9600XT, 5700 Ultra, or 5900nu?

[Jayavarman]

I plan to replace my Ti200 Geforce 3 card. I was going to wait until Doom3 and HL-2 comes out to upgrade but, my Ti200 just died. I think because I oc it too high (215/520) without good case ventilation.

I've been looking into the 3 cards above. Which one do you guys recommend for 2 games that I mentioned as those are the 2 primary games that I'm upgrading my card for? I only have $175 to spend, but will shell out $200 if I have too.

Thanks.

 

[nRollo]

Someone finally asked this question.

Given your criteria I'd say 5900NU. Here's why:
1. 5900NU is faster than 5700U at everything, period, often by a lot.
2. 5900NU is faster than 9600 at everything DX8.1/OpenGL, often by a lot. At PS2.0 it should be about as fast as the 9600, at DX9 w/o PS2.0 shaders it will be faster. At Doom 3 it will be faster. So you've only got one area where the 9600 competes with this card, DX9 PS2 shaders, and neither is really very well suited to run DX9 PS2 shaders.

If you can get a 9700P/9800NP for your $200, I'd get that for the edge on PS2 shaders and the much less noticeable deficit on the rest.

 

[Budarow]

Rollo,

Nice summary! I don't know much about this topic, but from what I've read, your summary is on the mark!

 

[JammingJay]

Originally posted by: Rollo
Someone finally asked this question.

Given your criteria I'd say 5900NU. Here's why:
1. 5900NU is faster than 5700U at everything, period, often by a lot.
2. 5900NU is faster than 9600 at everything DX8.1/OpenGL, often by a lot. At PS2.0 it should be about as fast as the 9600, at DX9 w/o PS2.0 shaders it will be faster. At Doom 3 it will be faster. So you've only got one area where the 9600 competes with this card, DX9 PS2 shaders, and neither is really very well suited to run DX9 PS2 shaders.

If you can get a 9700P/9800NP for your $200, I'd get that for the edge on PS2 shaders and the much less noticeable deficit on the rest.

Sounds about right on the mark

 

[Rage187]

Someone finally asked this question.

Given your criteria I'd say 5900NU. Here's why:
1. 5900NU is faster than 5700U at everything, period, often by a lot.
2. 5900NU is faster than 9600 at everything DX8.1/OpenGL, often by a lot. At PS2.0 it should be about as fast as the 9600, at DX9 w/o PS2.0 shaders it will be faster. At Doom 3 it will be faster. So you've only got one area where the 9600 competes with this card, DX9 PS2 shaders, and neither is really very well suited to run DX9 PS2 shaders.

If you can get a 9700P/9800NP for your $200, I'd get that for the edge on PS2 shaders and the much less noticeable deficit on the rest.

 

[Rage187]

Rollo Said:

Someone finally asked this question.

Given your criteria I'd say 5900NU. Here's why:
1. 5900NU is faster than 5700U at everything, period, often by a lot.
2. 5900NU is faster than 9600 at everything DX8.1/OpenGL, often by a lot. At PS2.0 it should be about as fast as the 9600, at DX9 w/o PS2.0 shaders it will be faster. At Doom 3 it will be faster. So you've only got one area where the 9600 competes with this card, DX9 PS2 shaders, and neither is really very well suited to run DX9 PS2 shaders.

If you can get a 9700P/9800NP for your $200, I'd get that for the edge on PS2 shaders and the much less noticeable deficit on the rest.

ding ding ding

 

[Jayavarman]

Thanks Rollo. I agree with you. I had pretty much decided on the 5900nu, but I just need a confirmation from the experts. Off to shopping I go.

 

[JackHawksmoor]

Thanks for the info! I was just wondering about that myself. The Non-Ultra 5900s are pretty cheap and I assumed they'd beat out the 5700U, and be decent enough price/performance against the ATi cards, but it's nice to hear it for sure.

All the reviews of cards like the Radeon 9600XT and the 5700Ultra ignore cards like the 5900nu and the Radeon 9800np, which strikes me as kind of weird since the prices are so similar.

 

[Rage187]

"All the reviews of cards like the Radeon 9600XT and the 5700Ultra ignore cards like the 5900nu and the Radeon 9800np, which strikes me as kind of weird since the prices are so similar. "


That because the 5700 and 9600 our "supposed" to be mid-range cards, hence the reason they do not usually bench them against hi-range cards like the 5900 and 9800.

Thats also why its is rediculous to buy a 9600pro or 5700ultra when you can have a 5900nu or 9800np for just as much.

 

[nRollo]

Thanks Rollo. I agree with you. I had pretty much decided on the 5900nu, but I just need a confirmation from the experts. Off to shopping I go.

You're welcome, enjoy.

 

[Pete]

Rollo's summary is on target, but he forgot to mention that most retail 9600XT's include Half-Life 2 in their price. Assuming you will purchase HL2 when it comes out (Feb-Mar '04), don't forget to factor in the $40 cost. This may be an issue if you're on a tight budget. Then again, if you're on that tight of a budget, I wouldn't be paying $40 four months ahead of time for HL2.

 

[Budarow]

With the 9600XT (retail) available for ~$160 shipped (with a HL2 coupon), it seems like a decent deal.

 

[modedepe]

5900

 

[nRollo]

but he forgot to mention that most retail 9600XT's include Half-Life 2 in their price

I thought about it Pete, but wanted to give advice on the cards only and not the bundles for a few reasons:
1. No one really knows when HL2 will be available
2. I don't know the available bundles on the nVidia cards to compare them, e.g. I know the XFX have Commanche4, Ghost Recon, and some sort of racing game.
3. I don't think any video game is worth settling for a much weaker card, but that's just my opinion

 

[stardust]

Ehh the HL2 game needs $10 and 3 weeks to ship upon redeeming it on ATi's website... the Adrenaline Pack took just that long

Or if u have broadband, you can DOWNLOAD HL2!!! lol

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: Jayavarman

I only have $175 to spend, but will shell out $200 if I have too.

If you stay under $200 9600XT is your best bet.

The cheapest 5700U at Newegg is $209. There are at least a couple 5900?s cheaper than that and they are better than the 5700U, so, that pretty well rules out the 5700U. I don?t know how Nvidia expects to sell 5700U?s when the 5900 is faster for about the same price.

 

[nRollo]

If you stay under $200 9600XT is your best bet.

You'll get much more than 10% performance for your 10% more money with the 5900NU. I really believe if you're going to buy a video card there's kind of a "minimum threshold" of performance you want to have, because the cards come out so quickly.
If you have the money and don't care always buy top of the line and don't worry about it.
If you're like most of us and have to think about what you spend, waiting 6 mos for top of the line or buying the one clocked 10% slower will usually save you 25% and keep you in the good performance range a while longer.
When you buy the crippled cards like the 9600s with half their pipes disabled you end up wishing you had better, suffering with much worse performance, and most likely, OCing past safe levels in an effort to get the performance you could have just paid $50 more for in the first place. (which you won't get, and you'll shorten the life of your card by much)

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: modedepe
5900

 

[Blastman]

Rollo ? ? maybe he?s stretching the budget to get to $175.

The 5900 is faster sure, but if the 9600XT will play his games well at 60fps, the fact that the 5900 will play faster at 80fps isn?t really going to mean much as far as utility. You have to draw the line somewhere with a budget because there is always another card ? ?for just a little more?? -- unless you?re buying the most expensive available.

I?m looking to upgrade currently too. I?d like to spend only $100 for a card (I could afford to buy a 9800 if I wanted too but it?s simply not a priority). I will likely stretch my budget to $145 for a 9600pro because it is so much better than the other cards below -- so it?s too enticing. Going to $200 is doubling my original budget and more than I?m willing to spend on a graphics card. I?m not a heavy gamer anyways. Millions of people buy lesser cards than a 9600pro and make do by running at lesser IQ settings and resolutions.

EDIT: My point is, if he?s stays with his original budget, the 9600XT is the ticket.

 

[nRollo]

The 5900 is faster sure, but if the 9600XT will play his games well at 60fps, the fact that the 5900 will play faster at 80fps isn?t really going to mean much as far as utility

You must know something I don't about the 9600XT, I wasn't aware it could run either Doom3 or HL2 at 60fps, or even close to it at any modern setting. Remember his original criteria?

