Geforce FX5700 vs Radeon 9700

[marcw]

I am down to just needing the video card and a hard drive.

Which is the better card to go with?

Of these which manufacturer of each is better? I see many for each.


Thx,
Marc

[stanger89]

With all the trouble reported with VMR9 tearing on Radeons I'd go with the 5700, nVidia seems to be trying much harder than ATI in the multimedia/HTPC area lately. If I remember correctly your display has VGA in so the 5700 should be fine.

[marcw]

There are numerous manufacturers, who is the one to get?

[stanger89]

A quick search of newegg and the only ones I'd avoid are the Apollo one (never heard of them) and the MSI one (had terrible luck with MSI motherboards and AGP cards). I've never been too concerned with which brand, but BFG, eVGA, Leadtek, and XFX are some of the bigger names.

[GbrNole]

xfx are terrible. the one huge positive of the msi card is that it has the most quiet fan according to anandtech testing.

[Crowdx42]

Would the FX 5200 have same output quality? Or is it only the higher end cards?
Patrick

[stanger89]

Try this:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...12#post3327912

[kny3twalker]

I would recommend the Radeon if they are the same price
and it is a PRO but do not buy a OEM card
The radeon has 8 pipelines and bencgmarks about the same as the 5900 (128MB) and 5900 with 256MB from Nvidia
right now the best video card on the market is the 9800 XT
9700 PRO is much better than either 5700
(but 9700 non pro which I have never heard of
I would go with the 5700 Ultra)
if non ultra 5700 buy the 9700 Pro
(so basically go 9700 PRO since there is no non-PRO 9700)
http://mirror.ati.com/products/home-office.html
and 9700 PRO is directx 9 supported just like 5700 Ultra and non Ultra
the tearing is the decoders fault I believe

[stanger89]

OK, Pro/non-pro, XT/non-XT, Ultra/non-Ultra, makes ~no difference for HTPC apps. As for 5700 vs 9700, it's at least partially personal preference, both have more than enough power for HTPC apps. Keep in mind the 9700 was a flagship product while 5700 is a mainstream product (the 5800 was the corosponding nVidia flagship). nVidia v ATI is a hotly debated topic over at AVS, and there has been no consensus. What I've gathered from reading over there is that the latest from nVidia is on par with that from ATI PQ wise. In addition, I've always had good luck with nVidia's drivers, while I've never been satisfied yet with my Radeon's drivers (Interlaced overlay support comes and goes, VMR9 tearing, etc). Also nVidia has been making a concerted effort lately to improve multimedia/HTPC support (Forceware Multimedia 3.0, HDTV resolution shipping with drivers, new cards with component out, and nV representatives frequent AVS) while ATI seems to be focusing more on games. It's kind of funny how things change, not long ago ATI was the underdog gaming wise but the only way to go for HTPC, now it's starting to be the other way.

My recommendation is based on what I would do right now, if I had the opportunity I'd drop my 9500 in a heartbeat and get a 5700. Anyway, here's a good thread for those of you interested in the performance of the latest/greatest:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ati+nvidia+gap

FWIW, I get tearing with VMR9 with both Sonic and WinDVD. I tried to softmod my 9500 to a 9500pro and tearing might be slightly less, but it still looks like it's a VC problem.

Have fun!

[kny3twalker]

I found that any tearing I had with my 9600XT only happened with Sonic and my anti aliasing and anistropic filtering set to the highest possible
Even then it happened only rarely and usually with low bit rate recording and 3d accel and VMR9
I turned down filtering and anti aliasing and fine
Listen I could not even play a video at 1024 x 768 with my anti aliasing and anistropic filtering set the highest
Come on I was pushing my card and any other mainstream card would react the same
Like I said though before there was never a NON PRO 9700
Between a 5700, 5700 Ultra, and 9700 PRO for the same money
go 9700 PRO
Ultra usually have faster ram and GPU as well as Ultra cards have on board decoders
If you were just using TV out and thats it for the video card why not just buy a 5200, 5700, 9200,9600 all non pro and non ultra
It would be cheap and probably all have similiar Tv outs
but go nvidia if all you care about is TV out
they are better supported there
Look at benchmarks at Tomhardware and the hardocp that should show you where their performance is
I considered the 5700 Ultra but 9600 XT was about 50 dollars less for the same performance
with XT driver overclocking it is faster

[Crowdx42]

The 9700 was both Pro and Non-Pro, the non-Pro was oem if I remember correctly, have a look here www.rage3d.com which has forums about all the ati cards.
I have had ati since I got rid of my Geforce 2, after that I got a Vivo 64, then I got an 8500 and currently have a 9800 Pro, my other machines have also got 7500 and 7200 cards in them.
When moving from nvidia to ati OR the other way, the key is to make sure you have deleted drivers, ini files AND reg entries, this is where most people have the problems.
I am looking at maybe using a 5200 or higher for TV out, but from the Geforce 2 days, nvidia was very poor as far as colors and sharpness were concerned, ati shone in that department.
We will see how the Geforce performs.
Does all the Geforce cards have hardware assisted meg2 decoding?
Patrick

[stanger89]

Originally posted by kny3twalker
I found that any tearing I had with my 9600XT only happened with Sonic and my anti aliasing and anistropic filtering set to the highest possible
Even then it happened only rarely and usually with low bit rate recording and 3d accel and VMR9
I turned down filtering and anti aliasing and fine
Listen I could not even play a video at 1024 x 768 with my anti aliasing and anistropic filtering set the highest

If I turn Aniso up on my 9500 I get slideshow, I can watch Sage Redraw the menus even.

Ultra usually have faster ram and GPU as well as Ultra cards have on board decoders

What are you talking about? Onboard decoders?

Look at benchmarks at Tomhardware and the hardocp that should show you where their performance is

Gaming benchmarks aren't going to show you much about how different cards will compare in an HTPC. My Geforce 4 MX could decode HD as good or better than my Radeon 9500.

[gplasky]

The only plus to going with the higher end Ultra's is if you use VMR9. VMR9 is dependant on the 3D acceration of the card. THEORECTICALLY-the better/faster the 3d acceleration the better VMR9 should perform. I have a FX5700 w/256MB in one machine and the FX5200 w/128MB in another. The 5700 definitely gives a better picture in VMR9 than the 5200. But for the most part I have stuck with overlay and don't really see much difference. Even with the 5700, using VMR9 I see like an occasional water ripple effect thru the picture. I figured this is the tearing. It's not real bad but just enough to get on your nerves. I have the 5200 outputting to HDTV (1280 x 720)vga connection and the picture is sweet.

Gerry

[mlbdude]

Using my 9000 and 9600 I get that ripple tear with VMR9 using any decoder. I actually think the 9000 produces a better VMR9 image though. You can use ReClock and it comes with a great tearing test that you can use to really see it. I get a better picture in Overlay, but keeping the brightness in check took a little work.

[kny3twalker]

well with mine no slide show but rare tearing on only low bit rate recordings
and look here for decoder
http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20031020684904.html
Integrated Full Hardware MPEG-2 Decoder
Delivers full-frame, full-screen MPEG-2 video on your desktop.

I believe this is a feature of only the Ultra cards but could be wrong there
and if the 9700 non pro was oem, do not buy it
OEM video card is just looking for trouble

[mlbdude]

nVidia makes the MPEG2 decoder claim on all their cards. It only offers assist like the rest of the cards available today.

[stanger89]

Ultra's are just clocked faster, they have the same features though.

[kny3twalker]

cool was not sure