Next Graphics Card

If your a programmer or artist, I highly recommend you add 3DLabs Wildcat VP line to your list, expecially if you are using a dual or quad cpu workstation ... they wont play games near as fast as the nvidia or ati latest offering, but they sure do run 3D tools and rendering alorithms great - and they are multi-threaded.

Anyone who has experience with these, please post.

I am currently between my sophomore and junior
years at college. The card will be mainly used
to explore the programmability present in modern
hardware. So basically it will be used as a
learning platform -- not for serious professional
development of any kind.

Tim

9800 has somekind of scratch memory that let you create HUGE fragment program, AFAIK.
A feature that the 9700 do not have.

Now, how much YOU need this feature is questionnable.


-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

I highly recommend the 9800 PRO, unlimited shader instructions and the extra speed are worth the extra cash, IMO.

Forget that s**t -> Ati!!!!!!!!
I have FX for month & I can''t imagine card that runs more stable, has nice IQ, perfect TV-OUT & so on. Drivers are a bit s**t up, because of 3D Mark that is acctually made for Ati, believe me or not!!! Compare Quake, UT, Comanche etc. in real world & you''ll see that FX ruleZ even when Ati has A LOT higher score in 3D marks! I guess 3D mark is purely made for Ati pipe []
===========================================
And Ati was cheating in Quake so they really s**k!!!!!!!!!!!!
===========================================
BTW, FX has nice IQ setttings which ATI lacks!

But the best option is to wait for FX5900!!!! It''ll be real killer for Doom3 with up to 45% speed increase!

______________________________
Madman

Ok, I like NVidia too, but he asked for a Radeon so, you could get the 9700 and overclock it to work like a 9800

---

-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-

If you see the image I am online

ATi is not! faster in UT, check the tests throughout the net.
And Cg on NV30 profile is real ice-cream, so I REALLY recomend FX (especially for development) checked myself (no limit for ARB profiles only so no limited color calc). And texture operations work on NVidias HW even when they fail on ATI, Intel!
Only thing I hate about NVIDIA is that they are trying to catch ATI in 3D Mark by every mean possible & that causes a lot of mess But that should change soon

______________________________
Madman

quote:

---

Original post by cowsarenotevil
Ok, I like NVidia too, but he asked for a Radeon so, you could get the 9700 and overclock it to work like a 9800

---

i''m sure you could overclock it and get it to be as *fast* as a 9800, but it wont be the same..
however- you can buy a $170 Radeon 9500 pro, then softmod it to work *exactly* like a 9700. you cant beat that price.


-eldee
;another space monkey;
[ Forced Evolution Studios ]

Do NOT let Dr. Mario touch your genitals. He is not a real doctor!

No need to go bankrupt just for toying around with DX or OGL. if you are just looking for a platform to develop stuff, and not really interested in games (hmm, dubious...), a 9500 pro is the most cost-efficient of them all and supports DX9. So can explore pixel shaders and vertex shaders quite confortably, without having to sell your precious soul to the ATI or NVidia devils, ...whatever you''re religion is.

Although I got a 9700 for £150 (3 months ago), the 9700 might be a better solution (slightly nippier) if you can find a bargain somewhere. But either of those are probably falling a tad short for Doom III, if that is also a requirement.

quote:

---

Original post by _Madman_
ATi is not! faster in UT, check the tests throughout the net.
And Cg on NV30 profile is real ice-cream, so I REALLY recomend FX (especially for development) checked myself (no limit for ARB profiles only so no limited color calc). And texture operations work on NVidias HW even when they fail on ATI, Intel!
Only thing I hate about NVIDIA is that they are trying to catch ATI in 3D Mark by every mean possible & that causes a lot of mess But that should change soon

---

you''re preaching rhetoric here. take it elsewhere.
the simple fact remains- if nvidia''s cards are so much better than ati''s, then WHY did they have to cheat? if they were better, the results would have shown it, and all would be well. they took a huge gamble with their integrity and lost.. i doubt they would''ve done that for a few extra points on 3Dmark

-eldee
;another space monkey;
[ Forced Evolution Studios ]

Do NOT let Dr. Mario touch your genitals. He is not a real doctor!

quote:

---

Original post by eldee

i''m sure you could overclock it and get it to be as *fast* as a 9800, but it wont be the same..
however- you can buy a $170 Radeon 9500 pro, then softmod it to work *exactly* like a 9700. you cant beat that price.

---

You can softmod the 9700 to the 9800 too, and if you''re really cheap, mod the 9500 twice I heard you''ll need to get a very large fan though...

---

-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-

If you see the image I am online

THEN WHY FX''es are faster in gaming environment than ATI''s Rads?
BECAUSE NV HAS MORE PATHS AND MORE NV_ stuff THAT SKYROCKETS PERFORMANCE!

3D MARK IS SYNTHETIC BENCH & ATI TOOK PART IN ITS DEVELOPING WHILE NVIDIA DIDN''T (STRATEGICAL MISTAKE). UNFORTUNATELY ALL DUMBASS ARE LOOKING AT THOSE F**N MARKS, NOT THE REALTIME PERFORMANCE THAT COUNTS! AND WHEN YOU ARE DEVELOPING ATI IS REAL PAIN IN A$$, AT LEAST FROM MY EXPERIENCE ][

______________________________
Madman

I''d take issue with that, the 9800 has the extra stuff in the form of teh ''infinite length pixel shaders'' and i''m pretty sure they have an f-buffer as well, something a 9700 lacks.

and Madman, silence and go do some less bias research
(oh, and fix your caps lock button, it appears to be broken)

quote:

---

THEN WHY FX''es are faster in gaming environment than ATI''s Rads?

---

What are your sources? Because all i''ve read so far says that the ATI 9800 wins when the video card becomes the bottleneck (ie. with antialiasing and advanced pixel shaders).

Y.

I''m thinking this "Madman" character works for nVidia. Either way his over-enthusiasm and lack of any real factual evidence for his claim really doesn''t pose a good argument.

Go here for the facts

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030512/geforce_fx_5900-11.html

well... I bought a month ago the 9700 non Pro for 330Euro(the best value in greece). Before buy it i was waiting ATI 9800... but...I daid to my self:"Men... now you are making your first 3d engine... I dont think that you will use F-buffer." Before half month ATI Radeon 9800 pro 128MB from PowerColor Arrived in greece...with value... 610Euro!!! NEVER!!! I think ati 9700 with 330 here in greece is a good buy...
but if you are a super dooper ulttra high zuper 3d engine programmer and you are making fragments like trains then buy 9800

Wow, some interesting posts.

I suppose both NVIDIA and ATI have fudged in their
drivers in the past. Like you guys, I prefer NVIDIA.
They seem to go the extra mile on their developer page.
_Madman_, Do you own NVIDIA stock or what?

Like I said though, I''m in college so money is tight.
But I do want a quality card for graphics coding. So we''re
looking in the range of $300-$400, preferably nearer to $300.

NVIDIA has better resources for independent coding, in my
opinion, but the newer Radeons have been out longer than the
newest FX cards (better drivers, less buggy). Radeons seem to
be a better value in terms of price and capability.

As far as gaming goes, the only game I play now is Warcraft 3
and I''m trying to phase out games for other things like graphics
programming. I will play Doom III to see that "Carmack magic"
but it doesn''t need to look perfect.

I don''t need huge buffers or be able to launch a space shuttle
or code Doom III. I just want to write interesting programs for
modern hardware.

Now, which is the better value the 9700 ($300) or FX 5800 (~$350)?

they aren''t too far apart in performance...but price and volume i''d go with the 9700 [u]PRO[/u]. I''m getting a 9500 pro though