View Single Post
  #3  
Old August 20th 03, 11:18 AM
Carchadon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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..