|
Let's face
it - we've all done it at least once in our lifetime.
We've all wanted to go out and put down this month's rent
payment on a new all-powerful video card that can
play our favorite games at mind-numbing speeds. When some sense of
sanity finally returns (usually after checking for
non-existing space left on a credit card), we decide that
maybe starting at the top isn't for everybody, and start
looking for the next best option. Obviously, most
manufacturers are well aware of this, and for every
"high-end" product they release there's
also a mid-range and/or value model that gets a more
modest approach. With so many cards out there to
choose from, where does one start?
With that
thought in mind, we decided to cover the latest
offerings from the two largest, and most influential
companies in the PC graphics world today, NVIDIA and ATi. After stumbling out of
the gate a bit with their early GeForce FX models,
NVIDIA's newer 5700/5900 line has been received quite
warmly, putting up some comparative numbers to the
competition. However, that "competition" comes from
what is arguably considered the leader at the moment,
ATi's
Radeon 9600/9800 line of cards. Over the
last half of 2003, each of these companies has at one time
or another, "one-upped" the other, with new cards. It's
all a matter of keeping in the public eye, and maintaining
the upper hand.
Today,
we'll be looking at six cards, three each from NVIDIA
and ATi. We've covered the ins and outs of each of
these in detail in the past, and you can review those
articles if needed, but for now we've got some quick
specs to refresh your memory...
 |
|
A
briefing on each of the cards |
|
How
they stack up against each other |
|
|
|
Feature
|
GeForce FX 5700 Ultra
|
GeForce FX 5900 XT
|
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra
|
|
CineFX? Engine
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
|
Intellisample? HCT
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
DirectX 9.0
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
AGP
|
8X
|
8X
|
8X
|
|
Clock Speed (MHz)
|
475c/950m
|
400c/700m
|
475c/950m
|
|
Pixels per Clock
|
4
|
8
|
8
|
|
Pixel Fillrate
|
1.9 billion pixels/sec
|
3.2 billion pixels/sec
|
3.8 billion pixels/sec
|
|
Memory
|
DDR2
|
DDR
|
DDR
|
|
Memory Interface
|
128-bit
|
256-bit
|
256-bit
|
|
Vertices/sec.
|
356 million
|
300 million
|
356 million
|
|
Feature
|
ATi Radeon 9600XT
|
ATi Radeon 9800 Pro
|
ATi Radeon 9800XT
|
|
SMARTSHADER?
|
2.0
|
2.1
|
2.1
|
|
SMOOTHVISION?
|
2.1
|
2.1
|
2.1
|
|
DirectX 9.0
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
AGP
|
8X
|
8X
|
8X
|
|
Clock Speed (MHz)
|
500c/600m
|
380c/680m
|
412c/730m
|
|
Pixels per Clock
|
4
|
8
|
8
|
|
Pixel Fillrate
|
2.0 billion pixels/sec
|
3.04 billion pixels/sec
|
3.3 billion pixels/sec
|
|
Memory
|
DDR
|
DDR
|
DDR
|
|
Memory Interface
|
128-bit
|
256-bit
|
256-bit
|
|
Vertices/sec.
|
250 million
|
380 million
|
412 million
|
|
Each chart
translates to a good, better, best scenario. For
NVIDIA, we start at the 5700 Ultra with it's fast core and
memory speeds, switch over to the similarly priced 5900XT,
and end up with the heavy hitter, the GeForce FX 5950
Ultra, basically a revamped 5900 Ultra with a more elegant
yet powerful cooling design. The basic technology
used with all three cards remains similar, with the Pixels
per clock being the main difference between the 5700 and
59XX models. ATi's three Radeons follow the same
relative breakdown - the 9600XT is the fastest of four
9600 variants and has the highest core speed of any card
listed here, but it's four pixels per clock keep it behind
the powerhouse 9800/9800XT combo. The 9800 and
9800XT are identical in structure, with the 9800XT
receiving a modest speed increase in both the VPU and
memory speeds.
So, there
we have it. Six cards, all meant for performance,
but aimed at specific areas of the market. We'll move
things along by getting a closer view of each card, for
those more viscerally inclined.
NVIDIA's GeForce FX
Family
|
