Printable View
I want to buy a new video card in the next couple of months. I was thinking about buying a 9800np when it comes down in price. When I was looking I saw that 5900's were about the same price. I was wondering which one is faster and better for gaming? Thanks for the input.
IMO, I would say the 9800np.
Okay thanks. That was the way I was going to go. Can anybody change my mind?
EDIT: Also does anybody know where I can find a 9800np? The only places so far I have found are Newegg.com and ATACOM.com. Thanks!
nope, go with the Radeon!
Based on current card technology, I would also back the Radeon at this point.
Try your local, Best Buy, Compusa and Circuit City stores too see if they have any in stock.Quote:
Originally posted by OC/ingmaddog
Also does anybody know where I can find a 9800np? The only places so far I have found are Newegg.com and ATACOM.com. Thanks!
If you have a BestBuy around you get their R9800NP for $299.99
Ugggh, but that is full MSRP.Quote:
Originally posted by Ignitionator
If you have a BestBuy around you get their R9800NP for $299.99
So? It's not a lot more expensive then let's say Newegg.comQuote:
Originally posted by Un4given
Ugggh, but that is full MSRP.
$50Quote:
Originally posted by Ignitionator
So? It's not a lot more expensive then let's say Newegg.com
Not for the BBA, or am I wrong?Quote:
Originally posted by Un4given
$50
Retail also.
i think best buy has it (9800np) for 229.99 dont they?
What do you get in the retail package that you don't get with the OEM version, besides a fancy box?Quote:
Originally posted by Ignitionator
Not for the BBA, or am I wrong?
Retail also.
Also, it would appear that the 9800np have disappeared from the Newegg site again.
If I was going to buy a 9800np from BB, I would wait til one of their sales, because they usually have them for the same $249 they go for online.
Don't you have more warrenty on a retail product?Quote:
Originally posted by Un4given
What do you get in the retail package that you don't get with the OEM version, besides a fancy box?
Also, it would appear that the 9800np have disappeared from the Newegg site again.
If I was going to buy a 9800np from BB, I would wait til one of their sales, because they usually have them for the same $249 they go for online.
I believe that was a 9800pro he got for $299.99, I believe the 9800np`s are cheaper, I got mine for $249.99 and I believe the price has dropped a little after I bought mine.Quote:
Originally posted by Ignitionator
If you have a BestBuy around you get their R9800NP for $299.99
Not always.Quote:
Originally posted by Ignitionator
Don't you have more warrenty on a retail product?
the fx5700 is the only fx worth considering
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
To be honest I'm leaning towards the 5900nu myself. I've had two ATI cards and two Nvidia cards and I must say that I prefer nvidia cards...they just feel better to me in game play. Just my $0.02
Let me comment on some stuff
Can't comment, never compared.Quote:
- The 52.16s produce crystal clear image quality, equals or exceeds that of ATI products.
As far as I know, ATI followed Microsoft's DirectX 9 coding path, but nVidia did not, instead they followed their own which completely destroys the whole purpose of having DX9. DX9 was never meant to be designed for ATI hardware, ATI just followed what Microsoft said unlike how nVidia did not.Quote:
- 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.
Carmack did optimize Doom 3 towards nVidia cards, however, IIRC Carmack himself stated that the Radeons are better video cards but they were being out-performed by GeForceFX's because of reduced image quality which leads to higher frame rates (forgot exactly where the source is but it was from an interview with Carmack and a major game site)Quote:
- 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 only DX9 game that 5900 can beat 9800Pro is Homeworld 2, the others are 5-8% slowerQuote:
- The 52.16 drivers, more or less put the 5900 right up there with the 9800 Pro in terms of most current DX9 titles.
Once again, DX9 was not favored towards ATI, nVidia broke the rules and decided to go off track to their own codepath instead of the original DX9 codepath... As far as Detonator 50s go, they are future drivers that are not finished/leaked/tested or however you want to put it, therefore it is impossible to say that it will provide better performance and IQ over what they have today.Quote:
- 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.
Sorry about the length of this, but I can't stand reading info that are not true
The poster asked for the opinions/recommendation between the 5900NU and the 9800NP, IMHO, the 9800NP's better and I recommend the 9800NP over the 5900 anytime. Just go with the 9800NP, you won't regret it.;) :)
Another vote for 9800, as I love mine. But make sure when/if you buy that IF it's a sapphire, get a red pcb.
Quote:
Originally posted by icecube_of_death
Let me comment on some stuff
Can't comment, never compared.
As far as I know, ATI followed Microsoft's DirectX 9 coding path, but nVidia did not, instead they followed their own which completely destroys the whole purpose of having DX9. DX9 was never meant to be designed for ATI hardware, ATI just followed what Microsoft said unlike how nVidia did not.
Carmack did optimize Doom 3 towards nVidia cards, however, IIRC Carmack himself stated that the Radeons are better video cards but they were being out-performed by GeForceFX's because of reduced image quality which leads to higher frame rates (forgot exactly where the source is but it was from an interview with Carmack and a major game site)
The only DX9 game that 5900 can beat 9800Pro is Homeworld 2, the others are 5-8% slower
Once again, DX9 was not favored towards ATI, nVidia broke the rules and decided to go off track to their own codepath instead of the original DX9 codepath... As far as Detonator 50s go, they are future drivers that are not finished/leaked/tested or however you want to put it, therefore it is impossible to say that it will provide better performance and IQ over what they have today.
