What Vid card to get?

DisvengeanceDisvengeance
edited October 2003 in Hardware
I have some extra cash and wanted to know whether to get the Radeon 9800 Pro 128, or an Nvidia 5900 ultra. I did have a radeon 9800 pro but it fried, i was wondering how the quaility of the Nvidia differs.
«1

Comments

  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    9800 Pro >>>> 5900 Ultra.

    It's a little over 30% faster in 98% of the applications.
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    k, so here is another question, should i get the 128 or 256, because i know that the 256 has had some heating issues.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Whatever your wallet can accomodate.
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    i dont want to dish out about an extra 100 dollars for something that wont make a difference. So is it worth the improvement or not?
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Not really.
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    k, so its the 128 i guess, thanks:)

    I know this is kind of off topic, but what is the best choice of ram to get, i want pc3500 and 2 sticks of 256, i was originally going to go the kingston hyperX, unless theres something better.
  • WuGgaRoOWuGgaRoO Not in the shower Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    i haerd fabolous things about corsair
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Corsair clocks higher than the Kingston, and at tighter timings.
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    yeah i too have heard great things about corsair, im probably gonna get 2 of these http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?description=20-145-459
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited October 2003
    Disvengeance, what resolution will you be running it at, ideally? The extra 128MB of RAM on the 256MB cards only makes a difference at extremely high resolutions (>1600x1200)
  • SimGuySimGuy Ottawa, Canada
    edited October 2003
    Disvengeance, if you want the ultimate in PC3500 overclockers RAM, look no further than 2x256 MB Mushkin Level II PC3500.

    As for the 256 MB Radeon 9800 Pro's having heating issues, it probably could be attributed to ATI upping the clock on the RAM by 20 MHz DDR in order to counter-act the access latency affect of having so much RAM.
  • Al_CapownAl_Capown Indiana
    edited October 2003
    I can vouch for the 256mb card not having heat problems. My rig is at 412/352 and I can touch the back of the gpu, the hsf, and the memory heatsinks without feeling any pain. Certainly cooler than the ram on my 9700 np.

    Really, it's your choice. See if you can find a nice deal on a 9800 pro 256, I got mine for $300 which is well below retail.

    Also I've had both xms pc3200 cas 2 and mushkin pc3500 lvl 2. Can't really tell the difference on this 1800 system, but i'm sure if you want the best go with mushkin. My pc3200 topped out at 225.
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    As for the resolution, ill be running at 1280X1024 because that is what my lcd maxes out at. As for the ram, i might go with mushkin , i want ram that will let me up my fsb quite a bit. Thanks
  • Al_CapownAl_Capown Indiana
    edited October 2003
    Are you gonna have an intel or amd system?

    If intel ---> buffalo pc3700 or mushkin pc3500 lvl 2
    If AMD ---> Corsair XMS Pc3200 cl2
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    i have an athlon, im getting an NF7-S, new ram, and a radeon 9800 pro because my old one fried.
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    would an eVGA 5900 ultra, which is clocked at 500/450, beat the radeon 9800 pro 128 mb, cause i noticed that there isnt a large price difference, and right now i want the one thats going to be the best.

    and is the corsair xms pc3200 better than the corsair xms pc3500 ?
  • Al_CapownAl_Capown Indiana
    edited October 2003
    Disvengeance had this to say
    would an eVGA 5900 ultra, which is clocked at 500/450, beat the radeon 9800 pro 128 mb, cause i noticed that there isnt a large price difference, and right now i want the one thats going to be the best.

    and is the corsair xms pc3200 better than the corsair xms pc3500 ?

    To question a: No. If you buy any fx series of cards when HL2 or DOOM III rolls around you will be superbly pissed. For ati, supposedly the software side of things are wrong (catalyst 3.8's). For nvidia, supposedly their hardware for pixel shaders and such are superbly effed. Buy a radeon 9800 Pro XT if you want nothing but the best.

