Slashdot Mirror

Here's a review of a "Rocket Drive" (PCI card with SDRAM)

OC Addiction

I have no idea why it's so expensive, except maybe because it has power backup.

Interesting that in 3DMARK, the FX 5900 ran away with it.

The FX 5900 ran away with nothing.

First, the Radeon won in 3DMark01.

Second, observe the origin as well as the scale of the 3DMark03 graphs: Graph 1, Graph 2
The difference is grossly exaggerated by the graph's peculiar origin (5700 and 3800 instead of 0) and large scale.

Third, 3DMark03 has been rendered an useless benchmark since it is riddled with nVidia "optimizations," which have been deemed illegitimate by Futuremark's own accord. Even the author of the article acknowledges the dubious nature of 3DMark03: 3DMark 03 Build 320 - FX 5900 Ultra - Should we include this? Possibly not, however the FX 5900 wins with WHQL Det Drivers
New nVidia optimizations (read: cheats) such as the Anistropic Filtering "optimization," which was exposed by renaming the 3DMark03 executable. Of additional note is that one of the 3DMark03 benchmarks was done using 8x Anisotropic Filtering, deeming it even more illegitimate than the rest of the 3DMark03 benchmarks in the article.

Fourth, the Radeon delivers consistently better image quality throughout, as was acknowledged by the author of the article: 3D Visual Quality - R9800 Pro hands down.

Another thing to be kept in mind is that the Radeon may very well do much better relative to the FX 5900 in all benchmarks since nVidia may very well optimizing for all major timedemos (3DMark03 style) and the reviewed did not record his own demos. Feel free to google if you find you would like more information.

Interesting that in 3DMARK, the FX 5900 ran away with it.

The FX 5900 ran away with nothing.

First, the Radeon won in 3DMark01.

Second, observe the origin as well as the scale of the 3DMark03 graphs: Graph 1, Graph 2
The difference is grossly exaggerated by the graph's peculiar origin (5700 and 3800 instead of 0) and large scale.

Third, 3DMark03 has been rendered an useless benchmark since it is riddled with nVidia "optimizations," which have been deemed illegitimate by Futuremark's own accord. Even the author of the article acknowledges the dubious nature of 3DMark03: 3DMark 03 Build 320 - FX 5900 Ultra - Should we include this? Possibly not, however the FX 5900 wins with WHQL Det Drivers
New nVidia optimizations (read: cheats) such as the Anistropic Filtering "optimization," which was exposed by renaming the 3DMark03 executable. Of additional note is that one of the 3DMark03 benchmarks was done using 8x Anisotropic Filtering, deeming it even more illegitimate than the rest of the 3DMark03 benchmarks in the article.

Fourth, the Radeon delivers consistently better image quality throughout, as was acknowledged by the author of the article: 3D Visual Quality - R9800 Pro hands down.

Another thing to be kept in mind is that the Radeon may very well do much better relative to the FX 5900 in all benchmarks since nVidia may very well optimizing for all major timedemos (3DMark03 style) and the reviewed did not record his own demos. Feel free to google if you find you would like more information.

Interesting that in 3DMARK, the FX 5900 ran away with it.

The FX 5900 ran away with nothing.

First, the Radeon won in 3DMark01.

Second, observe the origin as well as the scale of the 3DMark03 graphs: Graph 1, Graph 2
The difference is grossly exaggerated by the graph's peculiar origin (5700 and 3800 instead of 0) and large scale.

Third, 3DMark03 has been rendered an useless benchmark since it is riddled with nVidia "optimizations," which have been deemed illegitimate by Futuremark's own accord. Even the author of the article acknowledges the dubious nature of 3DMark03: 3DMark 03 Build 320 - FX 5900 Ultra - Should we include this? Possibly not, however the FX 5900 wins with WHQL Det Drivers
New nVidia optimizations (read: cheats) such as the Anistropic Filtering "optimization," which was exposed by renaming the 3DMark03 executable. Of additional note is that one of the 3DMark03 benchmarks was done using 8x Anisotropic Filtering, deeming it even more illegitimate than the rest of the 3DMark03 benchmarks in the article.

Fourth, the Radeon delivers consistently better image quality throughout, as was acknowledged by the author of the article: 3D Visual Quality - R9800 Pro hands down.

Another thing to be kept in mind is that the Radeon may very well do much better relative to the FX 5900 in all benchmarks since nVidia may very well optimizing for all major timedemos (3DMark03 style) and the reviewed did not record his own demos. Feel free to google if you find you would like more information.

Interesting that in 3DMARK, the FX 5900 ran away with it.

The FX 5900 ran away with nothing.

First, the Radeon won in 3DMark01.

Second, observe the origin as well as the scale of the 3DMark03 graphs: Graph 1, Graph 2
The difference is grossly exaggerated by the graph's peculiar origin (5700 and 3800 instead of 0) and large scale.

Third, 3DMark03 has been rendered an useless benchmark since it is riddled with nVidia "optimizations," which have been deemed illegitimate by Futuremark's own accord. Even the author of the article acknowledges the dubious nature of 3DMark03: 3DMark 03 Build 320 - FX 5900 Ultra - Should we include this? Possibly not, however the FX 5900 wins with WHQL Det Drivers
New nVidia optimizations (read: cheats) such as the Anistropic Filtering "optimization," which was exposed by renaming the 3DMark03 executable. Of additional note is that one of the 3DMark03 benchmarks was done using 8x Anisotropic Filtering, deeming it even more illegitimate than the rest of the 3DMark03 benchmarks in the article.

Fourth, the Radeon delivers consistently better image quality throughout, as was acknowledged by the author of the article: 3D Visual Quality - R9800 Pro hands down.

Another thing to be kept in mind is that the Radeon may very well do much better relative to the FX 5900 in all benchmarks since nVidia may very well optimizing for all major timedemos (3DMark03 style) and the reviewed did not record his own demos. Feel free to google if you find you would like more information.

Interesting that in 3DMARK, the FX 5900 ran away with it.

The FX 5900 ran away with nothing.

First, the Radeon won in 3DMark01.

Second, observe the origin as well as the scale of the 3DMark03 graphs: Graph 1, Graph 2
The difference is grossly exaggerated by the graph's peculiar origin (5700 and 3800 instead of 0) and large scale.

Third, 3DMark03 has been rendered an useless benchmark since it is riddled with nVidia "optimizations," which have been deemed illegitimate by Futuremark's own accord. Even the author of the article acknowledges the dubious nature of 3DMark03: 3DMark 03 Build 320 - FX 5900 Ultra - Should we include this? Possibly not, however the FX 5900 wins with WHQL Det Drivers
New nVidia optimizations (read: cheats) such as the Anistropic Filtering "optimization," which was exposed by renaming the 3DMark03 executable. Of additional note is that one of the 3DMark03 benchmarks was done using 8x Anisotropic Filtering, deeming it even more illegitimate than the rest of the 3DMark03 benchmarks in the article.

Fourth, the Radeon delivers consistently better image quality throughout, as was acknowledged by the author of the article: 3D Visual Quality - R9800 Pro hands down.

Another thing to be kept in mind is that the Radeon may very well do much better relative to the FX 5900 in all benchmarks since nVidia may very well optimizing for all major timedemos (3DMark03 style) and the reviewed did not record his own demos. Feel free to google if you find you would like more information.

you could try fan filters out.

they do cut back on your airflow slightly, but if your box is adequately cooled they shouldn't pose any major concerns. you would be amazed at how much dirt these things suck up

Tom speaks about both a heat-sink falling off and fan failure. For the latter I'd recommend taking steps to see that your heat-sink is up to snuff. Yes, yes, yes...I'm well aware that passive cooling won't work for the overclockers but if your fan kicks out and you're not around it's nice to know that you might be able to survive a CPU meltdown if the heatsink itself is robust. I'm not saying that this is the way you want to run your rig but it might be enough to save it in an emergency.

I've used many types of cooling systems from water-cooling to peltier to a failed experiment in immersing a motherboard in mineral oil (kinda like a Cray) and I've found that a nice old-fashioned big-ass heatsink will get you by. Peltiers are dangerous because if they lose power they actually start acting like and insulator and speed up the destruction. Water cooling works great for cooling but I'm still nervous leaving the machine on when I'm not around, I get the same feeling when I leave my place with the dishwasher on. Most heat sinks that come with off-the-rack systems are useless, I buy heatsinks as birthday presents for people I know that have bought Dells. If the heat sink falls off there's not much you can do unless you've got a successful mineral-oil-immersed motherboard ;)

Here's some good info sites:

www.ocaddiction.com

www.coolerguys.com

www.overclockershideout.com

www.frozencpu.com

www.extremecooling.org

Motherboard Monitor a nice utility.

links about rounding out ide cables:

http://www.jsihardware.com/gui des /roundide/index.shtml

http://www.oc add iction.com/articles/rounded_cables/rounding_cables .html

http://slackernews.com/Articles/rounding .ph p

This place should give a lot of resources too:
http://www.google.com/search?q =ro unding+out+ide+cables