Gainward Ultra 1600XP GeForce FX 5900 Ultra Video Card Review

I've been using this card for a few weeks now and I must say the FX 5900 Ultra is indeed built for gaming but it acts much like any card that you would find in a high-end workstation.

I've been sporting a dual desktop setup for quite some time now and have used just about every combination there is to link 2 monitors to one computer. One AGP + one PCI, Single AGP with dual video outs, single AGP with digital connection hacked for dual desktops, etc... In every instance except for the professional card with linked outputs whenever the computer boots up the secondary display will initialize to show the post screen with the primary display turning on when Windows finally loads. Well on the 5900 Ultra both video displays initialize at POST and remain in a mirrored configuration until the Windows drivers configure the desktop. Very strange behavior for a gaming grade card but there are no complaints here.

I'd like to say a few words about video quality. Over the years I have used many video cards from the Matrox Millennium II back in the early days to the TNT2 Ultra and may versions of the GeForce with a few ATI products thrown in for spice. Out of all of those cards I can honestly say that the FX 5900 Ultra has provided me with the crispest display that I have ever seen.

This of course is a very subjective statement on my behalf so I will elaborate.

One thing that some video card reviewers are very quick to say is that "This card has a very crisp display whereas this one does not" They swear by this but fail to mention what monitor they are using, at what resolution, and refresh rate. Since picture quality varies at a given refresh rate and resolution we have to consider the speed of the RAMDAC chip. RAMDAC dictates resolution and simply put the faster the RAMDAC the higher the resolution, resulting refresh rate, and picture quality.

The RAMDAC used on the GeForce FX series varies between cards but is 400Mhz on both the 5900 and 5600. The Radeon 9700 Pro uses a 400Mhz RAMDAC whereas the Ti4400 used in the review runs at 350Mhz.

The other thing that some people don't realize is that you might be running the best video card known to man but if your monitor sux it won't ever look good. On the test bench I run a Iiyama Vision Master Pro 17" this monitor has been used here in the Labs for quite a number of years and the picture is just as crisp now as the day I bought it. Currently on the desktop I run 2 NEC MultiSync FP monitors. All monitors in the lab are designed for CAD/CAM and graphics work. (Which is important to me since I enjoy doing that from time to time.) They also feature aperture grill displays and will do over 100Hz refresh at their native resolution.
Speaking from experience the dual NEC setup paired with a Gainward Ti4400 would have a very crisp display at 85Hz but became somewhat fuzzy at 100Hz. This is due to the RAMDAC not being able to refresh the screen fast enough to clearly define the picture. The FX 5900 Ultra uses a faster RAMDAC chip thus enabling an ultra crisp monitor display 1280x1024 @ 100Hz refresh.

Quality is subjective, nobody can take a screenshot of their display since the capture is made long before the picture reaches the user interface (monitor) and unless the reviewer tells you there is no way to tell if the monitor being used it top of the line or a CompUSA special from 3 years ago. This also bypasses any vision problems the reviewer might have so what can you do? Best bet don't trust one persons opinion, and compare the hardware specs.