PDA

View Full Version : ATI RADEON 9600 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce FX5700 Ultra


Pages : [1] 2 3

trungracingdev
11-08-03, 02:23 AM
X-bit labs have an article comparing the 9600xt vs the fx5700 ultra. Thought it was an interesting read.

click here for link to article (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/fx5700ultra-9600xt.html)

ChrisW
11-08-03, 04:16 AM
Looks like 9600XT wins with fsaa and anisotropic filtering enabled and the 5700 wins without it. Sometimes the 5700 actually loses to the 5600. :confused: That doesn't seem right to me. I wonder what the "Highly-Anticipated Next Generation DirectX 9.0 Game" is? ;)

Blacklash
11-08-03, 07:36 PM
If you want to be informed about the 5700u try more than one article. Its a fine tide over to the NV40


http://www.hardware.fr/articles/482/page1.html (en francais)

edit: and in english, http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/...ra/index.x?pg=1

all over the place now:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic...38-nv36-01.html
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1910
http://www.extremetech.com/article2...,1361641,00.asp
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2...ml/nv38-36.html
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files...cefx_5700.shtml
http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware...nv38_36/001.htm
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware...0_ultra_review/
http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=451
http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=266
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/88/
http://www.hexus.net/content/review...mlld19JRD02NDk=
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_con...ll03&page=1
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/5700/index.htm
http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/nv36/
http://www.tweaktown.com/document.p...iew&dId=560
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTQw

not a review, but analysis of ps2.0 performance
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8623

and in german:
http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2...geforcefx_5700/
http://www.zdnet.de/enterprise/clie...39116732,00.htm


And a review on forceware:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1374389,00.asp

ChrisW
11-08-03, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Malficar
If you want to be informed about the 5700u try more than one article. Its a fine tide over to the NV40


http://www.hardware.fr/articles/482/page1.html (en francais)

edit: and in english, http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/...ra/index.x?pg=1

all over the place now:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic...38-nv36-01.html
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1910
http://www.extremetech.com/article2...,1361641,00.asp
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2...ml/nv38-36.html
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files...cefx_5700.shtml
http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware...nv38_36/001.htm
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware...0_ultra_review/
http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=451
http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=266
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/88/
http://www.hexus.net/content/review...mlld19JRD02NDk=
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_con...ll03&page=1
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/5700/index.htm
http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/nv36/
http://www.tweaktown.com/document.p...iew&dId=560
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTQw

not a review, but analysis of ps2.0 performance
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8623

and in german:
http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2...geforcefx_5700/
http://www.zdnet.de/enterprise/clie...39116732,00.htm


And a review on forceware:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1374389,00.asp
Most of those are dead links. Most of these reviews are only showing you select tests, most with no fsaa or aniso and some with 2xfsaa. The XBit labs review runs every test at the same resolutions and shows results with and without FSAA and anisotropic filtering enabled. You are correct in that we should not rely on only one review, but show me another one with a consistent scoring system and not cherry picked results.

The Baron
11-08-03, 10:28 PM
Well... I switched from a 9600 Pro to a 5700 Ultra last night, and here are my reactions after playing with it for a day:

1. 9600 Pro, when AA or AF is enabled, quite literally beats the snot out of the 5700 Ultra. No bones about it.

2. NVIDIA's drivers, even with the buggy mess that is 52.16, beat the snot out of ATI's drivers. Still.

3. NVIDIA's drivers cause the machine to boot much faster as well. Maybe 5 seconds faster? It's close to that.

4. You can use third-party refresh rate tools to set refresh rates on NV cards--you can't on ATI cards. Winner: NVIDIA, big time. ATI's refresh rate override is all well and good, but it kinda sucks when you want to set a specific rate for a specific resolution (my monitor thinks it can do 85Hz at 1280x960, but it can't according to the specs, so I can fix that with an NV card).

But that's just initial stuff. 5700 Ultra, from my Quickie Playtesting, creams the 9600 Pro in SWG with no AA or AF. I went from 1024x768 to 1280x960 and more details, and the framerate on the 5700 Ultra is STILL higher. UT2003, on the other hand, seems a lot faster with the 9600 Pro, but that might just be me being crazy.

