[drexel]

Just wondering about getting an upgrade. Need to know if its worth the money. So, if youve gone from 4200(64 or 128) to 5900(128), can you give me an idea on the performance increase on, say UT2K3?

Include your CPU, please.

[sandman001]

I can tell you in about a week.

[q149]

It's a huge difference. I have a 5900 and used to have a Ti4200
And you will be able to use very high quality settings, instead of haivng it look like crap

[drexel]

^^^^^^
ATI sabator.

Anyways, it doesnt look like crap now, I just cant use everything I want.

[Jimbob7]

Originally posted by drexel
^^^^^^
ATI sabator.

Anyways, it doesnt look like crap now, I just cant use everything I want.

Yes you can have everything on that you want but with the new card there will be a picture quality increase

[q149]

The main thing is that you can turn all the mipmap details, image quality stuff, anti-aliasing, and aniso-tropic filtering all up. You won't see any more jagged edges or crap anymore, and everything will just looks so much better.

After you use highe quality then not using it will start looking like crap for you.

[drexel]

Hey, but what processor speed do you guys have?

Im using xp2200. The 4200 is at 250 500 stock, whats the 5900 run at?

[q149]

Mine is in my sig but it's really a little lower now but over 3.6

a regular 5900 is 400/700 or you can get them up to 400/850

I think the ones at 700 are 128 bit memory bus and higher ones are 256 bit

Ultra is 450/850 256 bit 256mb

[newg]

I was wondering about this same question.....5900 ultra or non-ultra.............

[JigPu]

Originally posted by q149
The main thing is that you can turn all the mipmap details, image quality stuff, anti-aliasing, and aniso-tropic filtering all up. You won't see any more jagged edges or crap anymore, and everything will just looks so much better.

After you use highe quality then not using it will start looking like crap for you.

I can't stand running with all the settings off any more Only time they go down to performance is for 3DMark, and only after a bit of debating with myself

I've got a R9500, and it pulls ~60-70FPS in UT2K3 with all goodies maxed out (on an XP1800+ @ 1024x768). Since the 5900 is faster but slows down more with goodies, I wouldn't expect it to be much slower than what I'm getting under similar conditions.

JigPu

[q149]

I can't either, i need perfect graphics

I don't know about FX 5900 slowing down alot with high settings though, i don't notice it. i max everything to the max in games and drivers at 1280x1024 except aa and af.

My 5900 is quite a bit faster at stock speeds than my 9600p that's way past XT speeds with maxed settings and high aa/af on both cards and also with performance settings, so i don't think he would get slower performance than your 9500 with highe settings.

My 5900 is a 256 bit that comes clocked at 400/850.. I know there is some that come 400/700 and they may be 128 bit, in that case i don't know about them.

The graphics look very different between the two overall.. i think i like how my FX graphics look better than ATI. 2x aa 2x af on my 5900 looks less jagged than 4x aa 16x af on ATI i think, so you really don't even need to use as much.

[Sir Barton]

my 5700U, which is basically a neutered 5900nu, blows away my old Ti4800. kinda wish i got a 5900nu instead, but my 5700U clocks high and runs all of my games without stuttering.

[Overclocker550]

id rather suggest a 9700 pro because upcomming games including hl2 dont run so well on fx cards