More 5900nu questions

[aznThunder]

I'm looking to buy a video card in the 150-200 range. I know the 9600p/9600xt/5900nu/9700np/9800np/5700u/blah blah debate has been raging for a while, but I seem to be getting more confusion than answers in the forums. Right now, I'm trying to decide between a GFX 5900nu (199@Newegg) and a 9700np (195@Allstar). On paper, the 5900 seems superior, and in current games it kicks anything else in its price range, but I'm worried about future DX9 performance (aka HL2...). So I suppose my question is exactly what is the FX5900's current condition for DX9 games, with the revisions in NV35 and ForceWare, and those stupid rumors of a 60% boost with DX9.1. Please help me!

"I've got a great new idea for a value product-line! We charge the customer the same price, and we give them a slower product!"
"How is that a value?"
"Oh, it's a value for us, of course."

 

[Vimp]

What seems to be the problem on this forum is that most people that have the knowledge to help you seem to have a biased opinion towards ATI cards even though like you said the FX cards seem to perform just as well and some times better in alot of the reviews. So I too am confused as to whats best for me. I'm also concerned about technical issues in installation and extra power consumtion. I'm an amateur computer builder so I dunno if I have the needed power nor the know how in setting up such cards that require special attention. It would be nice to hear a very objective opinion on the matter from someone with the know how.

 

[sargeduck]

Answer: 9700.
Reasons: -you can overclock relativly easy to 9700Pro speeds
-wastes the fx5900 in dx9 games (Tomb Raider, Halo, hl2...)
-only takes up one slot compared to the fx 5900's 2 slots
-you get what you set. A recent example is Nvidia no longer supports trilinear filtering. They offer a "brilinear filtering"
-9700 does not cheat and still beats the fx5900 whch cheats
-ATI has said it will do driver updates 12 times a year. Nvidia has said they may cut back to 1/2 a year
-it's cheaper
-easier to put a zalman passive cooler on a 9700

ummmm.....that's all that comes to mind right now

Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue

 

[GeneticWeapon]

Yea..in DX9 games the 9700 beats the 5900..
<b>Tomb Raider:AOD</b> = The game sucks ass.
<b>Halo</b> = The graphics look like absolute crap no matter which pixel shader you force the game to run.
<b>Half Life 2</b> = Half Life who?...where's it at?

only takes up one slot compared to the fx 5900's 2 slots

The 5900 takes up one slot :tongue:




<b>I help because you suck</b>

 

[aznThunder]

Now don't flame me, the only cards I've ever purchased are ATi, but...this looks so tempting...
<A HREF="http:// http://www.fticomputer.com/cgis/detail.cgi?product=VB-PN-VCGFX59APB&ses=&cat=VB " target="_new">http:// http://www.fticomputer.com/cgis/detail.cgi?product=VB-PN-VCGFX59APB&ses=&cat=VB </A>

- overclocking: most fx5900's can be OC'ed to ultra speed and beyond
- two slots: see GeneticWeapon's post
- fx5900 whoops ass in OGL and non-dx9
- don't care about passive cooling
- dx9 performance is boosted a lot by ForceWare (yeah Radeons still rule here)
- Catalysts are not cheat/"problem" free
- it's the same price ($199 for PNY GFFX 5900 vs. $195 for OEM R9700)

People seem to be so dead set against any GFFX, but $200 for a near-top of the line card seems to be an unbeatable deal. The FX does beat a 9700/pro/9800/pro in many current games, and you know they say that you can't future proof your cards...eh...I suppose I should just trust the judgment of the millions of angry ATi fanboys waiting to chop my head off and get the 9700

"I've got a great new idea for a value product-line! We charge the customer the same price, and we give them a slower product!"
"How is that a value?"
"Oh, it's a value for us, of course."

 

[GeneticWeapon]

The 9700 is the better card, but the 5900 rox0rz too.

<b>I help because you suck</b>

 

[fragglefart]

answer... erm.

Answer: 9700. WRONG! (ish :S )

Reasons: -you can overclock relativly easy to 9700Pro speeds

You can HUGELY oc the upper FX's

-wastes the fx5900 in dx9 games (Tomb Raider, Halo, hl2...)

See GW's posts.... TR=poop Halo= UNTRUE HL2= whatever... you dont REALLY believe those Sliders do you?!
Wastes is a lie.

-only takes up one slot compared to the fx 5900's 2 slots

Not in this case.

-you get what you set. A recent example is Nvidia no longer supports trilinear filtering. They offer a "brilinear filtering"

Innacurrate. Although, as they have better performance, ati are currently optimising less. They still do it.

-9700 does not cheat and still beats the fx5900 whch cheats

blah cheats cheats. thats at people say when they do not understand the situation.

-ATI has said it will do driver updates 12 times a year. Nvidia has said they may cut back to 1/2 a year

rubbish. Nv has had about 5 driver updates in the last month. They may not be "officially" from the Nv sie, but they are given to the 3rd party producers who pass them on, no questions asked.

-it's cheaper

so is a poo.

-easier to put a zalman passive cooler on a 9700

easier to blow on it.

ummmm.....that's all that comes to mind right now

mind? >

Just go 9600Pro. You know you want to!!!!! (or XT if you can get some £££ for an xmas gift!)

............................................
Render times? You'll find me down the pub...

 

[fragglefart]

in short, right now, if you buy either:

9500Pro, 9600Pro, 9600XT, 9700, 9700Pro, 9800 (not SE), 9800Pro, 9800XT
or
5600Ultra,5700,5800 (whatever people say, have you SEEN how it performs in professional programs?!!! perhaps not games... whatever.)5900SE, 5900,5900Pro,5950

you will get an awesome card. so just get whatever. all the differences are marginal to say the least as i am sure you are aware.

i would go either 5900 NP or 9600"Decent".
For games - Ati
For pro - NV.

............................................
Render times? You'll find me down the pub...