I was going to wait until Doom3 and HL-2 comes out to upgrade ... Which one do you guys recommend for 2 games that I mentioned as those are the 2 primary games that I'm upgrading my card for?

He'll be hurting trying to play Doom 3 on a feeble 9600.

Doh! Look at the 9600Pro choke on Doom3
40 fps at 10X7 medium detail, no AA/AF. While the nvidia cards are getting 100fps.

Wowee. 21fps average if you turn on the AA/AF
With the 5900U is at 53fps.

I know a 5900 NU isn't a 5900U, it's 10-15% less. This is still light years above a 9600Pro, and how many fps games do you think will be based on Carmacks latest engine? If you're upgrading for next years games, getting this year's crippled dreck isn't the way to go about it.

 

[Blastman]

If you're upgrading for next years games, getting this year's crippled dreck isn't the way to go about it.

You forgot the other half of the equation HL2. 5900 has crippled DX9 performance. In HL2 it's much slower than a 9600pro, let alone a 9600XT. Not exactly a very good future proof card with DX9 performance like that.

But that?s besides my point. Which of course was mainly that people have budgets and make compromises.

 

[nRollo]

You forgot the other half of the equation HL2. 5900 has crippled DX9 performance. In HL2 it's much slower than a 9600pro, let alone a 9600XT. Not exactly a very good future proof card with DX9 performance like that.
But that?s besides my point. Which of course was mainly that people have budgets and make compromises.

It may be true that people on budgets have to make compromises, but with a 9600 Pro you have to make compromises on ALL games. With a 5900 your compromise is that you'll have to run some games that aren't even out yet in mixed mode/nV30 path to run the games as fast as the lowly 9600Pro.

So let's see:

All games slow, but as fast as the 5900 at PS2 (or faster if you do straight PS2) for the 9600Pro
Or
All current games fast and as slow as the 9600Pro in mixed mode on some games that will be coming out sometime next year.

Damn. This is a tough one....

All games slow with the 9600Pro, or all games fast with the 5900, and some games as slow as the 9600Pro next year.....

My head is starting to hurt.....this is worse than Rubic's cube.......

Curse you Blastman. This will bug me all night. How the heck is a guy supposed to make a good choice between two card when one of them runs all games slow and the other runs all games fast?!?!? It's a paradox is what it is!

 

[Keysplayr]

I'm almost tempted to send him the 30 bucks just so he won't waste what money he has on a 9600XT.
"Almost" hehehe

 

[Blastman]

With the 5900 he will have to make compromises too. In the nodic there are several games where the settings on the 5900 would have to be turned down for increased frame rate.

But what are you arguing about? It would be fine if the cards cost the same, the 5900 would be an easy choice, but they don?t ? the 9600XT is cheaper, especially in light of the potential HL2 coupon. That?s where the 9600XT comes in. The issue isn?t only whether the 5900 is faster over the 9600XT -- no one has really argued against that.

 

[Keysplayr]

Ok Blastman, this lad says he wants a card that can play HL2 and Doom3 because those are the two game he is most interested in. While the ideal thing for him to do is wait out the next gen of cards, he cant because his Ti200 died out. So what is best for him now? Here is how I see it:

1. The 5900 and 9600XT offer equal performance in HL2 correct? With the 5900 in mixed mode and the 9600XT in DX9 mode. Which should be fine.
2. The 5900/5700/5600 (and I may be stretching this a little, but possibly even the 5200U would do better in Doom3) will enihilate the 9600XT in Doom3 due to Nvidia's superiority in Open GL apps.

So here is the scenario.

If he buys the 9600XT he will have limited playability in HL2.
If he buys the 9600XT he will have no so good performance in Doom3.
If he buys the 5900nu he will have limited playability in HL2.
If he buys the 5900nu he will have excellent performance in Doom3 even though Doom3 is supposedly capped at 60fps. The 5900 should be able to keep it at 60 always.

So, do the math, or at least the logical thing here. There are TWO games to consider here. Not just HL2.

What do you think?

Keys