[/B][/QUOTE]Originally posted by Shad0hawK
uhhhh yes, after doing a side by side comparision, then having my results confirmed personally
in other posts i have already said the ATI looked slightly better, you must have missed it.
think whatever makes you feel better about yourself!
have a nice day!
If you're just intrested in getting the best card, get the cheapest one. When I did the review, the 5900U was more expensive, though as far as I know, the price differences are close to nothing. The 9800pro is a little better than the 5900U when you turn on FSAA and FA, but the 5900U, on the other hand, has a slight lead in games that requires more from the speed of the card (Q3, for an example).
Originally posted by Shad0hawK
It's my memory, it comes with the age
I'm at my best mood today.
I am thinking, even a little to much, but it's not about gfx-cards.
Ignore them because your to good? If you just so good, then kick some ass so you won't here kids whine, that's my method, but your some hard-to-break kid
But would you agree that the 5600 is a bad card?
I don't have much..damn..forgot the word..errh..patience? (spelling). I have a specieal way of expression. And you really anoy me, that's why I have..abandond any reasonable argueing with you.
I sure won't and I hope you don't to, because I..dislike you big time.
Originally posted by theHATRED
Well, I'm going to post my little article wether you like it or not:
First of all, let me start by saying that I am NOT a fanboy of either company; I'm a hardware enthusiast.
Let's start with the most "important" question:
Which card is the better one?
Now, what is the definition of "the best card". Is it the card that gets a few more fps in a game than another card, or is the cheapest high-end card on the market? Is it the overall performance, perhaps? Well, in my opinion, it's the overall performance.
There is no "proof" that either one is better (9800pro and GFX5900U). There are many reviews out there, and I'm sure you've read alot of them (or perhaps not?). Many reviews has come to many different conclusions, but they've also come to different results in benchmarks, games and the like.
These two reviews/comparisons show that the 9800pro is better than the GFX5900U:
Review 1
Review 2
These two, though, show that the FX5900 is better than the 9800pro:
Review 3
Review 4
When deciding which graphics card you want to buy, you'll obviously read a number of reviews to get the picture of which is the better one. Today, it's much harder to get the "right" picture because of the fact that both ATI and Nvidia have been known to cheat (some said, or still says, that Nvidia "crimes" were worse, though that comes to a matter of opinion) in benchmarks by optimizing their drivers. While doing a little review of them both my self (9800pro vs. FX5900U), I came upon something intresting. I had come to the point when I would run 3d mark 2003. First, I ran the benchmark on both cards, and I could see that the FX5900U had a small, though very noticeable lead over the radeon card. What I did then, was to change the name of the .exe file from 3dmark03.exe to whatever.exe. To my slight surprise, the 9800pro now came on top of the 5900U. The 9800pro also droped on percent, though that wasn't as much as the nvidia card lost in points. By this I'm not saying that the 9800pro is better than the FX5900U, or vice versa, though it's just one example of the cheatings we've been hearing so much about lately.
One thing every reviewer seems to agree on is that the 9800pro has better image quality than the FX5900U. Do you know how they came to this conclusion? They took a screenshot of a game (most commonly UT2003), studied it for several minutes, then came to the conclusion that the radeon had slightly better image quality. Well, let me tell you something, you will *not* notice any differance when playing games.
One thing that I can tell you, though, is that the radeon card has a slight performace lead when it comes to FSAA (FullScreenAntiAnialising) and AF (AnisotropicFiltering), though the difference's hardly "good enough" to make you buy a 9800pro instead of a GFX5900U.
I noticed that the 9800pro was a better overclocker. It could go from 380/340(680 effective) to 470/370(740 effective) with the standard cooling. The FX card came up to 480/880 from 450/850. Both ran 100% stable after the overclockings, and they ran with the standard cooling system that came with the card. Though I must remind you all that this has more to do with which 9800pro/5900U card you buy, not the chipset itself. The cards I had was Sapphire Atlantis Radeon 9800pro and Gaindows GeforceFX 5900 Ultra. Now the Sapphire card is known to very overclocker friendly in comparison to, for an example, the Hercules version of the card. Sometimes you will notice very large differences of how much you can overclock the cards. I'm sure that many people have 5900U cards that will overclock quite alot more than my Gainward.
Now, back to the benchmarks. I wanted to get a good view of how well the cards would perform, so I ran quite alot of games and benchmarks to test them. I'll list some of them:
*UT2K3*
*Unreal2
*GTA: VC
*Half-Life: CS -
*Splinter Cell
*NWN*
*Mafia
*BF1942
*Serious Sam: the second encounter*
*Quake3*
*Jedi knight 2: Jedi outcast*
*Anarcy Online
*Max Payne
*Aquamark
*3d mark 2001SE -
*3d mark 2003
Well, I actually ended up listing all of them. As you can probably see, this was *very* time consuming. As you may've noticed, I've put a little star "*" after a few of them. The 5900U were the winner in the games/benchmarks that have a "*" after them.
Something to note was that the 9800pro performed horribly with FSAA turned on in NWN. I've heard that NWN is nvidia optimized, though this is something I cannot confirm. It should be noted, though, that no card ever had any real "über power performance lead". I've put a "-" after the 3d mark 2001SE. It was so f***ing
close that I just couldn't put ATI as the winner in (there was a 12 point difference). I got 20087 with the 9800pro (processor and graphics card overclocked) and 20075 with the FX5900U. They was a 54 point difference when they weren't overclocked (in favor the 5900U), though that still wasn't enough to put on of 'em as a winner.
Moving on to driver stability. I've heard alot from both "sides" that the ATI/Nvidia drivers are more stable/unstable. Now, it is true that the FX5800U could fry up with some older version of the detonator drivers, becuase the fan would turn off when running 3d screensavers. That problem, however, really didn't cause as much damage as some sites made it look. Oh, and if you wonder, that problem doesn't exist anymore. The latest detonator drivers (currently 44.03) and the latest catalyst drivers (currently 3.6) are both rock solid. I havn't any problems what so ever with any of them.
Conclusion: No card is the real winner here. They're so very close in performance. IF you're a fanboy, go with the card that your company has developed.
I'm sitting on a 9800pro myself, but that's because I could get it extra cheap; I found an offer on a site that had got too many cards, and was selling them for 350 dollars (keep in mind that this was last month). You couldn't go wrong with either one
By the way, I didn't post the results of the games/benchmarks in picture formats. For one, my server hosting them is down, but it would also take alot more time to put them all up (not that this post didn't take along time to write, but still). Though, as I hope you can all see, this is a very fair review with no "fanboyism".
Hope you enjoyed the text as much as I did writing it.
*edit* I forgot to put a "-" after CS, meaning that it was a tie, but I've done that now.
Of course. A beatiful flower in front of you is always more beatiful than the field of beatiful flowers behind you.
.
