A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Video Cards » Nvidia Videocards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ultra and non-ultra? Whats the difference?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 15th 04, 10:33 PM
3in4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ultra and non-ultra? Whats the difference?

Im looking at Tom's Video card roundup http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...charts-03.html
and Im curious as to the difference of the Ultra and non-ultra cards? I ask cause when I look on pricewatch.com, it doesnt
show ultra cards, just 128mb and 256mb versions. The only thing I can assume is the 128mb version is the non-ultra, and the
256mb version is the Ultra, correct?

Also, has anyone actually ever SEEN a 5800 ultra? From the benchmark above, its a good bang for the buck card, supposedly
going in the sub $150 range.

Other than that, unless someone has a new chart like this, it looks like the 9800 pro is the best card for the money. Ive
never had an ATI card, always 3dfx and nVidia. What do ya think?

I need to upgrade my Ti 4400 pretty soon, so any info is appreciated.
  #2  
Old April 16th 04, 02:47 AM
duralisis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

3in4 wrote:

Im looking at Tom's Video card roundup http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...charts-03.html
and Im curious as to the difference of the Ultra and non-ultra cards? I ask cause when I look on pricewatch.com, it doesnt
show ultra cards, just 128mb and 256mb versions. The only thing I can assume is the 128mb version is the non-ultra, and the
256mb version is the Ultra, correct?

Also, has anyone actually ever SEEN a 5800 ultra? From the benchmark above, its a good bang for the buck card, supposedly
going in the sub $150 range.

Other than that, unless someone has a new chart like this, it looks like the 9800 pro is the best card for the money. Ive
never had an ATI card, always 3dfx and nVidia. What do ya think?

I need to upgrade my Ti 4400 pretty soon, so any info is appreciated.


In the FX lineup, the "Ultra" and "XT" cards are chips that had better
yields or were from a newer revision (meaning they clocked higher more
easily and could be sold as a better model). They usually have the
faster bus (256-bit) and better RAM (256MB), but I've also seen 128
cards with just higher clocks.

Clockspeeds alone usually make them better, but increased bandwidth
overall usually helps a lot.
  #3  
Old April 16th 04, 03:49 AM
John Lewis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:47:20 -0500, duralisis
wrote:

3in4 wrote:

Im looking at Tom's Video card roundup http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...charts-03.html
and Im curious as to the difference of the Ultra and non-ultra cards? I ask cause when I look on pricewatch.com, it doesnt
show ultra cards, just 128mb and 256mb versions. The only thing I can assume is the 128mb version is the non-ultra, and the
256mb version is the Ultra, correct?

Also, has anyone actually ever SEEN a 5800 ultra? From the benchmark above, its a good bang for the buck card, supposedly
going in the sub $150 range.

Other than that, unless someone has a new chart like this, it looks like the 9800 pro is the best card for the money. Ive
never had an ATI card, always 3dfx and nVidia. What do ya think?

I need to upgrade my Ti 4400 pretty soon, so any info is appreciated.


In the FX lineup, the "Ultra" and "XT" cards are chips that had better
yields or were from a newer revision (meaning they clocked higher more
easily and could be sold as a better model). They usually have the
faster bus (256-bit) and better RAM (256MB), but I've also seen 128
cards with just higher clocks.

Clockspeeds alone usually make them better, but increased bandwidth
overall usually helps a lot.



Correction:-

In the nVidia range....

Ultra is normally the top-end card of a group. Normally 256 Meg
memory.

No suffix is the mid-range. Usually 128 Meg memory

XT, SE is the el-cheepo ( sloppier specs) version of the no-suffix
card. Beware, some of the less ethical vendors have now got into the
habit of dropping the XT, SE suffix, especially if they no longer
produce the non-suffix version.

There is no replacement for reading and understanding critical specs.
Critical specs like GPU and Memory clock rates missing.... no buy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Ati range.....

XT is the top end card.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is magic in Marketing .... bleh, yuk !!

John Lewis

  #4  
Old April 16th 04, 04:09 AM
teqguy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

duralisis wrote:

3in4 wrote:

Im looking at Tom's Video card roundup
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic...charts-03.html
and Im curious as to the difference of the Ultra and non-ultra
cards? I ask cause when I look on pricewatch.com, it doesnt show
ultra cards, just 128mb and 256mb versions. The only thing I can
assume is the 128mb version is the non-ultra, and the 256mb version
is the Ultra, correct?

Also, has anyone actually ever SEEN a 5800 ultra? From the
benchmark above, its a good bang for the buck card, supposedly
going in the sub $150 range.

Other than that, unless someone has a new chart like this, it looks
like the 9800 pro is the best card for the money. Ive never had an
ATI card, always 3dfx and nVidia. What do ya think?

I need to upgrade my Ti 4400 pretty soon, so any info is
appreciated.


In the FX lineup, the "Ultra" and "XT" cards are chips that had
better yields or were from a newer revision (meaning they clocked
higher more easily and could be sold as a better model). They
usually have the faster bus (256-bit) and better RAM (256MB), but
I've also seen 128 cards with just higher clocks.

Clockspeeds alone usually make them better, but increased bandwidth
overall usually helps a lot.






The GPU is just a revision...


Instead of releasing an entirely new model number, each company
releases revision cards... but in order to sell more they have to
denote a difference... or else they'd lose money.




Some of the changes I've seen in the past a


o Reduced temps

o Higher default clock speeds

o Repackaged with better/more software

o Repackaged with updated drivers

o Slightly tweaked board layouts

o Adjusted GPU and memory voltages
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.