feedback needed on fx 5900 sp

[bigglesworth]

Okay, here's the deal.

This week I went on pricewatch and found what I thought was a good deal on an fx 5900 256 mb card by msi. Turns out, it's NOT an ultra card (I incorrectly assumed 256 mb 5900 cards are all ultras). Core and memory run at 453/808. Here's a link to the msi website with the exact card:
http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/vga/vga/pro_vga_detail.php?UID=504

I'm pretty disappointed here, thinking I was getting a 5900 ultra version for a good price. But I haven't been able to find any performance numbers on this card after searching a bunch of sites (toms, sharkyextreme, firingsquad, etc).

Anyone know what the performance is like on this card?
Between a stock 5900 128 mb and 5900 ultra 256 mb?

I can return it with a 15% restocking fee and get a 5900 ultra (especially like the evga version) if this card turns out to be a dog.

I'd really appreciate feedback from folks out there who have a good knowledge of the potential of this card, thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[aznThunder]

First, make sure you're OK with the Geforce FX line of cards, and the big stink over their DX9 performance and *optimizations.* I personally think the new ForceWare drivers and the NV35 (5900) aren't bad at all, but this is your money.

Second, I don't know the price for this particular card, but I can get an XFX Geforce 5900 non-Ultra for $200, while an Ultra costs almost twice that. The Ultra has a slightly higher clocked core (for a 10-15% performance boost), but its main advantage is 256Mb of RAM, which is only useful when you're like at 1600x1200 4xAA. You can easily overclock the 5900 to Ultra specs, and since the MSI card already has 256Mb of RAM, there's almost no reason to send it back.

Third, if you're looking for a (near) top of the line card like the FX5900Ultra, you shouldn't be expecting any "good deals." The small performance advantage comes at a huge price premium. A "regular" 5900 should be more than good enough for today's games, and even things like Doom III and (*crossing fingers*) HL2.

My personal opinion is to keep the card, and if you're not satisfied, overclock it.

"I've got a great new idea for a value product-line! We charge the customer the same price, and we give them a slower product!"
"How is that a value?"
"Oh, it's a value for us, of course."

 

[bigglesworth]

Yeah, I've been reading about the DX9 issues and agree that the new forceware drivers are decent. I'm happy with the 5900 line of cards for reasons I won't go into here (don't want to go off-topic).

My price after shipping was $330.

I had been looking for a 256 mb card to upgrade my old 64 mb geforce 4ti 4200 card. I figured the extra ram would give the new card some longevity. So, that's the only reason I didn't consider the 5900 stock 128 mb version.

As far as overclocking goes, the best I could do was 468/823 versus the default 453/808, a disappointing result. I wonder if there is some sort of artificial limitation put on the overclocking for this card? I seem to recall the old radeon 9500s clock speeds being capped by ati a while back...

The card ran great on ut2003 1280x1024 with 4xAA and max detail(mostly over 60 fps), but only ran around 30 fps on the Need for Speed Underground demo with all effects at 1280x1024.

Oh, and fyi here are other system specs:
asus a7v8x
athlon xp 3000+
1024 mb pc 2700 ram
audigy 2 + logitech z-680 speakers
windows xp

 

[fragglefart]

He he i stumbled into that card the other day, i saw how cheap it was, and confused it for the MSI Ultra model (which i own) i know prices drop but i was very surprised.
Then Greatgrapeape pointed out it was an "SE"
i didnt even know about the SE's, and there is very little written about them.
Well i can heartily recommend the MSI 5900Ultra, but i really couldnt say about the SE, i have no idea how it performs next to its bigger brother.

............................................
Render times? You'll find me down the pub...

 

[aznThunder]

Hmmm...at 330 for the non ultra, I take back my recommendation to keep it, since that's pretty close to the ultra's price. But then there's the 15% restocking fee...

I'm thinking about the 5900nu myself, but 30fps for NFSU demo? That's worse than the beta HL2 scores!

"I've got a great new idea for a value product-line! We charge the customer the same price, and we give them a slower product!"
"How is that a value?"
"Oh, it's a value for us, of course."

 

[bigglesworth]

Hey thunder I just realized how appropriate your signature quote is to my situation!

Anyway, that leads back to my original question. How does the card stack up against the ultra card and the stock 5900? If it performs in between the 2 then it would be a fair value, yes?

Keep in mind that on the nfsu demo I had all of the special effects cranked up to high and 1280x1024 is the highest resolution available (1600x1200 is not an option). So I am thinking maybe nsfu just isn't optimized well for the higher resolutions. Anyone running nsfu with max details and resolution, please comment on your frame rates and system specs.

Again I was pleased with the ut2003 results (see prev post) but I want to test a few more games before I decide what to do - I'm really on the fence here so any more detailed feedback would be great!

Thank you my friends.

 

[BirdRobin]

Well just stick with ur current fx5900 and with some good overclocking u shld be quite happy with the results...

B|rD[RoB|n]

 

[bigglesworth]

But will a good overclocking utility make a difference?

I'm using coolbits and only getting an additional 15 mhz over the default core and memory speeds (see original post). Anything higher than that and the machine locks up when I start a game. I suspect MSI did something to the hardware to prevent any significant overclocking, though it seems the card could easily handle much higher clock speeds. At least based on the standard 5900 and ultra versions, I am assuming the card in theory could handle much more. Perhaps a bios limitation?

I don't know the answer as I'm not a techie, just an enthusiast.

Anyway the moral of the story to this point is a simple one: buyer beware! It seems clear to me that MSI is banking on fooling buyers into thinking they're getting an ultra version as the website ads do not clearly state it's not a full-blown 5900 ultra. They obviously managed to fool me

 

[coylter]

i get a solid 30-60 fps with fullsetting+ 6xaa 16ani 1280x1024 in nfsu :/

And i am locked by my vsync :/

My own beast: Athlon 2700xp+ , Radeon 9800pro (oc: 410/370) , 512mb ddr400. SO MUCH faster than my father pIII 550......<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by coylter on 11/23/03 11:31 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[aznThunder]

The MSI card should perform in between a non ultra and an ultra 5900, unless it somehow has something screwed up in the design. The 5900u has two, and only two advantages over the 5900nu (in terms of performance): 256mb of RAM (which your card has) and a 50mhz faster gpu. You can overclock the gpu speed, but that seems to have problems with this card, which stinks of MSI foul play since other 5900's can get really high up there. Sooo...uh yeah, somewhere in between the two.

"I've got a great new idea for a value product-line! We charge the customer the same price, and we give them a slower product!"
"How is that a value?"
"Oh, it's a value for us, of course."

 

[cleeve]

$330 is way too much for a 5900 non-ultra.

You can get 5900 non-ultras for $220 or a little less.

At $220 they are a good deal; but at $330 they are a total waste. They aren't powerful enough to justify that price, especially when you could get a 9800 PRO for cheaper.

Get yourself a cheap 128 meg 5900 if you are stuck on the geforce line. 256 megs do nothing for real-world performance.
Memory over 128 megs on a video card is an excuse to make the card more expensive for marketing's sake; it won't give you any extra performance.

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

 

[bigglesworth]

Hey Cleeve,

Just because 256 mb doesn't make a difference in almost all of today's games, that doesn't mean it won't soon. My old geforce 4ti 4200 64 mb was starting to show signs of age. I don't think anyone in this forum would argue that 64 mb is enough memory on a card these days for us hardcore gamers.

And pretty soon, 128 mb cards won't be enough to run games with the highest resolutions or details. It's just a matter of time.

One minor concern I have with the card is that the memory only clocks in at 823 mhz with max overclocking. I'm hoping this won't bottleneck the 256 mb ram on the card.

I don't buy the argument that 256 mb is just for marketing, except maybe on the 5600 cards. I just don't see how a 5600 can take advantage of that much memory without bottlenecking. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

[Ion]

Currently games use up 64mb for textures and rest of memory make AA/AF less taxing on the card. By the time majority of games make full use of 128mb, it will be the time that you have to upgrade your card anyway.

PS. i think Doom 3 only use up to 128mb and you gotta be dreaming if your GF4 can run it great. :tongue:

 

[cleeve]

It's not about bottlenecking. It's about texture RAM.

Developers aren't going to develop games for 256 megs of texture RAM because it makes no sense to do so. The majority of cards out there have 32 megs of video Ram.

128 megs will be the de facto standard for another year at least. After which, your card will be too old anyway.

Therefore, 256 megs = useless.

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

 

[bigglesworth]

I seem to remember reading a few benchmarks here and there where the top of the line 256 mb cards outperformed the 128 mb cards. It was super high resolutions with 6xAA and aniso, stuff like that. Unreal Tournament 2003 comes to mind.

Try this link for instance:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030604/radeon_9800-04.html#unreal_tournament_2003

Now, you could argue that in most cases you won't run games that high in resolution or AA, but I would argue that us hardcore gamers are the ones most likely to demand the best. Which is 1600x1200 with 6xAA.

"256 mb = useless" is an exaggeration, useful only in limited situations would be a more accurate way to say it.

 

[Coyote]

bigglesworth, Just to clear up some POTENTIAL confusion. Is that $330 Canadian or US?

XP 2000+
MSI KT3 ULTRA-2 KT333
Maxtor 60GB ATA 133 7200RPM
512MB PC2700
ABIT G4 Ti4200 OTES 64MB
Win98SE

 

[cleeve]

It's still useless because no 5900 non-ultra is fast enough to run a game at 1600+ resolution with high levels of antialiassing.

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

 

[GeneticWeapon]

How do you know...do you own one?....and you said <b>a</b> game...is that the term you really want to use to support your argument?

<b>I help because you suck</b>

 

[bigglesworth]

Responding to prior post, price was $330 US dollars for the sp card.

We could probably start another thread debating the merits of 256 mb of video memory. I'm sticking to my argument that it's unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, but at the highest resolutions with AA and aniso it can make a difference. I suppose one way to show that this applies to the 5900 non-ultras and not just 9800s (see prior post for proof on radeon 9800 pro) would be to compare benchmarks of a non-ultra vs an ultra card where clock speeds are set the same. So, either overclock the non-ultra or underclock the ultra.

Other educated opinions are welcomed. Does everyone really agree that 256 mb is completely and utterly useless as is being suggested here?

 

[lhgpoobaa]

I wouldnt say completely useless... alot like AGP 8X really.

For 98% of things you cant see the difference, except a percentage point or two in controlled benchmarks.

But you DO see a big difference in Cost.
And to many cost matters.

Thats why when people ask about cards i allways recommend the 128mb variants if they can find them.


<b>Lead me not into temptation.
I know the way myself.
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>