Topic: Graphics Cards Comparison (Read 13874 times)

digi · « **on:** December 16, 2003, 07:36:20 am »

Hi guys,

I'm looking to upgrade my graphics card soon, but I need to know if my money will be well spent, and if I'll get visable improvements.

My Current Card is based on a nVidia ti4600 w/ 128Mb.
I'd like to get a Gainward nVidia FX5700 w/ 256Mb.

But I can't find any comparitive reviews based around the same games. Reviews I can find obviously show you the frame rates of the new card but its always compared against similar ATI cards or the lower end FX5200 cards, and never against the older ti4600's.

If you know of any sites with reveiws that compare the FX5700 to the ti4600 based on 'real use' rather than technical specifications then I'd like to know.

Thanks
Digi

SL-Punisher · « **Reply #1 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:49:29 am »

The ATI radeon series is definatly worth your time. Often it isn't a good idea to buy upgraded video cards based on older chipsets.

Check out www.tomshardware.com exellent site! Very fair in it's reviews. My only reccomendation is ALWAYS buy your video cards direct. Don't purchase them from 3rd party resellers (IE Get the radeon from ATI rather than one of the resellers that produce items based on their chipsets)

Falaris · « **Reply #2 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:53:55 am »

Short answer: Couldn't find any, no.

Long answer. Tom's hardware and hardwareanalysis both mention that if you are considering the FX5700, and it's not the Ultra version, consider buying the FX5600 Ultra- it's both faster, more stable, and cheaper. The FX5700 Ultra is better, though, but the price is accordingly.

digi · « **Reply #3 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:56:49 am »

I check out Toms all the time, but they never review the newer cards (FX5700) with the older (ti4600) and if I try and compare to different reviews the benchmarks (games, programs) are different. I have to admit though that ATI aren't on my list. I just don't trust the drivers, even though they may be better these days.

But I don't really want this thread to get into an ATI is better than nVidia or nVidia is better than ATI discussion.

digi · « **Reply #4 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:58:41 am »

Thanks Falaris,

I'll just head off to check out the price difference now....

SL-Punisher · « **Reply #5 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:59:32 am »

The drivers have improved alot over the past year. I have an raedon 9700 pro card and I couldn't be happier. Got rid of all the Z-buffer problems I was having with the nvidia cards.

digi · « **Reply #6 on:** December 16, 2003, 08:09:42 am »

It seems theres not that much price difference from the one I was looking at.

Gainward fx5700 Ultra

and it fits in around my budget of £150 quite nicely.

Okay - if there aren't any reviews I'll go for speculation instead. Would you guys say that the FX5700 Ultra was a good upgrade choice from the ti4600? Do you think I'll see improvement and that I should go for it, or do you think any improvement would be negligible and I'd be better off waiting?

Falaris · « **Reply #7 on:** December 16, 2003, 08:48:33 am »

Hm, I looked around a bit.. problem: The card you reference does not use Gainward's own product specifications for the new Ultra card, so I don't know if that is the 'Ultra' I was referring to; prices on the 5700 U/960 was between 200 and 400$ in translated value..

... and then I checked the Gainward homepage and noticed that there could be local variations in product specifications and naming, and I conclude that I would not trust what I'm saying on this all that much.

digi · « **Reply #8 on:** December 16, 2003, 10:27:26 am »

Okay - I'm no longer convinced there is any upgrade potential from the ti4600 to the FX5700, although I'm mainly going on a hunch.

I went through as many webpages as possible finding results for graphics cards with 3Dmark 2001SE. I only used results from tests using a Pentium 4 2.8 w/ 512Mb to try and keep the results as balanced as possible. (I saw some fluctuations of around 1000 points in results using a 3.0Ghz P4 with HT)

Although I couldn't find a review for the fx5700 (and Ultra) using 3d Mark 2001SE and a 2.8Ghz P4, I'm led to believe that the performance increase over the fx5600 is pretty small. Looking at my chart my ti4600 holds its own against the fx5600 and the fx5600 Ultra in most areas - only just falling behind the Ultra on 4xAA test.

So I think I've answered my own question. Anyway another 6 Months will see another release from nVidia and ATI so I'll look back into this then. Instead I'll just upgrade to the latest drivers.

Falaris · « **Reply #9 on:** December 16, 2003, 11:36:59 am »

I didn't see any comparative analysis either; kind of embarassing to notice the ti4600 was faster than the FX5600 Ultra I recommended as an upgrade.

But your conclusion is actually my impression too... graphic cards come with far more new versions now, but each increase is incremental, so skipping a step or two is no big deal.

BTW don't see you around on SWG too often, is my timing in logging on abysmal or are you mostly AWOL?

digi · « **Reply #10 on:** December 16, 2003, 12:49:27 pm »

Maybe its a timezone issue. I was on most of the weekend. I'm pretty much staying around Bestine at the moment.

Oh and vehicles are out right now. So I'm about to log on.

TheBigCheese · « **Reply #11 on:** December 16, 2003, 01:00:04 pm »

Trouble with new cards is that you have to wait for drivers too catch up with them, I have the brand new 9600XT 256MB but performance is poor with present drivers on some games.
It only works abit better than my trusty old 8500 on some games.
What I will say is that now when I turn volumetric shadows on performance seems unaltered

oh yea my card cost me £143

benchmark:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031015/radeon9600xt-07.html

RockoWillis · « **Reply #12 on:** December 16, 2003, 02:52:03 pm »

Isn't the 5700 and 5700 Ultra the one with the "Leaf Blower Fan" also?? I heard that both 5700 had some bad problems when they came out...

Rocko

James_Smith · « **Reply #13 on:** December 16, 2003, 03:05:52 pm »

Quote:

Isn't the 5700 and 5700 Ultra the one with the "Leaf Blower Fan" also?? I heard that both 5700 had some bad problems when they came out...

Nope, no leaf blower, at least on the reference design. The 5800 had that (the first high-end card of the Geforce FX range). The 5700 Ultra in my machine seems to be pretty good. Currently running it overclocked to 535 mhz core clock, 1020 mhz memory clock.

EDIT: I'd hope that people would never buy a graphics card on the basis of a 3DMark 2001 or 2003 score...synthetic benchmarks mean jack sh**. Look at reviews that actually use games to test rather than benchmarking programs if you want to make a good choice, which at the moment seems to be an ATI card if you can get past certain driver issues (don't get me started, I could rant all day.....)

RockoWillis · « **Reply #14 on:** December 16, 2003, 08:10:31 pm »

I thought it might be the 5800 but was not sure.. A good friend of mine had the 5800.... his roomie said he could here it (the video card cooling fan) half way across the apartment... lol and I agree IMO that over all the ATI Radeon series of cards are the best bang for the buck... since they seem to take full advantage of all the capabilities of DX9... they tested the 5900 Ultra and the latest 256MB ATI Radeon (froget the number but 9600 seems to come to mind) on the a few high end games in a recent Computer Gaming World ... it was a rather interesting write up.....

Rocko

Dash Jones · « **Reply #15 on:** December 16, 2003, 11:24:23 pm »

Whatever you do, don't get the Ati 9000 series. Had to use them...and have had tons of problems getting recent game releases to work with the drivers. The cards are awesome...but the drivers are sooooo bad, that it will drive you bonkers...at least with the recent releases...

Luckily I got an Nvidia card a few months ago as well...not as kickin with the specs...but it's drivers seem to work better thus far...

However...simply put...visually, thus far with the games...I can't tell any improvments in the graphics between the FX series and the Geforce 4 Ti series...thus far at least...

TheBigCheese · « **Reply #16 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:51:36 am »

Yep as with all new cards these days, you have to wait a year before decent drivers are available

James_Smith · « **Reply #17 on:** December 17, 2003, 04:40:09 am »

The 53.xx series drivers for Nvidia cards do seem to have very few issues wrt image quality. Plus, and this is something ATI always used to have problems with, they run fine in OpenGL. The last time I tried an ATI card a few months back, the 9700 Pro that I used was spectacularly bad in OpenGL - we're talking single-figure framerates. Since then, I've been loathe to have another ATI card. When the next series appears (code R4xx for ATI, NV4x for Nvidia) I'll probably see if I can get hold of one of each to try out.

Intrepid-XC · « **Reply #18 on:** December 17, 2003, 08:17:56 pm »

Alright, well I have to wade into this discussion because in my opinion anyone saying stay away from the new ATI cards is nuts. I was a pure NVIDA guy until the 9500/9700 series of ATI cards came out. I purchased a 128 meg 9500 pro to replace my aging Geforce 3 card. I like many people have had zero problems with this card in both Open GL and DirectX. I did numerous comparisions and at the time the 9500 pro was the best card for my money. Today I still see the ATI cards (9600 and 9800) being a better value for your money than the equivalent NVIDA cards. Why? Because they give you better performance with AA and AS on than the NVIDA cards and at a lesser price. When NVIDA comes out with a better card I'll buy it, but for now ATI is on top.

For those who are having driver problems I'm more than willing to bet you've done something wrong installing the drivers. Several people I know have come to me with problems when installing RADEON cards. The biggest mistake I found was not completly removing NVIDA drivers before trying to install the RADEON cards. Do you really expect a card to function properly when the computer still has another manufactuers drivers installed? The second problem I've found is that people were using old drivers. Catalyst 3.7 and up are excellent drivers for the entire RADEON family (9000-9800).

