NVIDIA and ATI

[MASTERT]

im looking for a video card and i like NVIDIA ALOT
i see the ATi Radeon 9700 is a good card but the Drivers are messed up

and the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 is a badasss card but its $500
it has DX9
450MHz core clock
256MB Memory
256-bit Memory Bus
425MHz Memory Clock
and a great 27.2GB/s Memory Bandwidth

the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5800 is $280
DX9
400MHz Core Clock
128MB Memory
128-bit Memory Bus
400MHz Memory Clock
16GB/s Memory Bandwidth

look here i saw that this card is faster than the 9800 Pro until it gets into the really high detail stuff
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=22
its faster and $200 Less

what are the bad things??
its about 40% slower Bandwidth than the 5900
the Memory Bus is 128-bit instead of 256-bit
little slower clock speed
loud fan, small bus


then there is the ATi Radeon 9700
i see on Price Watch there is a Pro and a 128 MB
what are the differences between these two??
the pro is better right?

Hope jah can help
Master Tablu

 

[Schadenfroh]

the 128mb is the same as the pro except lower clocked

 

[JonnyBlaze]

is doom the only game your judging on? if so, wait till it comes out and but the best card then. cause in existing games, the 9800 beats the 5800 in just about every other test in that review.

JB

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze
is doom the only game your judging on? if so, wait till it comes out and but the best card then. cause in existing games, the 9800 beats the 5800 in just about every other test in that review.

JB

in fact, the 9800 pro beats up on the 5900 ultra as well

 

[nRollo]

I have a FX5800. It doesn't have the FlowFX, it's not noisey. It OCs to Ultra levels easily, as do the FX5800s in the only 3 reviews I could find:

Review 1

am able to overclock the core clock to 500Mhz which is a decent 100Mhz improvement and also the memory clock to 1Ghz reaching the speed of the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra card!

Review 2

Overclocking is carried out with default cooling, e.g. stock HSF and thermal grease. The highest working speed is 490Core/985Memory.

Review 3

Overclocking is carried out with default cooling, e.g. stock HSF and thermal grease. The highest working speed is 520Core/1000Memory

I can just set the core to 500, the memory to 1000, and it works fine, standard hsf. If you can do that, the picture changes somewhat:
5800 on UT2003
The 5800 at 500/1000 performs as well as a 9700Pro, except at 16X12, 4x/8X. Of course, you'd never run that setting in UT2003, way too slow.

5800 on JK
The 5800 still hanging with the 9700Pro.

 

[squidman]

A person, who buys a 5900 is a fool, also for the reason that he agrees to pay that ridiculous price. 5900 Ultra = 1,1x (still in question) of 9700Pro, yet for 2,5x (or more) the price! Its just ridiculous. Something really new and fast gonna be probably available in 3 years.
Also: bad drivers? I dunno bout that. People have probs, cuz they got hella crap on their pc's, or just plain overclockers. I have not had a problem with 2.2, 3.1, and 3.4 im using now.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Rollo
I have a FX5800. It doesn't have the FlowFX, it's not noisey. It OCs to Ultra levels easily, as do the FX5800s in the only 3 reviews I could find:

Review 1

am able to overclock the core clock to 500Mhz which is a decent 100Mhz improvement and also the memory clock to 1Ghz reaching the speed of the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra card!

Review 2

Overclocking is carried out with default cooling, e.g. stock HSF and thermal grease. The highest working speed is 490Core/985Memory.

Review 3

Overclocking is carried out with default cooling, e.g. stock HSF and thermal grease. The highest working speed is 520Core/1000Memory

I can just set the core to 500, the memory to 1000, and it works fine, standard hsf. If you can do that, the picture changes somewhat:
5800 on UT2003
The 5800 at 500/1000 performs as well as a 9700Pro, except at 16X12, 4x/8X. Of course, you'd never run that setting in UT2003, way too slow.

5800 on JK
The 5800 still hanging with the 9700Pro.

ok, you cant compare an OCed 5800 to a NON oced 9700 pro. can it hang with the 9700 pro when the 9700 pro is at 370/340?

 

[JammingJay]

As a sidenote not mentioned, the FX5800 is really a vaccum cleaner disguised as a video card. The bad boy is pretty loud, but from various reviews the FX5900 has improved on that aspect from its predecessor. Both 9700/9800 are generally more quiet if that has any factor in your decision.

 

[Pete]

A $200 9700 (non-Pro) is the best deal in high-end cards ATM. Even if an OC'ed 5800 can compete with a 9700P in lower-quality settings, there's still the fact that the 9700/P is a much more capable DX9 card than the 5800 (not to mention it's still quieter).

