NV31 og NV34 on Anandtech

[Czar]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797

cant belive I found this first on Hardocp frontpage

edt, sorry, was reading page 4

 

[Furor]

Originally posted by: Czar
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797&p=4

cant belive I found this first on Hardocp frontpage

that links to page 4, here is a link to the first..

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797

 

[Czar]

The Radeon 9500 pro reaaaaly looks good now

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: Czar
The Radeon 9500 pro reaaaaly looks good now

Yep. It kills it when FSAA and AF is enabled! Plus has higher minimum fps

 

[Eug]

So it looks like the cards of choice for the respective price ranges will be the Radeon 9100 (for OEM) and 9200 likely (for retail) at the low end, and the Radeon 9500 Pro at the upper mid-end. I wonder how the 9600 will perform though as it seems that the 9500 Pro will be more expensive than the GeforceFX 5600 Ultra.

If price and performance are the same between the 9600 and 5600 Ultra, I would still recommend ATI, because of the 2D quality.

And of course, at the high end, it's still the 9700 Pro or 9800 Pro, unless you like the sound of leaf blowers.

 

[paralazarguer]

Eug. Did you read the article about the low end? Basically you're recommending a GeForce 4MX.

ATI has no competition to the 5200 series, simply because their Radeon 9200/9100/9000 do not offer DirectX 9 support, they are based on a DirectX 8 class of GPUs. Granted that there won't be any use of DirectX 9 specific features in games for quite a while, but the tables have definitely turned; ATI is now the one that isn't delivering all of the features possible to the entry-level, and NVIDIA is clearly learning from their own past mistakes.

 

[Vic]

I can't believe the 4200 beats the 5600 in so many of the tests.... oh, well, guess I'll hang on to my 4200 and skip another generation.

 

[Athlon4all]

Honestly, the most important card for me (GF FX 5200 non-Ultra) wasn't in it. That is the most significant card out of this whole bunch. Really, It shall be interesting to compare the R9600 Pro to the GFFX 5600 Ultra. I'm betting ATi is going to maintain the upper hand there. The GFFX 5200 Ultra is disappointing. It in most cases, cannot or just barely reaches the performance level of a GF4 Ti 4200, which will be $50 cheaper (not to mention it's usually bartely any faster than the similarly priced R9000 Pro. I'm holding my breath for nVidia. It certainly is a good thing that DX9 is available for $99-$400, but, my question is...what does the DX9 GFFX 5200 have to offer feature-wise over the DX8 R9000/R9200 Pro? I can't find anything so it comes down to while will be faster, and I will not be surprised if the R9200 Pro tops it. Only time will tell tho

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Athlon4all
Honestly, the most important card for me (GF FX 5200 non-Ultra) wasn't in it. That is the most significant card out of this whole bunch. Really, It shall be interesting to compare the R9600 Pro to the GFFX 5600 Ultra. I'm betting ATi is going to maintain the upper hand there. The GFFX 5200 Ultra is disappointing. It in most cases, cannot or just barely reaches the performance level of a GF4 Ti 4200, which will be $50 cheaper (not to mention it's usually bartely any faster than the similarly priced R9000 Pro. I'm holding my breath for nVidia. It certainly is a good thing that DX9 is available for $99-$400, but, my question is...what does the DX9 GFFX 5200 have to offer feature-wise over the DX8 R9000/R9200 Pro? I can't find anything so it comes down to while will be faster, and I will not be surprised if the R9200 Pro tops it. Only time will tell tho

for slow cards like that dx9 support doesnt matter because when dx9 games will be out the currently fastest dx9 cards will be low end

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: paralazarguer
Eug. Did you read the article about the low end? Basically you're recommending a GeForce 4MX.

ATI has no competition to the 5200 series, simply because their Radeon 9200/9100/9000 do not offer DirectX 9 support, they are based on a DirectX 8 class of GPUs. Granted that there won't be any use of DirectX 9 specific features in games for quite a while, but the tables have definitely turned; ATI is now the one that isn't delivering all of the features possible to the entry-level, and NVIDIA is clearly learning from their own past mistakes.

Who cares about DirectX 9 in a low end card? And I am not recommending a Geforce4 MX. I'm recommending a card that is superior to a Geforce4 MX.

If I want to play a DirectX 9, I'd better have a Radeon 9700 Pro or something.

 

[paralazarguer]

You all should care about DX9 in all cards. Why? because it's not just for gaming anymore. Windows will soon delegate a lot of the what it does for the GUI to the GPU. This will open a lot of doors. DX9 and fully programmable GPUs make this possible. Thus, you will need a DX9 GPU just to do this. Ever thought you'd have to upgrade your videocard to install windows and use all its features? Heh...
I'm typing this on a Longhorn 4008 build box right now actually. Man! the WinFS emulation takes 101megs of ram. Holy crap

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: paralazarguer
You all should care about DX9 in all cards. Why? because it's not just for gaming anymore. Windows will soon delegate a lot of the what it does for the GUI to the GPU. This will open a lot of doors. DX9 and fully programmable GPUs make this possible. Thus, you will need a DX9 GPU just to do this. Ever thought you'd have to upgrade your videocard to install windows and use all its features? Heh...
I'm typing this on a Longhorn 4008 build box right now actually. Man! the WinFS emulation takes 101megs of ram. Holy crap

yay pointless features! the way MS finds ways to get less and less performance out of the same hardware makes you think that they hold lots of stock in intel and dell

 

[Snoop]

I can't believe the 4200 beats the 5600 in so many of the tests.... oh, well, guess I'll hang on to my 4200 and skip another generation.

What is the deal at Nvidia? Its shocking that the TI4200 is relatively equal in most tests with the 5600ultra. Am I missing something? The TI4200 is at least a year old, and was released at the same target audience and price as the Ultra. Who would pay a 70-80 dollar premium to have a card with relatively the same speed?????????????

 

[FishTankX]

Here is a very good reason you should be glad that Nvidia has DX9 top to bottom..


The more low end cards support DX9 the more likely the game makers will be willing to put effort into implmeneting it.

 

[human2k]

Those benchmarks just make my Softmodded Sapphire 9500 shine even more.......now if you could only softmod a 5200FX.

 

[Vernor]

Originally posted by: paralazarguer
You all should care about DX9 in all cards. Why? because it's not just for gaming anymore. Windows will soon delegate a lot of the what it does for the GUI to the GPU. This will open a lot of doors. DX9 and fully programmable GPUs make this possible. Thus, you will need a DX9 GPU just to do this. Ever thought you'd have to upgrade your videocard to install windows and use all its features? Heh...
I'm typing this on a Longhorn 4008 build box right now actually. Man! the WinFS emulation takes 101megs of ram. Holy crap

Pie-in-the-sky.


You buy a 80$ card for today.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Absolutely shameful, both cards are getting slapped around by the 9000 Pro in min framerate tests.