Radeon 9600 Pro vs. FX 5900
Home | Reviews and Features | Special Reports | Forums |

Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Radeon 9600 Pro vs. FX 5900

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3

    Radeon 9600 Pro vs. FX 5900

    I'm looking to buy a new system here in the next few weeks, and I'm trying to decided between these two video cards.

    Anyone have any recommendations of which offers the best performance for gaming?

    Thanks,

    Matt

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Manchester, England, UK
    Posts
    2,560
    Hi, Welcome to HWC

    The FX 5900 is one of nVidia's faster cards... coming in just behind the 5900 Ultra and the 5950.

    The Radeon 9600 Pro is ATi's midrange card, so it quite unfair to compare the two.

    Anyway, I dug out this link, which I'm hoping will be some help.
    Desktop - XP2100 @ 2.4GHz, Abit NF7-S, 1gb DDR500 Crucial Ballistix, 120 + 160gb HDD, Windows XP
    Laptop - Athlon 64 3000, 1gb RAM, 40gb HDD, Radeon Mobility 200, Windows Vista
    Server - P4 1.8GHz, 768mb RAM, 2x 40gb HDDs, Win2k3 Server

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3
    Thanks for the link!

    So then, I assume it would be safe to say that for $50 more, it would be better to go with the FX 5900? Since the price is close, I just want the card that will offer the most bang when it comes to current and future games.

    Matt

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Manchester, England, UK
    Posts
    2,560
    From what I have seen of the 5900, it is a very nice card for the money. You should have no problems playing future games such as Doom 3 or HL2, although I have heard that ATi cards are quite a bit faster than the equivalent nVidia cards when running pure Direct X 9 code.

    However, if the 9600 Pro is the only ATi card that you can afford, I'm sure that the 5900 will be significantly faster when running DX9 stuff.

    Maybe one of the other members can clarify this, as I have seen neither the 9600 or 5900 series in action
    Desktop - XP2100 @ 2.4GHz, Abit NF7-S, 1gb DDR500 Crucial Ballistix, 120 + 160gb HDD, Windows XP
    Laptop - Athlon 64 3000, 1gb RAM, 40gb HDD, Radeon Mobility 200, Windows Vista
    Server - P4 1.8GHz, 768mb RAM, 2x 40gb HDDs, Win2k3 Server

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    373
    Hello FX5900??? i took the risk and bought 1 and i must say MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!

    LOVELY need i say more ..o and it eats a 9600 :P

    recommended!
    The RiG
    P4 3ghz
    2gb ddr 400
    256mb X800XTPE
    Enermax Coolergiant
    amdduron800@hotmail.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Manchester, England, UK
    Posts
    2,560
    Originally posted by Shuffl@
    LOVELY need i say more ..o and it eats a 9600 :P
    Well, of course it does

    But you get an FX5600 and a 9600 and see what happens
    Desktop - XP2100 @ 2.4GHz, Abit NF7-S, 1gb DDR500 Crucial Ballistix, 120 + 160gb HDD, Windows XP
    Laptop - Athlon 64 3000, 1gb RAM, 40gb HDD, Radeon Mobility 200, Windows Vista
    Server - P4 1.8GHz, 768mb RAM, 2x 40gb HDDs, Win2k3 Server

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    373
    5600 blows!!and not just air!
    The RiG
    P4 3ghz
    2gb ddr 400
    256mb X800XTPE
    Enermax Coolergiant
    amdduron800@hotmail.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Manchester, England, UK
    Posts
    2,560
    Hmmm, seems it does.

    After looking at that article more closely... I've come to the conclusion that I don't like it It's lying!

    mkofron, sorry for taking over the thread, but if you want any more help or advice, feel free to ask.
    Desktop - XP2100 @ 2.4GHz, Abit NF7-S, 1gb DDR500 Crucial Ballistix, 120 + 160gb HDD, Windows XP
    Laptop - Athlon 64 3000, 1gb RAM, 40gb HDD, Radeon Mobility 200, Windows Vista
    Server - P4 1.8GHz, 768mb RAM, 2x 40gb HDDs, Win2k3 Server

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3

    5900 vs 9600XT

    Well... the vendor I'm going to buy my next system from is no longer offering the 9600 Pro. Instead they are offering the 9600XT for $10 more...

    Would it be safe to assume that an FX 5900 for only $40 is still the faster card for DirectX 9 than a 9600XT?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Manchester, England, UK
    Posts
    2,560
    The 9600XT is somewhat faster than the Pro, possibly coming up close to FX5800 performance. I would also think, that with this kind of performance, the ATi would be significantly faster than the nVidia card.

    I was thinking of going from my 9500 to a FX5800 but was advised not to because the performance of the 5800 in DX9 apps, and also with FSAA + AF enabled simply wasn't a big enough increase to justify upgrading.

    I say, if possible, have a look at both cards and try and get a demo out of them. If you like the FX, then get that, although myself and many other people who switched from nVidia cards and ATi have been extremely happy
    Desktop - XP2100 @ 2.4GHz, Abit NF7-S, 1gb DDR500 Crucial Ballistix, 120 + 160gb HDD, Windows XP
    Laptop - Athlon 64 3000, 1gb RAM, 40gb HDD, Radeon Mobility 200, Windows Vista
    Server - P4 1.8GHz, 768mb RAM, 2x 40gb HDDs, Win2k3 Server

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,466

    Re: 5900 vs 9600XT

    Originally posted by mkofron
    Well... the vendor I'm going to buy my next system from is no longer offering the 9600 Pro. Instead they are offering the 9600XT for $10 more...

    Would it be safe to assume that an FX 5900 for only $40 is still the faster card for DirectX 9 than a 9600XT?
    Probably yes, overall. Developers have had to take the FX range's lacklustre DX9 performance into account and make modifications so that their games run acceptably on nV hardware. This is the case with Tomb Raider:AOD and will be the case with Half Life 2 and Doom 3 (not DX9 but a similar compromise has been made involving full-precision rendering under OGL). A little bit of image quality is usually sacrificed but the trade-off is probably worthwhile.

    5900 vs. 9600XT is a pretty easy choice if they're the best you can afford from each company. Maybe have a look at the 5900XT as well if you can find it - it's just a downclocked 5900 and should also be faster than the 9600XT.

    MuFu.

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
  •