Guest
XSquigyX
2003-11-04T09:21:21Z
I was forced to get a new vid card and decided to go with Nvidia this time. I saw an older post by Shervin and he was asking which is better, the 5600 Ultra or the 9500 Pro. Well, I had a 9500 Pro at 9700 Pro 330/323 and I can't seem to see how the 9500 Pro would be better.
Even OCed, the 9500 Pro is way slower than the 5600 Ultra. I got the PNY Verto so it has the 128Mb DDR with the 400Mhz core and 800Mhz mem. THAT IS QUICK!!

Just wanted your opions....
Dazz
  •  Dazz
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member
2003-11-04T09:36:13Z
I don't know HOW a Radeon 9500Pro can be slower then a GeForceFX 5600 Ultra, the Radeon has far more rendering pathways which greatly increase it's internal bandwith. That and it has twice as many Vertex and pixle shaders. To tell you the truth you should of waited on the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra.
boa
  •  boa
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member
2003-11-04T10:00:08Z
Er the FX 5700 Ultra even
XSquigyX
2003-11-05T00:02:07Z
I ran a 3Dmark2001 on it with a 2400+ @ Stock speed and got a 10854. Not too shaby and perfect for me.
S2
  •  S2
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member
2003-11-05T08:11:01Z
Don't ditch the 9500 Pro, if you are serious go try the 5700 ULTRA that should be coming out.
JoeyDee
2003-11-05T18:41:55Z
My GfFX 5600 will get 8500 3DMARKS with my AthlonXP 1800+ @1.82GHz... about 1500 more than my 9100 got, and ALOT faster than the 9100 with AA or AF enabled, but It's not as fast as a computer I built with a 9500PRO...
Dazz
  •  Dazz
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member
2003-11-06T11:02:36Z
Quote:

Originally posted by boa
Er the FX 5700 Ultra even
Yeah thats the one i ment... must of pressed 9 instead of 7
Dazz
  •  Dazz
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member
2003-11-07T06:04:51Z
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=123 

A Geforce FX 5700 None Ultyra is faster then a 5600 Ultra and has far less bandwith, i've said this before and i will say it again, current video cards are highly GPU limited. The 5950Ultra has far more bandwith then it can use yet people still overclock the memory. Overclocking the memory means less head room with the VPU core as with all GeForceFX's.

This is why the Radeon 9500Pro CAN NOT be slower then a FX5600 Ultra due to it extreamly high fillrate. Infact the 9500 Pro holds it own STILL against the FX5700 Ultra.

FX5600 Ultra | 400/800 | 1x4 = 1.6GP/sec | 12.8GB/sec
9500 Pro | 275/550 | 1x8 = 2.2GP/sec | 8.8GB/sec

Now due to the card being a 4x1 VPU it can hardly take ANY advantage of it's bandwith which is why the 9500 Pro comes out on top due to it's higher fillrate.
XSquigyX
2003-11-07T09:51:55Z
Damn, that sucks. I am getting much better 3dMark01 scores with the 5600 Ultra though... :confused:
JoeyDee
2003-11-08T10:36:56Z
what did you get with your 9500PRO then? And are you sure[/] it's a PRO, and not a NP?
S2
  •  S2
  • 50.2% (Neutral)
  • Member
2003-11-08T17:43:21Z
Either there has to be a probelm with the 9500 PRO or you are just a nVidia fanboy.
cska_ar_801
2003-11-11T05:14:50Z
i got a 128 mb 5600, ha ha ha ha
dragonsparky30
2003-11-11T22:54:22Z
I have owned both in the last 3 months... With my system (see below) with a 5600...i got 9100 or so on 3dmarks01....swap in a9500 pro... 12600...There is no comparison. This isnt just on a benchmark basis either. Gaming... Desktop... Video, whatever. the 5600 isnt even close. never owned the 5700 ultra... but i hear its getting pretty good reviews... still dont know about its dx 9 capabilites though.

later all
goblin king
2003-11-11T22:58:13Z
the 5600 ultra Flip chip is faster than the 9500 pro. But then again the flip chip version will also cost alot more
dragonsparky30
2003-11-11T23:12:27Z
and if you add in the extra money for the flip chip 5600 ultra... me thinks it would be better off to find a radeon 9700 pro... 9600xt, 5700 ultra, or even a regular 9800 pro since its price should be dropping to around 300 i would think...

just my opinion