Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Radeon 9600 Pro vs. GeForceFX 5600

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 29, 2003 8:13:41 PM

First off I don't want the whole ATI vs. nVidia thing get started here, or anything about cheating. That has alrady been posted on a million times.

OK, I've been reading a bit about how all you guys think the fx5600 (non-ultra) sucks and how the r9600p is the best midrange card. Really?

If you look at THG's latest vid roundup you see that half the time the fx5600 is just behind the r9600p (or even the r9500p), and half the time it is ahead. Is it fair to say that it's basically a tie?

Price. The r9600p goes for $178 at newegg, while the fx5600 (non-ultra) goes for $154...

It so happens that the other day I ordered my MSI FX5600-VTDR128 (it was the Editor's Choice in the vid roundup) for $237 (canadian dollars). That is includes the remote and the VIVO which I really wanted as well, while the Radeon 9600 Pro (no VIVO) was $279 (canadian dollars).

Is the r9600p really that great, or is it just the ATI bias filtering through? I'm seriously looking for objective resonses here...

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/index.html" target="_new">VGA Card Buyer's Guide 07/2003</A>

Thanks

EDIT: A lot of you also prefer the ti4800se over the fx5600. Why? The fx5600 is the clear winner in the benchmarks, especially when it comes to AA & aniso.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Sarke on 07/29/03 01:21 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 29, 2003 8:22:56 PM

Good point.

Truth is, I think most of us have been biased against the 5600 NP because of the really, really poor showing it had when it was released.

Truth be told, only tom's newest comparison shows the FXs holding up so well. I guess some of us want to be sure this isn't an anomaly before recommending the cards.

Could be newer drivers, not sure... but you're right, it does warrant a re-evaluation by most of us. If these numbers are true, anyway... and if the good showing isn't because of driver cheats...

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
July 29, 2003 8:32:10 PM

In those particular benchmarks there are known 'cheating' issues, such as lower aniso quality in UT2k3. Future drivers will (supposedly) REMOVE those cheats, so base your decisions on the next set of whql drivers we see.

That is an OUTRAGEOUS price for the 9600 Pro, I think you are a dumbass. Find a cheaper one genius.

5600 non-ultra = SUX
5600 Ultra rev. 2 = good
5600 Ultra rev. 1 = who cares theres only a few of them around, theyll be gone soon (p.s. they suck)

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
Related resources
July 29, 2003 8:38:31 PM

Quote:
That is an OUTRAGEOUS price for the 9600 Pro, I think you are a dumbass. Find a cheaper one genius.

I did mention it was in Canadian currency... and don't call me a dumbass.
a b U Graphics card
July 29, 2003 9:05:52 PM

Seriously I'm SICK of this one. And don't give me the BS about 'I don't want to discuss cheating drivers...'

Well you know what? THIS has been discussed 'a million times' and it's ALWAYS relevant; how else are you judging a card? DUH!
If you don't want to talk about cheating then don't refer to a review that obviously MISSED that fact when benchmarking (in their extensive <b>3</b> tests [seriously the worst review I've seen here]).

Show me ANY other review (with more than 3 tests) that puts the FX5600non-ultra ANYWHERE near the R9600Pro (except Quake3 class things where ALL card rock). I can show you (and have already but you didn't read that 'million') at least half a dozen recent reviews that show the R9600Pro WELL ahead of the FX5600, the OLD FX5600U, and Neck and NEck with the FX5600Ultra Rev.2 (depending on your test) and don't forget that overclocked, MY R9600Pro probably toasts ALL FX5600s by a long shot even with them overclcocked to the max.

Seriously anyone who mentions the VGA Buyers Guide again as a basis for their comparison needs to read more. Either that or post something RECENT!

Go ahead, buy your FX5600non-ultra, and I'll bench it in ANY game application out there and kick your sorry little card up and down the street.

The FX5600Ultra Rev.2 is a GREAT card of a completely different design (potential), ALL other FX5600s are BEHIND the R9600Pro.

I'll just leave you with a few more recent reviews
<A HREF="http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=gw56ufc&..." target="_new">This one came out right after the THG 'guide'</A>, it shows the R9600Spanking the old FX5600U, and often beating the FX5600Rev.2 (even overclcoked) and remember the R9600Pro overclocks too!

<A HREF="http://www.envynews.com/?ID=511" target="_new">There's also this review I posted in another thread here </A> showing the FX5600 struggling against 2 different GF4s.

<A HREF="http://www.exhardware.com/reviews.php?Id=114" target="_new">OH, and a Review out TODAY </A> showing yet again that not only does the R9600Pro spank the FX5600N-U, the FX also barely pulls off a draw with the GF4ti on a regular basis

Needless to say the more time goes by (and the more other reviews I see) it becomes more and mor obvious that the THG VGA Buyers' Guide was an aberration, and not indicitive of the norm. Seriously never want to hear it used as a comparison for these cards again! Freakin Brutal!


- 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: 
a b U Graphics card
July 29, 2003 9:07:44 PM

Even for the R9600Pro in CANADA your price is TOO expensive, unless you Shop a FutureShop, and then you're definitely not getting the FX for that cheap there!

Search harder (in so many ways)!


- 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: 
July 29, 2003 9:14:47 PM

OK in Canadian, sry for that. You are now less of a dumbass. However, as Grape said, that price is still too high!

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
July 29, 2003 9:15:02 PM

Not to mention how sad it is to find the new Ultra non-OCed, just a tad (a few percents) in front of the regular non-Ultra one. Seems to me nVidia's drivers can't properly optimize to use the clock speeds and processing units properly.

Additionally, that Gainward OCed sample is prolly the only FX5600 Ultra rev.2 I'd ever recommend. Otherwise IMO the FX5600 Ultra still sucks. I can't believe nVidia went to compete lower levels, in other words downgrading their product to compete with the new lower competition the 9600PRO is! How sad.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 07/29/03 05:15 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 29, 2003 9:19:44 PM

Atually the best price I found was 260$ on the 9600 pro's. I did see 210$ but unfortunatly that was a typo. Dang.
a b U Graphics card
July 29, 2003 9:23:11 PM

Eden, the sad thing is likley their target was beating an R9500Pro and not my R9600Pro, and just think how far they missed THAT mark!

I LIKE the REV.2 (if well built [which the Gaiward IS SCHWEET!]) it does seem to be a good choice for people wishing to go that way (heck VIVO is nice if it's almost free), and are afraid of trying something new (not everyone is a tweaker), and wish to stick to the same people who made their last NV card.
And the REV.2 can at least keep it within a margin of statistical error diff. which isn't bad IMO, and sometime pulls out the win.
I'm just curious about more Rev.2 review, they are still a bit rare, and I think that ASUS and MSI will probably give us good cards. I think alot of it will come down to the extras.
The thing is I'm sick of seeing people refer to the old info.

<b>EDIT:</b> Here's another <A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/radeon/r9600-2.html" target="_new">extensive review from Digit-Life</A> (I really like their reviews, colourful, lots a stuff) showing the parity of the R9600P/FX5600U and the complete and utter Crappiness of the FX5600!


- 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:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheGreatGrapeApe on 07/29/03 03:54 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 29, 2003 9:56:41 PM

Yeah the r9600pro was cheaper but it has gone back up in price due to the canadian us exchange rate.

Grape Ape, you try and find the cheapest r9600pro in canada.

And no, I don't buy my stuff at Futureshop. I get all my computer needs from <A HREF="http://www.a-power.com/" target="_new">A-Power</A>, they are the cheapest I have found...

I even made my own pricegrabber that checks the prices every day so I can see how the prices change:

.................R9500Pro..R9600Pro..G4Ti4800SE......FX5600
05/05/2003........$319........$289........$249........
06/05/2003........$319........$289........$249........
07/05/2003........$319........$285........$239........$289
08/05/2003........$319........$285........$239........$289
09/05/2003........$319........$285........$239........$289
10/05/2003........$319........$285........$239........$289
11/05/2003........$319........$285........$239........$289
12/05/2003........$319........$285........$239........$289
13/05/2003........$319........$285........$239........$289
14/05/2003........$295........$265........$239........$289
15/05/2003........$295........$265........$239........$289
16/05/2003........$295........$265........$239........$289
17/05/2003........$295........$265........$239........$289
18/05/2003........$295........$265........$239........$289
19/05/2003........$295........$265........$239........$289
20/05/2003........$295........$265........$239........$289
21/05/2003........$295........$265........$239........$265
22/05/2003........$295........$265........$239........$265
23/05/2003........$295........$265........$239........$259
24/05/2003........$295........$265........$239........$259
25/05/2003........$295........$265........$239........$259
26/05/2003........$295........$265........$239........$259
27/05/2003........$295........$265........$235........$265
28/05/2003........$295........$265........$235........$265
29/05/2003........$295........$265........$235........$265
30/05/2003........$295........$265........$235........$265
31/05/2003........$295........$262........$235........$265
01/06/2003........$295........$262........$235........$265
02/06/2003........$295........$262........$235........$265
03/06/2003........$295........$262........$235........$265
04/06/2003........$295........$262........$235........$265
05/06/2003........$295........$262........$235........$265
06/06/2003........$295........$262........$235........$265
07/06/2003........$295........$262........$235........$265
08/06/2003........$295........$262........$235........$265
10/06/2003........$295........$262........$235........$265
11/06/2003........$295........$262........$235........$265
12/06/2003........$295........$262........$235........$265
13/06/2003........$295........$262........$235........$265
14/06/2003........$295........$259........$229........$265
15/06/2003........$295........$259........$229........$265
16/06/2003........$295........$259........$229........$265
17/06/2003........$289........$259........$229........$265
18/06/2003........$289........$259........$229........$265
19/06/2003........$289........$259........$229........$265
20/06/2003........$289........$259........$229........$265
21/06/2003........$289........$259........$229........$265
26/06/2003........$289........$255........$229........$265
27/06/2003........$289........$255........$229........$265
28/06/2003........$289........$255........$229........$265
29/06/2003........$289........$255........$229........$265
30/06/2003........$289........$255........$229........$265
02/07/2003........$289........$255........$229........$265
03/07/2003........$289........$255........$229........$265
04/07/2003........$289........$255........$229........$265
05/07/2003........$289........$255........$229........$265
06/07/2003........$289........$255........$229........$265
07/07/2003........$289........$255........$229........$265
08/07/2003........$289........$255........$229........$265
09/07/2003........$289........$255........$229........$265
10/07/2003........$289........$265........$229........$239
11/07/2003........$289........$265........$229........$239
12/07/2003........$289........$269........$229........$239
13/07/2003........$289........$269........$229........$239
14/07/2003........$289........$269........$229........$239
15/07/2003........$289........$269........$229........$239
16/07/2003........$289........$269........$229........$239
17/07/2003........$289........$269........$225........$239
20/07/2003........$289........$272........$225........$239
21/07/2003........$289........$272........$225........$239
22/07/2003........dis...........$272........$225........$237
23/07/2003.......................$272........$225........$237
24/07/2003.......................$272........$225........$237
25/07/2003.......................$279........$225........$237
26/07/2003.......................$279........$225........$237
27/07/2003.......................$279........$225........$237
28/07/2003.......................$279........$225........$237

As you can see the r9600pro was cheaper but isn't anymore and I wanted VIVO anyways.

My point was just that the fx5600 might not suck as much ass as you guys think. Is the r9600pro really so much better? And I know what Grape is gonna say cuz he has a r9600pro...
a b U Graphics card
July 29, 2003 10:34:28 PM

It's not just because I have one. It's REALITY! Take a look at all those reviews I posted, and then show me 1 recent review that backs up your conclusion (well really LARS' conclusion which you've decided to adopt); and of course you're at least as biased as you said you already ordered it, and you're looking to feel good about your purchase. The fact is you probably won't find ANYONE in this forum who's more well versed about the two/three cards head to head. I know a good one when I see it (the FX5600REV.2 and R9600Pro [or even better still R9500Pro]), and I also know a lesser card (the FX5600non-ultra). Sure discount what I'm saying but that's just buyer's remorse gnawing at you.

And being in BC you should ALWAYS check with NCIX.com first! They have it for $267 <A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/productdetail.php?sku=9702" target="_new">Check Here</A> and that's a BBA board not a Powered by board. You will likely find a Sapphire for much cheaper and with more software/hardware. The Gigabyte is cheaper than your price and has more hardware/software than the ATI. You can still get an ATI R9500Pro for $278 (the absolute power in this category)
A-power has little selection. And seem somewhat NV-centric (no powered by ATIs, only BBA) however many NV OEMS.
And prices in T.O. are much cheaper. Even here in town I've seen the 'powered by' R9600Pro for about $250 and that was just this past weekend! Heck even FS had/has the R9600Pro for $279.
Check <A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/productlist.php?majorcatid=101&mino..." target="_new">NCIX</A> again. They are usually the standard by which all others set their prices (if they can).

The R9600Pro still rocks the FX5600non-U by a long shot, and ONLY if you posted those price diff. for a REV.1 would I say it was a good price/choice (the REV.2 would've been a GREAT deal at that price).

VIVO is your only feature improvement and even then I could've done better with an OEM Hauppauge card (complete with channel changing). But if you were loking for price, you shoulda gone with an FX5200, then you could get that VIVO and not worry about performance. However just don't mention the performance cause that obviously has LITTLE to do with this choice.

- 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: 
July 29, 2003 10:38:31 PM

If you play OpenGl games then Nvidia is the way to go. Ati seems to be doing better in the Direct3d department. And the reason the Nvidia cards are way faster now IS because of newer drivers. Alot of the benchmarks on the web youll find comparing the 9500s and 9600s to FX5600s are using older Nvidia drivers. The 5600 non ultra is a worthy successor to the Ti series in my opinion. It can play all the same games those cards could, but with anti aliasing and/or aniso turned on. There still is alot of Ati bias floating around these forums. Its been a while since Ive seen anyone needing help with their Nvidia card. Coincidence? Or just solid drivers on the Nvidia front? I think this forum really shows Ati's true colors.
a b U Graphics card
July 29, 2003 11:00:37 PM

Actually they only RECENTLY got WHQL certification (like last week) for the 44.7X drivers, so they WERE the recent drivers, and the 44.03 are the only ones that don't cheat in other benchmarks (without anti-detect). And as the first review puts them up against the Cat 3.5s then the benchies for OGL are fair since it was the CAT 3.6s that had the improvements for OGL. So your OpenGL advanatge is bunk. The R9600Pro still runs circles around it in SSE, and even Quake 3 the fx5600n-u does poorley, and the R9600Pro beats the REV.1. So where's that OGL advanatge (doesn't even show for the FX5600U-rev.1)?
And even the Digit-Life review used the 44.65 (a proven cheat driver set) against the Cat 3.4, and yet the R9600Pro still outperforms. So don't start talking drivers. NV doesn't have the ability to back that up, all improvements there are questionable. And that's not even touching the AF fiasco!.

Mullet and I love your BS
Quote:
Its been a while since Ive seen anyone needing help with their Nvidia card. Coincidence? Or just solid drivers on the Nvidia front?

I'd say you MISSED <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new">THIS</A> on your haste to rejoin and spout PR, except you POSTED in the Thread. BF1942 is a KNOW NV driver/hardware issue. So are you lying or just selectively ignorant to support your conspiracy theories?

The Only colours I think we've seen here is your typical GREEN. IF it ain't NV it ain't good to you. But then again you only post in areas you know there will be alot of nOObs because you think they'll eat up your BS because they haven't been exposed to it yet.
Now it's about time for you to leave the forum for a few weeks/months and then come back spout your BS and then leave again. Shall we expect you in Sept?



- 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: 
July 29, 2003 11:00:49 PM

My dad has a 9600 Pro which I use frequently, and it is truly a great card at a great price. You see, you say that the reason Grape trumps up the 9600 is because he owns one. That's wrong. That's the reason he bought one! If he would've felt the 5600 was better, he'd have bought one. Sorry to jump in your shoes, Grape, but I'm right, no?



These days, no matter what company you like, be it <b>nVidia, ATi, or whatever,</b> no matter how logical your reasons, you're labeled an <b>idiot</b> or a <b>fanboy</b>, or <b>both.</b>
a b U Graphics card
July 29, 2003 11:13:11 PM

Sorta. The FX5600U wasn't even out yet. I got the R9600Pro in it's first week (before Casual who ordered it the first day! [his got tied up at customs]).

There was no possibility of the FX5600U at the time, and the initial benches were showing them poorley. However yes, all things being equal I would have decided on the REV.2 if it performed better. The problem for me right now in recommending one is the 'external issues that NV brings on. But yeah, you will always see me recommend that board. They are both the 'right' solution IMO. LEt price and features dictate that choice.

In any case DDW, always speak your mind, I wear steel toe boots so no problemo, and if it's incorrect I'll let you know, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS. :wink:

EDIT: Yeah I should also add my MAIN concerns were heat and power consumption. And the PRE-release reviews all showed AMAZING promise as an overclocker. All of that conspired to make my choice which was originally an R9500Pro except for the power/heat issues, and that was when there was ONLY the GF4ti as mid-level.

- 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:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheGreatGrapeApe on 07/29/03 05:15 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 29, 2003 11:46:30 PM

Quote:
The 5600 non ultra is a worthy successor to the Ti series in my opinion. It can play all the same games those cards could

that one i had to laugh at


theres a thread posted recently. the guy had a 2500+ and a 5600nonultra. he couldnt play BF1942 in max detail. i CUOLD on my 8500le and 1700+, with 8xAF

a successor is supposed to be faster, not equal or lesser. the 5600 sucks. hard. you cant spew crap here, we know better

-------

<A HREF="http://www.quake3world.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001355.html" target="_new">*I hate thug gangstas*</A>
July 30, 2003 2:11:47 AM

Naw, Grape, I meant the 5600 nonultra.

These days, no matter what company you like, be it <b>nVidia, ATi, or whatever,</b> no matter how logical your reasons, you're labeled an <b>idiot</b> or a <b>fanboy</b>, or <b>both.</b>
July 30, 2003 3:26:19 AM

Sorry for the delay on my reply guys, Ive been out in the real world actually doing stuff, not sucked into my computer screen for 12 hours a day. You guys remember my nerd theory?? Its startin to kick back in again. See you in Sept!!! : ) Nerds.
July 30, 2003 3:34:55 AM

Oh and BF1942 has been a glitch nightmare from the beginning. Didnt you guys ever play the demo on a radeon 8500???? Remember how the water was all distorted and how the game would barely run on the fastest machine? Thats exactly why I dont own that game. I was talking driver issues not software issues nerd.
a b U Graphics card
July 30, 2003 8:57:59 AM

Nerd, eh? Well whatever DumbA$$. Bet my real-life's alot more interesting then yours, but I guess it would have to be considering how 'interesting' you seem,especially when this is where you come for useless trolling entertainment. Now really who's the odd-one?
BTW, ever heard of multi-tasking? I do this at work (like right now, getting payed to do this basically) or while watching TV (during commercials), but then again I guess you're so exciting we should just feel overjoyed you could share a little of your time with us.

Anywhoo, you want to back pedal on the BF1942 issue, go ahead, but you obviously ignore any evidence put in front of you in favour of NV PR so I'm not surprised.
The reality is BOTH ATI and NV have their Driver issues, yet you're still trying to bank on NV's past, by ignoring it's current problems. Blissful ignorance on your part I guess.

Bye Bye 'til Sept. don't bother writing, we won't miss ya'!


- 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: 
July 30, 2003 10:49:19 PM

That digit-life review revealed quite a lot about how much their NV31 line sucks. If anyone still seriously wants an FX5600 non-Ultra, after such an extensive review, they need to go suck a large dry nut, preferably sour.

And have you seen the ultra-stressful DX9 shader test? My god the ATis leave the FX5600s in the dust, proving once more that if programmers got ahold of proper DX9 programming, nVidia would be done for, and I'd hate to see what the FX5900 would be like in that respect. I wonder if the DX9 fixes DO help, in the NV35 or is it just driver fixing/enabling.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 07/30/03 10:16 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 31, 2003 1:59:28 AM

Quote:
a successor is supposed to be faster, not equal or lesser.

Then you think the 9600 Pro also sucks?
July 31, 2003 2:15:42 AM

Second that Eden, the whole GFFX line has terrible shader performance.

These days, no matter what company you like, be it <b>nVidia, ATi, or whatever,</b> no matter how logical your reasons, you're labeled an <b>idiot</b> or a <b>fanboy</b>, or <b>both.</b>
July 31, 2003 2:17:24 AM

No conscious buyer should tell himself while buying an FX: I am going to have a future-proof DX9 card.

At least not until I can confirm the NV35 DX9 fixes are seriously there.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink:
July 31, 2003 2:18:04 AM

Good point. And yeah, I'd say it does suck in that aspect. It's a very bad thing on their part to label it RV<b>350</b>.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink:
!