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: squidman
A person, who buys a 5900 is a fool, also for the reason that he agrees to pay that ridiculous price. 5900 Ultra = 1,1x (still in question) of 9700Pro, yet for 2,5x (or more) the price! Its just ridiculous. Something really new and fast gonna be probably available in 3 years.
Also: bad drivers? I dunno bout that. People have probs, cuz they got hella crap on their pc's, or just plain overclockers. I have not had a problem with 2.2, 3.1, and 3.4 im using now.

you're pretty biased to say a geforcefx5900 ultra = radeon 9700pro...

 

[nRollo]

As a sidenote not mentioned, the FX5800 is really a vaccum cleaner disguised as a video card. The bad boy is pretty loud, but from various reviews the FX5900 has improved on that aspect from its predecessor.

Jamming Jay: Have you ever HEARD a FX5800? You don't really know what you're talking about at all, do you? Why don't you follow one the links to the reviews in my first post? nVidia re-designed the FX5800, it has the same cooling setup the 5900s have, not the FlowFX that was loud.

ok, you cant compare an OCed 5800 to a NON oced 9700 pro. can it hang with the 9700 pro when the 9700 pro is at 370/340?

I can't? Why not? Because you say so?
The point(s) being:
The new designs of 5800s seem to be very OCable. I didn't have to do any "steps" I just set it to that speed and played. The 3 5800s in the reviews in those links did the same. At that speed, they offer pretty comparable performance to a stock 9700Pro, which isn't bad.

BTW- R9700Pros aren't exactly reknowned as great OCing cards. (although 370/340 is a pretty tiny OC)

you're pretty biased to say a geforcefx5900 ultra = radeon 9700pro

More like 5900Ultra makes 9700Pro obsolete.....

 

[JammingJay]

Rollo, relax. I did not insult one of your family members so no need to have a thin skin about computer products. Once again I reiterate COMPUTER PRODUCTS With that said, yes indeed I am aware that some models of the FX5800 have been redesigned in terms of heatsink/fan/exhaust housing. Hence my comments GENERALLY Radeon 9700/9800 are more quiet. Even with the new redesign, various reviews mention the 9700/9800 still being more silent. Toms review

 

[nRollo]

The 5800 is my brother! It is my friend! It is.... a computer part.
LOL
I suppose I overreacted, but the 5800 is not "a vacuum cleaner disguised as a video card". These days it barely qualifies as an "audible computer part".

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Rollo

As a sidenote not mentioned, the FX5800 is really a vaccum cleaner disguised as a video card. The bad boy is pretty loud, but from various reviews the FX5900 has improved on that aspect from its predecessor.

Jamming Jay: Have you ever HEARD a FX5800? You don't really know what you're talking about at all, do you? Why don't you follow one the links to the reviews in my first post? nVidia re-designed the FX5800, it has the same cooling setup the 5900s have, not the FlowFX that was loud.

ok, you cant compare an OCed 5800 to a NON oced 9700 pro. can it hang with the 9700 pro when the 9700 pro is at 370/340?

I can't? Why not? Because you say so?
The point(s) being:
The new designs of 5800s seem to be very OCable. I didn't have to do any "steps" I just set it to that speed and played. The 3 5800s in the reviews in those links did the same. At that speed, they offer pretty comparable performance to a stock 9700Pro, which isn't bad.

BTW- R9700Pros aren't exactly reknowned as great OCing cards. (although 370/340 is a pretty tiny OC)

you're pretty biased to say a geforcefx5900 ultra = radeon 9700pro

More like 5900Ultra makes 9700Pro obsolete.....

umm, it's called SAMPLING BIAS. maybe you should look into that. the point is that when comparing an OCed card to a non OCed card makes the comparison meaningless as you are coming the TOP performance of one card to the STOCK performance of another card. yeah, 370/340 isnt an amazing OC but it can kick a 5800 OCed ass

 

[nRollo]

umm, it's called SAMPLING BIAS. maybe you should look into that. the point is that when comparing an OCed card to a non OCed card makes the comparison meaningless as you are coming the TOP performance of one card to the STOCK performance of another card. yeah, 370/340 isnt an amazing OC but it can kick a 5800 OCed ass

LOL- does my post make you angry Shady????

The comparison isn't "meaningless" because if you can run your 5800 at Ultra speeds, you effectively have an Ultra. Likewise, if you had a R9700np that you can run stable at R9700P speeds, you effectively have a R9700P.
As for your powerful VGA kicking my VGAs ass, LOL. I work for a living. I can afford any VGA I want. I sold the card you use because I was bored with it. I'll use the 5800 till the nV40 comes out, then I'll buy that. Etc.

