Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX5900 or 9800pro 128?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 12, 2003 8:02:38 PM

I have been looking at the reviews from just about every website and they 2 cards are so close together in performance. Jsut to clarify im takling about the 5900 non ultra adn the 9800pro 128mb. As far as the fx cards having vivo built in isnt really much of a sel lfor me, i care about performance and visual quality. As far as price goes, the 2 are within about 10 dollars of eachother so that really doesnt matter..

So any advice on which one would be better would be really helpful right now.

If anyone wants to know im running xp2600 oced to 2.35ghz, Corsiar pc2700ram running synchrnysly, wd800, A7N8X Deluxe, slk800, and the bottleneck in the system... geforce 2 GTS.

More about : fx5900 9800pro 128

August 12, 2003 8:29:45 PM

Both cards are lightning fast, so you have to decide which suits your own needs better.

If you're interested in visual quality in addition to speed, then you'd probably be happier with the 9800 PRO. It's pretty much agreed upon that the Antialiassing implementation is noticably superior to the FX 5900.

Also, look at lots of benchmarks... see how they both perform on games that you own and play alot.

You can't really lose with either of these cards. Good luck!

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
August 12, 2003 8:33:17 PM

get the FX5900

why?
cause they roxer!!!!!

Proud Owner the Block Heater
120% nVidia Fanboy
PROUD OWNER OF THE GEFORCE FX 5900ULTRA <-- I wish this was me
I'd get a nVidia GeForce FX 5900Ultra... if THEY WOULD CHANGE THAT #()#@ HSF
Related resources
August 12, 2003 8:37:12 PM

Also, don't forget that Nvidia 'optimized' the benchmarks in UT2K3 so those will be biased. If that is the only game you play go ahead and pick up the 5900. If you do others...investigate the benchmarks from various sources and make your selection that way.

<font color=blue>Kids, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening</font color=blue>
<font color=green>Homer Simpson</font color=green>

TKS
August 12, 2003 10:49:03 PM

Hmm. The games that i play are quake 3 (urban terror mod) UT2k3, battlefield 1942, Enter the Matrix, Morrowind, and splinter cell. There is half life 2, Doom3, and Halo, but they arnt out yet..


TKS, i wasnt aware that nvidia optimized their drivers for UT2k3. If i remeber right, the 9800pro beats the 5900 in the UT2k3 benchmarks so that is kinda funny.

Thanks for the info guys... I will check out some more benchmarks..
August 12, 2003 11:09:37 PM

FX5900~!!!!

Proud Owner the Block Heater
120% nVidia Fanboy
PROUD OWNER OF THE GEFORCE FX 5900ULTRA <-- I wish this was me
I'd get a nVidia GeForce FX 5900Ultra... if THEY WOULD CHANGE THAT #()#@ HSF
August 13, 2003 1:05:35 AM

Based on your game list, I'd say go 9800 Pro. For Quake III, it doesn't really matter. The nVidia would probably run it faster, but we're comparing 350fps with 370fps. You can't tell the difference, therefore it doesn't matter. Now, with UT2k3 there is the current nVidia scandal, so do some research on that; I don't know all of the details. Sadly, I don't know much about Matrix or Morrowind, but I don know that you'll find better Splinter Cell performance with the 9800 Pro. As for the final 3, all are DX9 spec shooters, and it is common knowledge that the 9800 Pro has superior shader performance in real-world applications. The closest example I can find is 3dMark03's Game test4 Mother Nature.

<b>Who dares, wins. </b>
August 13, 2003 1:23:07 AM

but....but.....but the FX5900 LOOKS BETTER~~~~ BEAT THAT

and Doom3~~~~ nVidia'll have something that'll make their FXs pwn 9800pro in doom3 ehehehehehehhehehehe

Proud Owner the Block Heater
120% nVidia Fanboy
PROUD OWNER OF THE GEFORCE FX 5900ULTRA <-- I wish this was me
I'd get a nVidia GeForce FX 5900Ultra... if THEY WOULD CHANGE THAT #()#@ HSF
August 13, 2003 5:08:18 AM

Quake III: The 5900. It doesn't matter at low resolutions, but with max AA/AF/res, even Q3 drops into the double digit FPS, and it is there that the 5900 may have a noticable benefit.

UT2k3: Either card. The 5900 is quite a bit faster, but it cannot do full trilinear due to driver "problems".

Splinter Cell will run faster on the 9800.

Doom III seems to be getting optimized for nVidia, so it *should* run faster on the 5900, but that is just speculation.

HL2 supposedly had an AA problem with all current hardware that was fixable on ATi and not nVidia, but AFAIK it has been fixed on nVidia. However, 5900 *might* be slower in HL2 due to shader performance.
August 13, 2003 10:01:20 AM

Take a look <A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTAz" target="_new">here</A> which states how [H]ard|OCP is fed up with Nvidia. Then you will find a link on the first page to <A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTAwLDE=" target="_new">here</A> which details the UT2K3 optimization scandal. The bottom line is that in <b>Two</b> places, Nvidia optimized....both were benchmarking programs...3dmark and UT2K3. Why would they do this? If you had a car you advertised as beating a corvette in the quarter...people would have eyebrows raised and might buy that one over a quote unquote lower performer. People will say, "Oh, but ATI optimized as well on the benchmarks!!" Guess what? It only gave them a 2% increase on their benchmark in 3dmark. That's right...2%...and guess what the margin of error for the mathematical computations in that benchmark (we're talking 3dmark here) is? yep, you guessed it. You'll fluctuate around 2% either side of your actual performance in 3dmark. As far as UT2k3...ATI has no 'optimization' that allows a better performance.

Now I'm not going to lie...the 5800 Ultra and 5900 Ultra/nonUltra both beat the 9800 Pro in almost all performance categories...That's fine and dandy...but that doesn't matter anymore. What matters is that someone is making faces at us while we aren't looking. Nvidia is giving us the bird saying, "Look what I can get away with" Nvidia has become the little brother that NEVER gets in trouble with the parent. They threw on their coat of innocence saying their hands have NEVER been in the cookie jar when all of us can see that with each step they take, cookie crumbs fall out of said coat. It'd be nice if they grew a pair of bizalls and owned up to their lying.

Think about it, what would you do if you had been usurped by ATI after owning the graphics crown for years? You'd get that crown back no matter what you needed to do. Perhaps they went a bit too far. Anyways, read those articles from start to finish or you won't be completely informed. And if you call in the validity of [H]ard|OCP...just put a post up and ask people if they think that the site is a valid, good site. I guarantee they will.

<font color=blue>Kids, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening</font color=blue>
<font color=green>Homer Simpson</font color=green>

TKS
August 13, 2003 10:11:55 AM

Actually Quake III doesn't rely heavily on the graphics card...but it does rely on the CPU. So if you have bottlenecking CPU it might be time for an upgrade.

As far as Doom III...nothing can be said cuz we don't know when it will be out. Since the game is lagging, it looks as if both companies will have another release by then. In fact, I would go as far to say that both graphics giants (if they want to capitalize on things) will release cards that will be advertised as 'Doom III' and 'HL2' cards...I know I would if I wanted to make more money. But one cannot speculate on the intangible or one only has a hypothesis and not fact.

<font color=blue>Kids, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening</font color=blue>
<font color=green>Homer Simpson</font color=green>

TKS
August 13, 2003 1:51:07 PM

Morrowind will be ALOT cooler with the 9800.

Morrowind supports Radeon-only technology called "Truform" which basically tesselates the 3d models in the game; basically, it get's rid of the Jaggies on the edges of 3d models in morrowind. It looks very cool...

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
August 13, 2003 2:27:12 PM

Those damn ATI guys and their optimizations!!! >:) 

<font color=blue>Kids, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening</font color=blue>
<font color=green>Homer Simpson</font color=green>

TKS
August 13, 2003 4:39:41 PM

A note about the current doom3 benchmarks. Its fairly obviouys that Nvidia has their hands in ID's pockets. I mean nvidia has to give the all clear before anyone can do any benchmakrs with doom 3 stuff in production. Now doesnt that seem a little odd. I think its fairly obvious why they get such higher fps in the timedemos.. When the game gets much closer to being released, ATI will have a chance to get their hands on it and do their own driver tweaking, and then i am sure that they will be in the same performance spectrum as Nvidia in Doom3.


Oh, one more thing.. Does anyone know which of the 2 cards scores higher in 3d design? The 2 progrmas i use are 3dstuidiomax5 and Maya 5. Its really hard to find any benchamakrs on that. they only benchmark for that on the professional cards.

Again, thanks for all the info guys. TKS, u have been alot of help.
August 13, 2003 6:11:30 PM

I have a theory about those Doom3 benches...

Rumor has it that the Doom3 alpha that was leaked a while back was traced to Ati.

I have a feeling that giving Nvidia a heads up on releasing the recent Doom3 benches, and not giving Ati time to respond with their own driver optimizations for the game, was Carmack's way of saying "Don't be such a f#%king clumsy idiot next time or we will bury you".

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
August 13, 2003 6:41:50 PM

I hate the fact that Carmack is God....otherwise I might be a bit mad at him. :p 

<font color=blue>Kids, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening</font color=blue>
<font color=green>Homer Simpson</font color=green>

TKS
August 13, 2003 6:42:38 PM

it's just [H]ard|OCP, they're like the #1 nVidia hater~~~

Proud Owner the Block Heater
120% nVidia Fanboy
PROUD OWNER OF THE GEFORCE FX 5900ULTRA <-- I wish this was me
I'd get a nVidia GeForce FX 5900Ultra... if THEY WOULD CHANGE THAT #()#@ HSF
August 13, 2003 7:10:21 PM

Quote:
Now I'm not going to lie...the 5800 Ultra and 5900 Ultra/nonUltra both beat the 9800 Pro in almost all performance categories...

Ummm, no. No, no, no. The 9800 Pro safely whoops the 5800 and the trades benchmarks with the 5900 series. Look at any website's benchmarks to see. I'd say that the THG VGA Buyer's Guide is a sketchy reference because its scores are dramatically different from, oh, EVERY other website. Everythink you said about the cookie jar and stuff, that's all true. But I don't see where you're getting this view on the relative performance of nVidia's newest cards, when compared to ATi's latest and greatest.

<b>Who dares, wins. </b>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 13, 2003 8:52:31 PM

Well I own a 5900 the leadtek one. One thing its pretty loud and its pretty warm too and its a huge PCB to...I dont know if the 9800 is much smaller I do know its quieter most of the time and probly a little bit cooler. If the computer is in your bedroom or somewhere where noise is an important factor I wouldnt recommand it. Also if you tower is tight with a not so good airflow I wouldnt recommand it either. Anywway other than that the card roxor. I bought a 5900 cuz I had a great deal 500CAN no tax...
As ppl said both card are great If you dont mind about the noise/heat I highly suggest the 5900 altough the 9800pro is probly as good so it all depends on wut game you play most
August 13, 2003 8:58:29 PM

Many of the 5900 cards are actually quieter than the 9800 cards, especially in 2D mode, which is what the card will be in when there are not game sound effects to cover up fan noise. If noise is a concern, the 5900 is much better mostly because of the 2D fan slowing.
August 13, 2003 9:26:12 PM

[H]ard|OCP wasn't always that way. For instance, I find <A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MjYwLDU=" target="_new">this</A> review pretty favorable. Of course, <A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMyLDE=" target="_new">this</A> review is high in the favor department as well. They span from the GF2 - GF4 Ti series. It seems that one can only find negative reviews of Nvidia during the FX period of production on [H]ard|OCP.com

So it looks like they've been pretty good to Nvidia from way back. I wouldn't say they they've always hated Nvidia...just recently. Could that be to developments with benchmarking programs? :eek:  . You'll probably have to add #1 <i>recently converted</i> hater of Nvidia.

<font color=blue>Kids, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening</font color=blue>
<font color=green>Homer Simpson</font color=green>

TKS
August 13, 2003 9:27:47 PM

Perhaps the non ultra...but alas...every benchmark I've seen has the 9800 Pro losing. I hate it to...I've got a 9500 Pro in my gaming machine.

<font color=blue>Kids, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening</font color=blue>
<font color=green>Homer Simpson</font color=green>

TKS
August 14, 2003 12:18:47 AM

TKS u do know how 2 change your 9500 PRO into a 9700 right?

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad."
- Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
August 14, 2003 2:56:09 AM

Haven't looked into it yet. I really have no desire to fry it currently. Perhaps when I'm ready to upgrade the card sometime.

<font color=blue>Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel. </font color=blue>
<font color=green>Homer Simpson</font color=green>

TKS
August 14, 2003 8:53:28 AM

Well it`s all done in software so I`m sure u won`t fry your chip. Anyway just head over to <A HREF="http://content.guru3d.com/index.php?page=rivatuner&menu..." target="_new"> RivaTuner </A> and try it out if u want. If u do please tell us if it worked and what frames u get now. I for one would like to know.

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad."
- Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
August 14, 2003 10:37:01 AM

nah...didn't like those. :p  I'm sure there are tons of nVidiots out there that could post another three to counter those. I will say that those reviews were pretty cool to read. I'd take ATI winning anyday...mainly due to the fact that my main gaming machine contains a Xtasy 9500 Pro.

<font color=blue>Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel. </font color=blue>
<font color=green>Homer Simpson</font color=green>

TKS
August 14, 2003 1:29:06 PM

Didn't like them? What's not to like..? I mean, it doesn't show ATi winning really... except GamePC, but those aren't standard benchmarks... it shows a tie. You see, it doesn't come down to me being a fanATic (I'm not) or everyone else being nVidiots (they're not). Those are real benchmarks! You look at almost any review on almost any website and that's what you'll see. <b>The truth is the truth no matter who reports it, no matter who "wins".</b> You see, it doesn't matter who you want to win, what matters is who wins. What I'm trying to say is, where's the proof that nVidia is beating up on ATi?

Give me a link (and not to the THG Buyer's Guide).

<b>Who dares, wins. </b>
a b U Graphics card
August 14, 2003 9:15:09 PM

I don't see it as win/lose, however I'd say the PRO is better than the non-ultra and the Ultra is better than the non-pro in most cases. And the ATI-256 gives me pause on alot of levels (based on jiffy's experiences and alot of reviewers mentioning heat), but as that's not in this equation/choices, who cares.

Here's a few reviews;

One that shows the Ultra and Pro locked at about even (depends on your fav.)
<A HREF="http://www.hardavenue.com/reviews/5900u9800p.shtml" target="_new">http://www.hardavenue.com/reviews/5900u9800p.shtml&lt;/A>

OC NZ, showing the R9800Pro definitely doing a pretty good job at consistently beating the FX5900non-ultra, in just about everything but Quake3 (and I don't even look at that benchie anymore) [this came out today], sorry it's a Gigacube review!.
<A HREF="http://www.overclockers.co.nz/ocnz/review.php?id=03vga0..." target="_new">http://www.overclockers.co.nz/ocnz/review.php?id=03vga0...;/A>

Game2XS doing another review showing the strengths of both the R9800 and FX5900U in different areas, change res. and games and each pulls of wins when they lost in similar areas ust a sec. ago (one wins at high res. then loses in the next game),another tie IMO.
<A HREF="http://www.game2xs.com/content.php?action=article&conte..." target="_new">http://www.game2xs.com/content.php?action=article&conte...;/A>

A review by Digit-life of the Albatron FX5900PV (non-ultra)
<A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-17.html" target="_new">http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-17.html&l...;/A>
or another one with the Gainward;
<A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-16.html" target="_new">http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-16.html&l...;/A>

DDwags214, I think THIS more recent [H] review paints a different picture of the 2 cards;
<A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDk2" target="_new">http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDk2&lt;/A>

And while this is a review of the passively cooled Sapphire R9800ProUE it does show up well for the R9800P in most instances (not enough tests IMO);
<A HREF="http://www.ukgamer.com/article.php4?id=98&page=1" target="_new">http://www.ukgamer.com/article.php4?id=98&page=1&lt;/A>

Kindof a skimpy review but one focusing on the FX5900non-ultra from HEXUS;
<A HREF="http://www.hexus.net/review.php?review=600" target="_new">http://www.hexus.net/review.php?review=600&lt;/A>

And;

One of the most detailed 'cheating' reviews that was included in a pretty good look at the Hercules 3D prophet (R9800Pro). Love the Boys at digit-life's work, very detailed always, ALLLLWAAAYS! (Mad TV Cabbie);
<A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/radeon/herc-r9800-r..." target="_new">http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/radeon/herc-r9800-r...;/A>

Ohh and what the heck here's another one from digit-life (Hey, I like their reviews, especially nice one page scrolling [takes time to load though]);
<A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-13.html" target="_new">http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-13.html&l...;/A>

After all that the only thing I can say is I stick by my original statement, the Pro vs the non-ultra and non-pro(obviously) and the Ultra vs. the non-pro and non-ultra(ditto). You may find that one outperforms the other in a specific game/mode you like, but in general 'I' think that's how it turns out. As for the externalities like cheating and such, that's for the individual to decide if that's a factor or not.

<b>MaxxRacer</b>, Of the two choices above, I say the <b><i>R9800Pro</b></i> is your best bet if they are the same price.

That's just my two frames worth.


- 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: 
August 15, 2003 12:18:33 AM

Roger that Grape, thanks for the stuff, I really enjoyed viewing the situation from all sides, and like you, stand by my original verdict of the 9800Pro being the best choce.

Oh yeah, by the way, in Maximum PC they didn't mention any problems with heat on the 256, although they did say the 5900 had "a commanding lead over the 9800 Pro 256mb in almost all benchmarks." And this is in the September issue, where, just 36 pages earlier, they said "benchmarking battles between the two cards failed to produce a clear winner... the nVidia board would win one benchmark and the ATi board would come back to beat it in the next test... akin to choosing a Lambo or a Ferrari." Chalk it up to Maximum PC's Will Smith, who seems to prefer nVidia. Yet he still gave it a Kickass award. Odd.

