PDA

View Full Version : Ti 4600 up to a 5950 is it worth it?


Cbarwise
10-23-03, 07:19 PM
Saw some over at Comp USA and have some extra $. Is the jump worth it? I play mostly sports games. EA unfortunately but nothing I can do about that. Any advice would help me make my decision. Thanks

ChrisRay
10-23-03, 07:32 PM
You'd basically have a much much faster TI 4600. If you like Nvidia and dont want to consider other alternatives, Go for it.

APEXNETHOR
10-23-03, 07:53 PM
Sure its worth it to upgrade from a GF 4 Ti4600 128mb video card to a GF FX5950U. But a word of friendly advice you might want to consider researching the performance values between a R9800 Pro 128mb/256mb video card compared to a GF FX5950U just for the hell of it before you make a final purchasing decision bud. :)

ih8mblogins
10-23-03, 09:17 PM
Another vote for only if you're after AA & AF. Benchmarks show performance difference is negligable without AA & AF. And if you went with a radeon, borderline to good FPS for directx 9 games.

My game plan is to hold onto the 4200 I have now, see how the duo & s3 cards fair, they're supposed to come out in a couple months, if one of those is good and inexpensive enough, might be interesting to play with, else perhaps those will have caused prices to drop on radeons to what I consider reasonable level, if not, keep holding out until the ati's 420 and nvidia's next gen chip or if some game I just HAVE to play requires a faster card to play it. The 5xxx and 9xxxxx cards are an improvement, just not a $300-500 improvement.

DivotMaker
10-23-03, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Cbarwise
Saw some over at Comp USA and have some extra $. Is the jump worth it? I play mostly sports games. EA unfortunately but nothing I can do about that. Any advice would help me make my decision. Thanks

I hope I can help you sort out your decision.

I own both a 5900 Ultra and a 9800 Pro 128 MB. NHL2004 runs roughly 30% faster on the 9800 Pro. However, NHL2004 uses no DX9 rendering calls. It is a DX8 game.

Tiger Woods 2004 is a heavily DX9-dependent game. It makes tremendous use of PS 2.0 (DX9 pixel shaders) and VS 2.0 (DX9 vertex shaders). The pixel shaders render the animated water and there is a PS 2.0 shader on the Golfer's skin and clothing. Vertex shaders render the animated 3D grass. Performance-wise, both cards run the game very well, but the 9800 Pro seems to average 30% higher average framerates and when the dynamic camera pans to the animated grass or the Golfer who has cloth and skin shaders, the 5900 Ultra's framerates drop almost in half and the scene will stutter randomly. The 9800 Pro handles these scenes much smoother and the framerates do not take near the hit that the 5900 does.

Does this mean the 5900 is a bad card? No, not at all. It is a great card. However, my personal opinion is that the 9800 Pro is a notch above when DX9 rendering is considered. I truly do not believe you can go wrong with either card and I personally would be comfortable with either card in my system.

jAkUp
10-23-03, 11:31 PM
i played nhl 2004 on both a 5900 and a 9800 pro as well.. and i agree with the above post, nhl 2004 runs much better on the 9800 and looks better to my peepers:D

john19055
10-24-03, 01:39 AM
I upgraded from a TI4600 and of coarse I wanted to be able to run my games with FSAA and aniso on and it was a big upgrade,but doing my own researching I went with the 9800Pro IMO it was a better card for future games.But if you go with the 5950,you can get a FX5900ultra cheaper with about the same performance.

SH64
10-24-03, 09:48 AM
i'm here also using 2 systems a 5900U & 9800pro.
i cant tell which is better cuz in some games the 5900 performs better & in other cases the pro .
after this increase in of performance i noticed with the new 52.16s my answer is YES -ONLY if money is not a problem- , otherwise get either a 5900u or 9800 pro 128mb for less price & with just lil performance less.