FX vs 9800

[KH85]

Right then which one will win?

a TOP PF THE RANGE 9800PRO vs a TOP OF THE RANGE GF FX?

Thanks in advance

KHGamez

 

[CJP]

For raw fillrate they are pretty close. But when you put on FSAA and AF the Radeon 9800 Pro pulls ahead.

 

[PliotronX]

If by "top of the range" you mean the FX 5800 Ultra, the 9800 is better in every way. Noise, cooling, overclocking, driver maturity, quality, etc..

 

[nRollo]

"If by "top of the range" you mean the FX 5800 Ultra, the 9800 is better in every way. Noise, cooling, overclocking, driver maturity, quality, etc.. "

Here's two ways it isn't:
1. The 9800 is slower at non AA/AF, and we don't really know which is faster at many AA/AF settings like 2X AA/4X AF, etc.
2. You're far less likely to see gray bars rollong through your screen with a FX

 

[dguy6789]

compare the 9700 pro to the fx 5800 ultra, the 9800 pro is faster then either of them. And no one with these cards will play without AA/AF.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
compare the 9700 pro to the fx 5800 ultra, the 9800 pro is faster then either of them. And no one with these cards will play without AA/AF.

So, then your saying that 150 fps with AA/AF is completely superior to 135 fps AA/AF? How so?..
Because that's what we are talking about here isn't it? Nvidia has come a long way with their AA/AF abilities. 4x better than
the GF4 Ti line and just a smidge under ATI's best offering. GFFX even beats the 9800pro in a few AA/AF benchies. I know this is an off
topic speculative statement, but I believe that when the NV35 comes to town, the king will truly regain it's crown.

 

[Apotherix]

Okay, 9800 Pro, and even the 9700 Pro, wastes the FX in almost every area. Plus, it doesn't have a jet engine for a cooler.

 

[Keysplayr]

Take a long, hard look. And dont only see what You want to see. Here. GFFX vs. 9700 pro

Take special note of the AA and AF benchies. I'd love to hear your comments.

 

[selfbuilt]

I agree it's important to not only see what you want.

So how about considering that the AA/AF performance is considerably enhanced in the now-shipping 9800 compared to the 9700? Shouldn't that be the appropriate comparison with the GFFX?

If so, then what about the GFFX vs Radeon 9800 reviews here at Anandtech that show considerable outperformance by the 9800 with AA/AF in every single game except one?

Or how about the review of the GFFX again here at Anandtech that claims that "Nvidia's anisotropic filtering quality was significantly degraded in the FX line of GPUs."?

It may very well be that the newer GFFX drivers may fix much of that ... of course, it's also likely true the newer ATI Catalyst 3.3. drivers will give an even further boost to their line.

At the end of the day, it would seem that ATI remains in the lead in regards to AA/AF for now. That could change with driver updates, but I find that unlikely. Of course, whether this matters to you is a whole seperate issue ... I think we are splitting some pretty fine hairs on performance right now. I'd go with whatever you got the best deal on price-wise at this point.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Take a long, hard look. And dont only see what You want to see. Here. GFFX vs. 9700 pro

Take special note of the AA and AF benchies. I'd love to hear your comments.

Comment: No-one trusts THG.
I'd take anandtech over THG any day.

 

[J5im8yo]

5800 Ultra or just plain 5800? 5800 comes no where near the performance of 9800 Pro it might as well be matched with a 9500 Pro. 5800 Ultra is another story the card is fast yet loud and overheats. The funny thing is 5800 Ultra in many cases does perform better than 9800 Pro but just by a tiny bit. But look at the specs.

9800 = 380core (.15)/680 DDR

5800 ultra = 500core (.13)/1000 DDRII

yet the performance gain is so minimal. Makes me wonder what happened. Remember also in 2d performance 5800 Ultra has a lower memory clock than 9800 Pro the good thing about 9800 pro is that the core and memory speed doesn't jump around loosing performance. =D

 

[nRollo]

Dguy:
"And no one with these cards will play without AA/AF"
Gee. I guess I'm no one. Gee. It's amazing how you know how everyone uses their VGA? How did you accomplish this? Or are you just talking out of your a$$, because you really don't know 10 people with these cards, let alone everyone?

Apotherix:
"Okay, 9800 Pro, and even the 9700 Pro, wastes the FX in almost every area. Plus, it doesn't have a jet engine for a cooler"
Is that so? Or do you just mean in most AA/AF situations? Because without AA/AF turned on, the GF FX Ultra is pretty much exactly equal with the 9800
9800 not "winning them all"

Lonyo:
"Comment: No-one trusts THG."
LOL- Gee, I'm no one again. I know you're going to tell me how you know what "everyone" thinks, and that you're not just generalizing because you've seen a couple people say they don't like Tom's page.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Dguy:
"And no one with these cards will play without AA/AF"
Gee. I guess I'm no one. Gee. It's amazing how you know how everyone uses their VGA? How did you accomplish this? Or are you just talking out of your a$$, because you really don't know 10 people with these cards, let alone everyone?

Well, those with LCD's might want to use AA/AF because they can't up the res.
And if someone has the money for one of those cards, they probably want to max out all the options, so I'd say his assumption is fair.
Can you prove it isn't?

Apotherix:
"Okay, 9800 Pro, and even the 9700 Pro, wastes the FX in almost every area. Plus, it doesn't have a jet engine for a cooler"
Is that so? Or do you just mean in most AA/AF situations? Because without AA/AF turned on, the GF FX Ultra is pretty much exactly equal with the 9800
9800 not "winning them all"

You might want to notice he says "almost every area", so yeah, he never said they it won them all, so your point just backs up his, whereas I think you were trying to disagree.

Lonyo:
"Comment: No-one trusts THG."
LOL- Gee, I'm no one again. I know you're going to tell me how you know what "everyone" thinks, and that you're not just generalizing because you've seen a couple people say they don't like Tom's page.

There was a big thread about it in gen hardware, people saying how they don't really like it. Most of the posts were negative, so I'm thinking that most people don't really like/trust THG.
I said anandtech is probably more reliable, and I expect most people woudl agree. Most sites also showed the 9800 being faster than 5800, so yeah, I would say THG isn't the greatest in terms of reliability.

And just because you are an exception to the things people say, and feel the need to disagree, doesn't mean anyone else does, so you're kinda being general as well. Your attitude is not representative of quite a lot of people, and to be honest, you seem a bit of a hot-headed a$$ when it comes to the FX, do you have some kind of interest in it?
I know you think of it as a technical marvel and all that crap, but the fact that most people woudl agree with is that the 9800PRO is a better card than the FX 5800 Ultra.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Take a long, hard look. And dont only see what You want to see. Here. GFFX vs. 9700 pro

Take special note of the AA and AF benchies. I'd love to hear your comments.

Comment: No-one trusts THG.
I'd take anandtech over THG any day.

Why

 

[Keysplayr]

Only One thing for me to do. I will aquire both the ATI 9800pro and the GFFX 5800Ultra and do my own benchies on the same system. I will get every bit of software that ANand uses for his benchie tests. I will use the ASUS P4PE MoBo with a 2.8 GHz P4. 512 DDR rig. Fresh install of XP pro on each card.
Then I won't have to believe either THG or Anand. I will know for myself FINALLY. I just can't stand when THG and Anand's benchmarks are totally different. This means that someone, somewhere, is lying or paid off.
I will post My scores when I am done. They will be 100% legit. Nobody is paying me.
Keys

 

[chsh1ca]

Keysplayr, I look forward to your benchmarks.

Rollo, the fact is that if you own an R9{7|8}00Pro card, you probably bought it for its AA/AF performance. I don't see why you WOULD buy an R9{7|8}00 Pro card if all you care about is the non-AA/AF performance.

I think it comes down to the simple fact that gaming with AA/AF is better than gaming without it, so if you can do it without taking a huge speed hit, you will. The Radeon 9800 Pro and to a lesser extent the 9700 Pro provide this speed at 1280x1024 and 1024x768, but provide lower performance in non-AA/AF situations, where IMHO, the 9% lead at 1280x960 that was shown in Anand's benchmarks is totally irrelevant.

Please Rollo, tell me how 132FPS is significantly (or even noticeably) better than 120FPS at 1600x1200x32 Max Detail No AA/AF.

Keep in mind, that you do indeed hit a usefulness ceiling when it comes to raw FPS. In all current benchmarked games, there is little to no relevant speed difference in the cards in non-AA/AF situations. In AA/AF setups, things change drastically, and the Radeon far outperforms the R9800 Pro. I fail to see how you can justify claiming that the Radeon 9{7|8}00 Pro is slower than the FX5800 Ultra.

Sure, you bought your 9700 Pro for non-AA/AF performance because the only comparison card out was the Ti4600, which isn't comparable in either situation. However, if you have the choice today of FX5800 Ultra and R9700 Pro, and you pick the 9700 Pro, then you are either an ATI fanboy, interested in the AA/AF performance, or you're ignorant. Of the three, I don't put you in the first or third category, meaning you would likely make an educated decision and buy the 9700Pro for its AA/AF performance, and not for its raw non-AA/AF performance.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Only One thing for me to do. I will aquire both the ATI 9800pro and the GFFX 5800Ultra and do my own benchies on the same system. I will get every bit of software that ANand uses for his benchie tests. I will use the ASUS P4PE MoBo with a 2.8 GHz P4. 512 DDR rig. Fresh install of XP pro on each card.
Then I won't have to believe either THG or Anand. I will know for myself FINALLY. I just can't stand when THG and Anand's benchmarks are totally different. This means that someone, somewhere, is lying or paid off.
I will post My scores when I am done. They will be 100% legit. Nobody is paying me.
Keys

3 reviews with 9800PRO higher than 5800Ultra
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1794&p=9
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDM5LDM=
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/2/0,3363,sz=1&i=22063,00.gif (most probably CPU bound JK2, since the scores hardly changed with increased res or AA level, with both cards)

Despite its clock speed advantage, the Radeon 9800 PRO is unable to keep pace with the FX 5800 Ultra.

This is an example of THG crapness, saying the 9800PRO has a higher clockspeed than the 5800Ultra (got to have higher to have an advantage, I can see no other way to interpret it), whereas one is 375MHZ (less than 400 I know), and the other is 500MHz.
THG review, showing the opposite.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030306/radeon9800pro-11.html#unreal_tournament_2003

That's 3:1, of the 4 reviews I fairly easily found, but I'm not going to look for all the reviews.
I see no link between them to suggest that those 3 have reason to be biased, so I guess that's a reason I don't trust THG.
And in some tests, it seems the 9800PRO can't even beat a Ti 4800! http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030306/images/image017.gif

Some people would disagree, but that's some reasons for my lack of trust for THG.

http://forums.anandtech.com/message...eadid=976598&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=arc&STARTPAGE=2 And this thread shows quite a few people agree THG isn't up to all that much.

 

[DClark]

In the April 2003 issue of MaximumPC, they did a "Head 2 Head" showdown between the GFFX 5800 Ultra and Radeon 9800 Pro. The Radeon won 19 of 27 benches, was given a 9 out of 10 rating (the GFFX 5800 Ultra got 7 of 10) and in the individual categories the 9800 Pro beat the GFFX in "Benchmark Prowess", "Image Quality", and "Noise and Cooling". The "Driver Stability" category was declared a draw.

 

[sash1]

"Rollo, the fact is that if you own an R9{7|8}00Pro card, you probably bought it for its AA/AF performance. I don't see why you WOULD buy an R9{7|8}00 Pro card if all you care about is the non-AA/AF performance."

