Torn between choosing 9500 Pro or 4800TI *Update 5/7/03*

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Rollo
"That's bull$hit and you know it, Keys. The ti4600 is inferior to the 9500 in every way: price, performance, AND drivers (Nvidia drivers aren't WHQL certified).

Oh, and I forgot to mention DirectX9 compatability. "

Really Sickbeast?
Let's see:
Price: They cost about the same. (~ $200. for an ATI 9500 Pro, $190-$225 for various Ti4600)
Performance: Without AA/Aniso, about the same. 9500 is better with.
Drivers: This isn't even close. nVidia drivers have ALWAYS been better than ATI drivers, less issues.
DX9 compatibility? Which is good for what exactly? Can you show us some benchmarks of DX9 games?

You get pretty fired up about 9500Pros for a guy using a 8500? Have you ever even USED a 9500Pro to know what you're talking about? I'll tell you this:
As a guy who owns/uses a 9700Pro and a Ti4200, the Ti has less driver/hardware compatibility issues.

Fair enough. I just think that ATI's drivers have come a long way, and people continue to bash them. They've been releasing drivers about once a month for the past while now. I have absolutely zero driver related issues with my 8500, and I guess I incorrectly assumed that ATI was doing just as good a job with the 9500.

You're wrong about the directx 9 compatibility tho. The 9500 is definitely much more future-proof because of this.

As for the performance thing, AF makes a huge difference, regardless of what resolution you run your games at. AA is useful at lower resolutions. Also keep in mind that the 2D output on the 9500 should be alot better (from what I've heard, not from experience).

 

[grabadude]

I just ordered 9500 Pro from Newegg. If i'll have any problems i'll work hard to fix it.

 

[J5im8yo]

9500 Pro is better in many ways.
-It has Dx9 support, yes, there is no game using it right now but they're out soon and if you have Ti4600. Well...it's just too bad because 9500 Pro will burn Ti4600 since its optimized for dx9.
-9500 Pro has AGP 8x support. Ti4600 doesn't and the lowest priced Ti4600 with is around 220 bucks which is a lot more expensive then a 9500 Pro and if you might as well just get a 9700 instead.
-All 9500 Pro are pretty much the same, not all Ti4600 are the same. Different manufacture uses different settings and in order to compete well with 9500 Pro. Well, you need a higher priced Ti4600 around ~230 and that is without 8x support in most cases.
-9500 Pro has superior image quality then Ti4600.
-9500 Pro has more pipeline then Ti4600
-9500 Pro drivers are constantly improving and you're worried about stability and compability well there are unofficial drivers which does a even better job then official ATi driver. ie Omega driver.

Ti4600 have less compability issues but like I say there are alternatives for ATi drivers.

By the way Visiontek 9500 Pro all comes with 3.0 infineon.

 

[J5im8yo]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Rollo
"That's bull$hit and you know it, Keys. The ti4600 is inferior to the 9500 in every way: price, performance, AND drivers (Nvidia drivers aren't WHQL certified).

Oh, and I forgot to mention DirectX9 compatability. "

Really Sickbeast?
Let's see:
Price: They cost about the same. (~ $200. for an ATI 9500 Pro, $190-$225 for various Ti4600)
Performance: Without AA/Aniso, about the same. 9500 is better with.
Drivers: This isn't even close. nVidia drivers have ALWAYS been better than ATI drivers, less issues.
DX9 compatibility? Which is good for what exactly? Can you show us some benchmarks of DX9 games?

You get pretty fired up about 9500Pros for a guy using a 8500? Have you ever even USED a 9500Pro to know what you're talking about? I'll tell you this:
As a guy who owns/uses a 9700Pro and a Ti4200, the Ti has less driver/hardware compatibility issues.

Fair enough. I just think that ATI's drivers have come a long way, and people continue to bash them. They've been releasing drivers about once a month for the past while now. I have absolutely zero driver related issues with my 8500, and I guess I incorrectly assumed that ATI was doing just as good a job with the 9500.

You're wrong about the directx 9 compatibility tho. The 9500 is definitely much more future-proof because of this.

As for the performance thing, AF makes a huge difference, regardless of what resolution you run your games at. AA is useful at lower resolutions. Also keep in mind that the 2D output on the 9500 should be alot better (from what I've heard, not from experience).

By the way do you even own a 9700 Pro because if you do anyone can see its advatange over Ti4600. ie image quality, speed differences.

