Here's a good one: Radeon 9600 XT VS FX 5700

I'm going to get one of the two, discuss, which one's better for the
money?

Xeromus wrote:
I'm going to get one of the two, discuss, which one's better for the
money?

Having experience with the 9600 Pro, I'd have to say the 5700U. Even
though I like the 9600's, I think the 5700 is a much better overall
product and I especially like the DDR2 RAM and the better core. The
5700's core is the first out of the IBM fab. and should get much better
yields over time, as well as being better for overclocking.

"Xeromus" wrote in message
...
I'm going to get one of the two, discuss, which one's better for the
money?

They are priced the same at MSRP $199USD. In general, if you want to turn AA
and AF up, the 9600XT holds its 'frames per second' better than the 5700,
but there are games where even with those things turned up the 5700 is
faster. Look at the benchmarks for the games you play (or will play) and see
which card wins.

Since the 9600XT is driving the price of the 9600 Pro down, I'd say the 9600
Pro is the bang-for-the-buck winner right now. It's only a little slower
than the XT.

*BUT*...if you don't want to turn AA and AF up, the 5700 Ultra is quite a
bit faster.


Here are two reviews on the 5700:

Toms Hardwa
http://tinyurl.com/sk5v

Hot Hardwa
http://tinyurl.com/sk6b



Too_Much_Coffee ®

---
Got GigaNews?
http://www.giganews.com/customer/gn26215

I have to disagree, guru3d did a little review and the 5700 is an
exceptional mid-range card. Has high clock and good performance. Obviously
it won't accel at certain DX9 features, but none of Nvidia's currently do so
you can't expect that. Hell, I would get it if I had the money and wasn't
power mad for a 5950.
"Too_Much_Coffee ®" wrote in message
...

"Xeromus" wrote in message
...
I'm going to get one of the two, discuss, which one's better for the
money?

They are priced the same at MSRP $199USD. In general, if you want to turn
AA
and AF up, the 9600XT holds its 'frames per second' better than the 5700,
but there are games where even with those things turned up the 5700 is
faster. Look at the benchmarks for the games you play (or will play) and
see
which card wins.

Since the 9600XT is driving the price of the 9600 Pro down, I'd say the
9600
Pro is the bang-for-the-buck winner right now. It's only a little slower
than the XT.

*BUT*...if you don't want to turn AA and AF up, the 5700 Ultra is quite a
bit faster.


Here are two reviews on the 5700:

Toms Hardwa
http://tinyurl.com/sk5v

Hot Hardwa
http://tinyurl.com/sk6b



Too_Much_Coffee ®

---
Got GigaNews?
http://www.giganews.com/customer/gn26215

"Philburg2" wrote in message
.com...
I have to disagree, guru3d did a little review and the 5700 is an
exceptional mid-range card.

I agree; it just can't keep up with the 9600 if AA and AF are turned up in
most games.

Has high clock and good performance. Obviously
it won't accel at certain DX9 features, but none of Nvidia's currently do
so
you can't expect that.

Yes I can.


Hell, I would get it if I had the money and wasn't
power mad for a 5950.


Facts are facts. If you look at several reviews it's obvious that if you
turn AA and AF up the 9600 is faster. If you don't turn them up the 5700 is
faster.


TMC



"Too_Much_Coffee ®" wrote in message
...

"Xeromus" wrote in message
...
I'm going to get one of the two, discuss, which one's better for the
money?

They are priced the same at MSRP $199USD. In general, if you want to
turn
AA
and AF up, the 9600XT holds its 'frames per second' better than the
5700,
but there are games where even with those things turned up the 5700 is
faster. Look at the benchmarks for the games you play (or will play) and
see
which card wins.

Since the 9600XT is driving the price of the 9600 Pro down, I'd say the
9600
Pro is the bang-for-the-buck winner right now. It's only a little slower
than the XT.

*BUT*...if you don't want to turn AA and AF up, the 5700 Ultra is quite
a
bit faster.


Here are two reviews on the 5700:

Toms Hardwa
http://tinyurl.com/sk5v

Hot Hardwa
http://tinyurl.com/sk6b



Too_Much_Coffee ®

---
Got GigaNews?
http://www.giganews.com/customer/gn26215

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:44:53 GMT, Xeromus
wrote:

I'm going to get one of the two, discuss, which one's better for the
money?

The one with the biggest set of tits!


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

"Too_Much_Coffee ®" wrote:
"Xeromus" wrote:
I'm going to get one of the two, discuss, which one's better for the
money?

They are priced the same at MSRP $199USD. In general, if you want to turn AA
and AF up, the 9600XT holds its 'frames per second' better than the 5700,
but there are games where even with those things turned up the 5700 is
faster. Look at the benchmarks for the games you play (or will play) and see
which card wins.

Since the 9600XT is driving the price of the 9600 Pro down, I'd say the 9600
Pro is the bang-for-the-buck winner right now. It's only a little slower
than the XT.

*BUT*...if you don't want to turn AA and AF up, the 5700 Ultra is quite a
bit faster.


Here are two reviews on the 5700:

Toms Hardwa
http://tinyurl.com/sk5v

Hot Hardwa
http://tinyurl.com/sk6b

The difference between 9600 XT and 5700 Ultra seems to flip back and
forth depending on the game. But for example, the 0,5 frames per
second difference in HALO is nothing, even if we talk about minimum
framerates. The only crucial gap I see is between 5700 Ultra and 5600
Ultra. Both 9600 XT and 5700 Ultra are worth 200 bucks or euros. And
lay down the prices of 5600 Ultras for about 50 bucks/euros and I
think the cards would sell faster than Harry Potter books.