PDA

View Full Version : FX 5900 128MB - look at this review!


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

jimmyjames123
06-29-03, 01:47 PM
Look at this review of the FX 5900 with 128mb RAM from MSI:

http://www.hexus.net/review.php?review=583

These results seem to be very favorable compared to the Radeon 9800 PRO...and very promising for users who do not want to shell out for the Ultra 256MB version.

Also of note is that the FX 5600 Ultra really performs well compared to the Radeon 9600 PRO.

digitalwanderer
06-29-03, 02:07 PM
Do the 4xaa 8xaf numbers just seem wrong on the 5900 to anyone else? I think this is the first time I've seen it beat a 9800 Pro in that category. :confused:

Dark Jedi
06-29-03, 02:24 PM
The review does seem at odds with what I've read in several 5900 reviews at ukgamer... strange. :bleh:

digitalwanderer
06-29-03, 02:35 PM
So, is it quicker than 9800 Pro? Is it quicker than 9700 Pro? Well, yes to both for the most part. On the tests that I consider to be the most relevant in terms of current game performance, it's about as equal with 9800 Pro as I'd like to call it. Sure, you can engineer tests where it's not, but you can also engineer tests where it certainly is. It's definitely faster than 9700 Pro.
and then a bit later on the same page his conclusion:
Right, now for the big but. 9700 Pro exists. If you can still find one, it's still the performance buy of the moment. The graphs show you how close it gets to the other big two boards on test, pick one up and save yourself some money.
I can respect a reviewer who shares me current opinion I guess. :lol:

b00bie
06-29-03, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Do the 4xaa 8xaf numbers just seem wrong on the 5900 to anyone else? I think this is the first time I've seen it beat a 9800 Pro in that category. :confused:

Interesting. I know the Ultra can probably handle the high resolution better than the 9800PRO 128, but this one seems to do better overall. I think this is the first time for me too. :confused:

Dark Jedi
06-29-03, 02:38 PM
Maybe me is being a bit hasty in ditching me 9700Pro for a 5900, on the strength of this and other 5900 reviews...

digitalwanderer
06-29-03, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Dark Jedi
Maybe me is being a bit hasty in ditching me 9700Pro for a 5900, on the strength of this and other 5900 reviews...
It's your money to spend anyway you want to, but can I ask you to ask yourself a question first?

What games do you have that don't already play totally killer on your 9700 Pro? I'd think a CPU/mobo/memory upgrade might suit you better.

Just an honest question as I really do find the 9700 Pro to be more than enough card for me right now and I'm curious if I might be missing out on a new way to strain it.... ;)

Dark Jedi
06-29-03, 02:50 PM
All my current fave games (Splinter Cell, Morrowind, Unreal 2) play fine... no problems.

Even turning eye candy on...

Gonna bump my CPU up to a 2800+, and maybe a gig of 2700 as well.

So, I guess I don't need a 5900 after all, thanks for the help. :D

(Better stop talking bout ATI now, or I'll get flung outta here ;) )

Edit: Sorry for taking this off topic...

DivotMaker
06-29-03, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Just an honest question as I really do find the 9700 Pro to be more than enough card for me right now and I'm curious if I might be missing out on a new way to strain it.... ;)

I would think that anyone with a 9700 Pro at this point will gain little to nothing by switching to a 5900 or 5900 U at this point in time. To me, the performance benefits are minimal at best and certainly not worth another $400....unless you are PO'd at your money....

DivotMaker
06-29-03, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Dark Jedi
(Better stop talking bout ATI now, or I'll get flung outta here ;) )

Edit: Sorry for taking this off topic...

While I am certainly not a Mod here, I see nothing at all wrong with your ATI discussion here as it is civil and non-flammable...

digitalwanderer
06-29-03, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Dark Jedi
All my current fave games (Splinter Cell, Morrowind, Unreal 2) play fine... no problems.

Even turning eye candy on...

Gonna bump my CPU up to a 2800+, and maybe a gig of 2700 as well.

So, I guess I don't need a 5900 after all, thanks for the help. :D

(Better stop talking bout ATI now, or I'll get flung outta here ;) )

Edit: Sorry for taking this off topic...
One more piece-o-advice that I am NOT as sure about since this is gonna be my first dip into the AMD pool...

I just got an MSI K7N2-L and am looking to pick up a 2500+ & some PC3200 since most of 'em clock up to some insane clockspeeds and they're cheap as dirt right now. ;)

Just what I've been hearing for the last few days, but I've been asking a lot in the last few days too! :lol:

I can't see upgrading from a 9700 Pro to a 5900 Ultra anymore than I can see upgrading to a 9800 Pro, there just ain't enough performance difference right now to justify the price and there simply isn't any NEED for that extra difference right now or for the forseeable future. :cool:

(Just wanted to let everyone know that I'm not being a fanboy here, I'm just being cheap. :) )

Dark Jedi
06-29-03, 03:20 PM
Thanks for the advice mate. Greatly appreciated :D

jimmyjames123
06-29-03, 04:23 PM
Certainly there have been very few reviews on the 5900 FX 128MB version, and the reviewers seem to be shuffling benchmark and game demos all the time, so it's pretty difficult to draw definitive conclusions I guess.

