Sorry NVIDIA owners
- Thread starter spitcodfry
- Start date
DimitriPopov
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,384
- Reaction score
- 0
Man I Feel horrible about buying a 5900FX Ultra 256 , it gets beat so much.
my video card (Geforce 4 Ti 4400 128MB) came with my computer so I don't feel any shame for having it. If HL2 is truly very slow on nvidia cards I might buy an ATI. It's been almost a year since I got my computer and I havent upgraded anything. However, I'll probably wait for a major price drop. Right now 9800 are about $500 canadian while 9600 are $250 and anything less is dirt cheap. If I upgrade my vid card, I don't want to pay $500 for only slight improvements.
crabcakes66
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 3,178
- Reaction score
- 0
That becuase doom3 is being written on/for nvidia harware.....and even carmack says nvidia harware is inferior.....
Doom3 will be a great game and i will buy it.....but it will never be as popular as HL2....end of story.
DimitriPopov
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,384
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes this is the only card doing this. And despite prior benchmarks the card was programmed for a certain set of instructions to execute on Spet.7 that make it JUMP up in performance to apparently superpower. Plz stfu thnx.
DimitriPopov
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,384
- Reaction score
- 0
Plz statement here thnx.
C
Cockney
Guest
As someone who owns a 9800pro and a 5900ultra it does not really matter to me but don't you think Nvidia and aTi are both working their asses off to make a game this big work on their cards.There are already posts on this board that say it will work fine and others saying it won't.
Flaming a card coz you own the opposite one is just causing more trouble can't we all just get along as peeps waiting for the game.
just my opinion
-Cockney
Flaming a card coz you own the opposite one is just causing more trouble can't we all just get along as peeps waiting for the game.
just my opinion
-Cockney
Prince of China
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Messages
- 6,847
- Reaction score
- 0
Please shut the **** up, thanks.
-DimitriPopov
What part of **** the thanks didn't you understande?
dawdler
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,980
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes, it is that slow... Remember the TRAOD test? The FX (5900/5800) all unplayable at 10x7 with all the fancy DX9 settings. Below 20 fps. Radeons can do the same at 50 fps. You need to go to 6x4 to have it playable. (still at lower speed than Radeons at 10x7).
Especially check out the default setting performance (http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_dx9perf/index.php?p=5). 5900 is nearly as fast as the 9800??? Uhm, yeah... according to the fps... Then your eyes goes up... and up... and read... And you go "Ah! Many of the 5900 DX9 features are off, and the rest is at half or less quality than the 9700/9800." Try it looking at it, I'm sure you will more or less word it like that
Flaming is similar to peer pressure on the net: it will force most players to purchase a R9800. Which isn't a bad thing after all.
By the way, how did you end up with both cards? do you own two computers? or are you just filthy rich? lol
D
Detharin
Guest
I think if it will run on a directx 6 based card on a 733 processor i wont need to worry about it running on my 5900. Interestingly enough while playing around with 3dmark03 i found someone with an almost identically setup to mine except using a 9800 non pro. My benchmarks where higher than his and about the same even on pixel shader 2.0 sitting at a comfy 45. What does this mean, nothing really.
My 5900 will run all current games at a good speed, i dont really care that if i had spent 250 more dollars i could have gotten a 1% performance increase either with the 9800 pro or 5900 ultra. ITs not worth it. For 99.9 percent of the things i do my 5900 performs better than the ati version with less hassles. Ive only ever had one game i needed an nvidia patch for and that wasa win98 game i was trying to get to work on xp (starship troopers)
The arguement comes down to this, ati does something better, nvidia does something else better. If drivers can close the distance performance wise then nvidias the company that would be able to code them. Im not saying Ati has bad drivers, they just arent up to the quality of nvidias. Both are great cards, both will run the game well in the end this arguement is really only relevant to gamers on a board trying to play a game of virtual my dicks bigger.
As for the nvidia cheating in 3dmark which keeps getting brought up, i refer everyones attention back to the Quack Incident with Ati.
My 5900 will run all current games at a good speed, i dont really care that if i had spent 250 more dollars i could have gotten a 1% performance increase either with the 9800 pro or 5900 ultra. ITs not worth it. For 99.9 percent of the things i do my 5900 performs better than the ati version with less hassles. Ive only ever had one game i needed an nvidia patch for and that wasa win98 game i was trying to get to work on xp (starship troopers)
The arguement comes down to this, ati does something better, nvidia does something else better. If drivers can close the distance performance wise then nvidias the company that would be able to code them. Im not saying Ati has bad drivers, they just arent up to the quality of nvidias. Both are great cards, both will run the game well in the end this arguement is really only relevant to gamers on a board trying to play a game of virtual my dicks bigger.
As for the nvidia cheating in 3dmark which keeps getting brought up, i refer everyones attention back to the Quack Incident with Ati.
crabcakes66
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 3,178
- Reaction score
- 0
sorry to put it bluntly....
nothing but fanboyism
dawdler
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,980
- Reaction score
- 0
Is it just me or is nearly everyone defending (or simply commenting) the 5900 EXTREMELY poor at math? I mean, even a person understanding the concept of percentages just barely, would see that the difference of the number 50 and the number 100 is not 1%. The difference between 20 and 50 is not 1% either. Or 10 and 40. Etc etc.
There has NEVER EVER been talk about a 1% difference. Why? Cause we all ignore it. If the Radeons where just 1% faster, we wouldnt be discussing this. I honestly dont care if my trusty 9700 Pro would have gotten 170 fps and the 5900 Ultra would have gotten 190 fps. Or 45 against 50. or 70 against 80. And so on. THIS IS NOT THE NUMBERS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT! We are talking about the Radeons being 2-3 TIMES* as fast as the FX cards. This is why everyone is discussing it.
*That is is 200-300% of the FX speed if anyone wonders, not 1%.
scribblehead
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 0
Without having read this monstrous thread, i'd just like to give my 2 cents.
The only real problem i can see with running the FX cards, is the rather lacking performance with shaders.
An FX card is still a really good buy, and all this fan-boy-ism surrounding radoen cards should stop, if nvidia had'nt been in the game and bought voodoo a few years back, ati probably would'nt have entered the "commercial" corner of gfx card manufacturing/development---tho thats not to say they would'nt have.....but just think about it, and quit the fan boy attitude.
Cheers
The only real problem i can see with running the FX cards, is the rather lacking performance with shaders.
An FX card is still a really good buy, and all this fan-boy-ism surrounding radoen cards should stop, if nvidia had'nt been in the game and bought voodoo a few years back, ati probably would'nt have entered the "commercial" corner of gfx card manufacturing/development---tho thats not to say they would'nt have.....but just think about it, and quit the fan boy attitude.
Cheers
crabcakes66
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 3,178
- Reaction score
- 0
how is a 5900 a good buy? Its costs more and performs worse
scribblehead
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 0
since that would require another 5 pages....cuz of the fan boy-ism here
...i won'tbut on the other hand i guess i could ask you, i will stop if you tell me why radeon its such a good buy? not just saying it has good things on the card....
though i suggest you read a few articles at anandtech or tomshardware before claiming either radeon or nvidia card king....besides i'm just being neutral here....
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1794
dawdler
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,980
- Reaction score
- 0
A) The "eqvivalent" Radeon is cheaper than the FX (ie 9800Pro against the 5900Ultra). The 9800Pro is about as costly as a 5900NU. Even cheaper sometimes. The 9700Pro, than can nearly match the 5900 Ultra too, is even cheaper than that. This is 90% of the reason the Radeon is the better buy.
B) With the Radeon, you know what you get. The FX drivers have even had features disabled (earlier drivers where not DX9 compliant, they forced lower FP precision).
C) Techwise, the Radeon is based on DX9. The FX is based on DX8. A good buy is NOT buying a card for old games. Its buying a card for new games. This is why the Radeon is 2-3 times faster in newer games (all reviews test old games, Quake 3 isnt even worth benchmarking on one of these cards, its as stupid as 3Dmark2k3, yet no one complains, only a few use really new games).
Edit, I forgot: D)
You never have to optimise for ATI in new games. Its just DX9 optimisations. If someone tells you a game is ATI optimised, and that it suck cause its ATI biased, its another way of saying optimised for DX9.
Actually, if ATI used the same tactics as Nvidia (putting a sticker on a game that says its optimised for Nvidia), ATI would go bankrupt, they would have to pay every single game developer using DX9. Cause every single one of these would have to have a "Optimised for ATI 9500/9600/9700/9800 series".
And that's about it. The Radeon is good for the future (speedwise), its cheaper, and its WYSIWYG, that everyone like
The 5900 is nothing of this.
A
AbRASiON
Guest
It's a fact that Nvidia's shader support is "weird" - hopefully for their sake it's DRIVER only, but right now in Quake 3 the performance is much of a muchness
and SOF2
and SS2
and heaps of games
but NONE of the current benchmarked games use shaders HEAVILY.
Doom 3 and HL2 do and BOTH people from the companies making these games say "nvidia's card is not working right, very slow with shaders"
AND it costs more.
Screw nvidia.
and SOF2
and SS2
and heaps of games
but NONE of the current benchmarked games use shaders HEAVILY.
Doom 3 and HL2 do and BOTH people from the companies making these games say "nvidia's card is not working right, very slow with shaders"
AND it costs more.
Screw nvidia.
scribblehead
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 0
well thats certainly mature...
dawdler i see your point, still i'm just being neutral here, i don't wanna take sides since both companies give us gamers so much choice...and the competition helps to keep the market updated with high quality products..
crabcakes66
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 3,178
- Reaction score
- 0
I dont think anyone but the 12 year olds saying "nvidia sucks"(and meaning it) disputes that.
I try to look at it being nuetral to.....but I am forced to see the advantages of ATIs current line of cards over Nvidia.
dawdler
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,980
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes, though its the neutral people that should see why the Radeon is the better buy
Just gathering all the info, and reviewing it objectivly, shows the 5900 is a truly bad buy. It cant even be said to be just nearly good. Its bad. If ATI wouldnt have existed, it would be the fastest card ever! Or if it would have been realeased a year ago (as it was meant to be)! It would have been awesome, hell, I would buy it in a second.
But consider price, technology, speed (in new and old games, weigh them against each other), where we are at in the gaming industry, how long the card will last, how its competion is at the same prices. Then tell me the 5900 (or any FX) from a neutral point of view is anything but a bad buy
Sidenote: This apply to everyone feeling to defend the Nvidia cards. Just sit down and think on it, then write down the result (and not "ATI SUCKZ" or "NVIDIA BLOWZ").
Wesisapie
Newbie
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,497
- Reaction score
- 0
i have nothing against nVidia or against ATi, i own a gf4 ti4400, but if the nvidia fx isn't working properly at the moment for shaders, and if it's just a driver problem at the moment, then that is a good sign for nVidia, as when they get it sorted out they should be able to leap above ATi. but yes, ATi seems to be ahead as far as shaders go at the moment.
D
Detharin
Guest
Right..... based on what? Could it be providing facts that ive had one problem with nvidia from personal experience which i mention. Very fanboy of me to point out i had a problem isnt it?
Or maybe its me mentioning that most benchmarks we see are from the two high end cards of which i state i dont feel the performance increase of either is worth the cost. Notice i said both Nvidia and Ati.
Maybe its me mentioning that the majority of what i do nvidia does faster. Which is mostly play older games, because im so backlogged on stuff to play. Ill probably tear through Half Life 2 in a weekend, but ill be messing with Ghost Master, or Robin Hood something or other. (note to self find who snagged that off my desk) for about a month. If i get the desire for a good game of multiplayer ill probably load of SoF2 or Raven Shield (which has problems with Ati cards, which leads to the more hassle installing had i gone Ati, plus the older games i enjoy going back to. You know how hard it is to find a compatibility patch for a fun, but didnt sell well game a year after the fact?) Neither of which its really going to matter that Ati currently appears to out perform Nvidia in directx 9. I say appears becaues frankly neither game is out, and id personally like to see what happens once the techheads get ahold of both Doom 3, and Halflife 2 and optimize their cards to get it to perform better than the next guy.
Currently Nvidia is the faster card in the majority of the games people are currently buying, if Ati is faster in the next generation of games good for them, by the time we get done argueing 5900 vs 9800 the next generation will be out and we will be back at square one. Currently Nvidia wins most of the benchmarks vs the 9800 in terms of speed, historically nvidia cards have less issues with games than Ati cards. What does this realistically mean? That given an system build by a couple guys with websites and trying two cards nvidia did better at most things currently, and the majority of people with Atis occasionally have something not work right in older games on a fresh install.
I dont have that system built for benchmark system, mines a POS i built in my spare time with what i could afford at the time and constantly surprises me in still turning on desite the dust, odd clicking noise, rattling fan, and bloodstains from installing my video card. (im not sure how a computer can bite you, but mine did) This computer is far from optimum, but it works. It also scored better than a similar system running the equivelant video card from Ati which AS I STATED means a whole load of nothing because its just some arbitrary number assigned based on how it did in a noninteractive test.
So given my lack of funds, and a good 6 hours a night at work where i sit here doing tech support and checking the web. I found, based on the research that nvidia had what i currently needed in a graphics card. If i get 60fps instead of 80fps it doesnt matter my eye cant tell the difference but i can still load up a game of raven shield without digging for another patch or tweak to get it to work.
Maybe it was my mention that Nvidias drivers are better than Atis. Last i checked they are. Anyone who says Ati writes horrible drivers is wrong, as is anyone who sings their praises as the best in the industry. They are good but not great. Ati has a history of minor issues, that is true. if i was being dropped on a deserted island with a generator, a custom pc, and half life 2 to play until i die id take an ati 9800 pro. That isnt going to happen. For what i have, and want to do, the 5900 i picked up cheap was the best choice for me.
To close it really is fanboy to point out that nvidia had "optimizations" for 3dmark03 in the same sentance i point out Ati did the same thing with Quake isnt it? Thats like saying the cowboys are are all on crack, and are better than the raiders who are all on parole. Both statements make everyone involved look like idiots, so how am i an nvidia fanboy if i bring up their screwups? So answer me two questions, A. how am i a fanboy if achknowledge both sides strengths and weaknesses, and B. which company am i a fanboy for?
D
Detharin
Guest
Show me a link to some in game benchmarks of currently available games where the 9800 is not within 8fps plus or minus of the 5900.
D
Detharin
Guest
Price comparison isnt really valid. The card i got vs a similar Ati card both costing 299. Links provided (hopefully)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=1055388016068&skuId=5642904&type=product
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=1051826247056&skuId=5517773&type=product
dawdler
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,980
- Reaction score
- 0
ARGH?! How many damn times do one have to pull it up!?
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/traod_dx9perf/ (yes its available)
GeForce FX 5800 Ultra 44.25
GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 53.53
Radeon 9700 PRO 99.97
Radeon 9800 PRO 107.38
That is at 640x480... For a good playable resolution, the FX scores a whooping 23.19 fps (10x7). The 9700 Pro scores 49.62 and the 9800 Pro does 51.52.
What did I say about math? How do you figure 51.52 - 23.19 = 8? Or is it just me that needs to redo school?
crabcakes66
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 3,178
- Reaction score
- 0
well. I started to quote you a bunch and reply to all the things you say.....
Im not going to....ill let someone else do it.
1. You sound like a fanboy for saying things that are completley unfounded and simply not true.
2. You are definatlely an nvidia "fanboy"(i hate that word). Although you are somewhat subtle about it. Ill give you that much.
Im not going to....ill let someone else do it.
1. You sound like a fanboy for saying things that are completley unfounded and simply not true.
2. You are definatlely an nvidia "fanboy"(i hate that word). Although you are somewhat subtle about it. Ill give you that much.
crabcakes66
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 3,178
- Reaction score
- 0
theres no point in posting that...........all the nvidia fanboys will say its not legit
Similar threads
