taking back new card and getting another

[danieloneil01]

I did have a mx440 64 meg. Was a good card for the money but one day it just died so I went to my local computer store and was just wanting another card and didnt shop around and now I wished I did. I bought a Albatron GeForce 5600 EQ 256megs thinking that wow 256 megs thats sweet only 20 bucks more than a 126meg. But after seeing all the reviews on different forums, and playing my favorite game of all time BF 1942 and seeing that the new one compared to the old one was not a nig if at all any diff. by the way when I got the new card I upgraded my cpu from a 2000+ to a barton 2600+ 512cache. Now dont laugh when I tell you how much I paid for the Albatron GeForce 5600 EQ 256megs. Drums please........................ $217.00 with taz and when I take it back they charge 15% restocking fee (but if they want I can set it on the shelf for them :) Now I will go as high as 300 bucks with taxes so what is the best one for the dollars.......

[scoob19]

ati radeon 9800 pro/xt, got my pro about 4 months ago for $290 on ebay, not sure what they go for now.

[Someone Stupid]

9800 Pro 128 meg BBA's going for around 290 to 300 new off newegg.

Albatron is a great company just the even numbered FX cards blow regardless of manufacturer.

[iceblue]

Yikes! $217 :eek:
Best bang for the buck in the DX9 realm- 128mb gFX 5900 (non-se), going for $180 these days. . Anything higher would only be numbers. :t

[danieloneil01]

please no bias please just by the numbers which is better I was looking at benchmarks between the two but the 5900 was 256megs and did bet the 9800pro but a few it won in. I play games like bf 1942 and racing games. So maybe I wont find any diff between the two since they both scored very high fps in every test I seen. Both of them stayed with the way over-priced 5950.
But I would like to have 256megs since I will keep the card for a very long time........ Maybe this would be the deciding factor which one is easily overcloked and performs better when achieved at maximum performance.......

[scottluebke2003]

Buy the FX5900 128mb non ultra. Around 200 bucks and pushes mad frame rates.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-122-175&catalog=48&depa=1

Overclockable to FX5950 speeds

[MadPistol]

Yeah I know it is. I just got one. I regret though that it was defective. I had to send it back because it wouldn't show me the freakin shadows on Splinter Cell!!!

However, a new one was shipped to me today, so I will have it by next week. Life is sweet! :D

Buy a Geforce FX 5900 non-ultra card. It is one powerhouse of a card for only 128megs. It's just like the 64mb Geforce 4 Ti 4200 card when it first came out ------> Freakin tight performance, and really good price. Definately give this card a 10. :x :r

[danieloneil01]

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-130-179&depa=0&section=3

[tasty danish]

i admit, the price makes those good, but i doubt it will perform in dx9 too well, and if you want the best... gonna have to go 9800...

[iceblue]

The gFX 5900 performs in dx9 very well.

[MadPistol]

You seriously think the Geforce FX 5900 doesn't run well on DX9? OMFG! You are a moron! The Geforce FX 5900 runs smooth as glass on DX9 games. And they look so realistic.

I realize that there are more powerful cards out there, but for $200, you can't beat that kind of power for that kind of money. The Geforce FX 5900 kicks serious a**!

[danieloneil01]

so which is it guys 5900 or 9800, I've seen the benchmarks on both and there pretty close and I'm pretty sure if I had both I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a game, so I will more likely go with the cheaper of the two.

[Rugor]

It's like this-- The FX5900 is cheaper. It does have some issues with DX9 games with heavy PS2.0 usage, but in the vast majority of games performs very well.

The 9800 costs more, but has better Anti-Aliasing and also takes less of a performance hit from AA and AF than the Nvidia card. So with max eye-candy engaged it looks better and runs faster.

If you don't run with AA and AF then the FX5900 is probably your better choice. If you do use AA and AF then the 9800Pro is the better choice.

The 9800 Pro is the better card. However, the question you need to ask is whether it's enough better to be worth the price diffference. With AA and AF, yes. Without it, probably not unless you intend to play lots of PS2.0 heavy games.

[iceblue]

5900. It's got enough power to run at full AA/AF and max IQ settings and still have a minimum of 60fps. Spend nearly $300 for a a 9800pro and you'll just get a high FPS to boast about, yet doesn't do much to maximize the gameplay experience (since we can only see so much).

Nvidia's card does better at AF like Ati's does better in AA (most cases). Big deal, from the latest IQ comparisons of 2004 there is no way to tell them apart.

With only $180-200 you can get yourself a 128MB 5900 non-se, overclock to 5950 speeds, and save that money for other upgrades.

[tasty danish]

Originally posted by MadPistol
You seriously think the Geforce FX 5900 doesn't run well on DX9? OMFG! You are a moron! The Geforce FX 5900 runs smooth as glass on DX9 games. And they look so realistic.


:rolleyes: ok... ive argued this WAY too much to care anymore. go look up some benchmarks and get a clue instead of slandering people who have spent countless hours trying to convince fanboys of the truth.

yeah, the card (fx5900) is awesome, but it is incapable of running dx9 well. it can handle it, but just barely, and not at higher resolutions. the 5900 is the only nvidia card that can do dx9 at all because of the problems the fx engine has with dx9. its all over the net, go find out why.

[Imperion1]

MadPistol


What is Proper Conduct?

All members are expected to conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Members should understand that opinions vary. Do not use the forums for posting disrespectful or inflammatory remarks about anyone else. Any post violating this policy will be subject to editing or removal.

Can be found
HERE (http://www.sysopt.com/forum/faq/faq4.html)

[iceblue]

Only one that has tried or owns a 5900 would know how it really performs in the latest DX9 games. I have tried it and I know it handles, and handles very well.

[tasty danish]

yes, because numbers are liars.

[Direct1]

See for yourself... http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html. The Radeon 9800 (http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?DEPA=&sumit=Go&description=14%2D240%2D006&searchdepa=0) (Not SE, PRO, or XT model - just plain 9800) beats the GeForce4 5900 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-122-175&catalog=48&manufactory=BROWSE&depa=1). Of the 10 games listed under "Benchmarks", the 9800 performs better in 7 of them. So, according to THG's tests, the 9800 is the better choice of the two. Good luck! :D

[iceblue]

You didn't mention the price or availability.. and like "tasty danish" says, numbers lie ;)

On a side note: I'm surprised to see my 440 up there as the highest FPS per $ :D

[Direct1]

Click on the links... 9800 = $259 shipped in Stock. 5900 = $220 shipped in Stock.
I'm pretty sure Tasty Danish was being facetious. :p :D

[tasty danish]

9800 = $259 shipped in Stock. 5900 = $220 shipped in Stock. You didn't mention the price or availability Originally posted by tasty danish
i admit, the price makes those (5900's) good, but i doubt it will perform in dx9 too well, and if you want the best... gonna have to go 9800...
we have acknowledged that you will pay more for the 9800. there is a reason.

and iceblue, im positive that the winky meant that you were intelligent enough to catch my comment swimming in sarcasm, but just incase the less informed posters on here (not to mention any names...) didnt, yes i was being facetious as direct1 implied.

[Someone Stupid]

For those of you getting caught up in a certain argument, may I remind you this helpful feature?

Ignore List (http://www.sysopt.com/forum/member2.php?s=&action=viewlist&userlist=ignore)

[Direct1]

Originally posted by Someone Stupid
For those of you getting caught up in a certain argument, may I remind you this helpful feature?
Ignore List (http://www.sysopt.com/forum/member2.php?s=&action=viewlist&userlist=ignore)
SWEET!

For me, I'm not arguing with anyone. In reallity, I think both nVidia and ATI have good and bad cards. I like my Leadtek Ti4200 a lot (I don't play many games) but right now, I think gamers should get ATI cards. That may change down the road, who knows? :D

[iceblue]

The reason is a higher fps that you won't be able to notice. (example: in COD the 5900 was already getting about 100).

[iceblue]

Here's another tip: You won't learn anything by being ignorant. :t

[tasty danish]

Originally posted by iceblue
The reason is a higher fps that you won't be able to notice. (example: in COD the 5900 was already getting about 100).

true, but CoD is dx8. in dx8 the 5900 is totally awesome. possibly better than the 9800. but the fx engine can not play dx9 effectively.

[iceblue]

Originally posted by tasty danish
true, but CoD is dx8. in dx8 the 5900 is totally awesome. possibly better than the 9800. but the fx engine can not play dx9 effectively.
CoD is Direct X 9.

[Rugor]

CoD may ship with DX9, and it may require DX9, but that does not say anything about whether it uses any of DX9's video features. Neverwinter Nights requires DX8.1 to run, despite the fact the rendering engine is coded entirely in OpenGL. However that game does take advantage of DX8.1's networking and sound features.

The real question before us is whether CoD uses any of the new features implemented in the D3D subset of the DX9 API. Does it require a floating point pixel pipeline, PS2.0 and/or VS2.0 shaders? That's what's important for what's commonly called "DX9" performance.

Nvidia cards are much slower than ATI when using floating point pixel shaders (ie PS2.0). ATI simply has faster Pixel Shader hardware.

If a game makes extensive use of PS2.0 it will run faster on ATI cards than Nvidia unless some tradeoffs and optimizations are made. ATI's design is a better implementation of the DX9 spec as applied to graphics chips than Nvidia's. It hews closer to the spec, and runs better on unoptimized DX9 code.

Nvidia's design for the GfFX cards is different, it vastly exceeds the spec in some ways, and has trouble with performance in other ways. It exceeds the FP24 spec with FP32, but can't run FP32 shaders fast enough to make much use of them. It's faster with FP16 (because the use of 16-bit numbers effectively doubles the number of registers) but doesn't meet the full spec when doing it.

It's a very tricky thing.

[iceblue]

Infinity Ward (the developers) re-worked the base engine and added Direct X 9 features. In addition, all the reviews I've seen label it as a DX9 game. :t

[Rugor]

I just did a little research on Call of Duty, while it is described as requiring a DX9.0a compatible video card, the only reqired feature is Hardware T&L which was introduced in DX7. However, it turns out the game uses a heavily modified Quake 3 engine, which means it uses OpenGL for graphics, not D3D.

