R9500 Pro is untouchable for GeForce FX 5600 Ultra

[Spitfire_x86]

Anandtech bechmarks show this <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797 " target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797 </A>

Submit your opinion <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=28537#28537" target="_new"> Should Tom Fire Omid? </A>

 

[eden]

Yes and I am slowly losing faith in any future cards based on the NV3x design.
Ay, all of them are weak somewhere, and nVidia continues to fail to realize we DEMAND perfect performance, not holed performance where in a few places a card stands out. Why do they strip them and forget where the stripping should stop?
Then again, lol, the nVidiots will still go for it, as they just won't touch ATi. Man those are some real idiots, and I really am sure they will stick with it.
Oy, people, oy!

Well now it's either the R9600PRO or the R9500PRO for me.


--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 03/10/03 11:14 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Skipper007]

Yes, but NVidiots will help keep Nvidia alive for competition purposes, which is a good thing. Who cares if they buy a good card as long as they keep the prices on the good cards low?

 

[Crashman]

Well, I hope a bunch of them DO rush out and buy the 5600. Why? Keep competition alive! In fact, I hope a bunch of them get ripped off by mistaking the 5600 for the 5800.

What does ATI plan on doing to deal with nVidia's underperforming 5600? Replace the 9500 Pro with a slower 9600 Pro of course!

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

 

[jaythaman]

well the 5200 and 5600 are the same mx disasters according to me. It wouldve sounded idiotic if they were named Geforce Fx Mx lol

My computer NEVER cras...DOH!.

 

[eden]

Competition?
Does that still exist...? (looks at the new benchmark results, wondering...)

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.

 

[Makaveli]

I looked at both Tom's and anandtechs review. And yes the cards are yet again a disappointment. Nvidia needs something to compete with the Radeon 9500pro cause its not the 5600ultra thats for sure.

Also this is one of tom's better benchmarks. IMO I was glad to see him showing results for 42.72 driver and the 43.00 driver.

 

[rain_king_uk]

Actually I thought the THG article was pretty crappy - managed to bury the FSAA/ansio benches at the end and compared the 5600 Ultra to the 9500 regular throughout, rather than the 9500 Pro which is the same RRP as the 5600 Ultra.

 

[Spitfire_x86]

THG's Splinter Cell benchmark is good. I was interested about the performance of FX 5600 and 5200 non-Ultra. No benchmark of these cards at any site

Submit your opinion <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=28537#28537" target="_new"> Should Tom Fire Omid? </A>

 

[eden]

If he did, I think he would have blowtorched it pretty badly! :tongue:

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.

 

[eden]

After watching the performance of these 2 new Ultra cards, you're actually even going to think of the existence of even cheaper versions of them?

Heck, I'll deny they ever exist... they're THAT BAD man. This is the Parhelia fiasco all over.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.

 

[Twitch]

From what I've read, NV35 will be better. How much better? Who can really say? I think nVidia knows how awful the current FX line is, and they are going to rely on marketing and brand-loyalty of consumers towards manufacturers like Asus and MSI to get them through to NV35.

I have no idea how good NV35 will be, but Anand believes it's going to be a rather large improvement. Only time will tell, but I think it is too soon to write off nVidia. I think they underestimated ATI, and it's taking them some time to make their prototype cores a reality. They probably weren't planning on having to release NV35 until Q4'03.

Either way, it's competition and it's good for consumers. But for those who are comparing nVidia to 3DFX, I suppose there are some correlations, but nVidia is on MUCH better economic footing than 3DFX ever was. Who knows where 3DFX might be right now if they hadn't gone bankrupt? Rumors of nVidia's demise are premature, I think.



<-----Insert witty sig line here.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

GeForce FX MX eh !?!

Hmmm sounds kinda like a Mustang LX, just about as attractive too.

I have to say though that the 5200 is an attractive card if well priced for people who's only experience with gaming up until now is on-board chips.
I think the majority of the 5XXX line is a big let-down and a liekly failure, however the 5200 might give Nvidia a good price point card as well as good tools for marketing to the ill-informed or the PRICE-blindered. Yes, $50 more gets you a MUCH? better card, but as a Dell built machine, or as a build your own first PC card, I think it beats the 9000/9200 and maybe even the 9100, in the important 'useless ad hype' category.Giving people 'crap' DX9 in a card that they can afford.
I think it will sell well for all the wrong reasons, but it's definitely a card which ATI doesn't have a credible opponent for; for the hreats and minds of the heartless and brainless.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK

 

[Wolfie]

Okay here I go

NVIDIA NEW 5200 and 5600 ULTRA CARDS ARE F**CKING CRAP.

Yep so good to get that out of my system.

 

[Spitfire_x86]

After watching the performance of these 2 new Ultra cards, you're actually even going to think of the existence of even cheaper versions of them?

I'm interested about FX5200 non-Ultra for the reason you are interested about R9500 Pro/R9600 Pro. I'm possibly going to buy a graphics card this month, and the possible buy is a 64 MB Radeon 8500LE. I can't afford anything more expensive than these cards. Since FX5200 non-Pro 64 MB will cost $79, DX9 capable, and don't require much power and cooling fan, I became interested about this card, though I know that they won't be available in Bangladesh in this month, may take 1-2 more months. If they were good, I would probably wait. But when a FX 5200 sucks at 325/325 clock, then guess how much it is going to suck at 250/200 clock!

Now I've thowed away NV34 from my mind. Since I will not play Doom III, and not much DX9 games are coming in near future, then R8500LE is not bad for me.

Heck, I'll deny they ever exist... they're THAT BAD man. This is the Parhelia fiasco all over.

But Parhelias exist and nVidia made good ammount money from GeForce4 MX series cards. So no reason for thinking FX5600 and 5200 non-Ultra will not be available. IMO, FX5200 non-Ultra will be quite attractive to OEM's for it's FX name and fanless design.

Submit your opinion <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=28537#28537" target="_new"> Should Tom Fire Omid? </A>

 

[eden]

True, but all I am saying and meant was that I will deny their existence, because they are likely to be horrendously bad in performance. The FX5600, picture this, performance of the FX5200 Ultra but with at least IntelliSample technology!
I meant Parhelia fiasco because of the very disappointing performance and that only in AA does the FX5600 possibly stand out slightly over the GF4s.
Yeah the R8500LE is not a bad buy, but you may need to hurry and buy because the R9000PRO is not gonna be for long when the R9200 takes its place with cheaper performance!

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Though NV34 sucks in AA, their AA performance is very good compared to R2x0 series cards. This was another reason of me for keeping eye on FX5200.

I'm possibly buy the R8500LE within 2 weeks. Since new products come here slowly, I'm not seeing R9200 in stores soon. R9100 is not available here yet.

BTW, a Gigabyte R9000 non-Pro is 33% cheaper than the Gigabyte R8500LE I'm planning to buy. If the R8500LE is clocked less than 250/250 (like 250/230), would it be wise to save money and buy the R9000 to keep going for few months or 1 year?

Submit your opinion <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=28537#28537" target="_new"> Should Tom Fire Omid? </A>

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Go for the 8500 if they are the same mem. Much better performance than a 9000pro, let alone a non-pro.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK