PDA

View Full Version : Check out this FX5900U review...


Pages : [1] 2

solofly
05-29-03, 01:25 AM
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/articles.hwz?cid=3&aid=749&page=1

PreservedSwine
05-29-03, 01:33 AM
That site is S-L-O-W....

digitalwanderer
05-29-03, 01:37 AM
Directly from page 20 (http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/articles.hwz?cid=3&aid=749&page=20)

So long as glitches and screen anomalies are rectified and the overall image quality remains true to what the game developer meant it to be, we believe a graphics card is performing its function adequately. We often notice users trying hard to justify which card does a better job by putting up zoomed screenshots of games. Comparing image quality without zooming is fine because that is what you will end up seeing in your actual games as well. Here again, there are multitudes of users from those who simply canít be bothered of image quality to those who nitpick on why a windowpane is rendered less jagged in one card than the other or why a certain pixel is missing as compared to the other. It all boils down to what your preferences are, but the majority of users are those who are in between these two extreme camps where they would prefer to have some acceptable game image quality. For this group, most available graphics cards from ATI and NVIDIA do the job fine, which means these cards are more than acceptable in the big picture.

Is it just me or does that sound just a BIT lame? :eek2:

GlowStick
05-29-03, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Directly from page 20 (http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/articles.hwz?cid=3&aid=749&page=20)



Is it just me or does that sound just a BIT lame? :eek2:

site to slow for me now, BUT

i wonder whos getting a nv40 for review next time ; D

dohcmark8
05-29-03, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Directly from page 20 (http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/articles.hwz?cid=3&aid=749&page=20)



Is it just me or does that sound just a BIT lame? :eek2:

It only sounds lame because it is fair to both ATi and nVIDIA cards, only because they arent bashing nVIDIA <- digitalwanderers opinion

digitalwanderer
05-29-03, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by dohcmark8
It only sounds lame because it is fair to both ATi and nVIDIA cards, only because they arent bashing nVIDIA <- digitalwanderers opinion

No, it sounds lame to me because they're basically trying to say, "Well it doesn't really matter if one looks better than the other because that isn't important to real gamers", without actually saying it and it just cracked me up as funny in an ultra-weaselly way. :lol:

ChrisW
05-29-03, 03:03 AM
I give up. It has gotten to the point where even reviewers will make any excuse to favor nVidia. They used to have means to measure the difference between the cards, but now they are even discarding that. What is the point in a reviewer telling us there is point in judgeing the difference between cards? What is the point in the review?

silence
05-29-03, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
No, it sounds lame to me because they're basically trying to say, "Well it doesn't really matter if one looks better than the other because that isn't important to real gamers", without actually saying it and it just cracked me up as funny in an ultra-weaselly way. :lol:


i don't know....i didn't read it like that. most ppl WON'T notice it and most ppl really doesn't bother if one pixel is missing.

i currently have gf2 gts and i am sure whatever i buy (i might go for radeon 9500 pro cause i finally found one).....i'll go WOW and YESSSS for few days after installing it......

so for majority out there....there is no diff.....and when u post pics 16x12 without magnifying them.....u really have hard time noticing....there IS diff, but no that huge....specially for us poor sods that have gf2 class cards.....

bkswaney
05-29-03, 03:25 AM
This is my 2 cents.

Both the 5900 and 9800 have the strong and weak spots.
They r both great cards.

But if I had to choose I would get the 5900 for one reason. "drivers"

The ATI drivers have come a "LONG" way but still lag behind the nvidia drivers.
I've not had 1 bloody crash with my 5800 on any game or benchmark sense I installed it. With my 9700 I had 1 or 2 crashes per day. Plus the ever so talked about jerky game play at times.

Like I said it just my point of view. I could be wrong. But not from where I'm sitting. ;)

mikechai
05-29-03, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by bkswaney
This is my 2 cents.

Both the 5900 and 9800 have the strong and weak spots.
They r both great cards.

But if I had to choose I would get the 5900 for one reason. "drivers"

The ATI drivers have come a "LONG" way but still lag behind the nvidia drivers.
I've not had 1 bloody crash with my 5800 on any game or benchmark sense I installed it. With my 9700 I had 1 or 2 crashes per day. Plus the ever so talked about jerky game play at times.

Like I said it just my point of view. I could be wrong. But not from where I'm sitting. ;)

Someone is going to reply like this:

You mean "cheating" drivers ?

bkswaney
05-29-03, 04:02 AM
Cheating or not. They r very stable and everything runs fine.
I could care less if they cheated on 3DM.
They got found out. So now they will have to play fair. :)

Grrrpoop
05-29-03, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by bkswaney

I could care less if they cheated on 3DM.

So actually, you do (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/care.html) care a little ;)

I agree that if zooming into pictures is required to discern differences in IQ then both cards must be doing a good job.

What zooming does help with tho is finding out if a card is cutting corners and sacrificing IQ even in a small way, which imo, should never occur.

The decision to sacrifice IQ for performance should lie with the end user, not the manufacturer trying to increase sales with false promises.

PreservedSwine
05-29-03, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by bkswaney
This is my 2 cents.

Both the 5900 and 9800 have the strong and weak spots.
They r both great cards.

But if I had to choose I would get the 5900 for one reason. "drivers"

The ATI drivers have come a "LONG" way but still lag behind the nvidia drivers.
I've not had 1 bloody crash with my 5800 on any game or benchmark sense I installed it. With my 9700 I had 1 or 2 crashes per day. Plus the ever so talked about jerky game play at times.

Like I said it just my point of view. I could be wrong. But not from where I'm sitting. ;)

The more I read and learn about gpu's, the more these type of posts ring hollow. BK, it seems most of what you say about the FX is contradictory by what other owners of the FX line? I never really bothered digging up links, but here's a good one.

I guess different people have diferent expierences, but yours seems so positive, while other FX owners complain constantly about rendering errors and other glitches in the FX line.

Anyway, about the FX5900, have you read this thread on these forums, from someone who actuallyowns an FX5900?

I've owned the 5900 Ultra 256mb card which i'm now selling to replace it with a much better operating card (9800Pro 256mb).

This card is a major disappointment from the start and then come the nVidia driver issues.


Apparently, not only does this chap already own an FX5900, he's returning it for what he feels is a superior R9800PRO. While you would rather seemingly down-grade from an R9700PRO to a 5800ULTRA..and now can't wait for the 5900ULTRA..

Here's the thread: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12576

Do you do alot of worksation-class type work? I understand that the NV3x series handles that type of work well. Or maybe just not too crazy about superior AA quality?

solofly
05-29-03, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by dohcmark8
It only sounds lame because it is fair to both ATi and nVIDIA cards, only because they arent bashing nVIDIA

Haha you said it bro but don't worry cause this forum will turn this around and bashing will begin once again...

GlowStick
05-29-03, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by PreservedSwine
The more I read and learn about gpu's, the more these type of posts ring hollow. BK, it seems most of what you say about the FX is contradictory by what other owners of the FX line? I never really bothered digging up links, but here's a good one.

I guess different people have diferent expierences, but yours seems so positive, while other FX owners complain constantly about rendering errors and other glitches in the FX line.

Anyway, about the FX5900, have you read this thread on these forums, from someone who actuallyowns an FX5900?



Apparently, not only does this chap already own an FX5900, he's returning it for what he feels is a superior R9800PRO. While you would rather seemingly down-grade from an R9700PRO to a 5800ULTRA..and now can't wait for the 5900ULTRA..

Here's the thread: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12576

Do you do alot of worksation-class type work? I understand that the NV3x series handles that type of work well. Or maybe just not too crazy about superior AA quality?

To be fair, i am a 9800Pro(128mb) user that was trying to get a nv35 by trying to trade my card + some cash, why? While FX owners are getting complaints about rendering errors i am getting crashes................

I also am probly influenced by the effect where you allways want something you dont have, eg having a 9800pro is never enough, i must have more heh : P

Cotita
05-29-03, 12:47 PM
you guys must hate DVD and DTV

I mean if you zoom a dvd screenshot, you will see its very pixelated and sometimes has moire, and some of the original detail is lost. But hey it looks great even on 42" plasma screens.


Why is that?, because the human eye can't tell the difference, specially with moving images.

I really couldn't care less if the radeon or geforce FX looks worse when zoomed 500%, when under real gaming I can't notice.

On several LAN partys I've put a geforce 3 ti200, a ti4600, a radeon 8500 and a 9700 pro side by side running Unreal tournament demo at 800x600 and asked people to tell me which is which. Even owners of the actual cards failed. Once the resolution was increased to 1280, people coult tell but mostly because of performance, not IQ.

So if nvidia cheats with pixel shaders or ATI cheats in Anisotropic Filtering is fine by me as long as I can't actually see it.

eagle17
05-29-03, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by bkswaney
This is my 2 cents.

Both the 5900 and 9800 have the strong and weak spots.
They r both great cards.

But if I had to choose I would get the 5900 for one reason. "drivers"

The ATI drivers have come a "LONG" way but still lag behind the nvidia drivers.
I've not had 1 bloody crash with my 5800 on any game or benchmark sense I installed it. With my 9700 I had 1 or 2 crashes per day. Plus the ever so talked about jerky game play at times.

Like I said it just my point of view. I could be wrong. But not from where I'm sitting. ;)

Well I have had the 9700 pro since its release and short of 1 or two graphical problems and issues with the catalyst 3.0 drivers it has been rock stable... I have never had a Crash with it in any software or just from/to the desktop... as far as the jerky game performance that ended in the catalyst 3.2 driverset and many of the issues were even resloved in the 3.1s , the same was true of the 8500 altghough the 8500 had problems in a far wider selection of games... the 9700 had problems in maybe 5 titles that I have seen reel problems with..

I agree that the 5900 ultra is a good card and that nvidea drivers are great but I do not think it justifies an extra 200 of my money...

and I won't even go into the any comparison when playing dvds...

AnteP
05-29-03, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by bkswaney
This is my 2 cents.

Both the 5900 and 9800 have the strong and weak spots.
They r both great cards.

But if I had to choose I would get the 5900 for one reason. "drivers"

The ATI drivers have come a "LONG" way but still lag behind the nvidia drivers.
I've not had 1 bloody crash with my 5800 on any game or benchmark sense I installed it. With my 9700 I had 1 or 2 crashes per day. Plus the ever so talked about jerky game play at times.

Like I said it just my point of view. I could be wrong. But not from where I'm sitting. ;)

I have both a 9800 Pro and a 5800 Ultra and I must say that I've had more problems with nVidias drivers than ATis.
Using the 9700/9800 was just a much smoother ride.

GlowStick
05-29-03, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by AnteP
I have both a 9800 Pro and a 5800 Ultra and I must say that I've had more problems with nVidias drivers than ATis.
Using the 9700/9800 was just a much smoother ride.

Well, when i had my Geforce3 Ti200 in, i never had a crash with my P4 system (its not that old, first boot in november) and it has never crashed untill i put the 9800pro in, my crashes for today include planetside and half life.

bkswaney
05-29-03, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by GlowStick
Well, when i had my Geforce3 Ti200 in, i never had a crash with my P4 system (its not that old, first boot in november) and it has never crashed untill i put the 9800pro in, my crashes for today include planetside and half life.

It seems some hardware setups like the ATI cards.
Others like mine lik ethe Nvidia card.
I had crash city with my 9700. My 5800 has never crashed.

I do not watch DVD's on my PC. I have a DVD player on my 46inch TV in my bedroom and a DVD player on my 60 in my living room.
No need for it. ;)

SmuvMoney
05-30-03, 01:15 AM
Even though I now have a Hercules 9800 Pro, my best bang for the buck card ever is/was the Gainward Geforce TI 200 sitting next to my keyboard. That card really shot me into PC gaming like a cannon. Of course, cards 2 & 3 are ATI cards - the 9800 I'm using now and the 9700 Pro that I accidentally broke in March. :)

As for problems, outside of too high of an overclock, I can't think of anytime that my Geforce 3 crashed on me out of the blue. However, I did have some beta display drivers completely bork my OS - Win2K at the time (stuff and life happen). Even with ATI on my 9700, I did occasionally have a crash. However, I found out that my MB/PS were more at fault. I replaced those and have been good to go since. Hence YMMV...

GlowStick
05-30-03, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by SmuvMoney
Even though I now have a Hercules 9800 Pro, my best bang for the buck card ever is/was the Gainward Geforce TI 200 sitting next to my keyboard. That card really shot me into PC gaming like a cannon. Of course, cards 2 & 3 are ATI cards - the 9800 I'm using now and the 9700 Pro that I accidentally broke in March. :)

As for problems, outside of too high of an overclock, I can't think of anytime that my Geforce 3 crashed on me out of the blue. However, I did have some beta display drivers completely bork my OS - Win2K at the time (stuff and life happen). Even with ATI on my 9700, I did occasionally have a crash. However, I found out that my MB/PS were more at fault. I replaced those and have been good to go since. Hence YMMV...

Yeah, that Win2k crash was a problem, it was fixed via the new drivers and a windows update. and you could manualy do it with a registry entry.. did you have an amd processor?

Nv40
05-30-03, 02:35 AM
as a matter of fact , i have never had any single stability problem with my my Nvidia video cards.. since TNT2..Geforce2.Geforce3,Geforce4 .
and all my drivers have worked flawlessly since the TNT days in all my games.. i can count with one hand the minor issues i have seen with
Nvidia drivers in past 7years .. and in 95% of the time ,the "fix" was made
with free Tweek utilities. only the DEt40.xx were the only drivers that
were a bit buggy for my tastes with the gamma issues.

was it amazing is that everytime i bough a new card ,since my TnT2
no drivers were needed ,no formats,not tweaking ,no windows fresh install ,no Bios hacks ,no need to disable programs in the background ,or special ways of installing drivers ,just plug and play . my old drivers recognized perfectly newer hardware upgrades. from my near perfect experience ,Nvdia deserves 100% their logan " THe way its mean to be played ."

so a company driver support IS A FEATURE - make no mistakes .
There is no Fun to buy a new game and discover later you need to wait
for a new drivers just to play your game .
yes that have happened to some of my friends in battlefield when it was released last year in the first week .
how he fixed the problem? buying a Geforce4Ti200. he was already tired
of waiting or tweakings .thats why i will go with NVidia cards even iF they were in the future a bit slower or with less features. Good drivers alone makes few avantages of another company card ...meaningless.

ChrisW
05-30-03, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by Nv40
so a company driver support IS A FEATURE - make no mistakes .
There is no Fun to buy a new game and discover later you need to wait
for a new drivers just to play your game .
yes that have happened to some of my friends in battlefield when it was released last year in the first week .
how he fixed the problem? buying a Geforce4Ti200. he was already tired
of waiting or tweakings .thats why i will go with NVidia cards even iF they were in the future a bit slower or with less features. Good drivers alone makes few avantages of another company card ...meaningless.
The problem here is that was not a driver problem on ATI's part. It was a problem with the game developer. He even wrote in the readme file (just to show you how much of a nVidia fanboy he was) that "Cards that are not GeForce compatible will not be supported!". The problems were fixed with a game patch, not a driver update. How is that ATI's fault? If you guys continue to refuse to blame the developer for their refusal to test and support all cards then you are only encouraging them.

digitalwanderer
05-30-03, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Nv40
Nvdia deserves 100% their logan " THe way its mean to be played ."

so a company driver support IS A FEATURE - make no mistakes .
There is no Fun to buy a new game and discover later you need to wait for a new drivers just to play your game

There's a really interesting little ditty here (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hardware.fr%2Fhtml%2F news%2F%235797&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools) about what I believe are some problems the 5600 seems to be having with some racing games. (A much lesser used benchmark... :eek2: ) The nice nVidia guy seems to think the silly card is running the game in 4x1 when it SHOULD be running it in 2x2.

Not to worry though, it should be fixed in the next official driver release...and we all KNOW that the golden driver standard bearers always put out official WHQL drivers like clockwork. :)

Just some food for thought.

EDITED BITS: Oh yeah, the "believe" bit was just my humble disclaimer that I am rather seriously mono-linguistic and sometimes babblefish don't quite get it right...but I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying. Feel free to correct me if'n I'm wrong. :)