Having fun with a ASUS GF5900U 256mb
Feel free to flame me as much as you'd like for the unprofessional bits of this post. Its written during lunchtime at work, just becouse I had nothing better to do.
This topic was started by JemyM,
Feel free to flame me as much as you'd like for the unprofessional bits of this post. Its written during lunchtime at work, just becouse I had nothing better to do.
Just replaced my old GeForce 3 Ti500 with a ASUS 5900 Ultra. My choice of graphiccard is actually more of a brand choice (ASUS) than the chip (NVIDIA). I saved money already last year, so I kept money in an envelope for half a year until the 5900 finally eased the dissapointment of 5800.
(I have 512mb/2400+)
First up:
This card does *not* take up 2 slots.
NO. NO. NO.
So forget that issue. I even have a Titan Double Blower placed right beneath it, and if that baby fits, anything fits.
http://www.gforcex.com/frame.pl?m=artiklar...an_systemblower
And it is NOT loud. In fact, I cannot hear it over my CPU fan anyway.
But I have taken a unprofessional look at some of the popular games around. See this as a "playability" test, rather than a perfect "fps" test.
First up. AA does not concern me. I run everything in 1600x1200. Sure, if you stand absolutely still you can see jagged edges if you focus your eyes, but as long as you keep movin, you need a cyberbrain to see any. Since "Turn of AA" is the greatest speedtip in the book, I have not messed with it much and would defenitly not destroy the experience in newer games with it.
I can understand why AA is a must for thoose who likes/must play everything in 1024x768...
But if you can afford a $400 graphiccard, you can afford a decent 19".
So unless you run TFT, or have eye problems, then a higher resolution is prefered over AA. Besides, a 19"+ is probably the best piece you can buy to increase your gaming experience.
I have also not even tried 3d Mark so far. When thinking upon it... I forgot. In all fuzz about it, I guess I just wasnt interested about it anymore. I intend to take a look at the nature demo later on.
Quake 1 (Tenebrae): http://tenebrae.sourceforge.net
Tenebrae is a Quake 1 port using "Stencil Shadows" = "THE" feature of Doom 3.
Running with NV35 the game ran perfect in 1280x1024, and I guess we shouldnt expect more. Stencil Shadows is Stencil Shadows you know.
Quake 2:
Haha. A chance to see what AA could offer with enough FPS left to be enjoyable. Steady 60fps plus here, but I really cant say that AA did anything for my experience. Its kinda one of thoose "I dont know what it is, and I cant tell the difference, but I have lots of power, so I turn it on anyway" features.
Quake 3:
As expected. Running everything at 100% went past the 60fps border a long time ago. Even with full AA/AF. Theese games are to old for this test.
Doom 3 Alpha, tested with NV30 mode:
Forget it. The NV30 mode in the Alpha doesnt work with NV35. The entire game is filled up with black artifacts and looks terrible
Tested with OpenGL32:
More fun. Instead of 1-5fps like before, I now reached 20-25, making the game playable up to 1024x768. However, its still Alpha. I know. I know. Judging from what I heard, that number is probably doubled in the final game. Dont buy a FX5900U just to play the alpha you hear? Listen to this wise guy.
WarCraft III:
Heh. The game ran fine in 1600x1200 with the Ti500, so it hard to tell a difference. I tried to push it up to 1940x1440 but lost the hz instead. AA? No noteable difference.
Morrowind:
It is interesting that morrowind is so 'un-optimized' for graphiccards. The greatest difference to me with Morrowind was when I swapped my 1200 Athlon to 2100... Already there the game ran fine in 1940x1440, even at large areas, but it still stagger a bit. FX5900U had near zero effect upon this. I guess a 3,2ghz is what I need.
Neverwinter Nights:
Ran near flawless before, runs flawless now.
Dawn Nude:
Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
Splinter Cell:
Its interesting how un-optimized this baby is for Nvidia. The game has an somewhat annoying way of 'waiting' for frames to be rendered, causing a 'drunken mode'. This must be seen to understand. Unlike other games, when you look over a larger area, instead of viewing fewer frames, Splinter Cell 'waits' until all frames are viewed, causing a 'lag' that makes the game go slower when looking in some directions. Will Rock had an similiar issue.
Even if Splinter Cell runs just fine in 1600x1200 I would go ATI if SC is "THE" game in your book. If youre more interested about EPIC and ID's creations, then FX5900 is a nice choice.
This is the first retail game that put the card to a test.
Raven Shield:
UBI Soft dissapointed me twice this year. 1600x1200 was fine on GF3, but anything lower than 128mb caused heavy graphical errors whenever there is a 'screen effect' (such as getting shot).
This can be ignored for awhile, then its gets so frustrating you quit the game. 1024x768 is the max resolution if you have 64mb, and this is becouse of a BUG not becouse of the graphiccards capabilities.
Anyway, tested the game in 256mb, and it runs 100% fluid, no screen issues. But Im so tired with UBI so I probably wont play it through anyway.
Unreal 2:
Ooooh. Here's the good stuff. Against what you think by now, I am really not an action-game guy, Im into RPG's. But I do enjoy modern engines, which caused me to kept all the games mentioned above.
Unreal 2 is the coolest game available right now when it comes to graphics, and even better, the game runs spectaculary fine in 1600x1200 full-quality everything. Playing this game makes the hair in my neck stand up. It really must be experienced to understand.
Best Regards
JemyM
Just replaced my old GeForce 3 Ti500 with a ASUS 5900 Ultra. My choice of graphiccard is actually more of a brand choice (ASUS) than the chip (NVIDIA). I saved money already last year, so I kept money in an envelope for half a year until the 5900 finally eased the dissapointment of 5800.
(I have 512mb/2400+)
First up:
This card does *not* take up 2 slots.
NO. NO. NO.
So forget that issue. I even have a Titan Double Blower placed right beneath it, and if that baby fits, anything fits.
http://www.gforcex.com/frame.pl?m=artiklar...an_systemblower
And it is NOT loud. In fact, I cannot hear it over my CPU fan anyway.
But I have taken a unprofessional look at some of the popular games around. See this as a "playability" test, rather than a perfect "fps" test.
First up. AA does not concern me. I run everything in 1600x1200. Sure, if you stand absolutely still you can see jagged edges if you focus your eyes, but as long as you keep movin, you need a cyberbrain to see any. Since "Turn of AA" is the greatest speedtip in the book, I have not messed with it much and would defenitly not destroy the experience in newer games with it.
I can understand why AA is a must for thoose who likes/must play everything in 1024x768...
But if you can afford a $400 graphiccard, you can afford a decent 19".
So unless you run TFT, or have eye problems, then a higher resolution is prefered over AA. Besides, a 19"+ is probably the best piece you can buy to increase your gaming experience.
I have also not even tried 3d Mark so far. When thinking upon it... I forgot. In all fuzz about it, I guess I just wasnt interested about it anymore. I intend to take a look at the nature demo later on.
Quake 1 (Tenebrae): http://tenebrae.sourceforge.net
Tenebrae is a Quake 1 port using "Stencil Shadows" = "THE" feature of Doom 3.
Running with NV35 the game ran perfect in 1280x1024, and I guess we shouldnt expect more. Stencil Shadows is Stencil Shadows you know.
Quake 2:
Haha. A chance to see what AA could offer with enough FPS left to be enjoyable. Steady 60fps plus here, but I really cant say that AA did anything for my experience. Its kinda one of thoose "I dont know what it is, and I cant tell the difference, but I have lots of power, so I turn it on anyway" features.
Quake 3:
As expected. Running everything at 100% went past the 60fps border a long time ago. Even with full AA/AF. Theese games are to old for this test.
Doom 3 Alpha, tested with NV30 mode:
Forget it. The NV30 mode in the Alpha doesnt work with NV35. The entire game is filled up with black artifacts and looks terrible
Tested with OpenGL32:
More fun. Instead of 1-5fps like before, I now reached 20-25, making the game playable up to 1024x768. However, its still Alpha. I know. I know. Judging from what I heard, that number is probably doubled in the final game. Dont buy a FX5900U just to play the alpha you hear? Listen to this wise guy.
WarCraft III:
Heh. The game ran fine in 1600x1200 with the Ti500, so it hard to tell a difference. I tried to push it up to 1940x1440 but lost the hz instead. AA? No noteable difference.
Morrowind:
It is interesting that morrowind is so 'un-optimized' for graphiccards. The greatest difference to me with Morrowind was when I swapped my 1200 Athlon to 2100... Already there the game ran fine in 1940x1440, even at large areas, but it still stagger a bit. FX5900U had near zero effect upon this. I guess a 3,2ghz is what I need.
Neverwinter Nights:
Ran near flawless before, runs flawless now.
Dawn Nude:
Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
Splinter Cell:
Its interesting how un-optimized this baby is for Nvidia. The game has an somewhat annoying way of 'waiting' for frames to be rendered, causing a 'drunken mode'. This must be seen to understand. Unlike other games, when you look over a larger area, instead of viewing fewer frames, Splinter Cell 'waits' until all frames are viewed, causing a 'lag' that makes the game go slower when looking in some directions. Will Rock had an similiar issue.
