Nope,I would rather spend the extra on games(what`s the point in having a 9800 Pro with no new games) or save the $150 towards my next new video card down the road,I`m sure you can find other things to spend the $150 on .
btw, is it worth an extra $150 for the 256MB version of the 9800 PRO?
Originally posted by: LordOfTheBlings
my goodness, who has the patience to read all this stuff? cliff notes people, cliff notes
btw, is it worth an extra $150 for the 256MB version of the 9800 PRO? i'm really struggling with this decision...
LOL, the day my life depends on a $300 VGA, I'll end it myself. As I've said before, I work for a living, I can afford any VGA made. Make your silly assumptions about someone you might have half a clue about.basically rollo is defending his fx5800 as if his life depended on it. he doesnt want to accept other truths
Thats odd. You said that you upgraded from a GF2 pro, to a VIVO, to a GF3, to a 8500, to a GF4, to a 9700, to a 5800. And you then said that if the 5800 had crap IQ, then you would be buying a 5900 or 9800 now. Now you spend all that money on gettting new video cards, if half the ones your buying dont offer a substantial speed increase over the one you did have. Its a waste, pure and simple. You could have spent the money more productivly. But its your money, waste it how you will. To be honest, im suprised you havnt got a 9800/5900 yet!Originally posted by: Rollo
LOL, the day my life depends on a $300 VGA, I'll end it myself. As I've said before, I work for a living, I can afford any VGA made. Make your silly assumptions about someone you might have half a clue about.
If the vendor has openly avoided the AGP spec then you can't ever assume that the motherboard is not the cause of the problems.In answer to your question, no I'd never assume because they put a capacitor too near the slot the wiring of the slot was wrong as well, why would I?
250W power supplies work fine with old nVidia and 3dfx cards. R300s don't, therefore the card must be at fault.Besides, it worked great with my nVidia and 3dfx based cards.
Lucky you, others [using nVidia cards] don't necessarily share your charmed life. Should I post a link to nvnews?Hmmm, lucky you. Others don't necessarily share your charmed life though:
And I've never seen 100s of posts complaining about ATi cards having fuzzy or ghosted text.No, I've never seen 100s of posts about people with GeForce cards having gray bars rolling across their screen like I have for the ATI 9X00 series.
The point is that your settings aren't enough to tax either card enough to show a difference.I think there's a "little" difference between 11X8X32, highest detail levels, quality 4XAF that I run UT2003 at and 320X240, but if you don't, good for you.
I see, so what you're saying is when you run at your current settings the cards are equal but when you raise them both cards are still equal because neither can run at anything higher?LOL, I would have run the 9700 at higher settings if it was powerful enough to do so.
"Fuzzy banding", yet 16x AF looks better and and runs faster than the 5800. You have very interesting logic there:Of course, the fuzzy banding introduced by your "Performance" settings wasn't an option.
What does that prove other than the fact that he's clueless at the subject at hand?I'll put it this way, the guy I sold the 9700Pro to hasn't even installed it, and has told me I could have it back if I like.
Again what does that prove other than the fact that you know absolutely about the card at hand?It's not in my box, because there isn't enough difference to make the change worth my time.
Yes, here we go again, first using ridiculous settings to "prove" a point and then complaining when it's explained that the settings can't be used to prove a point.Here we go again, for some reason you think the settings you run are the only "real" settings.
Reviewers also use 1024 x 768 x 32 with 0x A and 0x AF. Yep, we'd better take out that 5800 and stick in a GF4 Ti4200 because according to you there's no difference between the cards. They're "real" settings because reviewers use them, right?Most people would say 4XAA 8XAF is a "real" setting, it's what all the reviewers use.
Sure, at settings that should never be used to compare video cards. If such settings are used to show "equality" then one can only assume that the person making the comparison has a flawed sense of judgment and doesn't understand even the most basic issues at hand.I've posted lots of links to benchmarks that show a 5800 at Ultra speeds is in the same league as a 9700 Pro.
I didn't buy a 9800, because I was bored with my 9700Pro already and didn't see much difference. (although I'm thinking of buying one now and running it at 11X8X32, 4X Quality AF just to annoy BFG )To be honest, im suprised you havnt got a 9800/5900 yet!
A knowledgeless fool BoomAM? That hurts.but you are deluding yourself and making yourslef look like a knoledgeless fool if you still think and belive that the 5800Ultra is faster in any way, than the 9700pro.
There you go, switching the goalposts again BFG. My Epox 8KHA+ worked fine with the GF3 and GF4, but not with the R8500. These are directly comparable products from the same time in history. Your obviously flawed example compares cards produced years apart, and as we all know, this kind of technology changes too fast for that to work.250W power supplies work fine with old nVidia and 3dfx cards. R300s don't, therefore the card must be at fault
Please. The 8KHA+ is one of the more respected KT266A boards. Besides which, the FACT that the GF3 and GF4 ran perfectly on it with all other hardware the same, clean install for the 8500, multiple drivers/bioses for 8500 and 8KHA+ tried kind of points to the problem being the 8500?If the vendor has openly avoided the AGP spec then you can't ever assume that the motherboard is not the cause of the problems.
Now you're getting it- like I said, I would've gladly run the 9700 at 6X/16X if it could have run well at those settings.I see, so what you're saying is when you run at your current settings the cards are equal but when you raise them both cards are still equal because neither can run at anything higher?
Well, Anand agrees with me even if you don't:Fuzzy banding", yet 16x AF looks better and and runs faster than the 5800
The tables have turned and now it's ATI's turn to play catch-up and make their performance mode look better.
Sorry BFG. He's been too busy writing software for his business to game, so he doesn't care if he has a 9700Pro. (maybe someday if he runs out of clients he'll be able to focus more on which VGA is best???) I was only trying to prove that I had the choice of having the 9700Pro and $115 or the 5800, and I kept the 5800. If I was really hurting using the 5800, I'd probably have taken the 9700 back?What does that prove other than the fact that he's clueless at the subject at hand
Well BFG, the fact of the matter is that the benchmarks the 5800Ultra and 9700Pro are equal at, they are above all other cards except the 5900 and 9800. So you could say at those settings the cards are equal, and if those settings are satisfactory to you, the cards would be about equal. Believe it or not, not everyone on the planet shares your idea that the only relevant settings for a VGA are with everything maxed. Some of us care about smooth animation and resolution too.If such settings are used to show "equality" then one can only assume that the person making the comparison has a flawed sense of judgment and doesn't understand even the most basic issues at hand
Could you provide a couple, other than 3dmark (they said nVidia isn't cheating)?I can provide hundreds of links. Im suprised you even asked.
No, I don't. I believe it's faster in some situations/games, slower in others.You belive that the 5800Ultra is faster
I provided links to disprove your statement that it's NEVER faster.And ave provided links to "prove" it.
So do I, and I've had both.I belive that the 9700pro is faster.
I could say the same, and would. The 5800 is a pretty good card, but the 9700Pro is a better card because it does everything the 5800 Ultra does, and offers some much better performance at some AA/AF settings. (like the ones BFG uses)The 9700pro is the best card ive ever used.
Originally posted by: Rollo
I could say the same, and would. The 5800 is a pretty good card, but the 9700Pro is a better card because it does everything the 5800 Ultra does, and offers some much better performance at some AA/AF settings. (like the ones BFG uses)The 9700pro is the best card ive ever used.
I've never said the 9700Pro doesn't kick ass, it was the best card I've ever owned.Wait a minute?!! Who are you and what did you do to Rollo???
Originally posted by: oldfart
Rollo, Dont take me wrong, and this is not a flame in any way, but your 9700 to 5800 journey has been perplexing at best. People have had a hard time understanding the whole thing. You seen marginally happy with the 5800 and seem to like the 9700 a bit better. You stated earlier that you could get your 9700 back and put $175 back in your pocket. If you are not all that crazy about the 5800, why dont you do that? Why pay an extra $175 for a card you dont like as much?
Thanks Devers. I originally posted a snide comment in return for Cesar, I'll skip it.Rollo I said it before and I'll say it again get a life u dumb ass
Wanted to try something new Old Fart, the 9700Pro had become too familiar. If I replace this anytime soon it will be with a 9800Pro or FX non Ultra, which I consider the sweet spots in the market now.You stated earlier that you could get your 9700 back and put $175 back in your pocket. If you are not all that crazy about the 5800, why dont you do that?
No they aren't. From my personal and extensive experience I'd class the current Catalyst 3.5s to be at least as good as as the best nVidia drivers I've used.