Slashdot Mirror
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro vs. NVidia GeForce 5900
HardcoreGamer writes "Today ATI shipped its Radeon 9800 Pro 256 MB DDR-2 card in time for E3 and nVidia announced the NV35-based GeForce 5900 which will be available in June. Early tests seem to say that while nVidia edges ahead of ATI in specific areas, overall ATI still has the better card. The caveat is that the next generation of DirectX 9-based games (like Doom 3 and Half-Life 2, demonstrated with ATI at E3) will truly determine which is the better card. Lots of coverage at PC Magazine, PC World, The Register (ATI) (nVidia), ExtremeTech, InternetNews, and Forbes/Reuters. Either way, at $450-$500, serious gamers are about to get another serious dent in their wallets."
Just a small note, but one that's been bothering me with all of these reviews: Not all 'next generation' games are 'dx9.' Though the new cards are dx9, many games (coincidently, most of the best games) use OpenGL. Unfortunately, it's much easier to incorrectly call Doom3 a dx9 game than to cite the OpenGL extensions (like shaders) that are used.
(Also, I'll note that Doom3 may be technically a DirectX9 game because its sound and input MAY use it, but in the context that people have been talking about dx9 games, it is still incorrect.)
My basis is being in a zone with about 20
other people with a high GHz and Mbyte machine
and see if the card allows the graphics without
slowing down the game.
I'm afraid until ATI starts producing better Linux drivers, I'll have to stick with nVidia's cards for the time being. nVidia has really gotten their act in gear as of late and their latest drivers work great for me under Linux. I see on ATI's website that their drivers don't even support XFree 4.3 yet. Weeeeakk! :)
ATI is starting to try but has anyone tryed ATIs drivers and compared them, both fetaure-wise, performance-wise and stability-wise with the NVIdia ones ?
so unless /. started covering HW 99% focused on MS platforms the duel is a non issue :-) Nvidia wins by K.O.under linux, and under even BSD :-) ...
I bought an 9700 All in Wonder and it produces 'waves' on any resolution under 85hz. This seems to be a common problem with the 9700 while searching for google groups. Is this common with all ATI cards?
I bought my first 3D card from canopus because it had 6 meg. It was the absolute best 3DFX card available. It cost around $250 at the time. It was a sweet card but within 6 months a better and cheaper card came out and I decided I would never buy the latest and greatest card again. My rule of thumb is to stay 2 generations behind the best and you will have a card that can play any game out there. This may change as soon as a DX9 game comes out but I really can't see a game company "require" anything greater than a DX7 card or they wil really linit their audience....
Zoid.com
Actually, alot of times the "beta" hardware with the "beta" drivers runs FASTER than the final product.
:)
Hardware: The problem lies in that the "beta" hardware is carefully crafted and selected so that it lies in a very high yield of the manufacturing build. Later on, when mass production starts you have to clock things down and tone things down in general so you get a nice output yield. Otherwise you will run into the problem Nvidia already did with the 5800 Ultra, they tried to make the cards run like the "Beta" cards did, and nearly got NO cards that worked when trying to manufacture.
Software Drivers: Beta drivers can generally run slower, usually when extra debug info is turned on. However, when drivers are going to pre-release sites, alot of times they are running as fast as they can and are even tweaked to be more unstable just to get better performance... Also tweaked to run on the "beta" hand-select hardware.
All in all, alot of times beta hardware/software is better than the final shipments off of mass production. How much does a "Beta" board cost to make? Well, a company I worked for previously made a $150 board in mass production, but our beta development boards cost $5000.00 a piece.
This isn't always the case though, sometimes Beta hardware is junk, clocked slow, and drivers are slowed down by debug messages... In this video idustry though, anything about to be reviewed and is "Beta" gives the company a chance to Tweak things all to hell without fear when going to mass production, because that was "Beta" performance...
- Jeff
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
As much as I'd like that to happen, it doesn't seem very likely to happen anytime soon. Really, John Carmack singlehandedly keeps OpenGL alive; if he didn't have such a strong preference for it, DirectX would have just about all the major games out there and hardware support would be significantly worse.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
dude. i won't even look at the responses, because you are probably getting flamed.
...yet.
my response: forgetting about 3d (both will acceptbly play ut2003, sof, quake, etc...both wil do good opengl)
the real problem? 2d.
take anyone new to linux (but with xp or os-x experience) and put them on a gnome/kde desktop. their first experience just click around will be vastly different.
1. xfree86 nv or radeon driver...the interface feels "laggy", and not quite as snappy as your typical os-x, 2k, xp desktop (all hardware being equal)
2. using Nvidia's proprietary driver, the interface in gnome/kde just hum along, window dragging, min/maximizing etc....nvidia's driver in 2d is at LEAST TWICE AS FAST as anything xfree86 drivers can muster.In fact it's so good, it seems faster then XP or OS-X for me.
If i'm introducing a non-techie to linux, I NEVER let them use the desktop unless i have the nvidia binary loaded....i don't want them to make their ENTIRE FIRST IMPRESSION on the basis of a laggy interface due to mediocre drivers (xfree86 itself works quite well, when in conjunction with a good driver)
most radeons are supported by xfree86 code...therefore are subject to the same poor 2d as well.
using a a firegl with ati/ibm drivers again proves that it's the xfree drivers that suck...as they are almost as good in 2d as nvidias.
my point? there's a world of difference in a single driver. linux is far more appealing to your average user when it's behaving snappily using the nvdia driver.
you might think i'm an nvidia fanboy.
guess again.
i own 1000 shares of atyt.
because when it comes to chip stocks, linux is still irrelevant. the chip market is not influence by linux
atyt
nvda
amd
intc
have the majority of their user base in windows & macs.
Tom's Hardware came to the same conclusion. Except for Splinter Cell and some synthetic benchmarks the FX 5900 was clearly the better card.
Just a very curious question:
Does Linux do Direct-X ?
If Linux doesn't do Direct-X, then
How can we know which one runs better under Linux ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !