Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

5900XT or 5900 or 5900 ultra

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 29, 2004 4:41:03 PM

Hi
I don't know which is best.
Has anyone used any of these cards? What's the screen resolution / rendering / speed like?

I'm thinking of buying the FX 5900 Ultra.
The cheapest I've found it is £170 / $300!!

Is it worth going for the 5900 Ultra over the 5900. There is a big price difference, and I'm wondering if it's worth it.
Any help will be much appreciated.

P.S. I do alot of 3d animation/modelling so I need a really quick graphics card that isn't too expensive ($150-250)

More about : 5900xt 5900 5900 ultra

January 29, 2004 5:18:02 PM

Dont do that...buy a radeon 9800 pro 128! Cheaper and with better performance. In quality the diference is huge! I bought a 5900Ultra and the performance with AA and Aniso was not great... so I've changed to a 9800 Pro and I'me trully satisfied with it! Look at the VGA Chart III in Tom's graphics guide!
January 29, 2004 5:29:43 PM

I wouldn't bother with the 5900 ULTRA... too expensive for the price... but if you want the best bang for your buck, the 5900XT is an amazing buy at the $200 price point.

It's a full-fledged 5900 with lower GPU/Memory clocks than the 5900 ULTRA. Can't beat that for the price... and memory bandwidth isn't as important for CAD work.

The 9800 PRO is a better card for gaming, but frankly it's a bit more expensive, and IMHO Nvidia still has the best OGL drivers for cad/modelling work.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
Related resources
January 29, 2004 5:56:40 PM

So which should I go for......
Radeon 9800 pro OR GeForce 5900 Ultra??
both are $290

or save my money and go for
GeForce 5900 ($220)

I am having a really hard time deciding, especially since so much cash involved!!

My main problem with my graphics card that I currently have on my PC (which is a GeForce 4 MX 440 128MB) is that I have to wait ages for my images to render (as I do alot of 3D modelling)!!
So I'm now looking 4 a card with the quickest graphics, and sharpest image quality? (for as little cash as possible ofcourse)

Thanks for your imput!!
January 29, 2004 6:09:44 PM

Get a good solid 5900Ultra. Its worth the little extra cash.
Which package(s) will you be using?
For games Ati are unquestionably better, but for 3D apps, i would still recommend Nvidia, especially for open GL stuff. I use 3DStudio Max.

With the 5900Ultra, most cards are flashable to 5950 speeds, and almost all can be softmodded into a QuaddroFX3000- which gives INSANE pro 3d power.
I know, ive tried it ;) 

............................................
Render times? You'll find me down the pub...
January 29, 2004 6:29:00 PM

Mojo dude, I just said the 5900 ULTRA isn't worth the cash for CAD stuff.

Go for the cheaper 5900 non-ultra, or 5900XT.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
January 29, 2004 6:41:29 PM

I don't use 3DStudioMax, but I use packages similar to it....Maya(animation program used to make Final Fantasy), and MicroStation(3D architectural modelling program).

I don't know how to soft mode graphics cards...is it easy?
(I should say that you're talking to someone who doesn't know how to overclock a computer yet!!!)
January 29, 2004 7:03:10 PM

If you are using maya, i would still go with the ultra, i think the little extra money will be worth it, even if you do not mod it or overclock, it will give you a more stable solution.
There is nothing worse than having a program crash on you halfway through modelling a head, just because you saved a few pounds, think of it as an investment :) 

............................................
Render times? You'll find me down the pub...
January 29, 2004 11:32:26 PM

Just curious, how would a 5900ultra be more stable than 5900/5900XT???

Asus A7N8X Deluxe, Xp 2500+(3200+), 512MB RAM, Radeon 9500Pro
January 31, 2004 4:48:18 AM

Because the XT really ISNT worth the cash, specially since you can flash the 5900Ultra to the same bios (better fan speed, lower ram latency= higher oc's) and i kinda think of the non-ultra's as the ones that didnt quite make the grade! Remember, this is not gaming we are talking about, but 3Dwork.

............................................
Render times? You'll find me down the pub...
January 31, 2004 5:38:12 AM

:D 
dammit! Get your dirty poop off my monitor! Do you know how long these take to clean?!!! Jeez!

...thats why i leave that earth in the kitchen!

............................................
Render times? You'll find me down the pub...
January 31, 2004 10:45:31 AM

5900XT is the slowest outa 5900 series btw, dont confuse it with radeon series. :tongue:

Btw if you want stability why would you want to OC your card...

Non ultra's core is the same as ultra except they couldn't reach ultra clock with great stability therefore they are down clocked and sold as non ultra. Same goes for CPU too. :wink:

Asus A7N8X Deluxe, Xp 2500+(3200+), 512MB RAM, Radeon 9500Pro
!