ATI Radeon 9900 Pro in mass production
 

OK, guys your just making rumors..! BS, talk talk talk, hm..
to start:

the 5800 ULTRA BEAT the 9700 PRO by a very little
the 9800 PRO beat the 5800 ULTRA by a womping,
and the 9800 PRO even beat the 5900 ULTRA that just came out....!

No matter what core clock Nvidia makes, even if its faster than ATI's. ATI beleaves in true power and Nvidia beleaves in detail "as you should know".

Now if you guys stop making up half this SHITE and go read the Reviews and e-mail the Support at there websites just maybe you guys will learn something, more than RUMORS..!

And to get in strait, the 9900 Pro name WAS change to the 9800 Pro even told by the tech Support at ATI.com because of not much coreclock and memory speed improvements...

Now if your a hardcore Overclocker and want to make your Radeon 9800 Pro or even the 9000, 9200, 9500, 9600, and 9700 "pro's and non Pro's plz download Rage3D OC software.

http://www.rage3d.com/r3dtweak/dload/R3Dtweak38c.exe

you guys will thank me later, lol, now make your 9800 pro's into your so called 9900 pro's BABY...

Everich, BLOODFIN server (Starwars Galaxies) ill duel your ass and win >:)

yea... except the 9700 pro beat the 5800u and the 9800 pro beat the 5900u.. I don't like either company.. but it's kinda like microsoft.. nothing but monopolies .. only 2 choices.. nvidia or ati.. intel or amd.. MS or apple for OS.. creative or turtle beach for sound.. microsoft of logitech for mice

ha ha :lol: The 5900 whomps on the 9800!

yup

not by much but yes the 5900 ultra does spank the 9800 pro's ass

Yes, the 5900 beats the 9800 only on 1600x1200 resolution. The ATI card is nearly 800 3dmark2003 marks higher than the 5900. The only reason the FX 5900 beats the ATI card at that resolution is because of the 256MB memory, but you can get an ATI card that has that mem. if you want it.

Here are the things you need to look at:

1. Size. The ATI card is tiny compared to the FX card. Think about how much airflow you want to lose with this...

2. Heat. The ATI card has much lower speeds than the FX card. 380 compared to 450. That's the only reason Nvidia can keep up with ATI. Now I own a 9800Pro myself, but I have modded it with a Thermaltake Giant II heat sink allowing me to almost meet Nvidia's clock speeds. Now I score over 6000 3dMark2003, over 1000 points higher than the nvidia card.

3. Drivers. Nvidia has hands down better drivers, at least that was true until the release of the Catalyst 3.6's. I used to be an owner of a GF4TI4600 and I'll never go back to Nvidia becuase I got this card and am VERY happy with. If you know how to tweak it just right, the overall look of the picture quality is much better than Nvidia's.

I dont' want my opinion to be biased, but I have used both companies, and I'm hands down much happier with my ATI card then I ever was with my GF4. As a matter of fact, I had to send my GF4 back to the company because it was messing up and was proven to be bad. When I got the next card in, I still wasn't happy with it, and it was PNY. I couldn't use AA and AF at high resolutions. So I sold the card and now I can do all that I wanted and more.

I'd have to disagree with the inference that the 9800's have more potential and that nVidia had to set their clocks higher to beat ATI because it seems to me that the 5900's have plenty of room left. Notice that the highest legitimate(real) score is owned by an nVidia card; here's a link.

As more and more of the newer technologies are incorporated into games, the 5900's will only show more of its lead.

dude...
 

pny sucks anyway :rofl:

Yeah, I read that before. If you'll notice, check out what they did to the card to get that score besides upping the clock to over 800. They had to take a liquid nitrogen cooler to cool the card to -42C. If someone had the money and resources to do that to an ATI card, the score would be higher. The clock it too high, if you want legit scores, let the two cards go head to head on stock settings, I feel that's more fair than modding the card so high you have to drop the temperature to sub-zero.

The 5900 is faster than the 9800 pro 256mb but the 9800 pro 256mb has better image quality than the 5900. The 9800 pro 256mb has a core clock of 380mhz and a memory clock of 700mhz so the 9800 pro 256 is faster than the 9900 pro. Unless they up the bandwidth in the 9900 pro, but basically someone will be paying $400 to 500 for a card that is not much better than the 9800 pro 256mb. If u want to read about a good comparison of the 5900 and 9800 pro 256, here http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDcy

Here is an article that says the 9900 pro's core clock will be 420mhz http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...529150459.html whoever posted that the 9900 pro's core clock will be 375mhz is probly wrong because it would make no sense to make a new card that is the same speed as a 9800 pro. So if the 9900 pro's core clock is 420mhz then it will be faster than the 9800 pro