View Full Version : FX 5600 256MB vs. FX 5600 128MB Ultra
01-17-04, 06:24 PM
So the price is about the same for a regular 256MB 5600 and a 5600 ultra (only comes in 128MB as far as I know). Which would be the best choice? I'm assuming the 5600 ultra is a better performer speed-wise, but in the end is the extra memory on the regular 5600 a better way to go?
01-17-04, 07:00 PM
You will see absolutely no benefit whatsoever from the increased memory on the 5600 regular. The ONLY time that you would see a benefit is if you're running at, say, 1600x1200 with 4x FSAA, and it's not like a 5600 could really run that to begin with.
Either go with the 5700 or 5900XT/SE if budget permits. 5700 is far more powerful than the 5600.
And for about the same price as the 5700Ultra($199 or so), you can get the 5900XT/SE which will whoop both 5700U/5600U in power and performance. Look around this forum for good deals on the 5900NU and XT/SE.
If choosing between those two, definetly the 5600 Ultra. The 256mb memory in the 5600 non-ultra is not worth it, because the card is too slow to really take advantage of the extra texture space anyway.
However, since most 5600Ultra's are about $130us, for about $139us you could get an FX5700 non-ultra instead. They are considerably more powerful than an 5600Ultra.
01-20-04, 01:52 AM
Between them two go with the 5600ultra because on the 256mb version it will have slower memory.
01-20-04, 03:59 AM
Slow cards with lots of ram make no sense :o
01-20-04, 05:35 AM
Bigger marketing numbers, and the ability to make more profit. :p
if u noticed between these 2 FX5600 & FX5600Ultra, only the Ultra version is a better performer irregardless of any capacity of DDR size, plus it's bound to use tiny BGA DDR ram unlike those non-ultra, which can pack those lousier and lower ram timing speed TSOP DDR. Lastly, the Ultra version required external molex connection just like any of it's higher end models.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.