Even if Splinter Cell runs just fine in 1600x1200 I would go ATI if SC is "THE" game in your book. If youre more interested about EPIC and ID's creations, then FX5900 is a nice choice.
This is the first retail game that put the card to a test.
Raven Shield:
UBI Soft dissapointed me twice this year. 1600x1200 was fine on GF3, but anything lower than 128mb caused heavy graphical errors whenever there is a 'screen effect' (such as getting shot).
This can be ignored for awhile, then its gets so frustrating you quit the game. 1024x768 is the max resolution if you have 64mb, and this is becouse of a BUG not becouse of the graphiccards capabilities.
Anyway, tested the game in 256mb, and it runs 100% fluid, no screen issues. But Im so tired with UBI so I probably wont play it through anyway.
Unreal 2:
Ooooh. Here's the good stuff. Against what you think by now, I am really not an action-game guy, Im into RPG's. But I do enjoy modern engines, which caused me to kept all the games mentioned above.
Unreal 2 is the coolest game available right now when it comes to graphics, and even better, the game runs spectaculary fine in 1600x1200 full-quality everything. Playing this game makes the hair in my neck stand up. It really must be experienced to understand.
Best Regards
JemyM
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
I have not seen any 2d flickering. Neither with 44.03 or the new drivers. I havnt tested any 2d games thou, but windows is solid as a rock and feels faster than before becouse my traditional 1940x1440 desktop fits better in 256mb memory.
If I see it, Ill write about it here. Though after 3 days with the card, I doubt that I will see it.
Best Regards
JemyM
If I see it, Ill write about it here. Though after 3 days with the card, I doubt that I will see it.
Best Regards
JemyM
I'm having same pleasurably experience wit my Gainward FX5900U. games like MS CFS3, Battlefield 1942 and MoHAA + Spearhead are all running atreat with all quality options maxed out in nVidia CP and in the games.
I too have not experienced any of the flickering problems as reported elsewhere!
I too have not experienced any of the flickering problems as reported elsewhere!
I havnt tested any 2d games thou,
Arrgghh , Jemy M , i thought U were a geek .. but u are almost not (that means u are geek .. but not almost ) .. (sorry , this is coffee speaking ) ..
2D interface .. doesnt really mean 2D games .. ur normal GUI mode .. (browsing windows Xplorer, Internet Xplorer , MS word .. like that) is 2D mode .. :wink: and the flickering is reported when doing this.
There was a big thread (maybe on nvnews ) wher a Nvidia guys posted acknowledging 2D flickering on all NV 35 cards (i might be off with the numerbing here .. not a NVgeek .. just read 5900 cards) .. and he also said our rival is also Xperiencing it .he asked for help from card owners for solving this prob. Thats why i asked :wink:
Just kidding...
I have a PNY 5800 Ultra that takes up two slots...
The noise thing is a joke... Even with it I can't hear it over the case and cpu fans running... Even when it kicks in to high gear... Suggestion - Get a head set... Makes for better immersion in games...
I also have the PNY 5600 Ultra only one slot...
Both these cards are awesome and run every game maxed out fine but of course I have a 21" monitor and my refesh rate is set to 120 thanks to it being a Viewsonic and might I add the best monitors in the world especially for allowing high refresh rates with high resolutions...
Of cousre I only play my games at 1024x768 screen resolutions - too hard to see things for me anyway with higher resolutions...
The only problem I have ever had with it or my PNY 5600 Ultra are that Battlefield will stutter real bad - looks just like lag on the net - if I don't turn off that damn SYSTEM RESTORE in Windows XP.
For added speed I also turn off INDEXING and do a nice fresh defrag.
My friends always die when they see my games compared to theirs - graphics wise that is... They are completely amazed...
Sorry I'm an Nvidia fanatic so don't know what an ATI card looks like...
I have a system with a Geforce 2 Ultra, a Geforce 4 4600Ti, a Geforce FX 5600 Ultra and of course the Geforce 5800 Ultra... Oh and a Linux box with a Matrox G200... :lol:
I have a PNY 5800 Ultra that takes up two slots...
The noise thing is a joke... Even with it I can't hear it over the case and cpu fans running... Even when it kicks in to high gear... Suggestion - Get a head set... Makes for better immersion in games...
I also have the PNY 5600 Ultra only one slot...
Both these cards are awesome and run every game maxed out fine but of course I have a 21" monitor and my refesh rate is set to 120 thanks to it being a Viewsonic and might I add the best monitors in the world especially for allowing high refresh rates with high resolutions...
