PDA

View Full Version : GeForce FX 5600 Ultra vs Radeon 9500/9600 Pro


Pages : [1] 2 3

BigFish7
05-21-03, 06:07 AM
well from what i've read at http://www.nordichardware.com/reviews/graphiccard/2003/Gainward_FX5600Ultra/index.php
i'm sorry to tell all the FanATIc fans that the new 5600U rev 1.1 (which will be out soon) would be a better pick then the 9600pro&9500pro including price/performance ratio.
read the Review and see what you get when OCed (wich should a little less 400/800) then what you see there.
commpare the oc (version what the new rev 1.1 should be a little less as i said) you'll see that the 5600U wins every test (the only difficulty it has is at 4XAA it losses 1280*1024 10% to the 9500pro and 5% to the 9600pro).
and that happens in q3 only in UT2k3 should be way better with 4XAA when taking in mind the oced version (which would be new Revision v1.1)

btw you can grab the card for a lower price at
http://www.pricewatch.com
(the card in the review priced at 175$)

ChrisRay
05-21-03, 06:09 AM
I think its pretty even with the Radeon 9500 Pro. Tho I think the 9600 Pro looks really sad in comparison.

You should take into Acct the radeon card has better Anti Aliasing. Tho the Geforce card has better AF,

Really its just about what you choose to spend your money on, Looks like both will be good, But I'd steer clear of the 9600 Pro, I dont trust those cards

rokzy
05-21-03, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by BigFish7
well from what i've read at http://www.nordichardware.com/reviews/graphiccard/2003/Gainward_FX5600Ultra/index.php
i'm sorry to tell all the FanATIc fans that the new 5600U rev 1.1 (which will be out soon) would be a better pick then the 9600pro&9500pro including price/performance ratio.
read the Review and see what you get when OCed (wich should a little less 400/800) then what you see there.
commpare the oc (version what the new rev 1.1 should be a little less as i said) you'll see that the 5600U wins every test (the only difficulty it has is at 4XAA it losses 1280*1024 10% to the 9500pro and 5% to the 9600pro).
and that happens in q3 only in UT2k3 should be way better with 4XAA when taking in mind the oced version (which would be new Revision v1.1)

btw you can grab the card for a lower price at
http://www.pricewatch.com
(the card in the review priced at 175$)

um, it loses in almost all high quality benchmarks to the 9500pro and they don't show ANY DX9 results.

plus it sounds extremely annoying.

rokzy
05-21-03, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
I think its pretty even with the Radeon 9500 Pro. Tho I think the 9600 Pro looks really sad in comparison.

You should take into Acct the radeon card has better Anti Aliasing. Tho the Geforce card has better AF,

Really its just about what you choose to spend your money on, Looks like both will be good, But I'd steer clear of the 9600 Pro, I dont trust those cards

the only saving feature of the 9600pro is that it can be MASSIVELY overclocked. ATI was stupid to underclock it so much.

ChrisRay
05-21-03, 06:16 AM
plus it sounds extremely annoying.

Thats just the Gainward model tho. It's rowed pretty far down the stream from reference design,

This card really is just giving us an idea of what the new core is capable of.

BigFish7
05-21-03, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by rokzy
um, it loses in almost all high quality benchmarks to the 9500pro and they don't show ANY DX9 results. so sorry to tell you but it'll have to be about $50 to be better price/performance than the 9500pro.

plus it sounds extremely annoying.

sigh... :confused:
read again my post (look at the oced version that's how the final rev1.1 should be a little less then that 1%-3% lower)
:mad: the only bench it losses is in q3 as i said by 10% to the 9500pro and 5% to the 9600pro... in all other HighR it wins (you must be look the numbers upside down :)
chrisray :) i've just thought to myself (:rofl i've been sure that in a min someone would probably mention the AA Quality issue )
from what i have seen in action gaming (not pictures) the AA of FX same or better the ATi's (to my eye ), i saw both cards head to head...

BigFish7
05-21-03, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
Thats just the Gainward model tho. It's rowed pretty far down the stream from reference design,

This card really is just giving us an idea of what the new core is capable of.

my point exactly (maybe we even see better results then teh OCed board... , lets hope :cool: )

ChrisRay
05-21-03, 06:24 AM
chrisray i've just thought to myself ( i've been sure that in a min someone would probably mention the AA Quality issue )
from what i have seen in action gaming (not pictures) the AA of FX same or better the ATi's (to my eye ), i saw both cards head to head

I disagree with your assertion about Anti Aliasing Quality, Nvidias Quality is under ATIs right now and it is noticable.


But I think Nvidias is also acceptable. alot of people disagree with my thoughts on that however

BigFish7
05-21-03, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
I disagree with your assertion about Anti Aliasing Quality, Nvidias Quality is under ATIs right now and it is noticable.


But I think Nvidias is also acceptable. alot of people disagree with my thoughts on that however

listen when i look at the pictures fact is fact ATI>>>NV AA quality however when i played on the FX5800U and the 9800Pro 128MB AA lev are at 6X for ATI's and 4XS for Nv's in action i just keept on thinking that Nv's is better (i asked the guy not to tell me which one was the one, i mean which one was NV's,ATI's)
the test was done in a computer shop :) (my friend... :P)

p.s it's just the way you like it i guess you're right on that maybe to you it looks better however i doubt it :p

ChrisRay
05-21-03, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by BigFish7
listen when i look at the pictures fact is fact ATI>>>NV AA quality however when i played on the FX5800U and the 9800Pro 128MB AA lev are at 6X for ATI's and 4XS for Nv's in action i just keept on thinking that Nv's is better (i asked the guy not to tell me which one was the one, i mean which one was NV's,ATI's)
the test was done in a computer shop :) (my friend... :P)


I have a Geforce 4 Ti and I admit to never have seen the Geforce FX upclose, But I still believe what I have said :P

zakelwe
05-21-03, 06:38 AM
I read this article briefly but didn't see a price point for the 5600 Ultra.

The 9900 value is going to be $299 at the start and may well come down in price. What is the price differential between the 5600 Ultra and 9900 value and what is the performance delta likely to be ?

ChrisRay, agree with what you said completely on the other thread about 3dmark not being a good guide to performance anymore.

Regards

Andy

BigFish7
05-21-03, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
I have a Geforce 4 Ti and I admit to never have seen the Geforce FX upclose, But I still believe what I have said :P

hehe :)
well you should it's really different in real action...

BigFish7
05-21-03, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by zakelwe
I read this article briefly but didn't see a price point for the 5600 Ultra.

The 9900 value is going to be $299 at the start and may well come down in price. What is the price differential between the 5600 Ultra and 9900 value and what is the performance delta likely to be ?

ChrisRay, agree with what you said completely on the other thread about 3dmark not being a good guide to performance anymore.

Regards

Andy

if talking about value 9900 when would it come out ??? right, when the NV36 would(if i'm not wrong) i'm almost 100% sure that if it has 256bit bus it is going to kick the %#$# out of the 9900 value...

Gator
05-21-03, 07:09 AM
I'm gonna say something really cheezy here, but between the three I'd rather get the R9600Pro, simply because it's so overclockable. From what I've read there is little difference between the R9500 and R9600, but with the huge overclock you would likely set just think of the bragging right you'll have with the R9600
:D :firedevil
I know, that's a crazy reason to take one card over the other, but honestly there is little difference between the R9500 and R9600 other than that, so you might as well take the sexier one.

Why not the 5600U? It's actually decent card, but the R9500/R9600 still outperforms it in almost all benchmarks. The only reason I would get a 5600U over the R9500/R9600 would be if there were any known incompatibilities with my motherboard, or if they ever made a 5600U 256meg card that actually had decent speed memory... but dare to dream :rolleyes:

ChrisRay
05-21-03, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by Gator
I'm gonna say something really cheezy here, but between the three I'd rather get the R9600Pro, simply because it's so overclockable. From what I've read there is little difference between the R9500 and R9600, but with the huge overclock you would likely set just think of the bragging right you'll have with the R9600
:D :firedevil
I know, that's a crazy reason to take one card over the other, but honestly there is little difference between the R9500 and R9600 other than that, so you might as well take the sexier one.

Why not the 5600U? It's actually decent card, but the R9500/R9600 still outperforms it in almost all benchmarks. The only reason I would get a 5600U over the R9500/R9600 would be if there were any known incompatibilities with my motherboard, or if they ever made a 5600U 256meg card that actually had decent speed memory... but dare to dream :rolleyes:


I dunno choosing a 9600 Pro over a 9500 Pro because of its Overclockability seems comprable to choosing a 2.0 Ghz Celeron Over an Athlon XP 1600 t-bred core due to it being more overclockable via mhz.

For every 2 mhz you OC a 9600 Pro you only have to OC a 9500 Pro 1 mhz to achieve a similar result.

Gator
05-21-03, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
I dunno choosing a 9600 Pro over a 9500 Pro because of its Overclockability seems comprable to choosing a 2.0 Ghz Celeron Over an Athlon XP 1600 t-bred core due to it being more overclockable via mhz.

For every 2 mhz you OC a 9600 Pro you only have to OC a 9500 Pro 1 mhz to achieve a similar result.

I wouldn't bring 9600Pro down to the level of a Celeron... that's just dirty :barf:

lol

ChrisRay
05-21-03, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Gator
I wouldn't bring 9600Pro down to the level of a Celerson... that's just dirty :barf:


I apologise, I meant no offense :(

rokzy
05-21-03, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
I dunno choosing a 9600 Pro over a 9500 Pro because of its Overclockability seems comprable to choosing a 2.0 Ghz Celeron Over an Athlon XP 1600 t-bred core due to it being more overclockable via mhz.

For every 2 mhz you OC a 9600 Pro you only have to OC a 9500 Pro 1 mhz to achieve a similar result.

yeah but the point is that with the 9500pro you might not get any overclock out of it at all. the 9600pro is practically guaranteed to overclock hugely because ATI underclocked it so much in the first place.

Unit01
05-21-03, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by zakelwe
ChrisRay, agree with what you said completely on the other thread about 3dmark not being a good guide to performance anymore.

Regards

Andy
And i thought someone said nvnews had consumers. guess that person was proven wrong again.
vampireuk: this isn't a total diss towards nvnews but rather some of it's people.
So Andy just cause you deem 3dmark03 invalid means it's right of nvidia to cheat in it? Gosh what a great attitude. Really shows something
Back on topic
I'll set my decision for which one is better when i see the boards available for purchase and the real reviews have come, and all this driver talk is settled as well.

ChrisRay
05-21-03, 07:23 AM
Is there really any need to drag that discussion over here? If you have concerns about it, you really should go to the topics discussing it.


yeah but the point is that with the 9500pro you might not get any overclock out of it at all. the 9600pro is practically guaranteed to overclock hugely because ATI underclocked it so much in the first place

I am curious, Since when has Overclocking Ever been a gaurentee?

You can't assume every revision of the core is going to step the same

zakelwe
05-21-03, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Unit01

So Andy just cause you deem 3dmark03 invalid means it's right of nvidia to cheat in it? Gosh what a great attitude. Really shows something


Sorry, I should have said general gaming performance and i should have put it in the other thread but i was being lazy.

I'll reply to you over there about you putting words in my mouth

Regards

Andy

Gator
05-21-03, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
I apologise, I meant no offense :(

LOL! No problem, no offense taken. I just don't like Celerons! haha... but in all seriousness the R9600Pro really isnt bad at all

You make a valid point about whether ALL R9600Pro are overclockable... but I will say that the built-by-ATI R9600Pro is overclockable and that is a VERY good sign in my opinion.

BigFish7
05-21-03, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Gator
I'm gonna say something really cheezy here, but between the three I'd rather get the R9600Pro, simply because it's so overclockable. From what I've read there is little difference between the R9500 and R9600, but with the huge overclock you would likely set just think of the bragging right you'll have with the R9600
:D :firedevil
I know, that's a crazy reason to take one card over the other, but honestly there is little difference between the R9500 and R9600 other than that, so you might as well take the sexier one.

Why not the 5600U? It's actually decent card, but the R9500/R9600 still outperforms it in almost all benchmarks. The only reason I would get a 5600U over the R9500/R9600 would be if there were any known incompatibilities with my motherboard, or if they ever made a 5600U 256meg card that actually had decent speed memory... but dare to dream :rolleyes:
first in fsaa+af setings the 9500pro kicks his newcomer's ass it's a 8X1 architecture which is way better then 4X1 architecture and high clock speed doesn't help the 9600pro and you can see it from the AF results... :(
btw 9500pro is not a bad oc by it self surely not worst then 9600pro...
sure the 9600pro is a better oc but not by that much...
btw 9500 is cheaper and faster.... take in mind even the NH review ... i just can't see the point on spending the extra 30$ when you can get a better card for less...
Btw the new ultra rev1.1 (5600U) should still have some nice
12% core speed in his bones moreover i expect 8% of the mem, which will roughly gives us 450/865 card not bad at all...
lets just wait for the final boards...

Gator
05-21-03, 07:37 AM
opps... ok I'm a dumby, sounds like you'll be going the R9500 Pro... lol... good enuf :spank:

Originally posted by BigFish7
first in fsaa+af setings the 9500pro kicks his newcomer's ass it's a 8X1 architecture which is way better then...

BigFish7
05-21-03, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Gator
opps... ok I'm a dumby, sounds like you'll be going the R9500 Pro... lol... good enuf :spank:

well if i wanted a budget card i would surely go for 9500pro but now when we have this amazing 5600U rev1.1 (when we would have it here :D) i would pobably put my hands on it, however i'm not going to wast time on budget when you have $$$ :D FX5900N here i come :afro: (damm when it would be available here in israel it is going to cost a )(*@##$ 100000$,stupid taxes :rolleyes: