5900 Ultra 128mb speeds

[Tavoc]

Would it be rational to assume that the 5900 Ultra w/ 128MB would exhibit performance comparable to the Radeon 9800 Pro w/128MB?

 

[nick1985]

its faster


<------ puts on flame suit becuase fanATIcs have flamethrowers at the ready for that statement

 

[Tavoc]

Yeah, I know that the 5900 Ultra 256mb is faster than the 9800 Pro 256mb. What I am asking is whether you guys think there will be a greater performance drop for the 5900 Ultra 128 meg than there is for the 9800 Pro 128mb.

 

[Jgtdragon]

Might be faster without AA and eye candy, but 9800 pro is faster with the eye candies turn on.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Tavoc
Yeah, I know that the 5900 Ultra 256mb is faster than the 9800 Pro 256mb. What I am asking is whether you guys think there will be a greater performance drop for the 5900 Ultra 128 meg than there is for the 9800 Pro 128mb.

dont bite my head off if im wrong but i think cards with less ram are usually a little faster,.

case in point ti4200 or even gf2

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Jgtdragon
Might be faster without AA and eye candy, but 9800 pro is faster with the eye candies turn on.

Yeah um, what would make you say that considering the 5900 has a fairly much larger memory bandwidth to draw from? 5900 should be faster in every aspect.

 

[mrman3k]

I am also betting that the 5900U will be faster than the 9800 both with 128MB or RAM with AA on.

 

[Pete]

I'm not sure the 128MB 5900 will be clocked as high as the 256MB 5900U; here's why.

MSI is offering three cards: its FX5900 Ultra, FX5900 and FX5900V adopt Nvidia?s GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, GeForce FX 5900 and the more simplified GeForce FX 5900 Value chips, respectively.

Asustek is offering two cards ? its V9950Ultra and V9950 are based on Nvidia?s GeForce FX 5900 Ultra and GeForce FX 5900 chips, respectively.

I'm thinking the 5900 might be 400/400, like the 5800, and the 5900V will be clocked at around 9700P/9800 speeds (325/325? nV has gone with faster memory than ATi cards at the high-end lately).

 

[Richdog]

dont bite my head off if im wrong but i think cards with less ram are usually a little faster,.

case in point ti4200 or even gf2[/quote]



The 64MB Ti4200 was just clocked a little faster (500Mhz) than the 128MB version (444Mhz)

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Jgtdragon
Might be faster without AA and eye candy, but 9800 pro is faster with the eye candies turn on.

Yeah um, what would make you say that considering the 5900 has a fairly much larger memory bandwidth to draw from? 5900 should be faster in every aspect.

The standard 5900 is clocked slower, and there is no way to prove that it is faster.

 

[dguy6789]

smaller memory size does not nessesarilly meen it will be slower. how ever, they have a hard time making high density chips that can go at the clocks of there less dense bretherin. thats why the 128mb ti4200 was slower then the 64 , but if you look you can find high clocked 128 and 25MB memory.

 

[nippyjun]

If they are clocked the same then they will perform the same except for games that take advantage of the extra memory. I wonder if there are any games that would use that extra memory anyway at this time. Maybe Unreal 2 does.

 

[Fredric]

Gainward 5900 128MB:
nVidia GeForce FX 5900
· 400+MHz GPU Corespeed
· 128MB 2,2ns P-DDR@900+MHz
· Golden Sample
· Video-In
· Video-Out
· DVI + VGA
· nVidia nView
· 8X AGP

Looks good to me. 900MHz memory gives some nice bandwidth.

 

[gururu]

no doubt about it. the 5900U will edge out or lose to the 9800pro in the same applications as the 256mb cards.

 

[Fredric]