If you read Firingsquad's (http://www.firingsquad.com) look into the relative performance of ATI and Nvidia cards in that game you'll see the high end ATI cards do out perform Nvidia with AA/AF cranked up.

However, good performance in a game that uses OpenGL for rendering isn't going to say a thing about how well the card handles DX9 rendering.

[iceblue]

My original point was, the 5900 already produces frame rates so fast that whipping out another $100 bill will be nothing but a waste of money. FiringSquad's own review shows the 5900 getting 130+. That's more than enough I'd think. :)

[iceblue]

source: firingsquad.com
At the $200 price point many GeForce FX 5900s are going for, they’ve become quite the steal among hardware purchases. This would definitely rank as our choice if you’re looking to maximize your bang-for-the-buck. You’ve got the same NV35 core as the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, so making up the 50MHz clock speed difference isn’t a problem. And as far as the memory subsystem is concerned, the clock speeds are the same and you’ve got a 256-bit memory interface. :t

[tasty danish]

i agree, that is a great deal.
owning a 9800 and thinking that it makes the others look like wimps, this is hard to admit. but i will say that the 5900 spanks everything in the 200usd price range.
however, if the half life 2 benchies hold true (the 5900 got its **** handed to it by the 9600, however i wont use them against you nvidia kids yet, because hl2 is a hopeless situation as far as im concerned), there may be better choices for the more ambitious games coming out (aka: ati).

[Someone Stupid]

I don't question that the 5900 is a great card for the price, I just question how long that 200 dollar purchase is going to be worth anything once titles that truly use D9 shaders hit the market. If nvidia fails with their next launch and ATI grabs more of the market, companies aren't going to spend 5 times the time coding for nvidia cards compared to an ATI card. Gabe Newell came out with that fact. And as for those HL2 benches, I'll take TD's stance and wait and see, but the first round was a knockout, a 200 dollar card wiping the floor with a 400 dollar card at the time. That game was using a LOT of D9 implementations which is why people are questioning the FX series especially after all it's blunders getting it to a viable buy now.

It is a free market, nvidia knows they aren't going to move what they bill as the equivalent of the 9800 / 9800 Pro at 250 to 300 dollars, hence they drop the price to move the units. Selling them for a little more than cost is better than not selling them at all.

[iceblue]

The reason for a price drop is not that but the fact that Nvidia is introducing new cards in less than a month.

[Rugor]

Actually, in a lot of ways the price drop on the FX5900 doesn't make a lot of sense. Immediately after introducing the FX5700 to very positive reviews, they drop the FX5900 to a very similar price point. This begs the question of why did they release the FX5700 (which uses very expensive DDR2 memory) in the first place if they were planning to drop prices on the FX5900?

Remember, the FX5900's going to steal a LOT of FX5700 sales. It's a better card. It won't steal as many sales from ATI because it's still a GfFX and a lot of current ATI buyers don't like that architecture. In fact, if this was the plan why does the 5700 exist? Production costs on the two cards are probably fairly similar, with the more expensive GPU on the 5900 being balanced out by the more expensive RAM on the 5700. Any other differences could easily be offset by the design costs of the 5700.

It's a good thing for Nvidia fans, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

If they are dropping prices to prepare for NV40 why isn't ATI doing the same thing to prepare for R420 which is due out at the same time?

I'm also not sure that the release of NV40 will be a good thing for GfFX owners. One thing everyone has agreed with is that the GfFX requires a lot more in the way of driver tuning and software optimization to show its full performance. It's a lot finickier about things like instruction order and register usage than ATI, and making sure the code is right takes time, effort and money. That's one reason why Nvidia cards have tended to show poor initial performance in DX9 games, with significant improvements after a new driver release or game patch. It takes time to translate the game to GfFX-speak. However, once NV4x comes out it's going to be the top dog in the NV corner, and it's going to be getting all the attention. Once that happens there will be less effort spent on GfFX optimizations, and performance may suffer in future.

Please note, I haven't been trying to use this thread to say ATI is good, Nvidia is bad, but rather to say that R3xx is a better DX9 architecture than NV3x, which is a rather different thing.

[tasty danish]

Originally posted by Rugor
Please note, I haven't been trying to use this thread to say ATI is good, Nvidia is bad, but rather to say that R3xx is a better DX9 architecture than NV3x, which is a rather different thing.

my thoughts exactly

[iceblue]

5700 Ultras are now going at $150 (B&M) and the R420 will probably be in stores around March.

[Rugor]

Ok I just checked Newegg, and found the cheapest 5700 Ultra they had was $191, while they had a 5900 on sale for $184. The cheapest 5700 Ultra I could find on pricewatch was about $170, and the 5900 is worth $20-30 more.

Hmmmm, March is what a month and a half away? That sounds to me like even by your dates the two companies should be releasing very close together.

[iceblue]

Yeah, that's most likely what will happen.. wonder what they will decide to name these cards. :cool:

BTW, cheapest 5700 Ultra on newegg is $179 and it's an eVGA. The BFG Asylum 5700 Ultra I saw for $150 (B&M) is a better deal.