rec.autos.simulators

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

Joachim Trens

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by Joachim Trens » Sun, 07 Sep 2003 17:51:18

Just one piece of information out of many, but worth a brief look for those
about to decide.

www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/dx9_desktop/00...

Larr

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by Larr » Mon, 08 Sep 2003 01:32:26

I've been wanting to get a new card, but to be honest my current PNY Ti4400
works so damned well that it's hard to justify it.  My main game is NR2003,
and I have no frame-rate problems at all.

If I did get a newer card it would be so I can turn on all the card-based
goodies (FSAA, Anistropic, etc...) and stay at around the same frame
rates/resolution (I run 1280X1024 on my 22" display).

Right now, I'd have to go with a 9800 AIW, but I'm watching the ATI driver
situation very, very carefully before I decide.

-Larry


Mike Beaucham

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by Mike Beaucham » Mon, 08 Sep 2003 02:57:59

From the article posted:

" If you're still "stuck in the past" and think that ATI is plagued with
driver issues, than go ahead and keep your head stuck in the sand like an
ostrich, buy a 5900 Ultra and then start crying when your pals are smoking
your ass in games like Half Life 2 and Halo because they're running ATI
hardware. "

Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com


> I've been wanting to get a new card, but to be honest my current PNY
Ti4400
> works so damned well that it's hard to justify it.  My main game is
NR2003,
> and I have no frame-rate problems at all.

> If I did get a newer card it would be so I can turn on all the card-based
> goodies (FSAA, Anistropic, etc...) and stay at around the same frame
> rates/resolution (I run 1280X1024 on my 22" display).

> Right now, I'd have to go with a 9800 AIW, but I'm watching the ATI driver
> situation very, very carefully before I decide.

> -Larry



> > Just one piece of information out of many, but worth a brief look for
> those
> > about to decide.

www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/dx9_desktop/00...

- Show quoted text -

spamtra

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by spamtra » Mon, 08 Sep 2003 03:56:01


>I've been wanting to get a new card, but to be honest my current PNY Ti4400
>works so damned well that it's hard to justify it.  My main game is NR2003,
>and I have no frame-rate problems at all.

>If I did get a newer card it would be so I can turn on all the card-based
>goodies (FSAA, Anistropic, etc...) and stay at around the same frame
>rates/resolution (I run 1280X1024 on my 22" display).

I did the same thing by getting a 9700 Pro recently and am very glad I
did.
--

Help make Usenet a better place:
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
Don't top post. Trim your messages to include only relevent text.
Tim Mise

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by Tim Mise » Mon, 08 Sep 2003 13:13:45


I completely disagree.  IMO, ATI has had much better drivers than nvidia
since the Radeon 8500 when they switched to the catalyst program however
nvidia, like they've always done, feeds bs to all who want to listen and
have trained nvidiots to believe whatever they say.  Review sites over the
past year have only begun to resist their practice of strong arm tactics.
Remember how nvidia downplayed the whole 3dfx FSAA abilities?  Remember how
nvidia reacted to the new 3dmark timedemos?  Remember how it was ok once
they started cheating?  Like the article says, keep your head buried in the
sand all you want and keep trying to defend your nvidia purchasing decisions
because it provides great comedy to the rest of us!

-Tim

Goy Larse

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by Goy Larse » Mon, 08 Sep 2003 21:35:37


> I completely disagree.  IMO, ATI has had much better drivers than nvidia
> since the Radeon 8500 when they switched to the catalyst program however
> nvidia, like they've always done, feeds bs to all who want to listen and
> have trained nvidiots to believe whatever they say.  Review sites over the
> past year have only begun to resist their practice of strong arm tactics.
> Remember how nvidia downplayed the whole 3dfx FSAA abilities?  Remember how
> nvidia reacted to the new 3dmark timedemos?  Remember how it was ok once
> they started cheating?  Like the article says, keep your head buried in the
> sand all you want and keep trying to defend your nvidia purchasing decisions
> because it provides great comedy to the rest of us!

I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but I do agree that it's somewhat
amusing that people talk about ATI's drivers as being worse than
nVidia's, and while nVidia certainly has improved a lot in this regard,
for one who used to run 3Dfx cards it was quite entertaining in selfish
sort of way to read about the people doing the driver hop to get <insert
fav game title here> running on their particular system

However, it's no GPL

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"

http://www.theuspits.com

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--

Steve Simpso

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by Steve Simpso » Mon, 08 Sep 2003 21:59:53

I could be wrong, but you sound like a (former) 3DFX owner that got very
annoyed when nVidia smoked them. ;-)
Roger Squire

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by Roger Squire » Tue, 09 Sep 2003 05:15:49

all.

