GeForce FX 5900 is out!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 12, 2003, 1:54 pm

According to the few reviews I've read, the 256 MB Ultra out-performs the Radeon 9800 by a few FPS in most benchmarks, is a LOT quiter than its predecessor, and is FUCKING EXPENSIVE ($500 for 256MB & $400 for 128MB).

I'm not sure what to think about it. For about half the price I can get an ATI 9700 Pro that offers comparable performance, less heat, and less noise. I guess the next-gen games that are actually written to use direct X 9 will be the true test of these cards...

miir · Post by **miir** » May 12, 2003, 2:12 pm

Since NVIDIA forced the original site to take down the 'benchmark' article, we can assume that the results were inaccurate and/or obtained using unauthorized drivers.

Besides that, the 3D Mark benchmark, run at a single resolution is not an accurate representation on the performance of a video card.
I'd be interested in seeing a bigger range of benchmarks... Both companies are putting out excellent products these days and competition is good for us consumers.

$500 for a video card is outrageous.
Unless I'm doubling my framerates, it's a waste of money.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 12, 2003, 2:20 pm

THG has a full suite of benchmarks, showing pretty much the same results as the others. Considering these aren't even against the latest ATI drivers, me thinks that nVidia is still playing catch-up to ATI.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 12, 2003, 2:21 pm

All of you nVidia freaks that have been spinning your wheels waiting for a decent card from them could have had a Radeon 9700 for the past half year. Swallow your pride and buy one now.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 12, 2003, 2:23 pm

lol and i thought $200 was a stupid amount to pay for a video card

miir · Post by **miir** » May 12, 2003, 2:26 pm

Winnow wrote:All of you nVidia freaks that have been spinning your wheels waiting for a decent card from them could have had a Radeon 9700 for the past half year. Swallow your pride and buy one now.

They are too busy whining about how ATI has shitty drivers.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 12, 2003, 2:35 pm

I haven't heard of very many driver issues on the Radeons. Well, except for EQ, but we all know what a steaming mound of shit it's code it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 12, 2003, 4:45 pm

I would squat over my PC tower and take a dump into the AGP slot before I put an ATI card into my computer. Two chimpanzees could mate on top of keyboard hooked up to a computer running VisualBasic 2.1 and come up with better drivers than ATI could write on their best day.

Unfortunately Nvidia seems to be following exactly the business model that landed 3DFX into the shitter.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 12, 2003, 4:53 pm

kyoukan wrote:I would squat over my PC tower and take a dump into the AGP slot before I put an ATI card into my computer. Two chimpanzees could mate on top of keyboard hooked up to a computer running VisualBasic 2.1 and come up with better drivers than ATI could write on their best day.

Unfortunately Nvidia seems to be following exactly the business model that landed 3DFX into the shitter.

kinky. Yet another tool living in the past. The 9700 drivers have been solid unlike what you just blasted into your computer.

Pilsburry · Post by **Pilsburry** » May 12, 2003, 5:15 pm

My 4600's should last me another year or so....since I don't play MMORPGs the load on my graphics card is much reduced.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 12, 2003, 5:31 pm

shit my 2nd box has a v3 3000 running EQ. sure it doesnt look great, but i dont lag on raids, so i dont give a fuck.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 12, 2003, 6:19 pm

If 6 months ago is living in the past then fire up that LP player and pull on your poodle skirts teenagers, because when I had a shit ATI card I was seeing or downloading Radeon compatibility patches for EQ, Morrowind, SOF2, Wolf3D, NOLF2, Mafia, Gunmetal, Splinter Cell etc.

Fucking piece of garbage video card.

Mort · Post by **Mort** » May 12, 2003, 6:37 pm

kyoukan wrote:I would squat over my PC tower and take a dump into the AGP slot

PIX PRZ!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 12, 2003, 7:03 pm

kyoukan wrote:If 6 months ago is living in the past then fire up that LP player and pull on your poodle skirts teenagers, because when I had a shit ATI card I was seeing or downloading Radeon compatibility patches for EQ, Morrowind, SOF2, Wolf3D, NOLF2, Mafia, Gunmetal, Splinter Cell etc.

Fucking piece of garbage video card.

With video cards, 6 months is living in the past so get out your old wooden sleigh and visit your retired sled dogs. It also sounds like you didnt have a 9700. So go back to your bars, your temples, your massage parlors. Come back and visit 6 months from now to bash the FX5900. It should be down to about twice the cost of the 9700 by then.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 12, 2003, 7:18 pm

Winnow wrote:So go back to your bars, your temples, your massage parlors.

It sounds like you're bashing bars and massage parlors, which is blasphemy. Don't make me PK you IRL!

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » May 12, 2003, 7:18 pm

9700 still has some issues with games.

ATI can't write drivers to save their own lives.

I finally said fuck it the other day, I didn't wanna spend a mint on an upgrade for my old GF2 GTS so I just bought the GF4Ti4200. Very happy with it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 12, 2003, 7:46 pm

masteen wrote:
Winnow wrote:So go back to your bars, your temples, your massage parlors.
It sounds like you're bashing bars and massage parlors, which is blasphemy. Don't make me PK you IRL!

One night in Bangkok!

Siam's gonna be the witness
To the ultimate test of cerebral fitness
This grips me more than would a
Muddy old river or reclining Buddha

And thank God I'm only watching the game, controlling it

I don't see you guys rating
The kind of mate I'm contemplating
I'd let you watch, I would invite you
But the queens we use would not excite you

So you better go back to your bars, your temples, your massage parlours

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 12, 2003, 8:26 pm

Damn, I completely missed that song reference. My 80's skills are lacking!

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » May 13, 2003, 5:01 am

There isn't much difference in the performance of my Ti4600 relative to the Radeon 9700, and certainly not anything that you could tell the difference between in game.

I'll stay with a company that can produce drivers that work with the majority of games and applications rather than a company that forces companies to produce patches that fix's something that shouldn't be that broken to begin with.

Sure the ATI is a good card, but it's not worth the headache to deal with the issues ATI has with their drivers.

As far as the price of video cards goes... I think every higher end card from the past year has been well over 400 when it was initially released. The price always drops so I wouldn't get all in a huff about that.

I'll go with the FX when I see it at a price that makes it worth upgrading what I already have.

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » May 13, 2003, 5:13 am

I'm still waiting for americans to boycott the card because ATI is canadian! That being said, until ATI gets a decent track record with drivers (something along the lines of 1 year with solid upgrades / no major issues), is when I'll purchase an ATI product again.

Neroon · Post by **Neroon** » May 13, 2003, 5:54 am

I have had my 9700 pro since last November or December. I have had zero driver issues. I have heard previous ATI cards had huge issues, but they do not seem to apply to the 9700+ series. Or perhaps it is more due to the release of the Catalyst 3.0 drivers, which was around the same time.

I still will be buying an Nvidia card next. The problem isn't so much that Nvidia has better drivers, it's that the gaming industry has accepted Nvidia as the standard for coding. Hell, DAoC has a big Nvidia logo on thier login screen....

Just a warning to anyone buying these new generation cards. Buy a new power supply! They suck the juice like crazy, I would recommend at least a 350W.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 13, 2003, 10:52 am

I'll stay with a company that can produce drivers that work with the majority of games and applications

So you're staying with ATI?

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » May 13, 2003, 1:07 pm

miir wrote:
I'll stay with a company that can produce drivers that work with the majority of games and applications
So you're staying with ATI?

I don't recall ever having to download a patch to make a game work with any nVidia card I have owned, starting way back with the Riva chipsets.

I doubt I will ever buy an ATI card and wouldn't use an ATI card even if one was given to me at no cost.

Does that answer your question?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 13, 2003, 6:19 pm

I continue to see people whine about past ATI cards. I also continue to see the people that have an ATI9700 say there are no problems with drivers. It's faster, cheaper and has been that way for over 6 months over nVidia cards.

Go buy a book or talk to your grandpa if you want to discuss history. Live in the present, take off your fucking blinders and deal with the fact that the 9700 has solid drivers. You're a bunch of Voodoo rejects I'm sure. If the voodoo 10 was released and required it's own powersupply and was bigger than a bowling ball you'd probably still buy it. You're the same freaks that will be sticking to ATI when another company comes along with a better product...one..step...behind!

If nVidia manages to produce a card better than ATIs that isn't 500.00, i'll buy it. Somehow I doubt it as ATI has a solid lead and products in the pipeline that are better than nVidias fucked up not yet released, overpriced card that barely competes with the ATI9800.

Hang in there!

