I was looking at benchies and the 5900 bests the 9800pro, plus nvidias drivers are rock solid. So why are people suggesting the 9800 over the 5900 (non ultra)
why not an 5900 vs 9800 pro
- Thread starter Zarick
- Start date
It depends which 5900 it is if its the 5900NU no way can it beat a 9800 because the Nu only has four pipes.
Gamingphreek
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 11,679
- 0
- 81
First of all, all 59xx cards have 8 pipes. To get technical there are 4 but they are double pumped to make it a "virtual" 8 pipes. The 5900NU does not beat the 9800 pro normally. Go to the latest Vid Card roundup on anandtech. However if you plan on O/Cing the card at all Nvidia is definatley the way top go. If you O/C this card to Max it does beat the 9800Pros and XTs on some tests but not all. If you want the best bang for you buck then buy the 5900NU and O/C it. If not i would still highly recommend it but the in ATIs camp there are some very good cards.
THE FX 5900 HAS FOUR PIXEL PIPELINES.
It's more advanced in some ways (double stencil ops per clock), but it can't output more than four pixels per clock, no matter what. You're not "getting technical" when you claim the 5900's four pipes are "double-pumped to make it a 'virtual' 8 pipes," you're just making things up. A 5900 can never output more than four pixels per clock, while a 9800 can output eight by virtue of its eight pipelines.
Now, just because the 9800 has twice the physical pipelines as the 5900 doesn't mean it's automatically better. GPUs are too getting too complicated to break them down to mere "pipeline x texture" specs. One GPU may take less time for a specific calculation than another, making it inherently faster per clock. You need to check out knowledgable reviews with well-explained benchmarks to see and understand how each card's unique architecture plays each unique game.
Most people recommend the 9800 over the 5900 because it's generally faster with AA+AF, it has better-looking AA, and all signs point to it far outperforming the 5900 with lots of DX9 effects--so what's not to recommend for the same price? But they're both good cards, each with good and bad points. nV's drivers (better dual-mon controls, Linux and 64-bit support) and lower price (5900XT vs. 9800P) may still make the 5900 a more attractive proposition to you despite its slower AA+AF performance.
It's more advanced in some ways (double stencil ops per clock), but it can't output more than four pixels per clock, no matter what. You're not "getting technical" when you claim the 5900's four pipes are "double-pumped to make it a 'virtual' 8 pipes," you're just making things up. A 5900 can never output more than four pixels per clock, while a 9800 can output eight by virtue of its eight pipelines.
Now, just because the 9800 has twice the physical pipelines as the 5900 doesn't mean it's automatically better. GPUs are too getting too complicated to break them down to mere "pipeline x texture" specs. One GPU may take less time for a specific calculation than another, making it inherently faster per clock. You need to check out knowledgable reviews with well-explained benchmarks to see and understand how each card's unique architecture plays each unique game.
Most people recommend the 9800 over the 5900 because it's generally faster with AA+AF, it has better-looking AA, and all signs point to it far outperforming the 5900 with lots of DX9 effects--so what's not to recommend for the same price? But they're both good cards, each with good and bad points. nV's drivers (better dual-mon controls, Linux and 64-bit support) and lower price (5900XT vs. 9800P) may still make the 5900 a more attractive proposition to you despite its slower AA+AF performance.
I'm not sure what benchies your looking at, but in most cases the 9800 pro is faster than a 5900, especially in dx9 or with aa and af enabled.
Rotf, nice job pulling these "facts" out of your a$$
I am talking about these Benchmarks
And an OEM Saphire 9800pro is almost exactly the same price at the retail ega5900. With my background using both nvidia I have found nvidias drivers to be incredibly stable and atis to cause lots of problems in games.
And an OEM Saphire 9800pro is almost exactly the same price at the retail ega5900. With my background using both nvidia I have found nvidias drivers to be incredibly stable and atis to cause lots of problems in games.
Those are benchmarks with overclocked cards and benchmarks that favour Nvidia.... probably the worst review I've seen in Anandtech.
UT2K3 is a DX7-level game, and those benchmarks are of overclocked cards. Don't use that graph to judge how each card will fare in the future. Your driver concern is fair, but if you haven't used ATi's drivers in the past year or so then you've missed some improvements (as all the 9700P reviews state).
ah.. I totally missed that they were overclocked. Sorry didn't realize it. All my ati driver experience comes from my first ati card.. the 8500
Go here for better comparison.
Those benches had card all overclocked an tested with low resolutions - no really stressing the cards, and they were and benches that ran better on nvidia cards. If you overclock, then nvidia may provide the better performance in most situations, but the IQ will still be lacking.
59x0 series only has 4 pixel pipelines with the ability to execute 2 textures per pipe. fillrate isn't as good as the 9800 series. Although the bandwidth is a lot higher than the Radeon. But fillrate would be nice to occupy that bandwidth. The Radeon has an advantage on single textures while the geforce has an advantage on multi-textures.
Overall I think the radeon is a better card. Benchmarks and IQ show. But the Geforce is also a great card non-deserving of being left out in the wind. They include many features- software wise that the radeon doesn't, such as 64-bit support like pete mentioned above, linux, less troubling drivers in some cases, and digital vibrance that people with ATI cards want.
Those benches had card all overclocked an tested with low resolutions - no really stressing the cards, and they were and benches that ran better on nvidia cards. If you overclock, then nvidia may provide the better performance in most situations, but the IQ will still be lacking.
59x0 series only has 4 pixel pipelines with the ability to execute 2 textures per pipe. fillrate isn't as good as the 9800 series. Although the bandwidth is a lot higher than the Radeon. But fillrate would be nice to occupy that bandwidth. The Radeon has an advantage on single textures while the geforce has an advantage on multi-textures.
Overall I think the radeon is a better card. Benchmarks and IQ show. But the Geforce is also a great card non-deserving of being left out in the wind. They include many features- software wise that the radeon doesn't, such as 64-bit support like pete mentioned above, linux, less troubling drivers in some cases, and digital vibrance that people with ATI cards want.
I was just surfing rage 3d site. The thing about the 9800pro I find disturbing is the same thing I found disturbing about the 8500. Issues with game after game after game. Each driver release fixing one game and breaking another. Why is this? Why do people find this acceptable?
I guess you haven't visited the nvidia technical forums then? You'll find the same thing there. Here's a hint: People generally only go to technical forums when they have problems.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter