Never argue with a Fanboi

[cleeve]

They're not worth it.

I wasted a bunch of my time trying to put forward the (obvious) case that a GeforceFX 5900 non-ultra is a better video card than a 9500 PRO.

I just thought I'd share this lesson I'd learned with the rest of the guys on the THG forum:

<A HREF="http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33720515&perpage=20&pagenumber=1" target="_new">http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33720515&perpage=20&pagenumber=1</A>

It's funny, we're pretty opinionated over here, but at least we're not blind and stupid.


------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055

 

[shadus]

A dumbass by any other name is still a dumbass the same.

Shadus

 

[phial]

i disagree...


a 9500pro has the exact same shader capabilities of the 9700pro.. not quite up to par because of clock speeds and memory bandwidth (but memory bandwidth isnt the most important thing as has already been proved with teh 5950ultra and its 30gigs/sec of memory bandwidth)

if a 9600pro can ouperform a 5900ultra, then a 9500pro will only make the difference greater.


if you play only DX8 games? then sure the 5900nonultra would serve you better...

but most games released from now on will use pixel shaders. and like i said , the 9500pro is generally better at shaders than teh 9600pro

-------


<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>

 

[cleeve]

Shaders are important Phial, in DirectX 9 especially.

But the 5900 is a monster, plain and simple. It's brute strength makes it the 9500's equal when it comes to shaders

We're talking a 400mhz core clock VS the 9500 PRO's 275 Mhz. that's a lot of GPU cycles that the 5900 can use to make up for it's shader handicap.

Other than Maybe Half Life 2, the 5900 with forceware compilers will kick the $hit out of the 9500 PRO everytime.

Even in Tomb Raider: AOD... a DirectX 9 title... the forceware drivers pull the 5900 ahead of the 9800:

<A HREF="http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_fx_5950_review/page9.asp" target="_new">http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_fx_5950_review/page9.asp</A>

Show me an example where it doesn't. I've looked and I can't find anything close. It's hard to find benches where the 9700 beats the 5900, nevermind the 9500 PRO.

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055

 

[phial]

im not going to get into a review pasting battle ...


its been discussed and proven months ago. if your memory is that short....

But the 5900 is a monster, plain and simple. It's brute strength makes it the 9500's equal when it comes to shaders

but wait.. the 9600pro is faster in HL2? wtf, that must mean what you said isnt true! not to mention when AOD was first released also..


from that review you pasted -

In light of this development, we’ll be reevaluating the settings we select for testing. Depth of field (which is enabled by default) will likely be left on, which certainly will affect the results

teh improvements were through the drivers, and everyone knows what nvidia drivers are like. hacked in optimizations and IQ sacrifices, no thanks i wont believe it until ALOT of different sites say that the GFFX has improved

anyways AOD isnt a great example. its had image quality reductions and whatnot.

and yes, it is hard to find comparing reviews.. but just putting 2 and 2 together from following the last years worth of information.. well anyways im not going to argue it beacuse its hard to find proof (but the proof has already been layed many times)

-------


<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>

 

[cleeve]

Times change, Phial. Our opinions have to change with them as is appropriate, otherwise our opinions become dated and worthless.

The recompilers in forceware can't be ignored because they don't fit onto a view that we currently have. They do a decent job of making Nvidias weak shaders better.

Thay also can't be ignored with vague comments about bad image quality. Most of the reviews I've seen have shown that Nvidia has taken care of many cheats. Brilinear filtering? Sure it sucks. How about Ati's sub-par anistropic filtering methods? I guess we can ignore Ati's optiizations because we don't want to acknowledge them? How about Ati's texture problems in UT2003? The lines get a little blurry. It's certainly not black & white.

We're not arguing 9800 VS 5900 here. We're arguing 5900 VS 9500 PRO.

in 95% of the games out there, the 5900 will win hands down. No contest, by large margins.

In some upcoming DX9 games, the 5900 will be on par with the 9500 PRO.
In some, the 5900 will beat it.
In some, the 9500 PRO will beat it.

This does not make the 9500 PRO a better card. It makes the 9500 PRO better than, say, the 5700 ULTRA. But the 5900?

It's easy to say that we can throw around benchmarks that are worthless, but back it up with something then. In what case do you think that the 9500 PRO will beat the 5900? Half life 2 maybe? What about Doom3... should we ignore a promising graphically advanced game because it doesn't have the DX9 title on it?

People buy graphics cards to play games, for utility. Not to pidgeon hole themselves into a specific version of the DirectX standard.

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055

 

[speeduk]

Both cards suck so stop arguing!

My system spec: Fast PC<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
"It's not the spoon that bends, it's only yourself."

 

[shadus]

> its been discussed and proven months ago

Before the forceware drivers.

