Which is louder: GeForce Asylum 5600 or Radeon 9500 PRO?

[Oaklap]

Does anybody know? And is it a big difference?

 

[AnAndAustin]

I wouldn't say there's much diff at all (unless a 5600 can be passively cooled). However bear in mind that the Rad9500PRO is actually way faster than a GF-FX5600ultra so it's hardly an apples to apples comparison. GF-FX5600 is way slower than a GF4TI4200 so is close to Rad9600 in speed, of course the 9600 and FX both have DX9 but I'd say they're too slow to use it. Rad9500pro is very close to Rad9700 in speed and can surpass it if you o/c, if you can get one then go for it, if you find it too loud you should find it sells on easily as everyone in the know knows it is a good deal faster than a Rad9600pro or GF-FX5600ultra and most likely comparable to the Rad9800se cards!

 

[Schadenfroh]

uhh, the 5600 ultra rev2 is just as good as a 9500 pro, the 9500 pro is certainly not "way" faster

 

[Mem]

Read the HARDOCP review of the BFGTech 5600Ultra(new flip chip version) here .

However, if I had to put one card as a winner in these tests it would clearly have to be the 9500 Pro. Its performance cannot be denied, the numbers do not lie. It is stronger in vertex and pixel shader speed. It is faster then the GFFX 5600 Ultra as the resolution and AA/AF level increase.

 

[JZilla]

If noise is an issue I would take the R9500 and slap on a Zalman ZM80A-HP heatpipe.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Mem
Read the HARDOCP review of the BFGTech 5600Ultra(new flip chip version) here .

However, if I had to put one card as a winner in these tests it would clearly have to be the 9500 Pro. Its performance cannot be denied, the numbers do not lie. It is stronger in vertex and pixel shader speed. It is faster then the GFFX 5600 Ultra as the resolution and AA/AF level increase.

you forgot to include this

At stock speeds, our results remained solid, but our 5600 Ultra did trade some victories with our ATI cards. We noticed that in UT2K3 at 1024x768 the GFFX 5600 Ultra typically lead the pack.

i was wrong about it being faster but it is definatly on the same level and it is not "way" faster than the 5600 ultra rev2 and when o/c it does match it even better. althought i would recommend a 9700 over both

 

[Mem]

Schadenfroh,sure the 5600 Ultra(new version) is close but the 9500 Pro has the edge overall ,as to your 9700 remark in your last post
well you`re right,that`s probably why I`ve one in my main rig .


Btw you should only compare both cards not overclocked to make it fair,since overclocking can give a false reading and we all know that cards vary with overclocking performance once they are in the owners hand.

 

[Richdog]

Originally posted by: AnAndAustin
I wouldn't say there's much diff at all (unless a 5600 can be passively cooled). However bear in mind that the Rad9500PRO is actually way faster than a GF-FX5600ultra so it's hardly an apples to apples comparison. GF-FX5600 is way slower than a GF4TI4200 so is close to Rad9600 in speed, of course the 9600 and FX both have DX9 but I'd say they're too slow to use it. Rad9500pro is very close to Rad9700 in speed and can surpass it if you o/c, if you can get one then go for it, if you find it too loud you should find it sells on easily as everyone in the know knows it is a good deal faster than a Rad9600pro or GF-FX5600ultra and most likely comparable to the Rad9800se cards!

Umm where did you get that from? Im an ATI man but the new FX5600 flip chip has beaten the 9500PRO in a variety of benchmarks. Maybe you were talking about the plain vanilla FX5600?

 

[rickn]

for the new flipchip fx5600 ultra(and maybe normal 5600 as well), in 2d the fan cuts off, so it is completely silent. It spins back up when you initiate 3d, and it is still quiet. I don't care much for ATI other than they make competition for NV, and the new flipchip 5600ultra is kickin'. they overclock very nicely, and some companies like chaintech and gainward even guarantee certain speeds

 

[ZimZum]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh


i was wrong about it being faster but it is definatly on the same level and it is not "way" faster than the 5600 ultra rev2 and when o/c it does match it even better. althought i would recommend a 9700 over both

Yep, the 5600 ultra rev2 is a good card, but at the price its going for You can pick up a 9700 non pro which will wipe the floor with both the 9500pro and 5600 ultra.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Originally posted by: RichdogUmm where did you get that from? Im an ATI man but the new FX5600 flip chip has beaten the 9500PRO in a variety of benchmarks. Maybe you were talking about the plain vanilla FX5600?

Yup that's why I was careful to include the key words PRO and ULTRA whenever I was referring to the enhanced cards and why I said 5600 vs 9500pro was not apples to apples. The FX5600 and Rad9600 are in Rad8500 territory, just with DX9 and nice AA+AF. The 5600ultra (yes rev2) is on par with the Rad9600pro esp if you read a number of reviews, and the 9600pro is 15% slower than a Rad9500pro ... the same sort of speed that seperated the 4200 from the 4400/4800se and the 9700 from the 9700pro. So esp considering the extra cash people throw for a 15%ish speed boost I'd call it significantly faster, heck the 9500pro should be on par with the 9800se 128bit RAM cards!

In terms of noise, the nVidia cards tend to use more power, run hotter and use noisier cooling as a general rule. I doubt diffs would be huge and as said the FX cards should come with intelligent fans (only clock speed underclocking in 2D is actually nVidia rules). I'd expect the 9500pro would be marginally quieter in 3D but marginally louder in 2D ... if noise is a big concern look for a passive option and forget the decent performers.