Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

Thread: whats better???

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29

    whats better???

    i know this has already been figured out but i need to know how much better is 9800pro vs the 5900fx ultra and i am talking about right out the box no moding or overclocking of any kind and i would like to see bench marks and so forths if ppl can provide cuz i was wondering witch one i should buy thanks

  2. #2
    Ultimate Member iceblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    hot cali
    Posts
    1,163
    Both are fast enough for any type of job. Get whichever one you can find cheaper that has the features you need.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Plaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    834
    9800 Pro no contest.
    yo trick, why you so **** doofus?

  4. #4
    Ultimate Member scottluebke2003's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, California
    Posts
    1,252
    Right now, the 9800 is only slightly faster than the 5900. However, when AA and AF are heavily used, which is often the case with most gamers, the 9800 really jumps ahead of the 5900. But believe it or not, the 5900 will push some incredible FPS even with AA and AF. And the card is only $200. But if you got something decent right now, like a Ti series card, then just wait until the next line of cards come out(Spring 2004), and then the first generation cards will drop in price and you can buy a 9800Pro for much less than you can now.

    Really though, if a card can push games at 60 FPS, what is the need for more? At 60 FPS, its about as smooth as the game will get. Most people play games around 30 FPS, so 60 and above is great. But who needs games at 150 FPS?

    If you are using a Gf2 or something like that, then maybe you should snag an FX5900 for under $200. Read reader reviews on www.newegg.com

  5. #5
    Ultimate Member bblqj78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,187
    the 9800pro. As well as being as fast as the Nvidia...everything can look a lot better with AA & AF a retain the FPS good enough to play smooth.

    Read this link posted previously

    http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/ati_...ce/index_e.php

  6. #6
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    18,631
    9800 Pro, comes into its own at high detail, AA and AF levels and is much faster when running games with DX9 features in comparison to the FX series (see the HL2, Halo and Tomb Raider benchies that are floating aroudn the net for details)

    --Jakk

  7. #7
    Ultimate Member Bizkitkid2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,750
    Neither. Get eh 5900 FX. The ultra is a waste of money.

    The 5900 and Radeon 9800 pro are as equal in performance as one can get. And the ultra only gets 5-10 FPS more than the non-ultra, and than costing $100-$200 more. I just bought me the EVGA 5900 non-Ultra(400/850mhz) and this card can easily be clocked up to 5900 ultra(450/850mhz) speeds and even 5950 ultra speeds(450/950mhz).

    So don't listen to all them ATI bias people saying the 9800 pro smokes the FX5900. As they are both the same speed, and the 5900 being $100+ cheaper is also a plus.

    Becnhmarks don't lie.

    http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic..._guide-12.html
    And don't lsiten to anyone who sais "Look at the new HL2 benchmarks" as Valve hasn't had anytime to work on the code for the game to run smooth on geforce cards cause ATI has been shoving money down there throat trying to get them to finish the ATI code int he game first.
    Last edited by Bizkitkid2001; 12-24-2003 at 02:36 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Plaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    834
    Originally posted by Bizkitkid2001
    The 5900 and Radeon 9800 pro are as equal in performance as one can get.

    So don't listen to all them ATI bias people saying the 9800 pro smokes the FX5900. As they are both the same speed, and the 5900 being $100+ cheaper is also a plus.

    Becnhmarks don't lie.

    http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...n_9800-22.html

    http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTIzLDI=

    Nope, they don't lie. heheh
    yo trick, why you so **** doofus?

  9. #9
    Senior Member PacNW CE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    628
    Make up a spreadsheet with the cards you are comparing, their prices and their scores on similar tests with similar equipment.

    Contrast and compare on your own.

    www.anandtech.com
    www.tomshardware.com

    Oh, and don't believe anyone who favors one brand of chipset over the other exclusively. I have had both Nvidia and ATI recently, and They are both good for different reasons.

    BTW, The HL2 coding issue for nvidia is due to the NV3x parts are not built around the dx9 spec as microsoft wrote it. ATI built it's technology around the spec, and Valve wrote HL2 around the spec, hence ATI's performance lead in the avalible HL2 benchmarks. Regaurdless, I am sure a fix will be avalible upon release of the game since it is in Valve's interest to sell as many copies of HL2 as possible. Cutting out Nvidia card owners would be foolish to say the least.
    Just A Curb Side Profit

  10. #10
    Ultimate Member Bizkitkid2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,750

    Don't cheat and get benchmarks/games that were made to perform better on ati cards. Use benchmarks/games that have been around a while and have had all the bugs fixed out of them.

    I could probably go out and find many benchmarks that have the 5900 on top and the radeon 9800 far behind. Thats why benchmarks comparing ONE game is not good to use for a comparision between multiple cards.


    And i don't like benchmakrs from hardocp as they benchmark wierd and could never really figure out the graphs. I have also heard that they tend to lean towards favoring the main stream card(Wich being ATI right now) Wich you can tell my how they only run the 5900 at one resolution but they runt he radeon 9800 at lower resolutions to make the card look better.
    Last edited by Bizkitkid2001; 12-24-2003 at 03:44 PM.

