FireGL X2 is a lower class card grouped in a class of cards that includes a $3000.00 nVidia FX 3000G?

hmmmm... so ATI doesn't make a high end graphics engine..

guess nVidia doesn't blow em away, it left them behind...

22 by IPlural - 1/10/2004 1:02:40 AM Well considering and what I was commenting upon was the higher end cards, not the little 9800 or the little 5950 but the workstation cards. ATI does not come close to nVidia *OR* Matrox in that class... deesh...

#23 by IPlural - 1/10/2004 1:06:47 AM Whats the bench on the ATI FireGL X2-256, Matrox G450MMS X4 and the Qadro FX1100 with nVidia NV36GL core?oh and the Quadro FX 3000G

No no no--don't change it up, what did you say? I'll quote (again):

#8 by IPlural - 1/10/2004 12:19:20 AM ATI 9800 doesn't come close to the FX 5950 Ultra

#14 by IPlural - 1/10/2004 12:27:50 AM it goes abck and forth on different games and such, one tops the other, but when it all boils down, ATI doesnot hold anything over the FX Ultra really...

Ok then

The ATI Fire GL X2 256

Powered by the FGL™ 9800 Visual
The ATI Fire
Processing Unit (VPU)
256-bit high bandwidth memory architecture
4 parallel geometry engines
8 parallel pixel pipelines
128-bit full floating point precision
24-bits per RGBA component displays beyond 16.7M colors

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/2690/

doesn't look so low end to me..

John: why don't you prove with benchmarks that the Nvidia card is better than the ATI fire GL X

Since we already know that the 9800 beats the crap out of the nvidia gaming card you mentioned.

You can try but it can't be done. ATI wins, hands down.
[Message Edited]

DJ going to send you an email with pdf attachment, if it's ok?

I guess first an email addy wold be best

Whats it contain? I really couldn't care about a $3000 card, cause none of use it nor was that what you commented on

Whats it contain? I really couldn't care about a $3000 card, cause none of use it nor was that what you commented on

he is just trying to come up with a card that can beat ATI. guess what? never happen. even matrox has better cards.

If I just had a dime for every computer I have had to fix that has a Nvidia card and their stupid detnator drivers... >

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/index.html

SHOCK AND AWE!!!!

The link above is to a #D site which has benchmarks totally going against those posted in this tread showing that the 5950 is a better deal than the 9800 na dit actually faster... imagine that...

it's numbers, depends on how you want em to look they can be found and presented...


[Message Edited]

second opinion needed thank you.

(john please don't think I am picking on you I am not.)
[Message Edited]

#6 by IPlural - 1/10/2004 12:09:34 AM at $180.00 - 220.00 the FX 5800 Ultra is rated number one cost / performance in the video card shoot out that SPU magazine just published...If your not into gaming then the PRO versions of any of the cards is over kill, but a fast GPU with 128 - 256 megs of DDR ram on it will make a big difference in digital art and 3d rendering...The odd thing is, when you get into the really high end graphics design cards ATI doesn't come close to Matrox or nVidia $1000.00+ cards....

#8 by IPlural - 1/10/2004 12:19:20 AM ATI 9800 doesn't come close to the FX 5950 UltraThe testing and results are scaled by Performance and Price...ATI is basically over priced when you consider yo are speaking of a difference of single digit discrepences...

keep it context if you want to say what I am commenting upon...

"Price performance and the article I am reading..."

taht SPU should be CPU as in CPU Magazine... btw

Kona don't worry about me... I don't take it personal in the leat, preferences in Hardware and such is a silly thing to be worked up about...

ATI verse nVidia is about the same thing as MAC verse PC in the end...

no worries, cool runnings....

cool!

http://www.digit-life.com/video.html

wish I would stop being lazy and clean the keyboard on this laptop though.. mis-spelling in one thing but hitting the freaking key and having it not print sucks

What are you talkin about? Both cards are basically the same price. And show me the performance difference in DX9 benchmarks. They're basically neck and neck in the link you showed me.

#38 by IPlural - 1/10/2004 1:42:00 AM Kona don't worry about me... I don't take it personal in the leat, preferences in Hardware and such is a silly thing to be worked up about...ATI verse nVidia is about the same thing as MAC verse PC in the end...

I hear ya--I'm no ATI fanboy. Up until now, everything has been Nvidia, but now I got a 9600XT. The reason being for the latest DX9 games ATI really comes out on top.

the link above shows totally different results than those you posted DJ...

hell I don't care, people buy what they want, I wouldn't spend $500.00 on any video cards unless it was a Graphics Engine personally... and then only if I went back into Mechanical Design and was running Unigraphics, AutoCAD, Catia or some other serious applications....

If I went ATI it would be the 9700 or 9600 same with the FX I went with the 5700 little over $200.00 I'm happy, though the drivers on the CD sucked go figure

Yeah I wouldn't spend over $200 right now, with the next gen. cards and PCI express (replacing AGP 8X) in the near future. Plus with the 9600XT I got (will get) Half Life 2 for free.

I'm looking at the 9800: Comanche 4: 44.45 and the 5950: 57.40 but you go and look up Jedi Knight TSE and you get: 180.2 and 160.70... it flip flops back and forth and the pricing isn't that much off. but

here is pricing on the nVidia 5900 http://bjorn3d.pricegrabber.com/search_gen.php/topcat_id=1/form_keyword=FX%252B5900/manuf_sort=/form_page_id=5/ut=040490d99128b6e3

here is the pricing on the ATI 9800 http://bjorn3d.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=704418/ut=040490d99128b6e3

I think, Ghost Recon, the new release fot he Army Game version 2.? and some other things...

I would love to have the 9800 with 256 or the 5900 or 5950 with 265... but...

Hell I walked out with a display and card for under the store price for either of those cards

im not gonna get in the middle of you two.. i've always used ati cards and i'm on a radeon 8500 right now.. my work machines have used nvidias and i've found them to be fast but not be as 'user friendly' as the radeons. they are more picky.

Without a doubt it really depends on the system configuration and what pleases the person using it

oh, BTW, nothing to get in the middle of, no fiend no fowl here in the least. I find it hard to put much out emotionally over stuff like hardware and such.

I've been part of a strategic team in product development for 2 mbit 10 mbit and 11 mbit Spread Spectrum Radio and Microwave Wireless BRouters, Routers, and Bridges, working in conjunction with AT&T Lucent, Clarion, KarlBridge, and Proxim in the past and know how numbers and such always get twisted and skewed to fit the purposes in the desired direction. So in the end it will always boil down to user satisfaction being the mean point to bench mark anything with.

It was always a point of contention between us (myself and all the others) about not using the true Ethernet traffic being passed as the actual speed indicator instead of including the overhead and garbage so they could claim T-1 and above speeds.

A T-1 is not 1.2 mbit as advertised, instead it is 1.0 at best, the rest is wrappers, ack/nak, rip/sap and other trash which means noting as an indicator of true speed... neat how that works