[Rampage]

Dear HLP Denizens:

I intend to construct a computer pretty soon and would like to conduct some research.  (I'm pretty sure that this will turn into an altercation.)  Since the video card is probably the next most important thing after CPU, I would like your opinion.

My simple question is:  "Which video card is better: ATX Radeon or NVidia GeForce4?"

Just post your opinions with the card's pros and cons.  Thanks.

Rampage

[IceFire]

ATI Radeon 9X it should probably say.

[Grey Wolf]

They're about equal. nVidia has a slight lead in performance with the 5900 Ultra, but that chipset is $100 more expensive than the Radeon 9800 Pro.

The 5900 non-pro is about equal in cost to the 9800 Pro, but is slightly behind in performance.

Also, the sound issue is gone from the nVidia chipsets, due to the fact that the reverted to DDR from DDR-II and lowered the chipset frequency from the 5800, but increased performance through increased memory bandwidth.

[JC Denton]

Wasn't there also something about ATI cards not having image quality as sharp as a GF?

To be honest, I've not kept up with the FX series, since from the get-go they didn't seem to perform as well as the 9800s.  Heck, I've only got passing knowledge of what the latest Radeon is capable of.

[Grey Wolf]

Oh yeah, forgot about image quality. IIRC, the Radeon has better-looking AA, the FX has faster AA.

[Admiral LSD]

It depends on how much money you want to spend. Right now, the best video card if money's no object is the FX 5900 however they cost a bit and aren't really worth it in the short term. Avoid the other FX cards though as even nVidia is admitting they suck bad. The faster Radeons (9700 Pro, 9800 Pro) probably come in next but these also still cost a fair bit. The best mid-range card is still the Radeon 9500 Pro but as ATI have discontinued these they're getting harder to find.

[Grey Wolf]

Ti4200 is dirt cheap and completely dominates the FX5200

[Kamikaze]

The gainward fx 5200 was faster than the ti4200 in tests somewhere, I don't know how accurate the tests are though. The gainward fx 5200 is 82 dollars at the cheapest that I can find.

[Ryx]

I'm an ATI convert, so I say go with anything >R9500.

Love that AA

[Grey Wolf]

Hmm... I was fairly sure the Ti4200 beat it.

BTW, interesting thing I noted on newegg: The stats on a Ti4800 are identical to the stats of a FX 5600, but without DirectX 9.

[JR2000Z]

___

[miniDwarf]

i'm a fan of ati, but game developers aren't. ati doesn't seem to be as compatable as the geforce series with certain games. take sc4 for example

[IceFire]

Originally posted by miniDwarf
i'm a fan of ati, but game developers aren't. ati doesn't seem to be as compatable as the geforce series with certain games. take sc4 for example

I'd say 99% of that will have gone by the wayside in a few months.  Whatever problems ATI hasn't fixed with their drivers are being addressed by the developers (if the game is fairly new).  ATI is currently in the unofficial lead with the enthusiast crowd...so if the developers aren't addressing their problems with the games they will have to...in order to keep as many options available to their markets.

The only good FX card out is the 5900 and its performance is a hair faster than the Radeon 9800 (which is available in greater numbers and at a lower price).  We'll see what happens next round of video cards, but it seems like the battle between nVidia and ATI is much much closer now than ever.

[aldo_14]

I heard ATI may be releasing new cards (9900?) to coincide with the release of Half Life 2 in September..... so I'm waiting until then for the knock-on effect to hopefully reduce a few prices. Plus I'm hoping for a wodge of cash for me 21st birthday then.

IMO, it seems that ATI is presently the best value when you go to the just-below-top-of-the-range level.  Saw a 9600 for £100 quid on dabs, which seems pretty cheap.  Incidentally, I also read that tests between R9800's with 128 and 256MB RAM only had a negligable difference, and that only at massive resolutions - so I wonder if it may be better to save a few quid and go for a 64MB card than a 128MB card...?

[Ryx]

Originally posted by aldo_14
... save a few quid and go for a 64MB card than a 128MB card...?

I would go for the extra memory. That will lessen the impact of AA and AF. probably helps with big texes and stuff too. IF I understand it correctly.

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by Kamikaze
The gainward fx 5200 was faster than the ti4200 in tests somewhere, I don't know how accurate the tests are though. The gainward fx 5200 is 82 dollars at the cheapest that I can find.

Ah, my latest issue of PC World (estonian mag) just had The Big Video Card Comparison Test (tm). Let's see what that sais.

I'm looking at the Internet version here, which doesn't have the charts, but apparently, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro easily beat Geforce FX5800, and Geforce 4 Ti4200 indeed was better than the (although cheaper) GeforceFX 5200

[aldo_14]

Don't have a scanner handy, but read these benchmarks in a mag;

(System; Athlon XP 3000+, 512Kb L2 cache, ASUS A7N8x motherboard, 2*256MB PC3200 RAM)

(all at 1280*1024 2*AA 0XAF - can't be bothered copying them all!)

(approx -read off of a bar graph)
UT2003
Radeon 9800 pro - 150fps*
GF 5800 Ultra - ~178fps
Radeon 9700 pro - 121fps
GF 5600 - ~97fps
Radeon 9500 Pro - 90fps
GF 5200 - 60fps

*minimal difference between this and the GF5800 at 1024 res, though

Aquanox
Radeon 9800 pro - ~63fps*
GF 5800 Ultra - 70fps
Radeon 9700 pro - ~52fps
GF 5600 - ~36fps
Radeon 9500 Pro - ~35fps
GF 5200 - ~17fps

*is the best at 1024 by a good 10 fps

3dMark 2001
Radeon 9800 pro - ~12500*
GF 5800 Ultra - ~13000
Radeon 9700 pro - 11000
GF 5600 - ~7800
Radeon 9500 Pro - ~7500
GF 5200 - 5000

*best at 1024 res

Based on these charts I be looking at, the 9800 is only best at 1024 res - the GF5800 beats or equals it at higher res.  Interestingly, there's a set of Comanche benchmarks where the 9700 beats everything at select resolutions.

From PCZone magazine, incidentally. (don't actually normally buy it, just got it to get Wolfensteint:ET off the coverdisk.  Not a great mag for reviews, etc , to be honest - although the HW stuff is better than PCGamers')

[diamondgeezer]

Bit of a bump, I know, but I thought I'd take the time to wanr people away from the GeForce FX series. I bought myself an FX 5200 to replace my dead Ti4200, but to my disamy it perfomed like a Snorlax next to the Ti. Admitedly I shouldn't have parted with 90 pounds without having done some more research, but I'm impulsive.

The moral of the story is, DirectX 9 aside you're going to have to buy one of the uber FX cards to outperform your Ti. And at the moment they're just to damn expensive. I just hope the shop will give me a refund...

So now we come to my own selfish reasons for posting - I'm looking at a Ti4800 64mb card at a very reasonable price, but what I'm wondering is do I shell out the extra 40 quid for the 128mb version?

[Ryx]

Excellent site Beyond3d.

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/index.php :thepimp:

[ZylonBane]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I bought myself an FX 5200 to replace my dead Ti4200, but to my disamy it perfomed like a Snorlax next to the Ti.

And I always like to take hardware advice from people who think in terms of Pokemon.


Anyway... An ATI isn't an option for me, because i'm a big Thief fan, and ATIs do a hideous job of fog rendering in Thief II. I've strongly considered the ti4200, but I want a DX9 part so I don't have to upgrade again in a few months. Ehh... I'll probably just wait until HL2 is released and buy whatever nVidia card is in the sub-$200 range then.