As for games, I've yet to install and play a game that didn't run extremely well on my 9500 Pro. Even this card is starting to show its age when compared the top of the line ATI and NVIDA cards, but for the most part I can run 1152X940 at 4X AA and 8X AS with framerates well above acceptable levels (of course it varies with the game).

My big suggestion to anyone is find someone with the card you are considering purchasing (or one similar, ie. 9500 pro comparable to a 9600, and this goes for both NVIDA and ATI). This is the best way to evaluate a card. And well I'm a fan of the new ATI cards, simply choose the ATI or NVIDA card that works best for you. Just don't automatically discount a manufactuer like so many would have you do with ATI.

RockoWillis · « **Reply #21 on:** December 18, 2003, 09:11:25 am »

Note: SFC3 does not support ATI Catalyst 3.8 and 3.9 versions (has something to do with DirectPlay I am led to understand) and that is why many ATI users use 3.7 to play this game. I think... since this whole patch war

is going on between Activision and Paramount/Tauldren/whoever else they can piss off

and ask the clowns if a video patch can be done... This would not be a gameplay issue type fix... just a compatability issue patch to bring the game up to support Catalyst 3.9 and all the latest DirectPlay issues.

Rocko

digi · « **Reply #22 on:** December 30, 2003, 04:31:19 am »

Just a quick note. Tomshardware have just released there massive test "VGA Charts 3." And this effectively answers all of my original questions.

If you're in the market for a new graphics card check out this review first.

VGA Charts 3

TheBigCheese · « **Reply #23 on:** December 31, 2003, 05:22:56 am »

My card is not reviewed there but I can highly recommend it, it is the saphire 9600XT 256MB and at £140 is £60 cheaper than its Nvidea equivalent. The new catalyst 3.10 drivers work excellently with it too

Viper69 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 02, 2004, 03:30:49 am »

Just thought I would share this great deal I got!!!

Why settle for a 9600 when you can get a Radeon 9700 Pro for $219 ?!?!

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=14-131-199&DEPA=1&sumit=property&catalog=48&mfrcode=0&propertycodevalue=3048,3668&keywords=&minprice=&maxprice=

I just got one of these and it is awesome! This is the absolute best bang for your buck right now. This is last year's top of the line card for a bargain price, and the only thing better than this is the 9800 Pro and XT, and they cost way too much.

Trust me , you will not be dissapointed, it is an outstanding deal, and I doubt if they will have these much longer. Also, Newegg is the best, mine shipped the day I ordered it and I got it in 4 days.

digi · « **Reply #25 on:** January 03, 2004, 05:35:20 am »

Sorry BG I should have replied to this earlier.

It certainly looks like the ATI Cards have claimed the top spots in the Tomshardware reviews. If there new 3.10 drivers do the business then these cards should be the must buy.

Hale · « **Reply #26 on:** January 03, 2004, 08:56:21 am »

Keep in mind that 3D Mark 2001 is a DirectX 8 test. If you are getting a new card, you should use 3D Mark 2003 as your benchmark, which uses DirectX 9. Toms and other review sites also will frequently use canned game playbacks (UT, Aquanox, etc) for comparisions.

I currently have a Ti 4600, but if I were going to get a new card I'd get an ATI, they do DirectX 9 much better, which is what all the new games will use. IIRC the 9700 gives performance equivalent/slightly better to the high end Nvida's at a reasonable price, and the 9800 is far superior.

digi · « **Reply #27 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:36:20 am »

Hi guys,

I'm looking to upgrade my graphics card soon, but I need to know if my money will be well spent, and if I'll get visable improvements.

My Current Card is based on a nVidia ti4600 w/ 128Mb.
I'd like to get a Gainward nVidia FX5700 w/ 256Mb.

But I can't find any comparitive reviews based around the same games. Reviews I can find obviously show you the frame rates of the new card but its always compared against similar ATI cards or the lower end FX5200 cards, and never against the older ti4600's.

If you know of any sites with reveiws that compare the FX5700 to the ti4600 based on 'real use' rather than technical specifications then I'd like to know.

Thanks
Digi

SL-Punisher · « **Reply #28 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:49:29 am »

The ATI radeon series is definatly worth your time. Often it isn't a good idea to buy upgraded video cards based on older chipsets.

Check out www.tomshardware.com exellent site! Very fair in it's reviews. My only reccomendation is ALWAYS buy your video cards direct. Don't purchase them from 3rd party resellers (IE Get the radeon from ATI rather than one of the resellers that produce items based on their chipsets)

Falaris · « **Reply #29 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:53:55 am »

Short answer: Couldn't find any, no.

