Going to buy FX 5900, but...

Thanks god that, I received extra money and make me able to buy a good card. Due to the prices are no a big different between Radeon 9700 Pro and Geforce FX 5900, so I decided to invest either MSI (cheaper) or Leadtek FX 5900 (128MB) for another 18 months or longer… But, does the fans noisy? Louder than 5800 ultra? And the most critical problem is, does it compatible with my following system?

AMD Athlon XP 1800+ (no OC’ed)
MSI KT333 Ultra (AGP 4x)
512 MB DDR 266 CL2
Samsung CD-ROM 52x
Sony CDRW 24/10/40
Creative Vibra 128
Another 4 free PCI Slots
MEC 250w (will buy either Enermax 350w or 400w)
40 GB 7200rpm HDD
Windows 98se/2K/XP

it's pretty quiet, I never notice it, though I have an AC running in my room, however you'll probably have the same issue i'm having where your system will hold back the card, with my current system it was only a minor boost in performance over my geforce 4 ti4400.

stinky pooo pooo the 5900 non ultra is crapy dont was your money on that man get the radeon 9800pro instead or save couple more bills and get the 5900ultra... case nonpro had crappy benchmark... for its money... but its up to you..

id go with what vietp13 said, even though i know that ATi is better lol

yeah definitely get a 9800pro... way better image quality and faster in most cases too... (especially if you only have an athlonxp 1800+) and just in case you ask ATI's drivers are just as good if not better than nvidias and has been since they started the catalyst series of drivers....

Cowboy X said:

The 5900 ultra is a very good performer but the much cheaper 9800 Pro 128 meg card keeps up or even beats it some times , while having better image quality . Getting a plain 5900 and oc'ing it to Ultra speeds or beyond is much more sensible . Having said that I'd get the 128 meg 9800 pro for the following reasons :

1/ 256 meg 9800pro is too expensive and gives few advantages .

2/ FX 5900 cards' image quality just isn't as good .

3/ Nvidia has done so much cheating and low quality driver hacks recently that II'd wait for the dust to settle before taking a plunge on any FX card, or better yet, wait til NV40 . In fact Beyond 3d just proved that in the latest driver set higher FSAA isn't working at 1600 x 1200 even if you turn them on (http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/albatron/gffx5600pturbo/index.php?p=5#ut2003 ) . Thus making me skeptical when I see results for those settings . Add to that the fact that the FX cards have been shown by Firingsquad.com to sudenly do worse than normal in both Q3 and Ut2003 if any custom demos are used .Thus I think my skepticism is quite justified .

4/ Just as with the custom demos thing , the 9800 pro does very well even in games which are popular but not common benchmarks such as sports games , Warcraft 3 , Dungeon Seige etc . The 9800 pro does'nt only do well in the common benchmark maps of the most benched shooters but across the board . Check out Extremetech's reviews which often do alot more varied tests than others .

5/ Shader performance on the 9800 series is several times better than the FX line and is thus more future proof for next gen games' next gen effects ( in direct 3d in particular ) . This is proven in Shadermark , 3dMark 2003 build 330 and Splinter Cell .

6/ Beware the Evga oc'ed 5900U , apparently on their forums there is a host of people who want their $$ back due to various malfunctions and bugs . ( I haven't checked personally but a friend of mine did .

7/ Driver-wise , the Catalyst and Omega ATI drivers of the last few months have actually been more stable and have in less bugs than the recent detonators . So believe it or not ATI's drivers are actually the better ones right now , and official drivers come out more often than Nvidia ( not betas ) , with improvenments other than just 3dmark increases .

8/ Save $100 with the 128 meg 9800 pro


I know I have the longest post here so far . Some have heard me say some of this before and some may even say I'm beating a dead horse . But I am quite convinced that the current benchmark numbers on the 5900u do not show the full picture and a $500+ price is not the type of $$ the average person can spend to experiment . Importantly I can backup everything I have said and point to facts .................. this is not a fanboy's rant or an ATI vs Nvidia post .

Click to expand...

Read this, most of it applies to this topic. Thanks for the great post Cowboy X.

2.) people need to stop harping in the FX's IQ, yes it sucked with older drivers pre-release, with the current drivers on a production card there's nothing wrong with the IQ.

3.) that was the FX5600 that had issues with the 1600x1200 higher FSAA, i've yet to see anyone say that was an issue with the FX5900, nor has any other review on any of the FX cards had that issue.

6.) that's only an issue with the very first EVGA cards (I have one), the refference bios fixes the problems temporaily while they fix the perfomrance bios.

7.) i've yet to have a driver problem with a nvidia card, however i've used programs that simply would not run on an ATI without serious problems.

simply put a lot of the things people keep bringing up against the FX lines of cards are not true, a lot are issues with pre-release cards, just because nvidia had one flop, the FX5800 ultra, it doesn't mean all their products now suck, how long did ATI have crap products, 2-3 years?

I would do one of the following:

A.) Buy a Sapphire Radeon 9500 Non Pro 'L' Shaped 128mb for 139 on Newegg, then softmod it to a Radeon 9700 non pro, then OC, but if you have all that money to spend get the nicest HSF and then OC the sucker 25 percent. Then take all that extra money and get more Memory, since as we all know, memory is the biggest bottleneck to any computer

B.) No games are going to need that GPU, at least not until DECEMBER OR LATER, so in the mean time save your pennies and wait until Half-Life2 or DOOMIII comes out then get the nicest GPU out there then, it will probably be on a PCI Express format, so you going to have to get a new Mobo too.

And if you have to get a card right now, well get the Gainward FX 5900 Ultra, check out these benchmarks to prove it

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030512/geforce_fx_5900-28.html

by the way, since tomshardware was aware of Nvidia cheating on benchmarks well before the 5900 ultra came out, i'm sure when they recieved the card, the first thing they did was put it back to stock, probably same thing for all cards they recieve, i think as i look at it that the 5900 ultra beats the Radeon 9800 256meg in EVERY BENCHMARK, and as you see the testing comp is in fact an AMD, and you have amd, so you will probably get similar results

Nvidia's only good card right now is the 5900Ultra... and the GF4's. The rest of the FX line is poo. IMHO... for the money the 9800 pro is better for the money than the 5900 non ultra.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=3x5900u&page=3

Just take a peak at this review. In this review the 5900ULTRA loses every time to the 9800 pro, and even loses somtimes to the 9700 pro. And this is the Ultra.. not the non ultra. This review uses non standard benchmarks/games, so the drivers probably dont have any cheats for them.

I really think if your hell bent on Nvidia... you cant go with anything less than the 5900Ultra. However that kind of blind allegiance is just going to make you waste your money.

Im about what card is best... and the morals of the company. Right now... ATI's winning both battles.

But seriously... I think you should just wait. There is no point in spending big bucks on either a 9800 or a 5900. ATI is going to come out with the Radeon 9900 here right before Doom 3 and HL2 come out.. and the 9900 is supposed to tear the 5900ultra a new one. So Id say wait for that. If the 9900 isnt what its cracked up to be... then get a 5900 then... it will be cheaper then also.

Also where are you getting this info that there isnt a big price difference between a 9700pro and a 5900nu? The 9700 pro can be had for more than $100 dollars less.

Seriosly JonWessel... not to many people taske Tom's Dufware to seriously. I suggest you get your reviews from a few more sources. People stopped trusting Tom a while back. Just thought you would like to know... but hey if you like Tom's by all means continue to go their. Just a heads up...

well i didn't know, can you give me some other more reliable sources to get benchmarks from?

but yes i agree with him, WAIT UNTIL A GAME ACTAULLY USES A GPU THAT GOOD, then save money and get the best PCI Express card and then get a new mobo, also in the mean time get more memory

I like GamePc, Anandtech, Firingsquad, Xbit labs, Just to name a few of the places that I still have trust in. Though Anandtech made a few... stupid blunders in a recent 5600 review... Ill give them a few more chances. However Tom and [H] have gone over the limit, and I no longer visit either sites.

Also If you want some examples on why many people think Toms a total idiot just search the forums.

Heck... only last week... Toms hardware tried to block out all other media to the Million Man Lan 2. They tried to embargo all other media.. and part of AMD was in on it... it was very disconcerting, however AMD claims it was a local decision and not what management had wanted, I guess a couple of AMD reps made some underhand deals with THG to give them exclusive access, even behind the backs of the MML2 people. THG tried to block out AMDMB.com's editors from attending, theres a article on it at AMDMB.com if this interests you. This is just a fraction of the crap THG has done.

But anyway back to the main point of the thread...

Id wait for the new 9900 pro... if it does what they say it can... id get that when it comes out. If it doesnt.. get the 5900ultra then... for cheaper, and you can play D3 and HL2, till your eyes bleed.

I honestly think that with your current system, its going to be a HUGE HUGE bottleneck for any card above a 9500pro. I know right now the 4x doesn't make a difference but its better to have 8x because it will matter later on. Also, a 1800+ is not gonna give enough juice so see a difference between a 5900nu and say a 9700np. I'm not trying to rag on your system because its just fine if it gets the job done, I just think that its a waste of money to buy a video card that won't be used anywhere to its full potential....unless you plan upgrading soon.

i've said it before and i'll say it one more time. reviews can be paid for and benchmarks can be optimized for. real world performance is what matters. the 5900's flop on games that ati's cards play flawlessly. there isn't a game out that the ATI cards won't play as intended. Nvidia can't make the same claims. ATI is better at this time. if you only play games that Nvidia designed their stuff to work with than fine get the FX if you want to. if you want unquestionable compatibility go ATI.

that's 100% not true, there are plenty of games that flop on ATI, off the top of my head I know planetside has issues with ATI cards and has had them since beta and they are still unable to resolve them, my nvidia card runs it flawlessly as it does any other game i've played. and also ATI cards are total crap when it comes to any profesional 3D software such as modeling programs, nvidia MX cards are more stable and run better on them than fire GL cards do.

never heard of planet side and no one buys ATI cards for or cares about stability in professional 3D software. if you do than you're obviously looking at the wrong cards.

heh, well that's true, people who use professional 3D software know how crappy ATI cards are including their workstation cards ment for it, for my home PC that is important to me as I do use professional 3D software on my computer as well as games and I know i'm not the only person that runs that type of software at home and would need that requirment.

http://planetside.station.sony.com/

shiltz said:

that's 100% not true, there are plenty of games that flop on ATI, off the top of my head I know planetside has issues with ATI cards and has had them since beta and they are still unable to resolve them, my nvidia card runs it flawlessly as it does any other game i've played. and also ATI cards are total crap when it comes to any profesional 3D software such as modeling programs, nvidia MX cards are more stable and run better on them than fire GL cards do.

Click to expand...

I have a LOT of the most recent releases because I like to game. I also have many different types of games. The ATI and nVidia cards I own rarely have an issue that isnt fixed in the next driver update or by the game manufacturer with a patch. The fact is that most games with "issues" are just poorly written or tested and it isnt the fault of ATI or nVidia. Just a sample...WC3, MOHHA, SpearHead, Rise of Nations, Unreal2, GhostRecon, AA and others. No probelms with ATI 9500, no problems with GeForce...

Also anyone buying a consumer level graphics card for pro 3D app's is an idiot so dont bother with that argument....

planet side appears to have issues with AMD CPU's as well. sounds like an issue for sony not an issue for ATI.

shiltz said:

that's 100% not true, there are plenty of games that flop on ATI, off the top of my head I know planetside has issues with ATI cards and has had them since beta and they are still unable to resolve them, my nvidia card runs it flawlessly as it does any other game i've played. and also ATI cards are total crap when it comes to any profesional 3D software such as modeling programs, nvidia MX cards are more stable and run better on them than fire GL cards do.

Click to expand...

there was no problem with ati and planetside during the beta. I have a 9700 np and play it for the beta and it work flawlessly. All my other games worth perfectly too. The only thing is the cs delay and I don't really care about that. Also 3d software like 3d studio max works great with ati. Use that program with my card it and it ran better then any nvidia card I had. Maybe you should buy an ATI card and find out for your self. I have tryed both Nvidia, ATI and 3dfx. And out of all of them ATI is the winner for me. Drivers are getting better each time they bring a new one out.