Why did you buy an FX5900U-256mb for editing work??
If you are not a gamer it was a BIG waste of money and you would have been MUCH better off with a Parhelia at (and I can't believe I finally get to say thse words) a much lower price.
While the FX series has increased their 2D quality, the options offered by the Parhelia are very nice for someone willing to overpay for a ard (as you did with the FX5900U.
Not only did you overpay to get the 256mb version, you would have been equally well served in 2D apps with the FX5600 or even (shudder) the FX5200. As you state you are not a gamer (well do you play modern games at all?) then anything in the top o tha' line range was overkill. The Radeon R9100 would have been another good choice. The advantage of the Parhelia(s) is that theyhave the very best 2D quality around, and they are the masters of multi-head (likely known to you as nView), and their multi-monitor solution allows for 3 monitors (nice to have a utilities/tools scree, a preview screeen (or work space) and a final work screen. If you have any chance at all to return that card do so. Depending on your competence and res. levels you may be better served by much cheaper cards, and if money is no object then spend it well by buying the Parhelia. I think if you can get some money back and slip to a more 2D than gaming card then you could re-invest it else where. More HD space, more memory (improve process, render and filter time), more Flash Memory for digital cam, extra monitor, etc.
I would be very disappointed to find out I was lead astray by THG or that the review in question (FX, The way It Was Ment To Be Played) was based on faulty or incomplete data. I have read other reviews on other sites that claim the FX 5900 to be outragously fast, powerful and yes, outragously priced.
Seriosuly you were obviously reading GAME reviews. Sure it's Fast (but really how do you judge anymore with all these 'optimizations') but most if not all were refering to gaming performance, and 2D performance would have been a one paragraph blurbed, usually along the lines of a: the FX5900U like all others in the FX line has improved it's 2D image quality thanks to it's faster RAMDACs. or b: while the FX5900 and it's brethren have improved image quality they are only now coming in line with ATI and Matrox to whom many still use as the standard for 2D performance. You were not lead astray it was fast in the games of it's time. There were indicatins that there were issues all along (check any discussion we had bout it's ShadeMark scores, and it's 3Dmk03 performance, yet there wasn't really enough, to warrant any reviewer getting sued over it (as FutureMarke did when they stuck their nose out) by predicting, which is all it would have beenn, that the FX would do poorley in some DX9 tasks. Truely none of that should have mattered to you as a buyer of an editing platform, even now it is still only a concern to gamers. And if you based your purchase decision on just one source (THG), despite mentioning others, then you really need to do more research. I doubt that in the time I've been here I would've let a 2D/video picture editing question go by without responding in the way I did above (perhaps you got me on my holiday in May/June). You sholda checked here first or second IMO.
Unfortunately you have but 2 people to blame, nV for their 'optimized' antics, and yourself for buying a card well above your requirements.
However it's not that bad, you just have ALOT more power than you need for the most part, and spent more money than you needed too; but it will be more than up to the task, even when/if you switch to Longhorn (3D optimized version of Windows) in 2005.
- 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