Vidia card

Which Card

  • Geforce FX 5200 128 MB

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • ATI Raedon 9600 Pro 128 MB

    Votes: 25 71.4%

  • Other (please Specify)

    Votes: 8 22.9%
  • Total voters
    35
oldi1knoby

oldi1knoby

Zombie
Joined
Jul 6, 2003
Messages
771
Reaction score
0
I'm going to be building a new computer at the begining of september and I am undecided on which card to buy. I do not want to spend more than $200 as I am on a budget, so at my local store( www.byteware.net) I have 2 choices. $150 for a geforce FX 5200 128mb, or a Raedon 9600 pro for $200. I have allways used nvidia cards, and I am unsure as to which would be best for me. I have everything else picked out for this project, but I can't decide on this.

Any first hand experience with these 2 cards would be greatly appreciated.

Also, is the 9600 pro worth the extra $50 in your opinion?
 
I've only ever had GeForce cards. Currently I'm running with a GF4 ti4200 128mb.

All I know is, if I do get a GPU in the near future it will either be a 9900 Pro or a 9800 because they're supposed to run HL2 better.
 
Excuse my language, but the FX5200 is a piece 'o' ****ing shit. It cant even get textures right for Counter-Strike or GTA vice city. If anything, you should go for the origional Saphire ATi 9500, which can be OCed to a 9700 with no problems. you can find those cards on eBay.
 
I would go with the 9600 (or like wHaley said the 9500 and overclock it)... it is definately better than a 5200.
In some games it even beats a 5800 Ultra, though not the majority of the time.
 
5200 is like what the GF 4 MX was to the Ti family i.e. dogshit
 
Thanks for warning me about the 5200. I got shagged on the geforce 4 MX(current card) and I think I'm gonna get the 9600 Pro.

Thanks guys.
 
Take the specs of the 5900, then remove all the fancy feature (ultrashadow, intellisample, 5200 lacks almost ALL of the modern Nvidia features according to specs), half speed and cripple it, and you got the 5200.
9600 is crippled too, BUT its actually crippled from a good base. Even the new R420 (Loki) is said to be based on the RV350 (9600) chip, only its about as powerfull as 4 of them together, but that's unconfirmed of course :)

HOWEVER: I would suggest a 9800 non pro. Its cheap, and its fast (I would say second fastest card available, though people will dissagree). You might have to add another $50-70 on top of the 9600 Pro, but its worth it (and if you add another $100 (on top of 9600, not the 9800) you can nearly get a 9800 Pro, but maybe that's pushing it too far). If that is too expensive, I would suggest the 9500 Pro instead. Its maybe +$30-40 or something, and it most definetly beats the 9600 Pro. But that also depends on how hardcore you are, I've seen reviewers up the 9600 core 125mhz on standard cooling!!!! Still crippled by being just a 9600 though (you dont gain as much as you would want, up a 9800 Pro 125mhz and you would have the fastest card (for gaming) on earth :D).
 
where does the 9600pro come in the list of fastest cards then ? :)
 
Originally posted by simmo2k3
where does the 9600pro come in the list of fastest cards then ? :)
Click to expand...


What do you mean?
 
If you made your own list of the fastest cards in order of speed, where would a 9600 pro come :)
 
Originally posted by simmo2k3
If you made your own list of the fastest cards in order of speed, where would a 9600 pro come :)
Click to expand...
Its to hard to tell. Even I acknowledge that the FX (5600U and 5900U, not the rest) is faster in some areas than its counterparts.

But on average (slowest to fastest)
5200
...
...
Possibly the Geforce 256 here
...
...
G4Ti/9600 (tie)
9500
9600Pro
5600U
9500 Pro
5600U (rev2)
9700
5900
9700Pro
9800
5900U
9800Pro

But then you have to keep in mind DX... These are all DX9 card except the G4, but it IS fast enough to keep up with them in raw speed if you have a good one (Ti4600). (5200 isnt fast enough to be deemed DX9 though, but technically it is... In theory :))
And then one have to mind the 5900U being faster in older games, but slower in newer games. If you would have done the tests with the 5900U vs the 9700Pro when the 9700 was launched, the 5900U would have trashed it in nearly every aspect!!!!! You wouldnt know anything about its DX9 performance, it would never have been tested.
And its just MY theory, I cant back them up :)

NOTE: This is also just measuring raw speed, if you would ask me to rate them at 2xFSAA/8xAF keeping IQ and speeds in mind, its easy:

All Nvidia cards here, in order of numbers
All ATI cards here, in order of numbers

:D

I have seen the Nvidia FSAA examination on Nvnews, and its just horrific to watch... Totally horrific. To gain any kind of visual quality equaling ATI 4x (or 2x for that matter), you need 6x or 4xSS, maybe even 8x. And that comes with around a 70% performance loss...
 
