Best Video Card

AndyH8 · Jun 22, 2003

Hi.
I am considering a new vid card. I have a4600ti and want more and was thinking Radeon but want see a mjor improvement in 3d scores.
nvidia have the fx5900 but that is going to be mega expensive and I was thinking that the 9800pro might be cheaper with a good increase over my 4600ti.
I also have a nforce2 mobo and have an xp2200 and want something to complement the new vid card at a higher fsb.
What would you guys recommend, not leading edge priced but up there just behind.
Thanks
Andy

Socket eh? · Jun 22, 2003

The 9800pro is the better card IMO. Atleast until I see some non fixed results. However, it's not much cheaper.

InThrees · Jun 22, 2003

As far as pure benchmarking goes, the 9800 Pro seems better, but not all THAT better.

Then, in real world applications, you can evidently turn on hojillion-sample AA and AF and all the bells, whistles, and goodies, and the card doesn't break a sweat, or drop frames.

If I had the money for a new overpriced graphics card, I'd go ATI this round.

q149 · Jun 22, 2003

Not to mention 9800 is like 150$ less.

Oni · Jun 22, 2003

How come you need a new card? That Ti4600 should be plenty for today's games.

Also, why not get something just down the line, as it were. On the Festering Edge (not bleeding, but wound is still wet. No scabbing

). I'd look into the 5200 or 9500/9700pro. Those are bound to be cheeper than the 9800/FX5900.

q149 · Jun 22, 2003

Oni said:
I'd look into the 5200 or 9500/9700pro. Those are bound to be cheeper than the 9800/FX5900.

Are you serious... 5200!?? :-/

tainice · Jun 22, 2003

4600 is fast enough without AA and AF, but once u turn them on....it is horriable. Anyway, for the most bang of $$, find a 9700np with 2.8n ram and clock it to 9700pro speed.

=[8c0re8]= · Jun 22, 2003

If u can afford it go with the ATI 9700 pro if possible.

u will not be dissapointed with ur results

this card rockz...

MadBlade · Jun 22, 2003

Ti4600 is a very good card, but it won't be enough for next gen of games comming soon.

Now the 9800 pro is, and probably last you quite a while.

If the FX 5900 Ultra and ATI 9800 Pro were equally priced then go with the FX 5900 Ultra because it is a better card.

Alas the 5900 is $150 more and for the performance diference it is simply not worth it.

schismspeak · Jun 22, 2003

MadBlade said:
Ti4600 is a very good card, but it won't be enough for next gen of games comming soon.

Now the 9800 pro is, and probably last you quite a while.

If the FX 5900 Ultra and ATI 9800 Pro were equally priced then go with the FX 5900 Ultra because it is a better card.

Alas the 5900 is $150 more and for the performance diference it is simply not worth it.

Sorry but if you have quality settings turned to the max the 9800pro is better, it's speed is better, AND its qualitys settings go HIGHER than nvidia, so higher quality settings higher framerates; go with the 9800pro, period.

MetalStorm · Jun 22, 2003

schismspeak said:
Sorry but if you have quality settings turned to the max the 9800pro is better, it's speed is better, AND its qualitys settings go HIGHER than nvidia, so higher quality settings higher framerates; go with the 9800pro, period.

are you sure? from what I read at HardOCP they didnt agree... correct me if im wrong, but that was the impression I got from their review

MadBlade · Jun 22, 2003

MetalStorm said:
are you sure? from what I read at HardOCP they didnt agree... correct me if im wrong, but that was the impression I got from their review

Neither did Tom's Hardware.

5900 is the better card, but are you willing to pay $150 more for a slight increase from the 9800 pro?

MetalStorm · Jun 22, 2003

Its nice that they have improved the image quality in the 5900, its a pity that the AA isnt so good though...

TheGr8s1 · Jun 22, 2003

q149 said:
Are you serious... 5200!??

He must have meant 5600 ultra or something. No way he could've meant 5200. Or maybe he did????????

TheGr8s1 · Jun 22, 2003

tainice said:
4600 is fast enough without AA and AF, but once u turn them on....it is horriable. Anyway, for the most bang of $$, find a 9700np with 2.8n ram and clock it to 9700pro speed.

That's what I did. My 9700np clocks at 400/320 with a score of 19,016 in 3DMark 2001se. Obviously I'm all smiles about it.

CHEERS!

CrystalMethod · Jun 22, 2003

I have yet to get a 5900 in the shop so I can't really say anything about it. The 9800 however is a really nice card.

schismspeak · Jun 23, 2003

MetalStorm said:
are you sure? from what I read at HardOCP they didnt agree... correct me if im wrong, but that was the impression I got from their review

They dont usually use in game settings AND max card settings. here is one where they used both. Also note the ati AA/AF go twice as high as NV and that it runs twice as fast.

http://www.hexus.net/review.php?review=554&page=21

BTW, I am aware of this statement they made: "This will yield results that aren't comparable over GPUs" this statement is true, but none of us are gonna play with these sttings turned off, we are gonna have them on, so again with the eye candy turned up and the settings to the max, ATI wins again.

Make sure you read all the bechmarking pages, not just the page I linked you to.

this review is interesting too. http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=fx5900u&page=1&cookie_test=1

5900 might be better without settings turned on, or even in benches, but in the actual game it is much worse, and I had high hopes, oh well, go ATI!

MetalStorm · Jun 23, 2003

schismspeak I think you aught to consider reading the HardOCP review as there are many things wrong with what you just said...firstly the 5900 does 8xAA and 8xAF so the only thing the 9800 has over it in terms of that is 16xAF - however the 5900s trilinear filtering quality is better.

Before you ask they were comparing the benchmarks when the cards where using equal image quality, so it is a fair comparison. Why dont you read it?

Taking information from the review you mentioned is just stupid, of course the 5900 is going to be slower - they were running the test at higher settings as it was using 8xAA and 8xAF and as the AF quality is better its going to take a bigger performance hit than the 9800 even at 16xAF.

If anyone else has read it, I think they will agree that the 5900 did come out on top for a majority of the benches

schismspeak · Jun 23, 2003

Gee, didnt know this was a life or death decision.

I did read [H]'s review, though I didnt realise it was worse even at 16xAF, but ATI's AA is better, so you could really choose either card and not go wrong, unless you pay more $ for the 5900U which IMO would be stupid.

Oh and thanks for saying what I did was stupid when I misunderstood something,(something fairly minor, something youd have to have a benchmark show you) and did you ever think to yourself, that this is just a darn video card?

It is like the decision is life or death

AndyH8 · Jun 23, 2003

My Decision

Hi Guys.
Seems like the subject matter got a little hot, sorry if the question caused this. However I believe that the fx5900 is a faster card but at what cost in terms of $ and true speed with quality, is somewhat questionable at this time. Maybe the drivers will resolve this in time, but I have the feeling nvidia (which I have always bought) have reacted to the current ATI 9800pro situation in a somewaht panicky way and no doubt they will get there in the end. At this time I feel the need to try something different that is not the size of a planet and will purchase the Radeon this time around. I must admit I am looking forward to seeing the quality this cards reviews say it can provide. No doubt things will change but that is a common constant in this world of 1's and 0's.
Thanks for ALL of your views.
Andy.

Best Video Card

Registered

Member

Member

Member

Oni-ni-Kanab;, Ninja Hippo eater Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Senior Band Wagon Jumper

Member

Member

Member

Registered

Similar threads