Geforce FX 5900 Ultra

[Doobz]

well, guys, it seems Nvidia has again taken the lead, completely redesigning the 5800 Ultra to create a faster performing card than the 9800 Pro, and the set of drivers Nvidia has released along with the card seems to have let it take the lead even in image quality, something Nvidia has always trailed ATI in.

read for yourselves:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030512/index.html

[OmnipotentKiwi]

About time.

If you also read the article, it looks like the 5800FX improved VASTLY with the latest drivers. Hell, it's comparable to a 9800 Pro now.

[Doobz]

yeah, and they reworked that vacuum cleaner of a fan they got on there so now it's more bearable

[Daleon]

I was expecting the NV35 to be a pretty good card. You should take most hardware sites with a grain of salt though. All of them are biased a little in some way. Best thing you can do is read as many different ones as you can and look at the hard facts.

There are lots of comparisions up. Anandtech, HardOCP, Gamersdepot, HotHardware, Extremetech, etc. After going through most, you will find they are very mixed right now about who is really the better choice. Most also agree than ATI is very clearly the IQ leader still. If Tom says otherwise, he should get his eyes checked. Though NV's is much better now than it was.
[HardOCP]"Looking at AA Quality, we came to the conclusion that the ATI 9800 Pro 256MB card still has hands down the best AA quality"

Also as for the DM3 test, its a total crock. Its obvious yes the ATI drivers are 'broken' in the test and do not perform anywhere near what the card will do when the game actually ships. In all the tests using games that are out, the performance goes back and forth, back and forth. With the NV35 looking a little faster.

Where I see ATI still having a shot to be the leader with the 9800 Pro 256 is the fact that they shipping it with the memory clocked VERY slow for DDR2, 350mhz. Where the 9800 Pro 128 DDR is at 340. Ppl can already oc the DDR memory up quite a bit. Wait till you see a 3rd party manufacturer either use better ram or clock it faster and then ppl oc it more. I bet it will beat out the NV35 hands down. B/c the NV35 is only using DDR and will not clock much faster than what its defaultly set to b/c NV has to be very aggressive in its timings to compete.

Also it seems Ati is pushing forward with a R360 and R390 chips soon to push performance more. All before the R400, an entirely new graphics chip. Either way, both cards are very close and perform well. But at $500 a piece I think they are maybe going to far.

[Zatrais]

Bout time nvidia made a rebuttal

Competition is gooood.

[OneManArmy]

what are the prices gonna be? because fuck the extra 5fps i want the 5 extra dollars in my pocket....

[OmnipotentKiwi]

I bet the same price as the 9800. Which means the 5800 prices will be dropping. Which means that card will be worth the money in comparison to ATI.

[Daleon]

9700 Pro = $299
9800 Pro 128 DDR =$399
9800 Pro 256 DDRII = $499

5900 Ultra FX 256 DDR = $499

Looks like they are gonna try and take your 5 bucks.

[OneManArmy]

looks like I'll be waiting a long while before picking one up hell right now my card gets 50 fps in doom III so im happy

[powdahound]

Woohoo!!! I always knew they'd come back.

[Daleon]

Heh, yea they came back alright. Question is you gonna dish out $500 for the card that made the come back for them? Give any company enough money and they will make you something fast.

The real question is will their $100-$300 cards be able to compete with ATI. I don't see them doing it with the 9700 Pro going as cheap as $225 these days.

[OmnipotentKiwi]

Who cares when the fact is they are up to fight Radeon again for the next generation? Radeon has their 9800 256MB for $500 too, and the 5900FX is the same price, and arguably higher calliber. We already knew they screwed up this round, but they are back in the fight for the next one.

[Daleon]

What do you mean who cares? Who cares about spending $500 on a video card? I do, and I do spend that much on video cards. I am sure the ppl who don't spend that much on video really care more about the mid to lower end products. They account for prolly 90% of the market. Please atleast pay attention to my posts, I posted how much all the cards cost just a cpl threads up. So don't quote prices to me ok. I think my earler post gave a very accurate view of both cards. Only difference is now ppl have a choice between ATI and NV, where as before it was really no choice at all.

[OmnipotentKiwi]

I was replying to your post.

Give any company enough money and they will make you something fast.

The real question is will their $100-$300 cards be able to compete with ATI. I don't see them doing it with the 9700 Pro going as cheap as $225 these days.

Point is the comparable product that nVidia made to compete against the new ATI product did just that. The two $500 dollar cards, which will be the lower price cards in 6-12 months, is currently neck in neck, or arguably the NVidia advantage. It's very rare for companies to pump out new mid or low end cards unless there was a defect in the originals. And when they do it, the cards are generally not worth it, like the 9600 Pro.

The point out, NVidia is not down and out, it IS back.

[Daleon]

Ok, "there back." Only totally blind fanATIc's ever though NV was gone for good. Again there back in the highest end market. The Ultra 5800 had a ton of issues, but it was still no slouch. Look at their mid and lower end products though. The 5200 and 5600 are JUNK. For NV to really come back to market dominance they have to compete against a 9700 Pro's performance as the leader right now in the best Price for Performance area. This is where they make their money.