TomaHawk47x
11-15-03, 08:39 PM
I've been under the assumption that the 9600xt is better than the 5700ultra. however, ive read several conflicting reviews from trustworthy sources.
take the 5700 ultra review from anandtech:
After testing the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra, we have been very pleasantly surprised by NVIDIA. We mentioned last week that the 5700's new architecture might help to close the gap. In fact, NVIDIA has flipped the tables on ATI in the midrange segment and takes the performance crown with a late round TKO. It was a hard fought battle with many ties, but in the games where the NV36 based card took the performance lead, it lead with the style of a higher end card.
arent the radeons better in dx9, higher resolutions, and while using quality settings though? and what about overclocking? will an OCed 5700 ultra outperform an OCed 9600xt? the 5700 ultra also seems to have an advantage in that it has a 256-bit architecture and ddr2 (but only 128-bit memory bus). and how will the 9600xt stack up against high quality 5700 ultras such as the gainward "golden sample"?
drivers also seem to be an issue. i had no clue that the 52.14 actually IMPROVED image quality. the 51.XX drivers slashed it to improve frame rates, but apparently this has changed with the 52.XXs:
taken from anandtech:
Yes, they actually did do that. NVIDIA got a 65% performance increase in their new drivers.
The new 52.14 drivers are much better than either the 51.xx or the 45.xx series. The image quality issues are corrected from 51.xx, and a lot of speed has been inked out over the 45.xx drivers. We have actually been very impressed with the speed, image quality, and playability enhancements we have seen. As long as NVIDIA doesn't take a step backwards before the official 50 series drivers are released, we think everyone who owns a GeForce FX card will be very pleased with what they get.
and this really surprised me:
If NVIDIA can continue to extract the kinds of performance gains from unoptimized DX9 code as they have done with the 52.14 drivers (without sacrificing image quality), they will be well on their way to taking the performance crown back from ATI by the time NV40 and R400 drop. NVIDIAs GPU architecture is a solid one, but it just needs to be treated the right way.
BUT, anandtech stated that ati wins this round. it seems that nvidia is rebounding, but is this product worth consideration? i honestly do not think i will notice much a difference between the two cards, but i still want to buy the better one. im on the verge of building my rig, and it seems its going to come down to the 9600xt and 5700 ultra. please give me your feedback and your opinions on the reviews and make a recommendation.
take the 5700 ultra review from anandtech:
After testing the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra, we have been very pleasantly surprised by NVIDIA. We mentioned last week that the 5700's new architecture might help to close the gap. In fact, NVIDIA has flipped the tables on ATI in the midrange segment and takes the performance crown with a late round TKO. It was a hard fought battle with many ties, but in the games where the NV36 based card took the performance lead, it lead with the style of a higher end card.
arent the radeons better in dx9, higher resolutions, and while using quality settings though? and what about overclocking? will an OCed 5700 ultra outperform an OCed 9600xt? the 5700 ultra also seems to have an advantage in that it has a 256-bit architecture and ddr2 (but only 128-bit memory bus). and how will the 9600xt stack up against high quality 5700 ultras such as the gainward "golden sample"?
drivers also seem to be an issue. i had no clue that the 52.14 actually IMPROVED image quality. the 51.XX drivers slashed it to improve frame rates, but apparently this has changed with the 52.XXs:
taken from anandtech:
Yes, they actually did do that. NVIDIA got a 65% performance increase in their new drivers.
The new 52.14 drivers are much better than either the 51.xx or the 45.xx series. The image quality issues are corrected from 51.xx, and a lot of speed has been inked out over the 45.xx drivers. We have actually been very impressed with the speed, image quality, and playability enhancements we have seen. As long as NVIDIA doesn't take a step backwards before the official 50 series drivers are released, we think everyone who owns a GeForce FX card will be very pleased with what they get.
and this really surprised me:
If NVIDIA can continue to extract the kinds of performance gains from unoptimized DX9 code as they have done with the 52.14 drivers (without sacrificing image quality), they will be well on their way to taking the performance crown back from ATI by the time NV40 and R400 drop. NVIDIAs GPU architecture is a solid one, but it just needs to be treated the right way.
BUT, anandtech stated that ati wins this round. it seems that nvidia is rebounding, but is this product worth consideration? i honestly do not think i will notice much a difference between the two cards, but i still want to buy the better one. im on the verge of building my rig, and it seems its going to come down to the 9600xt and 5700 ultra. please give me your feedback and your opinions on the reviews and make a recommendation.