• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Happy with Albatron FX5900 thus far.

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

theflyingrat

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2001
Location
St. Paul, MN, USA
As stated in the thread title, I'm pretty happy with this monster so far! The heat sink seems well able to deal with the copious heat generated by this monster, and it's not at all too loud, either. Wish more companies would pick up on that.

Anyhow, the output quality is good. I've played some Morrowind and some Red Orchestra, and there are no funny visual anomalies to complain about so far, either!

So from the stock 400core/850 memory speeds, I have it running what seems to be stable and artifact-free at 470/975 - that's pretty much 5950 territory! All for $199 shipped from Newegg - I can easilly say that it's worth the money so far.

How have everyone else's FX5900 non-Ultras been coming along? What seems to be the average core and memory overclock for these things?
 

Mike360000

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Location
Stokesdale, North Carolina
"As stated in the thread title, I'm pretty happy with this monster so far! The heat sink seems well able to deal with the copious heat generated by this monster, and it's not at all too loud, either. Wish more companies would pick up on that."



I don't consider my eVGA with nvidia's reference fan to be loud.
I've had it now for about a month and I'm perfectly satisfied with it. You can hear the fan at startup or reboot but that's about it. Shows to be running cool too, nvidia temp readings shows it to be about 44C in 2D or normal useage, and the highest I've seen it in 3D gaming was about 61C.
----------------------------------


"Anyhow, the output quality is good. I've played some Morrowind and some Red Orchestra, and there are no funny visual anomalies to complain about so far, either!"



Same here in UT2k3, N2k3, MSCFSim3, and what little I've played of GR. Actually I think mine gives just as good or better pic than my ole Ti44000 did. I know it does from the standpoint of being able to turn on all the eye candy.
------------------------------------


"So from the stock 400core/850 memory speeds, I have it running what seems to be stable and artifact-free at 470/975 - that's pretty much 5950 territory! All for $199 shipped from Newegg - I can easilly say that it's worth the money so far."



From 400/850 stock I have went as high as 500/950 with no artifacting. I guess it could have went higher but I just stopped there at that point. One reason was after hitting 470 core my 3DMark2k1 scores actually started to fall some. My memory oc'ing never fell off, even at 950 oc, but it really wasn't gaining much either, very little. So I just set my memory oc at 925 and left it.

Be sure and check your benchmark scores closely as you oc your gpu because I've read and experienced first hand that the gpu will oc much higher without artifacting but will instead start slowing down in benchmark performance first. I left my gpu oc at 465 in 3D mode. I dunno for sure but different drivers could play a part in this oc'ing as I have read of pretty wide performance/oc'ing ranges from different drivers.
--------------------------------------


"How have everyone else's FX5900 non-Ultras been coming along? What seems to be the average core and memory overclock for these things?"

As I said, 465/925 here.
I have no complaints with my eVGA 5900.

Cheers,
Mike
 
OP
theflyingrat

theflyingrat

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2001
Location
St. Paul, MN, USA
Good to hear someone else is happy with thiers!
On the overclock - actually, playing for long enough, Red Orchestra would begin to artifact at about 485. At 490 or 500, though, it would actually stop artifacting, but slow down greatly, where the thermal throttling would kick in. I'd have never expected that! My guess is that my core's limit is actually at 480 or 485, but the thermal throttling keeps it well within those limits once they have been "exceeded." Just an interesting tidbit I've found.

I have a feeling that these cards could prove popular with the folks who do crazy volt mods and peltier/water cooling... does anyone do this?
 

Mike360000

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Location
Stokesdale, North Carolina
Yeah you may be right about the throttling, but I never saw my temps go over 71C. (61C was mistake I just caught in my 1st post.) As I said though, some peeps said they could oc higher with some drovers over others. I don't fully understand this but it could have something to do with the thresh hold setting in the temp box. That setting does vary for different drivers. You probably are are right about the volt mods, plus it could have something to do with the oc'ing abilities slowing down.
Look in this forum for Walldow's threads on oc'ing his 5700U. That has some interesting tidbits in it. Seesm the 5900 and 5700s shares the same types of voltage controls.

Cheers,
Mike
 

sandman001

Just Freeze It
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
I have mine, it's a BFG Asylum. Isn't loud, has two fans, big copper heatsink.

Vmodded.
 

Bailey

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Damn, those are some nice speeds. I'm still @ 450/900 w/ my XFX5900 - but then I'm just too chicken - lol. I did manage to get it to 475/950 w/o any issues - temp never went over 45c according to Nvidia.
 

Mike360000

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Location
Stokesdale, North Carolina
They do oc very nicely. I wouldn't be surprised if I couldn't run 500/1000 with continued performance increases to that point, with the right tweaks. But if you think the 5900s oc good, you ought'ta look at the 5700s! Now them v cards will oc to the EXTREME.
Look for threads with a fellow called Walldow. He's past 600/1100 with his 5700!

Cheers,
Mike
 
OP
theflyingrat

theflyingrat

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2001
Location
St. Paul, MN, USA
That'll certainly be interesting to see direct performance comparissons between the non-Ultra FX5900s and the FX5700 Ultras when fully OCed... my guess is that the FX5700 will still lag behind quite a bit...

Funny - when you find reviews of the FX5700 Ultra, they're always against the 9600 Pro/XT and 5600, rarely with any mention of the FX5900, which really sometimes costs less than the 5700s...

Man, I wish I had a whole slough of this equipment sitting right here in front of me... I'd do it all myself! :D
 

Mike360000

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Location
Stokesdale, North Carolina
My brother has a eVGA 5700U and it is for all practical purposes as fast as my 5900nu. Although he is oc'ed about 540/1000.
Actually he was still within about 10% of my eVGA5900nu when he was at stock speeds. I think many peeps who complains about these v cards hasn't ever actaually seen one in action. Or have seen them in action on slower puters or the system had problems. Or they were lying. Or they are Ati fanboys.

Cheers,
Mike

Cheers,
Mike
 

walldow

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Location
the bluegrass state
theflyingrat said:
That'll certainly be interesting to see direct performance comparissons between the non-Ultra FX5900s and the FX5700 Ultras when fully OCed... my guess is that the FX5700 will still lag behind quite a bit...

Funny - when you find reviews of the FX5700 Ultra, they're always against the 9600 Pro/XT and 5600, rarely with any mention of the FX5900, which really sometimes costs less than the 5700s...

Man, I wish I had a whole slough of this equipment sitting right here in front of me... I'd do it all myself! :D

you also have to remember the 5900 has two advatages over the 5700. number one 8 pipes v's 4 pipes. number two the 5700 is only running 128 bit memory interface. while still running a 256 bit core. the 5900 runs 256 bit core and 256 bit memory! so those two in them selves make the 5900 a better card. there is no question there.

i'm hitting 5115 3dmarks in 2003, @720mhz core and 1070mhz memory with my 5700 ultra! hehe.;)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1714858

there is a link to screen shot of clock speeds in this project!id say the 5700 ultra is one of the badest 4 pipes cards out!
:eek:

no one is aying the 5700 is better than the 5900.it's just better than any other 4 piped card around!
 
OP
theflyingrat

theflyingrat

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2001
Location
St. Paul, MN, USA
Oh, it's definitely better (or competitve with... I've seen the FX5700 get thrashed in more than a few games by the 9600XT,) than all the 4-piped cards around, but the fact still stands : an FX5700 Ultra is, in the best case, only $10 cheaper than a standard 400core/850 memory (by Newegg's price listings,) FX5900. The cheapest FX5700 Ultra listed is $190, including shipping... my FX5900 only cost me $199.

I have been keen to notice, though, that old QIII-based games love brute clock speed, especially memory clock, and tend to really fly with the FX5700 cards...
 

Kenshiro

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Bailey said:
Damn, those are some nice speeds. I'm still @ 450/900 w/ my XFX5900 - but then I'm just too chicken - lol. I did manage to get it to 475/950 w/o any issues - temp never went over 45c according to Nvidia.

I have the same card, but can't get above 450/900 stable.

FYI to everyone, I bought mine at $176 after rebate. Still waiting for my rebate though.
 

qwerty57

BANNED TROLL-Silversinksam
Joined
Jun 28, 2002
yeah 5700ultra is a POS vs. the 5900NU I can do 668/1020 24/7 with my 5900NU and compared to the 5700u no ocmparisan but like ya said a 4 pipe card is awsowe