    Ok, let's make it "since the 9700".  But that was a year ago, and Nvidia
has spent all the time since then committing consumer fraud over the entire
FX line with their cheating and lying, while ATI has been performing like
gangbusters.  There is currently no compelling reason to buy Nvidia cards,
and won't be until NV40, and I expect R420 will upstage that as well.

rms

Joe M

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by Joe M » Tue, 09 Sep 2003 05:52:57


Please expand upon this if you have the time since I still have time to
cancel my FX5900 ultra order (building a new AMD 2800+ rig) and go with a
9800 pro (or non-pro for the best value).

I'm looking to run mainly sims (flight/racing), sports (Madden 2004, NHL
2004) and a few "hot" shooters (Half-life 2).  Why would ATI be the better
choice?

TIA.

--
Joe M.

spamtra

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by spamtra » Tue, 09 Sep 2003 06:07:04



ATI should perform quite a bit better in HL2 based on the recent
discussions of DX9 performance. Madden and NHL don't exactly push
systems to their limits.
--

Help make Usenet a better place:
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
Don't top post. Trim your messages to include only relevent text.

Goy Larse

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by Goy Larse » Tue, 09 Sep 2003 06:20:57


> Please expand upon this if you have the time since I still have time to
> cancel my FX5900 ultra order (building a new AMD 2800+ rig) and go with a
> 9800 pro (or non-pro for the best value).

Don't know if this is the one Roger is talking about

http://tech-report.com/etc/2003q2/3dmurk03/index.x?pg=1

There was an earlier one as well, which was talked down afterwards by
both nVidia and 3DMark

Personally I happen to think both cards are plenty fast enough and would
have based my next purchase on image quality rather than raw speed,
assuming both had somewhat similar performance, and most reputable sites
these days give ATI the nod here

As for my personal POV it's useless since I'll never buy an nVidia card
again as long as there's a reasonable alternative :-)  

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"

http://www.theuspits.com

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--

Joachim Trens

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by Joachim Trens » Tue, 09 Sep 2003 07:08:22

I like ATI's 3d-image quality better. Speed-wise the two top contenders
shouldn't be too far apart, sometimes the 5900 Ultra winning, and sometimes
the ATI 9800 Pro.

But for all I know a new card from ATI is imminent within the next 3 weeks,
so maybe you should wait for that car to be released? Apologies if I'm
mistaken about this.

Achim


...

Roger Squire

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by Roger Squire » Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:46:14

This one has a good overview of Nvidia's company policy of cheating and
lying during the whole of 2003:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTAz
Hardocp has always backed Nvidia, and the fact that even they have had
enough indicates the level of disgust in the industry that has built up over
this company's actions.

Looking ahead to newer games, there are many reports now that the FX series
of cards performs extremely badly in DX9 pixel shaders, which are heavily
used in the new Tombraider game, as well as HL2 and Doom3.  The only
solution for Nvidia seems to be in lowering image quality to compensate.
There are several threads on
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=14
discussing this, including one from John Carmack.

rms

Joe M

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by Joe M » Fri, 12 Sep 2003 06:03:22


> On this day of our lord, Sun, 07 Sep 2003 20:15:49 GMT, "Roger

> >    Ok, let's make it "since the 9700".  But that was a year ago, and
Nvidia
> >has spent all the time since then committing consumer fraud over the
entire
> >FX line with their cheating and lying, while ATI has been performing like
> >gangbusters.  There is currently no compelling reason to buy Nvidia
cards,
> >and won't be until NV40, and I expect R420 will upstage that as well.

> >rms

> I can agree with that and that is why I am buying a 9800pro soon, even
> though I know the drivers won't be as *compatible* with all my games
> as the ATI drivers will be. But that is a sacrifice I am willing to
> make to gain performance over my aging Ti4200. I'm not saying the card
> is not good, I'm just saying the drivers are not as compatible as
> Nvidia drivers. I know this from reading various news groups and web
> forums. I play all genres of games so maybe your experience is not as
> varied as mine is.

You are correct.  Case in point: Madden 2004 doesn't have "shiny helmets"
and based on the screen shots it looks terrible compared to an nvidia card
(should be patched soon but still a problem for those playing now).  I keep
fence hopping on my video card purchase and I'm now on the nvidia side of
the fence because I too play across too many genre to risk incompatibility
(Madden looks too good for me to lose graphical quality with an "upgrade").

--
Joe M.

Goy Larse

9800 Pro vs. 5900 Ultra Pixel Shaders

by Goy Larse » Sat, 13 Sep 2003 06:14:27


> Just one piece of information out of many, but worth a brief look for those
> about to decide.

And here's another...

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2003q3/valve/index.x?pg=1

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"

http://www.theuspits.com

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.