5900 vs. 9800np

Printable View

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-29-2003, 07:37 PM
Renegade227

Quote:

Originally posted by icecube_of_death
Jay, you've said all the stuff that I was gonna say :D 1 thing to add though, Renegade, you've mentioned that the FX5900's memory architecture went from DDR1 to DDR2... I have no idea where you get that information but it is the FX5800 that uses DDR2, not the FX5900...

btw Jay, the Radeon 7xxx series uses R100? I thought it uses the R200... cuz I believe that what it says on my sis' AIW 7500 (Or was it RV200... I forgot :p)

I was in a typing rush...heh. You know I meant to say the 5900 uses DDRI and a 256 path and the 58,56,5200 use a 128 bit path and DDRII.

:)

Renegade
10-29-2003, 07:40 PM
Renegade227

Quote:

Originally posted by Jay20016
I'm not going to break apart everything like Icecube did earlier, but there are quite a few "facts" you have wrong.

That is just it, he isn't talking about the Ultra. He asked about a plain-jane 5900 which does perform considerably less than your Ultra.

The FX series can, and will never support a full 24 bit precision. It is impossible with the way the cards were engineered. The mixed mode that people keep refering to is actually using INT12 with 16Bit precision when needed, basically equating to no more than DX 8.1 features.

The 9800 series is a true 8x1 pipline design while the FX series has always been 4x2. Thinking objectively about the last couple points in your quote, I must wonder what you think of a card on a larger die, with lower clock speeds, and "slower" ram beating the titan you hold in such high regard. ATI made a wonderful card on aging technology, and from some of your arguments, it seems as if you've bought into much of the FX hype.

DX 9.1 is not due out any day. We probably will not see it till Longhorn or whatever the new OS is called. Also, it will not be the saving grace for the series, because there are things wrong hardware wise that software cannot fix.

DDRI vs DDRII is not per say a new improvement. The speed gain from DDRII is minimal and you create more heat while having to run at a higher Mhz to get similar results. This is true for both ATI and Nvidia.

Now, this is kind of a side note. I find it quite ironic to hear how it is unfair that ATI cards were used in development cycles, when durring the R100 (7xxx series) and R200 (R8500 series) market time, most developers used only Nvidia hardware and gave ATI little more than an after-thought while in the development process. It was durring these times, that ATI was blasted for horrible, buggy drivers when quite often it could be attributed to buggy software coded towards one chip maker. But I digress, as I have class in 15 minutes and not enough time to finish this thought.

Interesting points...but can you provide us with some documented proof of these claims?
10-29-2003, 08:02 PM
icecube_of_death

I've heard that the FX5900NU does perform much lower that the Ultra version, although I don't know why

I believe the part about how the FX cannot run at 24 bit precision is true because of the way the video card is engineered... It is designed to run at either 16 bit (fast but low image quality) or 32 bit (much slower but high image quality). 24-bit precision is just not built within the FX cards therefore there's no way you can run it in 24-bit unless you do some personal modding of the video card (which is pretty much impossible)... But then I might be wrong since these stuff get pretty technical

About the pipelines, the Radeon uses 8x1 design while the FX uses 4x2, this is why the Radeon beats the FX in single texturing while the FX beats the Radeon in multi-texturing.

I don't think DX9.1 will come out anytime soon, since all I've heard was rumors about it, didn't hear anything about DX9.1 from Microsoft themselves... Once again, I can be wrong.

DDR1 and DDR2 have no performance whatsoever. The only advantage that DDR2 has over DDR1 is that it can go higher clockspeed-wise since it has a different architecture than DDR1 which would allow the RAM the tolerate higher voltages, which is also why it is runs so hot
10-29-2003, 09:16 PM
Jay20016

Quote:

Originally posted by Renegade227
Interesting points...but can you provide us with some documented proof of these claims?

Just so I know, which claims?

Though, before I do provide my links (have to find them again) I want you to visit www.beyond3d.com (if you already do not) as I feel you could learn a great deal of information from that site, especially the forums.

Also, please realize my comments up above are not in any way meant as a flame, I just want the truth be told. False facts, whether mine or yours, are not needed here.
10-29-2003, 09:23 PM
Jay20016

Quote:

Originally posted by icecube_of_death
btw Jay, the Radeon 7xxx series uses R100? I thought it uses the R200... cuz I believe that what it says on my sis' AIW 7500 (Or was it RV200... I forgot :p)

Should put this in my last reply, but oh well. I can spam now and again. :D

If I remember correctly, the 7xxx was infact based off of the original Radeon core (R100). You could find Radeon ViVo cards (64MB DDR etc.) labeled as Radeon 7500 once the Radeon 8500 came out. Also, I believe the 7200 was the original R100 with 64MB of SDR ram.
The RV200 that you are thinking of is what was dubbed as the Radeon 8500LE which are now rebadged as 9000 or 9100s. Too many names, too many numbers.... :D
10-29-2003, 10:09 PM
icecube_of_death

Quote:

Originally posted by Jay20016
Should put this in my last reply, but oh well. I can spam now and again. :D

If I remember correctly, the 7xxx was infact based off of the original Radeon core (R100). You could find Radeon ViVo cards (64MB DDR etc.) labeled as Radeon 7500 once the Radeon 8500 came out. Also, I believe the 7200 was the original R100 with 64MB of SDR ram.
The RV200 that you are thinking of is what was dubbed as the Radeon 8500LE which are now rebadged as 9000 or 9100s. Too many names, too many numbers.... :D

Yep far too many numbers, always get confused between Rxxx and RVxxx :D
10-29-2003, 10:29 PM
ThemSkillz1

Quote:

Originally posted by Renegade227
...- DX 9.1 will more than likely support NV35 code, just as DX 9.0 currently does for ATI hardware, and due to the fact that the 5900, in terms of raw power is superior to the 9800Pro, the 5900 will be an ever faster performer than it already is...

is that true, and if so, to what extent? can the 5900u be the better card in the long run?
10-29-2003, 11:16 PM
SkeptiKal

Hey I got a 9800NP and I like it. I can't compare it to the 5900 cause I never had one but I just BIOS Flashed my 9800NP to a 9800Pro and it runs the same as the Pro. I am pleased with it cause I saved enough money for the same performance.

GL in your purchase.
10-31-2003, 05:09 PM
OC/ingmaddog

Thanks for people who have stayed on topic. The thing I asked plain and simple was which video card is better? Is that not so hard to ask. I don't care which one has these drivers and DX9.1 all I care about is which one is better. Also I'm talking about the 9800NP and 5900NU not ultra or pro's. So if you have anymore comments on which one I should buy please tell me. Please stay on topic.:mad:
10-31-2003, 05:16 PM
Boneycat

IMHO 5900U
10-31-2003, 11:30 PM
mikeysg

Quote:

Originally posted by OC/ingmaddog
Thanks for people who have stayed on topic. The thing I asked plain and simple was which video card is better? Is that not so hard to ask. I don't care which one has these drivers and DX9.1 all I care about is which one is better. Also I'm talking about the 9800NP and 5900NU not ultra or pro's. So if you have anymore comments on which one I should buy please tell me. Please stay on topic.:mad:

Which is better? The 9800NP! Plain and simple! It runs DX9 games easily, drivers do not even have to be optimized to run DX9 games - JC said this I believe. ;) Get the 9800NP and let this slowly degenerating thread die. :p :D
11-01-2003, 12:25 AM
icecube_of_death

Quote:

Originally posted by Boneycat
IMHO 5900U

He said 9800NP or 5900NU
11-01-2003, 01:15 AM
Boneycat

I stand corrected...I meant a 5900nu
11-01-2003, 01:27 AM
steppy76

Quote:

Originally posted by Jay20016
Should put this in my last reply, but oh well. I can spam now and again. :D

If I remember correctly, the 7xxx was infact based off of the original Radeon core (R100). You could find Radeon ViVo cards (64MB DDR etc.) labeled as Radeon 7500 once the Radeon 8500 came out. Also, I believe the 7200 was the original R100 with 64MB of SDR ram.
The RV200 that you are thinking of is what was dubbed as the Radeon 8500LE which are now rebadged as 9000 or 9100s. Too many names, too many numbers.... :D

RV100 = Radeon VE, Radeon 7000
R100 = Radeon 32 DDR, Radeon 64 DDR, AIW radeon, Radeon 7200 series
RV200 = Radeon 7500
R200 = Radeon 8500 Family
R300 = 9700 Family(also the 9500 family with certain things disabled)
RV350= 9600 family
R350 = 9800 and 9800Pro
R360 = Radeon 9800 XT
RV360 = Radeon 9600 XT
11-01-2003, 04:54 AM
steppy76

Quote:

Originally posted by Renegade227
I'm appalled. You have to be completely mad to think a 9800np is a better product than a FX5900 Ultra.

ATI or nVidia, hey buddy I had to deal with the same issue as you. A few weeks ago I was deathly close to switching to a 9800XT, however once Anand reviewed the det 52.14s and I downloaded and installed the beta 52.16s, I am undoubtedly sticking with my 5900. No ATI for me. In my best opinion you should bite the bullet for the higher priced 5900 as it is and/or will be the faster solution. Keep in mind you're asking for advice from a VERY pro-ATI pool of consumers. Not that there's anything wrong with that, the 9800Pro/XT is a GREAT bang for the buck! But if you can't scrounge up the cash for a 5900, then by all means do yourself a favor and buy it.

Here are some FX5900 facts the ATI guys don't want you to know...

FX 5900 Cons:

- Yes, using the beta det 50s, it still does lag behind the 9800 Pro in a handful of DX9 games (basically just tombraider, simcity 2004, and MS Flight Sim 2004).
- High Price Tag
- Recieves a lot of negative, overblown, non-factual conspiracy from people (namely the ATI camp) who've never even used a 5900 in the real world.

FX 5900 Pros:

- The 52.16s produce crystal clear image quality, equals or exceeds that of ATI products.
- DX 9.1 will more than likely support NV35 code, just as DX 9.0 currently does for ATI hardware, and due to the fact that the 5900, in terms of raw power is superior to the 9800Pro, the 5900 will be an ever faster performer than it already is.
- DirectX 8 performance meets or exceeds that of the 9800pro
- OpenGL performance is faster (Doom 3, and all of those quake3 engine games, etc...)
- Doom 3 will perform superior, as Carmack avidly nVidia codepath
- The 52.16 drivers, more or less put the 5900 right up there with the 9800 Pro in terms of most current DX9 titles.
- It's .13u core allows for much better overclocking than a 9800 Pro (.15u)
- Future DX 9 titles + the new Detonator 50s and DX9.1 (due end of Oct/Early Nov) will provide for a superior DX9 video card as nVidia is able to assist future game developers to optimize their code for the NV35/38 codepath, as most current DX9 titles have their DX9 favoring ATI hardware as ATI was the first company to make a fully DX9 compliant card for developers to work with- the 9700 Pro.

The above is provable and documented at:

www.anandtech.com - Fall 2003 Video Card Roundup
www.firingsquad.com - Dr. Kirk's interview
www.tomshardware.com - FX 5900 Ultra Review
www.sharkyextreme.com - FX 5900 Ultra Review

Just thought I'd add a little balance to the madness. Best wishes with your video card choice.

Renegade

You've got more fiction than fact in this post. As far as this being an "ATI fan forum", you obviously weren't here before February or so. All the well documented issues that you seem to paint as "ATI fanboy conspiracy"(documented at most of the places you even chose as support for your views)have swayed even the most staunch Nvidia supporters towards ATI. For the most part, all the 5900 did was give diehard NV users a viable card to purchase without having to spend more for less.
11-01-2003, 05:25 AM
nForcer

Hes talking about Conspiracy and Fan Boys...where he is actualy soing it hime self...

DX 9.1 will/may contain nvidia vendor codes, but it does not mean it will perform better...A lot of DX9 gammes right now are already using nVidia hence "Optimized" codes but still cant compete with the new Radeons thats just running on standard codes...

And how do you know it boost perfromance where as there hasnt even been a single test that proves it? Your the one speculating...Conspiracy?

And How can you tell hardware wise that the new FX is supperior? We all know that numbers dont always tell anything...

Like steppy76 said...if you were here back when GeForce 4's were the latest cards...All of us had nVidia...cause they were the best back then.

But now Ati has the best out there...and the fact that people in this forum has Radeon 9xxx compared to FX's, out numbered 10 to 1 proves it.

Your the only guy I know who thinks its a conspiracy...where as all review sites Ive seen say otherwise...

Its nVidia's fault not following Microsoft's DX9 specs thats why they are now loosing to Ati...if they hadent done that then I bet they are still on top...I mean jeez they went trough 3 Highend FX's just to finaly be able to match the 9800 Pro.

nVidia should consider them selves lucky cause they help finalizing DX8 specs with microsoft...so Microsoft in kindness of thier heart, in return will consider adding nvidia's vendor codes so programmers wont have to always look at nVdias reference to see what codes they need to use for nVidia cards.
11-01-2003, 05:35 AM
Raqia

The 5900 nu has my vote. It's cheaper than the 9800 np and readily available. You don't have to spend time and effort on a scavenger hunt. The most readily available and performance competetive alternative to the 5900 at its price point is the 9700 pro but this thing costs at lowest 250 whereas the 5900 nu can be had for as low as 200.

http://www.emicrox.com/eShop/Product...d=4&pid=965037

The 5900 is definitely a solid performer but make sure you find a model with 850 mhz ram. The core OC's effortlessly to 450 mhz for Ultra levels of performance. The eVGA retail box that I bought has 2.2 ns ram, and it looks like that's what's being sold above.

The shader controversy is blown way out of proportion. GeForce's have always beaten Radeon's at OpenGL games and this continues to be the case. People seemed to forget the GFFX's lead in Doom 3 after the HL2 benches were released. Also, ATI's faster 8x Aniso. is due to the fact that it cuts corners in this mode. NV35 still has room to improve in Direct3D (52.16's are only the first official det 50 releases) and is already a damned good performer for the price so I'm happy with this purchase. It's most definitely a better choice than the 9600xt and the 5700 at 200 bucks.

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page