 

[Shamrock]

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: Rollo
I have a FX5800. It doesn't have the FlowFX, it's not noisey. It OCs to Ultra levels easily, as do the FX5800s in the only 3 reviews I could find:

Review 1

am able to overclock the core clock to 500Mhz which is a decent 100Mhz improvement and also the memory clock to 1Ghz reaching the speed of the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra card!

Review 2

Overclocking is carried out with default cooling, e.g. stock HSF and thermal grease. The highest working speed is 490Core/985Memory.

Review 3

Overclocking is carried out with default cooling, e.g. stock HSF and thermal grease. The highest working speed is 520Core/1000Memory

I can just set the core to 500, the memory to 1000, and it works fine, standard hsf. If you can do that, the picture changes somewhat:
5800 on UT2003
The 5800 at 500/1000 performs as well as a 9700Pro, except at 16X12, 4x/8X. Of course, you'd never run that setting in UT2003, way too slow.

5800 on JK
The 5800 still hanging with the 9700Pro.

ok, you cant compare an OCed 5800 to a NON oced 9700 pro. can it hang with the 9700 pro when the 9700 pro is at 370/340?

Why cant he? He IS NOT using the 5800 Ultra, and the 9700 PRO is a 9700 that has been OC'ed. If you really wanna compare, let's compare a STOCK 5800 (non ultra) with a 9700 NON PRO (not OC'ed)

*awaits review sites of these* hehe

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: MASTERT
im looking for a video card and i like NVIDIA ALOT
i see the ATi Radeon 9700 is a good card but the Drivers are messed up

look here i saw that this card is faster than the 9800 Pro until it gets into the really high detail stuff
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=22
its faster and $200 Less

Okay... I'm almost wondering if this is worth the effort, but what the heck.
First off, you can forget the whole "ATI drivers suck" thing. They haven't "sucked" for about 3-5 years now. NOW they're at least as good as nVidia's drivers. nVidia's got a few driver issues themselves, so neither is perfect.

And you're not alone in the nVidia-mania. I don't know why the obsession, but you see it every day at places like Best Buy. People that don't know any better paying twice as much for an nVidia product just because... well, because it's a GeForce! Try to understand that ATI is playing VERY hard in this game, and both have made incredible strides... both are worth your consideration.

Paying through the nose for an FX 5900 is just plain foolish. If you're willing to go for a high-end card, the 9800 Pro is significantly less expensive and holds up to the FX 5900 very well. Is another $100-200 worth 10% more performance? Not in my books!

In the $100-200 range, the FX 5600Ultra and Radeon 9500 Pro / 9600 Pro are both excellent contenders and very close in terms of speed. The 9600 is THE card to pick if you want both fast speed and need to eliminate heat and noise. It offers the highest speed with the lowest heat generation out there... only an issue for some people. A few dollars more can get you the older Radeon 9700 non-pro which is an AMAZING card for just over $200! I'd take one over the higher-priced 5800 any day!

Around $100, nothing can beat a GF4 TI4200! Super card that still holds its own... maybe not so good at handling some of the graphic features like Anti Aliasing or Ansiotropic Filtering compared to the newer cards mentioned above, but runs speedy without them and is less expensive. The GF4 handles AA a little better than the next series....

Under $100, the Radeon 9000 Pro, 9100/8500LE, 8500 cards can't be beat! (Named from slowest to fastest.) It handles AF better than the TI4200, though its AA isn't the fastest. But it's more than enough power for the average user and will still be a cracking good little card for another year or so. It's no Doom3 monster (barf!) but it'll work decently for it's price tag! I'm getting mine for about $50US brand new - can't beat that kind of price/performance.


So... think you can make a more informed choice now?

And there's more details about both... I'll just let you chew on this rather than add more.

 

[yhelothar]

First off, you can forget the whole "ATI drivers suck" thing. They haven't "sucked" for about 3-5 years now. NOW they're at least as good as nVidia's drivers.

that's comming from your own experience?

it's a fact that more people still have issues with ATI drivers than nvidia.. so just because you don't have any problems with them.. doesn't mean others don't...

name me one WHQL Official driver from nvidia that had major bugs..

i can name you a few ati official ones that many people had problems with... 3.4 for one....

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Rollo

umm, it's called SAMPLING BIAS. maybe you should look into that. the point is that when comparing an OCed card to a non OCed card makes the comparison meaningless as you are coming the TOP performance of one card to the STOCK performance of another card. yeah, 370/340 isnt an amazing OC but it can kick a 5800 OCed ass

LOL- does my post make you angry Shady????

