Decisions

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DWk+1 February 2004 - 14:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DWk @ 1 February 2004 - 14:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DWk@1 February 2004 - 09:30
<!--QuoteBegin-atiVidia

---

Quote:

---

@1 February 2004 - 07:24
their 5700 ultras (not ati)

---

There are ATI 5700 Ultra cards? :blink:

---

Read again... I&#39;m asking something [/b][/quote]
read the quote u quoted&#33;&#33;&#33; its right there&#33;

I know they are nVidia&#39;s <_<

However, why post something such as "not ati" when only nVidia has 5700 ultras? :smilie4:

ever think somebody might not know that?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pc&#045;gamer&#045;dude@1 February 2004 - 13:58
ever think somebody might not know that?

---

Not the point. He also gave a site&#39;s url. If you go there, you will only find nVidia cards ;)

I can&#39;t internet shop though... :(

But anyways is it worth it to get the xt over pro?

Firstly, the 5700 Ultra is not even a DX9 part. Yes that&#39;s true, it is DX 8.1 only.

Therefore it will suffer in future games (especially HL2 and later games). Although it has performed almost on par with 9600 XT, if you plan on playing games released beyond today, I would highly advise you not to purchase the 5700 Ultra.
Read it:
ATI RADEON 9600 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce FX5700 Ultra
Conclusion

Quote:

---

So, we have run the benchmarks for you to see the results. The new VPU from ATI Technologies is feeling confident in most currently available games. I can’t say the same about the new GPU from NVIDIA. However, the NV36 has its chance in OpenGL games as well as in games with poor textures but complex geometry. Besides that, this GPU shows good speed when no full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are used, as well as in high resolutions. However, this largely depends on the specific application.

The matter of price can be waved aside – both cards cost about the same amount of money. As for pure usability, the ATI RADEON 9600 XT looks advantageous, too. It takes less space in the system case, produces less heat and noise and requires no additional power. The GeForce FX 5700 Ultra may be interesting to people who are not much into gaming as well as for those who want to have a graphics card with two DVI-I outputs. And of course, all hardcore fanatics of NVIDIA may find the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra an interesting solution for &#036;200. Although our card had only one digital output, there will surely be a model with two of them in the market. The owners of a GeForce FX 5600 Ultra may find themselves behind the times – this GPU may not be able to run the upcoming DirectX 9.0 games properly.

For those of you who are looking forward to the release of such games as Half-Life 2 or S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Oblivion Lost, but who can’t afford a high-end card, the RADEON 9600 XT may suit just fine. The owners of the RADEON 9600 PRO may not bother much about the new VPU. Instead, they can try to overclock the graphics core, because the main difference between the RADEON 9600 XT and the RADEON 9600 PRO is the operational frequency.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Keikan@1 February 2004 - 13:16
I can&#39;t internet shop though... :(

But anyways is it worth it to get the xt over pro?

---

Does newegg.com, zipzoomfly.com, or allstarshop.com deliver to Canada?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by adamp2p@1 February 2004 - 21:42
Firstly, the 5700 Ultra is not even a DX9 part. Yes that&#39;s true, it is DX 8.1 only.

Therefore it will suffer in future games (especially HL2 and later games). Although it has performed almost on par with 9600 XT, if you plan on playing games released beyond today, I would highly advise you not to purchase the 5700 Ultra.
Read it:
ATI RADEON 9600 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce FX5700 Ultra
Conclusion

Quote:

---

So, we have run the benchmarks for you to see the results. The new VPU from ATI Technologies is feeling confident in most currently available games. I can’t say the same about the new GPU from NVIDIA. However, the NV36 has its chance in OpenGL games as well as in games with poor textures but complex geometry. Besides that, this GPU shows good speed when no full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are used, as well as in high resolutions. However, this largely depends on the specific application.

The matter of price can be waved aside – both cards cost about the same amount of money. As for pure usability, the ATI RADEON 9600 XT looks advantageous, too. It takes less space in the system case, produces less heat and noise and requires no additional power. The GeForce FX 5700 Ultra may be interesting to people who are not much into gaming as well as for those who want to have a graphics card with two DVI-I outputs. And of course, all hardcore fanatics of NVIDIA may find the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra an interesting solution for &#036;200. Although our card had only one digital output, there will surely be a model with two of them in the market. The owners of a GeForce FX 5600 Ultra may find themselves behind the times – this GPU may not be able to run the upcoming DirectX 9.0 games properly.

For those of you who are looking forward to the release of such games as Half-Life 2 or S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Oblivion Lost, but who can’t afford a high-end card, the RADEON 9600 XT may suit just fine. The owners of the RADEON 9600 PRO may not bother much about the new VPU. Instead, they can try to overclock the graphics core, because the main difference between the RADEON 9600 XT and the RADEON 9600 PRO is the operational frequency.

---

---

I can&#39;t comprehend why that may be true. I&#39;m gonna do some looking around.

Its talking about the 5600 isn&#39;t it:

Quote:

---

The owners of a GeForce FX 5600 Ultra may find themselves behind the times – this GPU may not be able to run the upcoming DirectX 9.0 games properly.

---

After a little looking I see no other site that says this...

On most benchies, the 5700 Ultra wins over the 9600XT.

Benchmarks are not the issue:

MSI GeForce FX 5700 Ultra-TD128

Quote:

---

If frames per second were the only measure of success, then the 5700 Ultra would be the winner by a slight margin. However, we must also take into account driver stability and visual quality. I&#39;m pleased to report that both cards performed flawlessly during testing and casual use. There were no compatibility issues or funny pixel happenings going on.

Visually, however, I was quite surprised to detect a difference between the two cards. This is the first RADEON card I&#39;ve tested, and while I&#39;ve read in other reviews that ATi often has a slight edge in visual quality, I didn&#39;t really expect to notice it. However, back-to-back comparisons clearly showed a small, but appealing, difference in image sharpness and color depth with the 9600XT. Colors were more vivid and deep with the ATi card. The 5700U certainly looks nice, but the 9600XT wins the visual prize.

Conclusion

The FX5700 Ultra is certainly successful in addressing the shortcomings of the FX5600 cards. It fits nicely in the middle ground between the price leader FX5200&#39;s and the top end FX cards. As usual with NVIDIA graphics cards, it is ultra-stable and compatible. Head-to-head tests with the ATi 9600XT confirm that essentially the two cards are even in terms of performance. The 9600XT has a slight visual edge, however, at least to my eyes.

MSI is less successful with the bundling options. It does come with the requisite cables and connectors, but the bundled software is of little value. It appears the buyer is paying a premium for this bundle, because a quick Pricegrabber search revealed that the MSI was the most expensive of the five FX5700 Ultras available.

Regardless of price and software reservations, the MSI FX5700 Ultra-TD128 performs very well for its class and against its competition. We award it 8 out of 10 Bear Paws.

---

It&#39;s all about quality gaming.