What, so now the only reason a person can buy a card is for its feature set?

What because he doesn't like to play with AA/AF means he can't buy the 9700? What kinda crap is that?

"I think it comes down to the simple fact that gaming with AA/AF is better than gaming without it"

So just because you say its better means it is? It's completely personal preference. I prefer high res with no AA but AF or even trilinear filtering is good enough depending on the game.

"However, if you have the choice today of FX5800 Ultra and R9700 Pro, and you pick the 9700 Pro, then you are either an ATI fanboy, interested in the AA/AF performance, or you're ignorant."

another one of your crappy generalizations. So if I were to buy a 9700 I'd have to fit into one of those categories. I don't fit into any yet according to you I would if I were to buy the card.

"meaning you would likely make an educated decision and buy the 9700Pro for its AA/AF performance, and not for its raw non-AA/AF performance."

Again, back to my first statement, does one have to buy a card just to utilize it to its full extent? Seriously, there is more to a video card then being able to play games. Hence why I got the Perhelia.

~Aunix

 

[Lonyo]

I think the 9800 is better because it's faster at AF. Many games need AF, and it's all too clear when you play, it's annoying. I wish I had a card that could do AF "quickly", so I'd go ATi route.

 

[Guspaz]

Most people play with anisotropic filtering on; textures are blurry as hell without it. I only have a GeForce 3 yet I have AF cranked up to max. Games just don't look good without it, so AF matters quite a bit.

As for anti-aliasing... I find it useless since it doesn't antialias textures; if you play Half-Life a lot, you see tons of aliasing with full AA due to transparent textures. Besides, if I have speed to burn, I just run Half-Life at 1600x1200 on my 19"

 

[deepinya]

First I think the 9700 is a better card....so of course the 9800 will be even better. I read the first 9700 vs fxultra review here at AT and whats MORE important than maximum frames is minimum frames. Id rather have a card that gave me 150 max and 90 minimum over one that did 200 max and 40 minimum.

Any TRUE gamer will agree.

BTW- My points are based upon gaming only. None of the other ghey tests matter to me.....and frankly shouldnt matter to most that are buying this gaming beast. Most of those tests are for bragging rights and to see how big ones dik is.

 

[chizow]

People don't trust THG because his sensationalized conclusions and use of hyperbole don't match the actual benchmark results; much like many of the comments made by certain folks here.

AA and AF isn't for everyone. For some, its viewed as a luxury that is the first thing to go when frame rate suffers. For fast paced FPS games (especially online), large fluctuations in frame rate ARE noticeable, so the old term "faster is better" still holds true.

Chiz

 

[Zen0ps]

For GF4/GFFX users, AF is considered a luxury. It is slow, and however Nvidia implements it, it just doesn't look anywhere near as good as ATis.

For most Radeon users since the 8500, AF is considered pretty standard because there is such a low performance hit when using it. 8X or 16X AF is what everyone seems to run at.

Its ok to compare a 9700pro to a GFFX5800Ultra, really speedwise they are almost comparible. The GFFX is faster without AA/AF, the Radeon is faster with AA/AF and DX9 pixel/vertex shaders. Image quality still goes to ATi.

Its silly to compare the 9800pro to the 5800ultra, the 9800pro outclasses it in every respect... Wait for Nvidias refresh of the NV30, the NV35 if you want to do a comparison of somewhat similarily capable hardware.

 

[Zen0ps]

And anyone who has seen a high AF (done properly) and spent over $300 on a video card will definitely run the highest AF they can. Anybodies card - ATi, Nvidia it don't matter.

I often wonder if people actually look at games they are playing with and without AF. I also wonder if the people who claim they would buy a high priced card and not run AF, have 5/20 vision or something.

Its *that* noticable (at least to me) much more than any other visual improvement (AA is good for reducing jaggies, but not totally necessary if you are gaming at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200)