Neoseeker : : : : NVidia GeForce FX5900 Ultra P/Review

NVidia GeForce FX5900 Ultra P/Review - PAGE 1

, Howard Ha
- Monday, May 12th, 2003
Like Share






Get updates when we publish new articles

Comments

Sort by date: ascending descending
0 thumbs!
^
CleavesF Jul 23, 06
Yeah the Radeon 9500/9700/9800 series really took the videocard market by storm.

The 9700 is actually the card that converted me from ATI. That was my upgrade from my Voodoo 5500. I refused to buy Nvidia at the time.
0 thumbs!
^
Iceguy2003 Jul 23, 06
Very dead topic, but I don't agree with it.

9800PRO > 5900 .... Period.

I can't believe the reviewer was so hip on comparing it in Doom 3 (an openGL game where everyone knows NVidia cards do better). Should have tried a little tribes vengeance or Half-Life 2. Eh, oh well, we all know the 9800PRO was the best card of it's time, and the only thing NVidia brought out later that could defeat it was the 6800GT, using twice the pipelines.
0 thumbs!
^
ParanahJoe Jul 23, 06
Then there was FX 5900
0 thumbs!
^
Chris Gianettino Jul 23, 06
way to open a really dead topic.
0 thumbs!
^
aod420247 Jul 23, 06
the whole monitor thing is correct. inless you dont have a 22 inch lcd, id say its time to junk that 17 inch emachines model and go for something beefy...the sony multiscan e500 is a 200 model, but let me tell you 1280x1024 at 120hz and 1600x1200 at 100 hz and 2048x1536 at 79hz is awesome!
0 thumbs!
^
DarksideCommander Aug 21, 03
My point is that with every launch of the next Nvidia card comes a higher standard for the end user to take advantage of. From my experience, the last thing people upgrade is the monitor. I own the shadow card, the ugly freak 5800 FX. This card is very good at whatever it does and shares many properties with the new 5900. Along with the new "Intellisample" compression technology comes less of a need for using AA at all at higher resolutions. I never use AA because I really don't have jaggies or anything like that when I play.

I'm not saying that you suck if you don't upgrade, I'm just saying that you should not only look inside your machine to make your games better, but look at what you play them with. (If anyone is curious as to what my monitor is, here is a link: P95f+, I got it cheap)

Anyway, is anyone planning on buying the 5900? I know that it is a very big step from the G4Ti's performance level. Nvidia has finally realized that 256 bit memory is a lot better than 128. I almost bought an ATI because Nvidia was having problems with the 5800 ultra overheating and people complaining about the loud fan noise and the benchmarks weren't that great sometimes. The new card also has the quieter fan and is almost like the G4Ti, but with more heatsinks.
0 thumbs!
^
Master of the VG Aug 20, 03
I usually don't notice any difference until I reach 4x AA with 1028x768 resolution. I usually have 8x AF and texture sharpening enabled all the time though.
0 thumbs!
^
Cheesysoapopra Aug 20, 03
Actually there are quite a few 17inch monitors that display 1600x1200 (but everything would be very small)

And just because your res cant go high doesnt mean it wont look good. My games look fine at 1024x768 and if i want them better ill just put on AA
0 thumbs!
^
Master of the VG Aug 20, 03
I don't think there are any monitors that support 1600x1200 @ 100 Hz. Not everyone has enough room for a 20 inch monitor either (17 inch monitors don't have 1600x1200). If you bought a monitor in the last three years, odds are that there is no need to upgrade it unless you want a bigger one.
0 thumbs!
^
DarksideCommander Aug 20, 03
The 5900 and the 9800 are great at games and give great framerates. This fact no one can dispute.

I have a question then...

Who can see all of these great graphics when your monitor sucks? Instead of spending too much money on the latest video card, why don't you upgrade that dusty old computer monitor and play your games at high resolution so when you get the newest video card, it will look fantastic. Can your current monitor handle games at 1600x1200 or better at 100hz+? I bet your video card can already. This is one thing to consider before getting any new card.
0 thumbs!
^
GhOsT_301 Aug 19, 03
Really a good review ! so fantanstic ! I also love this card very much cause it cooling fan is beautiful !

But I have one question . is all the FX based graphic card will show their temperature in the control panel ? ( i can't find it and i had installed the coolbits . I am using GeForce FX5200 by MSI .) Please tell me how to get it. Thanx .
0 thumbs!
^
Norminator Jun 29, 03
An excellent article! Well done NEO!!

The only thing is the 9800 PRO is not working harder at Aniso Filtering........it's working harder at Antialiasing. I'm sure it's just a slip of the keyboard.

The FX5900 is working it's tail off at Aniso Filtering and it's doing it well with speed to spare!!

Keep up the good writing!!

Looking forward to NV40 this Christmas!!

0 thumbs!
^
thugjabi Jun 19, 03
Silly Joe Momma ATI-Boy. True that the FX 5800 was accused of cheating, but in a later report, 3dMark released statements which withdrew their claims. The latest nVidia drivers merely optimized the performance of the card, not cheated. And yes, ATI also did cheat. Although their drivers did not have a significant upgrade from the old ones and did not specifically increase performance for that one model, both major companies did "cheat" if you will, the 3Dmark tests. But when the FX 5800 got a higher benchmark, it simply meant that nVidia did a better job of improving their drivers.

The FX5900 Ultra costs more because of the extra 100MB of video card ram. Also, it has a higher GPU clock, as well as a faster memory speed. Who would care about the size of the card? It must obviously mean that your case is either horribly cramped, or you need to lay off the MATX motherboards. I have a TI4600 at the moment, and it fits in my case fine. It doesn't interfere with my memory modules, or any other cables. And there isn't such a big disappointment about the extra power needed to the board of the card. The 9700 also needs additional power.

What really confuses me is the fact that people are feuding about the cards. It's good to have competition. More competition drives the companies harder to make better products, and lowers the prices. AMD has been keeping up with Intel for quite some time now, and CPU prices keep going down, and the speeds keep going up. Competition is good, but when people start getting obsessed to the point that they start picking favorites in cards. You don't have to side with a company, just the best graphics card. Right now, that belongs to the FX5900. I have been switching back and forth between the companies and their cards for many years now. Everytime a new card was released from another company, I would sell my old one, and buy the latest. I am still keeping my TI4600 for the time, because of the upcoming release of the FX5900. However, if I did have to pick favorites, I would pick nVidia, I have trusted them for many a years, and I know that they will continue to make powerful cards.






0 thumbs!
^
Redemption Jun 12, 03
There's no need to get so emotional... The bottom line is that both cards are fast and will let you run your games at high resolutions with AA and AF turned on. The details of who is faster by 5% is not so important except as required for bragging rights and performance purists.

PS. Artifacts show up in any card... we've see them in both Nvidia and ATI cards.
^
Sponsored
Sort by date: ascending descending
Add your comment:
Name *:  Members, please LOGIN
Email:  We use this to display your Gravatar.

Sign in with
Comment *:
(0.0734/d/web3)