Following the heels of 5900, the 5600?

[Nuno]

DedicatedFan3D, not bashing on your purchase, but for $200 you could have a regular Radeon 9700 that´s way faster and better than the 5600 ultra. Even a 9500 pro would have been a better purchase, but that´s just me.

Having Pixel Shaders 2.0 is pointless, because its performance on DX9 is horrid. Even the 5800 hasn´t it. Even Nvidia recognised that and doubled DX9 performance with NV35.

[DedicatedFan3D]

Actually I wanted the 9700 but uh....those are not 200 bucks!

The ones you see on pricewatch are actually the tx (oem version) or the atlantis, which performs the same as the tx.

Which is about sub 9600 performance.

And in reference to the 2D, why is the performance so much faster?

Why does nView make everything look cleaner and more customizeable?

However, the tv out is utter crap. So is the in.

My benchmarks are very similar in comparison with anand's comparison

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=29

[bsdgeek]

2D is faster simply because of the clock speed, and that says nothing about the quality. nView? nView is trash, I've used it, I'm using it right now. It is TRASH.

[Chrono_Wanderer]

Speaking of 2D (I will go a bit off topic, but I thoguht this is interesting to bring up)...

http://www.darkcrow.co.kr/Review/Review_Content.asp?contentpage=4&board_idx=153

Darkcrow, korean website, has a review of Radeon 9600 PRO (BBA). They measured the analog singal quality of the card. I don't know how to read the graph. Can someone comment upon those graph/teach me how these graphs work?

Thansk in advance

[Gurm]

Chrono_Wanderer:

It's a simple equation:

Everything by nVidia < Everything by ATI < Everything by Matrox

Pretty simple, no?

- Gurm