FX5800 or 9700PRO

[BFG10K]

It's certainly a wise idea to wait as the both the FX's retail release and the R350's announcement are not more than a few weeks away.

However as it stands right now the FX is definitely the inferior card to the 9700 Pro, in most cases yielding inferior performance and image quality and also having rather obsene heat, noise and cooling.

 

[nRollo]

"However as it stands right now the FX is definitely the inferior card to the 9700 Pro, in most cases yielding inferior performance and image quality and also having rather obsene heat, noise and cooling. "
Sigh

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDIxLDI=
" In dm-antalus the GeForceFX 5800 Ultra is faster with NoAA and NoAF in every resolution. However, both cards are plenty fast to play with no AA and no AF, the real test comes when you enabled these features.

At 2X AA and 8X AF the GeForceFX 5800 Ultra is faster than the 9700 Pro at all resolutions. The biggest gain is at 1024x768, with 14.5 FPS greater on the GFFX.

At 4X AA and 8X AF the GFFX is still faster than the 9700 Pro, but at 1600x1200 the difference isn?t all that great. At 1024x768 the difference is most noticed with a difference of 10.7 FPS."

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDIxLDM=
"In Unreal Tournament 2003 (Flyby Test), the GeForceFX 5800 Ultra is clearly ahead of the Radeon 9700 PRO"

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/geforce_fx-10.html
"The advantage of the GeForceFX in 3D Mark 2001 is relatively small"

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/geforce_fx-12.html
"In Serious Sam 2, the GeForceFX 5800 Ultra is clearly superior to the Radeon 9700 PRO"

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/geforce_fx-13.html
"Aquanox makes heavy use of pixel and vertex shaders in the DirectX 8 standard. Here, the GeForceFX chalks up full points. "

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/geforce_fx-14.html
"Note that the ATI boards have a somewhat lower performance level, which suggests that the drivers are less optimized for this game engine. "

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/geforce_fx-15.html
"In Max Payne, the GeForceFX scores against the Radeon once more"

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/geforce_fx-19.html#4x_fsaa
"At lower resolutions, the GeForceFX is ahead, but at higher resolutions it loses its lead. At 1600x1200, the Radeon is slightly ahead. "

[http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/geforce_fx-20.html
"The situation in Serious Sam is similar. Here, however, the Radeon manages to achieve a clear lead ahead of the GeForceFX at 1600x1200"

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030127/geforce_fx-21.html
"With Unreal Tournament, the GeForceFX has a firm lead in anistropic filtering (medium setting - Performance Balanced). "

I see what you mean BFG. The FX Ultra is CLEARLY "inferior" in "most" situations. Of course, in your language "inferior" must mean "performs better" or "is faster" since I just posted links to about 30 benchmarks where the FX is performs better than the 9700.

"Most situations" in your language must mean "almost none".

I'm with you on the noise, but to call the performance of the card inferior is a lie that cannot be supported. Whether it costs more at this point is irrelevant, cards at this level cost $399 when released. I paid that for my R9700. This card will be $300 when it's been out a few months as well.

 

[kylebisme]

oh come on Rollo, presenting a bunch of benches from that review does nothing does nothing to prove anything but how blatantly bias the review is. anyone who has been around this forum for any time knows damn well that if the card were truly superior to the compassion, BFG10K would back it fully and be doing everything in his power to acquire one. however, this is most definitely not the case by anything but the most absurd stretch of the imagination.

to put this situation in simple terms; the fx is generally only slightly faster and sometimes worse than the 9700 at default settings. however, every videocard has the features of aa and af to make the image better looking, this is essentially the "anti-ugly nob". when you turn the anti-ugly nob up on both cards what little lead the fx has starts to diminish to the point were when you have both cards nobs all the way up, the 9700 crushes it badly. furthermore, despite the fact that the fx comes out slower with it's anti-ugly nob all the way up, the nob doesn't even go as high as it does on the 9700.

on a side note, i freely accept the belief that everyone is intitled to their own opinions. however Rollo, i hope can understand that if believe it is wise to buy a 400$ videocard for slightly better performance in ugly mode, the majority of people do not share your opinion on the situation.

 

[chizow]

Er, seems like you guys are focusing a lot on Dungeon Siege. Just an FYI, but the 9700pro apparently has major issues running it as well. If anything it has to do with the DS game engine's effect on DX9 parts. Head over to Rage3D.com and search for Dungeon Siege or look in the driver's forum. People get like 30fps and terrible stuttering in that game (amongst other D3D games).

Chiz

 

[kylebisme]

actually i looked back through the thread and i only mentioned the game once as an example of where the fx looses to the ti4600. other than that no one else but Rollo has been going on about it insistently for some odd reason. so to say "you guys" is overstating the issue quite a bit in my opinion. btw, i did search rage3d and i found some people having issues, other people claiming it all works great and many of the people who claimed to have issues coming back to report that they had resolved the issues. so i don't see any of that as very conclusive chizow.

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Rollo
This just in Snowman:
The 9800 will run Dungeon Siege at 75fps! It is CLEARLY the card to buy!

Oh, and I also read all the other reviewers are going to only post FSAA/Aniso scores for EVERY video card reviewed, now that they've been shown the error of their ways.

(Actually my apologies to Anand- I had forgotten there were a few "standard" benches in the review as well. My point here is that a "normal" review would have painted a much more positive picture of the card)

Buying a video card, just for one game is daft.
From your "big" post rollo, i get the impression that you`re a nVidiot.

 

[BFG10K]

I see what you mean BFG. The FX Ultra is CLEARLY "inferior" in "most" situations. Of course, in your language "inferior" must mean "performs better" or "is faster" since I just posted links to about 30 benchmarks where the FX is performs better than the 9700.

Rollo it would appear that the concept of image quality escapes you, as does the concept of benchmarking low resolutions (such as 1024 x 768) vs high resolutions (eg 1600 x 1200).

The fact is that the 9700 Pro pulls away from the FX when you crank up the resolution and begin turning on FSAA and/or anisotropic filtering. Also the FX's FSAA and anisotropic filtering are both inferior the 9700 Pro's implementation in terms of image quality.

For all intents and purposes the Radeon 9700 Pro is still the king of performance and image quality and it also doesn't have to resort to ridiculous cooling mechanisms.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I see what you mean BFG. The FX Ultra is CLEARLY "inferior" in "most" situations. Of course, in your language "inferior" must mean "performs better" or "is faster" since I just posted links to about 30 benchmarks where the FX is performs better than the 9700.

Rollo it would appear that the concept of image quality escapes you, as does the concept of benchmarking low resolutions (such as 1024 x 768) vs high resolutions (eg 1600 x 1200).

The fact is that the 9700 Pro pulls away from the FX when you crank up the resolution and begin turning on FSAA and/or anisotropic filtering. Also the FX's FSAA and anisotropic filtering are both inferior the 9700 Pro's implementation in terms of image quality.

For all intents and purposes the Radeon 9700 Pro is still the king of performance and image quality and it also doesn't have to resort to ridiculous cooling mechanisms.

BFG pretty much said it here Rollo

as resolution increases, the 9700 is better than the GeForceFX
Oh, and the GeForceFX sure did win a lot of tests here

And here as well. At least the FX won 2/8 tests there, as opposed to ZERO in my last link.

Not only that, but AF quality and AA quality are far superior on the ATi9700.

Pretty much all I have to say the 9700 is much better than the FX. ATi has become a much smarter company, even though, according to Jen-Hsun Huang, "they are smoking something hallucinagenic."

~Aunix

Edit - I have an inablility to spell

 

[nRollo]

" anyone who has been around this forum for any time knows damn well that if the card were truly superior to the compassion, BFG10K would back it fully and be doing everything in his power to acquire one. however, this is most definitely not the case by anything but the most absurd stretch of the imagination."

LOL- there's a good argument: "If BFG doesn't like/have it, it must not be good!

 

[chizow]

Rollo has a valid point, since the majority of users/gamers simply don't run their games at 1600x1280 or use AF or AA. In an ongoing thread in GH, 4 of 39 respondents (not counting double posters) ran at a resolution above 1280x1024x32. 2 of those said they can but don't for whatever reason. In another recent poll in GH or Video, the overwhelming majority of respondents ran at 1024 or 1280 (40 and 25, respectively), with about 15% saying they ran at 1600 or above.

Although the 9700pro is certainly the first card IMO to enable high resolution gaming w/ AA and AF at a playable level, the majority of gamers out there still consider it a needless luxury. For some games, AA is more important (slower sim-type games or perhaps CPU bound RTS), but for others, max details, textures, lighting at high frames w/out a hiccup are visually more impressive. Realistically though, the 9700pro and FX will still struggle in newer games at high resolutions, max details, max lighting/effects etc. with AA and AF enabled. Both run reasonably well at high resolutions with AA and AF on older games, so its not as big of an issue.

Visual quality IMO is very subjective. Its hard to compare image quality when you only get to see a magnified cut-out of the larger image. Considering everyone is talking about high resolutions, the difference in the AF and AA effect will be even less noticeable. I don't think I'd notice much of a difference between the 4x AA and 8x AF between either card unless I really focused on it in a game, which I don't. That being said I do consider the 9700pro to be the best performing part available, since I consider max details at 1280x1024x32 with 2x or 4x AA and 8X AF to be MY standard for which is the best part available.

Chiz

 

[nRollo]

Snowman:
" presenting a bunch of benches from that review does nothing does nothing to prove anything but how blatantly bias the review is."
No, I think the other reviews are biased. D'oh- who is right?

BoomAM:
"Buying a video card, just for one game is daft.
From your "big" post rollo, i get the impression that you`re a nVidiot."
Er, since you didn't understand my sarcasm, you're not one to be calling people idiots of ANY kind. FYI- I have a ATI R9700Pro. I've purchased, retail from Best Buy: ATI Rage Fury, ATI MAXX, Radeon VIVO, Radeon 32DDR, 8500, 9700Pro. You called it Ace- I'm a big time nVidiot!

BFG:
"Rollo it would appear that the concept of image quality escapes you, as does the concept of benchmarking low resolutions (such as 1024 x 768) vs high resolutions (eg 1600 x 1200"
It would appear the concept of the English language escapes you, as no one is really obtuse enough to state the GF FX Ultra has "inferior performance" in "most" situations.
I wish I was your boss, I'd fire you and give the reason:"BFG, I've noticed your performance is 10-20% lower than your competitor at some situations. You'd surely agree this is INFERIOR, MOST of the time".
LOL

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: chizow
Rollo has a valid point, since the majority of users/gamers simply don't run their games at 1600x1280 or use AF or AA.

And who would spend $300-400 on a video card and purposely not try to milk as much out of it as possible? People don't run at high resolutions because they don't have the 9700 Pro caliber boards. I was running Tribes 2 @ 1280x1024 with all the details up on my Radeon 8500 but because my frame rate would drop to around 20-40 in the thick of things, it wasn't good for competition. I reduced to 1024x768 to keep my FPS upto 80 or so and rarely drop below 30-40. Bow do I sorely miss 1280x1024...

I could easily spend $200 on a GF4 Ti or R9500 Pro and get decent performance out of it, but if I'm going to spend $300-400 I don't want unnoticable gains (80 to 324823 FPS) at a crappy resolution (1024x768 isn't terrible, but it is certainly a "compromise" resolution).

I'd agree with BFG10K on this one, there are very little good things about the GeForce FX. It's loud, its hot, and it doesn't perform as well as the 9700 Pro where it counts. And guess what happens if you give the 9700 Pro cooling equal to what the GeForce FX has access to? That's right you get 400+MHz cores which only further hammers in the adavantage of the 9700 Pro.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Snowman:
" presenting a bunch of benches from that review does nothing does nothing to prove anything but how blatantly bias the review is."
No, I think the other reviews are biased. D'oh- who is right?

well the person who can see though the smoke being blow in their face by that god awful cooling solution, duh!

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: chizow
Rollo has a valid point, since the majority of users/gamers simply don't run their games at 1600x1280 or use AF or AA.

And who would spend $300-400 on a video card and purposely not try to milk as much out of it as possible? People don't run at high resolutions because they don't have the 9700 Pro caliber boards. I was running Tribes 2 @ 1280x1024 with all the details up on my Radeon 8500 but because my frame rate would drop to around 20-40 in the thick of things, it wasn't good for competition. I reduced to 1024x768 to keep my FPS upto 80 or so and rarely drop below 30-40. Bow do I sorely miss 1280x1024...

I could easily spend $200 on a GF4 Ti or R9500 Pro and get decent performance out of it, but if I'm going to spend $300-400 I don't want unnoticable gains (80 to 324823 FPS) at a crappy resolution (1024x768 isn't terrible, but it is certainly a "compromise" resolution).

