GeForce FX 5900 vs. GeForce 5900 Ultra
Nvidia's naming is wacky for these two. It's not very clear that they
don't make a 5900 Ultra in 128MB. Rather, the 5900 is the 128MB, and the 5900 Ultra is the 256MB. got it. so now - who has compared these two? i see that i can get an eVGA 5900 128MB for $300 shipped (the price just dropped about $50 in the last week). the 5900 Ultras are running just over $400 shipped online. is 50MHz more clock speed and 128MB more RAM worth it the extra $100-$125? Mainly, I just want Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 to be kickass at 1280x1024 with AA, AF and full everything. my wallet is leaning towards the 128MB 5900.. anybody have any online comparison of the two in terms of benchmarks? thanks.. |
Honestly, save your $100. The human optical system cannot detect any
differences over 80-100fps. The FX 5900 and FX 5900 Ultra produce frame rates well above what the human senses can detect. If you want bragging rights about having the fastest video card, get the Ultra, if you want to save some money and still get a very good card that will give you the results you are looking for, go with the 128Mb card. If you're just dying to spend that extra $100, I'll give you my address and you can send it to me ;) Ron "Jason" wrote in message om... Nvidia's naming is wacky for these two. It's not very clear that they don't make a 5900 Ultra in 128MB. Rather, the 5900 is the 128MB, and the 5900 Ultra is the 256MB. got it. so now - who has compared these two? i see that i can get an eVGA 5900 128MB for $300 shipped (the price just dropped about $50 in the last week). the 5900 Ultras are running just over $400 shipped online. is 50MHz more clock speed and 128MB more RAM worth it the extra $100-$125? Mainly, I just want Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 to be kickass at 1280x1024 with AA, AF and full everything. my wallet is leaning towards the 128MB 5900.. anybody have any online comparison of the two in terms of benchmarks? thanks.. |
I have a FX5800Ultra (OK OK stop the slagging) and it is awesome - a bit
noisy but that is easily drowned out by the speakers and careful base unit positioning...I understyand the FX5900Ultra does not suffer as much from this. My card is of course slower generally than the 5900 but I can tell you that I run all my games 1152x864 (only have a 17" monitor) with max quality settings, 8x AA, Max Anisio, Max Mipmap Quality etc etc. and it is smooth as silk to my eye including one recent game - Eve Online Second Genesis which is a rare DX9 game - If both these cards are faster than mine then you really dont have to worry about paying an extra 100 bucks...... Jason wrote: Nvidia's naming is wacky for these two. It's not very clear that they don't make a 5900 Ultra in 128MB. Rather, the 5900 is the 128MB, and the 5900 Ultra is the 256MB. got it. so now - who has compared these two? i see that i can get an eVGA 5900 128MB for $300 shipped (the price just dropped about $50 in the last week). the 5900 Ultras are running just over $400 shipped online. is 50MHz more clock speed and 128MB more RAM worth it the extra $100-$125? Mainly, I just want Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 to be kickass at 1280x1024 with AA, AF and full everything. my wallet is leaning towards the 128MB 5900.. anybody have any online comparison of the two in terms of benchmarks? thanks.. |
"Ron Merts" wrote in message ... : Honestly, save your $100. The human optical system cannot detect any : differences over 80-100fps. The FX 5900 and FX 5900 Ultra produce frame : rates well above what the human senses can detect. If you want bragging : rights about having the fastest video card, get the Ultra, if you want to : save some money and still get a very good card that will give you the : results you are looking for, go with the 128Mb card. If you're just dying : to spend that extra $100, I'll give you my address and you can send it to me : ;) : : Ron As game and 3d rendering graphics become progressively more complex it's not rare these days to see frame rates in certain situations drop well below those you have stated. Advice to the op, get the best you can afford. : : "Jason" wrote in message : om... : Nvidia's naming is wacky for these two. It's not very clear that they : don't make a 5900 Ultra in 128MB. Rather, the 5900 is the 128MB, and : the 5900 Ultra is the 256MB. got it. : : so now - who has compared these two? i see that i can get an eVGA : 5900 128MB for $300 shipped (the price just dropped about $50 in the : last week). : : the 5900 Ultras are running just over $400 shipped online. : : is 50MHz more clock speed and 128MB more RAM worth it the extra : $100-$125? : : Mainly, I just want Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 to be kickass at 1280x1024 : with AA, AF and full everything. my wallet is leaning towards the : 128MB 5900.. : : anybody have any online comparison of the two in terms of benchmarks? : : thanks.. : : -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
"First of One" wrote in message ble.rogers.com... Wait until HL2 or Doom III comes out, buy the 5900 Ultra, save your $100... But at that stage the NV40 will be ready to roll out...i guess there is never a good time to buy. |
Now you're starting to understand. I've been putting off buying for 6 months. I
finally did it it last week. I had the money before annd needed it for something else,couldn't buy.This time when the 5900 went to $299 I bought. Just get the best you can afford if you need a video card. It was kinda iffy for me. But,My XP 2000+ and GF 3 classic have been choking a little. The 5900 looks to be about twice the performance. Wait until HL2 or Doom III comes out, buy the 5900 Ultra, save your $100... But at that stage the NV40 will be ready to roll out...i guess there is never a good time to buy. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com