PDA

View Full Version : Another 9600XT vs 5700U


Pages : [1] 2 3

FastM
11-24-03, 04:45 PM
I know their is already many threads covering this subject but most people end up pushing the 5900NU and thats just not an option for me. At best either buying it localy or ordering it form the US it will cost me just over 400$ CA when i can get either the 9600XT or 5700U for just over 300$ wich is more what i am willing to pay for a video card these days.

So, the games i play these days are...

- C&C Generals
- Halo
- CoD
- NFS:UnderGround
- RTCW
- MP2

And Of course i highly anticipate the release of HL2 and Doom3.

Which one, the 9600XT or the 5700U. Right now im kinda leaning towards ATI just because its been a while since i own a ATI card (some old 8meg card back with my P-200MMX) and im kinda interested in getting my own view on the whole IQ battle.

micronX
11-24-03, 05:23 PM
I can only recommend that you read alot of reviews comparing the two cards and base your decision on whether or not it will suit your game playing needs. I'm sure as hell buying one:)

Hellbinder
11-24-03, 05:23 PM
I know You will think this is Biased or whatever.. but Im telling you. Get the 9600XT. I dont even think its a Question with the list of games you provided.

You want the best overall performance out of the Box with the best overall Quality accross the board then get the 9600XT.

Its that simple.

FastM
11-24-03, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
I know You will think this is Biased or whatever.. but Im telling you. Get the 9600XT. I dont even think its a Question with the list of games you provided.

You want the best overall performance out of the Box with the best overall Quality accross the board then get the 9600XT.

Its that simple.

Thats my thinking as well, the only game thats giving me doubt is CoD, Which judging by reviews the TI4200 almost gives the same performance...

FastM
11-24-03, 05:34 PM
Also, if i could add one more question. Iv'e heard the PowerColor versions shipping with 2.8ns Memory vs the 3.3ns on the rest of the cards. I want to buy a new card ASAP and cant find the PowerColor anywhere localy. In another thread on this board i read something about ATI changing all the cards to 2.8 memory. Any truth to this? Btw i want to get a ATI 9600XT so is waiting another couple weeks really worth it?

Hellbinder
11-24-03, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by FastM
Thats my thinking as well, the only game thats giving me doubt is CoD, Which judging by reviews the TI4200 almost gives the same performance...
Did you look at the Firing Squad COD performance article?

Radeon 9600XT
4x FSAA+8xAF = 62 FPS

2xFSAA+8xAF = 72.4 FPS

GF4 Ti 4200
4x FSAA +8xAF = 41.4 FPS

2x FSAA+8xAF = 50.2 FPS

FX5700U
4x FSAA+8xAF = 67.4

2xFSAA+8xAF = 75.2FPS


Couple comments...

1. There is no way in hell the GF4 Ti 4200 is really applying FSAA+AF at the levels indicated with those scores considering the origional raw scores.

2. While there is a slight difference in the FPS between the XT and the 5700U the FSAA Quality on the XT is MUCH higher that what is being delivered on the FX.

bkswaney
11-24-03, 06:15 PM
While there is a slight difference in the FPS between the XT and the 5700U the FSAA Quality on the XT is MUCH higher that what is being delivered on the FX. [/B]


To you maybe. But to most people the IQ on the NV cards look just as good. ;)

Just my 2 cents worth.

digitalwanderer
11-24-03, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by bkswaney
To you maybe. But to most people the IQ on the NV cards look just as good. ;)

Just my 2 cents worth.
Mebbe the IQ is the same, but the AA isn't....ATi wins the AA portion of any quality comparisons hands down. :)

Hellbinder
11-24-03, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by bkswaney
To you maybe. But to most people the IQ on the NV cards look just as good. ;)

Just my 2 cents worth.
Hardly.... :rolleyes:

Most people I know that have used both can tell the Difference immidiately and are shocked. Just look at rage3d forum and what most of the new ATi converts post.

There are also most (honest) reviewers stating the same thing.

Anyone... i mean anyone who tries to say that the FSAA is the same on current ATi and Nvidia hardware has an agenda they are trying to push.

micronX
11-24-03, 09:25 PM
The cards are close competitors deffinately. I cant believe they put crap 3.3ns memory on the 9600XT. My old 8500 came with 3.3ns chips. The Radeon card's memory overclock wont even be worth mentioning. The Geforce's memory on the other hand has been hitting 1.05Ghz. Overclock both cards to their ceilings and rebenchmark them.

lIqUID
11-24-03, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
Did you look at the Firing Squad COD performance article?

GF4 Ti 4200
4x FSAA +8xAF = 41.4 FPS

2x FSAA+8xAF = 50.2 FPS

Couple comments...

1. There is no way in hell the GF4 Ti 4200 is really applying FSAA+AF at the levels indicated with those scores considering the origional raw scores.

2. While there is a slight difference in the FPS between the XT and the 5700U the FSAA Quality on the XT is MUCH higher that what is being delivered on the FX.


OK first off, why do you have so many posts here on an nV forum? go back to rage3d with your lame sh*t. Ive been reading these forums for a few months now just never posted and probably never will again, but everytime I see your name I just know how you will preach the ATI crap. Secondly, have you ever played COD with a ti 4200? up until 2 weeks ago thats the card I used in COD, BF 1942, SOF2 C&C Generals. I played all my games at 4xAA and 2x AF. except for BF 1942 I would play at 10x7. Now I would average around the 50s in FPS on COD with details set some on medium some on high, at 10x7 and 4XAA, 2xAF. All this on a 64 mb PNY ti 4200

Finally have you ever seen COD on a 5700U and a 9600 XT side by side? If not then how are you basing your IQ comparison?

volt
11-24-03, 11:57 PM
- C&C Generals
- CoD
- NFS:UnderGround
- RTCW

Above games will run VERY well on a 5700U with IQ turned on, the other two I'm not so sure of.

