My Soon To Be Revised Pc!

[clocker]

Originally posted by Spindulik@1 December 2003 - 14:00


Does that ASUS support the newest DDR [RAM] memory?

Yes.

[adamp2p]

Hardcore gamer: why would you pay $250+ for a card that does not perform (nearly) as well as the ATI 9600 XT, which is almost hundred dollars cheaper?


ATI OEM Radeon 9600 XT AGP 8X 128MB DDR Video Card w/TV-Out, DVI & CRT *** Free 2nd Day *** $161.00
here

Let's compare performance in my favorite benchmark, Aquamark3:







As the heat turns on the cards, the ATI cards come out ahead. Without little AA or AF, Nvidia wins the battle. But what gamer wants to play with less than the best image quality settings?

After turning on FSAA and AF, we witness a well-known effect: the cards on ATI VPUs easily break away from the competitors, leaving them far behind. The architecture of ATI’s chips coupled with efficient AF and FSAA algorithms helps handling huge workloads.

Conclusion
I have already said this many times that modern graphics cards based on ATI Technologies chips have higher potential than those on GPUs from NVIDIA Corporation. In other words, if you’ve got a card with a RADEON in it, it is sure to be fast in more DirectX 9.0 games. Our testing in the AquaMark3 set confirms this statement. Both: expensive and mass graphics cards on RADEONs ensure good performance combined with excellent image quality.

As for NVIDIA, the company has corrected its mistakes by releasing the new driver, ForceWare. In fact, the release of a special code compiler was the only choice, since NVIDIA has no time to redesign the bulky NV3x architecture and is unlikely to have the time in the future. According to the test results, the ForceWare project is a success. The performance of NVIDIA’s GPUs has increased considerably. The performance gain is so high that NVIDIA regained the leadership in a number of tests. On the other hand, GPUs from ATI Technologies go unrivaled in the tests that use full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.

It means that if you want more fps, you may want to choose a GeForce FX 5950 Ultra card. Otherwise, if you go for a higher image quality, the RADEON 9800 XT and PRO may be your choice. If you cannot afford the top models, consider a GeForce FX 5700 Ultra or RADEON 9600 XT – these two solutions show similar level of performance. Besides that, other factors also should be considered. I am talking about physical dimensions and heat dissipation. From this point of view the RADEON 9600 XT looks advantageous over the competitor that carries hot chips of DDR-II memory and a hot GPU on its massive PCB.

As for the image quality, we noticed no visual artifacts during our AquaMark3 tests. This doesn’t mean the ForceWare driver needs no further improvement. In some modern games, like Splinter Cell, you lose or distort shadows with this driver. Anyway, the new driver from NVIDIA does provide a performance growth in every application and game rather than in a selected few. This approach should be considered appropriate, but needs further working upon.

The situation with the GeForce FX reminds me of the one with the Intel Itanium processor. This high-performance 64-bit processor, featuring the EPIC architecture, has to use a translator to execute 32-bit code. The result is obvious: the Itanium is very slow at running x86 programs, notwithstanding all the advantages of the EPIC architecture. Intel is constantly polishing off the translator and that’s what NVIDIA’s going to do with its ForceWare. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that the games of the new generation, like Doom III, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Oblivion Lost and Half-Life 2, will have too complex engines for the software optimizer to digest. We are going to see soon, if it is really the case.

The AquaMark3 benchmarking set itself proved to be a handy and precise tool for measuring the performance of graphics cards. Based on a real gaming engine, AquaMark3 offers a number of extras that make your work easier. I can recommend it to any professional tester. Of course, the suite has minor drawbacks, but is often more convenient than Futuremark 3DMark03.

[abu_has_the_power]

hey adamp2p, wat's ur aquamark score again? i just got a radeon 9600. my score is 20808. is that good or bad?

[silent h3ro]

Originally posted by Pitbul@1 December 2003 - 15:42
very nice combo. but if i were u and this coming from a nvidia fan whose kinda makin a transition to ATI i'd suggest a ATI 9600 Pro or XT if u can find one. my Pc is almost exaclty the same but im getting a 9800 XT this christmas, one other thing whats the FSB on your 2.4?

400 mhz

[silent h3ro]

Originally posted by adamp2p@1 December 2003 - 21:48
Hardcore gamer: why would you pay $250+ for a card that does not perform (nearly) as well as the ATI 9600 XT, which is almost hundred dollars cheaper?


ATI OEM Radeon 9600 XT AGP 8X 128MB DDR Video Card w/TV-Out, DVI & CRT *** Free 2nd Day *** $161.00
here

Let's compare performance in my favorite benchmark, Aquamark3:







As the heat turns on the cards, the ATI cards come out ahead. Without little AA or AF, Nvidia wins the battle. But what gamer wants to play with less than the best image quality settings?