<b>nVidia cheated on me so I left her for ATi. ATi's hotter anyway...</b>
August 15, 2003 12:23:30 AM

I have a R9800pro. the 128mb sapphire one.
Its uber fast, and the visual quality is fantastic.
The card is also cool running and QUIET.
Can barely hear the 50mm fan.

If you can find one that cheaper than the 5900 then you're laughing.

P.S. yes i have used nvidia cards before, so i ant no fanboy. I simply believe the R9800pro is a better deal at this point in time.

<b>Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b> <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by LHGPooBaa on 08/14/03 08:24 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 15, 2003 6:05:54 AM

Well guys, thanks for all the info. I have decided to go with the 9800pro.. I had the 9700pro and really liked it, and i am sure i will love hte 9800pro. I found a good price on the model from hercules. It has ramsinks and an improved gpu cooler so it should be good for some decent overclocks..

New System: XP2600 oced to 2.35GHZ, 512mb corsair pc2700 oced to 190mhz x2, 80GB Western Digital (getting the raptor), A7N8X Deluxe, and soon to be Radeon 9800 pro
August 15, 2003 6:57:26 AM

Is that the 256mb version or the 128mb version?

The 256mb version is too expensive. Overpriced for a very minor performance gain only experienced in certain circumstances.


<b>Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2003 11:18:58 AM

Enjoy!
I love Hercules' stuff they usually put high quality parts on their boards, and is my top recommendation for ATI partners. Also hope you like Blue cause you'll be seeing alot of it. :cool:

Let us know how it goes. Maybe post a few benchmarks when you've got it up and running.


- 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: 
August 15, 2003 4:17:14 PM

I will get the 128mb version. The 256mb version is a joke. there is absolutely no point in getting it unless it has DDR2 memory on it so that i can overclock it. but i dont feel like spending that much money.

I will post some benchmakrs when i get it running. I will post stock speeds of vid card and cpu, and then with max oc of vid card and machine. I should get some really good benchmarks...

New System: XP2600 oced to 2.35GHZ, 512mb corsair pc2700 oced to 190mhz x2, 80GB Western Digital (getting the raptor), A7N8X Deluxe, and soon to be Radeon 9800 pro
August 16, 2003 5:31:40 AM

cool.
thats the ticket.
ive got the mem on my R9800pro from 340 up to 360... gotta put on ramsinks to see if i get more.
core is from 380 up to 411 so far... still testing.

<b>Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
August 16, 2003 8:15:03 AM

First let me say, that the ddr2 memory on the 256mb 9800s is the only reason to buy them... but its a pretty good reason as well. If i had the money, id do it. You can usually get that stuff to 420-440 ish. Not bad, not bad at all.

Cool PooBaa, wasnt aware you had a 9800 too.

What programs are you using to test your overclocks?

I can do 460/470ish on the core, and 375/385ish on the memory, depending on the program.

Course I've got a volcano 10 on the gpu, and some nice tweakmonster ramsinks on the memory (and not those pussy BGA sized ones either)... yeah, my 9800 pros about to break in half just sitting in my case, but oh well.

For benchmarking purposes i usually use 460/380 (zero artifacts, 100% stable, cept in 03 mother nature as youll see later).

The bitchiest test ive found is the 03 mother nature test, I get some anomalies in that with the memory at 380, but I get no such anomalies in ANY other program.

The results are quite impressive in practice. I generally leave my card at 440/360 (nice n' safe) and I see a substantial performance increase with these speeds (over stock speeds) in UT2k3, and other 'hardcore' games.

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
August 16, 2003 9:06:50 AM

Well I`ve had nVidia all my computer life from the Tnt to my last card a Ti 4400. Yesterday I bought an Ati Radeon 9800PRO and I`ve seen the light. I can`t beleive how much better it is in performance and quality and the system seems to be running alot smoother with no jerks in games and Bios screens like I`ve had with nVidia. All this time it thought it was `normal` but there is noway I`ll go back to nVidia soon...

My personal opinion ATI rather that nVidia

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad."
- Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
August 16, 2003 9:14:16 AM

Testing wise i just play my games and have a fraggin good time.
Mostly freelancer, serious sam and will rock.
360Mhz mem is the best i can do without ramsinks, 363 produces one or two artefacts after 30mins or so of gaming.
But ive been running the core at 420 and it had zero problems with half an hour of intense gaming.
So not too shabby :smile:
4xAA and 16x ansio as standard :wink:

ill try 430 core now methinks.

<b>Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
!