 

[nRollo]

Sickbeast:
"I just think that ATI's drivers have come a long way, and people continue to bash them"
Their driver issues ARE a LOT better than days gone by, I haven't seen any driver issues with my 9700Pro, unless you count Giants. (which I don't given their nVidia funding)
I have seen first hand the scrolling wavey lines on the monitor I'm typing this on, a Sony 19" HMD A400 I bought new at Circuit City January 02. I don't get them on a Nokia 21" 445Xpro I bought off a co-worker, so I use the 9700 with it. (and I don't want to HEAR interference from other hardware- Antec 430W True Power, Asus P4PE, P4 2.53, 512 Crucial PC2700- this is decent equipment running at stock speeds) I got the wavey lines on 2/3 monitors I own.

"You're wrong about the directx 9 compatibility tho. The 9500 is definitely much more future-proof because of this."
VGAs aren't future proof, period. It will be interesting to see how long it is before there is a clear advantage in owning a DX9 compatible card. Wasn't the original Radeon VIVO DX8.1 and the GF2 series DX 7? And a Radeon VIVO was never a faster card than an Ultra at anything?

"AF makes a huge difference, regardless of what resolution you run your games at. AA is useful at lower resolutions"
What interests me is you never see any reviews of AF that are realistic. I play UT2003 every day, 10X7X32, high quality, 4x AF. You wouldn't cut your fps by 2/3 like this:
9500Pro 160fps 10X7 no AF
Yikes! Down to 66fps with AF/AA!
If we're playing each other online, and I have 160 fps average, you have 66 fps average, who wins? (hint: not you)

122fps no AF
Uhoh. Down to 78fps by using 8x AF

Now, how about guys like me that run 4x AF, quality settings? How much difference in a 4600 and a 9500Pro there?

J5IM8YO:
"By the way do you even own a 9700 Pro because if you do anyone can see its advatange over Ti4600. ie image quality, speed differences"
I've had one since last fall, I bought it at Best Buy. I almost bought another for my 3 year olds computer (which is about the same as yours (1700+, nforce, etc) till I saw the $90 deal on 4200s at BB and couldn't resist.

 

[rogue1979]

I've owned the 9500, 9500 Pro, 9700 and 9700 Pro. While ATI drivers are good, I still found a few gaming glitches. I still like my Ti4200 128MB @ 4600 speeds the best. This is a preference thing. The 9500 Pro, 9700 and of course 9700 Pro are faster than the Geforce4. But if you play 1600 x 1200 without FSAA or AF the GF4 is as fast as the 9500 Pro. Personally, I can't tell a big difference using FSAA at 1600 x 1200. So I just went with the GF4 for tried and true game compatibility in everything. Plus my fsb is running 183MHz on a 1/5 divisor, the GF4 rocks no problem, all the 9500-9700 series were unstable until I lowered the fsb speed!

 

[nRollo]

"Personally, I can't tell a big difference using FSAA at 1600 x 1200"
Dammit Rogue, get out your magnifying glass and find those tiny jaggies! LOL

Sometimes I think all these sites are advertising vehicles for their sponsors:
"It's when you enable 4X FSAA/8X AF the differences REALLY show!"
Of course, you've whacked 60% off your framerate, given up totally smooth animation too, but what the heck? You've justified your card purchase and can now go on bbs like this and say, "That 16X12 is OK for some people, but I find 12X10 8XAF performance, 2X AA, to be the IDEAL setting- you would too if you could run it as well as I can!"

Reminds me of the reason I cancelled my PC Magazine subscription back in the 80s- you can only read so many commercials. "We found an Excel spread sheet ran a whole 5 seconds faster with the new P2-233!"

 

[Bopple]

Many ppl notice the jaggies even at 1600*1200 with 2AA when playing slow-paced games or fps at not-so-dynamic scene. So do i.
If you don't notice it, it's all too well to buy ti4600. But then again, there are DX9 games coming.
Actually, i don't think even neither 9700p nor 5800u will be enough for any serious DX9 games. But for starter DX9 games, they'll be good enough.
And you may notice the differences of aa/af.

So it seems to me, buying R300 series over nv25/nv30 series is quite reasonable both performance-wise and cost-effectiveness-wise.

 

[J5im8yo]

It's popularly accepted that ATi drivers do have some glitches although they've come a long way and still working on it. It is also popularly accepted that 9500 Pro is the best bang for the buck right now. Its obvious so Ti4800 is an excellent card but just can't compete with 9500 Pro in my opinion.

 

[AtomicDude512]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Your worries about driver problems are well justified. Just get the Nvidia. You wont be dissappointed.
No headaches. Install and forget....
Keys

That's bull$hit and you know it, Keys. The ti4600 is inferior to the 9500 in every way: price, performance, AND drivers (Nvidia drivers aren't WHQL certified).