Of cousre I only play my games at 1024x768 screen resolutions - too hard to see things for me anyway with higher resolutions...
The only problem I have ever had with it or my PNY 5600 Ultra are that Battlefield will stutter real bad - looks just like lag on the net - if I don't turn off that damn SYSTEM RESTORE in Windows XP.
For added speed I also turn off INDEXING and do a nice fresh defrag.
My friends always die when they see my games compared to theirs - graphics wise that is... They are completely amazed...
Sorry I'm an Nvidia fanatic so don't know what an ATI card looks like...
I have a system with a Geforce 2 Ultra, a Geforce 4 4600Ti, a Geforce FX 5600 Ultra and of course the Geforce 5800 Ultra... Oh and a Linux box with a Matrox G200... :lol:
Besided the 5800 Ultra is as fast if not faster than the 5900 in most or some tests... Just because it's a newer card, (the 5900) doesn't mean it's a faster card...
It's based off of the 5800 by most accounts it's the same card...
The reason you have more ram on a 5900 is because it runs at a slower clock speed.
That was the whole reason I went with the 5800 Ultra because of it's raw power over any of the other cards...
It is like saying that Intel processors are faster than AMD...
They are true if looking at MHZ wise but by the most part the AMD hangs right along with the top Intels and it's only 3/4 the actual MHZ...
It's based off of the 5800 by most accounts it's the same card...
The reason you have more ram on a 5900 is because it runs at a slower clock speed.
That was the whole reason I went with the 5800 Ultra because of it's raw power over any of the other cards...
It is like saying that Intel processors are faster than AMD...
They are true if looking at MHZ wise but by the most part the AMD hangs right along with the top Intels and it's only 3/4 the actual MHZ...
Even if Splinter Cell runs just fine in 1600x1200 I would go ATI if SC is "THE" game in your book
Doesnt matter what card you got fool. If you didnt run @ 1600, and ran @ like 1024, you wouldnt get those big rendering problems,
Doesnt matter what card you got fool. If you didnt run @ 1600, and ran @ like 1024, you wouldnt get those big rendering problems,
blah, ill just crank up my Monster 3D II Voodoo 2 12mb and ill own all of you !! hahaha j/k i dont even know if i have that card anymore, same with the ol S3 Virge
anyway thats an awesome card, but ill just wait a while till i go shopping, maybe i wont till the 64-bit processors/mobos come out, ah well technology just keeps getting better and better, wonder what the starwars kid has to say about this :lol:
anyway thats an awesome card, but ill just wait a while till i go shopping, maybe i wont till the 64-bit processors/mobos come out, ah well technology just keeps getting better and better, wonder what the starwars kid has to say about this :lol:
you made a wise choice....I myself got its younger brother the 128 meg card on friday and it's just awesome.......
runs anything i throw at it quite well indeed and get this....I'm still only using a stick of pc2100 ram in single mode on my mobo........10 days from now i'll change that DDR mode and replace it with 2 sticks of 3200 and also a faster cpu than i use now...(1700xp)...then that card should fly nice and high.......
whooHOO!!!!
runs anything i throw at it quite well indeed and get this....I'm still only using a stick of pc2100 ram in single mode on my mobo........10 days from now i'll change that DDR mode and replace it with 2 sticks of 3200 and also a faster cpu than i use now...(1700xp)...then that card should fly nice and high.......
whooHOO!!!!
kyro...the problem some had(....ALLEDGEDLY...)with 2d on these cards is when you load up a phanatically large file and begin to scroll thru that file when this flickering problem begins....but that was just ONE case....and god knows what it was that caused it....most likely the user's ignorance to CONFIGURE his system as is the case in most issues of this kind.it might not even be an issue with the card itself and most probably isnt........so until we get a definitive statement from Nvidia or a conclusive answer and what caused this to happen to this ONE individual(for all we know could have been some ATI pussy wipe trying to sabotage the company with pure juvenile delinquency)then we shouldnt comment on the so called lack of quality that this fantastic card can perform at.
ever downloaded say.....a HUGE picture file from NASA and then tried to scroll the pic with your mouse?......and seen the flicker as the memory couldnt keep up to the scroll?........betcha you dont get a smooth scroll withouot some flicker to that in any computer you use to try that on......so let's just wait and see how this turns out.I highly doubt it is a video card issue.
ever downloaded say.....a HUGE picture file from NASA and then tried to scroll the pic with your mouse?......and seen the flicker as the memory couldnt keep up to the scroll?........betcha you dont get a smooth scroll withouot some flicker to that in any computer you use to try that on......so let's just wait and see how this turns out.I highly doubt it is a video card issue.
Damn u JemyM I want that card too :)