I'd agree with BFG10K on this one, there are very little good things about the GeForce FX. It's loud, its hot, and it doesn't perform as well as the 9700 Pro where it counts. And guess what happens if you give the 9700 Pro cooling equal to what the GeForce FX has access to? That's right you get 400+MHz cores which only further hammers in the adavantage of the 9700 Pro.

People don't run 1600x1200 for the very same reason you indicated, performance. I guess some people don't mind playing pixel hunter, and at 1600x1200 you'd better memorize script patterns and macros/hotkeys, b/c you'll sure have a lot of problems reading text and icons on anything smaller than a 21'' CRT (19.8'' VIS) or 20'' LCD. Framerate fluctuations will be amplified, as they are in each increase in resolution as well.

Your comments about the 8500 further my point; What you see in benchmarks are average framerates, but if you run any demo or benchmarks, you'll know there are enough significant slowdowns to make a certain resolution undesirable, but will yield a seemingly acceptable average fps. Realistically, you would need to have a minimum fps of ~80 to not notice any significant slowdowns, but again, that's something neither card can do in newer games with AA and AF at 1600x1200x32.

By the way, this argument is already dated, as it seems the newer FX previews show greatly improved performance "where it counts."

Chiz

 

[sash1]

"By the way, this argument is already dated, as it seems the newer FX previews show greatly improved performance "where it counts."

Uhmm, from the FS preview of the GFFX, it shows the 9700Pro being on par with it...

"I guess some people don't mind playing pixel hunter, and at 1600x1200 you'd better memorize script patterns and macros/hotkeys, b/c you'll sure have a lot of problems reading text and icons on anything smaller than a 21'' CRT (19.8'' VIS) or 20'' LCD."

I dun have any troubles at 1600x1200. Of course, I have very good eye sight and prefer to run @ higher resolutions, so I guess its a bit subjective.

"Realistically, you would need to have a minimum fps of ~80 to not notice any significant slowdowns"

I take it you are referring to a minimum average of 80fps? Which is true, although it depends. When I used my Kyro II, if the average was ~50fps, I would never encounter slowdowns. I guess the fact it is a DMR card helps, in that it will never display more than it has to...

~Aunix

 

[nRollo]

BFG10K:
We have this same argument everytime a VGA comes out.
You always say "What matters to me is the maximum resolution I can run at, the maximum FSAA, the maximum aniso. THAT is all that matters."
I always say,"I want to run at 12X10 or 10 X 7, some aniso, and have a higher minimum framerate so I don't get dusted in my online gaming."

Is either of us "right"? I'd say no, just that we have different needs and expectations. We both made the same choices (approximately) in systems:
I have an Asus P4PE/512 Crucial PC2700/P4 2.53/R9700/SB Audigy/Antec 430 watt True Power. I have a 19" Sony that I passed on to my son, I use a 21" Nokia now.
Clearly, a comparison of our system specs shows we have functionally identical computers.

I'm not saying there is no use for FSAA/aniso, when I play 'GTA3" I crank it up and am glad to have it. You just need to realize there is a type of gaming where framerate is the primary concern, and gamers who really don't care about 16X12X32, 6X, 16X. In online fps, you look for the framerate advantage. To use those settings is like going back in time to slower VGAs (albeit better IQ) and to lose to people who have your rig, but leave their framerate alone.

In any case, I'm not going to spit on nVidia like everyone else when I owe them many, many hours of gaming enjoyment. I probably won't get this card, because the 9700 Pro I ahve is an excellent card, and there's not enough improvement there to warrant the expense. (which wouldn't have bothered me in pre-Dad days, but now I think about)
If I still had my Ti4400, this would be a hard choice for me.

 

[nRollo]

"I dun have any troubles at 1600x1200. Of course, I have very good eye sight and prefer to run @ higher resolutions, so I guess its a bit subjective."
Aunix: You must need to update your system specs. You say you have a Philips 107S, which according to some specs I found is a 17" monitor not even capable of 16X12?
Aunix Monitor
Aunix Monitor, only 12X10 possible
Beyond that, I've got no doubt that 16X12 on a GF4 440MX SE looks like A$$. I'd fire it up on my 3 year olds computer I put a GF4 440 MX SE in, on his 19" Trinitron, but I'm afraid I'd go blind from the blur.
I think you're exaggerating a bit, and if you're not, you should be. I don't run 16X12 on 20" viewable with a a waaaaaaay better VGA.

 

[sash1]

"Aunix: You must need to update your system specs. You say you have a Philips 107S, which according to some specs I found is a 17" monitor not even capable of 16X12?"

Yes, I do hafta update. I have a Samsung 900NF currently

"Beyond that, I've got no doubt that 16X12 on a GF4 440MX SE looks like A$$."

Whoever said I am using my GF4MX right now? Aunix has a lot of cards at his disposal.

"I think you're exaggerating a bit, and if you're not, you should be. I don't run 16X12 on 20" viewable with a a waaaaaaay better VGA."

I'm not exaggerating at all. I love high resolutions, it is much easier on my eyes.

 

[BFG10K]

Rollo has a valid point, since the majority of users/gamers simply don't run their games at 1600x1280 or use AF or AA.

Then those users are certainly not going to be forking over $300-$400 for a video card. The main reason for buying such a card is for having high performance in extreme conditions.

Although the 9700pro is certainly the first card IMO to enable high resolution gaming w/ AA and AF at a playable level, the majority of gamers out there still consider it a needless luxury.

Only because their cards are usually too slow to use those features, hence the need for something like a 9700 Pro.

Realistically though, the 9700pro and FX will still struggle in newer games at high resolutions, max details, max lighting/effects etc. with AA and AF enabled.

Whatever the case the 9700 Pro will always do better in those situations, especially in anisotropic filtering. I'm not convinced that nVidia's method is very good at all except in cutting corners and ATi's 16x anisotropic still delivers the best combination of speed and image quality available IMO.

Considering everyone is talking about high resolutions, the difference in the AF and AA effect will be even less noticeable.

Maybe for FSAA but certainly not for anisotropic filtering. If anything it works much better at high resolutions.


Your comments seem to try to make the cards appear equal in terms of performance and image quality. Even if that were true, after you factor in pricing and heat/noise the 9700 Pro is still the superior card.

 

[nRollo]

"Then those users are certainly not going to be forking over $300-$400 for a video card. The main reason for buying such a card is for having high performance in extreme conditions."
Gee, BFG, I did fork over $370 for my 9700Pro. The point you're still not getting your extreme conditions (high res/FSAA/aniso) and my extreme conditions (10 players firing rockets in a large outdoor map) both benefit from a $300-$400 VGA.

"Only because their cards are usually too slow to use those features, hence the need for something like a 9700 Pro."
No again BFG. Your computer is no faster than mine, and I don't use those features. Even with a 9700Pro, framerate suffers running at the settings you endlessly pimp.
If we're both in the same UT2003 match, I can guarantee your FPS sinks WAY lower in battles with your 16X FSAA + 6X FSAA. (and that equals SFG2K*, dead from slow graphics)

*Small Fuc*ingGun2000, rendered impotent by his quality settings

 

[kylebisme]

seriously Rollo, you may have payed 400$ to play in ugly mode you are not in the majorty on this. i recomend you take a look at threads like this one at nvnews.net to see how impressed nvidia patrons are with the prodcut. you might find it enlightining.

 

[BFG10K]

It would appear the concept of the English language escapes you, as no one is really obtuse enough to state the GF FX Ultra has "inferior performance" in "most" situations.

Perhaps "most" in your choice of low detail benchmarks, but look at some 1600 x 1200 x 32 benchmarks (preferably with FSAA and/or anisotropic filtering) and you'll soon see just what "most" of them are showing.

Unless of course you're trying to claim that you'd buy a $400 card to run at some crap resolution like 1024 x 768?

I doubt it because when it comes to the big boys like this, the extreme eye candy options are the ones that should be tested. If you don't want to the test such settings then you'd do far better with cheaper and slower cards.

I wish I was your boss, I'd fire you and give the reason:"BFG, I've noticed your performance is 10-20% lower than your competitor at some situations. You'd surely agree this is INFERIOR, MOST of the time".

You always say "What matters to me is the maximum resolution I can run at, the maximum FSAA, the maximum aniso. THAT is all that matters."

That's a load of rubbish and I don't know where you're even getting that from. Yes,I like eye candy and my target resolution is 1600 x 1200 x 32 with 16x fast anisotropic and most/all graphics options turned up high.

But I also want a high framerate to go with that and my mininum target is 60 FPS at all times and I also prefer average timedemos of around 120 FPS (depending on the demo) if possible.

I always say,"I want to run at 12X10 or 10 X 7, some aniso, and have a higher minimum framerate so I don't get dusted in my online gaming."

I want a high framerate too and it's possible to have both eye candy and framerate, which is exactly why I purchase high-end cards in the first place. This is also exactly why low resolution benchmarks on these cards are absolutely useless since you'd do OK with slower and cheaper cards.

Clearly, a comparison of our system specs shows we have functionally identical computers.

And it also appears that you're not utilising your system to its full potential. Now that's entirely your choice of course but it doesn't change the fact that cards like the 9700 Pro currently target the high-end market and thus should only be tested with high-end benchmarks. Leave the low res/low eye candy tests to the weaker and cheaper cards.

You just need to realize there is a type of gaming where framerate is the primary concern, and gamers who really don't care about 16X12X32, 6X, 16X. In online fps, you look for the framerate advantage.

Judging from that comment it appears that you don't know me at all. I can't believe you'd even suggest that I'm not aware of such a situation when I'm probably the biggest framerate advocator in this forum and any other forum I post at.

But like I said before, it's possible to have a high framerate and high levels of eye candy and that's exactly where cards like the Radeon 9700 Pro fit into the picture. A high framerate and high levels of eye candy aren't mutually exclusive and it's certainly possible to have both at once.

In any case, I'm not going to spit on nVidia like everyone else when I owe them many, many hours of gaming enjoyment.

Who's spitting? I'm telling it exactly like it is. The fact is that even if the cards were equal in speed and image quality the 9700 Pro is still the better card because of a lower cost, less heat and less noise.

 

[BFG10K]

The point you're still not getting your extreme conditions (high res/FSAA/aniso) and my extreme conditions (10 players firing rockets in a large outdoor map) both benefit from a $300-$400 VGA.

Funny, my settings never have problems handling 10 players. Of course they might have problems with 50 players but then so would yours because you'd probably be CPU limited.

So what are you going to do? Not play any games at all? Run at 320 x 240 x 16?

I'm all for a balance of eye candy and framerate but the 9700 Pro has enough horsepower to run just about any game well at the settings I use. Going to 1024 x 768 on a 9700 Pro is rather fruitless in any game except maybe the Doom III Alpha.

Even with a 9700Pro, framerate suffers running at the settings you endlessly pimp.

Of course it does. It also suffers at the settings you use so quick, you'd better switch to 320 x 240 x 16 and run your games at that setting, just in case 4000 players suddenly join your server.

There's a point where lowering detail levels just becomes ridiculous and reaps no real rewards as all you're doing is wasting your hardware's potential. Balance is the key here and the 9700 Pro is certainly balanced enough to manage most games at 1600 x 1200 x 32 with 16x fast anisotropic, the settings I usually use. I'm a hardcore FPS player and I'm telling you this from both experience and extensive testing.

If we're both in the same UT2003 match, I can guarantee your FPS sinks WAY lower in battles with your 16X FSAA + 6X FSAA. (and that equals SFG2K*, dead from slow graphics)

I don't even use those settings and if you'd bothered to read you'd know this. In fact I myself tell people not to use such settings on a 9700 Pro in modern games because it'll slow down too much.

 

[nRollo]

"And it also appears that you're not utilising your system to its full potential. Now that's entirely your choice of course but it doesn't change the fact that cards like the 9700 Pro currently target the high-end market and thus should only be tested with high-end benchmarks. Leave the low res/low eye candy tests to the weaker and cheaper cards."

No, I'm using it to it's full potential. As Anand himself said:
I notice the difference between 96fps minimum and 60fps minimum

I notice losing half my fps to quality aniso settings even more

 

[harbinger52]

I'm with you on the noise, but to call the performance of the card inferior is a lie that cannot be supported. Whether it costs more at this point is irrelevant, cards at this level cost $399 when released. I paid that for my R9700. This card will be $300 when it's been out a few months as well.

But based on the performance between the 2 cost is relevant. Why spend $100 more for a FX. Even when if it drops to $300 the 9700 will be lower yet. I have been a NVidia "fanboy" for awhile. They really let me down with the FX. I could not pass up the 9700pro for $299 and bought it. I think anyone who buys a FX is either 1. fanboy or 2. uniformed. Who knows in the months ahead I may switch back to Nvidia, it all depends on who makes the best product for the money. I am tired of paying $400 for a graphics card. I paid top $ for the Geforce 2 came out and the same with the G3 and 4600.