Geforce FX 5900 Ultra OR Radeon 9800pro

NVIDIA GeForce™ FX 5900 Ultra 256MB 8x AGP w/DVI & S-Video

or

ATI RADEON™ 9800 PRO 256MB 8x AGP w/DVI & S-Video

my friends is getting a new card and wants to know what card is better. Obviously they are about the same so I just want to know what are the pro's and con's about these cards and the drivers...NOT company.
Please dont get into ATI is better than Nvidia because we all know that

Thanks
-xbiker321

I would get the FX5900, myself.

There are a ton of threads exactly like this one. Do a quick search and trust me you will find them.

Personally I would go with the 9800pro 128mb. There are some problems with Pixel Shader 2.0 and the 5900 so im leary of the FX's.

all studies show the 5900ultra to be a better performer

How can you say that? ALL? Um... maybe if you said most... or some... then ok. But not all. Most reviews I read do show that the 5900ultra does perform better in some games... and loses in others. And most reviews recommend buying the 9800pro over the 5900ultra because for the price the 9800pro is a better buy.

Also many reputable sites believe that there are still lots of cheats in the drivers, but they are just well hidden and encrypted.

I believe that is why they strong-armed Omega Drive to stop making/tweaking Nvidia drivers.

However Id rather we just stick with facts thanks.

read the first post IR1

Im in the same spot your friend is in with the whole 5900FX or 9800 deal. I want a card that will last me awhile and take advantage of all the new gaming technology. So if you dont mind me hijacking your thread for a second....Which one will be able to stand up to the newer games for the longest?..Sorry Im not very good at explaining myself or my thoughts I hope you all know what Im trying to say.

"Please dont get into ATI is better than Nvidia because we all know that" ~xbiker321

well i want to know what card has less problems, mainly with the drivers. Does the 5900 ultra have more or less problems playing all types of games than the 9800pro.

Also he WILL be getting the 256mb version so don't bother getting into that extra 128mb isnt needed.

HEY ATTENTION PLEASE: there are rumors of the 5900 not being able to play H2, that seals my vote completely and forever, until i hear something about it being false. In case that wasn't clear enough: GET THE 9800 PRO

I'd go with the Radeon 9800 pro 256mb if valve doesn't solve the FSAA issue with HL2. If you're gonna run HL2 on a $400+ card, then you might as well turn on the good stuff, FSAA and AF, which can (at the moment) only work correctly on an ATI card. If they fix the geforce issue, then get the 5900. my $0.02

R4z0r4mu5 Pr|m3 said:

all studies show the 5900ultra to be a better performer

Click to expand...

linky link please. "all" is not a very descriptive word

From what I know...you shouldn't waste your money on the 256mb. Just get the 128mb. 256 is overkill and the extra memory is never used !!!!

Posted by xbiker321
Also he WILL be getting the 256mb version so don't bother getting into that extra 128mb isnt needed.

Click to expand...

NcBaller1985 said:

From what I know...you shouldn't waste your money on the 256mb. Just get the 128mb. 256 is overkill and the extra memory is never used !!!!

Click to expand...

READ, and its not my money.

I would go with a Radeon 9800 Pro because I think that it's a better card than the GeForce FX 5900. Half-Life 2 is being optimized for the Radeon 9800.

Here is what I heard and this is from 2nd and 3rd source since I myself do not have the money to buy either one.

In most test out RECENTLY!! the 5900 has beaten the 9800 pro in most test. This was the 128mb version and not the 256mb.

Those that say that 256mb is not needed I say you are wrong. That was what people said about 64mb, 128mb cards a few years ago. The problem is not if you need it but when you need it. From the looks of it, Doom 3 will need it and maybe HL2.

Driver wise I heard that Nvidia has been tweaking the tests on most benchmark but later took them out. There was also rumors that Ati is doing the same. For me I do not care since if those tweak helps those particular games then I'm all for it.

One thing to note though is that the 5900 seems to have a problem with their V shader from an article I read.

Right now the 9800 is like a polished and refine car. All or 99% of the bugs are gone hardware wise and only drivers are the issues.

The 5900 is brand spanking new and still needs to be adjusted somewhat with a few hitcups once in awhile. So far the hardware still needs to be polished and the drivers have not fixed the problem yet.

Hope this helps and I have both ATI and Nvidia.

I just got a refurb from newegg Radeon 9800 256mb for $300

I am sending my eVGA 5900FX back...its not all that.....it has higher clock speeds etc. but the image quality is not that good

and the 5900FX cost $378 compared to $300...I think I got a good deal...if the refurb works out and all

we will see

stan03 said:

HEY ATTENTION PLEASE: there are rumors of the 5900 not being able to play H2, that seals my vote completely and forever, until i hear something about it being false. In case that wasn't clear enough: GET THE 9800 PRO

Click to expand...

Gotta love rumours into facts into warped reality.

The 5900 cannot run HL2 with AA on. At the moment, no card can. Apparently the 9800 will be able to with a work around but it hasn't been final. The 5900, maybe.

This is a DX issue as centroid AA works on both cards in OpenGL.

id personally got for 9800pro ati has better IQ..
eventhough fx having the better speeds id put IQ over speed..
9800pros wipes 5900 off the floor on iq..

id go with the 5900ultra as its not your money and it beats the 9800pro in most off the test ive seen

The 5900U is not any better than a 9800pro in the real world.

The 9800 has much better pixel shader and vertex shader performance, so any benchmark that stresses these components will likely show the 9800 on top.

Then there is the main difference. The 5900/U use a 4x2 architecture where the ATi uses an 8x1 architecture. That is, the FX uses 4 rendering pipes with two texture units per pipe. The 9800 uses 8 rendering pipes with with a single texture unit. While the theoretical texel fill rate of the 5900U is higher than the 9800, ATi's loopback texture method, along with 8 rendering pipes, has still allowed it perform slightly under, on par with, or slightly over that of the 5900U depending on the game/program being tested.

Then you have to take into account the efficiencies of things like their early Z checking methods, compression level and effectiveness, memory controller effectiveness, and well as general efficiencies/inefficiencies.

One of the main factors to consider as well is that the days of using no AA/AF are over. People want their games to look good, and using these is becoming a defacto standard, so many people are totally ignoring the scores with no AA/AF and only looking at the scores where these options were on. The ATi card seems to handle AF better than the 5900U, and AA seems to a little better as well.

Drivers do play a part, but to say that nVidias drivers are overly superior to ATi's is no longer factual.