PDA

View Full Version : PNY 5900 Ultra


Pages : [1] 2

Maverickman
08-05-03, 08:13 PM
This PNY 5900 Ultra has definitely been a disappointment to me. PNY's "lifetime" warranty is a joke, and the card's performance has not been up to expectations. Sure, it's a fast card, but my 9800 PRO on my other computer can beat it in several games. The 5900 Ultra seems to excel in OpenGL games like Quake III and RTCW. The 9800 PRO does better in Splinter Cell and Raven Shield.

I only notice the infamous "flickering" when playing OpenGL games at resolutions of 1600X1200 or above. I do NOT notice it in Battlefield 1942 or any other Direct X games in any resolution. It seems to be problem with the brightness to me.

Although the 5900 Ultra is a step in the right direction for nVidia, it's certainly a small step compared to the competition.

sebazve
08-05-03, 09:42 PM
well as right know ATI is unbeatable at the high end cards

Not only are cheaper but are also have better perfomace and have greater IQ...so what did you expect?;)

i know that (nv35) these cards are fast and look good but for the that price you want the best of the best which they are not especially knowing that there are slightly cheaper cards which are better.

im sure nvidia will strike back with their next gen of cards, will just have to wait and see but this whole nv3x was a disappointment to me.

just my $2

Rollo
08-05-03, 09:53 PM
well as right know ATI is unbeatable at the high end cards

Not only are cheaper but are also have better perfomace and have greater IQ...so what did you expect?

WTF? seem to have wandered into Rage3d by accident.

In any case, I have just gone from 9700Pro to 5800 regular to 9800Pro.
The nV30-35 line isn't a bust, and I had the 4th fastest card in it.

Yes you can crank up the AA/AF on the 9X00 series, but the 5800 offers performance I could have been happy with had nVidia not annoyed me.

The "9800 beats it" ??
Yeah sure. The "beating" is only happening at 6X/16X Performance mode, and I think anyone would be more than happy with the 4X8X the 5900s run perfectly fine, as fast as anything ATI.

You guys look at immaterial differences you have to look for to find (16X performance vs 8X quality) or not be able to see at all (5-6fps when you're up around 100 fps anyway). :confused:

saturnotaku
08-05-03, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Rollo
Yeah sure. The "beating" is only happening at 6X/16X Performance mode, and I think anyone would be more than happy with the 4X8X the 5900s run perfectly fine, as fast as anything ATI.

You guys look at immaterial differences you have to look for to find (16X performance vs 8X quality) or not be able to see at all (5-6fps when you're up around 100 fps anyway). :confused:

I beg to differ. I've had a Radeon 9500 and 9800 Pro as well as an FX 5800 and 5900. ATI's AA kicks the **** out of the FX in terms of quality while maintaining performance. Comparing ATI's 4xAA and NVIDIA's 4x, there's simply no contest. NVIDIA's 4xAA doesn't look much better than their 2x mode, but it performs worse. NVIDIA's AA starts to look good at 4xS, but peformance in most applications is too slow for this mode to be practical.

I do however like Quincux. It looks pretty good, and I notice no text blurring like I did with my GeForce3 and Ti4600.

sebazve
08-05-03, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Rollo
WTF? seem to have wandered into Rage3d by accident.

In any case, I have just gone from 9700Pro to 5800 regular to 9800Pro.
The nV30-35 line isn't a bust, and I had the 4th fastest card in it.

Yes you can crank up the AA/AF on the 9X00 series, but the 5800 offers performance I could have been happy with had nVidia not annoyed me.

The "9800 beats it" ??
Yeah sure. The "beating" is only happening at 6X/16X Performance mode, and I think anyone would be more than happy with the 4X8X the 5900s run perfectly fine, as fast as anything ATI.

You guys look at immaterial differences you have to look for to find (16X performance vs 8X quality) or not be able to see at all (5-6fps when you're up around 100 fps anyway). :confused:

oh well i knew this would happen...i only mention the r9800 cause he was comparing it to his brother video card.(i should have better not said anything:rolleyes: )
Like i said the fx5900 is a fast card and it does look good but i feel it is not the best card around. And from looks of the post he was expecting to have the best card.

bkswaney
08-05-03, 10:28 PM
Well, if u do not like it sale it to me at a good price. :)
Or I have a 3 day old Retail 9800Pro I'll trade ya. ;)

AthlonXP1800
08-05-03, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
NVIDIA's AA starts to look good at 4xS, but peformance in most applications is too slow for this mode to be practical.

You got about every videocards so I assumed what you talked about 4xS being too slow on Geforce 4 440 Go? 4xS on my previous Geforce 4 Ti 4600 is accept at 1024x768 but it is slow at 1280x1024. Now with my amazing Leadtek 5900 Ultra, 4xS is very fast on all resolutions up to 1920x1440. :angel:

saturnotaku
08-05-03, 10:42 PM
The difference is you have a 5900 Ultra. I've only had a vanilla 5900 because I'm not about to spend $450+ on a video card. And would you care to run some UT2003 benchmarks with 4xS and 4x AF on your card and post the results at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200?

AthlonXP1800
08-05-03, 11:00 PM
Well I dont have UT2003, I will download UT2003 demo with benchmarks included now so meanwhile here how it perform on Unreal 2: The Awakening on my AthlonXP 1800+, 512Mb DDR-SDRAM and 300 Watt power supply. I realised the power supply is underpowered, I am order Antec 430 Watt power supply, it will arrive on thursday that will give 5900 Ultra enough juice to push pass ahead current performances.

Unreal 2: The Awakening

74fps on 1280x1024 85Hz 0x FSAA 0xAF Quality
70fps on 1280x1024 85Hz 4x FSAA 8xAF Quality

74fps on 1600x1200 85Hz 0x FSAA 0xAF Quality
63fps on 1600x1200 85Hz 4x FSAA 8xAF Quality

70fps on 1920x1440 85Hz 0x FSAA 0xAF Quality
48fps on 1920x1440 85Hz 4x FSAA 8xAF Quality

Oh by the way I am use Detonator 45.20 driver too.

CaptNKILL
08-05-03, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by AthlonXP1800
Well I dont have UT2003, I will download UT2003 demo with benchmarks included now so meanwhile here how it perform on Unreal 2: The Awakening on my AthlonXP 1800+, 512Mb DDR-SDRAM and 300 Watt power supply. I realised the power supply is underpowered, I am order Antec 430 Watt power supply, it will arrive on thursday that will give 5900 Ultra enough juice to push pass ahead current performances.

Unreal 2: The Awakening

74fps on 1280x1024 85Hz 0x FSAA 0xAF Quality
70fps on 1280x1024 85Hz 4x FSAA 8xAF Quality

74fps on 1600x1200 85Hz 0x FSAA 0xAF Quality
63fps on 1600x1200 85Hz 4x FSAA 8xAF Quality

70fps on 1920x1440 85Hz 0x FSAA 0xAF Quality
48fps on 1920x1440 85Hz 4x FSAA 8xAF Quality

Oh by the way I am use Detonator 45.20 driver too.

Please use fraps (http://www.fraps.com/) so we can see the minimums. I wish more people would because average frame rates dont mean squat to me. 50fps average means the game could run 90fps part of the time, and 10 the rest (unacceptable). Or it could mean that the game runs between 60 and 40 (very acceptable).

Also, saturn said run at 4xS, I want to see that too :D

Edit: Just curious, but what did you use to record those scores? They seem very OFF to me. I dont see how there could be a 4fps drop in performance when turning on 4xAA and 8xAF. Even for an average, that just doesnt seem correct.

AthlonXP1800
08-05-03, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by CaptNKILL
Edit: Just curious, but what did you use to record those scores? They seem very OFF to me. I dont see how there could be a 4fps drop in performance when turning on 4xAA and 8xAF. Even for an average, that just doesnt seem correct.

Well I used Fraps 2.0.0 demo to measured the fps. After I measured the fps on 1280x1024 I was surprised it was drop only 4fps and went to 1600x1200, measured it and it dropped 11fps, then on 1920x1440 it dropped 22fps. I looked at the scores and have another try with 1280x1024 again and it came with same fps again, I guess it cos of detonator 45.20 driver give improve performance, I think fps look right, started at the top to bottom fps: 1920x1440 22fps drop, divide it by 2 give it 11fps drop at 1600x1200, then divide it by 2 should give 5fps drop on 1280x1024. I think it make sense.

5150 Joker
08-06-03, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
I beg to differ. I've had a Radeon 9500 and 9800 Pro as well as an FX 5800 and 5900. ATI's AA kicks the **** out of the FX in terms of quality while maintaining performance. Comparing ATI's 4xAA and NVIDIA's 4x, there's simply no contest. NVIDIA's 4xAA doesn't look much better than their 2x mode, but it performs worse. NVIDIA's AA starts to look good at 4xS, but peformance in most applications is too slow for this mode to be practical.

I do however like Quincux. It looks pretty good, and I notice no text blurring like I did with my GeForce3 and Ti4600.

You forgot you're talking to Rollo, he will just accuse you of being an ATi employee if you offer him facts.

5150 Joker
08-06-03, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by AthlonXP1800
Now with my amazing Leadtek 5900 Ultra, 4xS is very fast on all resolutions up to 1920x1440. :angel:

Hahaha in what tetris? :rolleyes:

AthlonXP1800
08-06-03, 02:04 AM
Finally here UT2003 benchmarks...

I found it only use 1280x960, I dont know how to modify to use 1280x1024 so here go:

1280x960 4xS FSAA 4xAF Quality

dm-antalus flyby
Min 38fps / Avg 56fps / Max 171fps

dm-asbestos flyby
Min 35fps / Avg 76fps / Max 274fps

dm-antalus botmatch
Min 3fps / Avg 25fps / Max 52fps

dm-asbestos botmatch
Min 8fps / Avg 45fps / Max 85fps

1600x1200 4xS FSAA 4xAF Quality

dm-antalus flyby
Min 24fps / Avg 36fps / Max 94fps

dm-asbestos flyby
Min 25fps / Avg 51fps / Max 165fps

dm-antalus botmatch
Min 7fps / Avg 17fps / Max 41fps

dm-asbestos botmatch
Min 14fps / Avg 35fps / Max 82fps

I looked and compared my max fps to Pentium 4 3.2Ghz with 1Gb DDR-SDRAM (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/radeon/r9800pro-ue.html) so I am surprised that my underpower AthlonXP 1800+ and 512Mb has the same performance as Pentium 4 3.2Ghz, 3.2Ghz should be alot faster with very high fps than AthlonXP 1800+, same thing go with Unreal 2: The Awakening, it outperformed Pentium 4 3.2Ghz. :D

And here one more benchmark without FSAA & AF:

1280x960 0x FSAA 0xAF Quality

dm-antalus flyby
Min 57fps / Avg 116fps / Max 389fps

dm-asbestos flyby
Min 47fps / Avg 139fps / Max 402fps

dm-antalus botmatch
Min 10fps / Avg 38fps / Max 77fps

dm-asbestos botmatch
Min 12fps / Avg 48fps / Max 90fps

1600x1200 0x FSAA 0xAF Quality

dm-antalus flyby
Min 57fps / Avg 108fps / Max 379fps

dm-asbestos flyby
Min 55fps / Avg 139fps / Max 410fps

dm-antalus botmatch
Min 9fps / Avg 38fps / Max 76fps

dm-asbestos botmatch
Min 16fps / Avg 48fps / Max 90fps

Unit01
08-06-03, 06:14 AM
LOL :D

scott123
08-06-03, 07:36 AM
I have both :) . The 9800 Pro is superior all the way around. Ok, end of dicussion.

Scott

Socos
08-06-03, 07:52 AM
Dang.... Look at those minimums... Ouchy!!!:eek:

GravY
08-06-03, 09:44 AM
My Albatron should be here sometime today so I will be able to gauge this for myself, however all reviews point to the 5900 taking a larger % drop on AA/AF the ATI however with its raw power doesn't drop below the 9800 in fps except in certain games at the very highest settings.. so its getting moot to point out that the 5900 takes a larger hit when enabling AA/AF cause it's still faster than the 9800 in some games and the 9800 in others.. they are about equal..

Rollo
08-06-03, 12:29 PM
You forgot you're talking to Rollo, he will just accuse you of being an ATi employee if you offer him facts.

Listen to the guy with "Free Palestine" in his signature. Both sides of that argument are REKNOWNED for their rational, thoughtful perspectives.

:ass:

AthlonXP1800
08-06-03, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Socos
Dang.... Look at those minimums... Ouchy!!!:eek:

Minimum fps not all that important, I not noticed that benchmarks slowed down by minimum fps, only average to maximum fps will be enough. I noticed the big difference with 5900 Ultra's 25fps, I found it looked and felt like it ran twice fast as 50fps, but years ago when I had Voodoo 5 5500 AGP, 25fps is slow as crawl, 30fps is acceptance but on 5900 Ultra's 30fps, it is very fast like 60fps. So well benchmarks really not gave 100% accurate results.

AthlonXP1800
08-06-03, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Maverickman
I only notice the infamous "flickering" when playing OpenGL games at resolutions of 1600X1200 or above. I do NOT notice it in Battlefield 1942 or any other Direct X games in any resolution. It seems to be problem with the brightness to me.

Nvidia is told that it not the 5900 Ultra cards fault, it your system fault that cause the noise (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16032) so I believed that your system has many case fans running, I suggest you to try remove 1 case fan a time to see if it resolve flicker problem. My system case do not has any case fan cos it not necessary because it has much better air flow. I guess your case has not enough air flow?

DivotMaker
08-06-03, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by AthlonXP1800
Nvidia is told that it not the 5900 Ultra cards fault, it your system fault that cause the

NVIDIA has been investigating these problems; we are having a difficult time reproducing the issue. We are under the impression it is a noise issue, not a graphics card issue and is system specific.

There is a big difference between

We are under the impression...

and

The cause is definitely....

Why else would they be inviting people to their HQ to see the issue for themselves?

Unit01
08-06-03, 03:34 PM
Cause nvidia is perfect and all errors related to nvidia cards is the users fault :rolleyes:

LOL Hilarious thread thanks to a certain person ;)

AthlonXP1800
08-06-03, 03:44 PM
Yeah it Maverickman user error :)

aapo
08-07-03, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by AthlonXP1800
I realised the power supply is underpowered, I am order Antec 430 Watt power supply, it will arrive on thursday that will give 5900 Ultra enough juice to push pass ahead current performances.

Just curious, what exactly are you purchasing the new power supply for, if your system already works alright? Do you mean by 'underpowered' that you get a lot of strange lockups and reboots?