PDA

View Full Version : 5700U best bang for the buck?


Pages : [1] 2

PoorGuy
11-13-03, 04:52 PM
This looks like nVidia's best bang for the buck video card, similar to ATi's 9500 PRO when it came out.

Excellent preview Mr.C! I enjoyed the quality comparisons!


:hug:

Edge
11-13-03, 05:07 PM
Yup, it certainly looks to be a nice card. Excelent budget option, I still think the 9600 cards are overall better but the 5700 definatly puts up a good fight. I'm actually hoping that Nvidia also makes a FX5300 card for the sub-$100 group, if they can get a good card out for that price with DX9 capabilities and near-TI4200 performence, then they would rule the low-end market. Now it seems Nvidia has a card to compete with ATI's on all fronts, and unlike the FX5800/5900s were when they were released they are now compairativly priced with similar performence. The only thing really holding Nvidia back now is that ATI still has the superior AA/Aniso system and DX9 is still faster on ATI cards (though there's much less of a gap now then there was a few months ago, thanks to the Det50 drivers).

Gator
11-13-03, 06:30 PM
no, best bang for the buck is the FX5900 non-ultra, it's the same price as the FX5700 yet FX5900 is faster with 256bit memory bus

MikeC
11-13-03, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Gator
no, best bang for the buck is the FX5900 non-ultra, it's the same price as the FX5700 yet FX5900 is faster with 256bit memory bus

That's a great idea for an NVIDIA price/performance shootout. I don't have a 5900 non-Ultra available, but I wonder if underclocking a 5900 Ultra to match the 5900 non-Ultra would be valid?

ChrisRay
11-13-03, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by MikeC
That's a great idea for an NVIDIA price/performance shootout. I don't have a 5900 non-Ultra available, but I wonder if underclocking a 5900 Ultra to match the 5900 non-Ultra would be valid?


Remember most 5900 Non Ultras are now clocked @ 400/700..

digitalwanderer
11-13-03, 07:17 PM
If I had to pick a best-bang-for-buck nVidia solution the 5700 Ultra would definately be it.

ChrisRay
11-13-03, 07:17 PM
The 5900 Non Ultras are roughly the same price as a 5700 Ultra. How does that make it the best deal??

Voudoun
11-13-03, 07:29 PM
Didn't the nordichardware (http://www.nordichardware.com/reviews/graphiccard/2003/6xGFX/) review show the 9600 XT beating the 5700 Ultra 8/11, and even the 5900s in some tests?

Voudoun

Edge
11-13-03, 07:52 PM
Except the 5900s don't RETAIL for $200. You can just get them from stores for that much because at this point they're clearing out inventory. It's like when some stores were selling 9500pros for $150 a year or so ago: sure, it's for the most part a better performer then the 9600 series (which has stayed at $200 with only slight refreshes every couple months), but when people ask what the best budget card you can get is, most people will say the 9600xt or the FX5700. If you can get an FX5900 for under $200, that's one hell of a deal, but many stores don't even stock them anymore.

Oh, and yes, the 9600 does beat the FX5700 in most of the benchmarks at that site, but almost all of those were taken with AA and Aniso, which gives the 9x00 series a big advantage. Most of the time the cards come pretty close, except in the case of certain games like Jedi Academy where the 5700 creams the 9600. Raw benchmarks will show the FX5700 near or surpasing the 9600, but when you turn on AA/Aniso the 9600 will usually pull ahead. At this point the FX5700 is for the most part better if you don't use AA/aniso, and the 9600 is better if you use heavy AA/aniso. DX9 also plays a factor, but it's nowhere near as big of an issue now as it was a few months ago.

cthellis
11-13-03, 08:02 PM
It's kinda silly to demand retail numbers when it takes all of 5 minutes to find 5900 non-U's well under those prices online... and even at giant retail chains! The 5900NU is definitely the "bang-for-buck" leader right now, and mainly makes me pissed that ATi's dropped support of the 9800 non-Pro's, as I was quite happy with their placement before, and those two should be going head-to-head. Heh...

Maverickman
11-13-03, 08:28 PM
ATI's 9800 non-pros would be the best buy if you could buy one. The GeForce FX 5900 is still available, and if you can get one for under $200, that would be a great deal. The 5700 Ultra is a great mid-range card and is on par with the 9600 XT. Of course, the 9600 XT comes with a voucher for Half-Life 2.

B&R
11-13-03, 09:24 PM
on nVidia's mainstream side it is prolly the best bang for buck.

Martrox
11-13-03, 10:41 PM
Just picked up an ATI 9800NP at Circuit City for $250.00 w/ free shipping.... In stock as of 10:30PM EST

http://www.circuitcity.com/detail.jsp?b=g&oid=80847&sourceid=qDQQP7ROUwqxAlHtqBBr&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&affiliateid=38923688&goTo=detail&c=1&b=g

Question is, is the 9800NP worth $50 more than a 5900NU? I think it is....

The Baron
11-13-03, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Martrox
Just picked up an ATI 9800NP at Circuit City for $250.00 w/ free shipping.... In stock as of 10:30PM EST

http://www.circuitcity.com/detail.jsp?b=g&oid=80847&sourceid=qDQQP7ROUwqxAlHtqBBr&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes&affiliateid=38923688&goTo=detail&c=1&b=g

Question is, is the 9800NP worth $50 more than a 5900NU? I think it is....
I disagree. $200 is probably my limit for a video card that would be replaced by an entirely new generation in three to four months.

Gator
11-13-03, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
The 5900 Non Ultras are roughly the same price as a 5700 Ultra. How does that make it the best deal??

I'm not sure what you don't understand. confused: If the faster 256bit memory bus equiped FX5900 non-ultra is the same price as the FX5700Ultra... doesn't it make more sense to buy the FX5900 non-ultra then?

check out http://www.newegg.com , the cards are literally a $1 difference

ChrisRay
11-13-03, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Gator
I'm not sure what you don't understand. confused: If the faster 256bit memory bus equiped FX5900 non-ultra is the same price as the FX5700Ultra... doesn't it make more sense to buy the FX5900 non-ultra then?

check out http://www.newegg.com , the cards are literally a $1 difference

Uh if you read my post. I was questioning Digital's reasoning. Doesnt take a rocket sciene to figure out the 5900 SE is way better.

Martrox
11-14-03, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by The Baron
I disagree. $200 is probably my limit for a video card that would be replaced by an entirely new generation in three to four months.

Baron, while it's strickly personal choice, I feel the added quality IQ, FSAA and DX9 shader speed - not to mention the dubious nVidia "optimisations" - is well worth the $50.00 difference. And, if nothing else, it's worth the $50.00 to not support a company that has acted the way nVidia has. That being said, though, I did just buy 4 Nforce2 Ultra 400 chipset motherboards..... at the same price as the 5700U/5900SE - for all 4! So.... guess it is the value that counts!

Dazz
11-14-03, 06:46 AM
5950Ultra = 475/950MHz
5900Ultra = 450/850MHz
5900 = 400/850MHz
5900SE = 400/700MHz
5900XT = 390/xxxMHz?

Gator
11-14-03, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
Uh if you read my post. I was questioning Digital's reasoning. Doesnt take a rocket sciene to figure out the 5900 SE is way better.

opps! Sorry ChrisRay! It's confusing when you don't use the QUOTE command, I wasn't sure who you were talking to. In other words you completely agree with me! LOL

Ya Dig, not sure why you're pushing the FX5700, unless they drop that sucker to $150us it just doesn't make sense. An FX5900 for $200us sounds like a great deal to me.

green_meanie
11-14-03, 10:11 AM
5900 non ultra is the best bang for the buck.


http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=305338&pfp=BROWSE

Edit: The $50 rebate period is over, oh well. Now it's back up to $279.

oqvist
11-14-03, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Maverickman
ATI's 9800 non-pros would be the best buy if you could buy one. The GeForce FX 5900 is still available, and if you can get one for under $200, that would be a great deal. The 5700 Ultra is a great mid-range card and is on par with the 9600 XT. Of course, the 9600 XT comes with a voucher for Half-Life 2.

Yes but 9800 NP is a hazardous. You have to be very carefully with what you buy if you intend to overclock it so you get good memory and cooling and such on these.

Much safer just go with an 9700 PRO. A tiny bit faster even with antialiasing and anisotropic but maybe it turns to the 9800 NP:s favour in future dx 9 games?

Dazz
11-14-03, 05:44 PM
THe 9800NP is better then a 9700Pro as it's memory can overclock just as high as the 9700Pro but it's core overclocks far higher then it with stock cooling, My card 9800NP does 430/690MHzm thats over a 100MHz overclock on the VPU core alone!

Steppy
11-14-03, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Edge
Yup, it certainly looks to be a nice card. Excelent budget option, I still think the 9600 cards are overall better but the 5700 definatly puts up a good fight. I'm actually hoping that Nvidia also makes a FX5300 card for the sub-$100 group, if they can get a good card out for that price with DX9 capabilities and near-TI4200 performence, then they would rule the low-end market. Now it seems Nvidia has a card to compete with ATI's on all fronts, and unlike the FX5800/5900s were when they were released they are now compairativly priced with similar performence. The only thing really holding Nvidia back now is that ATI still has the superior AA/Aniso system and DX9 is still faster on ATI cards (though there's much less of a gap now then there was a few months ago, thanks to the Det50 drivers). This is a trap we need to be careful not to fall in to. Has DX9 performance in general been raised or is the fact that as of yet there are not tons of DX9 games allowed them to specifically "fix" each one with the det 50's? If it is the first, great...if it is the second, what happens as more DX9 games are released and the number of games released exceeds the amount of games Nvidia can "fix" in a timely manner? The other thing I worry about with the NV3x series is how well Nv will support it when Nv40 comes out? When it is no longer the high end will Nvidia devote the time to "fix" games like they do now? If the Nv40 continues the design trends they did with NV3x, maybe...if they go back to more standard designs where does that leave NV3x? Nvidia doesn't have the greatest history of doing much for older cards once a new generation is out...which was fine when they had older cards that didn't need a lot of "hand tuning" but we all know that's not the case with NV3x.

ragejg
11-14-03, 06:35 PM
There's so many different best bangs for bucks...

but right around $200, a 450/750'able 5900SE IMO is a fantastic deal...

...The benching is done, and the editing process is almost complete on the 5900SE vs. 5600U shootout review...

Of course it would've been nice to have a 5700U in there for comparison, but this review was planned and started right before the 5700U was released...

I won't delve into too much detail right here and now, but a 5900 @ those speeds is a heck of a card, and a heck of a deal for the price they're going for now...

:)

ragejg
11-14-03, 06:39 PM
Oh, and for the slightly lower end of the scale, I thought you might like to know that a 5600U vs. 5700 non-ultra review is planned for the next month or so...

I have a feeling if they're released right around christmas time, the 5700NU might be a great bang for the buck as well... but especially about a month after release...