Search
Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

9800PRO vs FX5900 non Ultra

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Register or log in to remove

Quote:


Which card is better? I know the fx5900 ultra is better, but also have more 50MHZ core clock.

It's not better, recent reviews show that the FX5900Ultra may be a worse performer than the R9800Pro once you discount the cheating by running custom timedemos.

Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.
Related ressources
Ask the community
Graphics card Master

Good Advice.

Just back up slowly and go out the way you came in.


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

I keep hearing the Nvidia fanboys saying that ATI cheats as well (not you, the fanboys). Can someone please link me up to a page that shows the performance of ATI cards being exagerated by 25% or more by cheating? Actually what is the cheating on their end and how much of a difference does it make scorewise?

Lets settle this once and for all. Who cheats in what and what is the performance difference?

I'll start

Nvidia 3dmark 2003 - 25%

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
Graphics card Master

Actually if you look back at <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new">GeneticWeapon's Thread</A> a while back he posted a bit on it.

It's not by 25% but it's still disheartening. However I think <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new">MY Thread</A> give's us a good idea of the comparative performance in benchmarks that are unlikely to have been 'cheated' in. You decide whether the FX5900/U is better than the 9800P. I'd say they're pretty much in the same ball park except price. And NO the higher priced one is NOT better and neither is price indicative of any such thing, in a market so influenced by PR and loyalties (not to mention false idols/benchmakrs).

However of course the NV Fanbois will use any excuse to defend the 'cheats'. I'm pissed at both companies but I think the level of cheating by ATI pales by comparison to Nvidia.
But it still irks me that EITHER cheated!


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

Funny ya'll r concerned about nvidia fanboyism when I rarely post here anymore and everyone's an ati fanboy....it's seriously a desert here.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
Graphics card Master

Flame, my thing is I'd rather people get pissed off at cheating and not at <i>JUST</i> Ati or Nvidia in general. I think too many people have lost focus!

Freakin' Gas sniffers!



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

Lets just ride with this assumption, the 5900 Ultra is a good card, the 9800 Pro is a good card. Both ati and nvidia are [-peep-] cheaters (and more cheats are being found quite consistantly since this whole fiasco started and on both sides of the fence) so disregard any 3dmark benchie score you see in a review and just compare real game performance... Both cards perform very well and getting either will keep you happy. Non ultra versions of the high end cards should be avoided imho... but hey thats just me.

Shadus
Graphics card Master

It's not just 3D mark scores, Nvidia cheated in 'real' game benchies as you call them. And point out another Ati cheat other than the PS 1.4 in 3Dmk01 and Quack? There are none. You are right though, more and more Nvidia cheats are being found every day. And all are shown to improve scores at the price of Image Quality. Ati's also removed the cheats from the Cat 3.5s, however Nvidia has no plans to stop cheating.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 

Quote from Alex, aka Unwinder. Please read.
Quote:
ATI use different ways of application detections so it's much more difficult to collect and block _all_ the application detection related pieces of code. At this time I was able to identify and block at least 8 application detection routines in the driver, but I cannot give you any warranties that there are no more detections left (this applies to NVAntiDetector too). ATI don't use checksums for application identification, they simply hardwired the shaders they detect (in tokenized format) in the driver's binary. Input shader in D3DDP2OP_CREATEPIXELSHADER is simply compared with one of hardwired shaders (I've found 2 2.0 pixel shaders and 1 1.1 pixel shader in the code). Some texture patterns are also stored in the driver and they are also used for some application identification in D3DDP2OP_TEXBLT handler.
All these application detections result in storing unique ID in the driver's internal variable (a sort of application ID), which is zero by default. So in ATIAntiDetector I simply blocked all the attempts to store anything different from zero into this variable.
2 ps 2.0 shader detections are also blocked by the script (the first 8 bytes of hardwired shader samples (0xffff0200 + the first four bytes) are replaced with 'SUCKERS' string ). These detections don't result in appID identification and do modify shader code in some way.

Sorry grape, I'm not trying to argue against your point, I'm not sure if you saw this recent discussion. From my thread at Futuremark, I invited Unwinder to my B3D discussion, and the above is a quote from that discussion.

<font color=red>GeneticWeapon</font color=red> = "Optimized"
Graphics card Master

I thought they didn't change IQ and I thought that was the same issue in 3Dmk01 that isn't included in Cat 3.5. That was from TechReport IIRC.
I remember reading your previous discussion and post on this, but I thought this was the same cheat that was used for 3Dmk01 (therefore I consdiered it 1 cheat, just of a greater lineage) Ok maybe I was wrong on that but I think the concpet of optimization (no change in IQ) vs cheats (change IQ to score higher) still stands.
But yes I may be wrong on the number of cheats. And we shall see (once the reviewers and people like Alex) whether indeed ATI removed those cheats or not.

Although I'm still pissed at BOTH because it's led to the issue of my other post (referencing [H]'s article).


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 

How else are you supposed to speed up the game play? And is there a noticeable difference?

***************************************
When you feel that reality does not suit you, live a fantasy life.

Well, an optimization that would be <b>good</b> in games would be the replacement of a generic shader(PS 1.0) with one of a higher instruction value. That wouldnt drop the IQ, but would run the game faster, instead of multi-pass it could possibly render a scene in a single pass. Still though, a means of app detection would be necessary in order to achieve this. So far they have only gone through the trouble to do this in benchmarks(ATi)

<font color=red>GeneticWeapon</font color=red> = "Optimized"
"We need fangirls" - dhlucke

If I’m not mistaking I read Nv did something in a single pass, not sure it’s what your talking about. And by the way you make it sound if ATi can do this single pass in benchmarks, but not in games, then it would seem to me there cheating.

Anyways I don’t care what anybody thinks I’m sizing up the FX card I’m going to get. So far I figure a 5900 with 400MHz should go back and fourth with ATi, accept giving in a little at AA, but taking them at 450 and leaving no doubt at 500MHz. But of coarse all these reviews are with Nv cheats. :wink:


***************************************
When you feel that reality does not suit you, live a fantasy life.

I’ll have to track down some cheating drivers to compare to the drivers out when I get the card.

***************************************
When you feel that reality does not suit you, live a fantasy life.
Graphics card Master

The cheat in a 'in game' benchmark is a cheat iif it is not reproduceable in the GAME play itself. Like limiting the rendering path, reducing the IQ, using special instructions that render that snipet best but not the rest of the game, etc. That's the point. Cheating in a benchmark (be it a 'game' benchmark or whatever) is cheating if it doesn't work on the actual games and doesn't maintain IQ.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
Register or log in to remove
 
Ask the community
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories
!