Sorry about the length of this, but I can't stand reading info that are not true
But the kicker is, my info actually is true:
I appreciate someone challenging my vote for the 5900u. If I may add however, that the image quality has/was never a real issue for nVidia hardware, but rather, some ridiculous conspiracy theory blown out of proportion by the ATI camp. Yes, the image quality of the pre-det 50s was noticeably worse. However nVidia managed to simultaneously improve image quality and boost all around fps with the det 52.16s as are they are actually a bit closer to fully taking advantage of the raw power of the 5900's hardware. Therefore, if nVidia can improve the image quality AND boost fps, the "reduction of image quality" isn't what's "boosting" nVidia framerates- as much as ATI users hate to hear it, it's finer software optimization for their awesome product- and it's always going to get better. And also, the WHQL Detonator 50s ARE out (52.16) and from personal experience with my 5900 Ultra they have turned it into a brand new card. I cannot describe the real-world gaming improvement. Image quality has been improved immensely, equaling or exceeding that of my 9700 Pro. Halo, BF1942, UT2003, Jedi Academy, etc run sickeningly smooth at high resolutions and settings. I cannot see how a 9800 Pro could run any faster.
In addition to M$ writing the basic DX9 code- GAME DEVELOPERS ALSO write their engines which use DX8/9 or OGL Code. Such engines can have great or poor optimization for a particular brand(codepath) of card. When I refer to the 9700Pro as the "first DX9 card on which developers could code" I am refering to GAME DEVELOPERS, not M$. Many first generation DX9 games, such as Tombraider, Simcity 2004, etc were originally developed on ATI hardware as it was the first DX9-based hardware on the market- hence ATI getting an unfair advantage over nVidia in that these early generation DX9 engines have weak optimization for the superior 5900 hardware. nVidia didn't mess up here, even though they support 16 and 32bit native codepaths, they also have a thing called "mixed mode"- running 24 bit codepath. Halo, homeworld2, and Jedi Academy to name a few are examples of a game engines that posses fair nVidia hardware optimization- and therefore the 5900 naturally takes those benchmarks because of it's superior hardware. Titles like Tombraider, simcity2004, MS Flight Sim 2004 and the other first gen DX9 titles edge out the 5900 because they possess only ATI optimization and none for nVidia. In fact it's pretty impressive the 5900 only lags behind as much as it does despite not having any optimization for those game engines.
Compared to the 9800, the 5900 is has a faster core, 8 pipelines, faster memory, muc h higher memory bandwidth, runs cooler, has better overclocking and a more effecient die size (.13u). Hardware wise, the 5900 is a titan of a video card. The only reason we're seeing these superficially superior DX9 benches on the ATI side is because these early generation DX9 titles were developed under ATI hardware, as ATI was the first to put out a DX9 product- the 9700 Pro. As time goes on, nVidia will be releasing drivers that have better and better optimization for the 5900's advanced hardware (as if it isn't fast enough already) and more importantly DX9 developers will be coding their engines equally under both nVidia and ATI. Future versions of DirectX, like 9.1 due out any day, will fix whatever minor issues remain with nVidia's saving grace "mixed mode".
I could not be happier with my 5900 Ultra right now. And I need to represent the amazing high-end card it truly is. IF you can shell out the cash for a 5900, that's what you want if you're in the market for the top dog of video cards. The 5900 was ahead of it's time, and the fruits of the card are being reaped with better and better software optimization (with the det 52.16's it's INSANE already). You can't go wrong with this card unless your on a budget- then settle for a 9800.
It's high time someone presents a fair defense of the 5900 Ultra. The ATI camp time and time again loves recite the same old nVidia conspiracy nonsense about the 5900 Ultra. It's simply not true. Talk to ANY 5900 Ultra owner running the 52.16's. The 5800, 5600 and 5200 indeed were a dissapointment...However the 5900 is a completely different card and the problems of the other FX's have been fixed in it. ATI users love to think that the problems of the 58,56 and 5200's have transcended to the 5900. Not true, as the 5900 has some seriously new archectural improvements (DDRI vs DDRII, 128bit vs 256bit, etc). Don't get me wrong, the 9800 is a GREAT card for the money! It's awesome! I'd buy it in a second if the 5900 didn't exist. But don't let the ATI masses assimilate you like they have so many other high-end buyers with lots of $$$ seeking only the best product. Think for yourself.
1.) If you have the money and 2.) if you want the fastest product, go with the 5900 Ultra.
Renegade
I'm not going to break apart everything like Icecube did earlier, but there are quite a few "facts" you have wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by Renegade227
But the kicker is, my info actually is true:
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Renegade227
I appreciate someone challenging my vote for the 5900u.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Renegade227
nVidia didn't mess up here, even though they support 16 and 32bit native codepaths, they also have a thing called "mixed mode"- running 24 bit codepath.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Renegade227
Compared to the 9800, the 5900 is has a faster core, 8 pipelines, faster memory, muc h higher memory bandwidth, runs cooler, has better overclocking and a more effecient die size (.13u). Hardware wise, the 5900 is a titan of a video card.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Renegade227
Future versions of DirectX, like 9.1 due out any day, will fix whatever minor issues remain with nVidia's saving grace "mixed mode".
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Renegade227
Not true, as the 5900 has some seriously new archectural improvements (DDRI vs DDRII, 128bit vs 256bit, etc).
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.
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)