Just bought FX 5900XT - confused!

MidnightMick

Junior Member
Mar 1, 2004
11
0
0
I just bought a FX 5900XT and am not sure if it is running as well as it should.
I know that this is not a "High Caliber" card, but I just wanted something that could play most games well today.

It appears to play UT2003 well on full highest setting, 1280x1024 2QxAA + 2 Anti with no slow down so this tells me that it must be ok, but I am a little concerned with benchmark scores. My card before was a Ti4200 8x AGP 64Mb etc.. & in 3DMark2001 that gave me a score of around 10,000 but with this card I had a very big suprise when it only gave me a score of around 8,500!

3DMark 2003 gives me a score of 4200 average but having not run this benchmark on my old card I cannot compare.

My Specs: (Nothing Overclocked)
Motherboard - Gigabyte - GA-7VAX-A
CPU - AlthonXP 2400+ (FSB266)
Ram - 2 x 512 PC2700
OS -Windows XP SP1
nVidia Drivers - 53.03
DirectX 9.0b
All latest drivers.

I know benchmark scores do not really equate to playing games, but I have seen much higher scores than what I have got & would just like to understand why?

Also & this maybe the reason for above, I have found that I had to stop using custom cursors (CursorXP) or reduce the Hardware acceleration by one "Notch" or I got graphical problems with corrupted textures, obviously I choose to uninstall CursorXP.

Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks. :)
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Maybe reinstall the drivers? Something is odd, you should not have gone down in score, unless they were run with different settings (AA/AF).
 

MidnightMick

Junior Member
Mar 1, 2004
11
0
0
All setting where "Standard" in 3DMark 2001, I didn't adjust from the "Default" option, I also am allowing the AA to be controlled via application.

I have tried various Drivers:
53.03
52.16 (which saw it as a NV35)

It appears though that no other drivers see's the card as it does not know what a "5900XT" is?!


With regards to 3DMark 2003, is a score of "4200" around what you would expect for a PC of my specs?

It may just be that I should uninstall 3DMark 2001 & all will then be well! LOL
 

MidnightMick

Junior Member
Mar 1, 2004
11
0
0
I appreciate what you are saying & couldn't agree more.
Curiosity got the better of me though & am suprised to see such a low score & would just to know if anyone has any suggestions/reasons for it.

As regards to gameplay it appears to play well enough for me.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Well it's a 5900, they clock speeds are just different (it is a NV35). While the XT is lower than the other 5900s, it still has very high raw specs, higher than the 9800pro and beats it in some games without AA/AF. It's not a slow card.

That being said, either the benchmark is just wrong or something is ill configured. Try a standard in game benchmark and compare it to reviews. I'm not sure if re-installing DirectX is useful, in the old days it was recommended.
 

SilverBack

Golden Member
Oct 10, 1999
1,622
0
0
LOL Todd

My 9800 Pro does 6900 in 3DMark 2003
and 20500 in 3D Mark 2001. The lower 5900's can't touch that. The highend 5900 with the better memory surely can, but not the lower ones.


MidnightMick,
The card should be great for gaming, the higher end cards are just for bragging rights don't worry about it if you have playable games.
 

MidnightMick

Junior Member
Mar 1, 2004
11
0
0
I may try (If possible) using 45.23 driver setting that at FX5900 & see how that works.
It's worth a go I suppose?

As regards to scores with 3DMark 2003 is "4200" about right?
 

SilverBack

Golden Member
Oct 10, 1999
1,622
0
0
I would think that that you would be in the 5000 area.

What card were you runing before?
The reason I ask if you had coolbits enabled for the nVidia cards you may be under clocking your card now.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
LOL SilverBack, I said raw specs (bandwidth, texel/s, etc), I did not say synthetic benchmark scores. In real games, it keeps up nicely with the 9800 pro.

For example http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_fx_5900_xt_review/page9.asp

Of course the 9800 pro is a faster card overall, but it's $100 more expensive in retail. The 5900XT sure whoops the 9600XTs in every way, so it fills the void between the 9600XT and the 9800Pro, exactly where it's priced.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
Of course the 9800 pro is a faster card overall, but it's $100 more expensive in retail.

$100...hardly

5900XT retail $185
9800pro retail $223, bulk $208

Neweggs prices as of right now.
 

MidnightMick

Junior Member
Mar 1, 2004
11
0
0
I previously had a Geforce ti4200SE, no "Coolbits" installed then though.

I have checked the clock speeds (Via "Powerstrip")and they stand correct for my current card:
2D 300/700
3D 390/700

I also uninstalled my old driver via Add/Remove & also ran a nvidia driver remover just to clean out all other possible "Crap" for a clean slate before I installed 53.03.
 

SilverBack

Golden Member
Oct 10, 1999
1,622
0
0
Well that takes that out of the equation.
Hmm
What about your BIOS? is it set to 4x/8x AGP?
Oh and also do not using video shadowing or video memory caching in the BIOS with nVidia cards. The cards do this themselves and the redundentcy(sp) ;) can hurt performance.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
LOL SilverBack, I said raw specs (bandwidth, texel/s, etc)


i think SiverBack was just trying to point out that you are being slective with your "raw specs. bandwidtch and textel/s are higher, but then pixel/s is lower; they both have some wins and losses in the raw specs department.



but as for your problem MidnightMick, it seems pretty clear you have something messed up with your setup, a 5900xt should be doing considerably better than what you have reported. you might just try a clean install of windows if nothing else works for you.
 