IMO get yourself a nice 5700 :)

bkswaney
11-25-03, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
Hardly.... :rolleyes:

Most people I know that have used both can tell the Difference immidiately and are shocked. Just look at rage3d forum and what most of the new ATi converts post.

There are also most (honest) reviewers stating the same thing.

Anyone... i mean anyone who tries to say that the FSAA is the same on current ATi and Nvidia hardware has an agenda they are trying to push.

I agree the AA is not as good. But over all IQ is close.
I've had a 9700Pro, 9800 nonPro and 9800Pro.
Also a 5800u and 5900u.
By my eyes they are dang close at this point other than AA.
ATI wins the AA hands down.

zakelwe
11-25-03, 02:33 AM
I agree with everyone on this thread to some extent :)

I have played Halo on the 5700U and it does go down occasionally to 30fps at 1024x768 but because of the 1Ghz memory you get AA/AF for free so to speak. It is playable though ( 1024x768 ). C&C no problem.

Ati AA is better but with the extra bandwidth for the 5700U maybe you can compensate. I haven't got both cards so I cannot give a definiete answer.

If you are not averse to Ati like me and if they are still throwing in that HL token then I'd say go Ati.

Regards

Andy

john19055
11-25-03, 11:21 AM
Both cards would be a good choice with one winning some benchmarks and the othe winning some,but IMO the R9600XT would have better FSAA and you get HL2 with it.

cthellis
11-25-03, 02:33 PM
Out of those two, I certainly suggest the 9600XT hands-down. The 5700U is certainly a big improvement over the 5600U, but still loses out overall in comparison to power and value to the 9600XT with it's bundling option. Of course, unless cards in your area are very wacky, I wouldn't be considering the 5700U at ALL, because the 5900 non-Ultra is coming in as cheap if not cheaper in most places I've seen.

And for opinion on 9600XT vs 5900, you have other threads to look at. ;)

mrgoodcheese
11-25-03, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
Hardly.... :rolleyes:

Most people I know that have used both can tell the Difference immidiately and are SHOCKED .

Oh the melodrama!....... it is so strong!!

******************

Anyway, go for a 5700U if you can't cough up the dough for a 5900nu.

zakelwe
11-26-03, 02:28 AM
I was thinking yesterday that thanks to Ati being so strong nowadays the mid range nvidia cards are a lot cheaper.

I bought my GF4 4400ti in the UK for 220 a couple of years ago, now the 5700U is 140 and is slightly faster. if Ati didn;t have the 9600 series then I'd be paying 220-250 I would guess.

This is why we want nv40 and r420 to be pretty close in my opnion and not one massive advantage one way or another.

Regards

Andy

ATI_Dude
11-26-03, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
2. While there is a slight difference in the FPS between the XT and the 5700U the FSAA Quality on the XT is MUCH higher that what is being delivered on the FX.

That depends on the resolution. At 1280x1024 and higher you'll be hard-pressed to notice a significant difference. I do a agree that ATI has better overall image quality (sharpness, colors etc.).

l1quid_dark
11-26-03, 07:38 AM
Just wanted to say that my Sapphire 9600XT has 2.8ns RAM and is clocked by default to 324MHz (648).

Dazz
11-26-03, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by zakelwe
I was thinking yesterday that thanks to Ati being so strong nowadays the mid range nvidia cards are a lot cheaper.

I bought my GF4 4400ti in the UK for 220 a couple of years ago, now the 5700U is 140 and is slightly faster. if Ati didn;t have the 9600 series then I'd be paying 220-250 I would guess.

This is why we want nv40 and r420 to be pretty close in my opnion and not one massive advantage one way or another.

Regards

Andy Likewise i spent 220 for an ASUS V8440-TD over 2 years and just a few months ago i replaced it with a 9800 which cost me 220. The 9800 really does kick ass more so with FSAA + AF. The GF4 FSAA is the same as the FX and i can tell you nVIDIA's FSAA can't even come close to ATi's 2x is the same as NV's 4x. I play pretty much all my games at 4x FSAA + 16x AF it's a real treat :)

FastM
11-26-03, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by l1quid_dark
Just wanted to say that my Sapphire 9600XT has 2.8ns RAM and is clocked by default to 324MHz (648).

Interesting, Anyone else with 9600XT want to share the memory type of stock speed?

RobHague
11-27-03, 06:37 PM
The 'Sapphire' Radeon 9600XT's apparently have a memory speed of 325mhz (650) by default. Im not sure if its true for other 9600XT's but it makes sense to me - a core jump from 400 to 500 isnt worthy of a new product title IMO. Maybe ATI reconsidered the specs? :D

cthellis
11-27-03, 11:10 PM
Well they were OUT of product numbers to move to anyway... ;)

Offhand, I just don't think they wanted to stretch too far on their first low-K experiment. Keep it within bounds, make sure to not adversely affect quality or yields... Let the enthusiasts play with the headroom, and see how the card is stress-tested over time so as to use the process better in their next generation.

The XT is still a "typical" bump over a 9600 Pro, and most of its appeal comes from the bundle anyway. <grins>

The Baron
11-27-03, 11:13 PM
Sapphire has 525Mhz core normally. I think the memory is clocked at 300 normally but they say that it can get to 325 no problem (it's marked as, what, 2.8ns Samsung? 350Mhz). Powercolor comes with 370Mhz standard.