Nvidia FX 5900 Benchmarks

[Ganondorf27]

Originally posted by: gramboh
Pretty sure the machine using to demo HL2 at E3 was 9800 Pro 256meg in a P4 3.06 (dunno about RAM). It didn't look like there was any AA/AF and probably around 1024x768 maybe 1192x864. Also you could see it slow down (below 30fps) for a few frames here and there (the street combat scene, when there are large explosions). Then again the engine probably isn't fully optimized, and I'm sure ATi/Nvidia will be optimizing (hopefully not cheating) their drivers for HL2 since it will be a huge game for the next several years.

I don't think you will be able to do any AA/AF on HL2 with a 9700/9800/5900 series card though, maybe at 800x600.

That was an Alpha or Pre-Alpha build of HL 2. It slowed down far less in the 600 + MB version of the video. Considering the lack of events when it DID slow down, it's completely reasonable to assume that the slowdowns were some kind of glitch, or maybe just a problem with the video itself. They were most likely running it in a pretty high resolution... I saw no jaggies whatsoever, I would say it's possible there was some AA/AF available. You'll probably be able to do a bit of AA/AF on 9700/9800/5900 series cards. At 1024x768 and maybe even a bit above. The Source engine is being specifically designed to be able to run on a WIDE array of systems... The rig mentioned above was even a bit excessive for running it.

 

[Futher]

I love both cards and I'm going to college for Computer Graphics and Animation (Using programs such as Maya) Do you think it will be worth it to get the 256 meg FX5900 Ultra or the 256 meg Radeon 9800 Pro. I have a Radeon 8500 128 meg right now, and price isn't really a factor. Was going to wait for the 256 meg Version of the Gainward FX5900. Anyone have any experience with these type of cards and graphics? My current card freezes every once in awhile when rendering high-polygonal pieces. Thanks

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: Futher
I love both cards and I'm going to college for Computer Graphics and Animation (Using programs such as Maya) Do you think it will be worth it to get the 256 meg FX5900 Ultra or the 256 meg Radeon 9800 Pro. I have a Radeon 8500 128 meg right now, and price isn't really a factor. Was going to wait for the 256 meg Version of the Gainward FX5900. Anyone have any experience with these type of cards and graphics? My current card freezes every once in awhile when rendering high-polygonal pieces. Thanks

Are u gonna be using it for games or for doing computer graphics and animation?

Sounds to me like u need a Quadro or FireGL

 

[Futher]

I'm going to be doing a lot of gaming and a lot of graphics. That's why I'm tentative about commiting myself to a FireGL or quadro. Want to do gaming as well.

 

[Leon]

All the new benches using non standard benches show the 9800 pro beating out the 5900 ultra in pretty much every bench

Quite opposite

 

[Lyfer]

Just get a Radeon 9700 NP for $199 and be done with!

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: FishTankX

Originally posted by: codehack2
....Generally speaking in the memory market 'Bits' are what is used to describe the capacity of individual chips, while 'Bytes' are used to describe complete memory sticks or modules.

Ummmmm.. This is wrong. bits are the on off switches of the computer world. One bit can be off or on.
a byte is..
n : a sequence of 8 bits (enough to represent one character of
alphanumeric data) processed as a single unit of
information

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: FishTankX

Originally posted by: codehack2
....Generally speaking in the memory market 'Bits' are what is used to describe the capacity of individual chips, while 'Bytes' are used to describe complete memory sticks or modules.

Ummmmm.. This is wrong. bits are the on off switches of the computer world. One bit can be off or on.
a byte is..
n : a sequence of 8 bits (enough to represent one character of
alphanumeric data) processed as a single unit of
information

Right which is what he said, but you had to look it up. Bits is the general term for single chips. 256bit, 512bit, 128bit, dual channel 64 bit. Those are all bandwidth measurements.
Bits are also a measurement of the size of memory chips. And hes right, generally bits are used for single chips. And bytes are used for full modules.

By the way the on/off switches of the computer world are known as TRANSISTORS mr dictionary nazi.

 

[FishTankX]

Originally posted by: GaryShandling

Originally posted by: FishTankX

Originally posted by: GaryShandling

Originally posted by: FishTankX

Originally posted by: GaryShandling
Hehe, such naive people believing the 5900 ultra outperforms the 9800pro 256.

After a review on a website is concluded and states that the 5900 ultra is better then the 9800 pro 256. The editors go on about "We would like to thank Nvidia in participating (Altering) in this test"

I wouldn't trust nvidia and there scores with what will be the "biggest selling" games. It's a marketing tactic, and most of you have fallen for it.

If you really want to believe that, then look at IL-2 sturmovik.

It's not exactly an industry standard benchmark, hell.. it's a flight sim. But the FX5900 ultra still manages to beat the 9800 pro in that benchmark. Ditto for all the other benchmarks firingsquad was using.

If it's ment to be faster why does the 5900 ultra give out less frames per second then the 9800 256 in many new games? There altering benchmarks once more.

Can you give me a few links? I'd like to investigate that.

Im trying to find it, it was on a website showing unreal fps on both cards in various levels with different performance settings.

Edit: Here are the comparitive links in 1 scenario using basically equal but varied settings. Fps is in top right corner of the picture.


5900

9800 pro

8XAA/AF V.S. 6XAA/AF? Uh.. WTF?

OOkay.. well, whatever man. If you can ever toss benchmarks in new games that don't have excessivley crippling settings thrown in (I doubt anyone would play at those resolutions and settings) then please do. But I hardly see this is a valid copmarison.

I prefer no AA no AF for new games, and maybe 4X AA/16X AF (ATi settings) for old ones.

 

[GaryShandling]

Originally posted by: FishTankX

Originally posted by: GaryShandling

Originally posted by: FishTankX

Originally posted by: GaryShandling

Originally posted by: FishTankX

Originally posted by: GaryShandling
Hehe, such naive people believing the 5900 ultra outperforms the 9800pro 256.

After a review on a website is concluded and states that the 5900 ultra is better then the 9800 pro 256. The editors go on about "We would like to thank Nvidia in participating (Altering) in this test"

I wouldn't trust nvidia and there scores with what will be the "biggest selling" games. It's a marketing tactic, and most of you have fallen for it.

If you really want to believe that, then look at IL-2 sturmovik.

It's not exactly an industry standard benchmark, hell.. it's a flight sim. But the FX5900 ultra still manages to beat the 9800 pro in that benchmark. Ditto for all the other benchmarks firingsquad was using.

If it's ment to be faster why does the 5900 ultra give out less frames per second then the 9800 256 in many new games? There altering benchmarks once more.

Can you give me a few links? I'd like to investigate that.

Im trying to find it, it was on a website showing unreal fps on both cards in various levels with different performance settings.

Edit: Here are the comparitive links in 1 scenario using basically equal but varied settings. Fps is in top right corner of the picture.


5900

9800 pro

8XAA/AF V.S. 6XAA/AF? Uh.. WTF?

OOkay.. well, whatever man. If you can ever toss benchmarks in new games that don't have excessivley crippling settings thrown in (I doubt anyone would play at those resolutions and settings) then please do. But I hardly see this is a valid copmarison.

I prefer no AA no AF for new games, and maybe 4X AA/16X AF (ATi settings) for old ones.

What are you buying the card for? fps? crank it up to the max baby yeah.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: FishTankX

Originally posted by: codehack2
....Generally speaking in the memory market 'Bits' are what is used to describe the capacity of individual chips, while 'Bytes' are used to describe complete memory sticks or modules.

Ummmmm.. This is wrong. bits are the on off switches of the computer world. One bit can be off or on.
a byte is..
n : a sequence of 8 bits (enough to represent one character of
alphanumeric data) processed as a single unit of
information

Right which is what he said, but you had to look it up. Bits is the general term for single chips. 256bit, 512bit, 128bit, dual channel 64 bit. Those are all bandwidth measurements.
Bits are also a measurement of the size of memory chips. And hes right, generally bits are used for single chips. And bytes are used for full modules.

By the way the on/off switches of the computer world are known as TRANSISTORS mr dictionary nazi.

Exactly, nd the reason the chips are sold in "bits" rather than "bytes" is because a bit is the smallest unit you can use. Check out any memory manufacturer's website and you'll find that they make mostly 256 Megabit chips. If you put eight chips on a stick you get a 256 megabyte stick (commonly referred to as single-sided). Put 16 chips on a stick and you get a 512 MByte stick. This is why you sometimes see 32x8 in a 256 MBytes stick's spec or 32x16 beside a 512 MBytes stick; 256 Megabits is 32 Megabytes.

Hope that clears everything up

 

[Regs]

And who told you that a 9700 Pro will run HL2 at 1280x1024 with 4x FSAA? The wind? I'd be surprised if it ran 1024x768 max settings without any AA / AF at above 30fps on a ~2.5ghz cpu

Well if that's the case, considering even the 9800 pro isn't that much of a drastic difference between the 9700 pro to make the game run much smoother at 4x FSAA then. Of course, the game we saw in E3 must of been running on some new phantom 1,000 dollar video card you sound so eagerly to buy.

 

[Pete]

Couple more reviews, sorry if they've already been posted. No comments from me, there are enough numbers there for you to draw your own conclusions, and the reviews are pretty well done, IMO (varied games, custom timedemos).

FX 5900 Roundup
TNV35 Hits Retail : eVGA?s GeForceFX 5900 Ultra 256MB
MSI GeForce FX5900-TD128 Review
eVGA e-GeForce FX 5900 Ultra Review

 

[FishTankX]

Originally posted by: GaryShandling

Originally posted by: FishTankX

Originally posted by: GaryShandling

Originally posted by: FishTankX

Originally posted by: GaryShandling

Originally posted by: FishTankX

Originally posted by: GaryShandling
Hehe, such naive people believing the 5900 ultra outperforms the 9800pro 256.