On a side note, there have been a couple people on the forums who have switched from 9700 PRO to FX 5900 Ultra and they thought it was a very nice improvement (more stability and performance apparently). Also, the FX 5900 very well might hold up better than the 9700 PRO with future games, especially as the drivers mature for the FX architecture.

digitalwanderer
06-29-03, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
On a side note, there have been a couple people on the forums who have switched from 9700 PRO to FX 5900 Ultra and they thought it was a very nice improvement (more stability and performance apparently). Also, the FX 5900 very well might hold up better than the 9700 PRO with future games, especially as the drivers mature for the FX architecture.
Then again, with the way things have been going with nVidia lately it could come out tomorrow that there has been more "optimizations" going on that we don't know about yet and the 5900 could only have about 75% of the performance it is reported to have and down the road it's gonna be worse than the 9700 Pro. :)

jimmyjames123
06-29-03, 04:59 PM
And the same could be said about ATI and the 9700 PRO/9800 PRO I guess ;)

Looking at the initial reviews with the Detonator FX drivers, most people agreed that peformance and image quality was very much improved for the FX cards. I would say that is generally a good thing.

I have not seen any review claiming that the FX 5900's performance is illusory. Some of those demos are not optimized yet for the FX, or they are custom demos. I think that the Doom 3 demo, for instance, was a custom demo...and the FX cards certainly seemed to fare very well there compared to ATI.

digitalwanderer
06-29-03, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
And the same could be said about ATI and the 9700 PRO/9800 PRO I guess ;)

Looking at the initial reviews with the Detonator FX drivers, most people agreed that peformance and image quality was very much improved for the FX cards. I would say that is generally a good thing.

I have not seen any review claiming that the FX 5900's performance is illusory. Some of those demos are not optimized yet for the FX, or they are custom demos. I think that the Doom 3 demo, for instance, was a custom demo...and the FX cards certainly seemed to fare very well there compared to ATI.
ROFLMAO~~~~

Just who do you work for anyways? Now you're talking crazy trying to say that the Doom3 benchmark was unbiased! :lol:

Comparing the possibility of ATi being discovered in any kind of performance cheats in the same league as nVidia has been doing I guess is possible, just extremely improbably looking at the track records of both companies...

...but I could see nVidia doing it in a heartbeat! :lol:

jimmyjames123
06-29-03, 05:29 PM
Just who do you work for anyways? Now you're talking crazy trying to say that the Doom3 benchmark was unbiased!

Did you even read the reviews? This was a custom demo that NVIDIA was not able to optimize as they wished. And who do YOU work for??? I don't come to the NVIDIA forum to constantly bash NVIDIA.

Comparing the possibility of ATi being discovered in any kind of performance cheats in the same league as nVidia has been doing I guess is possible, just extremely improbably looking at the track records of both companies...

Wasn't ATI the one to be exposed a while ago for cheating in a game, Quake 3 no less? What NVIDIA did with 3dmark03 was something that didn't actually affect image quality in what we could actually see. As far as I know, nothing NVIDIA has done in their "optimizations" has significantly degraded image quality in what we can actually see.

What is actually pretty laughable is for anyone to suggest that a FX 5900 will be 75% of a 9700 PRO in the future ;)

digitalwanderer
06-29-03, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
Did you even read the reviews? This was a custom demo that NVIDIA was not able to optimize as they wished. And who do YOU work for???
It was a custom demo that nVidia WAS allowed to optimize their drivers for in advance, they only weren't allowed to make the demo themselves and ATi hadn't even been informed that Doom3 was being used to compare their hardware....we've been over this a number of times here already. :rolleyes:

Wasn't ATI the one to be exposed a while ago for cheating in a game, Quake 3 no less? What NVIDIA did with 3dmark03 was something that didn't actually affect image quality in what we could actually see. As far as I know, nothing NVIDIA has done in their "optimizations" has significantly degraded image quality in what we can actually see.
That one has already been well covered by Hellbinder here and the nVidia one has been covered by too many others here and we STILL don't know what else has yet to be discovered that they've been doing. :p

What is actually pretty laughable is for anyone to suggest that a FX 5900 will be 75% of a 9700 PRO in the future ;)
A year ago yes, today no. And I do believe I said it could prove itself to be 75% of what IT (the 5900) is performing at now. I interpolated that figure from the percentage the "optimizations" gave it in 3dm2k3. (Which on the ATi side would mean the 9800 Pro might turn out to only perform at about 98.3% of it's advertised performance... ;) )

jimmyjames123
06-29-03, 05:42 PM
It was a custom demo that nVidia WAS allowed to optimize their drivers for in advance, they only weren't allowed to make the demo themselves and ATi hadn't even been informed that Doom3 was being used to compare their hardware

I do not think that this information is accurate. NVIDIA was not able to optimize specifically for this "custom demo".

