Sorry, but the ONLY time the 9500 is faster then a 4600 is when AA/AF is enabled. Otherwise it is slower then the GF4 4400.
Printable View
Sorry, but the ONLY time the 9500 is faster then a 4600 is when AA/AF is enabled. Otherwise it is slower then the GF4 4400.
Well most people that are buying mid high end cards are running AF/AA enabled in games. So the 9500 is still a much better buy, and it supports DX 9, so no point in the GF4 cards.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
Sorry, but the ONLY time the 9500 is faster then a 4600 is when AA/AF is enabled. Otherwise it is slower then the GF4 4400.
Anyways, nvidia majorly screwed up, they had an extra 4 months to compete with the 9700 Pro, they fell short. And in all reality, the 9700Pro is the third generation of Radeon.
The Original Radeon went up against the GF2, and it lost in speed, but not in image quality. The Radeon 8500 or R200 went up against the Geforce 3 series, and it again lost. Then nvidia realesed the Geforce 4 series, and just like on ATI's website, when they said all the Geforce 4 is, was a Geforce 3 on crack, they were right when they said there was no new tech in it. Then ATI came out with the 9700, and that was there answer to the Geforce 4.
So the 9700, a better card than the GeforceFX...wasn't even meant to compete with the GeforceFX, but ATI did there homework, and they are now 6-8 months ahead of nvidia...the numbers don't lie folks.
ATI spent the time and money to get a better card out before, and if the trend continues as they have, the tides have shifted to ATIs side in the high end market.
But the 9700Pro is not a better card. That card performance was slower at the same settings then the GF FX. Granted they discontinued the Ultra model, but probably after all the tech sites bashed the card.
I don't want to get into a GeforceFX vs. 9700 Pro debate...but, if you look at the price/performance ratio, then the 9700PRO is a better card.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
But the 9700Pro is not a better card. That card performance was slower at the same settings then the GF FX. Granted they discontinued the Ultra model, but probably after all the tech sites bashed the card.
Now I know you have had problems with ATI cards in the past, so I the FX is probably a better card to you. But, the 9700Pro is the better buy, there is no question about that.
I wont dispute the better buy. For the performance/cost ratio the 9700Pro is a better buy. It is almost $100 cheaper for only a small margin slower. Plus if you take into the account of, it is quieter and doesnt use up an additional PCI slot. Also the IQ difference between the GFFX and 9700Pro :)
Like I have mentioned before, I had problems with ATI cards, but I am going to give the new 9900 a whirl.
Doesn't bother me. I was going to get the regular 5800 anyway as soon as it dipped below $200. Though perhaps a 9500Pro under $150
Below 200$ ,...,might when NV35 will be out .They can't put this price in the next 3 monts , .13 manufacturing and DDR II are damn expensive .Quote:
Originally posted by sapasion
Doesn't bother me. I was going to get the regular 5800 anyway as soon as it dipped below $200. Though perhaps a 9500Pro under $150
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Colossus
Quote:
i Sorry, but the ONLY time the 9500 is faster then a 4600 is when AA/AF is enabled. Otherwise it is slower then the GF4 4400.
9500 is a way better card and as well a better buy , first is less expensive with 45 $ , second is DX9 , third in today games is only a few fps less then TI4600 but when doom 3 and newer games will be out the 9500 will shine and TI series will lag , fourth if you pay over 150$ for a videocard you need the AA/AF mode and not the ugly mode and here the 9500 is plain fast.
What do you consider better? The FX ran faster in most things using plain jane settings, but not rendering any fog in anything from what I can see is kind of a big bug, and the IQ in general didn't seem up to par with the 9700(not AA and stuff, just general IQ), and who knows how it'll perform when it's actually rendering things correctly. It could lose speed after the fixes are in. I also am not sure if the plain old FX is better than the 9700...you're cutting 20% of the Ultra's clock and memory speed away. It does still have a fillrate advantage, but likely would win all low res no eye candy benches and lose the benches that people spending 300 bucks on a VC are gonna care about. If you look at the benches when IQ was attempted to be equalized(which IMO is a better way to look at comparisons instead of just using "the same settings", the FX got beat in almost every case. Had the card been on time, I'd say yeah, it's a nice card...6 months late and coming out at the same time as a faster version of the 9700 makes this card overpriced at 300 bucks and only attractive after some deep price cuts(for example the 8500 wasn't worth it as an expensive flag ship, but became a great card when the price dropped big time shortly after release).Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
But the 9700Pro is not a better card. That card performance was slower at the same settings then the GF FX. Granted they discontinued the Ultra model, but probably after all the tech sites bashed the card.
Ditto.. I don't think it is fair to say the FX is a "faster" card because like steppy said, people buying this card are EXPECTING to be able to play with AA and Aniso... I know I will be when I finally take the plunge. Performance with those settings ON are what matters, not with everything off.Quote:
Originally posted by steppy76
What do you consider better? The FX ran faster in most things using plain jane settings, but not rendering any fog in anything from what I can see is kind of a big bug, and the IQ in general didn't seem up to par with the 9700(not AA and stuff, just general IQ), and who knows how it'll perform when it's actually rendering things correctly. It could lose speed after the fixes are in. I also am not sure if the plain old FX is better than the 9700...you're cutting 20% of the Ultra's clock and memory speed away. It does still have a fillrate advantage, but likely would win all low res no eye candy benches and lose the benches that people spending 300 bucks on a VC are gonna care about. If you look at the benches when IQ was attempted to be equalized(which IMO is a better way to look at comparisons instead of just using "the same settings", the FX got beat in almost every case. Had the card been on time, I'd say yeah, it's a nice card...6 months late and coming out at the same time as a faster version of the 9700 makes this card overpriced at 300 bucks and only attractive after some deep price cuts(for example the 8500 wasn't worth it as an expensive flag ship, but became a great card when the price dropped big time shortly after release).
Most of the games I play, I use NO AA or AF. I just started recently with 2xAA/2xAF and some games crash more due to AA/AF enabled!
However I disagree about comparing IQ vs IQ. If the 9700Pro was set to 2xAA/2xAF then so should the FX. ATI always had the better IQ, but Nvidida always had the reliable drivers.
You will never win me over by saying lets compare the GFFX at 4x/6x and the 9700 at performance. Please that is stupid. If you want to compare then set the 9700 @ max and the GFFX @ max. I bet the GFFX would win! Since the GFFX cannot handle 16xAF or was it AA?
However since they had cancelled the Ultra version, There is no real reason to buy a GFFX now.
Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
Sorry, but the ONLY time the 9500 is faster then a 4600 is when AA/AF is enabled. Otherwise it is slower then the GF4 4400.
The whole point in buying a expensive card is to play with all the eye candy turned on high. If I was just going to play at 2xAA&AF I might as well just buy a mid to lower range card and average 50-90fps.
Where to begin....Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
Most of the games I play, I use NO AA or AF. I just started recently with 2xAA/2xAF and some games crash more due to AA/AF enabled!
However I disagree about comparing IQ vs IQ. If the 9700Pro was set to 2xAA/2xAF then so should the FX. ATI always had the better IQ, but Nvidida always had the reliable drivers.
You will never win me over by saying lets compare the GFFX at 4x/6x and the 9700 at performance. Please that is stupid. If you want to compare then set the 9700 @ max and the GFFX @ max. I bet the GFFX would win! Since the GFFX cannot handle 16xAF or was it AA?
First off, the IQ vs. IQ tests are not stupid. They are where all reviews should be headed. Cards are getting to the point now where any card will give you an ungodly amount of FPS with current games. How the cards render these FPS is something that should be dually noted. As, for instance, if the Radeon defaulted to 16x AF and 4x FSAA while the FX was running at default with no special features (No FSAA or AF) enabled, according to your logic, we should compare the two "defaults" and see who is the fastest?
I planned on dealing with more but it is pointless, I’d just be wasting my time. Enjoy your wonderful drivers, ‘magnificent’ IQ, and especially enjoy Nvidia’s next offerings. I just hope that your year and a half wait for a new video card was worth it.
It wont be a year and a half before nvidia's next release. I believe they are shooting for summer for there NV35.
You can babble all you want. It will not change my opinion.
Most home users don’t use AA or AF. They don’t even know what it is *ROFL*
AND for your information, IQ vs. IQ is stupid. It is a test that the reviewers need to use his/her own judgment to determine the winner. It’s not that accurate, NOW if they had some kind of software that can judge IQ vs. IQ then I might be open to the reviews. But since there isn’t, I don’t want to hear it. Each reviewer will make there own comments based on who is and isn’t paying for there services. And don’t tell me they don’t get paid. You don’t need to show your ignorance to that extent.
Did you checked latest detonators rev 41 and up. ? ,..they a lot worst than ATI driver in fact they are completely screwed .Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
ATI always had the better IQ, but Nvidida always had the reliable drivers.
You will never win me over by saying lets compare the GFFX at 4x/6x and the 9700 at performance. Please that is stupid. If you want to compare then set the 9700 @ max and the GFFX @ max. I bet the GFFX would win! Since the GFFX cannot handle 16xAF or was it AA?
Nobody would try to win you over , you are a hard blind fanboy , this would be plain stupid for somebody to try .