(And Hellbinder--shove it. :) )

Blacklash
11-08-03, 11:10 PM
They weren't dead when I read them all before I bought the card.

That is my advice to anyone getting a new card. Read all the reviews you can find and draw your own conclusions.

I did not cherry pick anything, they were all I could get at the time.

You mention the 5600 beating the 5700u in some obscure 'new' benchmark but fail to mention the fact that the 5600 was rendering the entire test in direct x 8 and the 5700u in direct X 9.

I don't need to prove a thing Chris. I am simply stating that people had best draw their own conclusions, and certainly not from one site.

Like the Baron, I have had and DO have both Nvidia and Ati products.
It's a shame that both the rage 3d forums and these seem to be more often occupied by fans from the other side.

Besides the reviews, I am stating I own and have tested the 5700u. I have read the review you selected, and all the others I could find. I stand by my statements, the 5700u is a viable card in its price range and performs well.

To the Baron, Try the card at 520/960 and also 535/1.01 I have found both settings stable and safe.

trungracingdev
11-08-03, 11:48 PM
This is just a comparison of 2 midrange price cards from the top 2 videocard company. As most people would like to see how these cards perform side by side, I think this is a very informative article. All those other article you mentioned doesn't have the 2 videocards pitted against one another.

bkswaney
11-09-03, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by The Baron
Well... I switched from a 9600 Pro to a 5700 Ultra last night, and here are my reactions after playing with it for a day:

1. 9600 Pro, when AA or AF is enabled, quite literally beats the snot out of the 5700 Ultra. No bones about it.

2. NVIDIA's drivers, even with the buggy mess that is 52.16, beat the snot out of ATI's drivers. Still.

3. NVIDIA's drivers cause the machine to boot much faster as well. Maybe 5 seconds faster? It's close to that.

4. You can use third-party refresh rate tools to set refresh rates on NV cards--you can't on ATI cards. Winner: NVIDIA, big time. ATI's refresh rate override is all well and good, but it kinda sucks when you want to set a specific rate for a specific resolution (my monitor thinks it can do 85Hz at 1280x960, but it can't according to the specs, so I can fix that with an NV card).

But that's just initial stuff. 5700 Ultra, from my Quickie Playtesting, creams the 9600 Pro in SWG with no AA or AF. I went from 1024x768 to 1280x960 and more details, and the framerate on the 5700 Ultra is STILL higher. UT2003, on the other hand, seems a lot faster with the 9600 Pro, but that might just be me being crazy.

(And Hellbinder--shove it. :) )

I can tell ya this... UT2003 runs a LOT better on my 5900U than it ever did on my 9800.

Not one hicup. Even on maps that killed my 9800 it was smooth sailing on my 5900u. I'm playing at 1024 with 4xAA and 8xAF.
So I think u might be a bit crazy. "lol" :angel:

Blacklash
11-09-03, 12:03 AM
Wrong. All of these links work and do include the 5700u vs 9600XT.Other cards are in the mix, but so are they,comparison can easily be had. In order to discover this you have to read the articles.

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/5700/index.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1910
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTQw
http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2003/nvidia_geforcefx_5700/index7.php
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1361319,00.asp

Its a shame so many of the others have vanished.

I think everyone already knows ati has faster and better AA.

In closing, I will say this. If someone asked me which card to buy if they weren't upgrading for the next three years. I'd say save up and get a 9800pro. If they said they wanted an upgrade to last to the next generation. I would say a FX 5900 non ultra. I got the 5700u for the same reason, as the latter case. Its a tide over.

Honestly though, what gamer keeps a card more than a year or so these days?

trungracingdev
11-09-03, 12:17 AM
I think theres no argument which card with the longevity performance-wise is...

It amazes me why people would still buy a nvidia FX card at this moment...

KNOWing that its not a full featured directx9.0 compliant...

KNOWing nvidia drivers forces(hence forceware i guess) brilinnear filtering instead of trilinnear...

Aren't you guys pissed off at nvidia for making you deal with 2nd best when you pay a very high price to get the best?

Blacklash
11-09-03, 12:29 AM
Being as most reasonable people that have studied IQ from both companies in the present state say they can't see squat with the naked eye, no I am not upset.

I am upset with nvidia for sitting out at the early start of dx 9 developement.

My card delivers playable frame rates and great image quality in all the games I have. If getting 80 fps vs my 60 in a game makes you feel smarter, or better, fine, indulge.

I also think there are worse thinks I could do than try to support my country's industry. Of course I guess some would rather live in a third world consumer economy.

America better wake up.

ChrisW
11-09-03, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Malficar
Wrong. All of these links work and do include the 5700u vs 9600XT. In order to discover this you have to read the articles.

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/5700/index.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1910
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTQw
http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2003/nvidia_geforcefx_5700/index7.php
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1361319,00.asp

Its a shame so many of the others have vanished.

I think everyone already knows ati has faster and better AA.

In closing, I will say this. If someone asked me which card to buy if they weren't upgrading for the next three years. I'd say save up and get a 9800pro. If they said they wanted an upgrade to last to the next generation. I would say a FX 5900 non ultra. I got the 5700u for the same reason, as the latter case. Its a tide over.

Honestly though, what gamer keeps a card more than a year or so these days?
LOL! I said most of those links were dead and I am correct. :rolleyes:
The Driverheaven article only benchmarks with wither no fsaa/aniso or 2xfsaa/2x aniso (as I stated above).
Anandtech's article is inconsistent. Sometimes they benchmark with 2xfsaa, some times 4xfsaa, and some times none. Those are cherry picked results.
The Hardteck results are using 2xfsaa just like I stated above.
The extremetech article also has cherry picked results with only a couple results using 4xfsaa.

This is why I don't understand why you can just ignore this one particular article that shows results using different resolutions and 4xfsaa. I happen to believe this is something important people may want to take into consideration when making their purchasing decision. If all you want to do is play games with no fsaa/aniso or only 2xfsaa/aniso then maybe these articles are for you (and we all know nVidia's 2xfsaa practically does nothing compared to ATI's). If you are interested in higher levels of FSAA/anisotropic filtering then maybe this article will be informative.

trungracingdev
11-09-03, 12:32 AM
You deal with the 2nd best. While I enjoy the best with a couple bucks left over for a drink (or 2). :beer:

Blacklash
11-09-03, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by Malficar
Wrong. All of these links work and do include the 5700u vs 9600XT. In order to discover this you have to read the articles.

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/5700/index.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1910
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTQw
http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2...5700/index7.php
http://www.extremetech.com/article2...,1361319,00.asp

Its a shame so many of the others have vanished.

I think everyone already knows ati has faster and better AA.

In closing, I will say this. If someone asked me which card to buy if they weren't upgrading for the next three years. I'd say save up and get a 9800pro. If they said they wanted an upgrade to last to the next generation. I would say a FX 5900 non ultra. I got the 5700u for the same reason, as the latter case. Its a tide over.

Honestly though, what gamer keeps a card more than a year or so these days

*That was in reply to:

This is just a comparison of 2 midrange price cards from the top 2 videocard company. As most people would like to see how these cards perform side by side, I think this is a very informative article. All those other article you mentioned doesn't have the 2 videocards pitted against one another.

*The 9600XT and 5700u are in those links, that is what I was correcting.
If you read my other comments ,you will see what I said about AA and time of planned ownership etc. And yes 2x AA and 4 or 8 AF suits me fine til the NV 40 hits. The card is running at 535/1.01 and my rig 3.2 Ghz with FSB at 230X4. I have no performance problems. I run my monitor at 1280x960, or 1600x1200. If the games smooth and looks good I am happy.

I guess if someone told you they played alot of star wars and NWN you'd still tell them to get the 9600xt eh>?

trungracingdev
11-09-03, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by Malficar
Originally posted by Malficar
Wrong. All of these links work and do include the 5700u vs 9600XT. In order to discover this you have to read the articles.

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/5700/index.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1910
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTQw
http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2...5700/index7.php
http://www.extremetech.com/article2...,1361319,00.asp

Its a shame so many of the others have vanished.

I think everyone already knows ati has faster and better AA.

In closing, I will say this. If someone asked me which card to buy if they weren't upgrading for the next three years. I'd say save up and get a 9800pro. If they said they wanted an upgrade to last to the next generation. I would say a FX 5900 non ultra. I got the 5700u for the same reason, as the latter case. Its a tide over.

