PDA

View Full Version : Nvidia Newbie...5900 Ultra questions.


Pages : [1] 2

Quint
06-11-03, 05:55 AM
...and Computer newbie as well. :)
I guess thats why I swayed towards a 5900 Ultra, or Nvidia period.
I have read some horror stories about ATI....But I guess, I've read some too about Nvidia...but the ease of use has been described by alot more people when talking about Nvidia, than ATI.
I play BF 1942, and SWG BETA now. I also pretty much run all my games in 1024 X 768.
Do I really need an Ultra for that resolution? Should I spring for the 256 version? Based on those 2 games. Oh, well...I'll probably have HL2, and DOOM3 as well.
Which third party manufacturer has had the best Nvidia products in the past? (PNY, etc...) Can my DELL Chipset,and MOBO take it?
Do I have 2 PCI slots?...lol...I had my friend install the 1 gig of RAM that I bought...Do I have the required power supply of 300...umm, whatever the measurement is?

My specs are below...I also have a 17" E771 Dell Monitor. What kind of refresh rates would I get at 1024 X 768 with an FX Ultra?

I bought this nice computer and skimped out on the VC...well,now it's time to upgrade. :) I just need some advice...



Thank for all your help...

~Q~

SurfMonkey
06-11-03, 06:21 AM
Based on just those games and your spec I'd say that no you don't need the Ultra and nobody will really need a 256Mb card for at least another 18 months.

The vanilla 5900 will play all your games at 1024x768 and very quickly. You'll be able to stick the eye candy up to full as well, the only thing to bare in mind is that the 5900 seems to perform better at higher resolutions, 1280x1204, 1600x1200 etc. That's where it really shines.

You have to ask yourself, what games can I see myself playing before my next upgrade, and how much money do I want to spend. And then the choice is to get fast framerates at higher resolutions or better looking pictures at lower resolutions and framerates.

Quint
06-11-03, 06:35 AM
OK< I'll probably just get the 128...but,
Do you think my Monitor is up to speed?
Right now I have my desktop at 1152 X 864 and the refresh rate is at 75 Htz.
I still play BF42 at 1024 X768...but I switched SWG to 1152 X 864 and it seems to run fine.
Does the Ultra still shine it..say 1280 X 1024?
Thats the Higest I have on my Monitor now, but the refresh rate goes down to 65 htz when I do that...will the Ultra boost that Resolution, and Refresh Rate?

Thanks for replying with the quickness...
:P
~Q~

gstanford
06-11-03, 07:29 AM
For your setup, the non ultra should be fine.

You are limited in two ways currently - CPU speed and monitor capability.

256 mb of memory on the video card will only be an issue at present if you want to play certain games at 1600 x 1200 with FSAA & AF enabled.

The monitor itself is the limiting factor when it comes to maximum resolutions and refresh rates, not the video card.

Lastly your CPU isn't the fastest (strange to say that about a 2 gig cpu, but there you go). It may be possible to upgrade it, but you will have two factors working against you here - the motherboard Dell used may not take a faster CPU than the one you already have, and you may have the older "willamette" version of the P4 CPU, not the newer "northwood" version which is physically incompatible with the older chips.

If your monitor is not currently a flatscreen model it may be worth your while considering investing in a 19" flat screen monitor. It would make a very nice & noticeable difference to your computing experience (along with a decent mouse, keyboard & speakers - ie: the things we humans use to interface with the machine).

lukar
06-11-03, 07:50 AM
You heard wrong stories...

lukar
06-11-03, 07:55 AM
Better you get Radeon 9800Pro 128Mb and spend 100-150$ for memory upgrade, or faster CPU.

stncttr908
06-11-03, 08:09 AM
At those resolutions, you'll definitely be happy with the "value" version 5900. Also, don't let these guys tell you that your CPU is too slow, it's just fine. Also, I recommend that you play at 1280x960 if the games support it, rather than 1280x1024, to maintain the 4:3 aspect ratio. That is, if your monitor can do >= 75hz with it as well.

Anything will be better than your current card! :D

lukar
06-11-03, 09:52 AM
Your CPU sucks for that kind of card. You rig will be up to 50% slower than mine with P4 2.8Ghz and Radeon 9700Pro. I'm telling you buy Radeon 9800Pro 128mb, you will say 150$ maybe even more, sold CPU and buy new one. Anyway GFX 5900 sucks in many areas comparing to Radeon 9800Pro.

lukar
06-11-03, 09:53 AM
Othervise, you're not going to be able to play anything maxed out. You will suck big time in Unreal II, Splinter Cell and so on. By the way NV35 is way slower in those games than r350 :)

lukar
06-11-03, 10:06 AM
Don't worry about your dell. It supports up to 2.8Ghz p4, and it has support for 400fsb and 533fsb as well.

