Hey DaveW its the 256bit memory on the 128 meg or 256 meg config on the fx
5900xt that makes it faster.
"DaveW" wrote in message
news:QM7Zc.93665$Fg5.84561@attbi_s53...
In real world use the 5900XT is considerably faster than the 5700 Ultra.
This is due entirely to the 5900 XT's use of a 256 MB memory bandwidth
bus, while the 5700 Ultra uses the much slower 128 MB memory bus.

DaveW


"M. B." wrote in message
news:bw1Zc.42$vx6.38@trndny05...
Before I get a lot of "get an ATI card instead" replies, I want you to
undertstand that I am building an "identical" system for my brother, who
lives 2,500 miles away from me and doesn't know much about computers. I
want his system to be as close to mine as possible, so that in case he
has problems after I leave him, I can "guide" him on stuff over the
phone...

In any case, I have an 5900 Ultra card with 256 megs. He doesn't want
to spend more then US $200 for a video card, so I am trying to decide
between getting him a 5700 Ultra or an 5900XT card instead. He will
use the machine via an ANALOG (he has a 20 inch Sony CRT) connector and
his kids do like to play games...like Doom 3....EA Sport games.....Medal
of Honor....). He will also use the computer for VIDEO editing. The
system will run Windows XP Pro SP2 , have 1 gig of RAM and a 3.2
Prescott.

I also want to know if we should go for the 128 meg or a 256 meg model? I
know that mod manufactorers use "cheaper" memory for 256 meg cards, so I
am wondering if the 256 meg option will actually "slow down" the system.

In addition, I see that most of the 5900XT cards have a "core speed" of
390 Mhz. What about this one that claims 430Mhz?

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...143-014&depa=1

I also doubt that my brother will be doing much overclocking as he needs
stability.

Thanks for any and ALL opinions.