Legit Improvement: Geforce FX 5900

jfs1967

I have seen fps benchmarks comparing video cards and the improvements of the FX 5900 over the 4600ti did not seem that impressive. As a personal, unscientific test, I installed Combat Flight Simulator 3 and managed to get good framerates at 1280X1024 with all of the quality settings maxed out. I know my 4600ti would not even come close to that, because I tried.

I think there is a lot more to understanding performance of these cards than "fps" and "bandwidth" and "core clock speed". There is a "qualitative" experience I have to evaluate. I enjoy this card a great deal.

From a "scientific" viewpoint, the thing I find most disconcerting is the failure of the nv35 chipset to render v2.0 pixel shaders efficiently or even close what the "theoretical" calculations predicted before the card was really tested. I am convinced they did not put this card up to stringent testing, from a "clinical" point of view.

Unless, DOOM III uses v2.0 pixel shaders, I am not too concerned, but that 3D experience will be the "real" test of this card for me. Doesn't matter. It's paid for, I like it, and I am keeping it.

I just like nVidia. I have used both, and I bought this card having research the comparitive differences and criticisms of the nVidia and ATI cards. Having been an owner of both brands (8500 AIW and 4600ti) I ultimately based my choice on the quality of driver support. I never could find a set of drivers that rendered all games equally well during my experience with the 8500 AIW.

I think all this talk about "fps" is kinda like a contest about whose "thingy" reaches further down the yardstick

toddsmack2k

Well it is not just FPS it is IQ I also take every highly in to consideration. I want the speed along with all the AA and AF and not miss any textures or any slow downs. Did you try the drivers on any new cards and what was the latests set of drivers you tried? IMo ATI is the better card bar none at the moment but There is no need for another bashing thread. At the end of the day though despite the facts or opinions if you are happy with your card then that is what is most important!

jfs1967

No argument from me. ATI is the better card. What on earth happened with nVidia and v2.0 pixel shaders?

serAph

i think everyone here is right. Picking a video card/card company is like picking flavors of a popsicle. If you want citrus goodness, get lemon or orange or lime. If you want sweet, get grape or strawberry. Likewise, if you want good FPS and AA, get an ATI. If you want good driver support and AF, go nVidia. The IQ has been proven to be virtually identical - even in PS2.0. Mixed precision has been proven to show an IQ loss thats undetectable by the human eye over fp24, so I wouldnt call IQ a factor.

Now when DX9.1 and the fx5700 come out, its gonna be a whole new ballfield.

Phillychuck

Speed is secondary for me, I bought a ATI Radeon when they first came out and it wouldn't render Everquest properly.. for 6 months I kept falling thru boats and such until I could afford a Ti200.. Now I have a FX5900 and it runs fine for me...

The_Neon_Cowboy

as for FPS .. nvida has an optumization gaining 20% so subtarct 20% from both cards scores..