View Full Version : 5800 Utlra
Does anyone have any experience with these cards. I just traded my comp for a downgraded one, plus a lot of extras, and the 5800 Ultra was one of them. I am on a super budget gaming rig, and I was just wondering, if this card is capable of playing Counter-Strike:Source? How much do you think someone would pay for this card too?
cj_remix
08-11-05, 11:29 AM
This card is a shame of nVidia... I dont advice to buy it... the 5th series of nVidia cards (i mean GeForces) is not so good as 9th series of Ati card... A think that buying 5800 Ultra it is not good idea... it will be better to buy Radeon 9800 or 9600 XT, but if you decided to buy only this card (5800 Ultra) i guess its price is 60$ and not more...
About CS Source: on the medium graphic settings u will see about 25-30 fps :)
Ehh, I got it for free, and I don't play Source with anything but low graphics, even when I had my x800 pro, this card would be going in my spare computer, in which a Cal member comes over and plays his matches on, and it is also used as a come-over-whenever-you-want-and-play-on-it computer. The computer that I am receiving has a 9700 pro in it, I do not care what FPS I get, as long as it will never drop down below 30, and it is playable, right now, the computer I play 1.6 on, if I tun in smoke, my fps drops to 0...so I do not care what it looks like, just as long as it plays...
cj_remix
08-11-05, 11:54 AM
So u want change 9700 Pro for 5800 Ultra?
9700Pro is better than 5800Ultra - if u have 0 fps with smoke - change smoke settings for "low"
I should imagine an FX5800 Ultra is perfectly fine for CS:S with all on high + no AA + no AF @ 1024x768 resolution, provided you have 768mb of ram or more. This is considering my FX5900XT can do that with no hiccups.
No, if you read my post, the 5800 Ultra is going in my budget gaming rig, the one that gets 0 FPS in smoke(1.6 not source), and the 9700Pro will most likely get replaced with a 5900 or a 5950. I only need the 5800 Ultra to play Source with all settings on low with a modified config to take all of the extras out.
cj_remix
08-11-05, 08:22 PM
5800 Ultra is very very unpowerful card that worse than 5700 or 5600, but I think CS Sourse will be capable to run comfortable on this card (in the low graphic)
stratcatprowlin
08-11-05, 09:30 PM
5800 Ultra is very very unpowerful card that worse than 5700 or 5600, but I think CS Sourse will be capable to run comfortable on this card (in the low graphic)
Ummm...No.The 5800ultra is better than the 5700 ot 5700ultra as well.
It should have nooooo problem running Source.
People play Source with 5200's.
football
08-11-05, 09:37 PM
5800 Ultra is very very unpowerful card that worse than 5700 or 5600, but I think CS Sourse will be capable to run comfortable on this card (in the low graphic)
Are you saying 5800U<5700/5600?
I know it's more than a 5600, and has to be just as good if not better than the fastest performing 5700U.
I play source with a FX5200 everything on high cept AA on 800x600 so im guessing that card can play it on 1024x768 just fine.
-_{MoW}_-Assasi
08-12-05, 05:46 AM
well actually, my friend played source with a geforce 2 mx 400 :D
lol at him :D
well anyway, he played under medium with about 25 fps
cj_remix
08-12-05, 10:05 AM
Are you saying 5800U<5700/5600?
I know it's more than a 5600, and has to be just as good if not better than the fastest performing 5700U.
A u sure??? why?? Because number 5800>5700/5600??? Lol!!
Some facts:
3D mark 2001:
5600 - 11263 Marks
5700 - 16093 Marks
5800 Ultra - 9814(!!!) Marks
Have u any more questions?
A u sure??? why?? Because number 5800>5700/5600??? Lol!!
Some facts:
3D mark 2001:
5600 - 11263 Marks
5700 - 16093 Marks
5800 Ultra - 9814(!!!) Marks
Have u any more questions?
what was that 5800ultra in for a computer, a PIII 800Mhz? lol. 2001 is horible for compairing video cards because it's scores are based more off the CPU, I found 2001 score with a 5800 ultra that beat my initual scores with my 7800GTX because I hadn't O/Ced my CPU yet so it held back my score.
the 5800 ultra was actualy a pretty decent card and is very underated because it was horible on the initial benchmarks done on it because they were done with very bad beta drivers, with newer released drivers it was pretty good.
look... http://techreport.com/etc/2004q3/doom3-midlow/index.x?pg=5
you will clearly see that the FX5800Ultra is a much better card than any FX5700 series or below and can even give my FX5900XT a run for its money.
stratcatprowlin
08-12-05, 03:29 PM
A u sure??? why?? Because number 5800>5700/5600??? Lol!!
Some facts:
3D mark 2001:
5600 - 11263 Marks
5700 - 16093 Marks
5800 Ultra - 9814(!!!) Marks
Have u any more questions?
You call those facts?
Anyway The 5800ultra was the top of the line FX untill Nvidia realized that the 128bit memory interface couldn't compete with Ati's 9800 pro so they made the 5900 series.
inferno016
08-12-05, 05:11 PM
5600 - 11263 Marks
5700 - 16093 Marks
5800 Ultra - 9814(!!!) Marks
hahaha :p 6000points difference with a card that is higher rated. yea right
cj_remix
08-12-05, 06:11 PM
Oooohhh... sorry!!! my mistake...
5600 - 11263
5700Ultra - 16093
5800Ultra - 15923 (I saw on the wrong string early)
But u can see, that 5700U=16093 and 5800U=15923... 200 marks in the plus for 5700 :)... I was mistaken with an advantage of 5600 upon 5800Ultra, but was right with this advantage of 5700U :)
And I hope u know (especially inferno016) that 5800 was realesed after the 4th GeForce series... so NV30 was the shame of nVidia because of their wrong rating for this card...
But 5800 Ultra get more marks than 9700(~15000 marks)..
2001 is horible for compairing video cards because it's scores are based more off the CPU, I found 2001 score with a 5800 ultra that beat my initual scores with my 7800GTX because I hadn't O/Ced my CPU yet so it held back my score.
It is true only with very unpowerful CPU (as PIII 800 Mhz :) )
Anyway The 5800ultra was the top of the line FX untill Nvidia realized that the 128bit memory interface couldn't compete with Ati's 9800 pro so they made the 5900 series.
I also posted that 5800 was the first card after the 4th series... so, cards with less rating (as 5700 or 5700U) was approximately on the same level (for 5700) or in a little higher (as 5700U)....
Sorry for my mistake... I'll try not to repeat it ;)
stratcatprowlin
08-12-05, 06:48 PM
It is true only with very unpowerful CPU (as PIII 800 Mhz :) )
Nope.There can be avery big point difference between an A64 and say a Pentium4 of the same rating.It's a very cpu/fsb oriented test.
football
08-12-05, 07:02 PM
Enough of the joking, 5800U is better than a 5600U or 5700U. And yes, just because of the number. :rolleyes:
David Coleman
08-12-05, 07:03 PM
Oooohhh... sorry!!! my mistake...
5600 - 11263
5700Ultra - 16093
5800Ultra - 15923 (I saw on the wrong string early)
But u can see, that 5700U=16093 and 5800U=15923... 200 marks in the plus for 5700 :)... I was mistaken with an advantage of 5600 upon 5800Ultra, but was right with this advantage of 5700U :)
And I hope u know (especially inferno016) that 5800 was realesed after the 4th GeForce series... so NV30 was the shame of nVidia because of their wrong rating for this card...
But 5800 Ultra get more marks than 9700(~15000 marks)..
It is true only with very unpowerful CPU (as PIII 800 Mhz :) )
I also posted that 5800 was the first card after the 4th series... so, cards with less rating (as 5700 or 5700U) was approximately on the same level (for 5700) or in a little higher (as 5700U)....
Sorry for my mistake... I'll try not to repeat it ;)
5800u always beats 5700u all things considered. More pipes, faster clocks.
I used to have a 5800nu that would clock over ultra speeds. It was a pretty good DX8 card. A bit sketchy on DX9 shaders, but all FX series are.
My best 5800 score (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8128921) was when I had an IQYHA at 12x210.
I have an applebred now at 12x200 with my R350 9800pro, so the 64kb cache hurts benches, but it's still very close (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8678267) to the XP-M/NV30 setup.
The top 5800 score is 26430 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8235414) with an FX55/BH5 etc etc.
The top 9700 score is 28099 ( http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8281125) with a higher clocked Athon64.
So, they're comparable. I've had an R300, an NV30, and a host of other cards on this setup. They were both pretty comparable in benchmarks, and both gamed well.
So there are "facts". Enjoy.
cj_remix
08-12-05, 07:11 PM
OK... 2001 Makrk based on CPU, but "my" results were got on the same compures.
mrgreenjeans
08-14-05, 10:30 AM
I have a PNY 5800ultra on my office rig now, it was on the rig in my sig, and at those settings it ran the following benchies: aquamark3d; 6,159/10,667/47,791 and on 3d01 posted a 17,154 and on 3d03; 5,926. Those are the last benchies ran before being upgraded to the current card.
The main drawback on the 5800 ultra was the fan noise, which had it dissed before it got out the gate and then ATI came right behind with the 256 pipe and that was all she wrote. I know I played farcry at 1600 x 1200, 2 x AA and atriscopic with no drops or staggers.
Back to your question, it'll work fine on the other computer and might be pleasantly surprised with the results. Good luck and happy gaming! :cool:
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.