[phreak]

if its solely professional work, go wildcat as i don't know it d3d capabilites.  most likely dx8

otherwise go 9600 or ti4600

[mikhael]

It isn't solely for professional work, Thorn. Its also for gaming. I've got one absolute horror story from a buddy on Lightwave site about the Wildcat. I've had bad luck with ATi in the past.

All this has me inclined toward the Ti4x00, part. Either a 4200 or a 4600. But Icefire has made a good point about Dx9 support.  And I get more glowing reviews about the Radeon 9x00 Pro cards than I get horror stories.

This is turning into a very difficult choice.

[Turnsky]

would this help any?



note that a gigabyte maya 2 radeon 9700 pro got a 91% and a gold award...

[Admiral LSD]

3DMark sucks, what other benchmarks did they test it with?

[Turnsky]

they used to use a quake3 benchmark...

and given the fact that 3dmark03 sucks badly...

[betterthanyou]

I love my GeForce TI 4200, but seeing as I haven't ran a Radeon since the 7000 I'm not really the best one to give an unbiased opinion. Still, it has taken on the role of the workhorse in the community for a reason. It's cheap, good and reliable.

[Turnsky]

i never used a nvidia card...(xbox doesn't count ) my radeon 9000 has never given me an ounce of trouble... i actually bought the blasted thing to replace my kyro...(it didn't like games)

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Turnsky
would this help any?

[pic of a comparison between a Radeon and an NVidia FX card removed]

note that a gigabyte maya 2 radeon 9700 pro got a 91% and a gold award...

No, it really doesn't. I specifically am not looking at any GeForce cards unless they have a model number resembling "Ti4x00". No FX. No SX. No SE. no anything except "Ti"

For those who do not know, the Fx, MX, SX, and SE cards are NOT Geforce4 chipsets, they are budget cards. They are NOT in the running.

[Fineus]

Well, my GF4600Ti still takes everything I can throw at it but 3DMark 2K3. I'm happy with that for now. By the time HL2 is out in September I'll probably upgrade to whatevers now but for now there really is no need to spend the phat cash on something better. Of course, this is just my take...

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Just win gamer snap. Judging from the last two months you don't even need to try. Just load up an RTS and fill the screen with units, or make an "amusing" human tower in Counterstrike.

[Admiral LSD]

Originally posted by mikhael
For those who do not know, the Fx, MX, SX, and SE cards are NOT Geforce4 chipsets, they are budget cards. They are NOT in the running.

uhh no. not quite. Of the GF FX's only the 5200 was supposed to be a budget card. The 5600 was supposed to be the mainstream part with the 5800 being the high-end fire-breather. It didn't quite work out that way with all of them sucking in one way or another but the NV35-based (compared with the NV30 the 5200, 5600 and 5800 are alls based on) FX5900 blows everything else away, even when it isn't cheating. It is by no means a budget card.

Oh and Thunder, you saw the need to spend the "phat cash" on the Ti4600, why not do the same thing now and get an FX5900 or a 9800 Pro? They're the fastest things around you know, and ridiculously overpriced too, just like your Ti4600 was and just the way you like it, no?

[Dark_4ce]

Yeah, the fx5900 isn't any cheap card. Though there is coming out a budget version of it as well. With only 128mb. The 256 is going to be around the $499 range while the budget will be a around $399 in price. Both still pritty hefty prices, but if you want of power...

Though I've heard the Radeon 9800 comes pritty equal to the FX5900, and no doubt will lower in price a bit, for competetive reasons...

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Admiral LSD


uhh no. not quite. Of the GF FX's only the 5200 was supposed to be a budget card. The 5600 was supposed to be the mainstream part with the 5800 being the high-end fire-breather. It didn't quite work out that way with all of them sucking in one way or another but the NV35-based (compared with the NV30 the 5200, 5600 and 5800 are alls based on) FX5900 blows everything else away, even when it isn't cheating. It is by no means a budget card.

I stand corrected. However, the point remains: FX cards are not in the running, only Ti4x00s.

[Grey Wolf]

If you get a Radeon 9800, don't get the new variant unless you need high AA settings.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by Admiral LSD
Don't get a 9600, they're ****e. They may be underclocked 9800's but they have only 4 rendering pipelines. A much better bet is the 9500 Pro which has all 8 rendering pipelines enabled. You'll have to be quick though as ATi are in the process of withdrawing the 9500 in favour of the 9600.

Hardware hackers have developed a way to enable all the pipelines.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Before, yes. Now, no. nVidia pulled an ATI and released incredibly crappy drivers. The 9600 is quieter though, or at least it should be.

And as a note, the fastest card out there for gaming right now is the FX 5900, but from what I've seen, the Radeon 9800 is quieter than it, even though the 5900 isn't a dust-buster like the 5800.

*cough, cough*

read: http://www.megagames.com/news/html/hardware/gfx5900caughtcheating.shtml

[Unknown Target]

Also, on another note, the 9800 has been PROVEN to beat the FX in terms of performance.

[Grey Wolf]

They both cheated, you know that, right? And Futuremark has settled on calling both "optimizations" They're all a bunch of cheaters.

And the 9800 beat the 5800, not the 5900. Read the damn review: http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030512/index.html

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Unknown Target


*cough, cough*

read: http://www.megagames.com/news/html/hardware/gfx5900caughtcheating.shtml

This is but one reason the FX cards aren't in the running.

A little more research has me leaning toward a 9600Pro or 9700Pro. I feel dirty just typing that.

[Grey Wolf]

From what I know, I'd suggest the 9700 Pro. The 9600 is just crap.