5200 is good if you dont have enough money for something else, you can get 11k 3dmarks in 01 with it so i wouldnt bitch since the gf4 mx gets about half that. Go with the 9500 from ati.
 
Originally posted by dawdler

But on average (slowest to fastest)
5200
...
...
Possibly the Geforce 256 here
...
...
G4Ti/9600 (tie)
9500
9600Pro
5600U
9500 Pro
5600U (rev2)
9700
5900
9700Pro
9800
5900U
9800Pro
Click to expand...

I think htis list is right, for the most, part, but i will disagree on some points.

5200
...
...
Voodoo...
...
5600
9500
5600U
5600U (rev2)
9600Pro
9500 Pro
9700
5900
9700Pro
9800
5900U
9800Pro


And simmno, how'du ge tthe memory clocked so high? I have min at 506/320DDR (640)
 
Do u use RadLinker sidewinder ?, search it in google and get the radclocker, if you cant overclock to 370, It must mean i'm lying :D
 
The GeForce FX 5900 Ultra is marginally faster than the 9800 Pro.
 
Originally posted by nmiken
The GeForce FX 5900 Ultra is marginally faster than the 9800 Pro.
Click to expand...
Except in DX9, modern games and FSAA/AF (when equaling quality against 9800).
And do I have to mention, its meant to be designed for DX9, modern games and powerfull FSAA/AF? :D

Sidenote: You cant compare the 5900 Ultra with the 9800 Pro. Never. Its totally unfair. The pricerange is completely different, the 9800 Pro is $100 or more cheaper, its in roughly the same range as the 5900 (9800 Pro is actually cheaper than that too).
 
well, you just proved that you know absolutely nothing when it comes to the facts didn't you.
 
Originally posted by nmiken
well, you just proved that you know absolutely nothing when it comes to the facts didn't you.
Click to expand...


No you just lost.
 
if your going to make a poll please try and get similar based cards....

the poll you have done is like comparing a geforce2 vs a 9500pro...


next time you make a poll try using

5600fx ultra
9600 pro

that will give you an even poll...

by the way i voted for the 9600 because the
5200 is a direct x9 Geforce 4 mx... (in my opinion although its a tiny bit faster...)

therook
 
Originally posted by dawdler
Except in DX9, modern games and FSAA/AF (when equaling quality against 9800).
And do I have to mention, its meant to be designed for DX9, modern games and powerfull FSAA/AF? :D

Sidenote: You cant compare the 5900 Ultra with the 9800 Pro. Never. Its totally unfair. The pricerange is completely different, the 9800 Pro is $100 or more cheaper, its in roughly the same range as the 5900 (9800 Pro is actually cheaper than that too).
Click to expand...

the 5900 ultra beats the 9800 pro in Direct x 9 games... that is where the 5900 beats although MARGINALLY (e.g. 1-2 fps...)

but its swings and round abouts... there both FANTASTIC CARDS!

i cant fault either... the only thing is the 5900fx cards are a fair bit more expensive £100 ($150-180) more...

but great cards none the less!

therook
 
Originally posted by TheRook

by the way i voted for the 9600 because the
5200 is a direct x9 Geforce 4 mx... (in my opinion although its a tiny bit faster...)
Click to expand...

Never saw a Geforce 4 mx that could get 11k 3dmarks.
 
the 5900 ultra beats the 9800 pro in Direct x 9 games...
Click to expand...
...Yes the 5900 Ultra is faster as long as you pretend that all the nVidia driver cheating was just a dream. :dozey:

nVidia Cheating ???

Article on nVidia "optimizations"
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1088795,00.asp
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1105259,00.asp

Article on nVidia "optimizations"
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-13.html

Further nVidia optimizations for 3DMark03?
http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2003q2/3dmurk03/index.x?pg=1

Article using the RivaTuner guy's anti-cheat scripts
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/random/antidetector/

Video Card Review Commenting on nVidia's "optimizations"
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-16.html

Thread at Beyond3D About nVidia Not Doing Real Trilinear Filtering
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6719

The Truth About nVidia's Driver Performance
http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=247&PageID=1

nVidia confirms PS 2.0 driver problems
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10602

nVidia's Risky 3D Optimization Gamble
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1201076,00.asp

As the GPU world spins...
http://www.tech-report.com/onearticle.x/5418


G.F.
 
Originally posted by nmiken
well, you just proved that you know absolutely nothing when it comes to the facts didn't you.
Click to expand...

see...these threads bring idiots out of the woodwork.......

dawdler is pretty imformed on this subject.....
 
i think from about 16 Nvidia vs Ati threads we have come to realize that the 5900u is faster then the 9800pro, but the 9800pro looks better in game, and the reason more people want a 9800pro is kinda obvious.....they would rather have a better picture quality then 5 or 6 higher fps.
 
Originally posted by [Hunter]Ridic
i think from about 16 Nvidia vs Ati threads we have come to realize that the 5900u is faster then the 9800pro, but the 9800pro looks better in game, and the reason more people want a 9800pro is kinda obvious.....they would rather have a better picture quality then 5 or 6 higher fps.
Click to expand...
No we havent :)
Splinter Cell is one of the best examples, its heavy graphically, including using PS, and it hogs the 5900 Ultra. Not 5-6 fps higher, 10 fps slower... (and when you play at around 30-40 fps, that's ALOT)
Sadly, there is not much real "new" (DX9, PS heavy, complex texturing) games... And those that are, arent reviewed. I dont have a 5900 Ultra, so I cant test em myself. Can only judge from what I have seen reviewed. And what I see, is fast DX8 performance (which is 80% of all the games today), but slow DX9 performance (granted, its faster in fixed function PS and displacement bump mapping).

So its very easy when comparing against the 9800:
Is it faster using games/application/tests from 6-12 months ago? HELL YEAH!
Is it faster using games/application/tests that are relativly new, <6 months ago? The newer they get, the slower it is!!!!

Come on people... Is this REALLY the faster card *TODAY*? And in the future? Nvidia may be natural sprinters, but they are out of breath on long distances :)

If people stop to think, one will notice that the 9500/9700 is still new. There are no games for the R300 chip. BUT there are a CRAPLOAD of games for the Geforce, and the Nvidia drivers have optimised them, people have learned how to optimise for the Geforce. No wonder its generally faster for them, the FX isnt all that different from old tech. When we see *TRUE* DX9 games, that are designed for the R300 in mind, we will see the full strenght of it (Half Life 2 might be it, but I think its gonna take longer)... We arent seeing it today. Also, keep in mind that the FX was delayed heavily, they have had long time to tune it for the then modern games... That may be another reason its fast in those games.




EDIT:
"ATI and Bioware have been working together to improve the NWN experience for our users. The latest beta2 patch for NWN includes a fix that, in the cases of shadows and AA on 9500 cards and above, can more than double the frame rate. Our test case, a simple room with characters and shadows, goes from ~ 9.0 fps to 19.2 fps. We will continue to improve performance in the future."
"The test case was pretty taxing, and going from 9 to 19 is a very good jump (that was everything maxed out, 4xAA + 8xAF). This was a spinning room with lots of shadows and 5 or 6 characters (including my familiar). At 1280x1024, [email protected].
The higher your AA setting (with Shadows), the better the jump (I haven't tried, but with 6xAA, the performance jump is probably greater). If you don't use AA and shadows, performance will not improve as much."
So look, you CAN fix an Nvidia game. ;)
 
Originally posted by GordN FreeLoadR
...Yes the 5900 Ultra is faster as long as you pretend that all the nVidia driver cheating was just a dream. :dozey:

nVidia Cheating ???

Article on nVidia "optimizations"
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1088795,00.asp
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1105259,00.asp

Article on nVidia "optimizations"
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-13.html

Further nVidia optimizations for 3DMark03?
http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2003q2/3dmurk03/index.x?pg=1

Article using the RivaTuner guy's anti-cheat scripts
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/random/antidetector/

Video Card Review Commenting on nVidia's "optimizations"
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-16.html

Thread at Beyond3D About nVidia Not Doing Real Trilinear Filtering
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6719

The Truth About nVidia's Driver Performance
http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=247&PageID=1

nVidia confirms PS 2.0 driver problems
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10602

nVidia's Risky 3D Optimization Gamble
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1201076,00.asp

As the GPU world spins...
http://www.tech-report.com/onearticle.x/5418


G.F.
Click to expand...

so, I guess you were lay under a rock when ATI were found to be cheating as well then...
 
Thats ages ago. Unless you call the 1.9% boost gained by shuffling PS shader operations in 3Dmark 2k3 cheating. But it didnt change the workload, so its isnt directly a cheat. Nvidia's absolutely fascinating implementation of clip planes and total replacement of PS, including cutting pixel precision, is reducing workload. Thats cheating...

Ever wondered why people still say the FX is worse in IQ, though many said earlier that it equalled ATI? It doesnt equal it no more, but its a crapload faster than the original :D

People always seem to think you can magically gain speed by fiddling in the drivers. Add a version number, and it sooooooores high...
The Allmighty-Flawless-Powerfull Detonators cant be flawed can they, *GASP*?! Well, why do they need to improve them so much? They should already be maxed :D
 
yeh I know.. but I'd rather be able to stick the card in, power up, install drivers and start playing than..

stick the card in, power up, install drivers, uninstall drivers, find new drivers, uninstall drivers, use tweaked drivers from omega. then have to restard after system crash.. and yes I have a radeon in another machine so dont say I dont know what I'm on a bout.
 
Originally posted by nmiken
yeh I know.. but I'd rather be able to stick the card in, power up, install drivers and start playing than..

stick the card in, power up, install drivers, uninstall drivers, find new drivers, uninstall drivers, use tweaked drivers from omega. then have to restard after system crash.. and yes I have a radeon in another machine so dont say I dont know what I'm on a bout.
Click to expand...

I bought a Radeon 9700 Pro along with my new computer, my previous was a Geforce 256 DDR, so I had no idea what to expect.

I installed the card, put in the power cable, powered up, installed the drivers and started playing.

That was 5 months ago, I never stopped playing :D
(Untill 3 days ago that is, when my PSU got fried (literally) :()

The ONLY (and I repeat !!!!!!!!ONLY!!!!!!) game I couldnt run was Sim City 3000. I dont know why it didnt want to start, but another dude with a 9700 Pro had it running, so it wasnt the card. That's 1 out of the 20-30 games I've played.


Btw, the classic example of the "notorious" ATI problems is this:
I bought Freelancer, installed and started up. Logo played, then nothing. Hardlock. Completely. Had to restart. Obvious driver issue? I thought so. And was about to post on Rage3d, when I decided to check up on some Freelancer fan pages... 10 minutes of checking resulted in a solution: Windows fuxed up, needed to install a new video codec. After another 10 minutes I was playing it at max FSAA/AF and detail settings :)
 
i would get that 9900 thats coming out in a while, i would wait for a pro version and a version that can be overclocked allot, and i would probably take the 256mb ram version to, i think HL2 will benifit of that
 
no..the 9900 is a beefed up version of the 9800, If your gonna wait I would wait for the NV40 which will be available early next year.
 
I think i might wait for pci express for a new top of the line video card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tomemozok
Card Trading (READ RULES!)
Replies
4
Views
2K
rikt
R
Dynasty
GTX 770 SLI Disappointing Performance.
Replies
3
Views
5K
sixteenth
sixteenth
Lobster
[UPDATED] Steam Machine Beta Specifications Released
Replies
8
Views
7K
User With No Name
User With No Name
H
Best AGP graphics card for replacement?
Replies
10
Views
2K
soulslicer
soulslicer
No Limit
Are video card prices coming down on Friday with Nvidia's release?
Replies
6
Views
696
CyberPitz
CyberPitz
Back
Top