Notices

Overclockers Forums > Hardware > Video Cards > General GPU
General GPU
Forum Jump

Anyone gone from TI4200 to FX 5900?

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe Search this Thread
 
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-07-03, 06:42 PM Thread Starter   #1
drexel
Member



Join Date: May 2002

 
Anyone gone from TI4200 64 to FX 5900 128?


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.
drexel is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-07-03, 06:43 PM   #2
sandman001
Just Freeze It



Join Date: Mar 2003

10 Year Badge
 
I can tell you in about a week.
sandman001 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-07-03, 06:47 PM   #3
q149
Member

 
q149's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Japan

 
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
q149 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-07-03, 06:51 PM Thread Starter   #4
drexel
Member



Join Date: May 2002

 
^^^^^^
ATI sabator.

Anyways, it doesnt look like crap now, I just cant use everything I want.
drexel is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-07-03, 06:59 PM   #5
Jimbob7

 
Jimbob7's Avatar 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London, England

 
Quote:
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
Jimbob7 is offline Folding Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-07-03, 07:03 PM   #6
q149
Member

 
q149's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Japan

 
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.
q149 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-07-03, 07:09 PM Thread Starter   #7
drexel
Member



Join Date: May 2002

 
Hey, but what processor speed do you guys have?

Im using xp2200. The 4200 is at 250 500 stock, whats the 5900 run at?
drexel is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-07-03, 07:20 PM   #8
q149
Member

 
q149's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Japan

 
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
q149 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-07-03, 07:22 PM   #9
newg
Member



Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Maine, U.S.A.

 
I was wondering about this same question.....5900 ultra or non-ultra.............
newg is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-07-03, 07:25 PM   #10
JigPu
Inactive Pokémon Moderator

 
JigPu's Avatar 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vancouver, WA

10 Year Badge
 
Quote:
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

__________________
.... ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3
.... Intel Core i5 2500 ........................ 4 thread ...... 3300 MHz ......... -0.125 V
2x ASUS GTX 560 Ti ............................... 1 GiB ....... 830 MHz ...... 2004 MHz
.... G.SKILL Sniper Low Voltage ............. 8 GiB ..... 1600 MHz ............ 1.25 V
.... OCZ Vertex 3 ................................. 120 GB ............. nilfs2 ..... Arch Linux
.... Kingwin LZP-550 .............................. 550 W ........ 94% Eff. ....... 80+ Plat
.... Nocuta NH-D14 ................................ 20 dB ..... 0.35 C°/W ................ 7 V


"In order to combat power supply concerns, Nvidia has declared that G80 will be the first graphics card in the world to run entirely off of the souls of dead babies. This will make running the G80 much cheaper for the average end user."
"GeForce 8 Series." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 7 Aug 2006, 20:59 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 8 Aug 2006.
JigPu is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-07-03, 08:34 PM   #11
q149
Member

 
q149's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Japan

 
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.
q149 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-07-03, 09:35 PM   #12
Sir Barton
Member

 
Sir Barton's Avatar 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fort Pontchartrain du Détroit

 
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.

__________________

main system: Antec P180 | Asus P8Z68V-Pro | i5 2500k (stock) | 8GB HyperX 1600 | Sparkle 560Ti | 120GB HyperX (Wintendo) | 60GB Vertex (Debian)
laptop: Dell Inspiron 11z | Pentium SU4100 | 4GB Crucial 667 | 30GB Vertex
2nd system: Antec P180 | Gigabyte P35-DS3L | E5200 (stock) | 4GB G. Skill 800 | eVGA 9500GT | 60GB Vertex (Mint Debian)
server: Chenbro SR10769 | Supermicro X7DWE | 2x Xeon L5420 | 8GB Kingston FB 667 | 4x 500GB WD Black RAID 10 | 4x Hitachi 7K300.C | Debian 6
media clients: 4x Apple TV 2 | 2x XIOS DS | 3x Squeezebox Duet
Sir Barton is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-08-03, 01:07 AM   #13
Overclocker550
Member

 
Overclocker550's Avatar 

Join Date: Feb 2002

 
id rather suggest a 9700 pro because upcomming games including hl2 dont run so well on fx cards
Overclocker550 is offline   QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


Overclockers Forums > Hardware > Video Cards > General GPU
General GPU
Forum Jump

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Mobile Skin
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
You can add these icons by updating your profile information to include your Heatware ID, Benching Profile ID or your Folding/SETI profile ID. Edit your profile!
X

Welcome to Overclockers.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this the best community on the Internet since 1998!


(4 digit year)

Why Join Us?

  • Share experience
  • Max out your hardware
  • Best forum members anywhere
  • Customized forum experience

Already a member?