Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which video card is better?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 31, 2004 11:23:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I'm upgrading my card for Doom 3 and HL2 and having a hard time deciding
between these 2 cards for the same price......ATI Radeon 9600 (not SE) 256
MB or a GeForce FX 5700LE 256MB

Which is better for the same price?

More about : video card

August 1, 2004 1:56:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:23:24 +0000, Frank Bals wrote:

> I'm upgrading my card for Doom 3 and HL2 and having a hard time deciding
> between these 2 cards for the same price......ATI Radeon 9600 (not SE) 256
> MB or a GeForce FX 5700LE 256MB
>
> Which is better for the same price?

Probably the Radeon. I think the LE on the FX is a bad thing.

--
Jafar Calley
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
d+ s-:+ a C++++ L++ E--- W++ N++ w-- PE- t* 5++ R+ !tv D+ G e* h---- x?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Registered Linux User #359623
http://fatcatftp.homelinux.org
August 1, 2004 1:56:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"jafar" <jafar@fatcat.delicats.net> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.07.31.19.56.14.841828@fatcat.delicats.net...
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:23:24 +0000, Frank Bals wrote:
>
> > I'm upgrading my card for Doom 3 and HL2 and having a hard time deciding
> > between these 2 cards for the same price......ATI Radeon 9600 (not SE)
256
> > MB or a GeForce FX 5700LE 256MB
> >
> > Which is better for the same price?
>
> Probably the Radeon. I think the LE on the FX is a bad thing.
>

I agree. Go with the 9600, or better yet, the 9600 Pro. They're only about
$20 more (at least at NewEgg).

BTW, I notice NVidia refers to their vertex pipelines as an "array". Does
anyone know what that means?
Related resources
August 1, 2004 2:04:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:23:24 +0000, Frank Bals wrote:

> I'm upgrading my card for Doom 3 and HL2 and having a hard time deciding
> between these 2 cards for the same price......ATI Radeon 9600 (not SE) 256
> MB or a GeForce FX 5700LE 256MB
>
> Which is better for the same price?

Probably the Radeon. I think the LE on the FX is a bad thing.
At this price bracket, you would be far better off with the 128MB FX5700
(not the LE version) which is faster than a standard R9600.

--
Jafar Calley
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
d+ s-:+ a C++++ L++ E--- W++ N++ w-- PE- t* 5++ R+ !tv D+ G e* h---- x?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Registered Linux User #359623
http://fatcatftp.homelinux.org
August 1, 2004 4:43:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Frank Bals" <fjb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MkSOc.361355$Gx4.236173@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I'm upgrading my card for Doom 3 and HL2 and having a hard time deciding
> between these 2 cards for the same price......ATI Radeon 9600 (not SE) 256
> MB or a GeForce FX 5700LE 256MB

A 5700LE has the clock speeds of a 5200. The 9600 non-pro is much better.
Around the same level as a straight 5700.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 1, 2004 8:06:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Tim wrote:
> "jafar" <jafar@fatcat.delicats.net> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.07.31.19.56.14.841828@fatcat.delicats.net...
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:23:24 +0000, Frank Bals wrote:
>>
>>> I'm upgrading my card for Doom 3 and HL2 and having a hard time
>>> deciding between these 2 cards for the same price......ATI Radeon
>>> 9600 (not SE) 256 MB or a GeForce FX 5700LE 256MB
>>>
>>> Which is better for the same price?
>>
>> Probably the Radeon. I think the LE on the FX is a bad thing.
>>
>
> I agree. Go with the 9600, or better yet, the 9600 Pro. They're only
> about $20 more (at least at NewEgg).
>
> BTW, I notice NVidia refers to their vertex pipelines as an "array".
> Does anyone know what that means?

referencing an array of transistors. Each section of function in the
GPU would be an array (of transistors). It wasn't so long ago that the
entire video display unit was also called simply the Video Array. It's
just a bit of the industrial jargon.
McG.
August 1, 2004 8:06:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h%ZOc.11634$Zm3.1597@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> referencing an array of transistors. Each section of function in the
> GPU would be an array (of transistors). It wasn't so long ago that the
> entire video display unit was also called simply the Video Array. It's
> just a bit of the industrial jargon.
>

It sounds like a slick way to avoid stating how many vertex pipelines their
"FX" cards feature, thus making a comparison to ATI cards impossible. Does
that sound about right, or do they just use an entirely different
technology?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 1, 2004 8:06:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Tim wrote:

> "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h%ZOc.11634$Zm3.1597@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
>>referencing an array of transistors. Each section of function in the
>>GPU would be an array (of transistors). It wasn't so long ago that the
>>entire video display unit was also called simply the Video Array. It's
>>just a bit of the industrial jargon.
>>
>
>
> It sounds like a slick way to avoid stating how many vertex pipelines their
> "FX" cards feature, thus making a comparison to ATI cards impossible. Does
> that sound about right, or do they just use an entirely different
> technology?
>
>

Somewhat. Depending on the usage, the FX can have anywhere between 1
and 3 VS units. Check some old FX pre-release threads on Beyond3d.com
forums for more. The architecture was really weird in that it was
almost transmutable. Sort of an early preview of the parallelism that's
used now (16x1 -> 8x2 || 32x0, depending on application like
multitexturing, z-writes, etc).
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 1, 2004 8:08:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

jafar wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:23:24 +0000, Frank Bals wrote:
>
>> I'm upgrading my card for Doom 3 and HL2 and having a hard time
>> deciding between these 2 cards for the same price......ATI Radeon
>> 9600 (not SE) 256 MB or a GeForce FX 5700LE 256MB
>>
>> Which is better for the same price?
>
> Probably the Radeon. I think the LE on the FX is a bad thing.
> At this price bracket, you would be far better off with the 128MB
> FX5700 (not the LE version) which is faster than a standard R9600.
>
> --
> Jafar Calley
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> d+ s-:+ a C++++ L++ E--- W++ N++ w-- PE- t* 5++ R+ !tv D+ G e* h----
> x? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> Registered Linux User #359623
> http://fatcatftp.homelinux.org

The FX5700LE will be a clocked-down version of the FX5700. So the R9600
will be the slightly better choice performance wise.
McG.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 4, 2004 6:03:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Tim wrote:
> "McGrandpa" <McGrandpaNOT@NOThotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h%ZOc.11634$Zm3.1597@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>>
>> referencing an array of transistors. Each section of function in
>> the GPU would be an array (of transistors). It wasn't so long ago
>> that the entire video display unit was also called simply the Video
>> Array. It's just a bit of the industrial jargon.
>>
>
> It sounds like a slick way to avoid stating how many vertex pipelines
> their "FX" cards feature, thus making a comparison to ATI cards
> impossible. Does that sound about right, or do they just use an
> entirely different technology?

No, its the same basic technology. Each use somewhat similar functions
as well. How they are implemented is very different between the two
brands. It's the old Ford vs. Chevy thing. They both use engines that
burn gasoline, but they look different, are built in different places,
and sometimes behave different. But they're the same basic technology.

Some things ATI does work better than how Nvidia does the same thing.
Then Nvidia will do other things that work better than ATI's ways.
McG.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
January 28, 2005 11:10:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I have almost the same problem; i have to choose between a Radeon 9600
Pro with 128MB, and a GeForce FX 5700LE with 256MB. Which one is
better?.
I live in Argentina, and apparently, they are the only ones in the
market...
Do the 256MB really make the 5700LE better than the 9600 Pro with
128MB, as some people have told me here?. Both of them cost the same,
so that's not a problem.
I currently have a GeForce FX 5200 with 128MB, and I want to get a
better card. I've seen in http://users.rcn.com/chare/video.htm that the
core and memory speed, and the BW are the same in the 5200 and the
5700LE, but i've been told that the additional 128MB of the 5700LE,
duplicate the memory speed, and bw. Is that true?
Thanks in advance...


--
pablozing
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
January 29, 2005 2:09:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"pablozing" <pablozing.1jkb7r@news.computerbanter.com> wrote in message
news:p ablozing.1jkb7r@news.computerbanter.com...
>
> I have almost the same problem; i have to choose between a Radeon 9600
> Pro with 128MB, and a GeForce FX 5700LE with 256MB. Which one is
> better?.
> I live in Argentina, and apparently, they are the only ones in the
> market...
> Do the 256MB really make the 5700LE better than the 9600 Pro with
> 128MB, as some people have told me here?. Both of them cost the same,
> so that's not a problem.
> I currently have a GeForce FX 5200 with 128MB, and I want to get a
> better card. I've seen in http://users.rcn.com/chare/video.htm that the
> core and memory speed, and the BW are the same in the 5200 and the
> 5700LE, but i've been told that the additional 128MB of the 5700LE,
> duplicate the memory speed, and bw. Is that true?
> Thanks in advance...
>
>
> --
> pablozing


NO, double memory in graphic cards usually is made by SLOWER memory,
therefore you might not get better than the 128MB.

I don't know about 9600 PRO, but I had some experience with FX5200,
Saphire 9600XT and 5700LE.

In general, if you also plan to play with Linux, get the nVidia 5700,
5900XT, etc.

If not, the 9600 is not bad at all. The speed might be almost the same
between
5700LE and 9600PRO; though I am not very sure. My 9600XT gives better
color and screens.
January 30, 2005 3:15:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

The 9600 Pro is much faster than the 5700le and also has better DX9 support.

DaveL


"lakesnow" <asleep@night.com> wrote in message
news:cter8i$nsi$1@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp...
>
> "pablozing" <pablozing.1jkb7r@news.computerbanter.com> wrote in message
> news:p ablozing.1jkb7r@news.computerbanter.com...
>>
>> I have almost the same problem; i have to choose between a Radeon 9600
>> Pro with 128MB, and a GeForce FX 5700LE with 256MB. Which one is
>> better?.
>> I live in Argentina, and apparently, they are the only ones in the
>> market...
>> Do the 256MB really make the 5700LE better than the 9600 Pro with
>> 128MB, as some people have told me here?. Both of them cost the same,
>> so that's not a problem.
>> I currently have a GeForce FX 5200 with 128MB, and I want to get a
>> better card. I've seen in http://users.rcn.com/chare/video.htm that the
>> core and memory speed, and the BW are the same in the 5200 and the
>> 5700LE, but i've been told that the additional 128MB of the 5700LE,
>> duplicate the memory speed, and bw. Is that true?
>> Thanks in advance...
>>
>>
>> --
>> pablozing
>
>
> NO, double memory in graphic cards usually is made by SLOWER memory,
> therefore you might not get better than the 128MB.
>
> I don't know about 9600 PRO, but I had some experience with FX5200,
> Saphire 9600XT and 5700LE.
>
> In general, if you also plan to play with Linux, get the nVidia 5700,
> 5900XT, etc.
>
> If not, the 9600 is not bad at all. The speed might be almost the same
> between
> 5700LE and 9600PRO; though I am not very sure. My 9600XT gives better
> color and screens.
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
January 31, 2005 1:06:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

First of all, thank you very much for your help.
Yesterday I found a store that sells a regular 5700 at the same price
as the 5700LE(both have 256MB). I've been told the regular 5700 IS
better than the 9600 Pro, so I guess i'll buy that one.
Too bad there aren't any 6600/800 here yet...


--
pablozing
!