PDA

View Full Version : FX 5900 Ultra or ATI 9800 Pro ???



XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 09:29 PM
Question as stated, to be ordered next week
with the following system.

I understand FX is faster, but ATI prettier,
are there any issues with the new FX, also
any issues if I decide to go with the
ATI 9700 Pro All-In-Wonder for some video work.


Intel 875P mobo
P4C 2.8 w/800 FSB
1 Gig Corsair DDR Ram
1 x 80 Gig 7200 8MB system disk
2 x 35Gig 10,000 rpm SATA in Raid 0, data disks
Audigy 1 card (is this still preferred over Aud 2)?
CD-ROM/DVD
DVD+R/RW

Thanks, Rx

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 09:29 PM
Question as stated, to be ordered next week
with the following system.

I understand FX is faster, but ATI prettier,
are there any issues with the new FX, also
any issues if I decide to go with the
ATI 9700 Pro All-In-Wonder for some video work.


Intel 875P mobo
P4C 2.8 w/800 FSB
1 Gig Corsair DDR Ram
1 x 80 Gig 7200 8MB system disk
2 x 35Gig 10,000 rpm SATA in Raid 0, data disks
Audigy 1 card (is this still preferred over Aud 2)?
CD-ROM/DVD
DVD+R/RW

Thanks, Rx

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 10:05 PM
If you play games I would stick with Nvidia.

If you are going to be editing home movies you might want to give ATI a try.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 10:39 PM
If you want the fastest, the 9800pro will be your choice, the fx card is not the fastest, have you heard about nvidia cheating issue, recently new benchmarks have come out and they prove that the 9800 pro is the fastest, also you will love the iq, if you're going to do video editing, go for the AIW 9700pro, this card is also good for gaming, is not much slower then the 9800pro, right now ati has the best drivers compare to nvidia(cheaters)

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:02 PM
RayBanJockey wrote:
- If you play games I would stick with Nvidia.
-
- If you are going to be editing home movies you might
- want to give ATI a try.

hey RBJ, whats up with your attitude???
viewing form your post you know nothing about those 2 video card company..
anyway, if you want to spend 500 US bucks tax not included go grab 3dfx 5900U, that card beat r9800pro by at most 15% but the image not prettier than r9800pro.
or you can get r9800pro/AIW 9700pro for less than 400 US bucks again tax not included, and you get better IQ/image quality for your gaming/watching tv or editing your home video.



The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light

XyZspineZyX
06-18-2003, 11:21 PM
I`d go for 9800 PRO. Even 9700 PRO is more then enough. That`s what i have /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 12:20 AM
RayBanJockey wrote:
- If you play games I would stick with Nvidia.
-
- If you are going to be editing home movies you might
- want to give ATI a try.
-
- <img
- src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/rep
- ository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
- "The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace
- said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was
- still a newbie.
- news update (http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.p
-)


That just is flat untrue. I have one machine with a Geforce 4800 and another one with a 9700 Pro. The 9700 pro works great with every game I own (and that is a lot of games) I suppose you could run into problems with some *old* games but right now your best best is to go with a ATI 9700 or 9800

<div align="center">
&lt;object classid="clsidhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0" width="252" height="100">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.redspar.com/sig.swf">
<param name="quality" value="best">
&lt;embed src="http://www.redspar.com/sig.swf" quality="best" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="252" height="100"></embed></object>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 12:53 AM
Have you thought of getting the 3.06 chip instead? It has Hyper-Threading, and FB supports it. Then take either card. They will both work good. I have the 3.06 and a 9800, and they run FB very good.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:11 AM
Fireing squad shows 5900 non ultra beating 9800 pro with AA and Anso turned on, now you can say that the AA on the FX isnt comparable, so if you turn the AA higher on the 5900 I would guess them to be about the same. Now this is for the non Ultra, so the Ultra will most likely have 9800 beat in FB. But the thing is, either is a good card. People gotta stop getting so personal over videocards, its just hardware. I know its not so bad on here, but I can see it a little (RBJ on FX side, on nearly everyone on theATI side). Heres waht you should really do, get whichever one has the best game bundle.

--lbhkilla--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 03:58 AM
The 5900 Ultra and 9800 Pro are well-matched with a teeny-tiny edge for nVidia's offering. They swing back and forth swapping leads across different benchmarks. However, in IL-2, the 5900 has a firm lead: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1075334,00.asp

Now, whether this lead justifies the premium price you pay is up to you. Personally, I believe that the 9700 non-pro is the best bang for the buck right now, much like the GF4 Ti4200 in its day.

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:00 AM
A guy I fly with thats very knowledgable about this stuff had an Nvidia 4600. He switiched to the 9700 Pro and couldn't believe how much better it was! I bought one based on his recommendation and it's fantastic! I'm not sure how much better the 9800 pro is. You might want to look into the 9700 pro to save a few bucks.

&lt;script>var avatar='http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/JG27_Emblem.jpg'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=avatar</script>
&lt;script>a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor="003366";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundPosition="center center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat"</script>
<html>
<body>
<p align="center"><a href="http://www.jg27.net/">http://www.templeofthegoddess.com/files/Pictures/sigs/Crashsig1.jpg<font color=red>The last bastion of humor and hope in an otherwise smelly fartbag of a world!</font>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:00 AM
I don´t know but I am not sure the 5900 Ultra got the power to compete with the 9800 PRO anymore. It started fine with showing benchmarks where it clearly surpassed the 9800 PRO in the majority of benchmarks and absolutely crushed the 9800 PRO in DOOM III for example but a new uglier side of the 5900 ULTRA has started to show.

Using custom settings opting for image quality especially makes the 5900 ULTRA quite a bit slower than the 9800 PRO. IL 2 FB is no exception there at all. They got a totally different result from when first benchmarking the 9800 PRO and 5900 ULTRA with default settings. That may explain why the 9800 PRO actually is faster than the 5900 Ultra in DOOM III with quality settings while being so much slower at standard settings.

It was maybe to much to ask that nVidia would close the gap to ATI in such little time???

Have a look at this...

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/msi_geforce_fx5900-td128_review/page8.asp

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:10 AM
Oh, there was two IL 2 benchmarks... Strange that the 5900 Ultra was faster than the 9800 PRO in IL 2 FB with aa and anisotropic. In every other it´s still slower...

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:05 AM
Actually, the 5900 is the one with the higher bandwidth now (27.2Gb/s) so the fact that it handles higher res + AA and Aniso better is no surprise. What is indeed a surprise is the drastic difference between this benchmark and most of the others I've come across to date. On the plus side, it makes me slightly more confident about my planned purchase of a 9700 non-pro so thanx.

I totally don't care about the label on the card so long as it delivers on the investment. My Ti4200 served me well and is still doing fine at 4600 speeds. Time to get the 9700 though coz I'm hooked on the concept of 6xFSAA and 8xAniso. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<hr width="400">Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and have their
shoes!
http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 03:04 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Have you thought of getting the 3.06 chip instead?
- It has Hyper-Threading, and FB supports it. Then
- take either card. They will both work good. I have
- the 3.06 and a 9800, and they run FB very good.
-


I run a very similar box (9700 pro/3.06ghz).

The new P4C chips are a better idea... (They all support HT)


If you can't afford the 3.0, the 2.8 is a good call.

In addition you will be using DDR-200, which is a much less expensive alternative to the PC-1066 RDRAM used on the 3.06 motherboard. And in dual-channel mode, DDR-200 is faster as well.

Also, the 800mhz FSB intel boards support AGP-8x.

And on a last note: I think the 2.4 will be the OC chip, since IIRC it runs at the lowest multiplier.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:09 PM
Thanks everyone, all answers seem to be in line
with what I've been reading. What I was really
interested in is any known compatibility issues with flight
sims. My P3-600 & GF4 MX460(a freebie) just isn't doing it anymore, so much so that I havn't flown for several months now.

The P4 3.06 is not the newest rendition of the P4 line
and does not have the 800 FSB.
Available this week are the P4C's 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 3.0, 3.2
with the 2.8 being the best buy, there's a significant
jump to get to the 3.x chips, enough to put the
extra money into a better video card. The MB should be
OK to upgrade to the 3.2 or 3.4 when they come down in
price at about the time the P5s come out, and I need more power.

PC3200 DDR Ram in dual channel mode is what I'll be using
and with the 800 buss should hold up well for 3-4 years of
advancements in this crazy game of I'm the best/fastest.

I must soon make up my mind about the AIW 9700 Pro or
the FX5900 Ultra. They are about the same price, but
the added features of the AIW sure are tempting, as I do some video editing as a hobby now that I'm retired.

Thanks everyone, Rx

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:19 PM
What is the fundamental difference between the 9700 and 9700 Pro?

For gaming-only use, do the extra bells & whistles on the Pro offer me anything worth paying the extra?
I don't wish to video edit or make coffee with it.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:32 PM
The 9700 Pro is a faster 9700.

Or the 9700 is a slower 9700 Pro.

For Video Editing you want the AIW.

For gaming ONLY you don't want to pay for the additonal AIW features.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:33 PM
Well sure but the 5900 Ultra anisotropic take a much larger performance hit then the 9800 PRO:s. But I guess nVidias "4x" antialiasing makes up for that somewhat...

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:20 PM
WoofBoy wrote:
- The 9700 Pro is a faster 9700.
-
- Or the 9700 is a slower 9700 Pro.
-
- For Video Editing you want the AIW.
-
- For gaming ONLY you don't want to pay for the
- additonal AIW features.
-
-

Do I therefore understand that there are 9700 Pros without the AIW feature or does that come with the card by default, so to speak?

Is any standard version 9700Pro better than another - there seem to be so many companies making these cards and at varying prices, it's all a bit of a minefield.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:31 PM
Well most 9700 PRO:s are the same but I would stay away from powercolour. Also OCS:s 9700 PRO.

And yes there is 9700 pro:s both in AIW versions and without. Most 9700 non pros are using higher latency memories and are thus not as overclockable. Even when they got the same 2.8 ns they don´t overclock as high as the PRO:s but of course the gap is even smaller when overclocking these two cards.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:54 PM
Also of note, the non-pro 9700's are listed as
legacy (out of production) by ATI.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 08:52 PM
Oh and Audigy 2 is much better than the Audigy.