Uttar
06-11-03, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by lukar
[...]not going to be able to play anything maxed out. You will suck big time[...]

Ahahhahahahh! :)
That was a joke, right?

You know, there's a line between "enthusiast" and simply stupid. In case this wasn't a joke, well, I fear you might have crossed it.

Note that I'm not commenting on the whole Radeon 9800 / GFFX 5900 stuff anymore ( if you look carefully, you'll see I didn't even touch that subject in the above reply ).

All I know is I'm getting a GFFX 5900 Vanilla once it's out, and I don't want fanATIcs telling me to buy a Radeon, S3ers to tell me to wait for Deltachrome and nVidiots to suggest me to buy the Ultra ( note that I ever seen any even reccomending that, thanks god :) )


Uttar

prodikal
06-11-03, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by lukar
Better you get Radeon 9800Pro 128Mb and spend 100-150$ for memory upgrade, or faster CPU.

Correct me if im wrong but..
Its not like the 5900 series is any more expensive from what i have seen when they come out 5900 Ultra == 9800 Pro 256 and 5900 == 9800 Pro and 5900v == 9800 price-wise. He could just buy a regular 5900 and save 100bux

Uttar
06-11-03, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by prodikal
5900v == 9800 price-wise

Yes, but not performance wise. I think it's one of the biggest exceptions in the 5900 series: The 5900 Value, IMO, doesn't look too competitive. Some benchies might help to make sure of it, but specs aren't that impressive for it, compared to the price... I actually think it dosn't even use a 256-bit memory bus ( I'm wondering if that's not BS thougn, if it isn't, doubt it sadly )


Uttar

lukar
06-11-03, 01:18 PM
No, I said Radeon 9800Pro 128MB, you can buy this card for 370$!?!

Uttar, I didn't joke. p4 2.0Ghz and NV35 or any other card will suck big time, and you're not going be able to play everything maxed out. Sorry dude, but most frames in 80% of games are pulled by CPU. Unreal II, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, Grand Prix 4, Enter the Matrix and so on. On the other hand pixel shading and vertex shader suck with NV35. And I bet that in 1280*1024 resolution 32bit all maxed, using AF i AA Splinter Cell will run in certain situations 15FPS with p4 2.0 and NV35 :)

As I said, he is not going to be able to run in maxed details almost anything. OpenGL games will be fine, based on old Quake 3 engine, but hey my old Celeron 700Mhz and Radeon 1 is kicking opengl games based on it. It's so stupid to use Quake 3 engine and Serious Sam 2 for benchmarking, and than some people are saying that NV35 is the fastest chip based on that. That'a an ugly joke. The fastest chip is r350, and it's showed in 3dmark03, Splinter Cell, and so on :)

I have even better idea, buy GF4ti 4200 for 80$ if you're still planning to use p4 2.0, I hope it's not old willy.

Quint
06-11-03, 01:49 PM
Thanks for all the replies Lukar!
...you arent getting paid by ATI are you?
:P
Thanks to everyone else too...keep it coming...
...no I have heard from alot of people that the 9800 PRO is the way to go as well...It was in Best Buy the other day, the 256 Version for $400.00...and I had it in my hands. ;)
...but I didnt get it. Because of the restock fee...I thought, If I have a proiblem with Drivers, or Compatibility, or it just wasnt as good as I though,or WHATEVER>...I couldnt take it back w/o being dragged thru the ringer with fees.

And in regards to my MOBO...no. I 'm not changing any of that stuff, simple as that.




~Q~

extreme_dB
06-11-03, 01:51 PM
I wouldn't buy an expensive graphics card at any place that didn't offer a full refund. :)

Eymar
06-11-03, 02:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Best Buy doesn't charge restocking fees for videocards (only for notebooks, pcs, digital cams, etc.), but it's been a while since I returned something so policy may have changed.

GlowStick
06-11-03, 04:24 PM
Id recomend a Geforce 5900 with 128mb of ram, the extra memory wont help you. Your processor and ram are just fine, upgradeing them will make a neglible effect on your FPS.

Best thing for gameing preformance is for you to upgrade your video card, then just wait a while and then buy a new PC.

indio
06-11-03, 05:58 PM
buying a 5900 ultra or a 9800 with your cpu is a waste. buy a 9700 pro. every card over a 9700 is CPU limited at anything 2ghz or less at 1024 or lower resolution. When you read the reviews there testing on 2800+xps and 3.06HT cpus. the difference will be less pronounced on slower cpus. you better off paying $200 for a 9700 and $250 for a 2.8 ghz 533fsb . You will see the same net result as buying a $500 video card

Rogozhin
06-11-03, 06:09 PM
Get a radeon 9700non pro and a better mobo, cpu with the rest of the money, you might also purchase a brandname 350watt ps.

Rogo

jAkUp
06-13-03, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by lukar
No, I said Radeon 9800Pro 128MB, you can buy this card for 370$!?!

Uttar, I didn't joke. p4 2.0Ghz and NV35 or any other card will suck big time, and you're not going be able to play everything maxed out. Sorry dude, but most frames in 80% of games are pulled by CPU. Unreal II, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, Grand Prix 4, Enter the Matrix and so on. On the other hand pixel shading and vertex shader suck with NV35. And I bet that in 1280*1024 resolution 32bit all maxed, using AF i AA Splinter Cell will run in certain situations 15FPS with p4 2.0 and NV35 :)

lol what bs... i can run those games maxed out at 1600x1200... at over 45fps

SurfMonkey
06-13-03, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by lukar
No, I said Radeon 9800Pro 128MB, you can buy this card for 370$!?!

Uttar, I didn't joke. p4 2.0Ghz and NV35 or any other card will suck big time, and you're not going be able to play everything maxed out. Sorry dude, but most frames in 80% of games are pulled by CPU. Unreal II, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, Grand Prix 4, Enter the Matrix and so on. On the other hand pixel shading and vertex shader suck with NV35. And I bet that in 1280*1024 resolution 32bit all maxed, using AF i AA Splinter Cell will run in certain situations 15FPS with p4 2.0 and NV35 :)

As I said, he is not going to be able to run in maxed details almost anything. OpenGL games will be fine, based on old Quake 3 engine, but hey my old Celeron 700Mhz and Radeon 1 is kicking opengl games based on it. It's so stupid to use Quake 3 engine and Serious Sam 2 for benchmarking, and than some people are saying that NV35 is the fastest chip based on that. That'a an ugly joke. The fastest chip is r350, and it's showed in 3dmark03, Splinter Cell, and so on :)

I have even better idea, buy GF4ti 4200 for 80$ if you're still planning to use p4 2.0, I hope it's not old willy.

Were you born with a mouth? Or do you just prefer your arse to talk out of?

solofly
06-13-03, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by lukar
Better you get Radeon 9800Pro 128Mb and spend 100-150$ for memory upgrade, or faster CPU.

You know, I bought a Radeon 7500 retail about a year and a half ago. The drivers wouldn’t work at all for me. Had no choice but to return it and pay the restocking fee. After all the nVidia scandals I decided to give ATI another try and here I am wondering if I did the right thing. ATI could be everything what nVidia is plus more but if the drivers have issues, (mainly OpenGL) it’s not worth my time, money or the trouble. If you favorite game plays in OpenGL, you better hope ATI drivers can handle it...

EMunEeE
06-13-03, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Quint
Thanks for all the replies Lukar!
...you arent getting paid by ATI are you?
:P
Thanks to everyone else too...keep it coming...
...no I have heard from alot of people that the 9800 PRO is the way to go as well...It was in Best Buy the other day, the 256 Version for $400.00...and I had it in my hands. ;)
...but I didnt get it. Because of the restock fee...I thought, If I have a proiblem with Drivers, or Compatibility, or it just wasnt as good as I though,or WHATEVER>...I couldnt take it back w/o being dragged thru the ringer with fees.

And in regards to my MOBO...no. I 'm not changing any of that stuff, simple as that.




~Q~

You will not have a problem with an ATi Radeon 9XXX and a Dell Dimension whatsoever. I can even go as far as too guarantee it. You do not play your games at that high of a resolution, so unless you plan on upgrading in the future your money is much more well spent on a 9700 Pro or 9800 non pro (due to the lack of mainstream value nVIDIA cards). You can save yourself about $125-$150 to go towards something else or just have in your pocket. With that system (Great System! :) ), your NV35 will never reach its peak. No I'm not trying to be an ATi salesman, but I am thinking as rational as possible. The NV35 is a good card (minus the cheats ;) ) if you just want to spend some money.

I for one have no OpenGL problems with my ATi card ;) Better yet, I have no issues with my ATi card. ATi is rock solid in the driver department.

EMunEeE
06-13-03, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by jAkUp
lol what bs... i can run those games maxed out at 1600x1200... at over 45fps

...but can you run them with 4x/6x AA and 16x AF (or 8xAF in the case of the FX 5800 Ultra) ;) @ 1280x1024 at a hi level of perf or even 1600x1200 ;) :afro: