1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

GeForce FX 5900 vs. GeForce 5900 Ultra

Discussion in 'Nvidia' started by Jason, Aug 20, 2003.

  1. Jason

    Jason Guest

    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..
     
    Jason, Aug 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jason

    Ron Merts Guest

    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
     
    Ron Merts, Aug 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jason

    Carchadon Guest

    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......
     
    Carchadon, Aug 20, 2003
    #3
  4. Jason

    loonym Guest

    : 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.

    :
    : : > 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..
    :
    :
     
    loonym, Aug 20, 2003
    #4
  5. $100...

    But at that stage the NV40 will be ready to roll out...i guess there is
    never a good time to buy.
     
    Richard Dower, Aug 21, 2003
    #5
  6. Jason

    YanquiDawg Guest

    Now you're starting to understand. I've been putting off buying for 6 months. I
    finally did it it last week. I had the money before annd needed it for
    something else,couldn't buy.This time when the 5900 went to $299 I bought.
    Just get the best you can afford if you need a video card. It was kinda iffy
    for me. But,My XP 2000+ and GF 3 classic have been choking a little. The 5900
    looks to be about twice the performance.
     
    YanquiDawg, Aug 21, 2003
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.