Is your graphics card fast enough?

Fair enough, lets just conclude that both cards are good in different scenarios and leave it at that. They are both top cards and come pretty close in most benchmarks. Enough said.

preserverd

just go to tomshardware.com............break out the scale.......done deal........yet.........i am interested in the scope of differing opinion.......too many issues need an explanation...........it really comes down to what direction one should take.......and, what is indeed an important attriute or set of attributes to obtain............yet, again, one might buy a card for the specific advantage it has over a different design by how it would affect him in some individual game title he spends most of his time on...........so, i think it's a kick, that this is such a ticking timebomb :grinthumb

These things will NEVER be fast enough.

LOL :grinthumb

Ughh, Tom's is a decent site, but the VGA chart is just that, a fairly vague reference chart w/out alot of specific..

the reality is this

that ati couldn't, for some reason, improve performance of it's 256 version card..........while on the other hand, nvidia improved itself in the 256 card, ............this is the slight advantage........so, when evaluating purchase, one has to realize, why bother with ati's 256 card, look at the prices of the 128 pro version (because there is a non-pro version that will fool you as to price), check out the spread between the fx 128/256 versions and decide.......... for the most part, i'd think the best value, would be the 128 pro version of ati's card

Re: the reality is this

I agree, the 128meg R9800 seems a smarter choice than the R9800256. There isn't a whole lot of difference between the two in many of tadays games and benches, simply b/c most don't even need the extra 128meg's of video memory The 5900U seems to benefit a little more w/ more memory, but I feel the reasons for this are thier innefficient memory controller (it's the same one they used on the Geforce4) and their inneffient FSAA algorithm (check their 6x and 8xFSAA numbers, same AA algorithm used on the GF4 as well, nothing changed). The 5900U seems to benefit a little more with more memory, while the R9800 doesn't. The R9800 seems to utilize it's memory compression techniques a littel more efficiently than Nvidia...in these cards anyway, and the extra memory simply doesn't get utilized....... Just my opinion, of course

PreservedSwine: That review you posted compares the non-ultra version of the FX5900 card, which is not really what we were originally comparing.

JSR: Just as you say, the 9800 Pro 128MB, is the best value high end card available right now.

OMG- I didn't notice-

I'll edit my post:rolleyes:

yes

and to make matters worse....acid just relesed anandtech's review in his post.....he must not have read it, as the post proclaims the arrival of the 256 card..............but, read it and weep..........and, preserved.........the memory controller of the fx5900 is new and twice as effective

Re: yes

It's a 256bit Bus, but not twice as effective.....And this was more of a pre-view than a review (Dated May 12th).....Back when the hype around the NV35 was more air than meat. The memory controller originally intended for the NV35 was still 128bitDDR, but that changed after the NV30 fell on it's face. The afterthought 256bitDDR bus and memory controller were more or less slapped together (according to Mufu), in a not alltogether impressive or efficient fashion.

No, it is not "twice as effective". Read the full article.

Here is another review, this one released today, that indeed shows the R9800 and 5900U to be on about equal footing...

http://www.ixbt-labs.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-17.html

Very cool looking 5900 btw

Still not sure if this is a 5900 or 5900U review, since no mention of clockspeeds on the 5900, but here it is again.....

http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/gigabyte_radeon_9800pro.shtml

Might well be 5900U...I noticed the Albatron didn't mention the fact that it was a 5900U, but the clockpeeds give that away

Wrong! It's a non-ultra, take a look over here (albatron website):

FX5900PV

This one's the ultra:

FX5900UV

Same goes for that other link.

This is probably how you came to the conclusion that the 9800 pro was faster. If you can't tell one from the other, then how can you expect to draw accurate conclusions? :blush:

However, the 9800 pro is about the same price as the 5900 non-ultra, so it is a fair comparison at the end of the day. The 9800 pro takes the medal.

exactly

and, he....... was the one that brought up the issue of the memory controller......which was false............weather or not it was .....twice (pixel shading power) ......as effective or not (just posting specs).........it was not, the same .........nonetheless, defensive posturing, and nit-picking issues, won't alter the basic truth.