The comparison isn't "meaningless" because if you can run your 5800 at Ultra speeds, you effectively have an Ultra. Likewise, if you had a R9700np that you can run stable at R9700P speeds, you effectively have a R9700P.
As for your powerful VGA kicking my VGAs ass, LOL. I work for a living. I can afford any VGA I want. I sold the card you use because I was bored with it. I'll use the 5800 till the nV40 comes out, then I'll buy that. Etc.

it doesn't anger me at all. All i'm tryin to say is that if you want to compare MAX performance of each card, then you would have to OC both cards. it would be equally biased to compare 2 5800's with them having different detenators. Here is what I'm saying: you can OC a 5800 to ultra speeds and then compare it to a 9700 pro BUT the 9700 pro still is not optimized for max performance

 

[Shamrock]

Paying through the nose for an FX 5900 is just plain foolish. If you're willing to go for a high-end card, the 9800 Pro is significantly less expensive and holds up to the FX 5900 very well. Is another $100-200 worth 10% more performance? Not in my books!

Significantly less...riiiiiiiiight.

ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 256MB $485.00

GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 256MB $504.49

both prices are THE CHEAPEST I could find on pricewatch...now if we get to "respectable sites"...it closes the gap even more

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Shamrock

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: Rollo
I have a FX5800. It doesn't have the FlowFX, it's not noisey. It OCs to Ultra levels easily, as do the FX5800s in the only 3 reviews I could find:

Review 1

am able to overclock the core clock to 500Mhz which is a decent 100Mhz improvement and also the memory clock to 1Ghz reaching the speed of the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra card!

Review 2

Overclocking is carried out with default cooling, e.g. stock HSF and thermal grease. The highest working speed is 490Core/985Memory.

Review 3

Overclocking is carried out with default cooling, e.g. stock HSF and thermal grease. The highest working speed is 520Core/1000Memory

I can just set the core to 500, the memory to 1000, and it works fine, standard hsf. If you can do that, the picture changes somewhat:
5800 on UT2003
The 5800 at 500/1000 performs as well as a 9700Pro, except at 16X12, 4x/8X. Of course, you'd never run that setting in UT2003, way too slow.

5800 on JK
The 5800 still hanging with the 9700Pro.

ok, you cant compare an OCed 5800 to a NON oced 9700 pro. can it hang with the 9700 pro when the 9700 pro is at 370/340?

Why cant he? He IS NOT using the 5800 Ultra, and the 9700 PRO is a 9700 that has been OC'ed. If you really wanna compare, let's compare a STOCK 5800 (non ultra) with a 9700 NON PRO (not OC'ed)

*awaits review sites of these* hehe

exactly. a 5800 vs 9700 NP is a good comparison, as is 5800 OCed Vs 9700 Pro OCed. Also, 5900 vs 9800 comparison and 5900ultra vs 9800 pro at Oced and stock speeds would be a good comparison because when comparing the two cards (which ever two it may be), you are comparing them to their "equivilant" conterpart @ maximum performance

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: MASTERT
i see the ATi Radeon 9700 is a good card but the Drivers are messed up

Why do people continue to belive this crap.
ATI drivers are just a good as nvidia drivers now, and have been since the release of the catalyst driver suite.

 

[nRollo]

Why do people continue to belive this crap.
ATI drivers are just a good as nvidia drivers now, and have been since the release of the catalyst driver suite.

Is their hardware compatibility?
100s of "rolling wavey lines" posts

My own last two ATI experiences:
A. 8500 retail: random lock ups on my Epox 8KHA+. A known issue many people with many motherboards had. Had to underclock it 25MHz for stability.
B. 9700Pro retail: rolling wavey lines on 2/3 monitors I own, just like all the people in the posts above. Antec 430W True Power/Asus P4PE/P4 2.53/Crucial PC2700/SB Audigy Isn't exactly off brand junk, nothing OCd, and I got the lines on a new Sony 19", and a Viewsonic 17". Worked on my Nokia 21", inexplicably.

There are still more driver issues with ATI than nVidia, but ATI is much better than they used to be and closing this gap. I think part of this may be greater developer support for nVidia.

 

[JammingJay]

Rollo does have a point, generally speaking ATI drivers seem to have more issues than NVIDIA. Now don't get me wrong, either case majority of the users do NOT run into a major problem whatsoever. Just a small point to make and yes ATI has seriously made improvements. I happen to be a both a happy Nvidia and ATI user, shocking yes.

 

[BoomAM]

ATI drivers still have their reputation, nvidias do not, so if a bug is found with an ATI driver, everyone instantly blame ATI and says that the drivers are crap. If the same problem was found with nvidia drivers, not many people would be bothered.