PDA

View Full Version : Just Returned a 5900U


Cbarwise
07-29-03, 07:57 PM
Just returned my BFG 5900 Ultra due to the fact that it's not worth $500. I have a P4 2.4 640mgs ram, 420watt psu, good monitor, so it's not my system. I upgraded from a Ti4600 and seem to get smoother performance with it. Not sayin' it can't be a good card in the future but for now not worth $500. Also tried all Dets. from 44.03 up!

rokzy
07-29-03, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Cbarwise
Just returned my BFG 5900 Ultra due to the fact that it's not worth $500.

yep.

buying the newest graphics card is generally a bad idea unless you have enough disposable money to buy the best of every other component at the same time.

omv
07-29-03, 08:21 PM
Huh - I've got an P4 2.4C, and my eVGA FX 5900U is definitely faster than the Ti4600 it replaced. In NWN, I'm getting ~50% higher FPS w/o AA/AF, and still playable framerates at 8xAF,4xAA, 2048x1536.

To each his/her own, I guess!

AthlonXP1800
07-29-03, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Cbarwise
Just returned my BFG 5900 Ultra due to the fact that it's not worth $500. I have a P4 2.4 640mgs ram, 420watt psu, good monitor, so it's not my system. I upgraded from a Ti4600 and seem to get smoother performance with it. Not sayin' it can't be a good card in the future but for now not worth $500. Also tried all Dets. from 44.03 up!

$500? It is now worth $408, good thing that you returned it and got $500 back so I guess you will get another 5900 Ultra card again for $400 or maybe $350 in 4 weeks or so. :D

Geforce4ti4200
07-29-03, 10:13 PM
talk about a cpu bottleneck. This is sad when my ti4200 runs games faster than their fx5900u or radeon9800 pro *without fsaa* cause the cpu holds em back

sebazve
07-29-03, 10:39 PM
well then what are you waiting just buy one of those ati 9800:D

prodikal
07-29-03, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by sebazve
well then what are you waiting just buy one of those ati 9800:D

While i prefer nvidia i would love to try one of those Giga Byte 9800 Pro 256's and if the det 50's dont do **** im trading for something else.

bkswaney
07-29-03, 11:37 PM
I'm selling my 5800u now and going back with a 9800-256. :)
I just hope I can get one stable on my rig. I had little luck with a 9700.

windwaver
07-30-03, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by bkswaney
I'm selling my 5800u now and going back with a 9800-256. :)
I just hope I can get one stable on my rig. I had little luck with a 9700.

Just make sure you dun get the shimmering and the famous ATi loop error.

Cool Barn
07-30-03, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by bkswaney
I'm selling my 5800u now and going back with a 9800-256. :)
I just hope I can get one stable on my rig. I had little luck with a 9700.
Congratulations bkswaney, from your posts I always assumed you were an Nvidiot. It's nice to see when someone isn't a blind fanboy after all, and buys what's best for them regardless of the brand.

Let us know what you think of the 9800 when you get it :)

Sazar
07-30-03, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
talk about a cpu bottleneck. This is sad when my ti4200 runs games faster than their fx5900u or radeon9800 pro *without fsaa* cause the cpu holds em back

that would be interesting to see :)

an overclocked rig side by side with yours... I think you would see the difference quite clearly in non AA/AF situations...

making a claim like that is rather.. interesting :D

Solomon
07-30-03, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Sazar
that would be interesting to see :)

an overclocked rig side by side with yours... I think you would see the difference quite clearly in non AA/AF situations...

making a claim like that is rather.. interesting :D

Actually he's right. I just took out a 9800 Pro out of a 1.7GHz Celeron / 256Mb of memory computer because it didn't really improve the frame rate of the games my friend plays. The computer had a GeForce 2 MX 400 and the 9800 Pro was just a little faster then that. I'm throwing in a GeForce 3 card to see how much CPU depends on the card.

You really don't see these types of things in reviews because the reviews are mostly run on the latest and greatest hardware. Throw a 9800 Pro in a computer that is the "typical" still amongst a lot of folks and the card doesn't perform that well. The days of the video card out pacing the CPU is over as the CPU is a huge part of the equation now with the latest offerings.

I can't speak for the 5900 Ultra card, but the 9800 Pro screams for a fast CPU, otherwise the card is a dog... :(

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

Geforce4ti4200
07-31-03, 12:32 AM
I told you and I speak from experience. Back when I had a 300@504 celeron with a geforce2mx, I bought a geforce3 ti500, I noticed no improvements in 1024x768 and below. in 1600x1200 I got 60fps and people with faster cpus were getting the same fps on a slower card such as a geforce2 pro. I then put a ti4600 in that rig and my fps actually went DOWN a couple fps. I said time for a new computer. The year was early 2003 so tbirds were cheap now. got a 1GHz tbird and the difference was night and day in games and 3dmark :D anyway its sad when people spend $400 on a video card and stick it in their $50 cpu that bottlenecks it so badly. Sure they get more fps than their old geforce2mx but its not doing a $400 card justice at all!

Hellbinder
07-31-03, 12:41 AM
Just make sure you dun get the shimmering and the famous ATi loop error.

You need to read up. Nvidia is Just as *Famous* for the loop error. And there are losts of reported problems with 2d beign screwed up, rolling lines, flickering etc with the 5900U.

This is just sad. Specifically with the *loop* issues Nvidia was far more prevelant with it than Ati yet psople still make comments like these. Its really funny. when the *Infinite loop* issue was really being talked about on various forums there were a few posts here and there that said *Hey Ati has some issues with this to*. Now its *lets not forget Atis loop issue*... :rolleyes:

As for the *shimmering* issue. i dont even know what the heck your talking about. There were a few issues with some of the early 9700pros with RF interference.. but that was it.

Hellbinder
07-31-03, 12:47 AM
I'm selling my 5800u now and going back with a 9800-256.
I just hope I can get one stable on my rig. I had little luck with a 9700

Yeah BK, I hope you have better luck this time. Fortunately I have not read much of anything about 9800pro issues with mobos.

CaptNKILL
07-31-03, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by Solomon
Actually he's right. I just took out a 9800 Pro out of a 1.7GHz Celeron / 256Mb of memory computer because it didn't really improve the frame rate of the games my friend plays. The computer had a GeForce 2 MX 400 and the 9800 Pro was just a little faster then that. I'm throwing in a GeForce 3 card to see how much CPU depends on the card.

You really don't see these types of things in reviews because the reviews are mostly run on the latest and greatest hardware. Throw a 9800 Pro in a computer that is the "typical" still amongst a lot of folks and the card doesn't perform that well. The days of the video card out pacing the CPU is over as the CPU is a huge part of the equation now with the latest offerings.

I can't speak for the 5900 Ultra card, but the 9800 Pro screams for a fast CPU, otherwise the card is a dog... :(

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

OK OK OK OK enough.... A 1.7ghz Celeron isnt THAT slow. Im guessing that you didnt reformat when you switched to the 9800 Pro....
The same goes for Cbarwise. You obviously have a problem\conflict if a 5900 ultra isnt faster than a 4600.

I can understand if you were trying to set up a 9800 Pro next to a 500Mhz P3, but anything faster than that WILL MOST DEFFINITLY see an improvement over a Geforce 2 MX. Hell, I saw a huge improvement from a Voodoo 3 (a little slower than a GF2 MX) to a GF2 GTS, and that was on a 750Mhz Athlon!

When people do a HUGE upgrade on their card (anything slower than a 5600 or 9600 upgraded to a 9700, 9800 or 5900) and they dont see a very big improvement, it doesnt mean that the card is slow. It means something wasnt done properly. Maybe old drivers laying around, maybe you just need to reformat....

Its as easy as coming here BEFORE you return the hardware and asking "why is my 5900 slower than my 4600?" rather than coming here afterwards and complaining about the card not being worth the money. I mean, If you people arent going to even attempt to make a $400+ video card function properly, then dont buy them in the first place.
:lame: :flame:

Malfunction
07-31-03, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by CaptNKILL
Its as easy as coming here BEFORE you return the hardware and asking "why is my 5900 slower than my 4600?" rather than coming here afterwards and complaining about the card not being worth the money. I mean, If you people arent going to even attempt to make a $400+ video card function properly, then dont buy them in the first place.
:lame: :flame:

Amen... hehe :angel:, sorry... but I gotta completely agree here.

Most people are better off reformatting when they get a new vga card... sorry to say. :( Make sure you install DX9a before the drivers are installed period.

I really find it hard to believe that there are this many problems with hardware lately from both sides: ATi and Nvidia. Very cool to see so many people feeling comfortable enough to install hardware these days, just need to work on the *properly* part is all... hehe. :D

Give the hardware a chance to prove itself before you RMA it. You might be missing out on learning something you didn't know before or performance you haven't seen before.

Peace,

:)

Cbarwise
07-31-03, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by CaptNKILL
OK OK OK OK enough.... A 1.7ghz Celeron isnt THAT slow. Im guessing that you didnt reformat when you switched to the 9800 Pro....
The same goes for Cbarwise. You obviously have a problem\conflict if a 5900 ultra isnt faster than a 4600.

I can understand if you were trying to set up a 9800 Pro next to a 500Mhz P3, but anything faster than that WILL MOST DEFFINITLY see an improvement over a Geforce 2 MX. Hell, I saw a huge improvement from a Voodoo 3 (a little slower than a GF2 MX) to a GF2 GTS, and that was on a 750Mhz Athlon!

