It's over...eVGA review by firing squad.

[surfhurleydude]

Guys, the debate is over. The GeForce FX 5900 Ultra pretty much OWNS the Radeon 9800 Pro in games that aren't standard benchmarks. Take a look at the review:

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_fx_5900_ultra_review/default.asp

In Nascar Racing 2003, the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra dominates by NO LESS than 20%.

In IL-2 Sturmovik: FB, the GeForce series wins, but only by a few FPS.

It's pretty damn amazing. The GeForce FX 5900 Ultra beats the Radeon 9800 Pro by 50% in Serious Sam 2 in a custom benchmark!!!!

However, in the Quake 3 benchmark, the 5900 Ultra can only lead the pack in extremely high quality situations.

In UT2003, it appears that the GF FX 5900 series as well as the Radeon 9800 Pro are ALL CPU limited only until 1600x1200 resolution.

The GeForce FX 5900 Ultra also beats the Radeon series in Splinter Cell, but it is also only by a few FPS.

In Nascar with AA settings, the lead isn't as dramatic, but it is still in the lead until.... 1280x1024, where the Radeon 9800 Pro switches places and wins by a few FPS.

WOw, IL2:FB provides some amazing scores at 4xAA and 8xAF... It almost DOUBLES the performance of the Radeon 9800 Pro... pretty nice for all of you flight sim buffs out there.

Finally comes UT2003, where the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra beats the Radeon 9800 Pro with 4xAA and 8xAF, but only by 10 FPS at most. The Botmatch yields that FX drivers are still a little bit immature.

Overall, Firing Squad sounds really impressed!

[marqmajere]

Of course this, in no way, means that the 9800 is a terrible card. It only validates that a card released later that another can be better.

Disclaimer: I support nVidia. Um...that's it. :D

[swanlee]

Anything Nvidia now is taken with a grain of salt. Even if it is a great performer you simply have to be paranoid about putting down 500$ with a company that cheats like Nvidia does. Who knows what cheat will be found next week that will invalidate this review.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by surfhurleydude
Guys, the debate is over. The GeForce FX 5900 Ultra pretty much OWNS the Radeon 9800 Pro in games that aren't standard benchmarks. Take a look at the review:

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_fx_5900_ultra_review/default.asp

In Nascar Racing 2003, the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra dominates by NO LESS than 20%.

In IL-2 Sturmovik: FB, the GeForce series wins, but only by a few FPS.

It's pretty damn amazing. The GeForce FX 5900 Ultra beats the Radeon 9800 Pro by 50% in Serious Sam 2 in a custom benchmark!!!!

However, in the Quake 3 benchmark, the 5900 Ultra can only lead the pack in extremely high quality situations.

In UT2003, it appears that the GF FX 5900 series as well as the Radeon 9800 Pro are ALL CPU limited only until 1600x1200 resolution.

The GeForce FX 5900 Ultra also beats the Radeon series in Splinter Cell, but it is also only by a few FPS.

In Nascar with AA settings, the lead isn't as dramatic, but it is still in the lead until.... 1280x1024, where the Radeon 9800 Pro switches places and wins by a few FPS.

WOw, IL2:FB provides some amazing scores at 4xAA and 8xAF... It almost DOUBLES the performance of the Radeon 9800 Pro... pretty nice for all of you flight sim buffs out there.

Finally comes UT2003, where the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra beats the Radeon 9800 Pro with 4xAA and 8xAF, but only by 10 FPS at most. The Botmatch yields that FX drivers are still a little bit immature.

Overall, Firing Squad sounds really impressed!
Uhm...where is the "non-typical game" they benched it on? :eek2:

[BigFish7]

as nVidia fan, i'm happy althought i find the VS&PS as NV's weaker point therefore "disappointing"...
(i really hope that NV40 will claim the throne back to his hands, from the other camp).
as we all knew (at least i knew it way long ago) the NV35 is a better silicon.
when comes to today and future games NV35 seems to be a better pick, however the low VS&PS performance leave acrid taste in my mouth.
i wish it could be 20% faster + 1.2X performance of R350 in VS&PS that way we might have seen another killer :)
overhead i'm really happy for Nvidia... but still more could have been done. :D

ATI deserve a kudos for the R300 & R350, nVidia left an open spot and ATI used it well... :(
yet again good job ATI if someone ask me what card should i take and my main goal is IQ+ almost top performance i would say R350 :(

[Dazz]

The card is shipped overclocked BTW 500/900MHz hence the performance boost over the refrence desgin.

[BigFish7]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Uhm...where is the "non-typical game" they benched it on? :eek2:
the nice thing i liked is the random time demo which is the best indicator for perofmance, as i see it :)

[deejaya]

I don't see IL2: FB used in many benchmarks, so I was pleased to see this review. I play this game a lot. What let this review down for me was the lack of screenshots. I would love to see a screenshot or two with a load of German and Russian planes in one big dogfight, with max AF and AA at 1600x1200 so I can see what I'm missing out on.

[DivotMaker]

Originally posted by surfhurleydude
Guys, the debate is over. The GeForce FX 5900 Ultra pretty much OWNS the Radeon 9800 Pro in games that aren't standard benchmarks. Take a look at the review:


I read the entire review and that is certainly not the impression that I came away with. The impression I get is that the EVGA 5900 Ultra comes overclocked to 500/900 and runs many of the games within +/- 5% of the 9800 Pro 256 MB. What I get out of this review and others who paint the Radeon part in a more favorable light is that a consumer can not possibly go wrong with either card if they have the discretionary dollars to do so. At the end of the day, the consumer will choose which one they THEMSELVES feel is best for THEM.

I also feel like the days of one company having a significant advantage over another may be coming to an end. You have to give ATI a HELLUVA lot of credit for the blockbuster that was the 9700 Pro. They in essence turned the graphics market upside down with that release and are doing awfully well today. nVidia is working hard to try to beat ATI, but let's face it folks, both companies have extremely good hardware with both having their weak/strong points. I think we have reached a point in the graphics industry where products will be very evenly matched even though the vendors will be struggling to differentiate themselves. The ultimate winner in this hardware "race" is you and I as gamers.

[BigFish7]

Originally posted by deejaya
I don't see IL2: FB used in many benchmarks, so I was pleased to see this review. I play this game a lot. What let this review down for me was the lack of screenshots. I would love to see a screenshot or two with a load of German and Russian planes in one big dogfight, with max AF and AA at 1600x1200 so I can see what I'm missing out on.

yeap nice and big PS can be really :cool: 16X12 4XS & 8AF-Q :D

[reever2]

Originally posted by surfhurleydude
Finally comes UT2003, where the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra beats the Radeon 9800 Pro with 4xAA and 8xAF, but only by 10 FPS at most. The Botmatch yields that FX drivers are still a little bit immature.


Botmatch is almost entirely cpu limited, there is no amount of driver that can make your cpu run faster, so how exactly do they need to improve the score?

[surfhurleydude]

Botmatch is almost entirely cpu limited, there is no amount of driver that can make your cpu run faster, so how exactly do they need to improve the score?


Uhmm... WHere have you been in the past year? Even in botmatch reviews for the Radeon 9700 Pro back in October, the GeForce 4 Ti4600 beat it... Or maybe when the 9500 Pro came out (with its miracle drivers, no less), it beat the 9700 Pro in the botmatch? It's driver as well as CPU limited.

[Filburt]

As much as I hate to say it...I feel I have to take some of these results with a grain of salt presently. I am going to need to see several other sites confirm this. I think you guys all know why...

It probably should be noted that shurley's conclusion isn't the conclusion the very people who tested this card came to. They clearly mentioned the 5900 Ultra beat the 9800 Pro in some tests, others not...and generally gave the feeling that they were similar in overall performance. However they also mentioned the 5900 Ultra continues to have inferior anti-aliasing, and it would seem image quality.

[John Reynolds]

Pretty good review, though just posting AA & AF scores without commentary on their IQ is only telling half the story, IMO. Due to the differing sampling patterns of each product's AA, running at 10x7 with 4x AA equates to resolutions of:

GF FX 2048x1536
Radeon R3xx 4096x3072

Which would the average gamer prefer? And just how fair is it to therefore compare the performance of scores derived at such settings?

Otherwise, pretty good review. It's going to be a very interesting fall for the 3D market, that's for sure.

[Filburt]

Originally posted by marqmajere
Of course this, in no way, means that the 9800 is a terrible card. It only validates that a card released later that another can be better.

Disclaimer: I support nVidia. Um...that's it. :D

"Better" certainly wasn't the impression I got...nor the reviewer got of the card.

[Skuzzy]

hurley...appreciate the enthusiasm you exude, but it really is never over.

In light of the stuff found with benchmarks and so on. Ya gotta take reviews with a grain of salt. The reviewers are victims as much as anyone in this shady (no pun intended) era of driver finagling.

The lack of screenshots is disturbing. Not sure what is up with that.

Why not shake hands, go to the separate corners, and agree the 9800Pro and 5900U are both fine pieces of hardware and wait until the real battle rolls out later this year.

[Placid]

Hmm.. should the 9700 really be faster than the 9800?

[Dazz]

Yeah i thought that was a bit strange myself, looks like a fluke to me.

[reever2]

Originally posted by surfhurleydude
Uhmm... WHere have you been in the past year? Even in botmatch reviews for the Radeon 9700 Pro back in October, the GeForce 4 Ti4600 beat it... Or maybe when the 9500 Pro came out (with its miracle drivers, no less), it beat the 9700 Pro in the botmatch? It's driver as well as CPU limited.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Megatron]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Why not shake hands, go to the separate corners, and agree the 9800Pro and 5900U are both fine pieces of hardware

I agree. Both products are a win for the consumer.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by Megatron
I agree. Both products are a win for the consumer.
Agreed....but one costs less and is actually available right now. :lol: ;)

[surfhurleydude]

Agreed....but one costs less and is actually available right now.

What are you talking about? People have been able to purchase NV35 for over a WEEK now.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by surfhurleydude
What are you talking about? People have been able to purchase NV35 for over a WEEK now.
My bad, of course your correct.

And I'm sure they're both VERY happy with them...... :lol: (<---In reference to today's nVidia conference call where they announced they're still having "poor .13 yields" ) ;)

[DivotMaker]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Agreed....but one costs less and is actually available right now. :lol: ;)

The 9800 Pro 256 MB and the GF FX Ultra are priced exactly the same...$499.

[Skuzzy]

But the 9800Pro 128MB performs within a nats tushy of the 256mb card and it is cheaper.