A year ago yes, today no. And I do believe I said it could prove itself to be 75% of what IT (the 5900) is performing at now. I interpolated that figure from the percentage the "optimizations" gave it in 3dm2k3. (Which on the ATi side would mean the 9800 Pro might turn out to only perform at about 98.3% of it's advertised performance

That is a silly interpolation. The major fallacy here is that you are assuming that 3dmark03 performance is equivalent to true gaming performance. I think, almost unquestionably, that is just not a good parallel.

NVIDIA (and ATI) work directly with game developers to "optimize" for the games. The 3dmark03 benchmark isn't intended to be perfectly indicative of true gaming performance. We aren't even clear on what is acceptable for a 3dmark03 optimization.

digitalwanderer
06-29-03, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
I do not think that this information is accurate. NVIDIA was not able to optimize specifically for this "custom demo".
No, but they WERE allowed a chance to have the benchmark for a while first so they could "optimize" their drivers for it...albeit the demo they actually benched it on they had no control over.

Fact, period. :)

That is a silly interpolation. The major fallacy here is that you are assuming that 3dmark03 performance is equivalent to true gaming performance. I think, almost unquestionably, that is just not a good parallel.

NVIDIA (and ATI) work directly with game developers to "optimize" for the games. The 3dmark03 benchmark isn't intended to be perfectly indicative of true gaming performance. We aren't even clear on what is acceptable for a 3dmark03 optimization.
Uhm, no.

We know that the 5900 sucks when it has to run in 32FP mode period, which is what 3dm2k3 showed and what they optimized around. This isn't going to affect games now much, but it should affect future games a great deal.

And before you say it, not many games are going to have an extra code-path put in just for nVidia. The reason Doom3 does is because nVidia paid them somewhere between 7-8 million dollars....again, another fact. :cool:

Dazz
06-29-03, 06:37 PM
It won't effect future games either, as i am pretty sure they won't use 32FP :D

StealthHawk
06-29-03, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
What NVIDIA did with 3dmark03 was something that didn't actually affect image quality in what we could actually see. As far as I know, nothing NVIDIA has done in their "optimizations" has significantly degraded image quality in what we can actually see.

The 3dmurk03 AF cheat certainly degraded IQ. The 3dmark03 optimizations also created visual side effects, as reported in these forums by AnteP.

jimmyjames123
06-29-03, 10:36 PM
No, but they WERE allowed a chance to have the benchmark for a while first so they could "optimize" their drivers for it...albeit the demo they actually benched it on they had no control over.

I say again, this is not accurate. A QUOTE from [H]ardOCP Doom 3 benchmark article:

Benchmarked using a demo recorded by id at the id offices the day of the benchmarking previously unseen by NVIDIA. c. No scripting language coded by NVIDA was used.

Until proven otherwise, the FX cards are faster than the competition in Doom 3. Period.

This isn't going to affect games now much, but it should affect future games a great deal.

I think this is very presumptuous. Game developers will work with NVIDIA to optimize game play with their cards. Period.

The reason Doom3 does is because nVidia paid them somewhere between 7-8 million dollars....again, another fact.

That is another very presumptuous argument. On that line, ATI 3dmark03 scores should not be trusted because they pay Futuremark hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to have full authorized access to the developers software.

jimmyjames123
06-29-03, 10:42 PM
The 3dmurk03 AF cheat certainly degraded IQ.

This is certainly possible (although I have not seen much talk lately about this issue). At the same time, I believe that image quality was increased in some instances on screen in 3dmark03 with the Detonator FX drivers. Of course, we are talking about a synthetic benchmark here. The point I was trying to make was that the Detonator FX drivers (at least in most situations) improved both performance and image quality across the board for the FX cards, which I would generally consider to be a good thing.

digitalwanderer
06-29-03, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by jimmyjames123
I say again, this is not accurate. A QUOTE from [H]ardOCP Doom 3 benchmark article:

Benchmarked using a demo recorded by id at the id offices the day of the benchmarking previously unseen by NVIDIA. c. No scripting language coded by NVIDA was used.
I'm not talking about any scripting language, I'm talking about driver optimization. nVidia had enough access to the benchmark prior to the actual benchmark to make a demo for it, I'd be willing to bet they also had some time to make sure their drivers ran it well.

ATi of course has not yet released drivers with any sort of thought to D3 being as it hasn't even had an announced date yet. That benchmark was nothing more than a PR stunt by nVidia, pure and simple. There is very little argument over that.

Until proven otherwise, the FX cards are faster than the competition in Doom 3. Period.
Again, no. There still has never been a fair head-to-head comparison between the two cards yet.

I think this is very presumptuous. Game developers will work with NVIDIA to optimize game play with their cards. Period.
Funny thing, they work with ATi too to optimize game play with their cards too. :rolleyes:

That is another very presumptuous argument. On that line, ATI 3dmark03 scores should not be trusted because they pay Futuremark hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to have full authorized access to the developers software.
No, entirely different. That's how Futuremark works and nVidia was a willing partner who was also forking over the green until they discovered they had created a crippled DX9 card. :)

Next?