Opinions on the FX models

Defender · Post by **Defender** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:15 am

I'm lookin to pick up a GeForceFX. Which would you guys says is the best price for performance model?

I really have no idea what these "SE" and "XT" models are.

Price isn't a huge factor, but $300 or less would be nice.

And please, no ATI recommendations (Mobi).

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 12:14 pm

SE and XT are both the same thing, lower versions of the Video Card. Stay away from those.

GeForce FX 5700 Ultra

Teddy · Post by **Teddy** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:22 pm

You can pick up the regular GF 5900 for around $220 for a good model!!Stay away from the se ans xt's....
The 5700 that Agressor linked above would be a waste of money since it has a 128 bit memory bus vs the 5900's 256 bit bus.... and it's only about 20 or 30 dollars more and they run quite a bit cooler and quieter!!!
I just bought one for my brother and it runs circles around my Radeon 9700 as far as compatability and WORKING features, I dont know how Ati can fricken break so many features in every driver release.... they can never get it right.

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:54 pm

i have a GFFX 5600 Ultra and it keeps me happy.

8x AGP
256 MB DDR

im waiting for the 5950 Ultra to go down in price

Vertigo · Post by **Vertigo** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:09 pm

Teddy wrote:You can pick up the regular GF 5900 for around $220 for a good model!!Stay away from the se ans xt's....
The 5700 that Agressor linked above would be a waste of money since it has a 128 bit memory bus vs the 5900's 256 bit bus.... and it's only about 20 or 30 dollars more and they run quite a bit cooler and quieter!!!
I just bought one for my brother and it runs circles around my Radeon 9700 as far as compatability and WORKING features, I dont know how Ati can fricken break so many features in every driver release.... they can never get it right.

Curious, i have never any problems with my ATI card...
But that's not the point of this thread...

Defender.... what are you doing to use the card for ?
Just D3 ? Or are you planning on playing the more recent games ?
Also, what card do you have at the moment ?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:40 pm

Go with an MSI card too. Great RMA policy, and, best of all, their cards don't say "OMG!1 I'M A GEFORCE XX with N MB OF VIDEO RAM" for 10 seconds when you reboot like all the others (it's the little things).

Teddy · Post by **Teddy** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:56 pm

well, if you haven't had any problems with it, I'd have to say you probably aint using it with many games.... as a VERY ovious exampla... try playing Call of Duty with a 9700. you wont get past the open field at the beginning where the enemy soldiers shoot at you. Now this aint just me...check out rage3d's forums, there are quite a few documted users there besides me(one being a beta tester). this bug has been in the last 3 or four driver releases and for some reason, ati hasnt fixed it yet.

Or beter yet, using us d3 players for an example, Antailising hasnt ever worked in opengl... vsync didnt work in any of the earlier driver released until 3.4 or 3.5, it took an absurd amount of time for Ati to get this STANDARD feature to work. I've personally reported these bugs in every driver release and i've seen other d3 players post these bugs on the rage3d forums and still ati hasnt botherd to fix.... so how do you think i feel about thier so called support...

What ever he's using the card for, he'd be better off with the nvidia card if he wants to play d3 at all, Nvdia's drivers in this area are far superior to Ati's! A perfect example of this is watching a glob of naplam from a missle.. on an ATI card, the framerate tanks to 50fps, on my brothers nearly identical computer with the 5900, it never goes under 100...Many of the graphical effects that d3 uses slow down much more with my 9700.

As far as newer games go... Ati wins at d3d, of course usually with more rendering glitches. And looses big time to nvidia on any opengl game, as thier opengl drivers are just crap>:(

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:44 pm

go get a 5700 U or a 5900 U, you will never be anymore happier in your Gaming life

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:33 pm

I'm going to follow this topic as well since I was about to ask the same thing

Asrale · Post by **Asrale** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 12:52 am

The 5700 Ultra is a great mid-range option. If you want higher-end than that, 5900 (non-Ultra). A decent performer.

Max_T · Post by **Max_T** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 1:10 am

vertigo, don't bother, really

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:55 pm

Asrale wrote:The 5700 Ultra is a great mid-range option. If you want higher-end than that, 5900 (non-Ultra). A decent performer.

from what ive read, the 5900 is a clone of the 5800U.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 4:02 pm

5900 is like the 5800 but much improved upon, such as quieter fan. I would go with a 5900 if you're thinking of the 5800 level.

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 4:13 pm

yah i know the fan is greatly improved. i just read that the 5900 is just a cloned/revised 5800

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 5:54 pm

Always go for a U model if possible. I'm quite happy w/ my 5950U (Gainward) but that thing's not cheap. My understanding is that the 5700 gets you the most bang per buck.

