Upgrading fom a 5900

[rumcooler]

Yes that is correct. I want to upgrade from a 5900 to a 9800 pro. I feel like I have been screwed over big time considering I paid $389.00 for it. I see the sapphire brand for $352.00 and the BBA for $362.00 any differences between the two?
Thanks for your support

 

[coylter]

you may want to keep the 5900 to see the new driver.
they seem to improve performance alot (100% increase in som games)

My own beast: Athlon 2700xp+ , Radeon 9800pro (oc: 400/360) , 512mb ddr400. SO MUCH faster than my father pIII 550......

 

[lhgpoobaa]

Either is good.
Ive got a sapphire and im very happy with it.

As for the new detonator drivers, vie heard that some of the improvment is from actual tweaks, but most is from selectivly downgrading image quality to obtain speed.
Not the most ideal solution!

<b>I am not a AMD fanboy.
I am not a Via fanboy.
I am not a ATI fanboy.
I AM a performance fanboy.
And a low price fanboy.
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>

 

[10GHZ]

just get the 1 with the lower price, no real difference between the 2

 

[coolsquirtle]

i don't see how u can think that..... WOW! 9800pro beats it! BIG DEAL!!! FX5900 still wastes anything below that -_-why are u buying a brand new card just because it's a bit better? DX9 performance will go up dramaticly after the DET 52s.... I mean serious if u got $300 to blow, blow it on something useful, spend a ton of cash(even if u sell the FX5900) so you can be THE TOP is just stupid, why dont u save that money to buy a NV40 or R420 -_- i don't understand you people

RIP Block Heater....HELLO P4~~~~~
120% nVidia Fanboy
bring it fanATics~~ nVidia PWNS all!
SCREW aBOX! LONG LIVE nBOX!!

 

[One]

Don't let ATI fanboys influence you so much. Stop and think for 10 seconds, is there a single game that you cannot get acceptable framerates in? Hell is there a game that you get less than 40 fps in? I don't see how you can feel let down at this point in time, but If your gonna upgrade you best get at an XT or you won't notice any difference at all.

 

[Ion]

Yep, BF1942=nightmare for Nvidia card. :tongue:

 

[nickd]

4 or 5 weeks ago I bought BF1942. It ran like crap on my P3-733 with GeForce 2 MX so I did some basic reading and bought a P4 2.8c, Asus P4P800 Deluxe, 1GB of DDR400 ram and...you guessed it...A Leadtek GeForce 5900 Ultra card.

Now, if I had read then what I have read since I suspect I would have a 9800 Pro but I only saw benchmarks showing the 5900 favourably compared to the 9800 Pro (god knows how).

However, I think BF runs amazingly - I can barely imagine how much better it could be smoothless-wise. I've taken to playing it in 32-bit 1600x1200 with 4xQ AA and 4x Anistropic and full everything as it still runs great. According to FRAPS I'm getting between 44 and 100 fps and average 67 at that res.

Apparently the 9800XT averages 100 - and if it does then I guess I wish I had that card, but my results are hardly a nightmare by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Ion]

Which site you went had 5900 owning 9800 in BF1942?

In Tom's 9800XT review i saw my 9500pro spanks 5900's ass.

Btw you should use 16x Anistropic filter in BF, i cant stand 4x after i turn mine up to 16x.

 

[nickd]

None - I read a number of general ones where the 5900 was on top, so figured that was the card to go for. This was my first time [buying a decent card] so unlike the weeks since, I didn't really read sites like this. That said, I did see a benchmark on this site with it performing at the top....or at least I think I did. I certainly didn't do much research, but...

...my point is, the 5900 isn't 'a nightmare' or even slightly painful. If the benchmarks say it's slower than the 9800 pro and even any other card, then so be it. But at the end of the day I'm playing 3 or 4 hours of BF a day and think it's bloody amazing! (visually as well as the gameplay).

While anyone who spent that amount of money would like to know it is the best, it isn't the end of the world when it turns out not to be so.

I sometimes wonder by the amount of whingeing on the topic if people are actually playing these games or if their level of enjoyment from a game is simply the gratification of a benchmark.

EDIT: My FRAPS figures above are for 4xQ AA and 8xAnisotropic. And I recalled incorrectly the 9800XT scores - it gets 78fps at the full-on 1600x1200. So my 67 is reasonably close. I also took that on a busy online map, and went out of my way to make it tough, taking off in a flying a plane, swerving about, shooting and then piling into a tank.

 

[Ion]

Also congratulation on the trouble free BF1942 experience, my friend had hell of a time to get it working smoothly on his ti4200. :frown:

Added: We do play the games, just that if we know the game has inferior graphic on one card compare to another in the same range, the experience will be dampen...<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Ion on 10/13/03 11:11 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[nickd]

I just did another fraps - this time single player on Battle of Britain. All in game gfx settings on max. I REALLY went out of my way to make it tough on the card - if I was doing this sequence online they would have thought I was trying to introduce breakdancing in 1942 I also started and stopped the timings to ensure there was no 'still time' to increase score.

1024x768, 32-bit 4xAA, 8xAN

2003-10-14 01:22:28 - bf1942
Frames: 16989 - Time: 204109ms - Avg: 83.234 - Min: 57 - Max: 100

Here is the 1600x1200,32-bit 4XAA, 8xAN from before.

2003-10-12 23:18:56 - BF1942
Frames: 5085 - Time: 75078ms - Avg: 67.729 - Min: 49 - Max: 95


I think that while benchmarks are usefull, and I love reading them now, they might often be way off the mark. Certainly my numbers look nothing like the ones in the Radeon 9800XT review.

 

[Ion]

IMO, BF1942 looks crap even if you turn setting to max in game. You have to turn on at least some AF...

Anyway have you tried that method on Tom's XT benchie?

<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030930/radeon_9800-31.html" target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030930/radeon_9800-31.html</A>

PS. Battle of Britain isnt very demanding in term of graphic.

 

[nickd]

I agree that map isn't the most complex, but I was in and around the factory (keeping stuff on screen) then over in jeep to plane, jump out (did the 360 like the review) and into a plane to swoosh about. Naturally it will be nothing like Toms sequence, but it was more demanding that how I actually play the game.

I copied the actual settings from than benchmark...8xAN as I called it is probably what you've called AF, so maybe I should start calling it AF I can't work out how to pronounce it though!

I think I'll get Halo when it comes out here in a few days - then I'll really see if the benchmarks stack up - because according to them I'll be chucking my 5900 in the trash!

 

[Snorkius]

Why not wait a couple of months to get the next gen. graphic cards. They will (obviously) rip the current ones to shreds. Buy a 9800pro now and with your mindset you'll have to buy another card in a few months.

p.s. I'll buy your sh!te card off you, for say... $100

<font color=blue>
<i><font color=black>Faithless</font color=black></i> is he that says farewell when the road darkens.
J. R. R. Tolkien
</font color=blue>

 

[rumcooler]

Thanks for all the input. I think I will wait for the new Det's to come out then make a decision. Thanks again everybody