  11. #11
    Senior Member tony_j15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    A galaxy far, far away...
    Posts
    620
    Originally posted by Bizkitkid2001
    Neither. Get eh 5900 FX. The ultra is a waste of money.

    The 5900 and Radeon 9800 pro are as equal in performance as one can get. And the ultra only gets 5-10 FPS more than the non-ultra, and than costing $100-$200 more. I just bought me the EVGA 5900 non-Ultra(400/850mhz) and this card can easily be clocked up to 5900 ultra(450/850mhz) speeds and even 5950 ultra speeds(450/950mhz).

    So don't listen to all them ATI bias people saying the 9800 pro smokes the FX5900. As they are both the same speed, and the 5900 being $100+ cheaper is also a plus.

    Becnhmarks don't lie.

    http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic..._guide-12.html
    And don't lsiten to anyone who sais "Look at the new HL2 benchmarks" as Valve hasn't had anytime to work on the code for the game to run smooth on geforce cards cause ATI has been shoving money down there throat trying to get them to finish the ATI code int he game first.
    bizkit, you take potshots at "ati biased" people, when in reality you are heavily nVidia biased yourself Of course the 5900 is 100 cheaper than the 9800 Pro, but that is a unfair analysis. It battles this way: 5900 vs. 9800 NON PRO( which can be found for 144 according to Pricewatch, whereas lowest on a 5900 is 187) The 5900 Ultra is the correct comparison to the 9800 Pro. Plus, you ignore the facts how the radeons will still hold good FPS with aa/af enabled, whereas the FX cards will falter somewhat. BTW, dragging H-L 2 into this was worthless.

  12. #12
    Ultimate Member Bizkitkid2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,750
    I'm not Nvdidia biased. Hell, the only nvidia card I like is the 5900fx. And the only comparision the 5900 has with the radeon 9800 non pro is the price. Performance wise the 5900 pulls out ahead of the non pro and is comparible performance wise to the 9800 pro.

    At least I don't go out and get rigged benchmakrs in favorable for nvidia as these ATI bias people are doing with the hardocp benchmarks and new DX9 games that havn't had time to fix there code for the geforce line of cards(HL2 and Tomb Raider)

    And I have alreadt explained that the ultra is only 5-10fps faster than the non ultra. And that the ULTRA is a waste of money. You can get a non ultra and OC to 5950 speeds. Don't you even read?

    And you forgot to look at how the 5900 got second place int he hardocp benchmark running at a HIGHER resolution that the radeon that beat it. See hwot he radeons running at the same resolution as the 5900 ran slow? And find some benchmarks with the 5900 AA and AF enabled and you will see that the 5900 is better at AA and AF than the radeon 9800pro. The benchmarks you guys are pulling out are not a fair comparision as it doesn't test the radeon 5900 full ability.

  13. #13
    Ultimate Member Rugor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, Earth
    Posts
    2,694
    Nvidia cards perform at their best in an OpenGL environment where they can expose their own proprietary OpenGL extensions. ATI has much better Direct3D performance especially under DirectX 9 because their architecture is closer to the published DX9 spec.

    You can get a good card from either IHV but when push comes to shove the Radeon 9800 Pro is a better overall performer than the GeForce FX5900 Ultra.

    This is especially noticeable in AA, if you read that article on 3DCenter.de you will see that ATI's AA not only looks better but runs faster. So at maximum eye candy settings ATI is a clear winner.

    Bizkitkid2001:
    The new benchmarking method from HardOCP is actually very informative. The graphs they use show how the cards perform over the duration of a run showing how the frame rate rises and drops. If you have two cards both averaging 40FPS but one spikes to 60 and drops to 15, while the other only spikes to 55 but never drops below 35 you can see the changes. In that case the extra 5fps in maximum won't make up for the 20fps drop in minimum.

    As to HL2, I don't know where you got your information but it's flat out wrong. They are on record as having spent five times as much time and effort optimizing for the GfFX architecture as they did for ATI and it still doesn't do well. However, all is not lost for Nvidia users, the Gf4Ti series all work perfectly well in HL2 on the DX8 path, as do most GfFX cards.
    "Dude you're getting a Dell." Obscure curse from the early 21st Century, ascribed to a minor demon-spirit known as "Stephen?" [sp].

  14. #14
    Ultimate Member Bizkitkid2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,750
    Still hardocp only rant he 5900 at 1280x1024. Of course the radeon 9800pro is going to be faster if its only ran at 1024x768, a lower resolutiont hat what the tested the 5900 at.

    At lkeast the THG benchmakr I showed you did an equal comparision of the cards at all reslutions and settings.

  15. #15
    Ultimate Member Rugor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, Earth
    Posts
    2,694
    IF you look at the 3DCenter.de article linked above you can see the Radeon has better quality AA and a lower performance hit when using it than the GeForce FX.

    Take a look HERE
    "Dude you're getting a Dell." Obscure curse from the early 21st Century, ascribed to a minor demon-spirit known as "Stephen?" [sp].

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •