starstorm comparison for flashed 5900

Nacht · Feb 9, 2004, 04:59 AM

i have a FX5900 flashed to a 5950ultra, the card runs great, core/ambient temps are even lower

i was using the 1.4523 omegas with it, but then i decided to try the new starstorms....then i started reading about the older 44.67s...which of these two do you guys recommend? im using the xQ version of the 53.03s...so im guessing i would get better performance with the quality 44.67s?

thanks,
robert

resonatorman · Feb 9, 2004, 09:03 AM

Omegas are better than Starstorms...so why don't you wait for the new set of Omegas that is around the corner (he's doing nVidia again, whoot!)?
4x.xx are not much use for FX anyway; I loved them dearly on my Ti4200, but on my FX5900 newer games won't even start w/ the good ol' ones...

Feb 9, 2004, 04:59 AM	#1
Nacht ein Krieger Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Clemson Uni Posts: 3,127 Rep Power: 0	starstorm comparison for flashed 5900 i have a FX5900 flashed to a 5950ultra, the card runs great, core/ambient temps are even lower i was using the 1.4523 omegas with it, but then i decided to try the new starstorms....then i started reading about the older 44.67s...which of these two do you guys recommend? im using the xQ version of the 53.03s...so im guessing i would get better performance with the quality 44.67s? thanks, robert

Feb 9, 2004, 09:03 AM	#2
resonatorman DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 66 Rep Power: 0	Omegas are better than Starstorms...so why don't you wait for the new set of Omegas that is around the corner (he's doing nVidia again, whoot!)? 4x.xx are not much use for FX anyway; I loved them dearly on my Ti4200, but on my FX5900 newer games won't even start w/ the good ol' ones...