Gotta sell my new vid card

Pro is probly better than the special editions, costs a few extra dollars; havent checked into the specs between them,

$412 - RADEON 9800 XT 256MB
$309 - RADEON 9800 Pro 256MB
$212 - RADEON 9800 Pro 128MB

$371 - GeForce FX 5950 256MB
$303 - GeForce FX 5900 256MB
$183 - GeForce FX 5900 128MB
Actually the newwest nvidia cards are faster than the newwest radeon ones. and more than 128MB of video ram is good if you use antialiasing. You can also get a half decent FX 5700 for a good trade in and still keep most of your performance.
$137 - GeForce FX 5700 256MB
$129 - GeForce FX 5700 128MB

[shockwave203]

Originally posted by LordShard

Actually the newwest nvidia cards are faster than the newwest radeon ones. and more than 128MB of video ram is good if you use antialiasing. You can also get a half decent FX 5700 for a good trade in and still keep most of your performance.

Sadly, you are mistaken The only reason someone would buy a top of the line video card, is to get high frame rates when you use AA/AF. As soon as you turn those on, the Nvidia cards cant keep up. In one benchmark, a 9600pro was beating a 5950 ultra with AA on.

ALso, the newest Nvidia cards can't get high frame rates in DirectX 9 games. they are sloooooow

Originally posted by shockwave203
Sadly, you are mistaken The only reason someone would buy a top of the line video card, is to get high frame rates when you use AA/AF. As soon as you turn those on, the Nvidia cards cant keep up. In one benchmark, a 9600pro was beating a 5950 ultra with AA on.

ALso, the newest Nvidia cards can't get high frame rates in DirectX 9 games. they are sloooooow

I remember seeing a comparision at tom's hardwareguide between the 2 most recent top models and the Nvidia card bea=t the radeon in with higher margins than when the raadeon beat it

[shockwave203]

Originally posted by LordShard
I remember seeing a comparision at tom's hardwareguide between the 2 most recent top models and the Nvidia card bea=t the radeon in with higher margins than when the raadeon beat it

ya but in what benchmark? Quake 3 with no AA or AF? Ya, that'll take you far these days....

Radeons are faster in DX9. Radeons are faster in DX9 with AA/AF on OR off. Radeons are faster in ANY GAME with AA/AF on. Radeons are faster in most games with AA/AF off.

so why do you think Nvidia is faster again?;) Because they can run old games fast with no AA?

Originally posted by shockwave203
ya but in what benchmark? Quake 3 with no AA or AF? Ya, that'll take you far these days....

Radeons are faster in DX9. Radeons are faster in DX9 with AA/AF on OR off. Radeons are faster in ANY GAME with AA/AF on. Radeons are faster in most games with AA/AF off.

so why do you think Nvidia is faster again?;) Because they can run old games fast with no AA?

I'm sure that statement you just made wasn't right. in KOTOR nvidia beat it, I think the doom beta nvidia beat it there also. I think >.< and until you get to AAx16 the radeon doesn't beat it with higher margins

[JAG]

You guyxs are very knowledgeable on this topic so maybe you can answer a question for me. I'm in the market for a new card. Regarding the 9800 pro, is the 256mb really useful or just overkill? Assume an extra $100 or so isn't a big deal.

[shockwave203]

Originally posted by LordShard
I'm sure that statement you just made wasn't right. in KOTOR nvidia beat it, I think the doom beta nvidia beat it there also. I think >.< and until you get to AAx16 the radeon doesn't beat it with higher margins

no, you don't really know what you're talking about. Here's a quote from toms hardware:

In the enthusiast segment, the FX 5950 makes a good impression. The trouble is, it is only slightly faster than the FX 5900 and tends to place behind the Radeon 9800 cards. While that prevents it from being the fastest card in this review, that doesn't make it slow by any standard.

you turn on AA in ANY GAME, even at 2X, and Nvidia cards slow WAY down behind a radeon. and if you purchased a 9800XT/5950U and choose not to use AA/AF, the money was wasted.

Originally posted by JAG
You guyxs are very knowledgeable on this topic so maybe you can answer a question for me. I'm in the market for a new card. Regarding the 9800 pro, is the 256mb really useful or just overkill? Assume an extra $100 or so isn't a big deal.

If you got $100 extra dollars to spend on the extra ram. get it, the newwest games with everything on and AA cranked up will use it up, and in a few months or so from now you figure there will be even more video ram intensive games. people will modify the unreal2 engine make it better and make it prettier.

[shockwave203]

Originally posted by JAG
You guyxs are very knowledgeable on this topic so maybe you can answer a question for me. I'm in the market for a new card. Regarding the 9800 pro, is the 256mb really useful or just overkill? Assume an extra $100 or so isn't a big deal.

well...the 256 MB version is only useful if you want to run games at very high resolutions with AA/AF maxed out. Which isn't really needed, YET. If you want the extra speed, and money is no option, then go ahead. It will help out big time when games like Half life 2 and Doom 3 are released. Those games are going to need a very good card to play on if you want to use AA/AF

but if you're happy with 1280 X 1024 with AA/AF, the 128 meg version should do you nicely

Originally posted by shockwave203
no, you don't really know what you're talking about. Here's a quote from [b]toms hardware:



you turn on AA in ANY GAME, even at 2X, and Nvidia cards slow WAY down behind a radeon. and if you purchased a 9800XT/5950U and choose not to use AA/AF, the money was wasted. [/B]

hmm. I don;t remember reading about the 5950. it was 3 or 4 months when I read the artical I was talking about. radeon probably came out with the XT since then so obviously radeon would be back on top

[shockwave203]

Originally posted by LordShard
hmm. I don;t remember reading about the 5950. it was 3 or 4 months when I read the artical I was talking about. radeon probably came out with the XT since then so obviously radeon would be back on top

well even a 9800nonpro beats an Nvidia 5950ultra with AA/AF on, but that's beside the point

I just want to make sure people are getting their moneys worth. If someones going to spend that much cash on a new card, they mine as well go with the one that's the fastest and can play future games (DX9) the best.

Originally posted by shockwave203
well even a 9800nonpro beats an Nvidia 5950ultra with AA/AF on, but that's beside the point

I just want to make sure people are getting their moneys worth. If someones going to spend that much cash on a new card, they mine as well go with the one that's the fastest and can play future games (DX9) the best.

well I have a gforce 2 mx400 64mb and it runs wulf fine until there are 40 players . no aa, 640x480 16bitcolor and everything else on lowest or off. ^_^ and my card is overclocked 10%. would like a 9800pro but it's to expensive for my tastes which is why I favor the nvidia cards. they are cheeeeeaaaaaaap

[shockwave203]

Originally posted by LordShard
well I have a gforce 2 mx400 64mb and it runs wulf fine until there are 40 players . no aa, 640x480 16bitcolor and everything else on lowest or off. ^_^ and my card is overclocked 10%. would like a 9800pro but it's to expensive for my tastes which is why I favor the nvidia cards. they are cheeeeeaaaaaaap

You should consider a 9600XT. it's pretty cheap, and it's a pretty powerful card too

even a Geforce 4 would give you huge improvements

Originally posted by shockwave203
You should consider a 9600XT. it's pretty cheap, and it's a pretty powerful card too

even a Geforce 4 would give you huge improvements

I was thinking more along the lines of any one of these
$137 - GeForce FX 5700 256MB
$129 - GeForce FX 5700 128MB
$95 - GeForce FX 5600 Ultra 128MB
$103 - GeForce FX 5600 256MB
$87 - GeForce FX 5600 128MB
$78 - GeForce FX 5200 256MB
$54 - GeForce FX 5200 128MB