Long answer. Tom's hardware and hardwareanalysis both mention that if you are considering the FX5700, and it's not the Ultra version, consider buying the FX5600 Ultra- it's both faster, more stable, and cheaper. The FX5700 Ultra is better, though, but the price is accordingly.

digi · « **Reply #30 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:56:49 am »

I check out Toms all the time, but they never review the newer cards (FX5700) with the older (ti4600) and if I try and compare to different reviews the benchmarks (games, programs) are different. I have to admit though that ATI aren't on my list. I just don't trust the drivers, even though they may be better these days.

But I don't really want this thread to get into an ATI is better than nVidia or nVidia is better than ATI discussion.

digi · « **Reply #31 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:58:41 am »

Thanks Falaris,

I'll just head off to check out the price difference now....

SL-Punisher · « **Reply #32 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:59:32 am »

The drivers have improved alot over the past year. I have an raedon 9700 pro card and I couldn't be happier. Got rid of all the Z-buffer problems I was having with the nvidia cards.

digi · « **Reply #33 on:** December 16, 2003, 08:09:42 am »

It seems theres not that much price difference from the one I was looking at.

Gainward fx5700 Ultra

and it fits in around my budget of £150 quite nicely.

Okay - if there aren't any reviews I'll go for speculation instead. Would you guys say that the FX5700 Ultra was a good upgrade choice from the ti4600? Do you think I'll see improvement and that I should go for it, or do you think any improvement would be negligible and I'd be better off waiting?

Falaris · « **Reply #34 on:** December 16, 2003, 08:48:33 am »

Hm, I looked around a bit.. problem: The card you reference does not use Gainward's own product specifications for the new Ultra card, so I don't know if that is the 'Ultra' I was referring to; prices on the 5700 U/960 was between 200 and 400$ in translated value..

... and then I checked the Gainward homepage and noticed that there could be local variations in product specifications and naming, and I conclude that I would not trust what I'm saying on this all that much.

digi · « **Reply #35 on:** December 16, 2003, 10:27:26 am »

Okay - I'm no longer convinced there is any upgrade potential from the ti4600 to the FX5700, although I'm mainly going on a hunch.

I went through as many webpages as possible finding results for graphics cards with 3Dmark 2001SE. I only used results from tests using a Pentium 4 2.8 w/ 512Mb to try and keep the results as balanced as possible. (I saw some fluctuations of around 1000 points in results using a 3.0Ghz P4 with HT)

Although I couldn't find a review for the fx5700 (and Ultra) using 3d Mark 2001SE and a 2.8Ghz P4, I'm led to believe that the performance increase over the fx5600 is pretty small. Looking at my chart my ti4600 holds its own against the fx5600 and the fx5600 Ultra in most areas - only just falling behind the Ultra on 4xAA test.

So I think I've answered my own question. Anyway another 6 Months will see another release from nVidia and ATI so I'll look back into this then. Instead I'll just upgrade to the latest drivers.

Falaris · « **Reply #36 on:** December 16, 2003, 11:36:59 am »

I didn't see any comparative analysis either; kind of embarassing to notice the ti4600 was faster than the FX5600 Ultra I recommended as an upgrade.

But your conclusion is actually my impression too... graphic cards come with far more new versions now, but each increase is incremental, so skipping a step or two is no big deal.

BTW don't see you around on SWG too often, is my timing in logging on abysmal or are you mostly AWOL?

digi · « **Reply #37 on:** December 16, 2003, 12:49:27 pm »

Maybe its a timezone issue. I was on most of the weekend. I'm pretty much staying around Bestine at the moment.

Oh and vehicles are out right now. So I'm about to log on.

TheBigCheese · « **Reply #38 on:** December 16, 2003, 01:00:04 pm »

Trouble with new cards is that you have to wait for drivers too catch up with them, I have the brand new 9600XT 256MB but performance is poor with present drivers on some games.
It only works abit better than my trusty old 8500 on some games.
What I will say is that now when I turn volumetric shadows on performance seems unaltered

oh yea my card cost me £143

benchmark:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031015/radeon9600xt-07.html

RockoWillis · « **Reply #39 on:** December 16, 2003, 02:52:03 pm »

Isn't the 5700 and 5700 Ultra the one with the "Leaf Blower Fan" also?? I heard that both 5700 had some bad problems when they came out...

Rocko

RockoWillis · « **Reply #41 on:** December 16, 2003, 08:10:31 pm »

I thought it might be the 5800 but was not sure.. A good friend of mine had the 5800.... his roomie said he could here it (the video card cooling fan) half way across the apartment... lol and I agree IMO that over all the ATI Radeon series of cards are the best bang for the buck... since they seem to take full advantage of all the capabilities of DX9... they tested the 5900 Ultra and the latest 256MB ATI Radeon (froget the number but 9600 seems to come to mind) on the a few high end games in a recent Computer Gaming World ... it was a rather interesting write up.....