After turning on FSAA and AF, we witness a well-known effect: the cards on ATI VPUs easily break away from the competitors, leaving them far behind. The architecture of ATI’s chips coupled with efficient AF and FSAA algorithms helps handling huge workloads.

Conclusion
I have already said this many times that modern graphics cards based on ATI Technologies chips have higher potential than those on GPUs from NVIDIA Corporation. In other words, if you’ve got a card with a RADEON in it, it is sure to be fast in more DirectX 9.0 games. Our testing in the AquaMark3 set confirms this statement. Both: expensive and mass graphics cards on RADEONs ensure good performance combined with excellent image quality.

As for NVIDIA, the company has corrected its mistakes by releasing the new driver, ForceWare. In fact, the release of a special code compiler was the only choice, since NVIDIA has no time to redesign the bulky NV3x architecture and is unlikely to have the time in the future. According to the test results, the ForceWare project is a success. The performance of NVIDIA’s GPUs has increased considerably. The performance gain is so high that NVIDIA regained the leadership in a number of tests. On the other hand, GPUs from ATI Technologies go unrivaled in the tests that use full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.

It means that if you want more fps, you may want to choose a GeForce FX 5950 Ultra card. Otherwise, if you go for a higher image quality, the RADEON 9800 XT and PRO may be your choice. If you cannot afford the top models, consider a GeForce FX 5700 Ultra or RADEON 9600 XT – these two solutions show similar level of performance. Besides that, other factors also should be considered. I am talking about physical dimensions and heat dissipation. From this point of view the RADEON 9600 XT looks advantageous over the competitor that carries hot chips of DDR-II memory and a hot GPU on its massive PCB.

As for the image quality, we noticed no visual artifacts during our AquaMark3 tests. This doesn’t mean the ForceWare driver needs no further improvement. In some modern games, like Splinter Cell, you lose or distort shadows with this driver. Anyway, the new driver from NVIDIA does provide a performance growth in every application and game rather than in a selected few. This approach should be considered appropriate, but needs further working upon.

The situation with the GeForce FX reminds me of the one with the Intel Itanium processor. This high-performance 64-bit processor, featuring the EPIC architecture, has to use a translator to execute 32-bit code. The result is obvious: the Itanium is very slow at running x86 programs, notwithstanding all the advantages of the EPIC architecture. Intel is constantly polishing off the translator and that’s what NVIDIA’s going to do with its ForceWare. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that the games of the new generation, like Doom III, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Oblivion Lost and Half-Life 2, will have too complex engines for the software optimizer to digest. We are going to see soon, if it is really the case.

The AquaMark3 benchmarking set itself proved to be a handy and precise tool for measuring the performance of graphics cards. Based on a real gaming engine, AquaMark3 offers a number of extras that make your work easier. I can recommend it to any professional tester. Of course, the suite has minor drawbacks, but is often more convenient than Futuremark 3DMark03.

Thanx for the bench marks, ill consider ATI.

[silent h3ro]

Also who knows what ATI cards come with Half Life 2?

[atiVidia]

Originally posted by HardcoreGamer+1 December 2003 - 23:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HardcoreGamer @ 1 December 2003 - 23:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-adamp2p@1 December 2003 - 21:48
Hardcore gamer: why would you pay &#036;250+ for a card that does not perform (nearly) as well as the ATI 9600 XT, which is almost hundred dollars cheaper?


ATI OEM Radeon 9600 XT AGP 8X 128MB DDR Video Card w/TV-Out, DVI & CRT *** Free 2nd Day *** &#036;161.00&nbsp;
here

Let&#39;s compare performance in my favorite benchmark, Aquamark3:







As the heat turns on the cards, the ATI cards come out ahead.&nbsp; Without little AA or AF, Nvidia wins the battle.&nbsp; But what gamer wants to play with less than the best image quality settings?

After turning on FSAA and AF, we witness a well-known effect: the cards on ATI VPUs easily break away from the competitors, leaving them far behind. The architecture of ATI’s chips coupled with efficient AF and FSAA algorithms helps handling huge workloads.

Conclusion
I have already said this many times that modern graphics cards based on ATI Technologies chips have higher potential than those on GPUs from NVIDIA Corporation. In other words, if you’ve got a card with a RADEON in it, it is sure to be fast in more DirectX 9.0 games. Our testing in the AquaMark3 set confirms this statement. Both: expensive and mass graphics cards on RADEONs ensure good performance combined with excellent image quality.

As for NVIDIA, the company has corrected its mistakes by releasing the new driver, ForceWare. In fact, the release of a special code compiler was the only choice, since NVIDIA has no time to redesign the bulky NV3x architecture and is unlikely to have the time in the future. According to the test results, the ForceWare project is a success. The performance of NVIDIA’s GPUs has increased considerably. The performance gain is so high that NVIDIA regained the leadership in a number of tests. On the other hand, GPUs from ATI Technologies go unrivaled in the tests that use full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.

It means that if you want more fps, you may want to choose a GeForce FX 5950 Ultra card. Otherwise, if you go for a higher image quality, the RADEON 9800 XT and PRO may be your choice. If you cannot afford the top models, consider a GeForce FX 5700 Ultra or RADEON 9600 XT – these two solutions show similar level of performance. Besides that, other factors also should be considered. I am talking about physical dimensions and heat dissipation. From this point of view the RADEON 9600 XT looks advantageous over the competitor that carries hot chips of DDR-II memory and a hot GPU on its massive PCB.

As for the image quality, we noticed no visual artifacts during our AquaMark3 tests. This doesn’t mean the ForceWare driver needs no further improvement. In some modern games, like Splinter Cell, you lose or distort shadows with this driver. Anyway, the new driver from NVIDIA does provide a performance growth in every application and game rather than in a selected few. This approach should be considered appropriate, but needs further working upon.

The situation with the GeForce FX reminds me of the one with the Intel Itanium processor. This high-performance 64-bit processor, featuring the EPIC architecture, has to use a translator to execute 32-bit code. The result is obvious: the Itanium is very slow at running x86 programs, notwithstanding all the advantages of the EPIC architecture. Intel is constantly polishing off the translator and that’s what NVIDIA’s going to do with its ForceWare. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that the games of the new generation, like Doom III, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Oblivion Lost and Half-Life 2, will have too complex engines for the software optimizer to digest. We are going to see soon, if it is really the case.

The AquaMark3 benchmarking set itself proved to be a handy and precise tool for measuring the performance of graphics cards. Based on a real gaming engine, AquaMark3 offers a number of extras that make your work easier. I can recommend it to any professional tester. Of course, the suite has minor drawbacks, but is often more convenient than Futuremark 3DMark03.

Thanx for the bench marks, ill consider ATI. [/b][/quote]
Those benchmarks are false.

I would advise Hardcore Gamer to spend less money on a 5700 ultra, but the 9600xt does NOT support combination 4x fsaa and 8x antisotropic filtering. The 9600 pro does not support this combination either. ATI used this as a safeguard to prevent overheating.

If these benchmarks were actually true, then the drivers were hacked, and the fans must have been replaced.

Thus, the last benchmarks are invalid, and should NOT be considered.

of course, it is worth getting the ATI card for the Half life 2 promotion

but no release date is even set for the game, so why does it matter?


To add more suspense to the heat, the 5700 ultra supports 8x fsaa+ 8x asf
but if one wants o play with such high rates, why not just pick up a matrox parhelia? it supports 16xfsaa+8xasf&#33;

the 9600 xt should be ruled out in this situation, as it does not qualify for the majority of the benchmarks.

[atiVidia]

Originally posted by HardcoreGamer@1 December 2003 - 23:22
Also who knows what ATI cards come with Half Life 2?

the 9800xt, the 9600xt, and the all in wonder 9600 pro

[atiVidia]

Originally posted by adamp2p@1 December 2003 - 21:48
Hardcore gamer: why would you pay &#036;250+ for a card that does not perform (nearly) as well as the ATI 9600 XT, which is almost hundred dollars cheaper?


ATI OEM Radeon 9600 XT AGP 8X 128MB DDR Video Card w/TV-Out, DVI & CRT *** Free 2nd Day *** &#036;161.00

notice that the asylum 5700 ultra comes with a lifetime warranty, but your ATI OEM card comes with only 60 day&#33;

if you havent noticed, oem means original equipment manufacturer, and NEVER comes with warranty > 90 days.

plus, the asylum card should cost around &#036;200, the same as a 9600xt

but asylum has a lifetime warranty, while ATI has only a 3 year warranty.

this makes nVidia a cheaper buy in this case.

for info on the asylum 5700 ultra, visit the BFG tech web page

[silent h3ro]

Originally posted by atiVidia+1 December 2003 - 23:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (atiVidia @ 1 December 2003 - 23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-HardcoreGamer@1 December 2003 - 23:22
Also who knows what ATI cards come with Half Life 2?

the 9800xt, the 9600xt, and the all in wonder 9600 pro [/b][/quote]
are they good cards and how much are they?