Question about the newer Geforce cards...been away for awhile...last I knew was Geforce 4...can you help update me?

[MaximusPSO]

ok, I haven't upgraded my computer in a loooonnng time. I've got a geforce2mx in it.

Anyway, here is my knowledge on the Geforce line below? What are the newer geforce cards, and where do they fit into this scheme? (ie. fx5200? fx5700?, etc)

Here is what I know:
Geforce
Geforce256
Geforce2mx
Geforce2
Geforce4mx4?0
Geforce3ti200
Geforce3ti500
Geforce4 4200/4400/4600
That is where my knowledge ends...

And I have no clue on ATI cards other than:
ATI 7000
ATI 7500
ATI 8500
ATI 9500

Thanks for any help!

 

[SickBeast]

well, it sounds to me like you missed nvidia's horrible past couple of years, which is why you're in the market to buy one of their cards by the sounds of it.

basically, NV30 and NV35 tanked compared to ATi's offerings. The NV40 was just paper-launched, and may or may not be faster than what ATi is supposedly announcing tomorrow.

the fx5200 is probably close to a gf3, and the fx5700 is probably close to a gf4ti4600.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
well, it sounds to me like you missed nvidia's horrible past couple of years, which is why you're in the market to buy one of their cards by the sounds of it.

basically, NV30 and NV35 tanked compared to ATi's offerings. The NV40 was just paper-launched, and may or may not be faster than what ATi is supposedly announcing tomorrow.

the fx5200 is probably close to a gf3, and the fx5700 is probably close to a gf4ti4600.

Yeah, it's too bad you missed two whole years of fanATIcs like Sick Beast bleating "The R300 series has superior PS2!" even though there were no PS2 games. And you missed the whole "ATIs AA is so much better " even though several review sites, this one included, said it was often hard to tell the difference in actual gameplay.

You were lucky you were gone, the only thing more insufferably boring than a GF1 owner explaing how hardware TL is the "got to have it" feature is listening to an ATI fan drone on and on about old driver cheats, PS2 performance, and AA.

If I were God, I'd fuse their fingers together and seal their eyes just to avoid the monotony of being omniscient and having such repetitive, insignificant dreck to being included in all I knew.

But thanks for starting the flame wars again, I'm sure 18,000 slavering, tent sporting fan boys are going to be only to happy to tell you of how not only was their heathen God 10% faster at many common benchmarks, it's more future proof too!

 

[protege5demon]

had a similar question a while back and i was referred to this link. Compares all of the newer cards with most of the relatively old ones, so you can get an idea of where you stand. Hopefully it'll be updated with the upcoming offerings from ATI and Nvidia.

 

[SickBeast]

dude, i wasn't starting a flame-war. you get waaaaaay too tense whenever someone mentions the words "nvidia" and "bad" in the same sentence. it's just a brand-name, dude. do you get this upset when people say bad things about the way coca-cola tastes??

we know rollo. you like nvidia better, regardless of who makes the faster graphics cards. you have said it enough times on these forums.

i never mentionned pixel-shader 2.0 by the way. ati's cards were faster regarless of dx9, basically across the board. sorry, i know how much this must upset you.

 

[SickBeast]

BTW, it's rather humourous and ironic to hear YOU call someone else a fanboy, rollo. i have no brand preference, i'm just pointing out the facts.

 

[MaximusPSO]

Thanks SickBeast and protege5demon. I'll check out that link protege5demon.

 

[MaximusPSO]

protege5demon,
That link is great! Thanks so much!!!

 

[Schadenfroh]

ATI
9000 (a cheaper to make version of the 8500, slower than 8500)
9100 (8500LE rebranded)
9200 (a 9000 with 8x agp, no performance gain and slower than 9100)
9500 (4 pipelines, 128bit memory bus)
9600 (4 pipelines, 128bit memory bus)
9600 Pro/XT (higher clocked versions of 9600)
9500 pro (8 pipelines, 128bit memory bus)
9700 (8 pipelines, 256-bit memory bus)
9800SE (could have 4 pipelines or a 128bit memory bus, varies)
9800 (overclocked 9700)
9800 xt (overclocked 9800)
Note: most of the other Pro versus Non pro differ only in clockspeeds and possibly memory chips

9800xt>9800=9700pro>9700>9500pro=9600xt>9600pro>9800SE>9500>9600>8500>8500LE=9100>9200=9000

 

[SickBeast]

yah but he's asking about nvidia cards.

 

[Sylvanas]

man.... ATI rules now

 

[Corporate Thug]

5200
5200 Ultra
5500
5600
5600 ultra
5700
5700 ultra
5800
5800 ultra
5900
5900 ultra
5950
6800U

from worst to best

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
dude, i wasn't starting a flame-war. you get waaaaaay too tense whenever someone mentions the words "nvidia" and "bad" in the same sentence. it's just a brand-name, dude. do you get this upset when people say bad things about the way coca-cola tastes??

we know rollo. you like nvidia better, regardless of who makes the faster graphics cards. you have said it enough times on these forums.

i never mentionned pixel-shader 2.0 by the way. ati's cards were faster regarless of dx9, basically across the board. sorry, i know how much this must upset you.

No I think I called it pretty much dead on the money. I actually like ATI cards better, it's ATIs insufferable fan boys I can't take.

ATIs cards are faster "across the board"?
Really?
How about at no AA/AF?
How about at 10X7 4x8X?
How about at 12X10 4x8X?
How about at OpenGL?

 

[CaiNaM]

yea, too difficult to do the research.. and too boring; it's much more fun to post a question like this in the forums and watch all the fanboi's go at it

i think one of the at "guides" said it rather well, "NVIDIA's 5950 Ultra closely trails the 9800XT (more on the 5950 in a moment) enough in current games in terms of speed and IQ (image quality), that it's pretty clear the 9800XT is the superior high end product. That's why we recommend it today."

tho, at $200 and not much more than a hair slower than the XT, atm the 9800pro is arguably the best performance value this generation, followed by the (very overclockable) fx5900XT/SE for around $170ish.

in truth the nv products are not so far behind that if, for whatever reason you happen to prefer nv (driver features or what), there's nothing wrong with going that route - you're not giving up THAT much in either IQ or performance. they both have thier strength and weaknesses, which have been documented in dozens of reviews.

 

[VIAN]

FX IQ is horrible though. Just look at the comparison pics from the 6800U review, just plain horrible.

If you plan on using 4xAA, then go with a 256MB 9800 Pro for 300. regular 9800 Pro is 200. 9800 Xt is 400, these are ballpark figures. 9800 XT is definitely not worth that much.

And if you decide to get a nvidia card. 5900/XT for 200 or 5900U for 4xAA use, if you can find it. 5950 is a waste of time and money.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: shady06
5200
5200 Ultra
5500
5600
5600 ultra
5700
5700 ultra
5800
5800 ultra
5900
5900 ultra
5950
6800U

from worst to best

Hey you missed out the XT's, okay the 5600 XT is best forgotten but the 5900 XT is decent!

5200
5600 XT
5200 Ultra
5500
5600
5600 Ultra
5700
5700 Ultra
5800
5800 Ultra
5900 XT
5900
5900 Ultra
5950
6800 Ultra

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: VIAN
FX IQ is horrible though. Just look at the comparison pics from the 6800U review, just plain horrible.

If you plan on using 4xAA, then go with a 256MB 9800 Pro for 300. regular 9800 Pro is 200. 9800 Xt is 400, these are ballpark figures. 9800 XT is definitely not worth that much.

And if you decide to get a nvidia card. 5900/XT for 200 or 5900U for 4xAA use, if you can find it. 5950 is a waste of time and money.

FX IQ isn't horrible! :disgust:

 

[MaximusPSO]

Thanks for the input! This thread will be invaluable to me in my purchase. I'm saving it to my hard drive. Thanks guys!!!

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: SickBeast
dude, i wasn't starting a flame-war. you get waaaaaay too tense whenever someone mentions the words "nvidia" and "bad" in the same sentence. it's just a brand-name, dude. do you get this upset when people say bad things about the way coca-cola tastes??

we know rollo. you like nvidia better, regardless of who makes the faster graphics cards. you have said it enough times on these forums.

i never mentionned pixel-shader 2.0 by the way. ati's cards were faster regarless of dx9, basically across the board. sorry, i know how much this must upset you.

No I think I called it pretty much dead on the money. I actually like ATI cards better, it's ATIs insufferable fan boys I can't take.

ATIs cards are faster "across the board"?
Really?
How about at no AA/AF?
How about at 10X7 4x8X?
How about at 12X10 4x8X?
How about at OpenGL?

Read the toms hardware link posted above. In UT2003, the ATi cards are consistently faster than the comparable nVidia cards with no AA/AF.

10X7 and 12X10 with 4X8X: I was always under the impression that ATi's cards performed significantly better with AA/AF enabled, however I would be interested in seeing some benchmarks to prove your point.

OpenGL...that's one area that may be faster on Nvidia cards. With newer drivers things may be different tho. So fine..."across the board" may have been an overstatement, but on the whole ATi's cards are documented to be faster.

In any case you keep calling me a fanboy which I resent as I am not. Like I said, it's ironic coming from you.