SilverBack

Golden Member
Oct 10, 1999
1,622
0
0
Grasping at straws here, will the 5900's even work if the molex connector isn't installed??
I know I once forgot to connect mine on the ATI card after replacing a case. BTW it wouldn't boot ;) LOL
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
I pointed out retail prices, most people walk into BestBuy and see 9600XT/5900XT for $199 and a 9800 Pro for $299.

As for OEM prices, the 9600XTs run $150+, the 5900XT (still getting into the retail channels) are $160 (the XFX was, but is OOS) and most others are ~$180. One 9800 Pro is $208 at one location, the rest are $230+. Like I said, the 5900XT basically fills the void of the 9600XT and the 9800 Pro.

So the Newegg 9800 Pro is the best buy at the moment, but don't crap on his 5900XT purchase with ATI fanboy stuff, it's not a gimp low end card anymore than a 9700 Pro is.
 

SilverBack

Golden Member
Oct 10, 1999
1,622
0
0
Todd the nVidiot crap was started by you.

The best buy in the market place today IS the 9800 Pro.
I wasn't knocking his purchase and I'm trying to help him with his problem.
ALSO I happen to like nVidia drivers and this next roll out I'll be purchasing the newest nVidia card.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
" The 5900Xt is at the lower end of the 5900 series. Lower GPU Mhz and lower memory timings."

"My 9800 Pro does 6900 in 3DMark 2003
and 20500 in 3D Mark 2001. The lower 5900's can't touch that. The highend 5900 with the better memory surely can, but not the lower ones. "

I agree that the 9800 pro is the best buy at the moment, but it may not have been when he made his purchase, or maybe he had a hard spending limit. I don't see how bragging about 9800 or calling his card low end helps him with his problem.


BTW I wasn't being a fanboy, I don't care which card anyone buys, but I was speaking the truth on the specs and performance. By just blindly adding up the benchmarks in the fireingsquad review the 5900XT beats the 9800Pro 13 times while the 9800 pro wins 23 times (clean sweep in UT games). Interesting to see the 5900XT beat the 9800 pro in CoD at 1600x1200x32 4xAA/8xAF (38.6fps vs 37.4fps), not bad for a "low" end card. So I stand by my statements, the a 5900XT cards is a clear choice over 9600XTs and a good choice for the $160-$180 range, if you can find one. At $200 mark, the 9800 Pro is the easy choice.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
So I stand by my statements, the a 5900XT cards is a clear choice over 9600XTs and a good choice for the $160-$180 range

Thank you Capt. Obvious. Note that Newegg has 9600xt's for $149, and 5700ultra's for $174.
 

CaiNaM

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
3,718
0
0
Originally posted by: rbV5
So I stand by my statements, the a 5900XT cards is a clear choice over 9600XTs and a good choice for the $160-$180 range

Thank you Capt. Obvious. Note that Newegg has 9600xt's for $149, and 5700ultra's for $174.

yes, but while online sales are significant, they still pale in comparison to what is purchased "off the shelf" at b&m's such bestbuy, fry's, compusa, etc, not to mention the low end stuff being sold at officedepot, officemax, staples, etc.

many people buy simply cause they don't know better, prefer to "touch & feel" their product, buy on impulse, for the convenince (hell, many of us who normally buy online have paid more for the convenience of having it "now" or for the liberal return policy offered by many of the b&m stores), or simply cause they have more faith in a "real" store over a shopping cart.

in the "real" world to the majority of people, the 9800pro is $299, the 9600xt is $199, and the 5900xt are $199 - $219.

 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
"Thank you Capt. Obvious. Note that Newegg has 9600xt's for $149, and 5700ultra's for $174. "

LOL, I'm not even sure what this guy was going for, what a waste of bandwidth. Did you read the rest of the thread? I said the 9600XTs start at $150 and no one was talking about 5700Us, they are obsolete with the release of the 5900XT/SEs. Capt. Obvious indeed.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
"Thank you Capt. Obvious. Note that Newegg has 9600xt's for $149, and 5700ultra's for $174. "

LOL, I'm not even sure what this guy was going for, what a waste of bandwidth. Did you read the rest of the thread? I said the 9600XTs start at $150 and no one was talking about 5700Us, they are obsolete with the release of the 5900XT/SEs. Capt. Obvious indeed.

Sure I read the thread. 5900XT is a more powerful card than the 9600XT....Well Duh, LOL. Today however, when I look at the card prices from Newegg, it doesn't exactly stack up the way you lay it out. I don't see it as a particularly great deal myself, just a pretty good deal IMHO. Waste of bandwidth? wtf is that supposed to mean?
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Here is how I laid it out, word for word.

"As for OEM prices, the 9600XTs run $150+, the 5900XT (still getting into the retail channels) are $160 (the XFX was, but is OOS) and most others are ~$180. One 9800 Pro is $208 at one location, the rest are $230+. Like I said, the 5900XT basically fills the void of the 9600XT and the 9800 Pro. "

I did not say the 5900XT/SE cards were great deals, they just are the best choice in that limited price range. So what doesn't stack up?

Waste of bandwidth = you sent like 1KB over the net and added nothing to the conversation.