View Single Post
  #4  
Old August 20th 03, 04:06 PM
loonym
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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! =-----