Ultra and non-ultra? Whats the difference?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Im looking at Tom's Video card roundup http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

3in4 wrote:

> Im looking at Tom's Video card roundup http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:47:20 -0500, duralisis
<NOduralisisSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>3in4 wrote:
>
>> Im looking at Tom's Video card roundup http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-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

 

[teqguy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

duralisis wrote:

> 3in4 wrote:
>
> > Im looking at Tom's Video card roundup
> > http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-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 are:


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