- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 804
- Reaction score
- 0
Until very recently, the only 5900's in circulation where nVidia's own 'reference' cards...the ones they sent out to manufacturers to base their own designs on. The chipset is the same on all of them...it's what each producer does to it that makes one card stand out above the others, and usually the focus is on the way the GPU is cooled and the noise kept to a minimum. Makers like MSI, Creative, Leadtek and Asus have all brought out their variations now, but I haven't specified a brand in this thread yet, as the jury is still out on which falvour is best.
Why not an ULTRA? Ultra's differ from the 'basic' 5900's in only two main ways:
First, The Ultra's core/mem speeds are 450/850-900Mhz
Basic 5900's are 400/850Mhz (I think)
But basic 5900's have already been shown to be readily clockable at close to or even exceeding 450/900Mhz, while Ultra's are likely to be less clockable beyond their default.
Second, Ultra's have 256Mb onboard ram, compared to 128Mb on the basic 5900...but the additional ram offers no tangible benefits in any current application. By the time the extra memory proves useful, you will probably have upgraded your card again anyway.
Is that difference really worth the extra £100 ??
What about the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro? Superb card and while it stole the show from the hot and noisy nVidia 5800's, it has been knocked back in most (but not all) comparisons with the 5900's at the kind of settings that most people probably use (OK, I may get some complaints for saying that).
It's probably worth noting as well that if you, like me haven't already got an ATI card in your system, if you do decide to swap to one, then you might have to wipe and re-install your OS, while nVidias tend to simply cope with whatever system you stick 'em in. (At least that's what I've heard)
Why not an ULTRA? Ultra's differ from the 'basic' 5900's in only two main ways:
First, The Ultra's core/mem speeds are 450/850-900Mhz
Basic 5900's are 400/850Mhz (I think)
But basic 5900's have already been shown to be readily clockable at close to or even exceeding 450/900Mhz, while Ultra's are likely to be less clockable beyond their default.
Second, Ultra's have 256Mb onboard ram, compared to 128Mb on the basic 5900...but the additional ram offers no tangible benefits in any current application. By the time the extra memory proves useful, you will probably have upgraded your card again anyway.
Is that difference really worth the extra £100 ??
What about the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro? Superb card and while it stole the show from the hot and noisy nVidia 5800's, it has been knocked back in most (but not all) comparisons with the 5900's at the kind of settings that most people probably use (OK, I may get some complaints for saying that).
It's probably worth noting as well that if you, like me haven't already got an ATI card in your system, if you do decide to swap to one, then you might have to wipe and re-install your OS, while nVidias tend to simply cope with whatever system you stick 'em in. (At least that's what I've heard)
