Very impressed with my FX5900, let me explain ;-)
Bought a GeForce FX5900 (128MB) just before Christmas, and was highly impressed. At the time, i looked at the Radeon 9700 Pro (about £200), the 9800 Pro (£250 ish) or the FX5900 (£180). From wot i could see, the 5900 offers most bang for buck, and gives better performance then the 9700 Pro.
Bought a GeForce FX5900 (128MB) just before Christmas, and was highly impressed. At the time, i looked at the Radeon 9700 Pro (about £200), the 9800 Pro (£250 ish) or the FX5900 (£180).
From wot i could see, the 5900 offers most bang for buck, and gives better performance then the 9700 Pro. And after using both a 9700 Pro and 9800 Pro (128MB) in friends systems, i cant notice a massive difference in image quality, certainly not while ur playing. The ATi FSAA is better, but then the nVIDIA AF seems more complete (and certainly slower). All i care about is Halo running fine, it does, i'm happy and it didint cost a lot.
And i did check a few benchies out, and there doesnt seem to be a masssive diff between the top cards anyway, seems that the GeForce is slightly faster with FSAA, and the Rads are much quicker at AF, but wen they're both enabled, its very similar scores i've seen.
Go nVIDIA, and dammit, go ATi. They both have done well this time round.
BTW, the 9700 Pro owns the 5800 Ultra in a fashion! That was a clear win for ATi.
Cheers.
From wot i could see, the 5900 offers most bang for buck, and gives better performance then the 9700 Pro. And after using both a 9700 Pro and 9800 Pro (128MB) in friends systems, i cant notice a massive difference in image quality, certainly not while ur playing. The ATi FSAA is better, but then the nVIDIA AF seems more complete (and certainly slower). All i care about is Halo running fine, it does, i'm happy and it didint cost a lot.
And i did check a few benchies out, and there doesnt seem to be a masssive diff between the top cards anyway, seems that the GeForce is slightly faster with FSAA, and the Rads are much quicker at AF, but wen they're both enabled, its very similar scores i've seen.
Go nVIDIA, and dammit, go ATi. They both have done well this time round.
BTW, the 9700 Pro owns the 5800 Ultra in a fashion! That was a clear win for ATi.
Cheers.
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
I dont see where ur getting the FSAA and AA results from. The Radeon cards have ALWAYS been faster even with these enabled, over any GF-FX card and they have always been faster @ DX9.
Im sorry to say that the Geforce FX series have been a complete watse for nvidia, bar the 5900 normal, Ultra and 5950 normal and Ultra. They still get squashed by the Radeon 9800 Pro and XT tho!
Im sorry to say that the Geforce FX series have been a complete watse for nvidia, bar the 5900 normal, Ultra and 5950 normal and Ultra. They still get squashed by the Radeon 9800 Pro and XT tho!
Check out this review, just an observation.
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/r9800256mb_gffx5900upd.shtml
My GeForce FX 5900 is certainly faster then the 9700 Pro.
And wot a surprise, u have an ATi card...
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/r9800256mb_gffx5900upd.shtml
My GeForce FX 5900 is certainly faster then the 9700 Pro.
And wot a surprise, u have an ATi card...
I got a 5900 to, and for that price I'm amazed, it rocks the house. Must say that the FX5700 Ultra, 5900 series, and the 5950 really brings Nvidia back, since the 5700 U is faster than a 96Pro/XT and a 5900 is better then a 9700Np/Pro in many fields. Of course the ATI cards might perform better with DX9 and AA and AF, but thats just because NV didnt work to well with MS under the development of the FX series, thats why the FX5800 sucked so much. I belive that the NV40+ series will be better then any radeon, even the new R420 in every aspect, but you never know, maybe nvidia is suppose to be second in the super-top from now...
Quote:Check out this review, just an observation.
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/r9800256mb_gffx5900upd.shtml
My GeForce FX 5900 is certainly faster then the 9700 Pro.
And wot a surprise, u have an ATi card...
try reading numerous reviews - i have read more then 50+ reviews on the nvidia +ati cards of this round and VERY rearely nvidia wins
i guess you dont know about NVIDIA"s driver "optimizations" ?
well if you dont mind playing your games with entire scense and lighting and shadows missingf - then go nvidia,
The OTHER problem - is that with certain drivers - you cans et your FSAA to max - but nvidia in FACT only put it to say 2x - so it is not doing what u think it is - this is often why nvidia "appears" to have better scores - because they cheat with their drives.
I have a 9700PRO - i also have 6 opther video cards - ALL NVIDIA.
read more reviews and you will start to see a clear picture that NVIDIA is behind ATI as soon as you use AA and FSAA and anything using dx9.
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/r9800256mb_gffx5900upd.shtml
My GeForce FX 5900 is certainly faster then the 9700 Pro.
And wot a surprise, u have an ATi card...
try reading numerous reviews - i have read more then 50+ reviews on the nvidia +ati cards of this round and VERY rearely nvidia wins
i guess you dont know about NVIDIA"s driver "optimizations" ?
well if you dont mind playing your games with entire scense and lighting and shadows missingf - then go nvidia,
The OTHER problem - is that with certain drivers - you cans et your FSAA to max - but nvidia in FACT only put it to say 2x - so it is not doing what u think it is - this is often why nvidia "appears" to have better scores - because they cheat with their drives.
I have a 9700PRO - i also have 6 opther video cards - ALL NVIDIA.
read more reviews and you will start to see a clear picture that NVIDIA is behind ATI as soon as you use AA and FSAA and anything using dx9.
nVIDIA beats ATi in most Open GL tests from wot I have read. And of course I checked out out loadsa reviews, from wot I read, ATi has the image quality problems from "inconvenient" angles, to be honest, i noticed no discernable difference between 9700/9800 and 5900 during use. Driver optimisations, i dont care about, dont bother with 3d mark after this whole fiasco, if these optimisations make my games run better, thats a bonus. I dont use anything above 2x AF in Direct X 9 games generally (i only really play Halo at the mo), but 1280x1024 is acceptable to me, and i can play on-line like that and i only have a 17" monitor so dont need to worry about running in 1600x1200 8x AF and 8x FSAA (however nice that might look ;-)).
Its not a crime to believe that both companies cards are top rate this time round is it? I seriously considered ATi, but after using the 9700 Pro, 9800 Pro and this FX 5900, the price swung it for me. And wen Doom 3 comes it, im pretty confident (and so is Carmack) that it will run better on nVIDIA architecture.
Just a shame Half Life 2 is gonna run at about 10 fps ;-)
Its not a crime to believe that both companies cards are top rate this time round is it? I seriously considered ATi, but after using the 9700 Pro, 9800 Pro and this FX 5900, the price swung it for me. And wen Doom 3 comes it, im pretty confident (and so is Carmack) that it will run better on nVIDIA architecture.
Just a shame Half Life 2 is gonna run at about 10 fps ;-)