After a review on a website is concluded and states that the 5900 ultra is better then the 9800 pro 256. The editors go on about "We would like to thank Nvidia in participating (Altering) in this test"

I wouldn't trust nvidia and there scores with what will be the "biggest selling" games. It's a marketing tactic, and most of you have fallen for it.

If you really want to believe that, then look at IL-2 sturmovik.

It's not exactly an industry standard benchmark, hell.. it's a flight sim. But the FX5900 ultra still manages to beat the 9800 pro in that benchmark. Ditto for all the other benchmarks firingsquad was using.

If it's ment to be faster why does the 5900 ultra give out less frames per second then the 9800 256 in many new games? There altering benchmarks once more.

Can you give me a few links? I'd like to investigate that.

Im trying to find it, it was on a website showing unreal fps on both cards in various levels with different performance settings.

Edit: Here are the comparitive links in 1 scenario using basically equal but varied settings. Fps is in top right corner of the picture.


5900

9800 pro

8XAA/AF V.S. 6XAA/AF? Uh.. WTF?

OOkay.. well, whatever man. If you can ever toss benchmarks in new games that don't have excessivley crippling settings thrown in (I doubt anyone would play at those resolutions and settings) then please do. But I hardly see this is a valid copmarison.

I prefer no AA no AF for new games, and maybe 4X AA/16X AF (ATi settings) for old ones.

What are you buying the card for? fps? crank it up to the max baby yeah.

I'd have to say that most of the time the 'Max' in a new game will bring a card to it's knees.

Try running unreal 2 at 1280X1024 and watch the system dip below 50FPS, even with a beefy CPU. I'd rather keep my frames, thank you. And live with jaggies.

Look at IL-2 sturmovik and Nascar 2000, in firingsquad' benchmarks. That's probably 'To the max' and they still dip low around 1600X1200.

The exception to this is that I love AF and will keep it on max in every game. In this regard I would believe the FX5900/ultra is pretty much even with the R9800.


I'll utilize FSAA in an old game where it doesn't matter much or i'm already achieving obscene framerates (QuakeIII comes to mind) but in the new games where i'm gonna have trouble punching 70FPS average i'd rather keep everything smooth and silky at 60 than have a prettier image.

 

[XBoxLPU]

I can run about every game at 16XAF/4XAA @ 1280X1024 with my 9700 Pro with playable FPS. The aa/af options are there, I am going to use them.

 

[gramboh]

I'm sure HL2 will be more than playable on all these cards at high detail, my concern is when CS2 and DOD2 come out, if you are having your frames dip down to 30 from 75-100 when there is any action it will be very hard to play them at a high level.

 

[sniperruff]

Originally posted by: WhyteRyce

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: mattg1981
This was posted just recently ....

5900 Non Ultra/Ultra Benches

Aside from the 3DMark2003 Shader bench, I'd say that no card really spanks the other (5900 Ultra vs. 9800 PRO). Both solid cards, both having their pluses and minuses (though the 9700 and 9800 PRO 128MBs are cheaper and more widely available).

Again, big kudos to ATi. Their almost one-year-old R3XX core is still going strong. Few graphics processors have stood so well against the test of time.

As opposed to previous cores that lasted well over a year?

i say socket 7 (athlon) lasted a couple of years while P4 has changed its socket from 423 to 487 to whatever. does it mean the athlon is a better CPU than the P4 all the time? no

 

[sniperruff]

just read a very interesting article on THG, seems like nvidia doesn't want to pay futuremark (maker of 3Dmarks) dough to CHANGE 3DMARKS to OPTIMIZE its scores in its products. one of the points from the article i found to be very true:

"The 3DMark optimizations, meanwhile, don't benefit gamers in any way - you can't play 3DMark!"

THG article on benchmarking

this is also interesting...
anand reviews the kyro2!

yes that other pic is ATI bashing nvidia shamelessly.

it seems like its ATI's words against nvidia's words, and both ATI and nvidia will OPTIMIZE their cards to score best on whatever benchmarks they advertise.

i would say both ATI and nvidia makes excellet cards (except the 5600ultra.....) just spend what you can afford and im sure it'll be a good product.

i think a 9700 will be sufficient to play HL2 btw, while playing on a 4200 will experience some slow down. at least that is what i hope...

 

[mattg1981]

HL2 is one of ATi's "made for radeon 9800 pro" games ...

so is the new game 'Will Rock' ... has anyone tested this game on any card other than the 9800?

 

[GaryShandling]

Originally posted by: mattg1981
HL2 is one of ATi's "made for radeon 9800 pro" games ...

so is the new game 'Will Rock' ... has anyone tested this game on any card other than the 9800?

The preview video of half life 2 is played on 9800 pro. and it looks amazing, so that seals my purchase.

 

[OverVolt]

This thread is outta CONTROL!

Well anyway, where was the 5900U around when i bought my R9800Pro for $380 more than a month ago? huh?

Thought so !