Rocko

Dash Jones · « **Reply #42 on:** December 16, 2003, 11:24:23 pm »

Whatever you do, don't get the Ati 9000 series. Had to use them...and have had tons of problems getting recent game releases to work with the drivers. The cards are awesome...but the drivers are sooooo bad, that it will drive you bonkers...at least with the recent releases...

Luckily I got an Nvidia card a few months ago as well...not as kickin with the specs...but it's drivers seem to work better thus far...

However...simply put...visually, thus far with the games...I can't tell any improvments in the graphics between the FX series and the Geforce 4 Ti series...thus far at least...

TheBigCheese · « **Reply #43 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:51:36 am »

Yep as with all new cards these days, you have to wait a year before decent drivers are available

James_Smith · « **Reply #44 on:** December 17, 2003, 04:40:09 am »

The 53.xx series drivers for Nvidia cards do seem to have very few issues wrt image quality. Plus, and this is something ATI always used to have problems with, they run fine in OpenGL. The last time I tried an ATI card a few months back, the 9700 Pro that I used was spectacularly bad in OpenGL - we're talking single-figure framerates. Since then, I've been loathe to have another ATI card. When the next series appears (code R4xx for ATI, NV4x for Nvidia) I'll probably see if I can get hold of one of each to try out.

Intrepid-XC · « **Reply #45 on:** December 17, 2003, 08:17:56 pm »

Alright, well I have to wade into this discussion because in my opinion anyone saying stay away from the new ATI cards is nuts. I was a pure NVIDA guy until the 9500/9700 series of ATI cards came out. I purchased a 128 meg 9500 pro to replace my aging Geforce 3 card. I like many people have had zero problems with this card in both Open GL and DirectX. I did numerous comparisions and at the time the 9500 pro was the best card for my money. Today I still see the ATI cards (9600 and 9800) being a better value for your money than the equivalent NVIDA cards. Why? Because they give you better performance with AA and AS on than the NVIDA cards and at a lesser price. When NVIDA comes out with a better card I'll buy it, but for now ATI is on top.

For those who are having driver problems I'm more than willing to bet you've done something wrong installing the drivers. Several people I know have come to me with problems when installing RADEON cards. The biggest mistake I found was not completly removing NVIDA drivers before trying to install the RADEON cards. Do you really expect a card to function properly when the computer still has another manufactuers drivers installed? The second problem I've found is that people were using old drivers. Catalyst 3.7 and up are excellent drivers for the entire RADEON family (9000-9800).

As for games, I've yet to install and play a game that didn't run extremely well on my 9500 Pro. Even this card is starting to show its age when compared the top of the line ATI and NVIDA cards, but for the most part I can run 1152X940 at 4X AA and 8X AS with framerates well above acceptable levels (of course it varies with the game).

My big suggestion to anyone is find someone with the card you are considering purchasing (or one similar, ie. 9500 pro comparable to a 9600, and this goes for both NVIDA and ATI). This is the best way to evaluate a card. And well I'm a fan of the new ATI cards, simply choose the ATI or NVIDA card that works best for you. Just don't automatically discount a manufactuer like so many would have you do with ATI.

RockoWillis · « **Reply #48 on:** December 18, 2003, 09:11:25 am »

Note: SFC3 does not support ATI Catalyst 3.8 and 3.9 versions (has something to do with DirectPlay I am led to understand) and that is why many ATI users use 3.7 to play this game. I think... since this whole patch war

is going on between Activision and Paramount/Tauldren/whoever else they can piss off

and ask the clowns if a video patch can be done... This would not be a gameplay issue type fix... just a compatability issue patch to bring the game up to support Catalyst 3.9 and all the latest DirectPlay issues.

Rocko

digi · « **Reply #49 on:** December 30, 2003, 04:31:19 am »

Just a quick note. Tomshardware have just released there massive test "VGA Charts 3." And this effectively answers all of my original questions.

If you're in the market for a new graphics card check out this review first.

VGA Charts 3

TheBigCheese · « **Reply #50 on:** December 31, 2003, 05:22:56 am »

My card is not reviewed there but I can highly recommend it, it is the saphire 9600XT 256MB and at £140 is £60 cheaper than its Nvidea equivalent. The new catalyst 3.10 drivers work excellently with it too

Viper69 · « **Reply #51 on:** January 02, 2004, 03:30:49 am »

Just thought I would share this great deal I got!!!

Why settle for a 9600 when you can get a Radeon 9700 Pro for $219 ?!?!

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=14-131-199&DEPA=1&sumit=property&catalog=48&mfrcode=0&propertycodevalue=3048,3668&keywords=&minprice=&maxprice=

I just got one of these and it is awesome! This is the absolute best bang for your buck right now. This is last year's top of the line card for a bargain price, and the only thing better than this is the 9800 Pro and XT, and they cost way too much.

Trust me , you will not be dissapointed, it is an outstanding deal, and I doubt if they will have these much longer. Also, Newegg is the best, mine shipped the day I ordered it and I got it in 4 days.

digi · « **Reply #52 on:** January 03, 2004, 05:35:20 am »

Sorry BG I should have replied to this earlier.

It certainly looks like the ATI Cards have claimed the top spots in the Tomshardware reviews. If there new 3.10 drivers do the business then these cards should be the must buy.

Hale · « **Reply #53 on:** January 03, 2004, 08:56:21 am »

Keep in mind that 3D Mark 2001 is a DirectX 8 test. If you are getting a new card, you should use 3D Mark 2003 as your benchmark, which uses DirectX 9. Toms and other review sites also will frequently use canned game playbacks (UT, Aquanox, etc) for comparisions.

I currently have a Ti 4600, but if I were going to get a new card I'd get an ATI, they do DirectX 9 much better, which is what all the new games will use. IIRC the 9700 gives performance equivalent/slightly better to the high end Nvida's at a reasonable price, and the 9800 is far superior.

digi · « **Reply #54 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:36:20 am »

Hi guys,

I'm looking to upgrade my graphics card soon, but I need to know if my money will be well spent, and if I'll get visable improvements.

My Current Card is based on a nVidia ti4600 w/ 128Mb.
I'd like to get a Gainward nVidia FX5700 w/ 256Mb.

But I can't find any comparitive reviews based around the same games. Reviews I can find obviously show you the frame rates of the new card but its always compared against similar ATI cards or the lower end FX5200 cards, and never against the older ti4600's.

If you know of any sites with reveiws that compare the FX5700 to the ti4600 based on 'real use' rather than technical specifications then I'd like to know.

Thanks
Digi

SL-Punisher · « **Reply #55 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:49:29 am »

The ATI radeon series is definatly worth your time. Often it isn't a good idea to buy upgraded video cards based on older chipsets.

Check out www.tomshardware.com exellent site! Very fair in it's reviews. My only reccomendation is ALWAYS buy your video cards direct. Don't purchase them from 3rd party resellers (IE Get the radeon from ATI rather than one of the resellers that produce items based on their chipsets)

Falaris · « **Reply #56 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:53:55 am »

Short answer: Couldn't find any, no.

Long answer. Tom's hardware and hardwareanalysis both mention that if you are considering the FX5700, and it's not the Ultra version, consider buying the FX5600 Ultra- it's both faster, more stable, and cheaper. The FX5700 Ultra is better, though, but the price is accordingly.

digi · « **Reply #57 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:56:49 am »

I check out Toms all the time, but they never review the newer cards (FX5700) with the older (ti4600) and if I try and compare to different reviews the benchmarks (games, programs) are different. I have to admit though that ATI aren't on my list. I just don't trust the drivers, even though they may be better these days.

But I don't really want this thread to get into an ATI is better than nVidia or nVidia is better than ATI discussion.

digi · « **Reply #58 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:58:41 am »

Thanks Falaris,

I'll just head off to check out the price difference now....

SL-Punisher · « **Reply #59 on:** December 16, 2003, 07:59:32 am »

The drivers have improved alot over the past year. I have an raedon 9700 pro card and I couldn't be happier. Got rid of all the Z-buffer problems I was having with the nvidia cards.

digi · « **Reply #60 on:** December 16, 2003, 08:09:42 am »

It seems theres not that much price difference from the one I was looking at.

Gainward fx5700 Ultra

and it fits in around my budget of £150 quite nicely.

Okay - if there aren't any reviews I'll go for speculation instead. Would you guys say that the FX5700 Ultra was a good upgrade choice from the ti4600? Do you think I'll see improvement and that I should go for it, or do you think any improvement would be negligible and I'd be better off waiting?

Falaris · « **Reply #61 on:** December 16, 2003, 08:48:33 am »

Hm, I looked around a bit.. problem: The card you reference does not use Gainward's own product specifications for the new Ultra card, so I don't know if that is the 'Ultra' I was referring to; prices on the 5700 U/960 was between 200 and 400$ in translated value..

... and then I checked the Gainward homepage and noticed that there could be local variations in product specifications and naming, and I conclude that I would not trust what I'm saying on this all that much.

digi · « **Reply #62 on:** December 16, 2003, 10:27:26 am »

Okay - I'm no longer convinced there is any upgrade potential from the ti4600 to the FX5700, although I'm mainly going on a hunch.

