceptional performance, but if I have to place my finger on which card I would choose for my primary system that I play my games on, I would have to opt for the 256MB 9800 Pro. It has better AA quality, and can play at 6XAA on a 256MB card very easily. It has also proven to be very strong in shader operations.

 
There isn?t a huge noticeable difference in the Anisotropic quality, even though ATI?s may not be filtering certain angles "correctly". Most games have straight 90 degree angles or long hallways or ceilings or walls, etc.
Click to expand...

I actually preferred Anand`s review,remember even in Kyle's review the difference was not huge IQ wise.

Too many factors determine a good video card, not just IQ.
 
I must say I prefer Kyle's review over Anand's, specifically because Kyle paid a lot more attention to IQ. nVidia did NOT take the IQ crown from ATi:
Click to expand...

No surprise to anyone who's been reading these forums for awhile. If fact if the reviews were reversed I'm sure you would have prefered Anands.
Of couse "IQ" is dependant on the "eye of the beholder" isn't it?
Perhaps we should wait a few days and add up all the reviews?


Given those facts, the 9800 Pro still holds the IQ crown, but NVIDIA is right behind them.
Click to expand...

And that's what's really causing the consternation in ATI fanboiland- with results this close many more people will opt for the 5900 series.
A quick trip around the web forums and newsgroups shows a lot of attempts to rip the new nV offering -a sure sign that the 5900 is what the 5800 should have been🙂


Mike G
 
The fact that Kyle still would prefer a Radeon 9800 PRO to a GeForceFX 5900 Ultra in his personal system says a lot about just how much better ATi's IQ is. If it were simply marginal, he would have gone with the slightly-faster card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top