9800 pro 256mb vs 5900 fx

[Signal2Noise]

My thought is you should be playing the Hulk in the new movie. Too bad your so old and crusty now.:shrug:


(Hey, what did you expect with an avatar name like that?;) )

[athosghost]

Signal you're nuts. :beer:
I'm more of a nvidia fan because of their drivers. It seems that nvidia works with some game devlopers in their attempt to control the world (nvidia's "the way it's meant to be played") which is a blessing and a curse sometimes. As for those 2 cards, from what I've seen so far both are about on par with speed. the 9800 has an advantage in it's 8 pixel/pipline and fairs a bit better with fsaa and ansio filtering. But again, it doesn't always have the best software support. Then again, I haven't dealt with either the 9800 or the 5900 yet and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who has. ;)

[kex]

nvidia=stable sowftwasre wise
256mb=:drool: + all the piplines

its up to u, a 3d person ati = bad for 3d developement in drivers and stability/ funtionality

[max_5]

I am trying to make the exact same decision. I agree with the others on that the drivers for Nvidia cards are better for 3d development. The difference in speed for each program is not that much better for Nvidia except in 3ds max its a little bit better, like 12fps-16fps. In games the two cards are very close for performance at medium settings, however when at higher resolutions (especially with AA and antistrophic filtering) the 5900 is faster.
Personally I think that I will go for the 5900 ultra, and one with the best cooling so that I can overclock it a little bit more.

[jsh3d]

Hehe, I'm trying to decide the exact same thing too. My quadro2 is getting pretty old, and I can't really afford some of these new quadros, so the 9800 or 5900 are the next best thing, I guess :)

I haven't really made up my mind, but I think that the 5900 is really the only option, because from what I've heard around here the 9800 doesn't really work very good in MAX/Softimage, that I'll be running.

Of course, I hope I don't end up waiting months for the thing to actually show up, like last time I was considering an nvidia card (which flopped, besides) :surprised

-Jsh3d

[elvis]

as with everyone here, i htink we're all a little biased.

i'm nto a big fan of ATI cards being used for pro 3D applications at all. their drivers have been far too buggy in the past, and things don't seem to be getting better any quicker.

both ati and nvidia recently have been busted for driver cheating in 3dmark software. it shits me that these companies have people screaming out for stable quality drivers, and all they can do is cheat for game benchmarks.

anyways: back on topic: nvidia's openGL has in my mind always been more solid and stable, and as such is always my first choice when building a pro 3d system on the cheap. a geforce4ti card is still quite cheap, but of course lacking DX9 if you are concerned about that feature for upcoming games.

[icpstudios]

Well I have a radeon 9500 pro cause of a budget.....plus it really is each person's prefrences...u see ati does have better image quality than nvidia....however the nvidia based cards do have the superior driver support so u r the one who can really decide which one..

Plus it is true that ati for 3d apps = :thumbsdow

so I say go for the geforce

sounds strange cause I have a radeon but I've turned that comp into a learning and games machine verses my dual xeon comp for my heavy duty work stuff that has a PNY Quadro 900xgl card which can play games as well....but I took off all non work type stuff of that comp

go nvidia when it comes to work and games performance

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.