Oh, and I forgot to mention DirectX9 compatability.

 

[SickBeast]

you guys can roll your eyes all that you want...i was simply fed up with reading biased nvidia posts. if you're going to blindly reccomend nvidia products without facts to back up your arguement, you should be posting over at nvnews. saying that one card is better than the other based on the *assumption* that one card has better drivers than the other is crazy. the whole driver issue debate is pretty subjective; some users will have problems with an nvidia card, while others with ati cards will have different issues. performance, on the other hand, is pretty cut and dry, provided that there is no "cheating" going on in the drivers.

i didn't mean anything as a personal flame. roll your eyes some more

 

[classy]

Truthfully in games, both of those cards are very good. The 9500 is faster in some games and vice versa. I honestly doubt you'll really tell the difference in actual use. Unless of course you run benchmarks all darn day.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: grabadude
Update:

Ordered 9500 Pro

No comment...

~Aunix

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

If we're playing each other online, and I have 160 fps average, you have 66 fps average, who wins? (hint: not you)

So basically, its a hardware battle here. I see, no skill, whoever can see something happen first, wins. Ok, I guess playing at a low level requires hardware to make up for it. Come on, I know plenty of people playing at 40FPS who are very good players. If FPS is the reason one person wins, then I wouldn't want to waste my time against the person who wins because of hardware.

Now, how about guys like me that run 4x AF, quality settings? How much difference in a 4600 and a 9500Pro there?

There is still a difference in image quality. Also, the 4x AF will increase performance on both cards, but how much of a difference will there be? Choosing a card based on just UT2K3, doesn't mean as much as a general overview. In most of the areas, the 9500 Pro beats the Nvidia card.

To me it sounds like your defending the card because you own one. *sigh*

 

[sash1]

"To me it sounds like your defending the card because you own one. *sigh*"

He owns a 9700Pro. But nice try anyways

"So basically, its a hardware battle here. I see, no skill, whoever can see something happen first, wins. Ok, I guess playing at a low level requires hardware to make up for it. Come on, I know plenty of people playing at 40FPS who are very good players. If FPS is the reason one person wins, then I wouldn't want to waste my time against the person who wins because of hardware."

Most likely he was talking Ceteris paribus. Like, if I could clone myself and play myself 1v1 on some game. If I had the better computer, I would beat the clone because I could react faster.

~Aunix

 

[nRollo]

Aunix:
You beat me to it. Well said.

Agabooga:
What Aunix said.

Yes, fps is pretty key in playing online fps games, and it's harder to win if your card is choking due to your AA/AF settings. I still say there just isn't hardware powerful enough to run good AA/AF yet at what i consider usable speeds. When you're making sacrifices like "performance"settings, lower settings, lower resolution, etc.- what's the point unless you're playing a SIM?

 

[grabadude]

Updated the thread and need some suggestions

 

[T9D]

..

 

[chsh1ca]

Try a Sapphire card, or definitely consider the Ti4600 as the next best alternative.

 

[grabadude]

Originally posted by: chsh1ca
Try a Sapphire card, or definitely consider the Ti4600 as the next best alternative.

The card I had problems with was made by Sapphire.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: grabadude
The card I had problems with was made by Sapphire.

In that case, you could look for an alternate R9500Pro, or you could pick yourself up a Ti4600. Either way, it really depends on whether AA/AF really are important to you. I'm not familiar with what causes the rolling bars problem, so I don't really know if finding another card will help at all. It's possibly a safer bet to go with a Ti4600.

 

[grabadude]

In that case, you could look for an alternate R9500Pro, or you could pick yourself up a Ti4600

I ordered FIC Radeon 9500 Pro today

I'm not familiar with what causes the rolling bars problem, so I don't really know if finding another card will help at all

People have been trying to diagnose the source of this problem but so far there is no solution to this except exchanging the card for a new one.

 

[Tnvolsfan]

Which system you put your ATI in and have problems? What was giving you the gray lines? Were you DVI or VGA?

 

[grabadude]

Which system you put your ATI in and have problems?

The specs are in my signature

What was giving you the gray lines?

It never happened before I installed the 9500 Pro

Were you DVI or VGA?

Had problems on VGA output. Using DVI adapter fixed it but I find this kind of fix unacceptable.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: grabadude
Had problems on VGA output. Using DVI adapter fixed it but I find this kind of fix unacceptable.

I personally don't blame ya. Please keep us posted. I'm personally interested in if this gets resolved since I'm saving up for one of these babies.