PDA

View Full Version : Heavyweight Rumble...


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

adistortions
01-18-04, 04:58 AM
Just got done reading the review for the 9800XT vs. 5950 Ultra.

His opinion is the 9800 is better card for FSAA and all that good stuff... but going
by the screenshots he has the 9800 looks extremely "washed down".

The details and textures are much more vibrant in the 5950 as the 9800 looks like
a watercolor mesh. (like taking a photo while doing 30mph) ;)
I'd much rather have a slight few jaggies with the better detail in texturing all-around oppose to a completely washed out image (anyone else see what I'm talking about?)

On the other hand he still recommends a NVidia card for best bang for your buck (not the 5950 Ultra however)

Can't wait to get me hands on the 5900 :)

5150 Joker
01-18-04, 05:16 AM
Yeah sure if it makes you feel more secure about your 5900 purchase, we'll agree with ya! :rolleyes:

marqmajere
01-18-04, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by 5150 Joker
Yeah sure if it makes you feel more secure about your 5900 purchase, we'll agree with ya! :rolleyes:

Ya know, that sounds to me like FANBOY TALK!!


I purchased a BFG 5900 and I don't regret it for a second. Plays every game great. Graphics are sharp and clear. I have two friends that use the 9700 and the 9800. Both are great cards, but there isn't anything they can do that my 5900 can't.

Ruined
01-18-04, 06:44 AM
I'd go with the FX5900 over the 9800 just for the better drivers, even if its 1fps slower in this game or that. ATI still hasn't gotten it right driverwise.

Shamrock
01-18-04, 07:04 AM
I know the review he's talking about

it's on the news page. motherboards.org

What he said was true, the review did say that.

MUYA
01-18-04, 07:06 AM
I sure hope this thread isn't headed for a downward spiral.

:nono:

adistortions
01-18-04, 08:32 AM
Wow... I surely didn't hope for the downward spiral... just springing some questions about the blurrish screenshots I see.

Sides, I haven't purchased either 5900 or 9800 yet. Regardless I feel like the 5900nu is the cheaper - better value - bang for your buck.
(I suppose there's alternative ATi options - cheaper that is- as well)

Anyways... thanks for the response everyone. I just wasn't sure about the jaggies vs. the blur thing and that's why I brought it up... for some 3rd party opinions :)

:thumbsup:

The Baron
01-18-04, 08:40 AM
If you want the highest AA quality you can get (without a V5 6000, eh Joe? ;) ) and you found a 9800 Pro for <$250, that would probably be worth getting over the 5900nu. But, if AA is not the be-all-end-all for you (and it's not, for a lot of people--if you play a lot of Call of Duty and you like loads of AF, for example), the 5900NU is undoubtedly the best card for the price.

9800 non-Pros aren't included in this seeing as how they're about as common as the Ark of the Covenant.

cthellis
01-18-04, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by The Baron
9800 non-Pros aren't included in this seeing as how they're about as common as the Ark of the Covenant.
You're telling me! I keep checking all the crates in that huge warehouse, but... NOTHING!

Sazar
01-18-04, 10:16 AM
dang I've missed these threads over the past few weeks :D

/me goes looking for fuel to pour on fire

John Reynolds
01-18-04, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Sazar
dang I've missed these threads over the past few weeks :D

/me goes looking for fuel to pour on fire

Oh, allow me. :angel:

First off, they used the 53.03s, which are not approved by Futuremark to be used with their benchmark because of a certain company's incessant need to cheat. Second, the game benchmarks looks like they were tested using the in-game canned demos, which as we know are fairly worthless since it's been proven a certain company will cheat their asses off with those too.

We're going to see a ton of reviews like this one when NV40 and R420 launch, and IMO they're going to be worthless.

digitalwanderer
01-18-04, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by John Reynolds
Oh, allow me. :angel:

First off, they used the 53.03s, which are not approved by Futuremark to be used with their benchmark because of a certain company's incessant need to cheat. Second, the game benchmarks looks like they were tested using the in-game canned demos, which as we know are fairly worthless since it's been proven a certain company will cheat their asses off with those too.

