FX 5900 vs. FX 5700 Ultra

[Nvidiatotheend]

It appears I can purchase a non Ultra 5900 128M or a 5700 Ultra for roughly the same price ($225). It looks as the 5900 has a memory bandwidth of 27M, whereas the 5700U is 14M. Although I have yet to find a benchmark including both cards? The 5900 would appear to be the better out of the box choice, but the overclockability of the 5700 Ultra may bring that card out. It appears in searching articles that the 5700 Ultra will most likely have DDR2 compared to DDR1 in the 5900, what do you think of the comparison? I run a system of ;

Asus A7N8X Deluxe 2.0 @ Bios 1.07
Barton 2500+ @2.07G ( 180Mhz X 11.5 )
512M of Corsair Twin XMS Matched 3200LL Platinum (5-3-2-2 atm)
Leadtek Geforce 4 Ti4200 ( 4X still )


Thanks in advance for your time!

 

[cleeve]

It's not about the bandwidth; bandwidth is much less important than it was in the DirectX 7 heydays.

It's becoming more and more about shader speed, and the 5900 ULTRA is a much better card because it has twice the pixel pipelines.

Although, in that price range I'd take a hard look at the Radeon 9800 non-pro...



------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055

 

[speeduk]

Look at his name. He doesn't want anything to do with ATI obviously. Let him by a 5900.

My system spec: Fast PC<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
"It's not the spoon that bends, it's only yourself."

 

[speeduk]

Asus A7N8X Deluxe 2.0 @ Bios 1.07
Barton 2500+ @2.07G ( 180Mhz X 11.5 )
512M of Corsair Twin XMS Matched 3200LL Platinum (5-3-2-2 atm)

Why run that mobo and memory at just 180mhz fsb? They are designed to run at 200mhz.


My system spec: Fast PC<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
"It's not the spoon that bends, it's only yourself."

 

[scottchen]

5900 is the better choice here.

-Intel PIV 2.6C @ 3.575G -Asus P4P800 -OCZ Copper 2x256 4000EL memory @ 275mhz 3-4-4-8 -Sapphire 9800np @ 432/760 -SB audigy -120G Maxtor Diamond Plus9 S-ATA150 hdd -450 Enermax PSU

 

[Nvidiatotheend]

Everything I read says to run mem Sync with CPU, I get better Auquamark 3 scores sync'd than mem at 200 and cpu at 180. Open to suggestions though, relatively new at OC, and air cooling only atm.

 

[ChipDeath]

Can't you squeeze more speed out of it? What cooler are you using?

Oh, and based on what I've read, I've got to say go ATI as well.

[EDIT]
Can your mem get lower timings? I've got 512Mb(2x256) Corsair PC3200LL too, and it's stable @ 196Mhz 2-2-2-4

---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ChipDeath on 10/29/03 04:11 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Nvidiatotheend]

I ran my fsb at 200 and was equivalent of having 3200+ but was worried about burning something up haha. I have a thermaltake Xaser III case with replaced Thermaltake fans, and a Volcano 9 CPU cooler with that clear angle mount ducting mod.

As far as ATI, I thought about it, but ever since the ATI questionability of drivers and such(Not rendering explosions and nist correctly in AQM3, etc., and the more recent Nvidia benchmarks with 5200 series Drivers, seems to me Nvidia is best bang for buck. I wana stick around $200 or so, as i am unemployed atm, and don't wanna be tossing out $500 and not find another job!

 

[speeduk]

ROFL ^^^

I guess Nvidea are rendering lights properly on walls in halo and other stuff. Both companies have bugs. So its ok for one company to blatently cheat in 3dmark and then lie about it, but not for another company to have a bug in aquamark. ROFL.



My system spec: Fast PC<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
"It's not the spoon that bends, it's only yourself."

 

[cleeve]

Nvidia is still the king of questionable drivers, although their last release has been an improvement.

When choosing between the 5900 and 9800, consider this one tidbit:

The 9800 WILL play doom3 at full detail, not quite as fast as the 5900 will, but still very quick.

But the 5900 will NOT play Half Life 2 at true DirectX 9 settings as fast as a lowly 9600 PRO.

If you plan on the card lasting a while, you need powerful pixel shaders, and Ati is clearly the way to go in this respect.

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055

 

[speeduk]

Cleeve don't forget the new det drivers are a lot faster than the 45's as used in the HL2 demo. Expect those 30fps of the 5900u to be 50fps minimum or even match the 9800pro's 60fps.

I really wanna see some new valid HL2 benches....

My system spec: Fast PC<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
"It's not the spoon that bends, it's only yourself."

 

[Nvidiatotheend]

btw, wtf can you even buy a FX 5700 ultra now? It's been released supposedly since last week, yet i still haven't found one for sale haha

 

[speeduk]

If the 5700 isn't available then buy the 5900 or wait until it is.

My system spec: Fast PC<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
"It's not the spoon that bends, it's only yourself."

 

[cleeve]

I thought I saw a review of the HL2 demo with the new dets, and though the FX line did better, it was still in a world of suck compared to the Radeons...

Damn, looking for link now...

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055

 

[speeduk]

I've seen it mate, but that was rather "unofficial" to say the least. Not like the ones from the makers themselves.

My system spec: Fast PC<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
"It's not the spoon that bends, it's only yourself."

 

[Nvidiatotheend]

well, I see one person answering the original question( if you had $200 to upgrade Card, would you buy the 5900 non ultra of 5700 Ultra whenever you can find the damn thing for sale). I was looking for a quick name to use, so even though my name talks of Nvidia, if someone could show me a recent review with latest drivers on both of 5700 Ultra, 5900 non ultra, and $180-$220 Ati cards, i'd think about it. it just seems every damn review ya look at, is either all ultras or XT's or just 2 cards, i.e 5700 ultra vs. 9600 XT. Thanks again for all the other comments though

 

[ChipDeath]

I ran my fsb at 200 and was equivalent of having 3200+ but was worried about burning something up haha.

Just keep an eye on the temps... if you stay below 60*C under load you're probably ok... (cooler is better though of course)

You'll get glitches LONG before your hardware is going to die, unless you increase in too large a step at once. If I can get my XP1700+ to 2.4Ghz (although only stable enough to get 15000 3DMarks , and sod-all else), then I'm sure you'll have no problems running at 200FSB/2.2Ghz and beyond.

---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red>

 

[speeduk]

How much are the 9800 non pros over there? Surely they aren't that expensive, and they clock to pro speeds fairly easily. I would wait and get the 5700 or save a bit more money and get a 9800np and clock it to pro speeds... Guy on here got his 9800np to clock faster than a 9800XT!

My system spec: Fast PC<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
"It's not the spoon that bends, it's only yourself."

 

[cleeve]

Firingsquad is good for comparing old cards to the new ones. Here's a review that shows the newest cards and includes the 5900 non-ultra and 9800 non-pro:

<A HREF="http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_fx_5950_review/page4.asp" target="_new">http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_fx_5950_review/page4.asp</A>

Its surprising how close the cards are in performance in most of the benches, they trade pole position regularly.

I wish there were updated benches on Doom3 and HL2 for these cards, dammit.

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055

 

[Nvidiatotheend]

Looks like 9800 128M non pro starts at $157 on Pricewatch, and 5900 non ultra starts at $220. I have yet to see 5700 ultra for sale, but supposedly that will be $200. So I guess the newer question would be, which of those 3 cards will perform the best on a budget after OC'ing?

 

[speeduk]

I cant speak for the NV cards. But I know that the 9800's with samsung memory overclock upto 9800XT speeds fairly easily, and the ones with infineon memory overclock to 9800pro speeds or just below fairly easily. I would go for a 9800np if it was me. But thats because I have a lot of experience with my 9700pro and know how to get the most out of it. And its very cheap too.

My system spec: Fast PC<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
"It's not the spoon that bends, it's only yourself."

 

[cleeve]

all the 9800 non-pros on pricewatch are 9800 SEs... STAY THE HELL AWAY FORM ANY RADEON BEARING THE "SE" BADGE.

"SE" versions are severely crippled, in the case of the 9800 it has HALF the pipelines of a Radeon 9800 non-pro.


------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055