Im more interested in getting high frame rates than making everything look nice at an ok frame rate. I would agree on the comment regarding the 9600xt having better AA performance although it seems to be only a slight lead. Should the fact that the 5900xt only has 128mb be a long term factor considering im not looking to replace it for another 2 years??? Also just as a pointer im not really someone who looks to overclocking my hardware.
Forgot to mention there is no real price difference between these cards (its only about 5-10 pounds)<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by monkeygiblets on 01/06/04 01:26 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
The FX5900XT/SE/LX/CP/EPV/etc is a very good deal. It's far more powerful than the FX5700U, and almost makes up for the lack of shader performance compared to the R9600XT. I would say under most situations the FX5900-cripple would be a better choice considering the MSRPs of all three are the same. Even for a $10-20 premium the FX5900-cripple will likely outperform the rest in 80-90+% of the games and applications you'll encounter, based on what I've seen.
FiringSquad has a GOOD <A HREF="http://" target="_new">REVIEW of the FX5900XT/SE/etc</A> which shows it's better performance than both the R9600XT and FX5700U.
So I'd say for the same money the FX5900-cripple is the better choice.
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> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK
I wasn't talking about performance alone... Ati's antialiassing methods LOOK markedly better than Nvidia's.
Remember, framerate numbers aren't everything. If you run the same game on both video cards, and the 9600XT is getting 80 fps and the 5900 is getting 150 fps, you won't notice a difference in framerates because humans can't relaibly discern anything over 70 fps...
we can, however, discern jagged edges with ease.
More important is the MINIMUM frame rates, but too few reviews mention those...
Anything over 70FPS?! I thought the eyes could only receive 25FPS...
I'm not sure about the 5900's, because in Australia, they're well above the rest as far as prices are concerned. However, between 5700U and 9600XT, I would recommend the 9600XT.
Firstly, if what Cleeve says is true about 70FPS, most of the games tested had frame rates of well above 70FPS on both cards. It is only when you introduce AA and AF, that most of the frame rates are lower than 70. In other words, if you don't use AA and AF, it won't really matter whether you get the 9600XT, 5900XT or 5700U for quite a while. However, with AA and AF, I don't think you should consider the 5700U.
One more thing, someone said that the nVidia drivers were better at AA and AF... Better enough to give nVidia the the lead in AA and AF?