Teddy · Post by **Teddy** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:32 pm

the biggest diffrence i see between the 5700/5800/5900 is as follows

5700 - first dx9 card, ran wayyyy too hot, sounded like dust buster and only had 128 bit memory interface and a 4x1 texture pieline. can be bought for as little as $130

5800 - updated 5700, managed to lower heat output with better manufacturing procedures... still has 128 bit memory interface 8x1 testure pipeline. can be bought for as little as $145

5900 - newest chip design, has 256 bit memory interface, runs the coolest and also has 8x1 texture pipeline. can be bought for as little as $180

seeing how all 3 chips are very close in price as long as you stay away from the ultra versions.. my vote goes to the 5900,

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:33 pm

Asus will soon have their FX 5700 Ultra card. It will feature DDR3.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:31 pm

I have a FX 5900 Ultra 256 MB (Leadtek branded) and I am very happy with it, performance is excellent, dual display support is fantastic, and the driver quality is the best.

-Krom

Defender · Post by **Defender** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 11:44 am

Vert, i haven't played d3 in a very long time.
And if it was the only thing i played, i'd still be running my p3 450 w/ voodoo3.

Sounds like the 5900 is my pick. Most performance/price.

May pick me up a new cpu. Even though my XP2400@2700 is pretty good, i think a 3000 may be in order since they're lookin pretty cheap now with the 64's out.

Thanks all!

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:06 pm

Check out this article on THG -- the 5700 is actually newer than the 5900 and a successor to the 5600. The 5800 card was 1st FX card, aka "the dustbuster" or "It really sucks"

Stay away of those.

"Looking at the benchmark results in available games, buyers now have the choice between the FX 5700 Ultra and the Radeon 9600 XT in the mainstream segment. In the standard tests, both cards offer virtually identical performance."

For a more comprehensive comparison of VGA cards, check out this link.

If you still want the 5900, I'd recomend getting an Ultra model.

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:00 pm

my 5600U is a PNY Verto, runs DDR2 and is very stable on OC'ing. i recently took off the OC to test something and i will soon reapply it

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:36 pm

So trimming all the fat of this topic, if I want to spend under 250 bucks for a GFFX card, what would be my best option?

Teddy · Post by **Teddy** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:56 pm

128 meg 5900, non ultra verson, my brother just picked up the asus 5900 for $210

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:09 pm

Actually, the 5600 was the original top-end loud-arse biotch. The 5700 is a very new iteration of their now mainstream product.

Under $250, a 5900 is definitely your best bet, especially since it can be flashed to a 5950 Ultra (even though it lacks 256MB).

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:56 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Actually, the 5600 was the original top-end loud-arse biotch. The 5700 is a very new iteration of their now mainstream product.

no it was the 5800 that was a the "Dust Buster"

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:53 pm

What are the differences between the 5900 and the 5950U?

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 8:01 am

the GPU Core and GPU/Mem Clock speeds

Warlock · Post by **Warlock** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:25 pm

256 5900 here nice and smooth a little display bug in Max6.1 but thats onley once on a blue moon

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:33 pm

The ultras have 256mb of video RAM too, at least 99% of them.

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:07 pm

i have yet to come across a 5900 or a 5950 with less than 256 MB of VRAM

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:37 pm

Almost every no-U has only 128MB. That and the speed increase in the U's are the main reasons I recommended them earlier.

The 5950 and 5900 are running the NV35 GPU. The differences are in the surrounding electronics and selected GPU/memory chips to run at higher speeds in the 5950. Oh, and all 5950 to date are U's.

Vindicator · Post by **Vindicator** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:38 pm

They make 5900s with 128mb ram.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDe ... 072&depa=0

Cant find any 128mb 5950s tho. (wow, first time i've run into the flood control thing in quite a while)

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 6:23 pm

The first FX cards where the 5600 for the midrange and 5800 for the high end, they where replaced with the midrange 5700 and the high end 5900.

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 6:28 pm

i remember that the 5800 was the "ONLY" FX Card that was first released and it was dubbed the "DustBuster" because of that rediculously loud fan it had. even the 5600 uses a newer GPU than the 5800 so how could it be the same series

STRESSTEST · Post by **STRESSTEST** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:28 pm

That's why you put water to them, and any other VCard out today, asscombat. Like I do to my 5800U

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:49 pm

you have a 5800U???? never knew that....and anything would be better than that POFS Duct fan NVidia thought was the latest cooling fashion

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:44 am

I never said they where the same core series. The 5600 was the first midrange FX offered and the 5800 was the first high end FX offered.

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:53 am

OK so what is the quietest GFFX? I may be looking at the U's now.

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:12 am

I have my eyes on these:

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDe ... 108&depa=1

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDe ... 178&depa=1

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:18 am

Go with the leadtek, my 5900 ultra leadtek overclocks to 5950 with room to spare and it is so quiet I can never hear it over my other fans.