• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

9700pro vs 5900

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

billobob0

Registered
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Hi, I have about $225 to spend on a video card, and I was wondering what was better - the EVGA Geforce FX 5900, or the Powercooler Radeon 9700 pro (both go for 220 at newegg)? The 5900 beats the 9700 in alot of benchmarks, but people say the 9700 pro has better DX support for the future. Which one is the better value, and which one has higher OC potential? Thanks.
 

micamica1217

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
billobob0 said:
Hi, I have about $225 to spend on a video card, and I was wondering what was better - the EVGA Geforce FX 5900, or the Powercooler Radeon 9700 pro (both go for 220 at newegg)? The 5900 beats the 9700 in alot of benchmarks, but people say the 9700 pro has better DX support for the future. Which one is the better value, and which one has higher OC potential? Thanks.

while the 5900nu is a great card, I can't recamend any FX card at this time.
you seem to understand about the DX9.0 problems to some degree, and I'll just say that while a 5900nu may be running slightly faster then the 9700pro....there can be a night and day differance in some game's IQ, and ATI wins hands down.

now I see nothing wrong with the 9700pro....
at $20-$30 more then the 9600xt, it's the best buy in town.

both cards will OC nicely....
you should get 5900u speeds with that 5900nu
you should also get close to 9800pro speeds with that 9700pro

yet with so many games putting a little DX9.0 stuff in them, I would say stick to what works the best/safest.
that's the 9700pro

mica
 

Too Smart

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2002
You're just a ATI fanboy... The 5900 beats the 9700 pro hands down. Just compare their 3dmark2003 scores. And the 5900 is fully dx9 compliant so that's no problem. I always thought the 5900 was more expensive than the 9700 (more in the 9800 pro's price class) but if it's the same price as the 9700 then the 5900 is the card to get.
 

Evnas

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Location
Seattle, WA
Too Smart said:
You're just a ATI fanboy... The 5900 beats the 9700 pro hands down. Just compare their 3dmark2003 scores. And the 5900 is fully dx9 compliant so that's no problem. I always thought the 5900 was more expensive than the 9700 (more in the 9800 pro's price class) but if it's the same price as the 9700 then the 5900 is the card to get.

Your post was a lot more fanboyish then his, im sorry to say :rolleyes:

And forget 3DMark...unless you want to benchmark all day. The fact that the current FX cards do so "good" in 3DMark but do tne exact opposite in real games says something right there, heh.

Also, being DX 9 compliant doesnt mean it has good performance. Its well documented that the FX series is very weak in PS 2.0 (DX 9)

Just thought I would clear that up for ya
 

Sentential

Contributing Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2003
Location
Knoxville, TN
Ive personally owned a FX card and can say that they are inferior to ATi. Although I might recomend a 5900 over a 9700 simply because of price.

Ive heard that you can find a quality 5900 for about $180 online. If you can I would recomend it.(ony because of price)

The 9700 is a fansastic card but its startin to show its age. Unless its a pro, I cant wholly recomend it.

Go with what you are looking for. Remember:


ATi = image quality / detail / cinimatic / low Overclocking ability
ATi shares the same view as AMD (Efficiency/Quality = out weighs speed/compatability)

Nvidia = Framerates / compatability / drivers / poor image quality
Nvidia shares many viewspoints as Intel does. (Raw Speed/Clock = $$$$)

Although I was burned by the 5200FXu scam, this is about as neutral bias as you will find on this subject.Im confident every OCer will agree with my comparison of the two cards.

EDIT: Dude just fork out an extra $30 and get a 9800PRO from
CompUSA
 
Last edited:

NewbiePerson

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
My image looks richer on my fx compared to my 9500pro. Ati does smoke nvidia in antilasing ability which is noteicable and suffers less of a performance hit usually "when using extra goodies" . Also as everyone has said ati is safe in the bag for future games well. While NVidia will be able to play them they won't play as well as the ati series.
However new batches of cards are going to be released in 04 so we can finally get off "how bad" the nvidia fx series is when compared to the ati series.
Anything under a 5700 isn't that great in the fx series.
Anything under a 9500 isn't that great in the ati series. (except a 8500 or a 9100 whatever one is the same as an 8500)
 

shortyes

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Location
Tampa, FL
Wait until tomorrow, Gonna post some benchmarks for Evga's new 5900SE/XT

I have used both ATi and Nvidia so it will be an objective view. Whatever you do do not buy anything below a 5900 or 9600XT
 

Phoenix87

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
I dont understand how you entire perception towards nvidia is based off the fx5200u. Kinda unfair IMO.
 

Sentential

Contributing Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2003
Location
Knoxville, TN
When I meant low OC, I was refering to the 97/9800 use of the old .15 micron tech. The 9600pro/XT is a whole diferent ball game (low-k .13)

Also...unfair?
Hows $170 down the drain on a POS:mad: ...Now THATS unfair

The other FXs may be better but my experiences have been tainted by my 5200FXu