Graphics cards

[Guest freequest]

well im just over halfway to saveing up for a new vid card im planeing on getting a GF FX5600 ultra Id just like some feedback from people that have that card...And no i cant afford to go for anything better this card gonna cost me about $420 AU everything is so expensive in Australia.....Anyway just wondering in regards to noise is the fan on that card really like jet takeing off... Will it singe my computer room wall. And if so will i need to run a fan heater in the room or will the card provide enough heat for a uninsulated room?

[Guest A321]

Hi,I was going to buy the same card. I really urge you not to buy it if you currently have a geeforce 4 TI, as you will not get faster frame rates. The 5600 Ultra is not much differnt, in fact its actually worse than a geeforce 4 TI range, but it supports DirectX 9.If you look at Nvidia's website you will see the 5600 Ultra only does a 100Million Vertices a second, wheres the Geeforce TI range does 125 Million. IF you dont know what this means, dont worry to much, but know that FS uses a lot of vertices. I am not saying the card is rubbish, but for example, in the UK the 5600 Ultra costs

[Guest Anthony_D]

I'm interested in the same matter. I've currently got an MSI Ti-4200 64MB and I was considering upgrading to the Gainward FX5600 Ultra 256MB. If what you say is correct then I'll probably look at the Radeon 9800 (Pro/Non Pro?) or the Fx5900 (Ultra/Non Ultra?). What I heard was that the Ti-4200 run on a 250Mhz GPU and that the FX5600 Ultra runs on a 400Mhz GPU. So I'd be suprised if it is acutally slower, are you mixing up ultra specs with non ultra specs?Curiously on dabs.com the Gainward 128MB is a

[Vulcan 14]

Just some advice guys as I have been down this route.If you are going for an 'Ultra' anything carefully check the specs of the card.I had a GF3 Ti200/64 and wanted to upgrade but was on a budget.I looked at a few of my favourite web shops and noticed odd pricing, some FX5600 Ultras were about

[Guest A321]

>I'm interested in the same matter. I've currently got an MSI>Ti-4200 64MB and I was considering upgrading to the Gainward>FX5600 Ultra 256MB. >>If what you say is correct then I'll probably look at the>Radeon 9800 (Pro/Non Pro?) or the Fx5900 (Ultra/Non Ultra?). >What I heard was that the Ti-4200 run on a 250Mhz GPU and that>the FX5600 Ultra runs on a 400Mhz GPU. So I'd be suprised if>it is acutally slower, are you mixing up ultra specs with non>ultra specs?>>Curiously on dabs.com the Gainward 128MB is a

[Guest Bob Z]

I'm doing the same, but haven't decided yet although I would lean toward nVidia because of their experience.Try this article at PCWorld. Also check the related articles on the right side of the page.[http://pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,109686,00.asp]

[Guest freequest]

I see I wasnt quite sure on the TI and the FX5600 cards there both the same price where I get them from.... but I think I will also have a closer look at the radon 9700+ type cards...I guess its best to get it right the firs time..Thanks

[Guest A321]

>I see I wasnt quite sure on the TI and the FX5600 cards there>both the same price where I get them from.... but I think I>will also have a closer look at the radon 9700+ type cards...>>I guess its best to get it right the firs time..>>ThanksI honestly think you would be better of with either a radeon 9600 or a 9700 PRO or any geeforce Ultra above the 5600 range. Just save a little longer, and this will ensure you are ok for most of next year as well :)If you have the money then go for a 9800 pro or 5900 Ultra.What ever card you get, I wish you good luck. I would say though, that if you can make sure you get a PRO or an ULTRA, as the PRO and ULTRA chipsets have better featurs than their standard counterparts, Its not just a matter of clock speed's. Dont buy a Geeforce 4 TI if you can help it as it dosent have DirectX 9 in hardware. If you can only afford a 5600 Ultra then get that over a TI as it has DirectX 9 in hardware, but it wont give you a massive FPS improvement (espicialy if you are coming from a TI of any range).I am very happy with the Radeon 9700pro, I wanted a rig for FS2004, and now I have one. Im getting 25-30 FPS in most places with All settings maxed except for Autogen and scenery which are on "Second highest settings"Ofcourse I still have moments where I can get low frames, like when flying through, lots of clounds, but then i do have it all maxed, and it would still probley happen on the most expensive cards, but it only lasts a few seconds.Jason

[Guest Marcelo]

How about replacing a Geforce2 with an FX5600?Any big difference can be expected?Marcelo. Santiago, ChilePosted on Tuesday, 10:00am EDT

[Guest A321]

>How about replacing a Geforce2 with an FX5600?>Any big difference can be expected?>>Marcelo. >Santiago, Chile>Posted on Tuesday, 10:00am EDTYes you will defenitly get a mojor improvement.Largely because of the clock speed, and DirectX 9 support in hardware.Also not to be rude, but the Geforce2 is getting old now, and games such as FS2004 really need a Geforce 3 at minimum.Hope this helpsJason

[Guest FPSFREAK]

Just some info for you guys,Although the 5600Ultra does give up around 13 Million Vertices to the Ti series you guys are not looking at the most important figures when comparing the two cards.The Ti series gives up almost 3 Gigs of Memory Bandwidth to the 5600, runs over 50 Mhz slower clock speeds and it's performance absolutely tanks when compared to the 5600Ultra to the tune of 60% slower when AA and or AF is enabled. The very things that us FS'er use to improve visual quality.Personally, if your shopping on a budget than your only real choice is the 9600Pro. Your next step up would be a 9700Pro while you still can get them and at the top......Either of the Kings, the 9800Pro or the 5900Ultra.Bobby

[Guest A321]

>Just some info for you guys,>>>Although the 5600Ultra does give up around 13 Million Vertices>to the Ti series you guys are not looking at the most>important figures when comparing the two cards.>>The Ti series gives up almost 3 Gigs of Memory Bandwidth to>the 5600, runs over 50 Mhz slower clock speeds and it's>performance absolutely tanks when compared to the 5600Ultra to>the tune of 60% slower when AA and or AF is enabled. The very>things that us FS'er use to improve visual quality.>>Personally, if your shopping on a budget than your only real>choice is the 9600Pro. Your next step up would be a 9700Pro>while you still can get them and at the top......Either of the>Kings, the 9800Pro or the 5900Ultra.>>>Bobby >> I agree Bobby, my point is though, from a TI range card to A 5600 Ultra, the performance is not worthy, when you can spend a bit more and have a massive improvment. As i Said Im getting great fps with 2X AA and 2X ASFJason

[Guest freequest]

I see I was actually looking at a 9600 PRO more my price range.. well actually its $15 cheaper than the 5600 ultra... whats the diffence between the 9600 pro and the 9700pro? Is it memory or just chipset?

[Guest FPSFREAK]

RADEON

[brucewtb 247]

RickYou should be able to do a lot better than $420 if you get your card at a computer market - last week the 5600FX cards were selling for about $270 - $300 AUD in Canberra and not much more for the ultra version. I picked up a 4800SE for $245 and seem to be getting similar results in FS9 to those with much more expensive cards on a Athlon 1900XP.By contrast 9800PRO and 5900FX cards were $600 - $700 AUD at the markets. This price difference of $400 over the 4800SE (despite lack of DX9 support - not really a show stopper for FS9) makes these cards just too expensive in OZ at the moment IMHO. Bruce