Which do you own? R9800 Pro or GeForce FX5800Ultra?

[nRollo]

"My 9700 Pro is better than one of the cards on that list. "
Sure thing, BFG, if by "better" you mean "slower" at most non AA/AF benhmarks, and soem AA/AF benchmarks. Slow and steady wins the race, said the tortoise to the hare.

"I put my 5800 Ultra back in for the heck of it and I still can't take it!!! hehe.. "
I went to a lot of concerts when I was younger, computer fans can't penetrate the ringing in my ears.

 

[ultimatebob]

I'll bet that the majority of the people in this forum still have GeForce 4 Ti4200's, because they were considered to be the best "value card" for almost a year.

 

[Guspaz]

Where can the Radeon 9800 be purchased? ATI.com doesn't sell it yet, and it's not listed on pricewatch. (Must ship to Canada)

 

[klee]

9800 pro visiontek

klee

 

[BFG10K]

Sure thing, BFG, if by "better" you mean "slower" at most non AA/AF benhmarks, and soem AA/AF benchmarks.

People with $400 cards do not run at low detail levels. If you do, neither card is a good choice for you and you'd do far better off with a Ti4200/8500/9100 instead.

Slow and steady wins the race, said the tortoise to the hare.

 

[nRollo]

"People with $400 cards do not run at low detail levels"
I had no idea FSAA increased "detail", thanks for clearing that up BFG!

It's still amazing how you know how all people use (and should use) their VGAs.

BTW- I wonder whose games look better:
My 12X10X32, 4x AF, high detail settings, or your 16X12X32, 8XAF, 2XAA "performance" detail settings. (what I think you told me you run at)

 

[chsh1ca]

Lemme clear up the purpose behind this poll. This is NOT a poll asking "what do you want to buy?" This is a poll saying "What do you actually own?" I want to know the number of people who actually OWN either of said cards. There has been much debate about how the number of R9800Pro owners vastly outnumbers the number of FX5800Ultra owners, and out of curiosity, I wanted to see how many people here actually owned one or the other. The third option there is a catch all so that people would know I'm looking specifically for the people who CURRENTLY OWN either card.

I don't know why so many of you took my question as posted as "what video card do you want to own?" or "what video card do you currently own?". The question is as stated, If you own either an R9800 Pro, or a GeForce FX5800 Ultra, then please select that option, if not, then you can ignore this poll.

Furthermore, before taking a shot like 'nice poll for targeting 0.01% of the forum', you might want to take 30 seconds and actually read what you're responding to. The entire purpose of this poll was to determine how many people actually do own either of these cards. The rest of you can just ignore the poll and not select anything. Jeez.

 

[zodder]

I'm still plugging along on my lowly 9700 Pro..............

 

[BFG10K]

I had no idea FSAA increased "detail", thanks for clearing that up BFG!

You know exactly what I mean.

It's still amazing how you know how all people use (and should use) their VGAs.

This is nothing do with me, it's the concept of the right tool for the job. Why pay more money when you can get equal performance at lower detail settings from a cheaper card? The whole point of buying a high-end card is so you can run at high levels of eye candy.

or your 16X12X32, 8XAF, 2XAA "performance" detail settings. (what I think you told me you run at)

I don't use those settings, I use 1600 x 1200 x 32 (actually now I use 1792 x 1344 more than 1600 x 1200 so I guess that's my standard resolution now) with 16x performance anisotropic.

I'm still plugging along on my lowly 9700 Pro.............

Rollo? Is that you?

 

[nRollo]

BFG:
Really? So the cheaper cards are capable of running the only game I play (UT2003) just as fast without the AA/AF? Let's see:

Cheap fast cards
Now wait a minute, at my preferred resolution (1280) my old Ti4400 was only 67% as fast as my 9700Pro is now. That doesn't seem to support your position BFG. As "uninformed" as I am, I can probably tell the difference between 106 and 157fps.

Uhoh. I see a trend at the 1280 X 960
Looks like Sharky disagrees with you too BFG? What could be happening?

Tom shows it's way better UT2003 at 12X10 with a 9700Pro
I'm not liking this trend BFG. It's almost like these reviewers are directly contradicting you. Don't they know their stuff?

What about other games/cards?
Hmmm Serious Sam 2 as well.
9700Pro is 30fps faster at 1280. I don't think these guys have read enough of your posts to know how to write a review BFG.....

