differences between 9800pro and 9800XT

[Sundown]

I've been using Nvidia cards since the dawn of 3d games and been
quite happy with it till recently. That is untill I bought a Gforce
9600. This card is a heap of shit and offers no performance improvement
over my old Gforce 4200Ti.

I've heard a lot of good things about ATI cards but don't want to get a
lateral upgrade. Would like to see a significant performance improvement
over the Gforce 9600.

Not knowing too much about ATI cards, my question is..

Is there much difference between the ATI 9800pro and 9800XP ?

Is there any point in getting a 256MB card over a 128MB ? (ie, are there
any games that use 256MB of Video RAM ?)
The I'm leaning towards the 128MB 9800pro cards as they are
significantly cheaper then the 9800XT.

 

[stu]

I've been using Nvidia cards since the dawn of 3d games and been

quite happy with it till recently. That is untill I bought a Gforce
9600. This card is a heap of shit and offers no performance improvement
over my old Gforce 4200Ti.

Yup, totally agree, it was a major dissapointment for me too.
Infact, the Ti4200 is actually faster!

I've heard a lot of good things about ATI cards but don't want to get a
lateral upgrade. Would like to see a significant performance improvement
over the Gforce 9600.
Not knowing too much about ATI cards, my question is..
Is there much difference between the ATI 9800pro and 9800XP ?

9800XP?

Both are fantastic cards, XT is slightly faster due to higher clock freqs.
Screen quality is second to none and FPS is absolutely amazing on both
cards.

Is there any point in getting a 256MB card over a 128MB ? (ie, are there
any games that use 256MB of Video RAM ?)

At the moment.......not really....but you'll generally find that the 256mb
cards are also slighly clocked, so they are a tiny bit faster, if i were you
I'd just go for the 128mb.

The I'm leaning towards the 128MB 9800pro cards as they are
significantly cheaper then the 9800XT.

Excellent choice, I have the Powercolor 9800pro 128, it's amazing, you will
shit yourself when you see your games running on it.

 

[Sundown]

Thanks for the fast reply

I'm sold, will be on my way to the shops as soon as they open to pick up
a 9800pro. Can't wait to try Battlefield 1942 with it hehe...

 

[Inglo]

I've been using Nvidia cards since the dawn of 3d games and been
quite happy with it till recently. That is untill I bought a Gforce
9600. This card is a heap of shit and offers no performance
improvement over my old Gforce 4200Ti.

What's a Gforce 9600? Do you mean a GeForce FX 5600?

 

[Sundown]

What's a Gforce 9600? Do you mean a GeForce FX 5600?

yep sorry thats what I ment

 

[Tom]

I bought a 9800 pro and replaced my Ti4200SE with the 9800 pro. Battlefield
1942 was just amazing. Never thought there would be that much of a
difference.
Tom

 

[Anders Albrechtsen]

I've been using Nvidia cards since the dawn of 3d games and been
quite happy with it till recently. That is untill I bought a Gforce
9600. This card is a heap of shit and offers no performance improvement
over my old Gforce 4200Ti.

I've heard a lot of good things about ATI cards but don't want to get a
lateral upgrade. Would like to see a significant performance improvement
over the Gforce 9600.

Not knowing too much about ATI cards, my question is..

Is there much difference between the ATI 9800pro and 9800XP ?

The XT is basically a higher clocked 9800 Pro. Here're the raw facts:

Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB. GPU clock: 380 MHz, Memory clock: 680 MHz

Radeon 9800 XT 256 MB: GPU clock: 412 MHz, Memory clock: 730 MHz

The XT also has an automatic overclock function called Overdrive plus
hardware monitoring like the GeForce FX series.

Is there any point in getting a 256MB card over a 128MB ? (ie, are there
any games that use 256MB of Video RAM ?)

If you have a monitor which supports high resolutions, a 256 MB card will
make it possible to maintain high frame rates when using antialiasing and
anisotropic filtering.

The I'm leaning towards the 128MB 9800pro cards as they are
significantly cheaper then the 9800XT.

If you can afford the Radoen 9800 XT buy it. It's likely more future proof
as games that can make use of a 256 MB framebuffer are coming soon.

 

[Ben Pope]

If you have a monitor which supports high resolutions, a 256 MB card will
make it possible to maintain high frame rates when using antialiasing and
anisotropic filtering.

Hmm, not sure about that. Framebuffers are pretty small in comparison,
really (1600*1200*32bits <8MB).

The extra memory is useful with lots of textures (Not sure how AF works,
probably requires some more RAM). I suppose with high resolution you
require more textures and more levels of textures (AF stuff?), is that the
argument?

If you can afford the Radoen 9800 XT buy it. It's likely more future proof
as games that can make use of a 256 MB framebuffer are coming soon.

Shot yourself in the foot. The Framebuffer is not 256Megs, ever! The
framebuffer is used to store the frame, which at 1600x1200x32bits would be
7.4MB. Even if you triple buffer, thats only ~22MB required. The rest is
used for textures and working memory.

Ben

 

[Ben Pope]

Is there much difference between the ATI 9800pro and 9800XP ?

A little.

Is there any point in getting a 256MB card over a 128MB ? (ie, are there
any games that use 256MB of Video RAM ?)

I know that there is at least one game that can take advantage of more than
128MB or RAM.

The I'm leaning towards the 128MB 9800pro cards as they are
significantly cheaper then the 9800XT.

Indeed if you look at Price/Performance the 9800Pro will blow the XT away.

My Crucial 9800 Pro is very impressive, I don't think the XT is worth the
extra money - I can overclock mine to 450/360 anyway, which is only a
smidgen slower on memory than the XT, but significantly faster core with or
without the dynamic overclocking.

http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=1276364071

Ben

 

[Sundown]

Thanks for your responses. I got a Gigacube 9800pro and quite happy with
the performance

 

[Anders Albrechtsen]

Hmm, not sure about that. Framebuffers are pretty small in comparison,
really (1600*1200*32bits <8MB).

The extra memory is useful with lots of textures (Not sure how AF works,
probably requires some more RAM). I suppose with high resolution you
require more textures and more levels of textures (AF stuff?), is that the
argument?

Extra memory is usefull when playing games at high resolution with
antialiasing (AA) and anisotrpic filtering (AF). AF consumes more memory as
well since it basically improve texture quality (read: increase texture
resolution) at higher mipmap levels. Several benchmarks show a significant
difference between 256 mb and 128 mb cards at higher resolutions (1600x1200
and above) even though they have the same amount of fillrate. Examples are
Call of Duty, UT 2003, Tomb Raider AoD and Max Payne 2. The difference of
course increase with texture size.

Shot yourself in the foot.

Oh, I did? Why do you feel the urge to be so dramatic?

The Framebuffer is not 256Megs, ever! The
framebuffer is used to store the frame, which at 1600x1200x32bits would be
7.4MB. Even if you triple buffer, thats only ~22MB required. The rest is
used for textures and working memory.

By framebuffer I'm referring to the total onboard memory. I guess you're
referring to the graphic card's internal framebuffer which is an entirely
different thing. I apologize for using technical terms loosely