View Full Version : 5600 Ultra vs 9600Pro
This is a fair fight. Both cards perform very much the same.
Some tests go for the geforce and some other to the radeon, nevertheless difference is no bigger than 10% (except splinter cell, but I guess is a driver issue) and both perform their best at 1024x768 and even 1280x1024. Both are very playable with AA and AF.
Both are also slower than the cards they replace on many games. The 5600ultra is beaten by the ti4200 on several tests, the same goes on the 9500pro vs 9600pro.
Still the 9600 has the edge, it has better quality than the 5600, specially with AA/AF and is generally faster, its drivers perform better with dx9 and will probably be available before the 5600 hits the streets.
I think the best choice is a Radeon9500pro, once they are phased out, the 9600pro will be the one to get.
"update"
I've just checked h-ocp review, and they test the 5600 with application settings, with this settings the 5600 is annihilated by the 9600 pro. Toms review uses quality settings on both cards, so the performance is more balanced.
Originally posted by Cotita
...Both are also slower than the cards they replace on many games. The 5600ultra is beaten by the ti4200 on several tests, the same goes on the 9500pro vs 9600pro...
OMG! The 5600Ultra got beat by the TI4200?!?! Wow! I'm sorry everyone but I really beleive NV has really messed up this time. I mean I thought for sure the 5600Ultra would be an ideal card because it's decent speed without the FX-flow, but you're telling me the older generation entry-level gaming card still holds supreme? Yikes!
Think I'll be sticking out with my GF4-TI4400 for as long as I can :D
anyway, here are the missing links I think you are refering to
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030416/index.html
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDU4LDE=
and here is the chart where TI4200 beats the 5600! :eek:
side note: at least the 5600Ultra gets some balls back in 3dmark2k3 thanks to the DX9, but then if you look at the R9500 and R9700 scores it's shocking
What about Comanche 4? The Geforce FX peforms poorly there also. I am on a quest to try and make the game run decent ;)
Also Splinter Cell uses the UT2003 engine so there must be something wrong somewhere.
Yeah wasn't there a bug still in the drivers with the FX range that ‘the quality setting’ was really greatly degraded but performed very fast? And application was the best looking setting.
People are now overclocking the 9600Pro with around 560 MHz core & 700MHz memory, impressive with 10fps gain in Splinter Cell. http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDY0
In some cases rivaling the Radeon 9700Pro in Multi texture games :eek:
Can't say i'm surprised, the trend continues..
NV31 won't be out for long hopefully( for nV's sake). Is it NV36 that will replace it shortly? Think i read that somewhere :o
But i doubt that Asus, Gainward etc are happy with the latest chips they've been getting. NV35/36 better be kickass or maybe we will se Radeon cards by Asus next year? ;)
The thing thats killing the FX5600 is fillrate and i don't know about you but they really need at least an extra 100MHz core clock, this is more noticeable in Comanche 4 & Splinter Cell this would be why the cards drop off the charts and the 9600Pro keeps the lead that and CPU performance.
What I think is killing the FX in general may be the lack of a 256bit bus. Look at the difference between a R9500Pro and a R9700. Virtually the same except the pipelines and bus. Change that, and you got a much faster card.
Originally posted by Dazz
The thing thats killing the FX5600 is fillrate and i don't know about you but they really need at least an extra 100MHz core clock, this is more noticeable in Comanche 4 & Splinter Cell this would be why the cards drop off the charts and the 9600Pro keeps the lead that and CPU performance.
Hanners
04-17-03, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Cotita
"update"
I've just checked h-ocp review, and they test the 5600 with application settings, with this settings the 5600 is annihilated by the 9600 pro. Toms review uses quality settings on both cards, so the performance is more balanced.
This is the problem with nVidia's new labels for their Aniso settings - They have settings labelled Quality and Performance which don't match the ATi settings of the same name.