When people do a HUGE upgrade on their card (anything slower than a 5600 or 9600 upgraded to a 9700, 9800 or 5900) and they dont see a very big improvement, it doesnt mean that the card is slow. It means something wasnt done properly. Maybe old drivers laying around, maybe you just need to reformat....

Its as easy as coming here BEFORE you return the hardware and asking "why is my 5900 slower than my 4600?" rather than coming here afterwards and complaining about the card not being worth the money. I mean, If you people arent going to even attempt to make a $400+ video card function properly, then dont buy them in the first place.
:lame: :flame:

Listen pal, I have installed many cards over the years and never had to reformat. I'm saying the card isn't worth $500 for the improvement I was seeing. Plus, not to mention the flickering problem alot of people are having.

CaptNKILL
07-31-03, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Cbarwise
Listen pal, I have installed many cards over the years and never had to reformat. I'm saying the card isn't worth $500 for the improvement I was seeing. Plus, not to mention the flickering problem alot of people are having.

OK, Pal :D

But did you try downloading an Nvidia driver cleaning program like Detonator destroyer, then searching the registry for "Nvidia" and deleting all entries, then deleting your registry's video card history (the device manager keeps a record of all of your hardware in the registry... possibly getting in the way of new hardware), then MANUALLY searching your system folders for Nvidia related files... and deleting them of course.

After you have done that, if your 5900 Ultra still isnt any better than a 4600, its time to backup and reformat.

If its still not better after that, then its probably a hardware conflict because the 5900 Ultra IS a LOT more powerfull than the 4600, regardless of what CPU you run it on (within reason of course... no 200Mhz Pentiums!).

Sure, its your choice to say if its worth the $500, but are you seriously trying to tell us that a 5900 Ultra isnt any better than a 4600 and YOU didnt do anything wrong? I dont mean to start a flame war here, but the cards are getting enough flak from their ACTUAL PROBLEMS, they dont need people saying they are slower than older cards (which is an outright lie).

Cbarwise
07-31-03, 09:08 PM
With XP you don't need any kind of Det Destroyer program. I boot into safe mode remove drivers through control panel and reboot and then install new drivers. Do you understand CUPCAKE

saturnotaku
07-31-03, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Cbarwise
Do you understand CUPCAKE

All right sweetheart, exactly what troubleshooting steps did you take to see if it may be something else in your system? Just changing drivers doesn't mean that something else isn't conflicting with that hardware. And exactly what kind of performance problems were you having? Stuttering? Overall low framerates? Texture corruption? Screen flashing?

Perhaps if you had asked in this forum or others someone might have been able to help you with your problems. But it's your system, you do what you like.

GamblerFEXonlin
07-31-03, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Cbarwise
Listen pal, I have installed many cards over the years and never had to reformat. I'm saying the card isn't worth $500 for the improvement I was seeing. Plus, not to mention the flickering problem alot of people are having.

im waiting for doom3 to arrive and longhorn before i buy a graphics card

they only thing that can use a GFFX is 3dmnark2003 and doom3 alpha, the rest is juyst fillrate.

GF4 ti need 2-4 passes or something to render doom3 while GFFX only 1 pass. Carmack didnt advice a GF4 for doom3. quake4 use doom3 engine also...


longhorn, hardware accellerated alphablended antialiased instant-response no-tearing windows, sweet, question is should i go for 256 MB. longhorn is far away, but if the tier2 functions works ill probably use the alpha like i did XP

CaptNKILL
08-01-03, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Cbarwise
With XP you don't need any kind of Det Destroyer program. I boot into safe mode remove drivers through control panel and reboot and then install new drivers. Do you understand CUPCAKE
Well, excuse me if my being sick of the "this card sucks because it doesnt please me and I THINK I know what Im doing " crap offends you. Theres no need to make fun of anyone's name (and how is Cupcake in anyway similar to CaptNKILL, other than having a C at the beginning??). A simple "OK, maybe I should have done more" was all I was looking for...

The only reason I said anything was because people were actually AGREEING that anything slower than a 3Ghz processor makes anything more than a Geforce 4 worthless.

Sorry, I was just in a flamey mood and this thread was pointless enough to get me going...
:flame:

(but your still wrong :D)

sebazve
08-01-03, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by GamblerFEXonlin
im waiting for doom3 to arrive and longhorn before i buy a graphics card

they only thing that can use a GFFX is 3dmnark2003 and doom3 alpha, the rest is juyst fillrate.

GF4 ti need 2-4 passes or something to render doom3 while GFFX only 1 pass. Carmack didnt advice a GF4 for doom3. quake4 use doom3 engine also...


longhorn, hardware accellerated alphablended antialiased instant-response no-tearing windows, sweet, question is should i go for 256 MB. longhorn is far away, but if the tier2 functions works ill probably use the alpha like i did XP

do yourself a favor dont use alpha stuff from M$:lol2: