PDA

View Full Version : Longlasting ? 5900 NU or 9600XT ?


Pages : [1] 2 3

ashayh
11-18-03, 11:29 AM
A 5900 NU does seem to be best deal right now.
However I have to send a card to my cousin in India and it should do well for 18-24 months.
Can I trust Nvidia :rolleyes: to optimise for future games like they've done for TR AOD ?

My budget is not more than 200$.

Thanks

Maverick123w
11-18-03, 12:02 PM
I'd say that if you were to get the 5900 you would have an overall better gaming experience. There are games out that the 5900 will make a very big difference on. Some dx9 games its just a smidgen ahead and others its about 5-10fps behind. But for the majority i'd say get a 5900nu. Even though the 9600xt does come with hl2 i think so its really up 2 you.

Gator
11-18-03, 12:20 PM
5900 non-ultra has 256bit memory bus, so it's more powerful than 9600XT ;)

go for the 5900

euan
11-18-03, 12:34 PM
Nvidia will forget about the 5x00 series cards in spring when the next generation cards come out. It's possible that any future games won't get the special "optimisation", and will run half as slow as the 9600...

Just a possibility... :D

CaptNKILL
11-18-03, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by euan
It's possible that any future games won't get the special "optimisation", and will run half as slow as the 9600...

Half as slow.... you mean twice as fast? :D

Hellbinder
11-18-03, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Gator
5900 non-ultra has 256bit memory bus, so it's more powerful than 9600XT ;)

go for the 5900
Bandwidth will mean less and less as Shader use becomes more and more common in games. Its all internal Computational power.

This is actually a tougher choice than it looks. For most games going into the Future I think the 9600XT is the better choice. However there will be some really BIG games that the 5900 will just Slaughter a 9600XT in. Like Doom-III and most Doom-III based games after that.

ashayh, Id probably go with the 5900 but only plan on keeping it for 14 months. Plan to spend another 200 on a better card just over a year from now in early spring 2005 or next Christmas.

(edit: actually if you plan on being into HL2 and the new counter strike and other mods more than Doom based games then get the 9600XT. Nvidia will simply not be able to optomize for all the shaders in custom mods that come out)

Malfunction
11-18-03, 12:47 PM
Go for the 5900NU. :D

It's like atleast +20FPS more in just about everything compared to the 9600XT. I just need a way to raise the extra $100 before I get mine...lol. Time to get creative... hmmm..:thinker:

Peace,

:afro:

Hellbinder
11-18-03, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Malfunction
Go for the 5900NU. :D

It's like atleast +20FPS more in just about everything compared to the 9600XT. I just need a way to raise the extra $100 before I get mine...lol. Time to get creative... hmmm..:thinker:

Peace,

:afro:
Actually that is not true. There are several examples of games that are faster on a 9600XT than even a 5900 Ultra. It all depends on wha the game is doing. That is why the decision to get one or the other card is not as simple as it may seem.

DMA
11-18-03, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder


This is actually a tougher choice than it looks.

Agreed.

I'm gonna give you a boring advice. Save some more money, (or is your cousin gonna pay? Ask him to save :p ) and get a 9800 np/9700 Pro.
Either of these shold keep him happy for a long time.

But if he wants it this weekend get 'em a FX5900. :)

Malfunction
11-18-03, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
Actually that is not true. There are several examples of games that are faster on a 9600XT than even a 5900 Ultra. It all depends on wha the game is doing. That is why the decision to get one or the other card is not as simple as it may seem.

Granted, however there are more examples how it does preform better than the 9600XT. To add more fuel to the fire, the only talk about anything from ATi next year is the R420 and M10/M11. Where is the talk about the consumer product from them? Everyone is anticipating the R420 while no one I have seen has discussed the lower end component.

You don't think the R420 lower end component would be better performing than the RV360 right now making it a better decision later on down the road if going the budget route? You've been suprised about how well Nvidia is doing with the 5700U now! Who's to say you are not wrong about the 5900NU?

Peace,

:)

ChrisRay
11-18-03, 01:17 PM
Well. I went from a 9500 Pro to a 5900SE, 400/700, Leadtek FX,

I did so mainly for Digital Vibrance and Super sampling. However, I have seen a pretty large performance difference. However the biggest difference is coming with AA/AF enabled. I just have over twice the bandwith and it's making a huge difference.

That being said. In other situations It's generally proven to be about 10-15% faster, And in Some cases about the same speed. To be honest, In my shader intensive games I havent noticed much of a difference, Not speed increase or speed deficit.

But most of those were optimised for from the 52.16 drivers (aka Halo ect). The big problem with my 9500 Pro was it's core was just disgustingly bottlenecked by it's own memory.

Hellbinder
11-18-03, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
Well. I went from a 9500 Pro to a 5900SE, 400/700, Leadtek FX,

I did so mainly for Digital Vibrance and Super sampling. However, I have seen a pretty large performance difference. However the biggest difference is coming with AA/AF enabled. I just have over twice the bandwith and it's making a huge difference.

That being said. In other situations It's generally proven to be about 10-15% faster, And in Some cases about the same speed. To be honest, In my shader intensive games I havent noticed much of a difference, Not speed increase or speed deficit.

But most of those were optimised for from the 52.16 drivers (aka Halo ect). The big problem with my 9500 Pro was it's core was just disgustingly bottlenecked by it's own memory.
I have a hard time believing that if you are using any of the FX's Super sample modes that it ends up being faster than the MSAA on the 9500pro.

Also, being that the FX has some serious issues even AAing most of the Horazontal angles your general AA Quality is Way down. If fact setting the FX high enough to even come close to equaling the R300's AA will kill your Performance straight away. In this respect if you set the AA and AF to matching Quality there is simply no way the 5900 noon ultra will be faster in the majority of cases. If you just want to turn on "some aa" and run it at 2x AA 4x AF or 4x AA and 4x AF then it likely is faster. I dont think in those cases its comming anywhere near the Quality of the 9500pro at 2x AA + 8x AF.

This is why as far as i can see Super Sample on the Nvidia cards *currently* are a complete waste of time.

ChrisRay
11-18-03, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
I have a hard time believing that if you are using any of the FX's Super sample modes that it ends up being faster than the MSAA on the 9500pro.

Also, being that the FX has some serious issues even AAing most of the Horazontal angles your general AA Quality is Way down. If fact setting the FX high enough to even come close to equaling the R300's AA will kill your Performance straight away. In this respect if you set the AA and AF to matching Quality there is simply no way the 5900 noon ultra will be faster in the majority of cases. If you just want to turn on "some aa" and run it at 2x AA 4x AF or 4x AA and 4x AF then it likely is faster. I dont think in those cases its comming anywhere near the Quality of the 9500pro at 2x AA + 8x AF.

This is why as far as i can see Super Sample on the Nvidia cards *currently* are a complete waste of time.


Why would I use super sampling on modern titles? :confused: It was a compatibility thing. (Aka Final Fantasy 7 ) Rather than a Quality thing.

Tho, I will admit to something. One Hybrid mode is faster than my Radeon 9500 Pro. And thats 4xS, And it's about 20% Faster believe it or not. But yes, Rest of the Hybrid Modes are useless.

I use The Super Sampling modes hidden in the drivers for compatibility with certain games. And Thats it.

Hellbinder
11-18-03, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Malfunction
Granted, however there are more examples how it does preform better than the 9600XT. To add more fuel to the fire, the only talk about anything from ATi next year is the R420 and M10/M11. Where is the talk about the consumer product from them? Everyone is anticipating the R420 while no one I have seen has discussed the lower end component.

You don't think the R420 lower end component would be better performing than the RV360 right now making it a better decision later on down the road if going the budget route? You've been suprised about how well Nvidia is doing with the 5700U now! Who's to say you are not wrong about the 5900NU?

Peace,

:)
hehehehe.. Trust me Ati's mid and low range products for the next round are really nice ;)

Everything is a *cough Rumored* Derrivative of the R420 all the way down including the new mobile tech.

While i dont want to get cought up in the hype game that bit me in the Rear with the XT.. there *is* pleanty of reasons to be hyped about the spring lineup for ATi :)

Thats all I am Going to say.

ashayh
11-18-03, 01:39 PM
Thanks for the replies ... but I am not totally convinced yet.
But for now (I have to buy in the next 15 days) I've decided to get a 9600XT, simply because its cheaper and my cousin can get more Ram or something with the money left. (Also add HL2)
Unless a 5900(or something else) drops dramatically in the next 2 weeks, I'll stick to a 9600XT.


Actually that is not true. There are several examples of games that are faster on a 9600XT than even a 5900 Ultra. It all depends on wha the game is doing. That is why the decision to get one or the other card is not as simple as it may seem.

You pretty much summed my problem up ..

And I always bought Nvidia .. then they screwed me when I bought a 5600NU in a hurry... did that play a role in my decision .... nah... it can't be !

Hellbinder
11-18-03, 03:11 PM
Why would I use super sampling on modern titles? It was a compatibility thing. (Aka Final Fantasy 7 ) Rather than a Quality thing.

Ahhhh I see then. That makes perfect sense. You would be able to play older games with even high levels of mixed mode AA no problem.

Ok.. Im sold on the idea :)

ChrisRay
11-18-03, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
Ahhhh I see then. That makes perfect sense. You would be able to play older games with even high levels of mixed mode AA no problem.

Ok.. Im sold on the idea :)


It's quite ok. I'll be the first to admit. The FX/Geforce/4/3 AA is behind ATIS,
And the only reason to want super sampling is for compatibility purposes :)

Ruined
11-18-03, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by ashayh
A 5900 NU does seem to be best deal right now.
However I have to send a card to my cousin in India and it should do well for 18-24 months.
Can I trust Nvidia :rolleyes: to optimise for future games like they've done for TR AOD ?

My budget is not more than 200$.

Thanks

5900NU no doubt.

HB: Care to release a list of all the currently released non-homebrew games, with latest patches, that run faster on 9600XT vs 5900NU, both with latest driver sets? I can list some of the common ones that run faster on 5900NU, and thats pretty much all of them :)

dan2097
11-18-03, 04:27 PM
A 9600 Xt may be faster in the future i.e. 18 months but youve got to weigh in the opportunity cost of not being so fast for the first 12 months. So id still come down on the side of the fx 5900nu.

The comparison is a little silly as the cards shouldnt really be in comparison price wise. Id have thought something like a 9800se would be although thats not much faster, but does conceil a possible softmod opportunity.

I guess 9700/pro/9800np cards arent really readily available anymore at cheap prices

green_meanie
11-18-03, 04:55 PM
Can somebody provide a link showing the 9600XT beating the 5900 non ultra (400/850 model) using 52.16 drivers?

The Baron
11-18-03, 05:09 PM
Hellbinder, nobody believes your rumors anymore :)

netviper13
11-18-03, 05:30 PM
While we're on the 9600XT vs 5900 topic, are there any reviews pitting the two against each other? I'm torn between the two, and if performance is similar I'm going the ATI route for HL2.

Ruined
11-18-03, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by netviper13
While we're on the 9600XT vs 5900 topic, are there any reviews pitting the two against each other? I'm torn between the two, and if performance is similar I'm going the ATI route for HL2.

The 5900 murders the 9600xt on virtually every current game benchmark available. Reviews are for 5900 vs 9800, not 5900 vs 9600.... Because the 5900 and 9600 are not in the same class performance wise, 5900 has double the pipelines... But now they are in the same class price wise, so the 5900 is the obvious choice.

i.e.
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1353&page=3

(this is with old 4x.xx drivers btw so Nvidia performance is lower than with new drivers... Scores are for ultra, so take 10% off score, or maybe 5% to simulate new 5x.xx drivers)

UT2003 - 1280x1024
5900: 162
9600xt: 96.94

Commanche 4 - 1280x1024
5900: 61.22
9600xt: 24.51

etc...

Plenty of other sites too... 9600 just isnt in same class as 5900/9800.

nForceMan
11-18-03, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
There are several examples of games that are faster on a 9600XT than even a 5900 Ultra.

Utter :bs:

ChrisRay
11-18-03, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by nForceMan
Utter :bs:

Well. ATI cards run wc3 faster, Tho It's not exactly a game you notice a 10 FPS difference. It's possible and speculative that the 9600 will run HL2 better, If we go by what Gabe Said.

Just a wait and see scenerio.