Geforce FX

[Zen0ps]

And at high resolutions, a high AF is absolutely gorgeous. Anisotropic filtering actually looks better the higher your monitor resolution. I just wish I could run 128XAF instead of just 16xAF.

AA antialiasing is not as important at high resolutions though, reducing jaggies is not as important to me at 1600x1200 res, but very important at 800x600. Its still nice to have it on though.

 

[BFG10K]

If you have a FX Ultra, I will ship to you first in this trade, you can use the stuff to see that it works, then ship me an Ultra.

You're certainly persistent, I'll give you that.

But alas I don't have a 5800 Ultra, and with good reason too I might add.

I just wish I could run 128XAF instead of just 16xAF.

128x does not exist. ATi's 16x quality (128 tap) is currently the highest available to consumers.

 

[nRollo]

ZenOps
"The 500Mhz 5800 ultra is pretty fast, without AA/AF it beats a 9700pro... But then again, the 5800Ultra is like $430-500. Absolutely NO chance of overclocking too (well, maybe 10mhz more if you watercool)

The 400Mhz 5800 non-ultra, which I've seen for around $350 is pretty well slower than a 9700pro in everything."

MSRP on these two cards is $300 and $400. The only reason you're seeing them higher than that is not many places have them in stock yet. When that changes they will be less than MSRP.

The Ultra also beats the 9800 Pro in several non AA/AF benchmarks, and is within 1-3fps of it in the rest in Toms review. (i.e. it's as good, or better, than a 9800 Pro at non AA/AF as well)

In the same review, you would see that at non AA/AF, the 5800 non Ultra has pretty much exactly the same performance as a 9700Pro.

Here's a link to the review, you must have missed it to post such incredibly incorrect "information":
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030306/index.html
Here's a link to a Digit Life review that shows the Ultra/9800 performance as about equal:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gain-5200-5800.html
Here's another review that shows the 5800 non Ultra as about equal to the 9700 Pro in Non AA/AF:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDM5LDE=

If you disagree, perhaps you could post a link to a review or two that supports your position?


Since the 9800 is already an OCd 9700, I'd say your chances of OCing that are pretty bad too. Also, I'd say why would anyone risk their $400 VGA to get 1000 more points on a synthetic benchmark, and 5-10 more fps in games. Sounds pretty dumb to me. If you burn the card, you're out $400, or have to become a scummy thief, tell ATI or your vendor, "I don't know what happened, it just stopped working, please give me a new card I didn't pay for so I can steal all your profits from the first".

 

[nRollo]

"You're certainly persistent, I'll give you that.
But alas I don't have a 5800 Ultra, and with good reason too I might add. "

Just an honorable man, willing to prove it as a couple of you have questioned it.