View Full Version : 5900xt = ?

09-20-2005, 10:08 PM
I have built a third computer and would like a inexpensive match for the MSI 5900xt performance.

AMD San Diego 3700+ @ 250x11
Thermalright XP90
DFI Landparty N4 SLI DR
Bios 510-2
BFG 7800 XGT 515/1380
Antec TP 550watt EPS
1 Gig (2x512) Mushkin Redline DDR XP 4000 500MHz Unbuffered
74 Gig Raptor HD (Master)
80 Gig WD (Slave)
OS Window XP Pro Pak 2

09-21-2005, 06:30 AM
Around a 9800 Pro, IIRC. If you're going anything cheaper than a 6600GT, I'd suggest you stick with ATI's last-generation lineup, meaning the 9550-9800XT.

09-21-2005, 09:39 AM
9800 XTs are going cheap right now, I suggest spending the extra as it would be worth it. Other than that, I also suggest the 6600GT over the AtI lineup due to Nvidia having Shader3 compatibility. Even brand new, the 6600GT is going cheap now.

09-21-2005, 10:11 AM
Check out the Tom's Hardware VGA charts for relative performance of video cards:


In many tests, especially FarCry, the Ti4200 and Ti4600 beat the 5900xt by such a margin that was embarassing for the newer technology. As for the other cards, check for yourself.

09-21-2005, 07:28 PM
Thanks a bunch guys. Need to have a playable backup so when I crash and burn from overclocking I won't get gammer withdraw.

09-21-2005, 10:43 PM
How important is buswidth compared to clock speed? for example;
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="600"> <tbody><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#000000" valign="top">Chip</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#000000" valign="top">Memory</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#000000" valign="top">DX Generation</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#000000" valign="top">Chipclock</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#000000" valign="top">Memoryclock</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#000000" valign="top">Buswidth</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#000000" valign="top">P-Pipes</td></tr></tbody> </table>

<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="600"> <tbody><tr><td align="left" bgcolor="#c0c0c0" valign="top">GeForce 6600 GT</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#c0c0c0" valign="top">NV43</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#c0c0c0" valign="top">128MB</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#c0c0c0" valign="top">DX 9.0 SM3.0</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#c0c0c0" valign="top">500</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#c0c0c0" valign="top">900</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#c0c0c0" valign="top">128 bit</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#c0c0c0" valign="top">8</td></tr></tbody> </table> <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="600"> <tbody><tr><td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top"> <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="600"> <tbody><tr><td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">Radeon 9800 Pro</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">R350</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">128MB</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">DX 9</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">380</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">680</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">256 bit</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">8</td></tr></tbody> </table> </td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">
</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">
</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">
</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">
</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">
</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#f0f0f0" valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody> </table>

09-22-2005, 03:47 AM
It's pretty important, but as can be seen with the 6600GT and 9800 Pro, much higher memory and core speeds will make up for it. Even though the 9800 Pro has a 256-bit wide bus, it's still marginally slower than a 6600GT.