Toss a coin? There just isn't that much performance difference between a 5900XT and a 5900 Ultra and we already know that the 9800 Pro dominates shaders and/or high levels of AA and/or AF.Switch it to 5900 Ultra and I'd say toss a coin.
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I definately agree with you in the last statement. However the 9800Pro does not beat the 5900XT in that much. It is more of a 60:40 ratio. I would go witht he 5900XT (as i did ) because i wanted to have VIVO (just to have it ) But the 5900XT is definately competition with the 9800PRO. However i will say the 9800Pro is a little faster (60:40)
-Kevin
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Toss a coin? There just isn't that much performance difference between a 5900XT and a 5900 Ultra and we already know that the 9800 Pro dominates shaders and/or high levels of AA and/or AF.Switch it to 5900 Ultra and I'd say toss a coin.
Even if it was a 5950 against a 9800 Pro I'd have to say the latter is the superior card overall.
Wrong, the 9600 may be a 4 pipeline card, but so is the 5950. Plus, the 9600 is clocked faster and the memory bandwidth probably won't mean squat since it is run at a low resolution.
From what I remember, games are using less and less multitexturing, but you bring up a decent arguement in the case multitextureing is brought up.The problem with this:
The 9600 is a 4X1 card at a little higher speed, the 5950 is a 4X2 card at a little lower speed. The multitextured fillrate of the 5950 is almost double the 9600s, so coupled with that much higher memory bandwidth, it will always beat the 9600XT by far. (except in the 3 PS2 games where the 5950s 32 bit precision will always be slower than the 9600XTs 24 bit)
I'd rather have a card that dominates at UT2k4 and Farcry than a card that dominates at some useless game like Flight Simulator. Besides, while getting 200 fps as opposed to 150 in something like Jedi Knight isn't a big deal, 30 fps vs 40 in Farcry is.,Or, that the 5900U "dominates" just as much at some other benchmarks- so as usual, you're handpicking a couple benchmarks and saying,"See dat?! De 9800 Pro is teh roxor!"
Originally posted by: Rollo
I am going to show my nVidia bias here, yet again:
I would think a 9800Pro would beat a 5900XT in almost every game, by a fair amount at Far Cry, Wallet Raider: Angel of Sloppy Code, and Colin McCrae.
The 9800 Pro is a better all around card if you can afford either.
The question isn't fair though, as the 5900 XT was never meant to compete against the 9800Pro.
Switch it to 5900 Ultra and I'd say toss a coin.
Originally posted by: dennisjai215
at stock who will win? any benchmarks?
Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
I'd rather have a card that dominates at UT2k4 and Farcry than a card that dominates at some useless game like Flight Simulator. Besides, while getting 200 fps as opposed to 150 in something like Jedi Knight isn't a big deal, 30 fps vs 40 in Farcry is.,Or, that the 5900U "dominates" just as much at some other benchmarks- so as usual, you're handpicking a couple benchmarks and saying,"See dat?! De 9800 Pro is teh roxor!"
Originally posted by: Rollo
I personally have a hard time sporting wood
3. The tech on the X800 series is a year and a half old already. Buying these cards is like buying a Radeon 9800 MAXX. The only difference is they put the pipes on one card.
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
#1 TH is biased towards ATI.
#2 That cant be right. That system is way faster than mine and i make in the neighborhood of 42000 on aquamark
I think there is a bit more behind the scenes that isn't being told. If my XP 300+ with 512mb DDR333 rig beats a P4 3.2 on an Asus P4p800-E Deluxe than somehting is really fuxed up.
The 5900XT does absolutely fine with AA AF on. Yes like i said tho the ATI's card is a LITTLE bit better. Also all the ATI cards are more expensive. Yet they barely provide any improvements.
btw no one started talking about the 5900Ultra.
Switch it to 5900 Ultra and I'd say toss a coin.
(One more thing to note is that at max detail and resolution on games you should see a little bit of a difference between 128 and 256mb but you dont)
No. Nvidia made a wrong assumption by thinking newer games will use more multi-texturing. So they made a 4x2 architecture. While ATI's is 8x1. In a multi-texture situation ATI's 8x1 acts like a 4x2, so who is more flexible. The 8x1 because it can be used to provide more power when multi-texturing isn't needed and when it's needed can sustain performance on par with the competition. Nvidia can't do that however. They will always have a crippled pixel fill-rate. And since newer games never made use of such multi-texturing, ATI's 8x1 stayed 8x1 most of the time while Nvidia's could very well just be a 4x1 chip.I think everyone should be convinced that the 9800PRO and the 5900XT are pretty equal around 40:60. As to someone saying that Nvidia only has 4 pipelines... that is not true. It has already been discussed but however, ATI has an 8x1 architecture. Nvidia decided to go against that and use a 4x2 architecture. So when Multi texturing Nvidia will easily win. SO basically what im saying is both have 8 pipes its just they are used in different circumstances.
And the fact that it runs great is such an annoyance - I feel the same way. Damn these old architectures kicking ass out of the new ones.The tech on the X800 series is a year and a half old already. Buying these cards is like buying a Radeon 9800 MAXX. The only difference is they put the pipes on one card.
Not necessarily because AMD chips are much faster than Intel chips at gaming.I think there is a bit more behind the scenes that isn't being told. If my XP 300+ with 512mb DDR333 rig beats a P4 3.2 on an Asus P4p800-E Deluxe than somehting is really fuxed up.
Does much better with AA/AF enabled. Not a little better.The 5900XT does absolutely fine with AA AF on. Yes like i said tho the ATI's card is a LITTLE bit better. Also all the ATI cards are more expensive. Yet they barely provide any improvements.
At 1280x1024 with 4xAA with in games settings at max detail in COD you will see a framerate drop between the same cards, one with 128MB and the other with 256MB.(One more thing to note is that at max detail and resolution on games you should see a little bit of a difference between 128 and 256mb but you dont)
Exactly, there could be many reasons.2) Older drivers, maybe? Different memory config? I don't want to compare their system to yours, I want to compare the cards in the benchmark. Their absolute numbers don't matter, just the relative performance.
DAMN - look at the COD bench.Dunno if it's been posted yet
If you keep your head in the sand then I guess it isn't.Unfortunately for you, dominating in shaders isn't all that big of a deal these days,
Did you read the X-Bit benchmarks Pete posted?and the "high levels of AA/AF' where the 9800Pro is ahead, sometimes, it rarely "dominates".
Actually no, it doesn't. When it wins it's usually by a small margin but when the ATi card wins it often completely tools it as the difference is massive.Or, that the 5900U "dominates" just as much at some other benchmarks-
And there it is folks.Not to mention both cards are pretty bad at shaders, one just a little less bad
Probably about as much as 3dfx pays you. That's about the only way to explain the fantasy world you constantly live in. They started:How much does ATI pay you per post BFG?????
I don't know why you people argue so much about how much to spend. I say, all you need is 2x Voodoo2 in SLI mode and you're fixed for then next 10 years.quote:
How much does ATI pay you per post BFG?????
Probably about as much as 3dfx pays you. That's about the only way to explain the fantasy world you constantly live in. They started:
-Nobody needs 32 bit colour.
-Nobody needs trilinear filtering.
-Nobody needs large textures.
And now you continue for them:
-Nobody needs high resolution.
-Nobody needs AF.
-Nobody needs AA.
-Nobody needs shaders.
Instead of looking at each card's technology you instead spend your days trying convince the world that nobody actually needs anything those cards offer.
Instead of gaming perhaps you'd prefer people shaved their heads, put on some robes and went to live in a monastery?
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
The 9800Pro doesn't even come close to beating the 5950 most of the time so shut that sh!t up ok.