Xbitlabs: Nvidia 5900 vs ATI 9800 (with OCing)

Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
edited September 2003 in Science & Tech
<a href="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/fx5900-r9800.html&quot; target=_blank>Xbit Labs: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 and ATI RADEON 9800: ASUS, Chaintech and Gainward against Sapphire</a>

Today we are going to compare the performance NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 and 5900 Ultra based graphics cards with their rivals from the ATI family: solutions on ATI RADEON 9800 and 9800 Pro. The full set of benchmarks, absolutely new gaming tests, impressive overclocking results and more!
.
.
.
<b>Conclusion</b> <i>excerpt</i>

Well, the performance difference between NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900, ATI RADEON 9800 and their faster analogues appeared not very high: 10-15% in the heaviest work modes. The pricing on NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra and ATI RADEON 9800 Pro exceeds that on the non-Ultra and non-Pro versions much more than by these 10-15%.

Therefore, if you are looking not for the “world’s very best” graphics card, but just for a good High-End product with a nice potential to last it for a while, then why don’t you take a closer look at NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 and ATI RADEON 9800? These solutions become the most interesting today, because if overclocked, they are mostly faster than their more expensive fellows.

<a href="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/fx5900-r9800.html&quot; target=_blank>benchmarking results here</a>

Comments

  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited September 2003
    Is it just me, or is nVidia's GeForce FX the p4 of the video card industry? It needs higher clock speeds and faster memory to be competitive with the "slower" Radeon 9800 Pro.

    Not only that, but nVidia uses a 130-nanometer process, where ATI is still on a 150-nanometer process. Not that the 130nm process is so much better than the 150nm process, but that gives ATI more headroom than nVidia.

    :thumbsup: ATI! You guys worked long and hard to put out a product that truly was competitive with nVidia and you did it and then some.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    God I remember when ATI was a pariah. I remember when having an ATI card was a joke.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Funny how quickly people become revisionists, isn't it?
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited September 2003
    prime, I got into computers in like 1999; my first system was an asus p2b-dls or something like that; dual p3-500s. It had a rage128 because at the time i knew nothing about computers and ATi claimed the 128 was the fastest card in the world. Never had an nVidia card in my machines since, and I don't intend to run one now. I've used nVidia cards at work and in other people's machines, and I've always just been happier with ATi. No reason in particular that I can think of... I just like ATi more...
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited September 2003
    What's revisionist about ATI/nVidia, Thrax?
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    When Diamond made their Viper V550 card, that was a revolution. It had the TNT chip on it. That thing was revolutionary for it's time, and it made ATI cards look like a joke. It was the exact opposite of the current situation. nVidia were the newcomers, the upstarts, the "cool" renegades. It was faster, way faster, and cheaper than an ATI pig.

    ATI tried to stay competitive with their Rage 128 and then the Rage Pro. But those chips were a joke compared to the TNT2 and then the GeForce. I mean, when the GeForce came out, it was the same as the R9700 was - EVERYONE was in awe of this jaw-dropping card. It made all other 3D cards look like playthings.
  • BlackHawkBlackHawk Bible music connoisseur There's no place like 127.0.0.1 Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    I think I still have a GF256 around. Those mofo's ran hot.
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited September 2003
    primesuspect said
    ATI tried to stay competitive with their Rage 128 and then the Rage Pro. But those chips were a joke compared to the TNT2 and then the GeForce. I mean, when the GeForce came out, it was the same as the R9700 was - EVERYONE was in awe of this jaw-dropping card. It made all other 3D cards look like playthings.

    It certainly did. The Geforce was the card that pretty much spelled the end for 3DFX. The GeForce exposed their "We run 16bits for speed" argument for the rationalization it was.

    ATI was always a safe choice for business use. If you wanted a business machine you generally had a ATI video card in it. But ever since 3DFX started the 3D revolution ATI had been an also ran. Until the Radeon 9700 Pro.

    Nvidia needs the NV40 to be perfect to salvage it's reputation. Unfortunately it's not due until H1 2004
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited September 2003
    Prime, you're probably right, but I had no understanding whatsoever of computers at the time... I ran win98 on a dually ferchristssake :rolleyes: but I still have the R128 and it's still a passable card, even for light (read: 640x480, low/medium detail) gaming

    Black Hawk, tell me about it. I work on them every day almost during the summer- a lot of the old cad/cam machines we have are leadtek gf256s... they're the only card I've ever seen where if you use one of those slot fans actually exhaust hot air... they don't even do that on my r8500...
Sign In or Register to comment.