GeForce FX 5950 Ultra or GeForce 6800 Ultra

O

OPUS1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
1,766
Why would I spend $499.00 on a 5950 U when I can spend $430.00 for a 6800 U ?
I just don't get it :confused:
 
OPUS1 said:
Why would I spend $499.00 on a 5950 U when I can spend $430.00 for a 6800 U ?
I just don't get it :confused:
Click to expand...

I'd like to hope no one around here would do that, but some people would. The poeple that don't know much about either card are going to assume because the 5950U is more money, its better. Sad really...
 
OPUS1 said:
Why would I spend $499.00 on a 5950 U when I can spend $430.00 for a 6800 U ?
I just don't get it :confused:
Click to expand...
Prices never went down on 5900 series. (Probably because there is no longer a production line or that production costs are high). Many people say 5900 sucked but I remember when I got my 5900 Ultra, was sweet... been nvidia ever since.
 
Zxcs said:
Prices never went down on 5900 series. (Probably because there is no longer a production line or that production costs are high). Many people say 5900 sucked but I remember when I got my 5900 Ultra, was sweet... been nvidia ever since.
Click to expand...

Sadly you wasted all your money or a terrible card.

The reason the prices are so high is because they never sold all of them and simply want to sucker people into buying a terrible card for so much money. The FX cards sucked when they came out and suck even more now.
 
Skrying said:
Sadly you wasted all your money or a terrible card.

The reason the prices are so high is because they never sold all of them and simply want to sucker people into buying a terrible card for so much money. The FX cards sucked when they came out and suck even more now.
Click to expand...
Suck? Yet even now I can play newer games on full graphics (bar bf2 and all its crap). I had 9800 but didn't like because first one I got was faulty and was getting tons of artifacts.
 
Skrying said:
Sadly you wasted all your money or a terrible card.

The reason the prices are so high is because they never sold all of them and simply want to sucker people into buying a terrible card for so much money. The FX cards sucked when they came out and suck even more now.
Click to expand...

love the way you had 3 "sucks" in a post. i have the 5950 U and i wished it gave better performance but i was happy with it. it was my first high ed vid card
 
omniviper said:
love the way you had 3 "sucks" in a post. i have the 5950 U and i wished it gave better performance but i was happy with it. it was my first high ed vid card
Click to expand...

Hmmm that made me go back and look at a couple 5900 reviews. It looks like it was on par with the 9800P in a lot of titles and faster in a few as well. It showed a lot of weakness in the newer titles though - so I could understand that there would be many who had great experiences with the later model FX's depending on what games they played (DX8). Then there was the inferior IQ as well....but maybe one or even two "sucks" would've been sufficient
;)
 
JohnAddisonUK said:
Just out of interest, who is selling those cards at those prices? They need a good kick in for selling a 5950 at that price.
Click to expand...

Comp USA and some other E tailor

To those that say the card sux I would have to humbly disagree!
I'm runnin a 5900 ultra flashed to 5950 in a HP 3.2 P4 oem rig that I got for my son for college and it runs anything he can throw at it. 1/2 life, Farcry FIA GTR for example
Albeit not as fast as my 6800gt or with it maxed, but it still performs well.

I just can't see it being sold for that much in todays climate.
Could Comp have been caught up in the hipe and bought so many cards at a high price that they have to sell em at that price?
GBC
God bless capitalism
 
off topic here but is 1/2 life that much faster to type than half life? I mean it's one more key but you don't have to move your fingers as much. I'm not trying to be rude it just caught me as funny.
 
darkhorse said:
off topic here but is 1/2 life that much faster to type than half life? I mean it's one more key but you don't have to move your fingers as much. I'm not trying to be rude it just caught me as funny.
Click to expand...

Quess it's the digital effect,
coulda typed .5 life or 10 divided by 20 Life :D
Sorry if I shook Ya :p
Watt's really funny though is the price of that card, no?
 
Eva_Unit_0 said:
lol now we're down to 2 life. Maybe we'll get to 1/2 eventually.
:p
Click to expand...
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGHHHH :eek:

OK From now on it will be
One [H]alf Life
Ther you all happy now :p
 
works for me ;) lol

Oh and so I've actually contributed to this thread somehow, I'll pitch in:
I personally loved my modded 5950U (began its life as a gainward 5900xt 256mb golden sample). It had plenty of power, and although the 6800gt I had after it was obviously faster, it really wasn't THAT drastic of a difference. Like on the 6800gt I'd run the same details and res that I'd run on the 5950U, just with like 4x AA instead of none. I liked it. Overall the nv3x line sucked, but they did manage to redeem themselves somewhat with the 5700 and 5900 series cards. They really did a decent job of fixing the problems that the 5600 and 5800's had.

oh and don't even bother bringing up the 5200...of COURSE it sucked, it was a budget card. You could get those for under 100 bucks even right when they launched. I thought it was impressive just to have DX9 capabilities at such a low price point. Though it was too slow to actually use them lol.
 
OPUS1 said:
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGHHHH :eek:

OK From now on it will be
One [H]alf Life
Ther you all happy now :p
Click to expand...

Nope..I want one FULL life ;) *L*

Terra - I will settle for nothing less :cool:
 
bjornb17 said:
BAHAHAHAHA you tried to fix it :)
Click to expand...

I did indeed

Wow I try to point out how bizaar the 5950U pricing is and all I accomplished was proving I can't do squat without my friggin slide ruler
Thanks all for treating me like family :p
 
Hrmmm, I would take the 6800, I have always been Nvidia ever sence I got my 5900 Ultra from PNY, any thing from the 5900 - 7800 is worth the price tag it has, I still have my 5900 Ultra and I play BattleField2 at 1280x1024x32 with 4xAA and 8x AF and I still get 70 - 80 FPS! These things can take a beating and still keep going strong.
 
I liked all the nvidia cards except for the FX series :)

My first nvidia card was a geforce 3, and i also have a ti4200, both fantastic cards. Then i got a FX 5200 and FX5600 Ultra, i returned them within a week and replaced them with a 9600 pro and 9800 pro, which were much better that generation. Then i got back on the nvidia bandwagon with the 6800NU, even thought ATIs offereings were greast as well.
 
I have always loved my BFG 5900. I'm not sure why some here think it sucks because its just as fast as a 9800. Oh well, im happy with mine still. :)
 
one thing im confused about is that some places say the 5900 had 4 pipelines, while others say it had 8, while other sources say it depended on what software you were using. how did that work?
 
Who would sell those at those prices?!

I have a 5900 and it runs Farcry on ultra settings perfectly.
 
Skrying said:
Sadly you wasted all your money or a terrible card.

The reason the prices are so high is because they never sold all of them and simply want to sucker people into buying a terrible card for so much money. The FX cards sucked when they came out and suck even more now.
Click to expand...

What sucked was the 9800 the FX5900 would run games in Open GL and the ATI would not,so it looks like to me it was ATI that sucked.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
lol

FX Series.

lol

I would Rather have a GeForce 4
Click to expand...

I'll sell you my overclocked GeForce 4 MX 440 (64 mb) for the same price as a 5950 ultra.

Since you'd rather have it. :D

I wish I had enough money to bash any card that costs more than 50 dollars.
:(
 
CMAN said:
What sucked was the 9800 the FX5900 would run games in Open GL and the ATI would not,so it looks like to me it was ATI that sucked.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The 9800s ran OpenGL just fine and most of the time better than the 5900s too. Just get over it, everyone knows the FX series was crap.
 
Up until a few days ago I had a fx5200...

I paid $120 for it at Wal-mart a few years ago. It doesn't run things THAT bad. I mean, I can run Warcraft 3 on 1024x768 with everything on low except shadows and it doesn't lag... ;-)

That's partially the fault of the rest of my system though. I don't even know the athlon name for my cpu, just that it's a 1.4ghz tbird (Or is it tbred? I forget) socket A.

Also I only have 256mb of 133 SDRAM.

It served me well.... r.i.p.

-------

And I want 5 life. It's 10 times more than half life!!!
 
Holy mother of god, we're they that expensive when they first came out even??!! :eek:
 
XSNiper said:
Holy mother of god, we're they that expensive when they first came out even??!! :eek:
Click to expand...

I dont believe they were. I bought my 9800 Pro not to long after launch for like $275.
 
I will never buy anything computer related from best buy ever. Everytime I go in there, I feel more stupid than when i left. Stupid Computer department employees, "would you like to see how awesome this computer is" and its like an HP P4 3.2Ghz with a Radeon x300.

pfft.
 
I go to Best Buy to scope out monitors fairly often and sometimes buying things from there is actually cheaper due to shipping costs.
 
CMAN said:
What sucked was the 9800 the FX5900 would run games in Open GL and the ATI would not,so it looks like to me it was ATI that sucked.
Click to expand...
Actually, the 9800 wasn't quite as robust as the FX5900 in OpenGL - but both cards were more than fast enough in OpenGL.

On the other hand, the FX5900 actually sucks even more than the 9800 in newer DirectX 9.x games. The FX5900 does not support even SM 2.0, let alone SM 3.0 - its shader support is limited to SM 1.x. Thus, many games must be run in DirectX 8 compatibilty mode in order to even get decent performance, albeit at the expense of IQ. Note its average 3DMark05 score - only on a par with a 9600NP.
 
E4g1e said:
Actually, the 9800 wasn't quite as robust as the FX5900 in OpenGL - but both cards were more than fast enough in OpenGL.

On the other hand, the FX5900 actually sucks even more than the 9800 in newer DirectX 9.x games. The FX5900 does not support even SM 2.0, let alone SM 3.0 - its shader support is limited to SM 1.x. Thus, many games must be run in DirectX 8 compatibilty mode in order to even get decent performance, albeit at the expense of IQ. Note its average 3DMark05 score - only on a par with a 9600NP.
Click to expand...
Not true, the 5900's support SM2.0a, which is actually more than the 9800's SM2.0. Although the 5900's still suck at it even though they support it. I'm happy with the way my 5900xt runs games. The only thing I ever had problems with is HL2 but then again it looks almost as good in DX8 as DX9 (water is only diff). Whoever said they would rather have a GF4 thana 5900 is insane. The 5900 is just as good at DX8 as a GF4 but has the added bonus of crappy PS2.0 performance (VS2.0 is just fine). You gotta admit that even though the DX9 support is crappy it is still a bonus over the GF4.
 
Flak Monkey said:
Not true, the 5900's support SM2.0a, which is actually more than the 9800's SM2.0. Although the 5900's still suck at it even though they support it. I'm happy with the way my 5900xt runs games. The only thing I ever had problems with is HL2 but then again it looks almost as good in DX8 as DX9 (water is only diff). Whoever said they would rather have a GF4 thana 5900 is insane. The 5900 is just as good at DX8 as a GF4 but has the added bonus of crappy PS2.0 performance (VS2.0 is just fine). You gotta admit that even though the DX9 support is crappy it is still a bonus over the GF4.
Click to expand...
Mea culpa (referring to my previous post above). The PS 2.0 performance of the FX5900, as you said, is relatively poor compared to that of a 9800 Pro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top