Here's another new review at FiringSquad ...

MSI GeForce FX5900U-VTD256 Review

Once again, the 5900Ultra wins every game benchmark at all resultions bar the occasional 800x600, and even with 4xAA turned on. Radeon 9800 Pro comes top on 3DMark03.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a good reason NOT to buy an Nvidia GeForce card ...

NVIDIA-based Graphics Cards Will Have a Bug in Half-Life 2? FSAA Cannot Be Enabled

quote:
The highly-anticipated Half-Life 2 game will have a major bug with current DirectX 9.0 hardware resulting in impossibility in enabling Full-Scene Anti-Aliasing, a popular feature that dramatically improves image quality in games. Apparently, there is a limitation in DirectX 9.0 and/or DirectX 9.0-compliant hardware that will not allow the function to be enabled on certain graphics cards if the workaround is not found.

According a Valve officials quoted in forums at HalfLife2.net web-site, there are problems with the way that current hardware implements FSAA. If you enable it, you will see a lot of artifacts on polygon boundaries due to the way that current graphics processors sample texture subjects with FSAA enabled.

Valve continued that this is a problem for any application that packs small textures into larger textures. The small textures will bleed into each other if you have multi-sample FSAA enabled.

Currently both leading graphics chips designers use multi-sampling or hybrid multi-sampling + super-sampling methods to for FSAA.

The developers of the legendary Half-Life game said that drivers are not likely to solve the problem, however, it still can be solved for graphics cards based on VPUs from ATI Technologies, such as RADEON 9500-, 9600-, 9700- and 9800-series. As for NVIDIA GeForce and GeForce FX-series, there are practically no chances to find a workaround, according to Valve.

Some industry sources indicated that the problem with such FSAA is a known one and is to be addressed in DirectX 9.1 and next-generation graphics processors with Pixel Shaders 3.0 and Vertex Shaders 3.0, such as ATI Technologies’s code-named R420 and NVIDIA’s code-named NV40 VPUs and derivatives. Both next-generation products will come later than the Half-Life 2 that is expected to be available by October.

Stay tuned with us because we are looking forward to bring you some comments from ATI Technologies and NVIDIA about the situation

---------------------------------------------------------------

The bug may not be an issue for some users, as we still don't know what kind of performance hit enabling FSAA will have. Maybe most users will leave it off anyways, so that the framerate will be smooth. If ATI do manage to produce a workaround for the issue (Nvidia owners appear out of luck), then there will most likely be an additional performance hit involved.

For JSR's continuing education

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/asus_v9950_ultra_review/default.asp

Just another review that shows the FX5900U and R9800 sharing leads in benchmarks and games.....enjoy:zzz:

and for preserved's continuing education

everything had to be turned on to make it close.......turn off AA and it's cyaaaaaaaaa

Re: and for preserved's continuing education

I agree w/ you there, the FX5900U is fasdter w/out seye candy, but only marginally so, we're talking just a few fps

This seems true for both cards, each winning a few, or losing a few, and not by a clear, devisive margin...

I just don't see the purpose of buying a $400+- video card and NOT game w/ FSAA.

Might as well run in 16bit, 600x800

no, i hear ya

i personally will wait until the games force the upgrade...........the prices will continue to drop...............but, i primarily play fps games.......so, for me, i play all games @16x12...........without aa............and, i smoke :grinthumb

Re: For JSR's continuing education

You must be looking through rose tinted spectacles. I just followed that link and as far as I can see the 5900 ultra is ahead in most benchmarks even with FSAA turned on. Some figures ...

There are 28 benchmark screens, 16 with FSAA, 12 without. Results are:

With FSAA : 5900U = 12 wins, 9800Pro = 4 wins.
Without FSAA : 5900U = 8 wins , 9800Pro = 4 wins.

5900U : Total wins = 20
9800Pro : Total wins = 8

So much for your description of them both sharing leads. There is no evidence at all that this is the case.