We're going to see a ton of reviews like this one when NV40 and R420 launch, and IMO they're going to be worthless.
(popcorn)

adistortions
01-18-04, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
(popcorn)

Ahahahahaha.... that's great! :)

digitalwanderer
01-18-04, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by adistortions
Ahahahahaha.... that's great! :)
I just enjoy watching a master at work, I'm gonna sit on the side and enjoy the fun.

bkswaney
01-18-04, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
I just enjoy watching a master at work, I'm gonna sit on the side and enjoy the fun.


me to. (popcorn) (salute)

And now ATI has lower IQ than Nvidia. :angel2: :lol2:

DMA
01-18-04, 12:16 PM
Well, this review aint any different than any other of the 500+ comparing the two top cards from ATI and NV.

With reviews like this, i always start reading the conclusion. Often you get the idea what kind of reviewer you are dealing with. :)
And this one is like 90% of the other ones and tries to please everyone.
Too afraid to step on somebodys toes and kinda give both cards the same "score".

And that blows imo. Just because they're afraid they won't get more cards to test if they piss anyone off, avarage Joe needs to buy both cards and test them himself? :D

I mean, it's not that hard to pick a clear winner between a FX 5950 and a 9800XT is it?

:afro:

Edge
01-18-04, 01:15 PM
:fanboy:

ben6
01-18-04, 02:34 PM
Thanks for the comments. A couple of points:

1. The least amount of time I spent in the review was running benchmarks. To me, ingame performance is far more important. I wish i had done FSAA and anisotropic filtering benches and custom demos , but unfortuantely, that wasn't site policy.
2. I spent around 75+ hours playing 15 games over a 3 week period with both cards over a wide variety of games not mentioned in the review. My original plan for the review was something like 10 different games and over 100 screenshots with NO JPEGs, unfortunately, I couldn't do that. It wasn't my intention to show ATI's card in any negative light as to image quality nor was that my experience. In fact, several times in the review I commented on how ATI's IQ was better. I had 1 problem with over 20 games on the 9800XT, Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time, which I approached ATI and got a satisfactory answer for, which I commented on in the review.
3. Um I didn't pick a winner? I thought I was pretty clear.
4. Um I don't have either card in my possession now. I do have a 5950 Ultra and a 9800XT but from different manufacturers . It wasn't meant as a please everyone review. I've never owned a Asus card before, nor a Gigabyte, and I'm sorry that that was the opinion you reached.

digitalwanderer
01-18-04, 02:43 PM
Why did you use the 53.03 drivers Ben when they're not on FutureMark's approved driver list?

ben6
01-18-04, 02:49 PM
Hrm, that I should have done.

digitalwanderer
01-18-04, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by ben6
Hrm, that I should have done.
No, that you should NOT have done...it's actually a violation of FutureMark's licensing agreement to do what you have already done. :rolleyes:

Lemme guess, did nVidia perchance recomend you use the 53.03 set in your review?

ben6
01-18-04, 02:56 PM
no, digitalwanderer, I think you misunderstood. I should have used 52.16s which were on the approved list.

digitalwanderer
01-18-04, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by ben6
no, digitalwanderer, I think you misunderstood. I should have used 52.16s which were on the approved list.
Doh! Sorry, you're right...I misunderstood. (omg)

Still, it's a bit of a big no-no and you didn't answer my question about how you happened to choose 'em.... :eek2:

ben6
01-18-04, 03:06 PM
Oh, mainly because I was using the 53.03s throughout the review and still use them in the system I have set up with the 5950 Ultra?

Just like I used the ATI Cat 3.10 drivers because Asus's drivers are still based off 3.9 and that's the drivers I use in my main system.

I let the benchmarks go without any comment, as that really didn't factor in my evaluation all that much. I did comment on everything else.

digitalwanderer
01-18-04, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by ben6
Oh, mainly because I was using the 53.03s throughout the review and still use them in the system I have set up with the 5950 Ultra?
Your choice at least, I retract my insinuation. :)

"FutureMark REALLY needs to get a way to let people know which drivers are and aren't approved by them" is more the point I'm trying to make rather than a "He's favoring nVidia by using their newest cheater drivers!", just to avoid confusion here.....although I'm pretty sure that the 5950 wouldn't be nearly as close in 3dm2k3 if you'd used approved drivers and the 3.45 patch. :(