The Last Bout of ‘03 – NVIDIA’s GeForce FX 5700 Ultra

114 Comments

View All Comments

• Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

  Ever hear of journalistic integrity? He has a responsibility to be objective. He replies "also, there were no glaringly unplayable image quality issues on either side of the line."
  
  What a political answer - glaringly unplayable image quality issues? A $499 card shouldn't have any unplayable issues, heck even a $99 card should be playable.
  
  He's dodging the issue about playable image quality issues - missing or lower quality lighting effects for example. The point is that Nvidia has been caught lowering imager quality - removing the eye candy you are paying for in dx9 cards, and they have continued to do so.

• Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

  Once again "IQ to come in part 2"... mebbe they will ... mebbe they won't... but they don't have a very good track record so far... and what is up with that choice of games? Go read the [H]OCP review... I may have been vocal against [H] in the past but there review of teh 5700 and 5950 is spot on with worthwhile gaming results.....
  
  I really fail to see how you recommend 5700 over 9600pro in this.... and skip all the NV 'driver bugs' too.... ah well nm... another nail in the AT coffin....

• Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

  Hrmm, I see an NVida add on the top right of my screen. Ever see ATI adds ant anandtech? Know what complementary copy is?

• Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

  Here's my conclusion: if you're gonna bitch and moan, read a different tech site. No one's forcing you to accept Derek's conclusions.
  
  I think some of you need to be a little more respectful with your comments and suggestions.

• Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

  How can any conclusions be made without an image quality comparison. The "final words" section is based purely on the framerate numbers? How can you even draw a conclusion?

• Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

  I'll just copy this from what I wrote at Beyond 3D:
  
  I was so confused by this comment from AT:
  
  AnandTech wrote: "In fact, NVIDIA has flipped the tables on ATI in the midrange segment and takes the performance crown with a late round TKO. It was a hard fought battle with many ties, but in the games where the NV36 based card took the performance lead, it lead with the style of a higher end card."
  
  
  That I tabulated my own results:
  
  NON AA
  ---------
  5700 wins 10 times
  9600 XT wins 6
  
  Where the 5700 won, it won on average by 15%
  Where the 9600 won, it won on average by 17%
  
  
  WITH AA / ANISO
  ---------
  5700 wins 6 times
  9600 wins 6 times
  
  Where the 5700 won, it won on average by 23%
  Where the 9600 won, it won on average by 54%
  
  There certainly is ZERO justification for saying something like: "but in the games where the NV36 based card took the performance lead, it lead with the style of a higher end card."
  
  That characteristic belongs to ATI, not nVidia.
  
  Another way to look at it: What percentage FPS difference is required to declare a "clear winner?"
  
  Let's say that less than 10% difference, the cards are tied. In this case:
  
  NO AA/ANISO
  ----------------
  
  5700 wins 6 tests
  9600 wins 4 tests
  
  When the 5700 wins, it's by an average of 22%
  When the 9600 wins, it's by an average of 22%
  
  With AA/Aniso
  ----------------
  5700 wins 4 tests
  9600 wins 6 tests
  
  When the 5700 wins, it's by an average of 33%
  When the 9600 wins, it's by an average of 54%
  
  
  I wish Anand's conclusions would actually agree with his data.
  

• Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

  Hello? where are the hardware, software, and driver specs? Editorial review? What's that?

• Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

  Separating Image Quality results from the review is completely misleading.

• Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

  It's not unplayable image quality errors - the pics in the hardocp review show missing graphical features to enhance your gaming - ie walls with computers on them with nvidia with no blinking lights, on the ati it had purple and green blinking lights - yes playable on both - but when you pay $499 you want to see the game the way it was intended by the programmers. Same goes for the flashlight pics on hardocp , nvidia the flashlight beam is a mess, ati the flashlight beam is perfectly round like a real flashlight.
  
  Just another case of nvidia removing graphical effects to speed up their cards to compete with ati.

• DerekWilson - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

  so, the cheapest 9800 Pro I see on new egg is a refurb for 280...
  
  also, there were no glaringly unplayable image quality issues on either side of the line.
  
  give us a chance to get everything we want to get done done wrt image quality. We've got a lot planned.