PDA

View Full Version : How does the 5900 non-ultra compare to the Radeon 9800 non-pro at stock speeds?


dtos01
08-16-03, 05:35 PM
Anyone know?

simwiz2
08-16-03, 06:41 PM
The 5900 non-ultra is about as fast as a 9800 Pro, so it is faster than the non-pro.

-=DVS=-
08-16-03, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by simwiz2
The 5900 non-ultra is about as fast as a 9800 Pro, so it is faster than the non-pro.


9800 pro wins alot of game benchmarks with AA vs 5900Ultra , so how can 5900 none pro be as fast as 9800Pro :rolleyes:

WarheadMM
08-16-03, 07:48 PM
i think he means stock speeds with no aa or af on??? But yes the 9800 pro does win compaired to 5900

dtos01
08-16-03, 08:28 PM
is it worth it to pay the extra $50 for a 5900 non-ultra ($299) over a 9800 non-pro ($248) in the hope that you can overclock the 9800 to close to pro speeds...? Then again, is the extra $50 for the 5900 non-ultra worth it knowing that you could possibly overclock the 5900 to close to ultra speeds?

Is a 5900 Ultra worth $50 more than a 9800 Pro?

Skuzzy
08-16-03, 08:40 PM
Last I checked the 5900U was about $100 more than a 9800Pro 128MB card. And no, it is not worth it, in my opinion.

Not sure about the others.

simwiz2
08-16-03, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by -=DVS=-
9800 pro wins alot of game benchmarks with AA vs 5900Ultra , so how can 5900 none pro be as fast as 9800Pro :rolleyes:

The 5900U wins a lot of benchmarks with AA, it just depends which benchmark/site you are looking at. The 5900 does not choke on AA like the 5800 did.

B&R
08-16-03, 11:05 PM
I suggest u get a 9800np which is better than 5900NU at stock and it will even be better when both are OC'ed.

ugapug
08-17-03, 05:52 AM
Well, my Albatron 5900PV (Non-Ultra) runs stable at 475/950, and it runs every game I throw at it faster with 4x AA and 4X AF than my 5800 Ultra did with no AA or AF. It also looks better than my friend's 9800 Pro as far as IQ. Paid 350 for it. So I think it is a better card than the 9800 Non-pro, considering in most real world situations it is faster than a 9800 PRO. Just my humble opinion based on my system and comparable systems running ATI cards.

ringu61
08-17-03, 06:50 AM
The difference between FX5900 and FX5900 Ultra is the core frequency 400MHz compare to Ultra 450MHz. And as for the memory both FX5900 uses 2.2n Memory Module. Adn another difference is that Ultra version got extra 128MB DDR ram on it which will improve performance a bit when 4xAA and 8x Ainsto is turned on, but u can start seeing the difference when ur resolution is over 1280x1024 with the 256MB DDR FX5900 Ultra.
As for the overclocking ability I have seen many FX5900 overclocks over wat Ultra can be overclocked, maybe it is due to the extra 128MB DDR ram on Ultra version that limit the overclocking ability a bit.

PS: I have found that when increasing the AGP voltage to 1.8v can improve ur overclocking stability. It works for me but dun know for others~

rokzy
08-17-03, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by simwiz2
The 5900 non-ultra is about as fast as a 9800 Pro, so it is faster than the non-pro.

aaaaaaaaaaaaahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh ahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa

















:rolleyes:

ringu61
08-17-03, 06:51 PM
As long as U like the card u bought , who cares who wins who lose, right? :D

AnteP
08-17-03, 08:25 PM
http://www.nordichardware.com/reviews/graphiccard/2003/9xFX/index.php?ez=12

At least there's some UT2003 tests.

zero.TA
08-18-03, 09:33 AM
At least with Radeon you can use the Dual Monitor without worrying if you get Open GL errors unlike the 5900 Ultra.

People need to change their benchmarking to show all strengths and weakness's of cards not just clocking speeds.