View Full Version : Memory clock vs. MB - FX5900

12-15-03, 12:58 AM
Going to build a system for my uncle soon and I'm putting in an Nvidia card. Trying to decide between the MSI FX5900NU 128mb model or the MSI FX5900SP 256mb model. Which do you think will run out of steam first, the 128mb of ram, or the 50mhz slower memclock on the FX5900SP? Personally I'm wagering the RAM as I doubt 50mhz memory speed would kill a games performance (though lack of RAM may), but would like to hear opinions. When I say run out of steam, I mean in years time. :)

The 256mb model is $40 more

So it's:
400mhz core 850mhz memory


400mhz core 800mhz memory

Any benchmarks on the web with the 800mhz versus the 850mhz models?

12-15-03, 01:21 AM
Go with the more ram. 256 will serve him longer overr the long haul.
50Mhz in speed is not very much. U will never notice 50Mhz by eye
in game speed.

Future games will need more memory.

But make sure that 256 SP model has a 256bit memory bus.
If not it will be dog slow.

12-15-03, 03:42 AM
What's the rating on those memories?
I'd say go for the 256MB card myself, although if the 850Mhz one is underclocked memory-wise and could easily reach 900Mhz, while the 800Mhz couldn't move an inch... Then maybe the 128MB version would be a better option.

Unless he's not an overclocker, then it's the 256MB one without hesitation.

BTW, it doesn't really matter. Both of those cards will be within 2-3% of each other, better or worse depending on the AA settings and texture sizes. So if either of these is even very slightly cheaper than the other one; may I suggest buying the cheapest?


EDIT: Just noticed you said the 256MB model cost $40 more.
That means it's the 128MB model you should take, without hesitation, IMO :)

12-15-03, 05:24 AM
For performence, I'd go with the 256meg card. The extra 50 mhz really doesn't make much of a difference at all when you're appoaching the 1 ghz barrier (it would be like getting a 733 CPU instead of a 700), and since the Core speed would also effect it, I don't think you'd ever notice the difference. Even a 100 mhz difference is debatable.

However, I'm not so sure if it's worth the extra $40. How much is the card to begin with? Right now there are no games that use anywhere near 100 megs of textures, and I think it'll take a few years before they start to use 120+ megs of textures. And even if they do, you can always set texture resolution down a notch (which probably wouldn't even be that noticable). I guess if you REALLY want a future-proof card, get the 256meg version. Though I'm not so sure it's worth paying an extra 20% or so.

12-15-03, 01:14 PM
Take a look at the firingsqaud review of COD if you wanna see a game that uses 256mb cards. At one point( 1600x 1200 4xaa 0aniso) i believe that the fps difference inbetween the 9800pro 256mb and the 128mb was like 23fps. Here is a quote:

You will also see that the RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB outperforms its 128MB cousin by 29% at 1600x1200, this is the first time we've seen this in a game based on the Q3 engine. This is a big swing too, as the RADEON 9800 PRO 128MB isn't delivering playable frame rates at this resolution (although this is subjective) while at 80 fps, the RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB definitely is.

With 8xAF enabled on top of 4xAA, we see the margin between the RADEON 9800 PRO cards swell to 35% at 1600x1200. The RADEON 9800 XT is the only card capable of delivering 60 fps at that resolution.


12-15-03, 01:20 PM
As of today I haven't seen a 256mb geforcefx 5900 with a 800mhz clockspeed.

Anyway, if price is concern, then you should look for the geforce fx5900 for like 200~250 dlls, 256mb versions are much more expensive, upwards 350dlls.

I just got a BFG Asylum GeforceFX5900 128mb for 196dlls, you might be able to get a similar deal.

In todays games you won't feel the difference in memory size or speed and it probable won't be noticeable in future games, unless you run them at resolutions higher than 1280x1024 with max AA/AF.

12-15-03, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Cotita
As of today I haven't seen a 256mb geforcefx 5900 with a 800mhz clockspeed.

MSI makes one, actually now listed as 400/850 according to NewEgg:

12-15-03, 03:09 PM
2.8ns Ultra Speed DDR memory

Thats a 400/700 card, not 800MHz memory.

12-15-03, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by DSC
Thats a 400/700 card, not 800MHz memory.

Ah. Pass. NewEgg should fix their info.