9800XT and GeForceFX 5950 ultra

Is the radeon 9800Xt better than the nvidia geforcefx 5950 ultra? if u could include links and stuff of like tests and stuff comparing the 2 that would be great

thx

Note: Im getting a new computer not buying a video card that plug and play thing

As painful as your post is to look at, I suppose I'll reply.

It's pretty much a toss-up between the two. The 9800XT is more likely to perform better on current and older games, while performing admirably on future games, whereas the 5950u will not do as well on older games but will likely do better on coming games (due to higher limits on lengths of shaders and numbers of shaders, etc). Either way, the difference between the two cards in pretty much any application will likely not be more than 5%.

Personally, I'd get a 9800XT, but the choice is yours. Both are very capable cards. In truth, you're probably better off simply getting the one that's cheapest.

I am gonna get a GeforceFX 5950.
Is there any differce on 5950 and 5950 ultra and what are they? O_o

Or is it the same card? I am really confused.

Torn said:

I am gonna get a GeforceFX 5950.
Is there any differce on 5950 and 5950 ultra and what are they? O_o

Or is it the same card? I am really confused.

The Ultra version of the card is running on higher clock speeds and is therefore faster.

There MAY be some other differences too, for example due higher clock speeds the VPU is heating much more and therefore needs better cooler and due higher DDR clock speeds the Ultra version MAY have some other memory.

The Ultra MAY have more piplelines enabled too.

I'm sorry, but I just don't know the specific difference of those models. If you're interested I could have a look.

But in general, Ultra is faster.

to auxois:
nVidia performs better in future games? Where do you get this information? According to dozens of tests ATI hardware runs almost all games (that aren't optimized to run on nVidia board) better that nVidia without optimizations. So my guess is that that is vice verca. ATI worked very closelly with Microsoft to get the best DX9 support. But, as I've heard, nVidia is very good in OGL (not that ATI is bad). But face it. Most games are using DX over OGL. And future games are going to use DX9 and Pixel Shadering. PS is MUCH faster on ATI boards.

No, I don't want to turn this thread into ATI vs nVidia fight, but if Torn is going to buy a VGA by juging your post then.. nVidia has good DX8 support, but DX9 support in pretty bad compared to ATI. In the other hand FX 5950 Ultra was the first nVidia board over a while that showed that nVidia isn't all the way behind. But 9800 XT still won the tests.

Tonx, you should really know better than to question me in one of these threads, really. Really.

nVidia performs better in future games? Where do you get this information?

Did I say that? I don't see where I said that. Perhaps you shouldn't post when you're drunk. Or maybe you can't read? I didn't say that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

What I SAID was that nVidia's FX cards are likely to perform better in coming games due to a relative lack of restrictions on their cards. Look around on the web and you'll find plenty of evidence. I can't be bothered to find it for you and in any case you'll learn more by finding it yourself. Obviously you need to.

According to dozens of tests ATI hardware runs almost all games (that aren't optimized to run on nVidia board) better that nVidia without optimizations. So my guess is that that is vice verca.

Just to nitpick, the phrase is "vice versa". But in any case, you're still wrong. ATI hardware runs almost all current games better even when they ARE optimized for nVidia hardware (which virtually all coming and current games are). The point is that the difference is still miniscule.

ATI worked very closelly with Microsoft to get the best DX9 support. But, as I've heard, nVidia is very good in OGL (not that ATI is bad).

ATI worked very closely with Microsoft to design the DX9 standard. So you're still wrong.

But face it. Most games are using DX over OGL. And future games are going to use DX9 and Pixel Shadering. PS is MUCH faster on ATI boards.

I don't know what pixel shadering is. Maybe you meant "pixel shaders?" Yes, when you write generic DX9 code, it is much faster on ATI hardware. When you use Cg, or write code optimized for nVidia hardware, it's similarly fast for nVidia hardware. Do I think devs should have to do this? No. Do I think nVidia is retarded for expecting everyone to bow to their hardware? Yes. Does it mean nVidia's cards are actually any less capable? No. Does it mean developers aren't going to do it? No.

No, I don't want to turn this thread into ATI vs nVidia fight,

Lies. You're obviously an ATI fanboy. I've seen this kind of behavior on other boards and other threads in this board. You can't stand for anyone to say that anything is nearly as good as your precious ATI card. Guess what - other companies make video cards that are worthwhile too. I'm not an nVidia fanboy, nor am I an ATI fanboy. In fact, I'm not really a fan of anything. I simply like to see that everyone gets their fair shake and that the consumers get the best value for their money. Something you obviously have no concern with.

but if Torn is going to buy a VGA by juging your post then.. nVidia has good DX8 support, but DX9 support in pretty bad compared to ATI.

See above...

In the other hand FX 5950 Ultra was the first nVidia board over a while that showed that nVidia isn't all the way behind. But 9800 XT still won the tests.

Yes, by margins that are quite literally unnoticeable unless you examine side-by-side static images and numerical framerate comparisons. The fact of the matter is that if he can get a 9800XT for $300 and a 5950u for $250, the 5950u is a better choice. End of story.

Oh, and for the record, the 5950u does not have any extra pipelines or anything. Both are four-pipe designs. It simply runs at a higher clockspeed, as most of the "ultra" variants do.

At first, I would like to say that I am NOT an ATI fanboy. I buy whatever is better. Some years ago it was nVidia, when ATI released R300, it was ATI. An I got that same old R300.

Soon I must make a decission like that too.

About 9800 XT or 5950 Ultra prices, it seems that nVidia boards costs more here.

Well, the things I said were based on all sorts of tests, yes.

I was not trying to say that you're fool and don't know anything. I did't know how much you know and yor post simply had that "nVidia is better" smell and I was saying the things how I understood those things, yes I might be wrong. But obviously you know enough to recommend one or other. I simply had misunderstandings while looking VGA comparsions.

But I still don't understand about those "restrictions". Current games todays mostly still ran better with ATI HW (according to those VGA tests). About PS / Cg, yes, you're right, but how many devs are going to write special Cg instead of generic PS code? Yes, all bigger titles are optimized for both, ATI and nVidia, but I assume I play more than just the biggest titles. Therefore I assume that ATI HW run better that nVidia's when speaking of future games. Or what did you mean?

answer to thread.

9800xt is better than the gfx 5950 in DX9 stuff and its close with DX8> apps.

rofl

Dude, you're digging yourself a hole. Just be quiet. There is no apples-to-apples comparison here, so just stfu and let it be.

9800XT IS better than the 5950. Thats why nvidia has the GEforce 6800ultra which is on par and even better than the 9800XT card. But don't worry ATI fans, there plans for the new x800 will whoop nvidia's ass... once again.

The X800 XT PE does beat the 6800 U in IQ and is faster generally in speed.