View Full Version : Geforce 5700 Ultra or 5900 Non-Ultra?
11-05-2003, 10:23 AM
They seem pretty close in price, which would be the better buy? Are their certain brands to stay away from (MSI, PNY, eVGA, Gainward)?
11-05-2003, 11:15 AM
The 5700s aren't bad cards, but why not a 9600 XT? Better anti-aliasing (if you use it), better texture filtering, better DX9 support, and a copy of Half-Life 2 for the same price if not a little less. You're not going to go wrong with either one. . .just think a 9600 XT is a better $200 buy right now.
11-05-2003, 11:21 AM
Well, I can appreciate the benefits of the XT. I actually never use AA and truth be told, I'm a little tired of ATI cards after the two I've owned (neither were blissful experiences... neither were horrible either, but my experience with Geforces has been better).
But bringing up the XT sort of begs the question between XT's and a 9700 Pro or 9800 non-pro.
I know that the 5900 non ultra has 2 pipelines per while the 5700 only has 1. Does that make a big difference? Does DDR2 matter (on the 5700 Ultra)?
11-05-2003, 12:24 PM
Ummm - Dumb question. How do you get a copy of HL 2 with the card? Time warp? Coupon for later purchase?
11-05-2003, 12:27 PM
Coupons is how they did it when I got UT with my Voodoo3 card. UT wasn't out yet, but you sent in a coupon for a free copy when the game released. When the game was ready, they even sent an email confirming your mailing address was still correct.
11-05-2003, 01:23 PM
If the prices are close, go with the 5900 non ultra. It kicks ass, man.
11-05-2003, 02:44 PM
I went with a 9800 Pro recently and have to say that the image quality is superior to the current Nvidia cards in every way. There's all that game-related stuff, for starters, but perhaps the biggest thing for me is sharper 2D performance. I'm using the same monitor, but text is much clearer and color is more vibrant. Makes it a LOT easier on the eyes when working, surfing, etc. I've had bad experiences in the past with ATI video cards, too, but the Radeon seems to be one fantastic line.
11-05-2003, 04:23 PM
I went with a 9800 Pro recently and have to say that the image quality is superior to the current Nvidia cards in every way.
I agree. I was astonished at how much better I found the 9700/9800's image quality compared to Nvidia's cards, which (like most gamers) I'd been accumstomed to for years. When people droned on about how Matrox had great image quality on the G400, etc., I just ignored those comments, since Nvidia's cards were clearly better choices in any event -- image quality can make a very meaningful difference, if you have a good monitor.
11-06-2003, 02:51 PM
The first thing I actually thought when I noticed the Radeon's better 2D performance was your old post about this. Makes surfing so much easier. Nvidia cards always seemed just a little fuzzy to me in 2D, though like you, I also ignored this because I was focused on 3D game performance and never realized what a difference it could make.
hurm. This conversation is pushing me toward an ATI upgrade sooner than I had inteneded. I noticed a big downgrade in 2d clarity when I went from my Voodoo 5 to Nvidia. I also noticed a bump down (albeit a smaller bump) when I went from my old Matrox Millenium to my first stand alone Voodoo. Maybe the right ATI purchase will put me back to where I was for 2d in 1997.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.