Shadus

 

[cdpage]

not to throw in a rench here... but the 9500pro is alot cheeper. so much so, it realy isn't worth whatever advantage the 5900 gives...or looses, to pay that much more... i would still rather have my 9500pro.

As for this topic name... "Never argue with a Fanboi", it doesn't hold strong, the so called Fanboy probably had a few good points...regardless of the 5900 being a better card, its not by that much.



<b>on the verge of catastohy (y1.999...k)</b>
ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro - WD 80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW

 

[sargeduck]

I agree with all the posts, but there is one thing we should maby throw into the picture. Price. Yes, the 5900 will beat the 9500. Naturally, the 5900 will win hands down in dx8 games. Bring in dx9, and as has been said above, it's going to be pretty even, with the 5900 winning, say 95% of the time by a few frames. The 5900 will probably only get, say, 5-6 frames better? (speculating here) And how much more does it cost? couple hundred more? doesn't seem like it has that good of a price/performance ratio.

Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue

 

[coolsquirtle]

I WANNA KILL THIS GUY!

he's like poopy

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

 

[Ion]

phial=under-developed doomtrooper. :tongue:

 

[cleeve]

I disagree sarge, albeit respectfully.

When the 5900 beats the 9500 PRO, it does it by a landslide.

When the 9500 PRO beats the 5900 (in limited DX9 apps), it usually does so by a small margin, and most of the time within the margin of error.

And since the 9600XT is $200, and the 5900 non-ultra is under $220... well... it seems like an obvious choice to me.

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

For once I have to say I disagree with you in one aspect. The shader performance. Womb Raide isn't a good example of good performance, it's an nV 'TWIMTBP' title, that is good with the new forceware real-time compiler which essential takes HLSL and makes it more CG/nV friendly. That's where the performance increase comes from, not some new or hidden improvemnts. If you compare the ShaderMark scores of the FX5900nU vs the R9500P/R9600P, you'll see that indeed it does have major issues with PS 2.0 shaders. And it's performance gains are usually at the expense of DX9 effects and using partial precision to acheive better benchmark scores.

I agree with the original premise, that overall the FX5900U is a better video card than the R9500P, but not worth the premium they are charging for it (the R9500's are usually worth the money you'd pay for them now).

Here's a few link to ShaderMark scores just FYI;

<A HREF="http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q4/radeon-9600xt/index.x?pg=4" target="_new">ShaderPerformance of the R9600Pro/XT vs FX5600s</A>
<A HREF="http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q4/geforcefx-5950ultra/index.x?pg=11" target="_new">Shader Performance vs R9800XT and FX5950</A>

Now baring the obvious SCALE differences, one can surmise that since the FX5900Ultra is 'about' in the same performance level as the R9600Pro (or XT) that the non-Ultra would at the very best, be the match of the R9500Pro. Or perhaps that's just my take on it.

<A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/40vs50/index.html" target="_new">Just a look at the minimal the improvements offered by the new drivers @ DigitLife</A>

In any case the FX5900 is an OK card, and rocks in DX7/8 games/benchmarks , but as long as you attach a premium price tag to it, then there will be problems, and if anyone wants to get the most out of their card in DX9/PS2.0 titles, then it'll often get beaten by 'lesser' cards.

And while D]|[ is not DX9 it is OGL with use of advanced pixel shaders, at which point you will still have that trade off.

So I agree with your statement, just not your argument about DX9/PS2.0.



- 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

 

[One]

I do not know why any of you guys give these lame ATI fanboys a second thought. Everyone that has posted in this thread saying that the 9500 pro is even close to the 5900 has lost all credibilty. Comparing a 9500 pro to a 5900 is a joke. The 5900 even beats the 9800 in many games including some Dx9 games that use pixel shader 2.0,. You fanboys need a life.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by one on 11/04/03 11:09 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[lhgpoobaa]

dont forget the obviously ludicrous price difference.

<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>

 

[Ion]

9800 lost to 5900 in DX9 game using PS2.0??? Care to provide a link? (unless you were talking the buggy Halo port that chokes every card)

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

You don't know what you are talking about in the least.

Can't state it any clearer than that.


- 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

 

[RRAMJET]

ATI suxs, there drivers are crap there cards are crap and HL2 has not been relesased so shove the shader performance that will prob not be noticed and live with the fact your ATI card is no better than the competition. And guess what ATI paid valve to optimise for them and if you dont believe this get a grip and stop blowing all over your overrated Ati piece of crap.

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!

 

[Ris3n_Da3mon]

And guess what ATI paid valve to optimise for them

what proof do you have of this??? and what are you smoking??? and why aren't you sharing?

ATI suxs, there drivers are crap there cards are crap

I've had one of every generation of ATI cards since the rage 128 (except for the original radeon and the 7xxx's). And yes thier drivers used to suck HORRIBLY!!! and at first i couldn't even run windows xp because i had so many problems!! but around a 1 1/2 to 2 years ago they got their act together, and their drivers are now excellent! I haven't had any stabilty problems. And i love my radeon 9700 pro, i've had NOTHING but GREAT performance out of it since i got it!! Now don't tell I'm just saying this cuz i've always had ati, and that's all i know, cuz almost all my friends have been using nvidia cards and i've seen how they compare. I've choosen to stick with ATI because of the better IQ.

 

[kinney]

I agree with your overall statement.
Your combating the massive majority of biased ATI users on this site though, and rage3d, of course.
You show to be a man that believes in 'best of breed' like myself.

Again, though I agree with your statement. I am openly biased (though not the degree some of these pups are..) towards NV and bought a 9800NP for about $230.

I consider both the 9500pro and 5900 wasteful choices in the present day market.
My 9800 flashed to a Pro, and hits the highest XT speeds.. I'd have to say thats a value (luck ).
For what, approx the same price as the either of those cards.

I realize your point wasnt to look for the best value, but I couldnt resist being a distraction.

If I was stuck between the 5900 and 9500Pro I'd definitely go with the 5900 for many reasons.
Has alot more bandwidth, which is important and will matter again someday when these cards age, no matter how useless today- it does FP32/16, which EVERYONE is going to have to move to next generation. Its an NV card, so you get A+ drivers versus ATI struggling to get such a reputation.
NV drivers are still a big PLUS over ATI. I enjoy my 9800, but I must say if I was building PCs and providing support for them I would use NV GPUs without thinking twice.

And <i>regardless</i> of the closing performance gap between the lines which is becoming ever closer to be considered "close enough" in the eyes of a nonfanboy, the 5900 is a more forward looking card and has enough speed for todays games as well.
Using HL2 benches for a buying comparison? Who cares.
I think the jurys still out on if Valve can pull this one off.
HL2 could completely flop, theres no promise of a CS2.. something else could come along and wipe out all interest in HL2!

Now id, theres a guarantee of a killer game whose engine will spawn MANY other games.
id > valve
Many predict NV will overtake ATI in that engine, thats where I'd hedge my bet. Thats just as valid as HL2 benches based on a unreleased game thats in freakin limbo.
With recent events, those are just as outdated and invalid as the Doom 3 benchmarks.
You're right, things change!

My choice of video card before I discovered the incredible value of the NP 9700/9800s was a 5900nonultra, its not a bad deal if you forget those exist..

hence- you are correct in this arguement.

Good day!

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
<b>I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY</b>

 

[kinney]

A response to myself, I want this point to stick out-

Has alot more bandwidth, which is important and will matter again someday when these cards age, no matter how useless today- it does FP32/16, which EVERYONE is going to have to move to next generation.

The extra 'push' the 5900 has over the 9500 will not become obsolete like FP24-only shaders.
FP32 is next up to bat and current gen (strict DX9 spec) cards are going to take a bigger IQ loss than NV30+ based cards.
And when NV is getting the FX series pumping out DX9.0 sufficiently (as they are now), that base is covered.

They also have the future covered, ATI doesn't.

Theres pros/cons to everything boys and girly dressing men.

EDIT- HEY! I'm now a nimble-knuckle!!!
Its well deserved too, I am not one to usually put up thousands of short posts!!!
Happy day- beers for all. Even minors, take me away!!

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
<b>I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kinney on 11/05/03 04:45 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Ris3n_Da3mon]

Now id, theres a guarantee of a killer game whose engine will spawn MANY other games.
id > valve
Many predict NV will overtake ATI in that engine

But didn't carmack say that NV will be using reduced precision?? and all kinds of opengl library stuff? which is why they had to push back the release so they could do all kinds of optimizing for the NV cards?? hmmmm seems to me that the ATI cards have good performance right out of the box, but the NV cards only get good performance after the game is optimized for NV or NV optimizes their drivers for the specific game..... :/

Its an NV card, so you get A+ drivers versus ATI struggling to get such a reputation.

how are they struggling? what unstableness is there in ATI drivers? what's wrong with them? can you actually point out specific problems and not just say there crap??? As I said before I've been a long time ATI user and haven't had any driver problems for a LONG time.

 

[Ion]

Typical trolling from rramjet. :tongue:

 

[Ion]

I don't think you can see the difference between FP32 and FP24 without screenshots analysis. (FP16/24 is another story)

And yes FX is more future proof but at what speed?

Lastly and just my own opinion after reading your recent posts, i think your attitude towards ATi driver affects your judgement on the cards'technologies, even though you own a 9800 you still favour towards nvidia.