View Full Version : Getting a new card 5900 vs 5700 question.

11-02-03, 02:18 PM
Hey all I am in the market for a $200 DX9 replacement for my older Ti 4400 and am considering either a 5700 ultra or a 5900 non-ultra. Currently my local bestbuy has them for same price after rebate, is there an advantage to the newer 5700? Or should I maybe consider of all horrid things switching to ATI and getting a 9600pro/XT(with free HL2)? Any help would be appreciated.

11-02-03, 02:20 PM
Well When I had my 9500 Pro, I was left with options of 9600XT, 5700 Ultra, 5900,

I went the route and got a 5900 and I have been nothing but satisfied with it. You could also consider a 9800 Non Pro

11-02-03, 02:31 PM
Yours is the non-ultra? Was there a noticeable boost from your 9500 in all games or just DX9 games? I know some Nvidia cards of late have actually had worse performace in more classic games.

11-02-03, 03:24 PM
I have a thread on this very topic. In sum, the 5900 is quite a bit faster than the 5700 Ultra. The main reason for this is that the 5900 has a 256-bit memory interface while the 5700 Ultra is stuck with a 128-bit interface. Although the 5700 has a core clock of 475MHz and a memory clock of 900MHz as opposed to 400/850 for the 5900, the 5900 more than makes up for the difference with its 256-bit memory interface. I saw the same two cards on the shelf at Best Buy and bought the 5900. I considered a 5700 Ultra because its newer, but newer doesn't always mean better. Also, the BFG 5900 once cost $399. Now you can get one for $199 after rebate. That's a savings of 50%. Not bad!!!

11-02-03, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by willmg
Hey all I am in the market for a $200 DX9 replacement for my older Ti 4400 and am considering either a 5700 ultra or a 5900 non-ultra.

Of the three cards you are considering the FX5900 is certainly the best. It tops the 5700U and 9600XT in most situations. The 5700U is worst of these three cards in practically everything (not bad card but 9600XT and especially 5900 are better).

However, the 9600XT has an edge over the FX5900 in two fields: 1. AA quality is noticeably better on Radeons 2. Pure DX9 speed is better with 9600XT due to catastrophic design flaws in all GeForce FX pixel shader 2.0 pipelines. However, because FX5900 is much better in other areas (256 bit memory bus vs. 128 bit on 9600XT; and 4x2 configuration against 4x1 on 9600XT) it is at least as fast as 9600XT in real DX9 applications.

"Big" Radeons (R9700, R9700pro, R9800, R9800pro and 9800XT) are all superior in almost every aspect (except clockspeeds) compared to beforementioned cards (I'd say R9700 non-pro is about equal to FX5900 with all pros and cons considered), but I think FX5900 is still a very good choice because it's damn cheap now! :afro2:

11-02-03, 09:22 PM
the 256bit memory bus can make all the difference in the world from what I hear and the benchs I've seen... go for the 5900 non-ultra. If my TI4400 died right now I might choose that one too. It's about $210 at http://www.newegg.com, not too shaby :). R9700 non-pro is also around the same price though if you can find one, just throwing some ideas at you