Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GF FX 5900 Ultra vs. ATi Radeon 9800 Pro

Posted by michael on from the money-to-burn dept.

Mack writes "OCAddiction.com has their GF FX 5900 Ultra vs. ATi Radeon 9800 Pro article online detailing which card is more powerful. Running a plethora of benchmarks we were anxious to see which card outperformed the other. Quite simple really. We take nVidia's top offering and pair it up against the current top offering from ATi and let them duke it out till the bitter end. Who will come out on top? Let's take a look."

7 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Am I the only one.... by mrpuffypants · · Score: 5, Insightful

    who finds these types of articles really, really, really boring?

    Staring at graphs indicating a .03% increase in one card over the other is just tearingly boring to me. I often find myself skipping right through to the end just to see the final "verdict"

    Why, oh why, can't we get some interesting writing in the field of online hardware reviews?

    1. Re:Am I the only one.... by lakeland · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right that the sub-results are largely irrelevant, except for a couple points.

      1) If they just gave the conclusion, you'd be saying "But they just made that up!" All those pages of boring numbers are there to convince you they went through a fairly scientific process and when they say "It is 0.3% faster", they know what they're talking about. Compare to the RIAA's statistics about a 0.3% drop in piracy.

      2) Some people buy thesse cards because their money is burning a hole in their pocket, but most people don't spend $500 on a gfx card for bragging rights, they do it because their it will improve either their work or their gaming experience. These people want to know how much more time/better experience they'll get. Those people need to find the benchmark most relevant to them, rather than the 'overall' benchmark. For example, I have a program that runs faster on a 800MHz Duron than on a 2GHz Pentium 4. Why? Because it has lots of jumps. If I had just looked at the overall benchmark then I'd have 'upgraded' and I'd be feeling pretty stupid right now.

  2. Re:Who Won by AceJohnny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that way, we are forced to have a look at the article, thus preventing uninformed rants. Yes, it requires a tad more effort, but I think Slashdotters need that =)

    --
    Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
  3. Thanks but... by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll do what I always do. Wait for my current card not to be able to keep up at the optimal resolution for my screens with the games I like, then pick a £100 card that does.

    *pats his shiney new GF4 Ti 4200*

    Sure, I have to upgrade more often, but it seems to be a lot less painful for me than for early adopters - and there are plenty of homes for older cards in my secondary and tertiary boxes, and then a final home put out to pasture in the render farm.

    --
    Beep beep.
  4. Re:Who Won by anotherone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Becaues the guy who submitted the article is from the website that wrote the article... He obviously wants a billion slashbots to raise their ad revenue. If he gave away the ending, fewer people would read his article.

    --
    Username taken, please choose another one.
  5. ATI needs to look at Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry ATI, but I use Linux... If ATI supported Linux as much as nvidia does mayby I'd buy one. But till then I'll stick to nvidia, no matter if it's slower then ATI's card.

  6. Re:Synthetic Benchmarks? Incredible... by be-fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I the only one who automatically ignores any benchmark whose result isn't in FPS? I learned a long ago, from PC Mags 3d benchmarks, that synthetic benchmarks are absolutely useless!

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...