FX5900 128mb vs. FX 5700 Ultra

Ok, these two are selling for about the same price. The 5700U has the
faster memory but the 5900 has a higher memory bandwidth (?)

If price is equal which would you guys choose?

typed:

Ok, these two are selling for about the same price. The 5700U has the
faster memory but the 5900 has a higher memory bandwidth (?)

If price is equal which would you guys choose?

Exactly the same question was aked a few days ago (thread "Which Leadtek
shold i buy") and several people were suggesting ATI instead - like 9600PRO,
9600XT or 9800 - same price, way better.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:44:55 -0500, "Jack Harrell"
wrote:

Ok, these two are selling for about the same price. The 5700U has the
faster memory

and larger, 256Meg vs 128 Meg

but the 5900 has a higher memory bandwidth (?)


Yep !! Twice as many pixel pipes

If price is equal which would you guys choose?



FX 5900 (128Meg). It can normally be overclocked to near 5900Ultra
default speed (YMMV). And current titles do not benefit in any
significant way from the extra 128Meg ram.

Avoid the 5900SE............lower clock speeds. Flimsier cooling.


John Lewis

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:44:55 -0500, "Jack Harrell"
wrote:

Ok, these two are selling for about the same price. The 5700U has the
faster memory but the 5900 has a higher memory bandwidth (?)

If price is equal which would you guys choose?

A 5900 should be faster than a 5700Ultra. But an ATI-9800XT with
Half Life 2 (FREE) is the better deal.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

"Darthy" wrote:

A 5900 should be faster than a 5700Ultra. But an ATI-9800XT with
Half Life 2 (FREE) is the better deal.

Hehe. I guess so, if you have loads of cash to spend.

I've ordered a FX5900 128mb for £200.
If I had order a Radeon 9800XT I would have ended up paying £450+.
Dunno, if the 9800XT is the better deal, but it surely is a better card.

I just think that £450 is way too much to pay for ANYTHING!

I just think that £450 is way too much to pay for ANYTHING

do you have a car,house etc
"f00ge" wrote in message
k...
"Darthy" wrote:

A 5900 should be faster than a 5700Ultra. But an ATI-9800XT with
Half Life 2 (FREE) is the better deal.

Hehe. I guess so, if you have loads of cash to spend.

I've ordered a FX5900 128mb for £200.
If I had order a Radeon 9800XT I would have ended up paying £450+.
Dunno, if the 9800XT is the better deal, but it surely is a better card.

I just think that £450 is way too much to pay for ANYTHING!

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:38:30 +0100, "f00ge"
wrote:

"Darthy" wrote:

A 5900 should be faster than a 5700Ultra. But an ATI-9800XT with
Half Life 2 (FREE) is the better deal.

Hehe. I guess so, if you have loads of cash to spend.

I understand and agree.

I've ordered a FX5900 128mb for £200.
If I had order a Radeon 9800XT I would have ended up paying £450+.
Dunno, if the 9800XT is the better deal, but it surely is a better card.

Good... I posted to someone else here that the MSI 5900 is very good,
they ALL perform the same - its the cooling systems that make a
difference in coolness and noise. MSI is almost silent.

I just think that £450 is way too much to pay for ANYTHING!

Agreed...


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 01:07:58 -0000, "Jibberer"
wrote:

I just think that £450 is way too much to pay for ANYTHING

What about £450 for a 2000 BMW car in perfect condition?

How about £450 to spend the night with Britnany Spears or better yet,
Christina Alguleria? In which you can do any nasty thing you can come
up with


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:16:15 GMT, Darthy
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:44:55 -0500, "Jack Harrell"
wrote:

Ok, these two are selling for about the same price. The 5700U has the
faster memory but the 5900 has a higher memory bandwidth (?)

If price is equal which would you guys choose?

A 5900 should be faster than a 5700Ultra. But an ATI-9800XT with
Half Life 2 (FREE) is the better deal.


It had better be, since HL2 will release in April. I would expect
the 9800XT to drop below $250 by then, since the next-gen
GPUs will then be in production.

Any included voucher for HL2 will guarantee delivery 6-8 weeks
after the game is released............... Great !! Well,
look on the bright side -- the 100Mbyte bug-fix patch will be
ready by then.............

Rule on buying expensive video cards:-

Wait for the "target" game(s) to be actually released, or a
late-beta playable demo before plonking down your money.
High-end video cards always have a steeply-sloping negative
price curve with time and the design-cycle for the next-gen is
roughly 9 months. It only takes 3 business days or less (with
free shipping ) to receive a new high-end video card in
the US.

John Lewis



--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 05:48:36 GMT, (John Lewis)
wrote:

A 5900 should be faster than a 5700Ultra. But an ATI-9800XT with
Half Life 2 (FREE) is the better deal.


It had better be, since HL2 will release in April. I would expect
the 9800XT to drop below $250 by then, since the next-gen
GPUs will then be in production.

Yep... look at the 9700Pro, it used to cost $400 - now its about $200.

The Ti4600 came out in April 2002, they sold for $400-500. After the
ATI9700Pro (also $400) stomped it into the ground, it was a hard sell
for $300.. was worth $200. In 1 year, the Ti4200 went from $189 to
$70.

Any included voucher for HL2 will guarantee delivery 6-8 weeks
after the game is released............... Great !! Well,
look on the bright side -- the 100Mbyte bug-fix patch will be
ready by then.............

heheh yep...


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!