Author Topic: GeForce FX5900 question (Read 1483 times)

Grits · « **on:** January 08, 2004, 11:24:47 AM »

My system:

Asus P4S533
Celeron 2.6
768MB PC2700
XP Home

My system came with an FX5200 Ultra 256MB, not a horrible card, but not very good either. It got good frame rates in AH, between 45-60 (I had it set at max 60), but with the default settings in AH2 it got around 22-24 in the tower with the clipboard down. Borderline playable but would work in a pinch. This is in 1024x768.

After checking out Toms Hardware VGA charts I was looking for a Radeon to upgrade, but I came across an FX5900 128MB for such a good deal I couldn't pass it up. I deleted the current drivers (even though they are the same as the new card) I installed the card, loaded the drivers from the disk that came with the card (which was an older nVidia driver), then reinstalled the most current nVidia drivers, and then reinstalled DX9b. I rebooted and with great anticipation, went to AH2 to check the speed increase I got from my new high-powered card.

IT WAS EXACTLY THE SAME!!

I mean, exactly. 22-24 FPS in AH2 and 45-60 in AH, same resolutions. Am I missing something here, maybe a BIOS setting? From looking at Toms Hardware charts the FX5900 was double (if not more) the FPS of the FX5200 in every benchmark. I was not even expecting double, I would have been happy with 10-15 FPS but I got nothing.

Anybody have one of these cards? Am I missing something simple? Does nVidia just suck? Sould I be banned from ever opening a computer case again? Somebody throw me a frikkin bone here...

Creamo · « **Reply #1 on:** January 08, 2004, 11:47:12 AM »

I'd like to know going from a Athlon 1800 GFTi4400 to the FX5900.

For $188 on Newegg, Im stroking the Visa.

Maybe the FX5200 is good and you see not much in AH2, but I hope you benchmarked before/after installation.

Try it in LOMAC or FS2004, where I really care about improvment. Pry be a ***** now to compare though now that you upgraded.

mason22 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 08, 2004, 11:59:06 AM »

Creamo, let me know if that Ti4400 needs a home, i'll pay for the trip too.

Creamo · « **Reply #3 on:** January 08, 2004, 12:02:29 PM »

Deal.

Video in and out too, pry a 7 day lifespan, regardless of reports. Runs Lomac OK, and every other game excellent if that helps.

Grits · « **Reply #4 on:** January 08, 2004, 12:15:49 PM »

I got mine from Newegg too, its a great deal, or so I thought.

Yeah I benchmarked before and after with a non-game program (I think 3D Mark 2000, but I dont remember and I'm not at home to look) and it also showed the same EXACT speed too. Something else is going on somewhere, the FX5900 should be faster than the FX5200 in any program and for them to be the same in more than one is suspect.

What kinds of things could cause that to happen? Drivers would be the first suspect, but I have the most current ones and its the same driver for either card. I'm really at a loss, maybe I sould try the older drivers than came with the card?

I guess I should have just gone for the Radeon 9800.

Creamo · « **Reply #5 on:** January 08, 2004, 12:38:48 PM »

Wiping out the old drivers, and doing the NForce drivers. They make a diffrence, and they are diffrent.

mason22 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 08, 2004, 01:02:51 PM »

the celeron isn't the bottle neck is it? i mean vs. a regular P4 ?

bloom25 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 08, 2004, 01:14:59 PM »

A Celeron 2.6 GHz only performs about even with a 1.8 GHz P4 or Athlon 1700+. I doubt it is powerful enough to give higher framerates in AH2.

Take a look at: http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927 to get an idea just how a Celeron performs.

Grits · « **Reply #8 on:** January 08, 2004, 01:15:38 PM »

It could very well be the Celeron, I dont really know, but that would seem logical since it appears to be something non-video related. I have not tried the NForce drivers but I will tonight and see what happens.

Monty405 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 08, 2004, 01:38:37 PM »

i saw benmarks somewhere of a duron out preforming a celeron which was clocked about 1ghz higher

i would be very surprised if it isnt because of you processor bottlenecking your preformance

(edit) Whoops, the benchmarks i mentioned are on the post above

Grits · « **Reply #10 on:** January 08, 2004, 01:54:37 PM »

OK, thanks guys, I think you found my problem.

LePaul · « **Reply #11 on:** January 08, 2004, 02:31:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bloom25
A Celeron 2.6 GHz only performs about even with a 1.8 GHz P4 or Athlon 1700+. I doubt it is powerful enough to give higher framerates in AH2.

Take a look at: http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927 to get an idea just how a Celeron performs.

Good advice.

Excellent quote in that article...

"The Pentium III based Celerons offered, at one time, acceptable performance. However, it is clear that in the value segment today, Intel has nothing to offer but a high clock speed. AnandTech readers will know to stay away from the Celeron at all costs; however, what is troublesome are the number of retail customers who are faced with the decision between a higher priced 2.6GHz Celeron system and an Athlon XP 2200+. We would highly encourage system vendors like Compaq and eMachines to shift their low-end focus to AMD if their customers are of any importance at all. As we've seen through our extensive benchmarking, the Celeron's performance is truly dismal; so while Intel is quite competitive in the mid-range and high-end segments, their value processors are inexcusably slow compared to AMD."

Grits · « **Reply #12 on:** January 08, 2004, 03:02:14 PM »

Guess I'm going to Newegg again for a 2.8-3.0 P4.

Monty405 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 08, 2004, 09:09:39 PM »

the worst part about the celeron - low end athlon xp deal imo is, when john doe wants to buy a new puter who may not be too up to speed about specs, they'll most likly choose the intel celeron because

1- it has a well known brand name

2- it has more mhz! it must be better

Creamo · « **Reply #14 on:** January 14, 2004, 01:51:52 AM »

For what it's worth, I got the FX5900SE today and it clocks about 1000+ more in 3dmark2001, with noticable visual diffrence from a Ti4400. Not enough to know my Athlon 1800 has to go though, like your Celeron. It's gotta be a bottleneck in the system.

Sure was nice of them to include Call of Duty and Ghost Recon full versions!