nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   NVIDIA Legacy Graphics Cards (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   geforcefx 5900 vs. the other cards (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=13444)

sharky 06-15-03 11:39 PM

geforcefx 5900 vs. the other cards
 
Big decision, big CO$TLY decision.

Give me five reasons you all think the 5900fx Ultra is the best card. I need help deciding which card to choose. I have always been a loyal nvidia customer, but does the fx5900 justify such a high price tag, $499 msrp...?

IISquintsII 06-16-03 12:14 AM

I dont think its worth it when it doesnt cleary beat a card thats $100 less across the board. But if you MUST have a nvidia card then you dont have much choice for the fastest :)

Typedef Enum 06-16-03 01:25 AM

You could also get a 9700 variant for 1/2 the cost of the 5900 Ultra.

Take a good look @ the performance numbers, and judge for yourself if the difference is worth $250 or so.

Don't forget about the IQ differences though. ATI has a significant advantage.

firestartar 06-16-03 04:57 AM

Ah yes, i was asking for the same justifications for the gfx 5900 ultra. Didn't find the right answers, thats why i got the 128mb gfx 5900 (msi)...and yes im very very happy since its running stable at 500/950, which is above ultra speeds.

extreme_dB 06-16-03 05:01 AM

Re: geforcefx 5900 vs. the other cards
 
5 reasons to buy:

1. Monster bandwidth for high performance with AA/AF

2. High clockspeed and fillrate for fast raw performance

3. Games potentially optimized for Nvidia; guaranteed
compatibility; tuned for Doom3 engine

4. Strong OpenGL and professional application performance

5. AF quality (application setting only) and FP32 support


5 reasons not to buy:

1. Price too high; games that will use some of its advanced features are still many months away, at which time the price may be lower, and newer, faster cards may be out (R360)

2. Slow shader speed in DX9; uncertain performance for future DX9 titles

3. Poor AA quality and speed (the good AA modes like 4xS are too slow overall)

4. It gets beat by the 9700Pro in some games and synthetic benchmarks!

5. Lower overall image quality (further reduced by the possibility of Nvidia app-specific optimizations to gain speed)


I would buy the 9700 (NP or Pro) and save the cost difference for an upgrade in fall/winter, when it's clear how all the cards stack up in the major games being released.

For more performance now, I'd get the 9800Pro, or possibly the 5900 regular (depending on how it compares in price/performance).

dare_devil 06-16-03 05:05 AM

maybe i'll run for R9800 Pro
they seem offering more than 5900U
Since they FSAA 2x are equal to 5900U 4x
if i turned 2x on i can get no so many perf. hits.

Kruno 06-16-03 06:59 AM

Re: Re: geforcefx 5900 vs. the other cards
 
Quote:

Originally posted by extreme_dB
[b]5 reasons to buy:

1. Monster bandwidth for high performance with AA/AF

-except with anything above 4x AA and I always play above 4x.

2. High clockspeed and fillrate for fast raw performance

Who plays without AA/AF?

3. Games potentially optimized for Nvidia; guaranteed
compatibility; tuned for Doom3 engine

Yes... we know all the 'optimisations' they include.

4. Strong OpenGL and professional application performance

In that case why are nV wasting money on their Quadro line?
Why is it also that my 9700 Pro seems to get higher framerate with 6xAA than the NV35 at 6xAA in any OpenGL app that is new?

5. AF quality (application setting only) and FP32 support

Which I can't stress that nV's AF only is so good, I spent some time having to configure the LOD to get rid of the blur at a distance, it's either too blurry or too much texture shimmering.

5 reasons not to buy:

1. Price too high; games that will use some of its advanced features are still many months away, at which time the price may be lower, and newer, faster cards may be out (R360)

The price is never too high if you want the best raw performance.

2. Slow shader speed in DX9; uncertain performance for future DX9 titles

Why would you even consider using current generation cards for future DX9 titles?

3. Poor AA quality and speed (the good AA modes like 4xS are too slow overall)

I just drop the resolution to 800x600 or 640x480 to make it playable.

4. It gets beat by the 9700Pro in some games and synthetic benchmarks!

Who plays synthetic tests? What were the settings of those specific games?

5. Lower overall image quality (further reduced by the possibility of Nvidia app-specific optimizations to gain speed)

Those are only on synthetic tests and maybe some most popular games. I don't play popular games.

I would buy the 9700 (NP or Pro) and save the cost difference for an upgrade in fall/winter, when it's clear how all the cards stack up in the major games being released.

For more performance now, I'd get the 9800Pro, or possibly the 5900 regular (depending on how it compares in price/performance).

I would only get the 9700 Pro/9800 Pro for: Playing games with AA (IQ), I love the DVD IQ and fastest card available that is capable of doing 6xAA.

extreme_dB 06-16-03 07:32 AM

Re: Re: Re: geforcefx 5900 vs. the other cards
 
To K.I.L.E.R:

Just a few quick points:

Raw performance is still important for upcoming games that may be too demanding for high levels of AA/AF.

Future DX9 performance IS important for those who upgrade infrequently (every 18 to 24+ months).

The price is too high if its performance will be quickly superceded (similar to the 5800 Ultra), or if it fails to perform as it should in soon-to-be-released next-gen games, or when other cards offer similar performance at a lower cost.

Most of the other points raised have been dealt with already in recent discussions. :)

Why would you buy a 5900U to play at 640 or 800 res with AA???

Kruno 06-16-03 07:38 AM

Quote:

Why would you buy a 5900U to play at 640 or 800 res with AA???
Because some of us have just escaped a mental asylum. :bleh:

Placid 06-16-03 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by firestartar
Ah yes, i was asking for the same justifications for the gfx 5900 ultra. Didn't find the right answers, thats why i got the 128mb gfx 5900 (msi)...and yes im very very happy since its running stable at 500/950, which is above ultra speeds.
Smart man :)

Too bad they didn't stock clock them the same as the ultra's they would have a better chance at selling more.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.