    The XMS pc3500 will be faster, but i'm not so sure how the timings will be. If you're going to get pc3500 get mushkin Level II, if you're going to get pc3200 get Corsair XMS.
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    which would be better for ocing, the mushkin or the corsair?

    and wouldnt a radeon 9800 pro 256 suite me just fine instead of putting a ton of money into the XT, which is pretty much just a oced 9800 pro
  • Al_CapownAl_Capown Indiana
    edited October 2003
    Mushkin would be better for both oc'ing or running stock. If you're going to be spending retail prices for a retail 9800 pro 256, then i'd just recommend spending a little extra for the 9800 XT. Even though they are just oc'ed 9800's, they have more headroom due to the large cooling solution.

    Reviews
    Radeon 9800 XT:
    http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI5
    Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb:
    http://www.bjorn3d.com/_preview.php?articleID=335
    Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb:
    http://rage3d.com/reviews/Sapphire/sapphire9800/

    Read those, then decide which one you want.
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    thanks for all the help :D
  • ketoketo Occupied. Or is it preoccupied? Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Actually, the Corsair would possibly overclock more than the Mushkin. Possibly because, according to anandtech, the Mushkin will run amazingly tight timings at high speeds but quickly deteriorates when taken over rated speed.

    There are 2 versions of the Corsair XMS3500 - the earlier version (1.1, I believe) runs on BH5 Winbond chips and is more tolerant of higher speeds and higher voltage, wheras the later 1.2 revision is on CH5 chips and, according to some, is voltage regulated onboard and thus not capable of as high speeds as it's earlier twin. I have a pair (non matched) of the earlier revision running right now on an Asus P4C800-E Deluxe mobo, previously had it in NF7-S - superb performance in both setups. I also have a pair of the Corsair matched PC3200LL, which are currently in the NF7-S, they don't seem to offer any less performance than the XMS3500, at least in my configuration which has FSB speeds in the 210 range - super tight timings/great performance. I don't have the right cpu to go into the 225+ range so can't tell you about performance up there.

    Any of the above mentioned ATI cards (98xx series) are going to be a better long range solution over NVIDIA's current offerings. No need to spend the extra for 256MB RAM.
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    i think im gonna get a 9800 pro 128, and then save up for when they offer something thats really good. But i may change my mind...:)
  • Al_CapownAl_Capown Indiana
    edited October 2003
    You didn't read the reviews did you? :rolleyes2
    j/k

    If you got the money go with an XT, if you don't go with the 128.

    Mushkin pc3500 and Corsair 3500 both run the same timings and from what i've heard the same chips (bh5, ch5), but one things for sure, if you have an amd system you won't be able to tell the difference.
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    actually, remember me saying if i changed my mind, im going to get the 9800XT and the NF7-S, and am either going to get new ram right away, or wait a little bit on the ram, but right now im in desperate need of a good vid card and mobo.

    Some time in the next week or two ill have a brand new 9800XT and an NF7-S knocking on my door :D
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    i do have one more question though, which would be better, the ASUS or the ATi version of the radeon 9800xt, i planned on sticking with the ATi one unless the ASUS is better...?
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    They're the same.
  • Geeky1Geeky1 University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
    edited October 2003
    ASUS has a better heatsink, IMO. Also looks better, IMO. ASUS has far, FAR better tech support than ATi does (at least their MB dept. does), and I speak from experience with both. PERSONALLY, I'd get the ASUS.
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    does the better heat sink mean better cooling, which leads to better ocing?

    i also noticed that is had dual fans instead of 1 65mm like the ATi
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Possibly. The core revision is the largest determining factor in overclockability, and there's no way to tell which you're getting.
  • DisvengeanceDisvengeance
    edited October 2003
    k, ill get the asus, its a couple bucks cheaper anyways :) unless its still sold out by the time i order, then ill get the ATi
Sign In or Register to comment.