I don't know BFG. I could go on, but it would seem pointless. It looks like there are some situations (the only ones that matter to me) where a guy can just benefit from having a fast card, even if he doesn't use 16X performance mode AF. What have things come to?

 

[BFG10K]

Really? So the cheaper cards are capable of running the only game I play (UT2003) just as fast without the AA/AF? Let's see:

Uh no, you're shifting the goalposts of your argument again. Firstly you said you run at 4x AF which isn't even in the results you posted to. Secondly yes, if you're running at high detail levels then the comparison needs to go between the 9700 Pro and the FX and even at your settings the 9700 Pro will be superior in terms of speed and looks. Also it's pointless to even run at 4x on the Radeon since the jump to 16x (performance) doesn't even have a significant performance hit.

Unlike the FX which can't even do 16x AF and has both much higher performance hits and lower image quality if you try to match the Radeon's speed.

 

[nRollo]

"Also it's pointless to even run at 4x on the Radeon since the jump to 16x (performance) doesn't even have a significant performance hit."
I run the quality settings bfg. There may be "no performance hit" with performance, but I'm thinking there would be at quality.

 

[chsh1ca]

"I run the quality settings bfg."
Then you aren't using the card as it can be best used. Every reviewer I've seen has made the point of saying how little a visible difference 16X Performance AF has from 16X Quality AF, and there's a significant speed gain to be had. For the balance of speed/AF performance you want, you should run the Radeon at 16X Performance AF, which is offers the best ratio of AF quality to speed at 1600x1200x32 than any other AF capable cards out there.

Don't trash the card because you're using it incorrectly. I guess I was wrong about thinking you weren't ignorant earlier.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: chsh1ca
"I run the quality settings bfg."
Then you aren't using the card as it can be best used. Every reviewer I've seen has made the point of saying how little a visible difference 16X Performance AF has from 16X Quality AF, and there's a significant speed gain to be had. For the balance of speed/AF performance you want, you should run the Radeon at 16X Performance AF, which is offers the best ratio of AF quality to speed at 1600x1200x32 than any other AF capable cards out there.

Don't trash the card because you're using it incorrectly. I guess I was wrong about thinking you weren't ignorant earlier.

Good lord. Where to start with this mess of absurdity?

"Then you aren't using the card as it can be best used. "
How would YOU know what MY best use of my card is? How would you know what the best use of this card is, period? You use an ancient VGA that I didn't even buy when it was current, because it's so crippled.

"Every reviewer I've seen has made the point of saying how little a visible difference 16X Performance AF has from 16X Quality AF, and there's a significant speed gain to be had"
Ever look at it yourself? IMO, I like quality better so I use it. Since you're smart, let's see if you can do some math:

16X Performance =11% performance drop 4X Quality = 38% performance drop

SO:
Ooops, taking 11% off of 16X12 is 25% slower than taking 38% off of 10X7

So I play UT2003 with 4X Quality AF because: a. I don't like slowdowns b. I don't buy the performance looks the same argument c. I often play it with 12X10, no AF for reason A.

"Don't trash the card because you're using it incorrectly. I guess I was wrong about thinking you weren't ignorant earlier"
A. I don't trash the card, I love the card. It really kicks a$$, and is light years better than anything except a 5800.
B. LOL- call me "ignorant" all you like while squint at your Ti200 produced slurs. I don't tell you how to use your hardware, don't tell me how to use mine.

 

[BFG10K]

I run the quality settings bfg.

Fair enough.

There may be "no performance hit" with performance, but I'm thinking there would be at quality.

Yes, there probably is. But the beauty of performance anisotropic is that it looks almost as good as quality but it has barely any peformance hit.

How would YOU know what MY best use of my card is?

While I won't tell you how to use your card, keep in mind that 16x performance looks better than 4x quality and probably runs much faster too. You'd gain image quality and speed at the same time which is a win-win situation.

I have exhaustively tested performance and quality anisotropic and the differences are tiny to non-existant. Even after coming from a Ti4600 and using nVidia's 8x anisotropic whenever possible I found the 9700 Pro produces much sharper and crisper images for longer distances than the Ti4600 does. And don't even get me started on the 9700 Pro's speed advantages; a ~10% speed hit for 16x performance anisotropic while the Ti4600 sometimes lost 50% even when just using 2x.