NEW COMPUTER!

Deadman · Post by **Deadman** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 1:54 pm

I too am wondering about those type of subjects. Sorry realm i can't help, I know nothing of the sort.

Juan The Pirate · Post by **Juan The Pirate** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 7:10 pm

Okay, after a painstaking challange to identify the difference between the cards (okay not really) I have come to this conclusion

When you look at the extras that come with the 9600 XT over the 9800 you will realize why it's more. 9600 comes with a movie and some other software, while the 9800 comes with, well nothing.

The same goes for the 5600's but gainward and MSI charge different amounts for cards. Happy hunting!

Evilmagicpirate · Post by **Evilmagicpirate** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:39 am

Realm wrote:Radeon 9800 vs Radeon 9600... Any help understanding all this would be appreciated.

This should explain it all:
Radeon 9600 (np, Pro & XT) : 75 million transistors [source]
Radeon 9800 (SE, np, Pro, XT) : 110 million transistors [source]

More transistors means more expensive and more performance. In this case, ATI designed the speedy and expensive 9800; then to fill the demand for cheaper video solutions, they simply stripped away some of the transistor-heavy features and thus the 9600 was born. The main transister reduction was from removing four [of the eight] pixel pipelines. Also, a reduction from the 9800's 256bit memory interface, to the 9600's 128bit interface (the idea being that half as many pixel pipelines only need half as much memory bandwidth).

So the 9600 is a inferior chip to the 9800s, and this results in lesser performance and price. Comparing clock speed (of Core or Mem) is irrelevant in this case because the two chips are so different. The 9600's core can be clocked faster, however this does not lead to better performance.

Think of the 9800 as a kitchen with 8 cheifs (pipelines), and each can make one meal (pixel) every minute (clock cycle). Then compair that to the 9600 kitchen with 4 cheifs (pipelines) who are faster and can make a meal (pixel) every 40 seconds (slightly faster clock cycle). The kitchen with the 8 chiefs is still faster overall, even though the chiefs from the 9600 kitchen are faster individually. Futhermore, you only have to pay for 4 cheifs, so you're going to save alot of money.

Also, the lets also say that for each kitchen there is a small hallway to the fridge where all the food is kept (that's the RAM). On the 9800 kitchen, the hallway is 2.56m wide (256bit) which allows several cheifs to access the fridge at the same time. In the 9600 kitchen, the hallway to the fridge is only 1.28m wide (128bit) which allows fewer chiefs to access the fridge at once. This isn't much of a problem seeing their are fewer chiefs in that kitchen anyway, so the performance loose is minimal.

As for which is the best value, Im leaning toward the 9800 non-pro.. I got one for Xmas an boosted [overclcoked] the default core clock from 325mhz up to 440mhz without any ill-effects besides the obvious and sexcellent performance boost. The boost was quite substantial - using 3dMark03, in battle for Proximatron (or whatever its called) I went from 3fps with my old Geforce3 to 28fps with default 9800 to 40fps with the overclocked. Keep in mind that test is a real bitch to the card and gives it a good run for its money. I havent really benchmarked anything else, but Ive been playing Legacy of Kain at 1600x1200 with everything at max and havent need to Overclock it becuse it already runs smooth at 75fps.

Edit: Also, the 9600 is etched at .13micron, where the 9800 is etched at .15 micron. This makes the 9600 cheaper to produce, because smaller transistors means smaller dies which means more chips per silicon wafer which means less silicon which mean less cost. However, when you pack more transistors into a smaller space, you make more heat. Because the 9600 has fewer transistors, it can survive at this size, however the 9800 would likely get to hot and self-destruct in a firey thermal death; that is why it remains etched at a larger size.

Deadman · Post by **Deadman** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:46 am

sounds like that is a kickass vid card. nice analogies.

What is the difference between non-pro and pro?

Evilmagicpirate · Post by **Evilmagicpirate** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:51 am

Pro is simply clocked higher and is coupled with faster RAM. The different between the chips isn't physical - its just set up differently in the bios [edit: Video card bios, not Motherboard bios]. The XT is a physically different chip - slightly reworked to be cooler. It is also clocked higher still.

Most 9800's non-pro can be O/Ced to very close to the Pro.

Edit: Checking the price on NewEgg, the Pro is only like $40 more expensive; and has faster RAM. I dunno how well one of those overclocks though. I'd say it'd max out the core around 450 like the non-pro which might mean only a slight performance improvement. At this point I dunno if you'd be best to spend the extra $40, or just go non-pro. If you are seriously thinking of buying one really soon let me know and I can look into it a bit. Otherwise, we can continue to watch the market and see how the prices continue to drop.

Realm · Post by **Realm** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:39 pm

EMP, you are a godsend. Thanks a ton. And awesome analogies, that helped a lot too. Now, in your opinion: ATI vs. nVidia? Or more specifically: Radeon 9800 vs. GeForce FX 5900? (not Pro or Ultra or anything)

Jack Burton · Post by **Jack Burton** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 1:22 pm

Radeon all the way....GeForce's suck at DX9 effects.

-Jack

Silviar · Post by **Silviar** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 1:34 pm

Yeah but hte price can be enough to put some ppl off.

Evilmagicpirate · Post by **Evilmagicpirate** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:06 pm

I agree with Jack, I've heard the Geforce's suck at DX9 effects.. Praticularly in the Half-Life 2's Source Engine; which will probably end up powering about one third of all the FPS games we play over the next 3 to 5 years. That was the big reason I personally choose a Radeon over the FX series. As price goes, they are somewhat close, and they perform very closely too.

Looking at the recent round-up from Tomshardware.com, you can see in the first test [Unreal Torny] the 9800 scored 97.5 FPS where the the 5900 scored a very close 95.5 FPS. With other tests, sometime the FX is leading, other times the Radeon; but through all the tests one is never really trailing the other by more than 5% of the total FPS. I'd reccommend your flip through the article Realm, its very good if you're in the video card market becuase you can see just how well X card compairs to Y card on certain games.

The other 'feature' (besides the Geforce not doing so well with DX9) that made me choose the 9800 is that it overclocks to a pro easily and safely. So automatically, you are getting more bang for your buck. I don't know if the 5900 overclocks very well, I will look into this matter futher.

Edit: I realize I didnt really answer your question but its hard to reccommend one becuase they are both good cards.

Juan The Pirate · Post by **Juan The Pirate** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:11 am

Being an NVidia fanboy of sorts and going for compatibility over most everything else (since they are so close) I got an FX card. The card runs very nicely, and I haven't had any problems whatsoever. I also run the assumption that if the DX9 power in particular to HL2 engine runs poorly that NVidia will remedy their error with a better driver set or a firmware upgrade. Though through playing DX2, CoD, PoP and various other 3 character games, I have not encountered any video problems or hang ups whatsoever.

Since I went with an NForce motherboard by MSI, I have the piece of mine that my NVidia card built by MSI will be 100% compatible and if something goes wrong I will have 100% technical support (though after 6 months everything still ticks fine.)

I also chose to go with a cheaper FX5600 with the 256 MB of RAM because I infact am a cheap whore, as well as knowing that I will be again purchasing a new computer over the summer, as I have for the past three years (hopefully my last for a while). Luckily I sell my old computers to various family members to defer the cost of a new one.

Realm · Post by **Realm** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:25 am

Thanks again for the help guys. Now, can someone tell me, is it true that GeForce is worse at DX9, or is that just what Valve says? Are Valve (or Sierra) and ATI in bed together? Cause honestly, we haven't even seen a true DX9 game yet. (DOOM3, HL2) Deus Ex 2, KOTOR-pc, and Halo-pc benchmarks don't really seem to prove anything yet.

Deadman · Post by **Deadman** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:58 pm

does anyone got any new PC news: new processors, vid cards, etc.?

I am actually wondering about the new AMD and Pentium processors, and the conversion in mobos that EMP and others spoke of, so any news?

(I really want a new computer

)

Zephie-chan · Post by **Zephie-chan** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:19 pm

I agree that the GeForce's suck ass... I have a GeForce4 MX 440. Currently I cannot handle any UBI Soft game (a prime example being Prince of Persia) because nVidia doesn't like the MX series.

As for the processors, I have an 2.1GHz AMD XP Duel Processor and I wish I had a Pentium 4. There's not really any noticable problems with the AMD, I can live with it, I don't mind at all. The AMD's have more raw power, but the the truth is that the P4's are more stable.

My AMD will sometimes slow to a snail's pace and sit there for five minutes (or just go 'Fuck off, I've been running too long!' and crash) when I'm right in the middle of something that needs a lot of processing power (an example being TRIBES 2 or encoding some video that I'm typsetting). Where as the P4 wouldn't do that.

There's also the fact that the P4's cost a shit load more. If I had had the money, I would have gone for the P4. And as for the video card... I'm, at this moment, somewhat okay with my GeForce 4 since I don't game a lot anymore, but, if you want to go gaming, I suggest getting either a GeForce FX or a that Radeon you've been talking about.

Hope this helps, if not, doesn't matter. I just let a whole lot of steam blow off

. Which I needed to do.

The Siege · Post by **The Siege** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 8:16 pm

So um.. building a new computer. Right. I have a Radeon 9600. I have a good hard drive. I have a computer right here with almost everything I need it in, really. My processor is 450 mhz p3 though...

So I'm guessing I need a new motherboard for a new fast processor. I'd like to play Half Life 2. And I guess I need a new case for those.

Anything else I need? I don't really know how to build a computer...

Deadman · Post by **Deadman** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 9:10 pm

Well if you have the mobo manuel to your current PC then you can see what it can handle and see if the max is suitable to what you want, but I doubt it.

all you really need is new processor, mobo, and possibly Ram, and (Opt.) sound card. And maybe new CD rom, DVD rom, CDRW, or DVDRW if you dont have or need any of those. that is basiclly it. If you buy all the parts they all usually come with manuels and show you how to install them and there are plenty of websites to explain the step.

http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardware ... als/109/1/

And I suggest Newegg.com to buy parts they have fairly good prices and on many items have no shipping.