Need some suggestions on gfx cards

[Jester983 0]

Hey guys im looking to upgrade my GFX card. Ive been looking into the ati radeon 9700 and the 9800 but i really cant tell the difference. Except that one has 256 mbs (9800).

Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

PS: Budget range is about $300 bucks.

Thanks again.

[drewb99 0]

the 9700 is a DirectX 8 card, the 9800 is a DirectX 9 card. If you can afford it, get something in the 9800 line.

[Baron von Beer 0]

They make 128m 9800 pro and 256mb as well. a 128 meg 9800 pro can be had for around $250 US (Retail). Can probably get it even less if you get an OEM card online. (Though this will not have the 3 year warranty, if you desire one.) 256m makes no practical difference as of now, but in time, it will. (Remember when 64, then 128meg cards came out. At the time, no beneifit. Now? Unheard of to have less than 128 in a new release card. ) Unless you plan on keeping the card for a long time, would save the extra cash and go with the 128 though. Just my opinion.

[nolips71 0]

sorry to come in on this late but i have a geforce FX5900 ultra overclocked to 5950ultra speeds and i have to say it woops arse, the fx gets alot of bad bress that is illdeserved just because of the fx5800. lets face it the fx 5900 ultra is better then the radeon 9800 pro and non pro

[m21man 0]

I am very pleased with the performance of my 128MB 9800 Pro .

[S_Z 0]

the 9700 is a DirectX 8 card, the 9800 is a DirectX 9 card.  If you can afford it, get something in the 9800 line.

No, both 9700 and 9800 are DX9 cards. Only difference is some minor improvements on the core for the 9800 and the speed the cards run at.

[S_Z 0]

sorry to come in on this late but i have a geforce FX5900 ultra overclocked to 5950ultra speeds and i have to say it woops arse, the fx gets alot of bad bress that is illdeserved just because of the fx5800. lets face it the fx 5900 ultra is better then the radeon 9800 pro and non pro

No, the 5900U might be faster in some games (like Q3 for example) but overall the 9800Pro is the better card of the two. Most hardware sites will tell you this. Also,  the FX cards  are way behind Radeon cards when it comes to games using DX9.

[drewb99 0]

the 9700 is a DirectX 8 card, the 9800 is a DirectX 9 card.  If you can afford it, get something in the 9800 line.

No, both 9700 and 9800 are DX9 cards. Only difference is some minor improvements on the core for the 9800 and the speed the cards run at.

The 9700 might be able to run DX9 games, but it wasn't designed to DX9 spec and can't use some of the newer features of DX9. It was designed origionally to DX8 standards, and is thus a DX8 card. The 9800 was built from the ground up to support all features of DX9.

[nolips71 0]

sorry to come in on this late but i have a geforce FX5900 ultra overclocked to 5950ultra speeds and i have to say it woops arse, the fx gets alot of bad bress that is illdeserved just because of the fx5800. lets face it the fx 5900 ultra is better then the radeon 9800 pro and non pro

No, the 5900U might be faster in some games (like Q3 for example) but overall the 9800Pro is the better card of the two. Most hardware sites will tell you this. Also,  the FX cards  are way behind Radeon cards when it comes to games using DX9.

i think not actually, just about the only dx9 game radeons win in is half life 2, and i wonder why. wonder who is in each other pocket. or why would they supply the game free with the flash cards. nvidias woops ATI arse in doom 3.

this is a review of my card (MSI Geforce fx 5900UVTD-256)

hexus benchmarks

these show the benchmarks. my card woops the arse off the ATI's on most things.

(by the way im expecting links showing benchmarks of radeons beating nvidias)

Edit: these benchmarks are taken with the crap nvidia drivers, now they are fixed so means even more performance increase

[S_Z 0]

the 9700 is a DirectX 8 card, the 9800 is a DirectX 9 card.  If you can afford it, get something in the 9800 line.

No, both 9700 and 9800 are DX9 cards. Only difference is some minor improvements on the core for the 9800 and the speed the cards run at.

The 9700 might be able to run DX9 games, but it wasn't designed to DX9 spec and can't use some of the newer features of DX9.  It was designed origionally to DX8 standards, and is thus a DX8 card.  The 9800 was built from the ground up to support all features of DX9.

No, you are wrong. The core of the 9700 is called R300 and it was designed around DX9! The 9800P(R350) is just an improved version of that core and so is the 9800XT(R360). There are no major differences.

Both the 9700 and the 9800 supports Pixel/Vertex Shader version 2.0, which is in the DX9 spec.

[drewb99 0]

Hmm- just looked into it a bit more and it turns out you're right. Huh.

Still, the 9800's a better buy than the 9700 simply because of the speed, although you can coax a 9700 into thinking that it's a 9800 fairly easily.

[S_Z 0]

sorry to come in on this late but i have a geforce FX5900 ultra overclocked to 5950ultra speeds and i have to say it woops arse, the fx gets alot of bad bress that is illdeserved just because of the fx5800. lets face it the fx 5900 ultra is better then the radeon 9800 pro and non pro

No, the 5900U might be faster in some games (like Q3 for example) but overall the 9800Pro is the better card of the two. Most hardware sites will tell you this. Also,  the FX cards  are way behind Radeon cards when it comes to games using DX9.

i think not actually, just about the only dx9 game radeons win in is half life 2, and i wonder why. wonder who is in each other pocket. or why would they supply the game free with the flash cards. nvidias woops ATI arse in doom 3.

this is a review of my card (MSI Geforce fx 5900UVTD-256)

hexus benchmarks

these show the benchmarks. my card woops the arse off the ATI's on most things.

(by the way im expecting links showing benchmarks of radeons beating nvidias)

Edit: these benchmarks are taken with the crap nvidia drivers, now they are fixed so means even more performance increase

You can not have been following the graphic card market very closely if you think so.  FX cards have very poor performance when running full precision PS2.0. It's a hardware issue that can not be fully fixed. The new drivers help but they are still far behind. The only way for the FX to get acceptable performance is to use partial precision instead (lower image quality).  Do some reading on sites like Beyond3D or HardOCP and see what they have to say.

Here is a review that shows a couple of DX9 game tests: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTM3LDE=

They use a 9800XT but since it’s just a 9800 with a little more speed you can compare it to the 5950U which is a 5900U with a little more speed.

As I said before, most hardware sites agrees that ATI got the upper hand right now. Soon the next generation cards hit the market and things might change but if you are buying a card to day then ATI is the way to go.

[Baron von Beer 0]

I have an old Diamond S220 I'll sell ya cheap. My FIRST video card ever.

[S_Z 0]

Hey guys im looking to upgrade my GFX card. Ive been looking into the ati radeon 9700 and the 9800 but i really cant tell the difference. Except that one has 256 mbs (9800).

Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

PS: Budget range is about $300 bucks.

Thanks again.

If you want a good card that doesn’t cost too much I would say go for a 9800 non-pro. I think most non-pros can be overclock to pro speed (at least the core).  

256Mb memory is not really necessary because hardly any of the current games will take advantage of that extra memory anyway, but it might make some difference in upcoming games…not sure.

[toadlife 3]

As I said before, most hardware sites agrees that ATI got the upper hand right now. Soon the next generation cards hit the market and things might change but if you are buying a card to day then ATI is the way to go.

I could see the ati/nvidia fanboy flamefest coming a mile away with this one. Simply inevitable.

The things either side's fanboys (Ati/Nvida) will say to justify their respective $300+ purchase are amusing.

Raw performance in the most popular game using one specific DX9 function is not the only factor to look at when choosing a video card.

The big problem with all of these reviews you guys refer in your circular arguments is that they all benchmark the same exact $#$^%@ vanilla games over and over again. "Wooooo Hoooo, my nvidiaFXG 5902XX23 Extreme edition video card got 550FPS in QuakeIII @ 640x480!" Can most monitors even do that resoultion any more? "Hey lets turn it down to 320x240 and see if we can break 600!" Never mind the fact that our monitors are so big now that we can see each induvidual pixel jumping aorund the screen.

What if you don't plan on playing Halflife2 or Comanche, or UT2003. Also, please take note that nobody 'plays' (no, not even 3DMark2003) the 3dmark series. The little demo's are pretty and might run real fast on the card you bought, but they mean next to nothing when it comes to real world gaming performance. This became very evident to me when my old voodoo3 took an abysmal score in 3dmark, yet ran circles around my *other* card (which scored *much* higher in 3DMark), in every game I played, including halflife, hidden and dangerous, X-PLane.

Hell my Voodoo3 even ran OFP pretty well wheh it first came out!

If you plan on only playing Halflife2, or only playing UT2003 for the next two years or so, then by all means base your descision solely on all the identical reviews, but if you want the best card for you, then ask around in the various game forums of games you play.

Regarding performance in OFP, a Geforce4 ti4600 will give you equal the performance of any new Nvidia or Ati offering, simply because performance in OFP is all about raw BUS speed (Processor and Memory), cares nothing about how many Dx9 features your card supports.

I learned a long time ago (the hard way) to take video card reviews with a grain of salt.

Edit:NOw that I'm done ranting, may I suggest getting an the most expensive Ati 9800 you are willing to buy. Also, don't count out nvidia, just beacuse of what the review sites have said. Go around to the various forums of the different games you currently play, and ask for some 'real-world' benchmarks.

[Baron von Beer 0]

I believe all monitors can (Can't say for LCD, but CRT's can) display 640x480. On the other hand, *NO* monitor has a refresh rate or 500 frames per second. Most scientific documentation states that the human eye looses the ability to tell a difference above ~30 FPS. You may notice a difference between 30 and 60, but not 30 and 32, etc.

I have a 9800 non pro, (ATI manufactured, retail) And haven't maxed it out. I did try 400mhz core, and it ran fine, w/ stock cooling. Never tried pushing it further, as I don't even run it at 400. I tend to run it ~350, as even at stock speed, I haven't needed the boost. (Tend to play most games at 1280x960, with 4-8x Aniso, no FSAA. ) I am told breaking 400 with a non pro though is a VERY good OC to obtain, especially at stock.

In NVIDIA's defence, Digital Vibrance is GREAT! My bro has one, and in OFP, IMO, it is very nice! Apart from that, I think it all comes down to preference. Unfortunately, some people can't grasp the concept that everyone has, and will form, their *own* opinion of what is best. Simply saying "Dude, that sucks, this one is the best", is about as effective an argument as monkey's holding their hands beneat their rears while making ammo to sling at their fellow monkeys.

Having said that, the best video card you can get is a Diamond S220, which I am still awaiting the first bid on.

[toadlife 3]

I believe all monitors can (Can't say for LCD, but CRT's can) display 640x480. On the other hand, *NO* monitor has a refresh rate or 500 frames per second. Most scientific documentation states that the human eye looses the ability to tell a difference above ~30 FPS. You may notice a difference between 30 and 60, but not 30 and 32, etc.

Yeah I know. My 19" monitor can do 640x480, but it's a complete joke. I was just ranting about some of the idiotic benchmarks they do on todays hardware.

[drewb99 0]

A nice little editorial from [H]ardOCP, it makes some nice points about Nvidia v ATI and synthetic benchmarking.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTQ5

[Baron von Beer 0]

Yeah I know. My 19" monitor can do 640x480, but it's a complete joke. I was just ranting about some of the idiotic benchmarks they do on todays hardware.  

Don't get me wrong, I agree 100% I don't get why Quake 3 is the "norm". Sure, games based on it still look great, but the point is to test the limits, not have it take a geriatric nap. Think they need to find a replacement.

[S_Z 0]

As I said before, most hardware sites agrees that ATI got the upper hand right now. Soon the next generation cards hit the market and things might change but if you are buying a card to day then ATI is the way to go.

I could see the ati/nvidia fanboy flamefest coming a mile away with this one.  Simply inevitable.

The things either side's fanboys (Ati/Nvida) will say to justify their respective $300+ purchase are amusing.

Please tell me why I’m a â€fanboyâ€.. Did you even read my previous posts?

I did not say there is one card that is best for all games. If you only play a couple of games and know you wont be playing any other games for quite some time then fine, buy the card that is best for these games..BUT I think most people play more than a few games and want the card that is the fastest for the majority of current and upcoming games.

I’m very interested in 3D hardware/software and I read lot of reviews/articles. This is my opinion and as I said before the majority of hardware sites agrees with me when I say that ATI has the best cards on the market right now. Again, that might change now that the next generation cards soon arrives, if NV40 is a better card than R420 than I will recommend the nVidia card.

[toadlife 3]

Didn't mean to offend with the 'fanboy' term. I wouldn't disagree that ATI has the performance crown right now - just pointing out that raw performance in a few select games is not the only thing to consider when deciding on a vid card.

[Jester983 0]

Thanks for your suggestions guys. they help alot. One thing that i dotn get is what some of the letters mean.

Like you guys are talking about XT cards of the 9800 radeon, and one im looking at is an SE. What do the letters mean?

PS: If you guys have any more suggestions please keep posting them. its not just helping me out but im sure its helping out others.

edit: link taken out cause it wasnt a 9800 pro card.

[toadlife 3]

With ati (and many other brands) 'SE' referrs to the cheap version, or 'crappy performance' version. The nvidia version of "SE" is "MX".

I think the 'XT' referres to having DVI/TV in capability.

You mentioned your budget is $300.00 or less...how about this baby..

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/speca/aa21610.html

Actuall Listing found here

Mwave is where I usually buy all my PC stuff.

[drewb99 0]

XT just means it's just running at a faster core clock.

[Jester983 0]

If i have a mother board that supports 4x agp but not 8x will i be able to have the ati radeon 9800 pro (8x agp) in there?