S
Simon Dexter
Could anyone tell me why ATI Radeon 9800 XT R360 is better than GeForce FX
5950 Ultra?
Thank You Very Much In Advance
5950 Ultra?
Thank You Very Much In Advance
S
Slug
It's not, is the simple truth. They both perform about the same, with
the 5950 taking some benchmarks and the 9800XT taking others.
Price should be the deciding factor.
M
McGrandpa
Slug said:
I disagree. There are two areas where the Radeon98xx will do better
than the FX59xx.
Implementation of Pixel Shaders 2.0
Layout of the rendering 'pipes'. 1 x 8 in FX and 2 x 4 in Radeon. The
areas it just works out best in show up best in things like full details
in Far Cry and Nature test in 3DMark2001SE. I'm sure there are other
practical examples, I just don't have any at hand. Other than such as
this, they do perform about the same overall, with a little give and
take.
McG.
R
RipFlex
No no no....
If you are a Nvidia Fanboy then Nvidia's Geforce will always be better if
not ATI is Cheating!!!
If you are ATI Fanboy then ATI Radeons will always be better if not Nvidia
id Cheating !!!
If you have common sense they both bench fairlt close to one another
comparing Apples with Apples, just matter of Price.
If you are a Nvidia Fanboy then Nvidia's Geforce will always be better if
not ATI is Cheating!!!
If you are ATI Fanboy then ATI Radeons will always be better if not Nvidia
id Cheating !!!
If you have common sense they both bench fairlt close to one another
comparing Apples with Apples, just matter of Price.
A
Asestar
9800XT is considerably cheaper than 5950. Other than that, it is faster in
most of modern games.
Looking at Tom's hardware shack, I can see 9800XT leading the charts for
almost every game (except X2 and quake3, which is too old to matter now).
So simple answer is 9800XT is somewhat better than 5950 because it runs most
new games faster, AA enabled or not.
most of modern games.
Looking at Tom's hardware shack, I can see 9800XT leading the charts for
almost every game (except X2 and quake3, which is too old to matter now).
So simple answer is 9800XT is somewhat better than 5950 because it runs most
new games faster, AA enabled or not.
A
Asestar
Layout of the rendering 'pipes'. 1 x 8 in FX and 2 x 4 in Radeon.
Are you sure? I thought 9800XT was also 8x1 ? Look at tomshardware.. VGA
charts III.. it lists as both cards at 8x1.
Are you sure? I thought 9800XT was also 8x1 ? Look at tomshardware.. VGA
charts III.. it lists as both cards at 8x1.
M
McGrandpa
Heh heh! Well I'm not a 'fanboy' for either company. I own good video
cards with Nvidia chipsets, ATi cards, and Matrox. All make very good
hardware. I realize that the cheating on the drivers was probably true.
For both companies at different times. Fierce competition huh? We can
all benefit from that
McG.
cards with Nvidia chipsets, ATi cards, and Matrox. All make very good
hardware. I realize that the cheating on the drivers was probably true.
For both companies at different times. Fierce competition huh? We can
all benefit from that
McG.
M
McGrandpa
Asestar said:
Anandtech is where I read articles about the hardware choices both
companies made and what each would affect. Sorry I didn't save them
now.
McG.
G
Gordon Scott
Simon said:
Hi
Along with all the other comments, I believe I recall the ATI card
performed better at higher resolutions, and especially with AA etc
applied.
Gordon
M
Marko =?iso-8859-2?Q?Svir=E8i=E6?=
And allso ATIs AA is of much higher quality than nVidias.
M
Marko =?iso-8859-2?Q?Svir=E8i=E6?=
Actually, no. The FX has 4x1 or 4x2 (when multytexturing is in use). And
all R3x0 cards have 8x1 no matter what.