I went through as many webpages as possible finding results for graphics cards with 3Dmark 2001SE. I only used results from tests using a Pentium 4 2.8 w/ 512Mb to try and keep the results as balanced as possible. (I saw some fluctuations of around 1000 points in results using a 3.0Ghz P4 with HT)

Although I couldn't find a review for the fx5700 (and Ultra) using 3d Mark 2001SE and a 2.8Ghz P4, I'm led to believe that the performance increase over the fx5600 is pretty small. Looking at my chart my ti4600 holds its own against the fx5600 and the fx5600 Ultra in most areas - only just falling behind the Ultra on 4xAA test.

So I think I've answered my own question. Anyway another 6 Months will see another release from nVidia and ATI so I'll look back into this then. Instead I'll just upgrade to the latest drivers.

Falaris · « **Reply #63 on:** December 16, 2003, 11:36:59 am »

I didn't see any comparative analysis either; kind of embarassing to notice the ti4600 was faster than the FX5600 Ultra I recommended as an upgrade.

But your conclusion is actually my impression too... graphic cards come with far more new versions now, but each increase is incremental, so skipping a step or two is no big deal.

BTW don't see you around on SWG too often, is my timing in logging on abysmal or are you mostly AWOL?

digi · « **Reply #64 on:** December 16, 2003, 12:49:27 pm »

Maybe its a timezone issue. I was on most of the weekend. I'm pretty much staying around Bestine at the moment.

Oh and vehicles are out right now. So I'm about to log on.

TheBigCheese · « **Reply #65 on:** December 16, 2003, 01:00:04 pm »

Trouble with new cards is that you have to wait for drivers too catch up with them, I have the brand new 9600XT 256MB but performance is poor with present drivers on some games.
It only works abit better than my trusty old 8500 on some games.
What I will say is that now when I turn volumetric shadows on performance seems unaltered

oh yea my card cost me £143

benchmark:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031015/radeon9600xt-07.html

RockoWillis · « **Reply #66 on:** December 16, 2003, 02:52:03 pm »

Isn't the 5700 and 5700 Ultra the one with the "Leaf Blower Fan" also?? I heard that both 5700 had some bad problems when they came out...

Rocko

RockoWillis · « **Reply #68 on:** December 16, 2003, 08:10:31 pm »

I thought it might be the 5800 but was not sure.. A good friend of mine had the 5800.... his roomie said he could here it (the video card cooling fan) half way across the apartment... lol and I agree IMO that over all the ATI Radeon series of cards are the best bang for the buck... since they seem to take full advantage of all the capabilities of DX9... they tested the 5900 Ultra and the latest 256MB ATI Radeon (froget the number but 9600 seems to come to mind) on the a few high end games in a recent Computer Gaming World ... it was a rather interesting write up.....

Rocko

Dash Jones · « **Reply #69 on:** December 16, 2003, 11:24:23 pm »

Whatever you do, don't get the Ati 9000 series. Had to use them...and have had tons of problems getting recent game releases to work with the drivers. The cards are awesome...but the drivers are sooooo bad, that it will drive you bonkers...at least with the recent releases...

Luckily I got an Nvidia card a few months ago as well...not as kickin with the specs...but it's drivers seem to work better thus far...

However...simply put...visually, thus far with the games...I can't tell any improvments in the graphics between the FX series and the Geforce 4 Ti series...thus far at least...

TheBigCheese · « **Reply #70 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:51:36 am »

Yep as with all new cards these days, you have to wait a year before decent drivers are available

James_Smith · « **Reply #71 on:** December 17, 2003, 04:40:09 am »

The 53.xx series drivers for Nvidia cards do seem to have very few issues wrt image quality. Plus, and this is something ATI always used to have problems with, they run fine in OpenGL. The last time I tried an ATI card a few months back, the 9700 Pro that I used was spectacularly bad in OpenGL - we're talking single-figure framerates. Since then, I've been loathe to have another ATI card. When the next series appears (code R4xx for ATI, NV4x for Nvidia) I'll probably see if I can get hold of one of each to try out.

Intrepid-XC · « **Reply #72 on:** December 17, 2003, 08:17:56 pm »

Alright, well I have to wade into this discussion because in my opinion anyone saying stay away from the new ATI cards is nuts. I was a pure NVIDA guy until the 9500/9700 series of ATI cards came out. I purchased a 128 meg 9500 pro to replace my aging Geforce 3 card. I like many people have had zero problems with this card in both Open GL and DirectX. I did numerous comparisions and at the time the 9500 pro was the best card for my money. Today I still see the ATI cards (9600 and 9800) being a better value for your money than the equivalent NVIDA cards. Why? Because they give you better performance with AA and AS on than the NVIDA cards and at a lesser price. When NVIDA comes out with a better card I'll buy it, but for now ATI is on top.

For those who are having driver problems I'm more than willing to bet you've done something wrong installing the drivers. Several people I know have come to me with problems when installing RADEON cards. The biggest mistake I found was not completly removing NVIDA drivers before trying to install the RADEON cards. Do you really expect a card to function properly when the computer still has another manufactuers drivers installed? The second problem I've found is that people were using old drivers. Catalyst 3.7 and up are excellent drivers for the entire RADEON family (9000-9800).

As for games, I've yet to install and play a game that didn't run extremely well on my 9500 Pro. Even this card is starting to show its age when compared the top of the line ATI and NVIDA cards, but for the most part I can run 1152X940 at 4X AA and 8X AS with framerates well above acceptable levels (of course it varies with the game).

My big suggestion to anyone is find someone with the card you are considering purchasing (or one similar, ie. 9500 pro comparable to a 9600, and this goes for both NVIDA and ATI). This is the best way to evaluate a card. And well I'm a fan of the new ATI cards, simply choose the ATI or NVIDA card that works best for you. Just don't automatically discount a manufactuer like so many would have you do with ATI.

RockoWillis · « **Reply #75 on:** December 18, 2003, 09:11:25 am »

Note: SFC3 does not support ATI Catalyst 3.8 and 3.9 versions (has something to do with DirectPlay I am led to understand) and that is why many ATI users use 3.7 to play this game. I think... since this whole patch war

is going on between Activision and Paramount/Tauldren/whoever else they can piss off

and ask the clowns if a video patch can be done... This would not be a gameplay issue type fix... just a compatability issue patch to bring the game up to support Catalyst 3.9 and all the latest DirectPlay issues.

Rocko

digi · « **Reply #76 on:** December 30, 2003, 04:31:19 am »

Just a quick note. Tomshardware have just released there massive test "VGA Charts 3." And this effectively answers all of my original questions.

If you're in the market for a new graphics card check out this review first.

VGA Charts 3

TheBigCheese · « **Reply #77 on:** December 31, 2003, 05:22:56 am »

My card is not reviewed there but I can highly recommend it, it is the saphire 9600XT 256MB and at £140 is £60 cheaper than its Nvidea equivalent. The new catalyst 3.10 drivers work excellently with it too

Viper69 · « **Reply #78 on:** January 02, 2004, 03:30:49 am »

Just thought I would share this great deal I got!!!

Why settle for a 9600 when you can get a Radeon 9700 Pro for $219 ?!?!

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=14-131-199&DEPA=1&sumit=property&catalog=48&mfrcode=0&propertycodevalue=3048,3668&keywords=&minprice=&maxprice=

I just got one of these and it is awesome! This is the absolute best bang for your buck right now. This is last year's top of the line card for a bargain price, and the only thing better than this is the 9800 Pro and XT, and they cost way too much.

Trust me , you will not be dissapointed, it is an outstanding deal, and I doubt if they will have these much longer. Also, Newegg is the best, mine shipped the day I ordered it and I got it in 4 days.

digi · « **Reply #79 on:** January 03, 2004, 05:35:20 am »

Sorry BG I should have replied to this earlier.

It certainly looks like the ATI Cards have claimed the top spots in the Tomshardware reviews. If there new 3.10 drivers do the business then these cards should be the must buy.

Hale · « **Reply #80 on:** January 03, 2004, 08:56:21 am »

Keep in mind that 3D Mark 2001 is a DirectX 8 test. If you are getting a new card, you should use 3D Mark 2003 as your benchmark, which uses DirectX 9. Toms and other review sites also will frequently use canned game playbacks (UT, Aquanox, etc) for comparisions.

I currently have a Ti 4600, but if I were going to get a new card I'd get an ATI, they do DirectX 9 much better, which is what all the new games will use. IIRC the 9700 gives performance equivalent/slightly better to the high end Nvida's at a reasonable price, and the 9800 is far superior.

News:

Topic: Graphics Cards Comparison (Read 13874 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

digi

SL-Punisher

Falaris

digi

digi

SL-Punisher

digi

Falaris

digi

Falaris

digi

TheBigCheese

RockoWillis

James_Smith

RockoWillis

Dash Jones

TheBigCheese

James_Smith

Intrepid-XC

Dash Jones

James_Smith

RockoWillis

digi

TheBigCheese

Viper69

digi

Hale

digi

SL-Punisher

Falaris

digi

digi

SL-Punisher

digi

Falaris

digi

Falaris

digi

TheBigCheese

RockoWillis

James_Smith

RockoWillis

Dash Jones

TheBigCheese

James_Smith

Intrepid-XC

Dash Jones

James_Smith

RockoWillis

digi

TheBigCheese

Viper69

digi

Hale

digi

SL-Punisher

Falaris

digi

digi

SL-Punisher

digi

Falaris

digi

Falaris

digi

TheBigCheese

RockoWillis

James_Smith

RockoWillis

Dash Jones

TheBigCheese

James_Smith

Intrepid-XC

Dash Jones

Topic: Graphics Cards Comparison (Read 13874 times)