Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: DirectX 9 Hardware Support card..




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Don't compare the Tis to the 5200.....that's a horrible matchup. The 5600 is a much better comparison.

    Anyway, I still say go 9600 Pro. It will be as fast as the Tis but also include DX9 support. After all, the whole topic of this thread was a DX9 card...

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Actually, I've read some reviews where the 5600 kept up with and sometimes beat the 5600 (I'll have to google it to find it again :?: ). However, I think now is a little late to be buying a Ti4200 or an DX8.1 card, you're really screwing yourself over. I think the 5600 or 9600 is you best choice, but over all I'd go with the 5600. It seems to me the 9600 is lacking in some areas. It'd be fantastic if tweaktown did a 9600/5600 shoot out for the best new mid-range graphics card. Just a thought, : peace2: Mista K6
    Modified Dell 8200 Case:
    -400MHz FSB i850 Intel mobo
    -P4 Williamette Socket 478, 1.9GHz
    -768MB 16-bit PC800 RDRAM
    -MSI GF4 Ti4200 128MB @ 284/581
    -7200 RPM Maxtors: 60GB (2MB) on mobo and 160GB (8MB) on ATA/133 PCI Card
    -Creative Inspire T7700 7.1 Speaker System on an Audigy 2
    -Windows XP Home Edition SP2

    Rock on : peace2: , MiStA K6

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    I disagree, if you read some reviews and look at the pricetag, the 9600 Pro is a much better buy. It is usually faster, and almost always cheaper. You can get them for $150.

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Fincastle, IN, USA
    Posts
    3,776

    Default

    I own the FX5600, and it performs great. AFAIK, it and the 9600pro are really about neck and neck ATM.
    I'd get the FX5600, just on good experience, and also because they tend to OC very well ;)

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    But theres also the FX/DX9 fiasco....

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Fincastle, IN, USA
    Posts
    3,776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soulburner
    But theres also the FX/DX9 fiasco....
    But I imagine that will get solved sometime in the nest month or two, hopefully before HL2

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    184

    Default

    The new 51.xx dets only got a few fps higher than the older version in HL2, last I saw.

    You'll get better image quality in HL2 with the 9600 because you're getting 100% dx9 shaders, unlike the FX5600 where you'll get a mix of dx9 and dx8.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    476

    Default

    of pixel shader 3.0?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JSR
    of pixel shader 3.0?
    With NV40.

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Josh has written an article that sums up Nvidia's DX9 problems perfectly, so I'll let him explain.

    The NV30 was well underway and nearly finalised when the DX9 standard was agreed upon. NVIDIA originally went at DX9 alone, and thought it may be able to force Microsoft to make its own design the basis for DX9. During the initial stages of DX9 development, NVIDIA removed itself from the group developing the technology standard. Only when DX9 was far into the development stages did NVIDIA rejoin the group. By then DX9 was nearly finalised, and ATI had a very good idea what it would be like (and had been working on the R300 core since the basic inception of DX9). NVIDIA was left with an underperforming part in floating point fragment programs, and they knew it. The NV35 development showed that NVIDIA did realise it made some significant mistakes with the NV30, and the NV35 was designed to work around those problems. NVIDIA is a smart company, and when the final specifications for DX9 were made official, NVIDIA knew they would run into problems in the future. This was over 1.5 years ago, and during that time design changes to the NV36 and NV38 could be implemented to help this situation. My belief (and it is only a belief) is that the NV36 and NV38 parts will be much better PS 2.0 performers than the NV30, NV31, NV34, and NV35 parts. I do not believe that NVIDIA had enough time to change around the entire design to be as fast as ATI's R3xx series in such situations, but I believe that the new parts will at least be a lot more competitive using standard ARB code paths for Pixel Shader 2.0 operations. This is only speculation, but some evidence pointing to this does appear to be out there. In the meantime NVIDIA is doing major damage control with their products and the apparent lack of performance in PS 2.0 operations. This damage control includes heavy driver and compiler level optimisations, working with developers to implement more NV3X friendly code, and keeping reviewers stocked with FX based cards to keep the good word out. I could be very wrong here and the NV36 and NV38 parts are merely speed upgrades.

    Addendum: Don't forget that in a similar move NVIDIA also removed itself from Futuremark's Beta Program, look at all the aggravation that decision caused them.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •