Printable View
After the release of Radeon 9600, will the price of Radeon 9500 come down.
and for those who are in the business, you probably know that radeon 9500 has a pretty darn good chance to beat the new yet unreleased 9600...
from the current benchmarks, the radeon 9500 pro beats Nvidia FX 5600 ultra hands down.
soo, my question is, should i buy the 9500 now? or should i wait till the release of 9600 and 9200?
WHAT???
Radeon 9500 beats GeForceFX...
I dont think so... The new geforce fx cards run at 1Ghz core speed... The radeon doesnt run that quick!
well obviously u r not in the "Business" then.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDQ0
read for yourself.
if u don't believe that, just look at the rest of websites.
http://www.3dchipset.com/
http://www.ocaddiction.com/
http://www.3dgpu.com/index.php
and by the way, not just GeForce FX, Radeon 9500 Pro beats GeForce FX 5600 Ultra
and none of the GeForce FX cards have a core speed of 1Ghz, you must have confused that with memory speed.
besides, core speed really doesn't matter that much. Radeon cards are just designed better.
Radeon does beat Geforce. The GeFroce FX is a HUGE dissapointment. It may have the insane clocks, but it is not effecient at all. Radeon absolutly murders GeForce in FSAA/Aniso test.. always has. Go with Radeon. Of course the longer you wait, the more prices go down. But the longer you wait, the longer you go without graphics goodness. :D
P.S. Get the fastest card you can afford. Video cards get outdated FAST.
Well, just wait for the Radeon Pro 9800 256mb ultra... if we are lucky it will ship in april... and rumor has it, it is DYNOMITE! lol
Ya, its gonna be bad ass... NV35, (nvidias next chip) is soon on the way too, as the gfx turned to be lackluster, rumors say the chip may have tapped out already, (from the fab plant), and that maybe in 2 months or so, we could see it... gonna be a interesting spring/summer for gfx cards
Initial reports suggest that the NV31 and the NV35 will have even more problems competing. It just gets easier and easier for ATI. The promising thing Nvidia has going for them is that the NV35 will be the first sub-$100 graphics card with DirectX 9 capabilites. That is certian to put a twist in the bargain card market.
If you really want to go out and pay £300 for a graphics card that is full of bugs then go ahead.
ati still have driver problems.
nvidia fx is a bit new. (and does beat the ati in benchmarks)
get a ti 4600 it will run any game that is likely to be out in the next year so why pay for new technology that is yet to be proven.
bet you bought a betamax
Are you kidding me? Catalyst 3 are the best unified drivers in the market. Nothing is more bugged than the GFx. It is BARELY faster than Radeon in raw performance but does not even come close in FSAA/Aniso benchmarks.Quote:
Originally posted by mikharris@20 March 2003 - 15:04
If you really want to go out and pay £300 for a graphics card that is full of bugs then go ahead.
ati still have driver problems.
nvidia fx is a bit new. (and does beat the ati in benchmarks)
get a ti 4600 it will run any game that is likely to be out in the next year so why pay for new technology that is yet to be proven.
bet you bought a betamax
I must be really unlucky then, recently installed catalyst 3.1 and it fried windows. ATI might get it right one day I guess, but don't hold your breath.
hhhhhmmmmmmmmmm we`ll see
as i said geforce fx is to new to think about but i will stake me old age pension on it being faster than any radeon card.
and the drivers are bugged to bollocks
You really are unlucky, because they are great drivers.Quote:
Originally posted by davinda@21 March 2003 - 10:25
I must be really unlucky then, recently installed catalyst 3.1 and it fried windows. ATI might get it right one day I guess, but don't hold your breath.
Super, btw...
the nv35 is the next high end card from graphzilla, (nvidia), not the low end... the nv31's have already been paper released...
the nv35 is suppoesed to compete with the 9800 256meg pro card, and such, its not a low end card.
Nope, you are wrong. NV30 is the big one, NV31 is mid-range and NV34 is the bargain chip. If you want proof, then read this.Quote:
Originally posted by Schmiggy_JK23@21 March 2003 - 21:07
Super, btw...
the nv35 is the next high end card from graphzilla, (nvidia), not the low end... the nv31's have already been paper released...
the nv35 is suppoesed to compete with the 9800 256meg pro card, and such, its not a low end card.
Radeon 9500 is as fast as a GeForce4Ti 4400....
for the money, the GeForceTi4600 is the best buy with the best performance for your money....
if u have money to waste, get the 4800 or an FX.....
ATI Radeon's 9700Pro beats the GeForce4Ti4600, but not by much....
their 9800Pro is comparable to the GeForce4800.....
FX beats them all, but not by much, not worth it for the money.... :lol:
BOTTOM LINE:
either get a GeForce4Ti4600 or ATI Radeon 9700....... :D
wait for NVidia to come out with a better card, since the FX barely surpasses the Radeon 9800...... :P
LOL You all are funny allmost every card u have mensioned is so close in performance (if properly configured) that u could not tell the diffrence if it wasnt for bench marks
ya all read to much advertising
btw i use a matrox g200 w/ 8 Mb video ram and it works fine for everything i need
only thing i found that it wont work with so far is Warcraft 3
but then again i hate 1st person shooters except for mechwarior and i play it for the strat more then the 1st person shooter part of it and it plays that fine with all setings set to highest posable. hi res, sorced lighting, hi detail, and full anamation
Well you probably had the drawing time problem which is created by SmartGart which you need to disable in services.Quote:
I must be really unlucky then, recently installed catalyst 3.1 and it fried windows. ATI might get it right one day I guess, but don't hold your breath.
easier way to do that is get the new 3.2 they fixed it up...I had the same problem with 3.1 and had to system restore to 3.0 and live till 3.2
also
Quote:
If you really want to go out and pay £300 for a graphics card that is full of bugs then go ahead.
ati still have driver problems.
nvidia fx is a bit new. (and does beat the ati in benchmarks)
get a ti 4600 it will run any game that is likely to be out in the next year so why pay for new technology that is yet to be proven.
bet you bought a betamax
This looks like one of those fans who a year ago was bragging about how Nvidia's mighty new card was going to come out so SOON..
And how ATI had no chance JUST becuase fans like yourself were obsessed with thier GF4 TI's.
Well Nvidia's day is over if you haven't noticed..
ATI has stepped up pulled out some amazing cards pretty damn quick. ATI is getting more Motherboard sponsorships and more companies are turning to them.
Simple: ATI is the solution. They did have some bugs with old drivers on XP but most are fixed and can be due to the personal hardware not the company drivers.
Make sure you buy a good version of the card. Not the cheap version you find online.
OMFG QuietSilence!!!!
OMG!!!!!
8MB!!!!
get a new card, seriously.....
Quote:
This looks like one of those fans who a year ago was bragging about how Nvidia's mighty new card was going to come out so SOON..
And how ATI had no chance JUST becuase fans like yourself were obsessed with thier GF4 TI's.
really don`t think so i use a geforce ti4200 64mb which i bought about 2 weeks ago
I have read some reviews of the fx card and all of these rate the geforce as a better card than the radeon
and ati drivers are full of bugs and always will be
we`ll see
hows this one? im planning to get this one... is there a better one for a little cheaper or a little more expensive?
Quote:
ATI OEM RADEON 9000 Atlantis 64MB DDR W/TV out NO DVI, BULKATI Radeon 9000 Atlantis Model # 1024-1197-00-SA (Video-Out NTSCL) Features:
Graphics Controller: RADEON 9000 graphics processing unit (GPU) Memory Configuration
64MB DDR, 128-bit memory, max memory Interface: 9.6GB/s with 200MHZ DDR.
Ports:15-pin VGA connector, S-Video Out connector
Bus Interface: AGP2X/4X
Video-Out Powered by ATI Manufactured by Sapphire
Graphics Performance: includes TRUFORM, HYPER Z II, SMOOTHVISION technology and supports 32-bit 3D gaming up to 2048x1536 Please note there is a jumper to switch from NTSC to PAL onboard
Supported OS: Windows 98SE, Windows Me, Windows 2000, XP more info>
N82E16814102234
$65.00
I agree with QuietSilence! , we're all suckered in by the 'bigger and better' advertising crap, lets face it, its only the boffs with their test- beds that see any bloody difference, we've just got good imaginations. ;) .
Soul where are you getting that from...Thats cheap enough to scare me....
I got my Radeon 9700 PRO (the one in the red box from Best Buy) for $170 (including S and H)
But I didn't get it legally obviously...I don't think I would of bought it for its normal $400 price at the time..
Though the card is great and I had a crappy Gf4 MX before it.
QuietSilence is right. All you Nvidia fanboys need to face the fact: ATI reigns supreme. Even their entry level Radeon 9000 performs really well. All of their boards beat their Nvidia counterparts, for about the same price.
And here something to think about: The Geforce FX has a core clock speed of 500Mhz and the Radeon 9700 pro has a core clock speed of 325Mhz. That's a about a 40% speed advantage, yet it's only BARELY faster? And you say ATI cards are buggy! <_<
Super, funny man. You are wrong... nv30 silly, is the Geforcefx... the current one, that is out, the 128meg, directx 9 card, with the big ass fan, thats why they say its a niche market...
the nv35 is the next big chip, due out in a month or two, get ur facts straight before u come talkin smack to a pc builder...
and heres the proof, for you noobs who dont read accordingly, and follow every hardware release cycle...
nv30 = geforce fx.... nv 35 is new card...
NV## is the representation of the order the cards are released...
nv31 = 5200 (just paper released, out soon)
nv34 = 5600 (same)
nv30 = 5800 ultra (out now, after some delays)
nv35 = ??? (the next geforce card, assuming they keep the name, not paper released, just back from the fab plant)
Its not the low end card that ur earlier post said it was... its the next high end card..... the next set of low end cards would be like nv36, and nv39 or such, and wouldnt be out for like another 5-6 months.
the nv35 is being rushed out, cuz the nv30 ( the 5800 ultra) didnt compete with the Radeon Pro 9700, and 9800 as well and nvidia thought.
It has nothing to do with buggy. I have no clue where you learned about hardware, but you need more lessons.Quote:
Originally posted by Supernatural@24 March 2003 - 00:19
And here something to think about: The Geforce FX has a core clock speed of 500Mhz and the Radeon 9700 pro has a core clock speed of 325Mhz. That's a about a 40% speed advantage, yet it's only BARELY faster? And you say ATI cards are buggy! <_<
The Radeon Pro uses 256bit memory... while the geforce fx use 128bit memory. Yet, the geforce fx beats the Radeon 9700 pro in some tests, as does the 9700 beat it in some tests, (especially higher aa levels). The reason the Geforce fx competes, yet being only 128 bit memory, is cuz of the higher clock speed.
Its not about bugs.
Im no fan boy of either... if i buy a card say next month, it will be the 500$ radeon pro 256 meg 9800. But I may just wait for the nv35, and see what its packing.
My mistake... I get the NV34 and the NV35 mixed up. I feel like an @$$ right now. :">
yeah, but the GeForce Ti series are not directX 9 cards.Quote:
Originally posted by mikharris@20 March 2003 - 21:04
If you really want to go out and pay £300 for a graphics card that is full of bugs then go ahead.
ati still have driver problems.
nvidia fx is a bit new. (and does beat the ati in benchmarks)
get a ti 4600 it will run any game that is likely to be out in the next year so why pay for new technology that is yet to be proven.
bet you bought a betamax
i mean isn't what this whole hype about Geforce Fx is all about? DirectX 9 cards for the messes?
correction, shitty DirectX 9 cards for the messes. even radeon's 9000 pro series is faster than the new GeForce FX 5200, it's really kinda sad.
True, but the GeForce FX 5200 has DX9 capabilities that the Radeon 9000 does not have.
it's been a while since i've read any Geforce FX previews, but from what i remember, most sites were saying that the GF FX and the Radeon 9500 were fairly comparable in speed. it's possible that nvidia will release drivers that improve the performance of the FX so it leaps ahead of the 9500 by a bigger margin, but at the moment it seems like kind of a letdown.
and i realize that opinions are very passionately split down the middle about the 3D Mark 2003 benchmark, but i would caution people to avoid using that test as the most important factor in their choice of card because it doesn't reflect the performance of the cards in any games that are currently available... and the idea that it accurately reflects performance with upcoming games is extremely questionable as it is impossible to predict how well the designers of actual games will be able to take advantage of video card technology. 3D Mark should be taken with a grain of salt and be considered a technology demonstration rather than a reflection of game performance, since nobody can say how well DX9 cards will run DX9 games, until games using DX9 graphic effects are actually released. one company can release a DX9 game that runs extremely fast on DX9 cards, while another one can release a DX9 game that crawls like a snail on DX9 cards... it all comes down to the skill of the software programmers, in the end.
megahertz and gigahertz mean something, when you're comparing one processor to another processor of the same design. i.e. a 2ghz athlon is better than a 1ghz athlon. but when you start comparing different processor designs, megahertz/gigahertz become what is jokingly referred to as "meaningless indicator of processor speed." a 2ghz athlon is not the same as a 2ghz pentium 4 is not the same as a 2ghz mac g4. the mhz or ghz can give you a rough idea of the real world performance, but everyday use is the true indicator.Quote:
Originally posted by Supernatural@23 March 2003 - 21:19
And here something to think about: The Geforce FX has a core clock speed of 500Mhz and the Radeon 9700 pro has a core clock speed of 325Mhz. That's a about a 40% speed advantage, yet it's only BARELY faster? And you say ATI cards are buggy! <_<
along that same line, an ATI video processor is a completely different design from a nvidia video processor, so comparing their clock speeds is basically meaningless.
it has nothing to do with buggy or not buggy, but how efficiently the designers were able to transform mhz into effective work, using a combination of processor design, board design, memory, and driver software. if a 300mhz video card is able to compete with a 500mhz video card, it means that ATI is using their mhz more efficently... not that nvidia's card is buggy. however it does serve as proof that mhz are not the be all, end all... and you can't judge computer equipment just by how many MIPS (meaningless indicator...) it has.
dumbshitters, lets get THIS STRAIGHT!!!!!
Ati IS the leader for the moment....the FX didn't perform as well as they'd hoped, ahd they're lupping it from the market.....
though, for the money, the GeForce4Ti 4800 is STILL the best buy........
Ati Radeon 9700 Pro is THE BEST right now, but here in the States it's $350-375, and there's no fuckin way I'm guna spend that much money on a GPU......
the ONLY reason that you would really need the best best BEST performance is if ur playing Unreal 2/UT2003....or Doom III when its finally released........
seriously guys, the FX sucks, it costs $250 for the same performance as a GeForce 4Ti4600, which is about $150............. :D :lol:
Exactly my point, brainiac. Some morons want to say the GeForce FX has a much higher clock, therefore it blows the Radeon 9700 away. I'm saying that it's not a factor, because the Radeon 9700 performs better in most tests.Quote:
when you start comparing different processor designs, megahertz/gigahertz become what is jokingly referred to as "meaningless indicator of processor speed."
It's my opinion that the Radeon 9500 pro is the best value. You get a fast card with DX9 capabilites for less than $200. Nvidia can't beat that.Quote:
though, for the money, the GeForce4Ti 4800 is STILL the best buy........
That is non-sense. <_<Quote:
seriously guys, the FX sucks, it costs $250 for the same performance as a GeForce 4Ti4600, which is about $150...
super, i suppose you're right about the 9500, its pretty good, but I've always used Nvidia, so I'm kinda biased.... :P :D
as for the FX, we all know it sucks and was shelved.....stop comparing clock speeds and shit, how bout some actual results like fps (frames per second) in different settings......ie 800x600 1024x768 1280x1024 etc etc etc.......with/wohtout AA and etc etc....deatil level Low Med High, and which game ur using......ie UT2003, JK2, Quake 3, Doom 3 Alpha.....NOT JUST SAYING OOOO MINE HAS A HIGHER CLOCK SPEED SO THAT MEANS ITS FASTER!!!! you have to take into account the # of pipelines, the drivers, os, etc etc etc
btw, the 9700 IS the best card on the market RIGHT NOW.......
FX sucks, I'm very disappointed in Nvidia, with me being a major fan of their cards over anyone else.....
you know what!?!? does it matter how good a video card is now... as long as you get a display shouldnt you be happy, same goes w/ the speakers and sound card...
the 9700 does not blow out the 5800 gfx. In tests with low levels of AA, and lower resolutions the 5800 beats the 9700... i can show you the tests...
"As we’ve seen, the GeForce FX is no slouch in the 3D accelerator world, however it is not the "9700-killer" many have expected. It is, at best, mildly faster in most games, and the same or slightly worse in a few. Had it arrived when most of us thought it should, there is no doubt it would be much better received.
Hardocp gfx review
On higher reses, and levels of AA, the 9700 does have the lead at times.
The 9700 by no way dominates the gfx, nor is it the clear cut leader. the 9800 which hits later this month, or next, yes, it does beat the gfx by bit.
get your shit straight before you run mouth sounding like an ass metal.
oops, my bad. if i said radeon 9500 in my earlier posts, it should've been 9700. i realize that the 9500 is the "budget" version...
Well, the 9500 is mid-ranged no bargain. 9000 is the entry level.
Schmiggy, I'm going to have to agree with Metal. Radeon 9700 is the better card. Don't you think?
in addition to the FX being inefficient, it has a frickin nuclear reactor for a fan...it takes up two slots and is powerful enough to cool your room. The radeons are the best, but too expensive...id say get a Geforce 4 Ti4200-4600.
IF i had to chose between the 9700 and the gfx 5800, i would prolly take the 9700, not just cuz of the negligable perfromance gap, but cuz of the price difference mainly.
But the gainward gfx 5800 seems nice, as its fan only runs at 2decibles, far below the 70 by the normal 5800's.
I however read some intresting news today about the nv35, nvidias next card, and I may have to wait on that 256meg 9800 radeon... as the nv35 could be faster