[H]ardOCP are the only ones I've seen so far that have done a true 'apples to apples' comparison IQ-wise, by setting ATi's Quality AF against nVidia's Application setting.
jbirney
04-17-03, 08:01 AM
I am glad that HardOCP did that. Its a better way to do things IMHO. However keep in mind its still not an apples to apples. NV has a slighly better Ansio when its at application as the R300/350 still have a slight issue with angles (drops down a notch or two). However NV has lower x4 AA with no gama and a crappy OG sampling. So neither setting is a true apples to apples...close enough however :)
ATi's Ansio is better looking but nVIDIA's has less fog near the end of the screen which in away is better, while ATi's is better close up.
I was betting that the geforcefx5600 ultra would level things up because of its overclocking potential. I didn't expect the 9600 to reach such high speeds specially since it just went out.
So how is TSMC able to deliver such great 9600 chips and still have trouble with 5600/5800 chips?
Maybe its not TSMCs fault after all...
It seems ATI is not willing to loose the performance crown in none of their product line.
Once it was said that only Nvidia could beat nvidia, now it seems only ATI can beat ATI.
Will nvidia ever get a break?
Hanners
04-17-03, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Dazz
ATi's Ansio is better looking but nVIDIA's has less fog near the end of the screen which in away is better, while ATi's is better close up.
Isn't fog broken in the GeForceFX series of cards?
Originally posted by Cotita
I was betting that the geforcefx5600 ultra would level things up because of its overclocking potential. I didn't expect the 9600 to reach such high speeds specially since it just went out.
So how is TSMC able to deliver such great 9600 chips and still have trouble with 5600/5800 chips?
Maybe its not TSMCs fault after all...
It seems ATI is not willing to loose the performance crown in none of their product line.
Once it was said that only Nvidia could beat nvidia, now it seems only ATI can beat ATI.
Will nvidia ever get a break?
nvidia cards are NOT bad....
I mean wow... the number of posts daily about how bad nvidia is doing...
their nv31/34 cards are going to be priced to sell and the thing that will sell them is dx9 support :)
ati does have overall better performance but as of right NOW... retail prices are above the price points of nvidia's products AFAIK...
for the price... both companies are a providing nice products...
btw.. concerning the gf4 ti series... it was a fabulous series of cards.. which is what made the performance delta the 9700pro had over the gf4 ti 4600 so spectacular... and gave ati that much needed shot in the arm...
the past year it would seem that ati has had better engineering on their boards and their gpu's are doing the right things in the right places... the new gpu's from nvidia appear to be a little behind their paper specs...
can drivers help out ?
we will have to see... remember that the 9600pro also will get a boost with new drivers since it is relatively a new gpu compared to the r300 series... (true 4 pipeline instead of simply crippled 8)
when the 9500pro came out.. the shipping drivers gave it a rather healthy shot in the arm compared to the drivers used to test in reviews... this should also hold true for the nvidia cards...
only difference being ati has WHQL certified drivers...
Originally posted by Sazar
nvidia cards are NOT bad....
I mean wow... the number of posts daily about how bad nvidia is doing...
their nv31/34 cards are going to be priced to sell and the thing that will sell them is dx9 support :)
ati does have overall better performance but as of right NOW... retail prices are above the price points of nvidia's products AFAIK...
for the price... both companies are a providing nice products...
I don't think the geforcefx 5600/5800 cards are that bad, I just think that the radeon 9600/9800 are much better.
Retail prices for both the radeon9800pro and 5800ultra are between 399~420dlls, also both the 5600ultra and 9600 pro have $199.00 dlls suggested retail price.
Now, which one you were saying is cheaper???
Oh yeah the 5200, well since the 9200 isn't out yet, I guess ATI will also have a sub $80.00 version.
Originally posted by Cotita
I don't think the geforcefx 5600/5800 cards are that bad, I just think that the radeon 9600/9800 are much better.
Retail prices for both the radeon9800pro and 5800ultra are between 399~420dlls, also both the 5600ultra and 9600 pro have $199.00 dlls suggested retail price.
Now, which one you were saying is cheaper???
Oh yeah the 5200, well since the 9200 isn't out yet, I guess ATI will also have a sub $80.00 version.
I was under the impression the 5600 series would be cheaper than that...
my mistake..
Don't know about you but in the UK, ATi cards are considerbly cheaper then nVIDIA ones.
Shadowx
04-17-03, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Sazar
nvidia cards are NOT bad....
I mean wow... the number of posts daily about how bad nvidia is doing...
their nv31/34 cards are going to be priced to sell and the thing that will sell them is dx9 support :)
ati does have overall better performance but as of right NOW... retail prices are above the price points of nvidia's products AFAIK...
for the price... both companies are a providing nice products...
btw.. concerning the gf4 ti series... it was a fabulous series of cards.. which is what made the performance delta the 9700pro had over the gf4 ti 4600 so spectacular... and gave ati that much needed shot in the arm...
the past year it would seem that ati has had better engineering on their boards and their gpu's are doing the right things in the right places... the new gpu's from nvidia appear to be a little behind their paper specs...
can drivers help out ?
we will have to see... remember that the 9600pro also will get a boost with new drivers since it is relatively a new gpu compared to the r300 series... (true 4 pipeline instead of simply crippled 8)
when the 9500pro came out.. the shipping drivers gave it a rather healthy shot in the arm compared to the drivers used to test in reviews... this should also hold true for the nvidia cards...
only difference being ati has WHQL certified drivers...
since the fx preview people are saying that drivers will bring performance up but the reality is that with bad engineering there is no driver in the world that will fix that, plus ati drivers keep coming out with better performance, to me NV lose this round and no driver update will change that. Now next round?
It is looking like that it's been what over 6 months since their last WHQL driver.
SnakeEyes
04-18-03, 08:33 AM
:eek: Those overclocking results (just the amount that they were able to push that card stably, before I even saw the benches' improvements) are just totally wild! I guess this is what we were all expecting nv30 to be capable of, thanks to the .13 process (lots of headroom, I mean).
I also agree 100% with jbirney as far as IQ is concerned. The nvidia cards still have the better overall aniso capability, but in normal gaming, I get better overall IQ without suffering unforgivable framerate loss in my games. (UT2003 mainly). This was also why I originally replaced my Matrox G400Max with my nVidia GF2 GTS- the Matrox had a slightly more pleasing color reproduction in the game, with much better overall IQ in 32 bit mode, but in the end I had to turn a bunch of settings down to play UT1 reasonably well. The GTS, though not quite as pretty with all the settings on, was prettier with playable settings.
ATI seems to have taken a few pages from nVidia's playbooks recently- introducing the latest features first (true DX9 cards), having the fastest products with those features on the market first. Providing excellent drivers for the products, with very frequent updates. And finally, releasing product 'refreshes' that are mostly speed boosts of their previous products.
Hmmm... Did nVidia suffer a mass defection recently? :p
You know what i an't really sure about the NV31 head room, NV31 Previews have been out for ages but no overclocking done RV350 out 1 day and they are all over the place.
Originally posted by Dazz
You know what i an't really sure about the NV31 head room, NV31 Previews have been out for ages but no overclocking done RV350 out 1 day and they are all over the place.
and it requires added power to function does it not ?
the 5600 I mean...
v/s none for the rv350...
Thats correct, which would mean less heat to start with.
reever2
04-19-03, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by Sazar
can drivers help out ?
we will have to see... remember that the 9600pro also will get a boost with new drivers since it is relatively a new gpu compared to the r300 series... (true 4 pipeline instead of simply crippled 8)
when the 9500pro came out.. the shipping drivers gave it a rather healthy shot in the arm compared to the drivers used to test in reviews... this should also hold true for the nvidia cards...
only difference being ati has WHQL certified drivers...
I dont know, can drivers help out?
Remember the 5800 Ultra, and how many people said its poor performance is due to bad drivers, and remember the boost the new drivers gave it? I sure dont
Lezmaka
04-19-03, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by Dazz
You know what i an't really sure about the NV31 head room, NV31 Previews have been out for ages but no overclocking done RV350 out 1 day and they are all over the place.
Dave Baumann over at beyond3d (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=106288#106288) did some quick tests and got his 5600U up to 435/400. The few tests he did, he averaged about a 20% increase
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.