Honestly though, what gamer keeps a card more than a year or so these days

*That was in reply to:

This is just a comparison of 2 midrange price cards from the top 2 videocard company. As most people would like to see how these cards perform side by side, I think this is a very informative article. All those other article you mentioned doesn't have the 2 videocards pitted against one another.

*The 9600XT and 5700u are in those links, that is what I was correcting.
If you read my other comments ,you will see what I said about AA and time of planned ownership etc. And yes 2x AA and 4 or 8 AF suits me fine til the NV 40 hits. The card is running at 535/1.01 and my rig 3.2 Ghz with FSB at 230X4. I have no performance problems. I run my monitor at 1280x960, or 1600x1200. If the games smooth and looks good I am happy.

I guess if someone told you they played alot of star wars and NWN you'd still tell them to get the 9600xt eh>?

Honestly, I wouldnt recommend anything but ati at this moment.

Blacklash
11-09-03, 02:11 AM
trungracingdev said:

"Honestly, I wouldnt recommend anything but ati at this moment."

Hope your Chairman doesn't dump too many of your stocks.

:D

ChrisW
11-09-03, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by Malficar
If you read my other comments ,you will see what I said about AA and time of planned ownership etc. And yes 2x AA and 4 or 8 AF suits me fine til the NV 40 hits. The card is running at 535/1.01 and my rig 3.2 Ghz with FSB at 230X4. I have no performance problems. I run my monitor at 1280x960, or 1600x1200. If the games smooth and looks good I am happy.

I guess if someone told you they played alot of star wars and NWN you'd still tell them to get the 9600xt eh>?
I can personally care less what card you use nor am I recommending any particular card to people. That is for them to decide. That said, I don't believe what you personally like represents all consumers. If you are not really interested in FSAA then most people would recommend you use a GeForce 4. Assuming most people interested in purchasing one of these cards are buying it for the FSAA and anisotropic filtering capabilities (why else would you buy it over a GF4?), I feel people may be interested in these articles. I really don't know why you are trying to make it out as if I am encouraging people to purchase one card over another. :confused: If you go back and look at my original comment, it simply states the 5700 is faster with no FSAA/aniso and the 9600 is faster with 4xfsaa/aniso.

Blacklash
11-09-03, 04:11 AM
Mentioning the 5700u lost at the "next highly anticipated game" to the 5600 WITHOUT saying it (the 5600) was running in only dx 8 mode seems deliberately misleading to me.

In a game where the 5700u is beat by the 9600xt by around 2fps, the first at 13 and the second at 15fps, I fail to see that as a meaningful 'win'. BOTH cards are not turning in adequate frame rate for acceptable game play.

A person who wants to run 4AA and 8AF at 1280x960 or greater will not buy a mainstream card anyway. I feel they would opt for the 9800pro or the 5900u. That is why I believe most of the review sites only applied medium to low levels of AA/AF. AA is what nvidia cards struggle with most, not AF.


I admitted the 9800pro was the best long term investment right now and meant it. My ONLY assertion is that the 5700U is a fine tide me over card compared to the 9600XT til the next generation of cards hit, aka the NV40.

I am sorry many of the links I first posted were not working. I can assure you they were. I did in fact read a crap load of reviews before purchasing the card.

I can run morrowind at 1600x1200, everything on quality and 2AA/8AF. I do not think a geforce 4 could do that. This card can deliver a max of 4623 3dmark03 marks, I don't believe a geforce 4 could do that. Not to mention it scores at least 3,000 or more points in 2001. Aquamark would do about 29k with the geforce 4 on this system, 5700U 35k.I might add it uses the same shader tech as its big brother, the geforce 4 certainly does not.

For 199usd its a darn good card.Still for bang for the buck its the 5900 non ultra that is the best value.

No hard feelings. Again ,if I was looking long term (Close to 2 years etc) it wouldn't be either card in the review.

I apologise if you feel I have been unfair.

ChrisW
11-09-03, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Malficar
Mentioning the 5700u lost at the "next highly anticipated game" to the 5600 WITHOUT saying it (the 5600) was running in only dx 8 mode seems deliberately misleading to me.
I didn't mean to imply the 5700 was being defeated by the 5600. I was just puzzled at the result as I thought that could not be correct which is why I used this: :confused: I was thinking something had to be wrong with those benchmarks because the 5700 was obviously a superior card. Your explanation that one card was running in DirectX 8 mode while the other DirectX 9 explains it to me.

Blacklash
11-09-03, 09:14 AM
"Your explanation that one card was running in DirectX 8 mode while the other DirectX 9 explains it to me."

No hard feelings, seriously... I got the information from the article you linked. Its below the graphs. :afro2:

I am afraid I won't be able to reply to this thread anymore. The horse has died. Lo Pan is after me with his funky chi powers :eek: and Jack Burton is not around to save the day....

trungracingdev
11-09-03, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Malficar
Mentioning the 5700u lost at the "next highly anticipated game" to the 5600 WITHOUT saying it (the 5600) was running in only dx 8 mode seems deliberately misleading to me.

In a game where the 5700u is beat by the 9600xt by around 2fps, the first at 13 and the second at 15fps, I fail to see that as a meaningful 'win'. BOTH cards are not turning in adequate frame rate for acceptable game play.

A person who wants to run 4AA and 8AF at 1280x960 or greater will not buy a mainstream card anyway. I feel they would opt for the 9800pro or the 5900u. That is why I believe most of the review sites only applied medium to low levels of AA/AF. AA is what nvidia cards struggle with most, not AF.


I admitted the 9800pro was the best long term investment right now and meant it. My ONLY assertion is that the 5700U is a fine tide me over card compared to the 9600XT til the next generation of cards hit, aka the NV40.

I am sorry many of the links I first posted were not working. I can assure you they were. I did in fact read a crap load of reviews before purchasing the card.

I can run morrowind at 1600x1200, everything on quality and 2AA/8AF. I do not think a geforce 4 could do that. This card can deliver a max of 4623 3dmark03 marks, I don't believe a geforce 4 could do that. Not to mention it scores at least 3,000 or more points in 2001. Aquamark would do about 29k with the geforce 4 on this system, 5700U 35k.I might add it uses the same shader tech as its big brother, the geforce 4 certainly does not.

For 199usd its a darn good card.Still for bang for the buck its the 5900 non ultra that is the best value.

No hard feelings. Again ,if I was looking long term (Close to 2 years etc) it wouldn't be either card in the review.

I apologise if you feel I have been unfair.

Not everyone can afford a $300+ card (500 in nvidias case). Most people would be buying these 2 cards reviewed here. Even then, most people dont upgrade yearly (more like once every 2-3 years, some maybe even more) like you mentioned. I think present or future, the ati card is a better recommendation at this point, in this price category. I dont know why you downplay these cards as not being able to run games with eye-candy, maybe not as high resolution as its bigger brothers, but I can assure you these cards wont have any trouble running games all throughout next year.

ChrisRay
11-09-03, 10:34 AM
You Know, The problem with most reviews, Is most people seem to think Nvidias big weakness is with AA performance, It's not really the AA performance that hurts Nvidia, In My experience. Nvidias AF performance is quite bad in Comparison to ATIS.

The Baron
11-09-03, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
You Know, The problem with most reviews, Is most people seem to think Nvidias big weakness is with AA performance, It's not really the AA performance that hurts Nvidia, In My experience. Nvidias AF performance is quite bad in Comparison to ATIS.
True. However, NVIDIA's AF looks superior to ATI's (this was especially noticeable in SWG when I tried it).

simwiz2
11-09-03, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by trungracingdev
Not everyone can afford a $300+ card (500 in nvidias case).

Where are you getting your prices? At Newegg and Pricewatch, the 5950 is cheaper than the 9800XT. ATI is much closer to the $500 mark than nVidia.

ChrisRay
11-09-03, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by The Baron
True. However, NVIDIA's AF looks superior to ATI's (this was especially noticeable in SWG when I tried it).

Yup, This is also true in Everquest,. And most Wide open MMORPGS I've played. Thats a big reasonI decided for the FX, I'm willing to accept the performance hit of AF since IMO it does a better job of it than my 9500 Pro most of the time.


But I think nvidias AA performance hit. Really isnt all that bad.