View Full Version : FX5900 or 5950?
11-14-03, 09:56 PM
I am currently in the market for a high end FX graphics card. Is there a noticeably large difference between the 5900 and 5950 in terms of speed? I would like some thoughts from people who own each of these cards. Also, is there a noticealbe difference between the 128mb and 256mb versions? The prices are a lot different so some info from users of these cards would be great. Money isn't really the issue, but I don't want to pay $450 for a 5950 if its not much better than a $300 5900.
Thanks in advance for the info
11-14-03, 10:06 PM
I would go with the 5900. I dunno--NV40 isn't that far away, and saving money for the next Big Upgrade is always nice. 5950 isn't that big of a clockspeed jump, so I don't think it's worth the premium.
well.. with all the issues nvidia is having right now, i would wait until the nv40... but if you must get a card now, the 5900, the 5950 is nothing more than a mild overclock.
11-14-03, 10:58 PM
If you definitely want a card this season then CLOSE your eyes and get FX 5900 ULTRA 256 Megs. They will easily clock to the FX 5950 with stock.
I have FX 5900 ULTRA Leadtek and with stock cooling its running smoothly on 552/1002MHz.
I love this card. Absolutely killer.
So don't shell out for Fx 5950...under any circumstance. It doesn't prove anything. Check some reviews and see yourself. Infact if you do intend to get NV40 you'd rather buy a Fx 5700 or Fx 5900(NON ULTRA) for now. You'll manage every game thats out now and between NV 40.
I would for Radeon 9800XT 256...
You have some good advice already. I would not go the $450 right now for top of the line card. I don't have a 5900 but those that do seem to be satisfied. My 5900U is just slightly slower than the 5950 in CoD running at 8xAA/2xAF and the 5900 overclocked should not be much behind the 5900U. Not enough to be noticeable in games.
11-14-03, 11:24 PM
5900Ultra for sure.
Most any 5900u will clock higher than the 5950.
Check newegg. U might get a nice Refurb for 300 bucks. ;)
I'd go with one of the $200 FX5900 non-ultras. Otherwise, $300 ultra.
11-15-03, 01:27 AM
Thanks for everyone's replies. Its been very helpful. What is the clock speed difference between the 5900 and the ultra? and also, does the 256mb of memory that comes with the ultra make a big difference as opposed to the 128 thats with the non-ultra?
Thanks for everyone's replies. Its been very helpful. What is the clock speed difference between the 5900 and the ultra?
Not much. The 5900 easily overclocks past the ultra's stock speeds....at least my BFG does.
and also, does the 256mb of memory that comes with the ultra make a big difference as opposed to the 128 thats with the non-ultra?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is like 2 maybe 3 games that needs the 256megs. And the difference between Ultra and non ultra is ddr2 vs ddr standard ram. I would settle for a 5900 non ultra if I were you. You can get one for about $177. Also, the 5900 has a 256 bit bus, whereas the lower cards only have a 128 bit bus. I suppose it boils down to what you like better. Hope this helps......
11-15-03, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Bandit1433
does the 256mb of memory that comes with the ultra make a big difference as opposed to the 128 thats with the non-ultra?
In future games. Call of Duty has a 256MB requirement for the Max qual setting. I haven't seen the difference though since I don't have a 256MB card...Yet.;)
5900U..it all comes down to "is the extra lil bit performance worth the extra price"..my answer is no.
11-15-03, 03:48 AM
Considering the killer prices of 5900 non-U's right now, I kinda think that if you buy anything above right now you're nuts. ;)
...and if you're going to go up to 5950U prices for some reason, I'd instead pick up a 9800XT. (And at ~$300-ish for a 5900U, I would pick up a 9800Pro instead as well. The only card I'd contemplate otherwise is if you REALLY WANT (again, for whatever reason) a 256MB card, at which point 256 5900U's seem to be available notably cheaper than 256MB 9800P's. (Though I haven't done extensive testing... Just a cursory check, since I'm just keeping general tabs and not really interested.)
But basically since 5900NU's are at stupid-good prices right now, find yourself one with a bit more headroom--maybe look into some better cooling for it--and have fun with that until next generation is fully integrated. I don't think you'd really miss a the few extra FPS.
11-15-03, 10:44 AM
Again, thanks for the quick replies. I think I have decided on an FX 5900 non ultra 128mb.
Now, if I'm going to overclock this puppy, what should I look for in terms of a decent cooling solution on the card? I know copper heatsinks are better and such, but does anyone know what brand has the best cooling system/best for overclocking?
11-15-03, 12:30 PM
My Leadtek FX5900 Non Ultra did 555/1000
11-15-03, 12:58 PM
Well it different here in UK, I bought Leadtek 5900 Ultra for £367 back in middle of July 2003, today price is £361 at ebuyer.com (http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=50595). When Scan UK got new Leadtek 5950 Ultra in stock last week, it was cost £327, today price is... £314.90 (http://web6.scan.co.uk/Products/Info.asp?WPID=84827).
I am so bloody jealous that the newer Leadtek card with extra 25Mhz clock and memory speed is actually cheaper than my Leadtek 5900 Ultra and £5.90 more than my old Creative Geforce 4 Ti 4600 I bought a year ago. :fu:
I dont want you to make same mistake I did with 5900 Ultra and I had no idea that NV38 is going to release 3 months after I bought NV35 so now I learnt my lesson. It not good idea to buy either 5900, 5900 Ultra or 5950 Ultra now because NV40 is just around the corner waiting to launch in 3 months time. I told my friend who wanted to buy new videocard now to wait for NV40, it will be more powerful card than NV38 for the same price.
my BFG runs just great at 500/950
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.