Janx · Post by **Janx** » May 13, 2003, 6:34 pm

I've been an Nvidia fan since the TNT..And my next card is 99% probable to be an ATI video card. That expensive 2 slot behemoth that Nvidia put out is disgusting. IMO they dropped the ball with the whole FX series.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 13, 2003, 6:36 pm

Sorry Winnow I can't read your post. I'm running an ATI video card and I need to download the ATI Internet Explorer compatability patch. Hopefully it will be out before 2004.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 13, 2003, 6:45 pm

Even the FX 5900 takes up 2 slots. It's not a problem for my gaming rig, but if I had USB, Firewire, and/or SCSI adapters in it this could be a problem.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » May 13, 2003, 7:07 pm

Winnow wrote:I continue to see people whine about past ATI cards. I also continue to see the people that have an ATI9700 say there are no problems with drivers. It's faster, cheaper and has been that way for over 6 months over nVidia cards.

Go buy a book or talk to your grandpa if you want to discuss history. Live in the present, take off your fucking blinders and deal with the fact that the 9700 has solid drivers. You're a bunch of Voodoo rejects I'm sure. If the voodoo 10 was released and required it's own powersupply and was bigger than a bowling ball you'd probably still buy it. You're the same freaks that will be sticking to ATI when another company comes along with a better product...one..step...behind!

If nVidia manages to produce a card better than ATIs that isn't 500.00, i'll buy it. Somehow I doubt it as ATI has a solid lead and products in the pipeline that are better than nVidias fucked up not yet released, overpriced card that barely competes with the ATI9800.

Hang in there!

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/vid ... 56/001.htm

$499 for a video card? I believe I said that the newly released higher end cards are almost always over $400.

Don't come off with the attitude that ATI doesn't have over priced cards when they are first released. I could probably come up with some figures to dispute your claim that ATI has a lead over nVidia also.

FX can't compete with the 9800?

Read and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=20

miir · Post by **miir** » May 14, 2003, 12:46 am

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/vid ... 56/001.htm

$499 for a video card? I believe I said that the newly released higher end cards are almost always over $400.

Don't come off with the attitude that ATI doesn't have over priced cards when they are first released. I could probably come up with some figures to dispute your claim that ATI has a lead over nVidia also.

FX can't compete with the 9800?

Read and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=20

Of the 2 best cards currently available from ATI and nVidia, the ATI comes out ahead in every category.

The 5800 is rougly on par with the last generation Radeon 9700.
The ATI lists for about $150 less than the nVidia.

When the 5900 is availble in about 4-5 months, the 9800 will probably be priced around $300-350.

Right now, ATI is a generation ahead of nVidia.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » May 14, 2003, 3:02 am

miir wrote: Of the 2 best cards currently available from ATI and nVidia, the ATI comes out ahead in every category.

The 5800 is rougly on par with the last generation Radeon 9700.
The ATI lists for about $150 less than the nVidia.

When the 5900 is availble in about 4-5 months, the 9800 will probably be priced around $300-350.

Right now, ATI is a generation ahead of nVidia.

I was replying to Winnow's challenge of nVidia producing a card that can compete with the 9800. I provided a comparison between the FX and the 9800.

Price of both cards? Retail is identical.

Read the comparison then tell me if nVidia produced a card that 'barely' compete with the 9800.

A generation ahead? I don't think so.

You might even want to look for their comments on the drivers that were provided by both nVidia and ATI for the comparison.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 14, 2003, 12:36 pm

The difference Aruman, is that I can take my 500 bucks down to Best Buy and walk out with a Radeon.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 14, 2003, 1:03 pm

Price of both cards? Retail is identical.

The 9700 and 5800 offer similar performance.
As per pricewatch.com, the 9700 retails for around $230 while the 5800 retails for roughly $375.

Does the 5800 offer enough features and performace to warrant a pice nearly $150 more than the radeon?
I think not.

Read the comparison then tell me if nVidia produced a card that 'barely' compete with the 9800.

Comparing the best card each company currently has on the market, I can say without a doubt that ATI beats nVidia cleanly.

A generation ahead? I don't think so.

Look at nVidias recent track record with releasing new products and chipsets. Don't expect to see the FX 5900 in stores for another 5-6 months.

Seeing as the 9800 has been out for months, and product cycles with video cards are generally 8-12 months, ATI is clearly a generation ahead of nVidia at this point in time. nVidia has been forced to play catch up for the past 10-12 months.

Read the comparison then tell me if nVidia produced a card that 'barely' compete with the 9800.

I think I was pretty clear that I am referring to available products.
Not products that might be available in the next 5-6 months.

If the only way you can defend your beloved nVidia is by comparing their future products to current (3-4 month old) products, then by all means. I suspect ATI will have a new chipset ready for release shortly after the FX5900 hits the shelves.

I used to buy strictly ATI video cards.
They are cheap and offer acceptable performance and compatibility.

For the past 8+ months I've had a ti4600 in my machine and while it's a pretty good card, I can't say that it offered noticeably better perfomance or image quality over the Radeon 9500 I had in there.

My opinion isn't biased towards either company, both put out quality cards and the competition keeps them from slacking... but ATI has made leaps and bounds in the past few years and the insurmountable technological lead that nVidia used to have is now non existant.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 14, 2003, 1:41 pm

well i hardly am an expert in this arena, but i can say i was not blown away by my geForce. Yeah i got the sucky one, geforce 2 mx400, right after velious came out, and honestly, i remember my Voodoo performing better on a couple things.

in the end it has handled higher demand graphics of luclin models (voodoo just cant do it) better, but my extremely limited experience with nVidea has me looking to buy ATI this time around.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 14, 2003, 1:44 pm

If you can tell the difference between the two cards while playing games, the difference is going to be so slight it won't matter. If the 4600 can run fine with all models on in EQ, then you aren't going to tell the difference in up-coming games with better graphics engines.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 14, 2003, 2:05 pm

You all sound like Hi Fi buffs

Sounds to me like there's a gnat's fart in difference in performance for real-world applications (benchmarks, feh). I think the word "Generation" is being bandied about a bit loosely here too cos these things just look like clock revisions/more RAM/more transistors but the same underlying architecture.

Either way it'll be a year or so before many games really make the things dance.

PS: You could take your $500 down the shop and walk out with 2 consoles too heh

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 14, 2003, 2:08 pm

or a pretty decent 32" Flat screen TV.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 14, 2003, 2:30 pm

Vetiria wrote:If you can tell the difference between the two cards while playing games, the difference is going to be so slight it won't matter. If the 4600 can run fine with all models on in EQ, then you aren't going to tell the difference in up-coming games with better graphics engines.

I diagree with that. The point when I perceived my GF2 was sucking was when EQ switched over to DX 8. I cannot imagine that games that use next-gen technologies like DX 9, occlusion culling, ect. are gonna chug along happily with the CPU doing all the work.

Of course, I'm the type that demands bells & whistles. If you were content with no Luclin models, 30% clip plane, no emotes, ect. your mileage will vary from mine

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 14, 2003, 2:32 pm

EDIT: Double posts suck!

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 14, 2003, 4:08 pm

I wasn't talking about GF2 though. I had to replace mine because it sucked even without models on in EQ. I upgraded to a 4600, and I'm sure it will last me at least another year, and most likely more. If the 4600 can handle almost anything that's thrown at it, you're not going to be able to tell the difference between the FX and the 9700. At least not until companies start making games with those cards are minimums.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 14, 2003, 4:42 pm

Not exactly true, Vet. EQ doesn't require DX 8 hardware acceleration, but it sure as hell benefits from a card that does it. I'm sure the 4600 will handle DX 9 games, but it certainly won't excel on them.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » May 14, 2003, 5:51 pm

miir wrote:
Price of both cards? Retail is identical.
The 9700 and 5800 offer similar performance.
As per pricewatch.com, the 9700 retails for around $230 while the 5800 retails for roughly $375.

Does the 5800 offer enough features and performace to warrant a pice nearly $150 more than the radeon?
I think not.

Sigh... let me try this again since someone isn't able to read very well.

Winnow is claiming that the FX isn't able to compete with the 9800 ok?

I couldn't care less about the 9700 since that is not what I am talking about.

The 9800 and the FX have identical retail prices and I provided a comparison of the 9800 and the FX for you all to draw your own conclusions from.

Get off the 9700 fixation since it doesn't apply to what I or Winnow were talking about.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 14, 2003, 6:04 pm

The 5800 is an FX card, as is the 5900. The 5800 is actually available for sale, unlike the 5900, which is but a myth at this point in time.

Since it will prolly be another 3 months before the FX 5900 hits retailers at $500/unit, it's a safe assumption that the 9800 (which is $400 right fucking now) will be even cheaper then.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 14, 2003, 7:06 pm

I went to Fry's Electronics at lunch:

ATI 9800 $399.00 In stock

FX 5800 NO FUCKING WHERE TO BE FOUND

9700 will still kick the ass of nVidia cards and is cheaper.

Good grief.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » May 14, 2003, 7:35 pm

Winnow wrote:I went to Fry's Electronics at lunch:

ATI 9800 $399.00 In stock

FX 5900 NO FUCKING WHERE TO BA FOUND

9700 will still kick the ass of nVidia cards and is cheaper.

Good grief.

Oh, so now you switch gears and up it to the 5900.

Still, go read the comparison between the FX and the 9800, which you were originally harping about.

Good grief is right.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 14, 2003, 7:45 pm

You're comparing ATI technology that was available and blowing the fucking doors off nVidia 6 months ago to an nVidia card that's just now available and able to compete. I fail to see your point.

I suppose if you like passing on cards that are available 6 months before NVidias and then shell out top dollar for the nVidia card when it does come out you're in good shape and all is right in your world. Kinda funny but people do strange things.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » May 14, 2003, 8:00 pm

Winnow wrote:You're comparing ATI technology that was available and blowing the fucking doors off nVidia 6 months ago to an nVidia card that's just now available and able to compete. I fail to see your point.

I suppose if you like passing on cards that are available 6 months before NVidias and then shell out top dollar for the nVidia card when it does come out you're in good shape and all is right in your world. Kinda funny but people do strange things.

The point is you seem to have forgotten that YOU brought up the comparison to begin with.

I find a comparison between your vaunted 9800 and the FX and you conveniently get amnesia.

Obviously forgettign everything you said is right in your world

miir · Post by **miir** » May 14, 2003, 8:18 pm

Aruman wrote: The point is you seem to have forgotten that YOU brought up the comparison to begin with.

I find a comparison between your vaunted 9800 and the FX and you conveniently get amnesia.

Obviously forgettign everything you said is right in your world

What fucking card are you talking about?
Both the 5800 and 5900 use the 'FX' nomenclature.

The 'FX' 5800 which has just come available recently has roughly the same performance as an ATI card that has been available for over 8 months, The 'FX' 5800 is no comparison to the newest Radeon which has been available for a few months already.

The only ATI/5900 comparison Winnow made was the price....
It's pretty obvious that the FX5900 will be much more expensive than the Radeon 9800 when the nVidia board is released.

With ATIs recent track record, their next board has a good chance of blowing the 'FX' 5900 right off the map.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » May 15, 2003, 12:50 am

miir wrote:
Aruman wrote: The point is you seem to have forgotten that YOU brought up the comparison to begin with.

I find a comparison between your vaunted 9800 and the FX and you conveniently get amnesia.

Obviously forgettign everything you said is right in your world
What fucking card are you talking about?
Both the 5800 and 5900 use the 'FX' nomenclature.

The 'FX' 5800 which has just come available recently has roughly the same performance as an ATI card that has been available for over 8 months, The 'FX' 5800 is no comparison to the newest Radeon which has been available for a few months already.

The only ATI/5900 comparison Winnow made was the price....
It's pretty obvious that the FX5900 will be much more expensive than the Radeon 9800 when the nVidia board is released.

With ATIs recent track record, their next board has a good chance of blowing the 'FX' 5900 right off the map.

Look Miir, I have no problem with you, but al least follow what I am talking about instead of inserting your own comments which are totally off track of my comments on Winnow's claims.

From Winnow's earlier post...

...nVidias fucked up not yet released, overpriced card that barely competes with the ATI9800.

She compared the 9800 to the FX, so yes, she compared more than the price although the 9800 and the 5800 have the same suggested retail.

This is about the 5800 vs the 9800... not the 9700, not the 5900... 5900 and 9700 have nothing to do with anything I am talking about.

The 5800 and the 9800 are the two boards being talked about.

If you had bothered to look at the link I posted instead of adding unrelated info then this wouldn't be getting blown out of proportion.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 15, 2003, 8:43 am

You show offs with your fancy video "cards". Heck, I pay EQ just fine by popping in my 3.5 floppy with my VESA driver on it. Why get a seperate card?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 15, 2003, 7:17 pm

Here's a non biased article comparing the ATI 9800 256MB to the FX 5900.

Although they are close, they give the edge to the already in stores ATI 9800.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDcyLDE=

It even talks about drivers for the history buffs.

VeeshanVault

GeForce FX 5900 is out!

GeForce FX 5900 is out!

No thanks to ATI