5600 Ultra (old) question

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
I was looking at the video buyers guide again and was thinking about the old 5600 ultra non flipchip... this card appears to be a decent value. I found it online for $135, and its as fast or faster than the 4600 pro.. a very fast card IMO which still sells for $160 itself.

the old 5600 ultra keeps up with the 9600 pro which would be requirement in my book if i were to buy a card.

The flipchip model appears to be near the 9700 pro.. but I cant find any of those online yet and I would expect those to go for $200 at minimum.

But for $135 shipped, is there a better deal than this?
Its going to be much faster than my GF3. and beating all the gf4 cards and on par with a 9500 pro, it sounds like a good deal at $135.

the fx series put a bad taste in all our mouths but this does seem to be a decent price.. any comments or suggestions?



Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
 

daddywags214

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2003
939
0
18,980
The old 5600 can't touch a 9600 Pro, and a 9700 would eat even the new one alive. It isn't a bad deal, but it isn't worth $135. Spend $160 and buy a Radeon 9500 Pro, if you can find one.

Tit for tat, butter for fat, ATi's dog kicks nVidia's cat

(Maximum PC)
 
I'd say the OLD Ultra and the R9600Pro are close (who wins depends on the test and your drivers). However your equating it to an R9700PRo is ridiculous, it's not even close; not by a long shot. And it's not 'on par with a 9500PRo, only the REV.2 Ultra is. The old version lags ALL of the 'XXXXpro' ATI DX9 cards. The only one it beats is the R9600non-pro. The Ultra Rev.2 is a GREAT card, and has GREAT overclocking abilities (unlike Rev.1).
$135 is an attractive price, but if you can afford better then get it. If you can't afford the additional money for the R9600Pro (although the price diff. you posted doesn't justify the SLIGHT advantage of the R96000P) or 9500Pro or the FX5600UltraR.2 then go with it, it is likely an OK buy. Just don't complain about it's shortcomings here, because we've talked enough about it here and how the rev.1 is really a poor design (heck why do you think NV came out with the R.2)
IF the price is right it's a better investment than a GF4 simply for some of the bells and whistles.
However based on your other posts I can't feel this was more of a PSA than a query; don't try and sell your mis-information when asking for suggestions and comments. There's alot of crank opinions on your part in something where you're soliciting advice from others. IF it was by mistake fine, but I can't help but feel a little PR in this post.

So the simply fact is $135 is a GREAT price, but it's an underperforming part compared to those you disparaged, it's just the RIGHT place to make it worthy of consideration.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
My opinions have been changing after talking to daveperman, the guy is convincing! But hes also a programmer and knows his stuffs

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
I cant find one.. I found one at $180 but dont know if its worth it.. your right about the 9700 eating up the 5600.

The 9700 appears to be a decent deal.

Do you know the differences between the 9700 and 9700 pro?

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
I wasnt trying to be a tricksta, when I compared the radeon 9700 pro to the 5600 ultra I had just got done looking at <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/vga_card_guide-15.html" target="_new"> this page</A>.
Rev. 2 does appear pretty close the radeon in this chart but I had forgotten about the larger discrepencies on the other benches.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
 
Well <A HREF="http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=gw56ufc&page=1" target="_new">HERE's</A> a more RECENT and more Thorough review of what we are talking about. STILL think the FX5600s are anywhere near a match for the R9700s? I also feel better about MY card (R9600Pro) after reading that review, often at stock it beat the ULTRA Rev.2 it was only the Gainward 450/450(900) that really pulled away (but not too much and sometimes not at all [losing]). Although I still think the FX5600U-R.2 is a GOOD card. It all comes down to price.

Notice the Performance differences. I still question that review in THG (3 tests!). But I think it was statistical error, and nothing 'engineered', like has been implied.

<A HREF="http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=gw56ufc&page=1" target="_new">http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=gw56ufc&page=1</A>


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:
 

coolsquirtle

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2003
2,717
0
20,780
seriously i think there is something wrong with gamePC's test, the FXs are perform way too low and the Radeons are performing way too high -_-" IMO that is maybe that test is rigged, cause look at THG's video card guide -_-"

Proud Owner the Block Heater
120% nVidia Fanboy
PROUD OWNER OF THE GEFORCE FX 5900ULTRA <-- I wish this was me
I'd get a nVidia GeForce FX 5900Ultra... if THEY WOULD CHANGE THAT #()#@ HSF
 

JeanLuc

Distinguished
Oct 21, 2002
979
0
18,990
Can I just remind everyone that THG gave editors choice to the MSI 5600 (old version). I got one of those and it runs treat.
If you go though the graphics card forum you will find loads of people who have problems with there radeon cards but no with an Nvidia cards.
 
If you go though the graphics card forum you will find loads of people who have problems with there radeon cards but no with an Nvidia cards.

Well I was having some problems with an Nvidia GF4 TI4400, pretty much been an Nvidia fan for years, but when it came down to the final choices went with an ATI 9800 Pro, so far no problems at all and no regrets, the card seems right at home with an AMD XP2700+, maybe the problems arising are Intel/ATI combinations, heck I don't know, but this ATI 9800 Pro I'm using, is a kick a$$ Graphics card and well worth the money.


<b><font color=purple>Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.</font color=purple></b>
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
They are good cards, on par or better than a 9600pro, and beating out the gf4 4600, a very nice card for $135.
I dont see why they wouldnt deserve an editors choice award, that card is pretty nice if you dont need the ultimate.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
 

daddywags214

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2003
939
0
18,980
I don't get why they consider 90 fps to be the minumum playable framerate for first person shooters. Hell, I can barely tell the difference between 60 and 90. I can't imagine any game running at 60 fps and being unplayable.

These days, no matter what company you like, be it <b>nVidia, ATi, or whatever,</b> no matter how logical your reasons, you're labeled an <b>idiot</b> or a <b>fanboy</b>, or <b>both.</b>
 
Daddywags (gonna call you DDW in my posts cause I only got 1 daddy! :smile: ), the thing is that 90FPS allows smoother look while jump straffing and such. Alot of angular motion will increase the FPS needed to fool the brain. It's not a static number like everyone thinks. Using Splinter Cell (a creeper game), you could likely get away with 40FPS. However with the running and jumping (altered gravity) involved in games like UT2K3 you will find that even 60FPS sometimes isn't good enough and cranking it to 90FPS makes any frame-shift go away.


<b>Jean-Luc</b> No! You can't remind Us! Seriously the LACK of outside information around here is really ridiculous.
'Can' I, Wait No, I just WILL remind you, that there was also an ad including that editors choice award immediately after the review, and also that that review compared 3 games in a small number of situations and also contradicts MOST of the reviews on the web. The fact that there were supposed to be 3 recommendations but only one made it to press also seems weird. Not a stellar comparison head-2-head. Just a LARGE # of cards, not a large number of tests.

And considering your last comment obviously you don't read this forum enough, even though you obviously don't read others either. There are ALOT of problems with NV drivers, just like there are with ATI. Why you might be seeing more posts about ATI is that there are more poeple buying their cards in the enthusiast community nowadays. Neither NV nor ATI have drivers down pat, and neither does Matrox (sadly), and dont' even mention SIS. No one has a PERFECT driver and ALL companies have LOTS of problems.

I think you need to do ALOT more research, you're obviously still running off the PR that came on the back of the box that came with your card.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: