Which is the better card for game performance?

[jakobkraft]

I have a friend who is using a Linux-based system (because of an onslaught of bugs he's permanently sworn off ATI cards, so that's not an option) He's asked me to do some looking around since his internet isn't up yet. I found these two:


http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...=True&refurbished=&c=us&l=en&cs=04&iCompatid=


and this one, a faster model, presumably, but less memory:

http://www.buyxtremegear.com/evga5900128r.html


They both seem like decent buys to me, but I'm unsure as to the importance of 256MB of video memory as opposed to the 5900 with 128MB. Which would be the better performer overall?

 

[araczynski]

you're comparing apples to oranges here, a 5600 is a middle level card, while a 5900 is a top level card, the 5600 doesn't compete with the 5900.
its like comparing a 2.4 to a 3.2, both good chips, but obviously the 2.4 doesnt' compete with the 3.2 even if the 2.4 has 1Gb of memory and the
3.2 has only 512Mb.

i.e. go with the 5900

 

[LawrenceHeffernan]

Although I'm an ATI fan, chose the 5600 Ultra over the standard, simple answer, the ultra is faster, although a 9600 Pro would be better value,
i'm unsure how they would fare in a Linux enviroment.

 

[jakobkraft]

Originally posted by: araczynski
you're comparing apples to oranges here, a 5600 is a middle level card, while a 5900 is a top level card, the 5600 doesn't compete with the 5900.
its like comparing a 2.4 to a 3.2, both good chips, but obviously the 2.4 doesnt' compete with the 3.2 even if the 2.4 has 1Gb of memory and the
3.2 has only 512Mb.

i.e. go with the 5900

sounds good, thanks

 

[araczynski]

...although obviously the 5900 will cost more too but then again i haven't bothered to look at the cost of the 5600's, i'm guessing half the price of the 5900? might also consider what kind of a cpu is going to be driving this thing, no point in putting in a 5900 into a 1.5ghz processor.

 

[jakobkraft]

Originally posted by: araczynski
...although obviously the 5900 will cost more too but then again i haven't bothered to look at the cost of the 5600's, i'm guessing half the price of the 5900? might also consider what kind of a cpu is going to be driving this thing, no point in putting in a 5900 into a 1.5ghz processor.

What about a P4 2.4, 533FSB? I'm pretty sure that's his specs cause he said they were the same as mine, basically, except he's using DDR and my system uses RDRAM....

 

[araczynski]

hmmm, if he games a good amount i would probably lean towards the 5900, non ultra, if he doesn't game a lot
though i would consider price. I don't think you'd be utilizing the full power of the 5900 but i could be very wrong, hopefully
someone else will chime in and offer more advice. but i think you can get a 5900 for about 210 nowdays, and its a very noticeable
difference in performance compared to a 5600, again, depends on how much he games.

if he were to someday upgrade the 2.53 to 3.06 (assuming mobo lets him) he'd be happier knowing he's got a 5900 in there not holding him back.

 

[randumb]

Get a FX5700.

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: randumb
Get a FX5700.

A fx5900 for $15 more kills that fx5700. And that 256mb of ram is not going to help the fx5600 at all. It is a very slow card. Get the fx5900, no contest.

 

[jakobkraft]

Originally posted by: modedepe

Originally posted by: randumb
Get a FX5700.

A fx5900 for $15 more kills that fx5700. And that 256mb of ram is not going to help the fx5600 at all. It is a very slow card. Get the fx5900, no contest.

That's what I figured, I just couldn't understand-and still don't really-why the extra memory causes the 5600 to almost be on par, pricewise, with the 5900. I didn't think the extra memory would make any difference either, but just wanted to ask...
thanks all

 

[araczynski]

another typical marketing gimmick by manufacturers to swindle the unknowing out of money. applies to both sides of the graphics industry.