I am building a high-end gaming rig (thus, I don?t need features like TV-out), and am trying to choose a GPU. The difference between 110 and 100 FPS means nothing to me, and I plan on having to upgrade my card to perform top of the line in about a year or two. My choices have boiled down to the Radeon 9600 Pro, 9500 Pro, and the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra.
Each card has myriad suffixes, ranging from the Ultra/Ultimate/256mb/128mb of the Radeons to the 128mb/256mb of the FXs. Even so, they are all in a similar price range, with the 9500 Pro being slightly more expensive (and performing the best in benchmarks).
My only bias against the 9500 is hearsay from Newegg reviewers I?ve read against it, because benchmarks I?ve seen from reputable testers like Anandtech and Tom?s Hardware are showing it superior to the 9600 or FX 5600 (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1812&p=4, http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1812&p=15, http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030416/radeon_9600-09.html).
To add to my confusion, however, one benchmark (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/vga_card_guide-12.html) shows the FX 5600 running faster. Also, Anandtech?s Doom 3 test gave 5600 the edge (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=23) --though perhaps this is not of too much note since ATI cards were purportedly not fully optimized. Also, Tom?s gave the top award to MSI?s FX 5600. The 256mb version can be purchased for $175.
Certainly, reviews by reputable websites mean more to me than those of mere Newegg customers, but they are worth considering nonetheless, I suppose.
I will not be buying any card that performs less well than any of these, so this is the last real step in my choosing process other than choosing a manufacturer. By the way, other card suggestions are welcome if the price increase isn?t too dramatic.
Each card has myriad suffixes, ranging from the Ultra/Ultimate/256mb/128mb of the Radeons to the 128mb/256mb of the FXs. Even so, they are all in a similar price range, with the 9500 Pro being slightly more expensive (and performing the best in benchmarks).
My only bias against the 9500 is hearsay from Newegg reviewers I?ve read against it, because benchmarks I?ve seen from reputable testers like Anandtech and Tom?s Hardware are showing it superior to the 9600 or FX 5600 (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1812&p=4, http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1812&p=15, http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030416/radeon_9600-09.html).
To add to my confusion, however, one benchmark (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/vga_card_guide-12.html) shows the FX 5600 running faster. Also, Anandtech?s Doom 3 test gave 5600 the edge (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=23) --though perhaps this is not of too much note since ATI cards were purportedly not fully optimized. Also, Tom?s gave the top award to MSI?s FX 5600. The 256mb version can be purchased for $175.
Certainly, reviews by reputable websites mean more to me than those of mere Newegg customers, but they are worth considering nonetheless, I suppose.
I will not be buying any card that performs less well than any of these, so this is the last real step in my choosing process other than choosing a manufacturer. By the way, other card suggestions are welcome if the price increase isn?t too dramatic.