Do I want 5700 Ultra or 5900XT card?

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

Before I get a lot of "get an ATI card instead" replies, I want you to
undertstand that I am building an "identical" system for my brother, who
lives 2,500 miles away from me and doesn't know much about computers. I
want his system to be as close to mine as possible, so that in case he has
problems after I leave him, I can "guide" him on stuff over the phone...

In any case, I have an 5900 Ultra card with 256 megs. He doesn't want to
spend more then US $200 for a video card, so I am trying to decide between
getting him a 5700 Ultra or an 5900XT card instead. He will use the
machine via an ANALOG (he has a 20 inch Sony CRT) connector and his kids do
like to play games...like Doom 3....EA Sport games.....Medal of Honor....).
He will also use the computer for VIDEO editing. The system will run
Windows XP Pro SP2 , have 1 gig of RAM and a 3.2 Prescott.

I also want to know if we should go for the 128 meg or a 256 meg model? I
know that mod manufactorers use "cheaper" memory for 256 meg cards, so I am
wondering if the 256 meg option will actually "slow down" the system.

In addition, I see that most of the 5900XT cards have a "core speed" of 390
Mhz. What about this one that claims 430Mhz?

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-143-014&depa=1

I also doubt that my brother will be doing much overclocking as he needs
stability.

Thanks for any and ALL opinions.
6 answers Last reply
More about 5700 ultra 5900xt card
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "M. B." <REMOVETHESPAMmystic02@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:bw1Zc.42$vx6.38@trndny05...


    > In any case, I have an 5900 Ultra card with 256 megs. He doesn't want
    to
    > spend more then US $200 for a video card, so I am trying to decide between
    > getting him a 5700 Ultra or an 5900XT card instead.

    > I also want to know if we should go for the 128 meg or a 256 meg model?
    I
    > know that mod manufactorers use "cheaper" memory for 256 meg cards, so I
    am
    > wondering if the 256 meg option will actually "slow down" the system.
    >
    > In addition, I see that most of the 5900XT cards have a "core speed" of
    390
    > Mhz. What about this one that claims 430Mhz?
    >
    >
    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-143-014&depa=1


    The 5900xt is a better card -- hands down (over the 5700 ultra). Check out
    all the doom3 benchmarks. If you can get a 256 mb one -- get it. But I
    doubt it will be less than $200.00.

    Some manufacturers overclock their cards out of the box -- so what you see
    with that card is entirely probable. I run my 5900xt at 425/763 (using
    MSI's own overclocking utility - -but the default on my card is 390/700).

    If you want to compare 5900XTs, go here:

    http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_fx_5900_xt/default.asp

    That said, if you can wait a month, you would be better off with the 6600GT
    (or the 6800LE -- if you can get that OEM part).

    Both the 6600 GT and/or the 6800LE should be about $200.00.

    Personally, I would wait for either the 6600 GT or the 6800 LE. Both are
    later generation for about the same money as the 5900XT -- and faster.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    I would go for the FX5900xt it benches faster than the 5700 ultra, plus you
    get 256bit memory
    "M. B." <REMOVETHESPAMmystic02@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:bw1Zc.42$vx6.38@trndny05...
    > Before I get a lot of "get an ATI card instead" replies, I want you to
    > undertstand that I am building an "identical" system for my brother, who
    > lives 2,500 miles away from me and doesn't know much about computers. I
    > want his system to be as close to mine as possible, so that in case he has
    > problems after I leave him, I can "guide" him on stuff over the phone...
    >
    > In any case, I have an 5900 Ultra card with 256 megs. He doesn't want
    > to spend more then US $200 for a video card, so I am trying to decide
    > between getting him a 5700 Ultra or an 5900XT card instead. He will
    > use the machine via an ANALOG (he has a 20 inch Sony CRT) connector and
    > his kids do like to play games...like Doom 3....EA Sport games.....Medal
    > of Honor....). He will also use the computer for VIDEO editing. The
    > system will run Windows XP Pro SP2 , have 1 gig of RAM and a 3.2 Prescott.
    >
    > I also want to know if we should go for the 128 meg or a 256 meg model?
    > I know that mod manufactorers use "cheaper" memory for 256 meg cards, so I
    > am wondering if the 256 meg option will actually "slow down" the system.
    >
    > In addition, I see that most of the 5900XT cards have a "core speed" of
    > 390 Mhz. What about this one that claims 430Mhz?
    >
    > http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-143-014&depa=1
    >
    > I also doubt that my brother will be doing much overclocking as he needs
    > stability.
    >
    > Thanks for any and ALL opinions.
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    In article <bw1Zc.42$vx6.38@trndny05>, REMOVETHESPAMmystic02@verizon.net
    says...
    > Before I get a lot of "get an ATI card instead" replies, I want you to
    > undertstand that I am building an "identical" system for my brother, who
    > lives 2,500 miles away from me and doesn't know much about computers. I
    > want his system to be as close to mine as possible, so that in case he has
    > problems after I leave him, I can "guide" him on stuff over the phone...
    >
    > In any case, I have an 5900 Ultra card with 256 megs. He doesn't want to
    > spend more then US $200 for a video card, so I am trying to decide between
    > getting him a 5700 Ultra or an 5900XT card instead. He will use the
    > machine via an ANALOG (he has a 20 inch Sony CRT) connector and his kids do
    > like to play games...like Doom 3....EA Sport games.....Medal of Honor....).
    > He will also use the computer for VIDEO editing. The system will run
    > Windows XP Pro SP2 , have 1 gig of RAM and a 3.2 Prescott.
    >
    > I also want to know if we should go for the 128 meg or a 256 meg model? I
    > know that mod manufactorers use "cheaper" memory for 256 meg cards, so I am
    > wondering if the 256 meg option will actually "slow down" the system.
    >
    > In addition, I see that most of the 5900XT cards have a "core speed" of 390
    > Mhz. What about this one that claims 430Mhz?
    >
    > http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-143-014&depa=1
    >
    > I also doubt that my brother will be doing much overclocking as he needs
    > stability.

    Without question the FX5900XT is the card to buy. With a 3.2 GHz
    Prescott and 1GB ram the system should play Doom 3 and other games very
    well. If you can get the extra 128MB on the card cheaply I'd go for it,
    otherwise not.

    Any FX5900XT can be overclocked to standard 5900 speeds (400MHz). Some
    will go much higher. If you want maximum stability run at 400/700
    (GPU,memory).
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Yep
    Go for the 5900XT
    I have a Sparkle 5900XT
    Its clocked to 470/900 with no probs at all.
    "M. B." <REMOVETHESPAMmystic02@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:bw1Zc.42$vx6.38@trndny05...
    > Before I get a lot of "get an ATI card instead" replies, I want you to
    > undertstand that I am building an "identical" system for my brother, who
    > lives 2,500 miles away from me and doesn't know much about computers. I
    > want his system to be as close to mine as possible, so that in case he has
    > problems after I leave him, I can "guide" him on stuff over the phone...
    >
    > In any case, I have an 5900 Ultra card with 256 megs. He doesn't want
    to
    > spend more then US $200 for a video card, so I am trying to decide between
    > getting him a 5700 Ultra or an 5900XT card instead. He will use the
    > machine via an ANALOG (he has a 20 inch Sony CRT) connector and his kids
    do
    > like to play games...like Doom 3....EA Sport games.....Medal of
    Honor....).
    > He will also use the computer for VIDEO editing. The system will run
    > Windows XP Pro SP2 , have 1 gig of RAM and a 3.2 Prescott.
    >
    > I also want to know if we should go for the 128 meg or a 256 meg model?
    I
    > know that mod manufactorers use "cheaper" memory for 256 meg cards, so I
    am
    > wondering if the 256 meg option will actually "slow down" the system.
    >
    > In addition, I see that most of the 5900XT cards have a "core speed" of
    390
    > Mhz. What about this one that claims 430Mhz?
    >
    >
    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-143-014&depa=1
    >
    > I also doubt that my brother will be doing much overclocking as he needs
    > stability.
    >
    > Thanks for any and ALL opinions.
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    In real world use the 5900XT is considerably faster than the 5700 Ultra.
    This is due entirely to the 5900 XT's use of a 256 MB memory bandwidth bus,
    while the 5700 Ultra uses the much slower 128 MB memory bus.

    DaveW


    "M. B." <REMOVETHESPAMmystic02@verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:bw1Zc.42$vx6.38@trndny05...
    > Before I get a lot of "get an ATI card instead" replies, I want you to
    > undertstand that I am building an "identical" system for my brother, who
    > lives 2,500 miles away from me and doesn't know much about computers. I
    > want his system to be as close to mine as possible, so that in case he has
    > problems after I leave him, I can "guide" him on stuff over the phone...
    >
    > In any case, I have an 5900 Ultra card with 256 megs. He doesn't want
    > to spend more then US $200 for a video card, so I am trying to decide
    > between getting him a 5700 Ultra or an 5900XT card instead. He will
    > use the machine via an ANALOG (he has a 20 inch Sony CRT) connector and
    > his kids do like to play games...like Doom 3....EA Sport games.....Medal
    > of Honor....). He will also use the computer for VIDEO editing. The
    > system will run Windows XP Pro SP2 , have 1 gig of RAM and a 3.2 Prescott.
    >
    > I also want to know if we should go for the 128 meg or a 256 meg model?
    > I know that mod manufactorers use "cheaper" memory for 256 meg cards, so I
    > am wondering if the 256 meg option will actually "slow down" the system.
    >
    > In addition, I see that most of the 5900XT cards have a "core speed" of
    > 390 Mhz. What about this one that claims 430Mhz?
    >
    > http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-143-014&depa=1
    >
    > I also doubt that my brother will be doing much overclocking as he needs
    > stability.
    >
    > Thanks for any and ALL opinions.
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Hey DaveW its the 256bit memory on the 128 meg or 256 meg config on the fx
    5900xt that makes it faster.
    "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
    news:QM7Zc.93665$Fg5.84561@attbi_s53...
    > In real world use the 5900XT is considerably faster than the 5700 Ultra.
    > This is due entirely to the 5900 XT's use of a 256 MB memory bandwidth
    > bus, while the 5700 Ultra uses the much slower 128 MB memory bus.
    >
    > DaveW
    >
    >
    > "M. B." <REMOVETHESPAMmystic02@verizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:bw1Zc.42$vx6.38@trndny05...
    >> Before I get a lot of "get an ATI card instead" replies, I want you to
    >> undertstand that I am building an "identical" system for my brother, who
    >> lives 2,500 miles away from me and doesn't know much about computers. I
    >> want his system to be as close to mine as possible, so that in case he
    >> has problems after I leave him, I can "guide" him on stuff over the
    >> phone...
    >>
    >> In any case, I have an 5900 Ultra card with 256 megs. He doesn't want
    >> to spend more then US $200 for a video card, so I am trying to decide
    >> between getting him a 5700 Ultra or an 5900XT card instead. He will
    >> use the machine via an ANALOG (he has a 20 inch Sony CRT) connector and
    >> his kids do like to play games...like Doom 3....EA Sport games.....Medal
    >> of Honor....). He will also use the computer for VIDEO editing. The
    >> system will run Windows XP Pro SP2 , have 1 gig of RAM and a 3.2
    >> Prescott.
    >>
    >> I also want to know if we should go for the 128 meg or a 256 meg model? I
    >> know that mod manufactorers use "cheaper" memory for 256 meg cards, so I
    >> am wondering if the 256 meg option will actually "slow down" the system.
    >>
    >> In addition, I see that most of the 5900XT cards have a "core speed" of
    >> 390 Mhz. What about this one that claims 430Mhz?
    >>
    >> http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-143-014&depa=1
    >>
    >> I also doubt that my brother will be doing much overclocking as he needs
    >> stability.
    >>
    >> Thanks for any and ALL opinions.
    >>
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Nvidia Graphics