These days, we’re all yearning for an Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090—but two decades ago, it was a whole different story. Some Nvidia GPUs impressed with their immense capabilities, while others turned into a laughing stock and crashed and burned.
The GPU I’m about to introduce you to, or perhaps remind you of, falls firmly into the second category.
HTG Wrapped: Our favorite tech in 2025
Table of Contents
24 days of our favorite hardware, gadgets, and tech
This might be the only GPU that Nvidia officially made fun of
It earned its various nicknames, that’s for sure.
Nvidia is a market leader in every sense of the word now, and it’s hard to imagine it making fun of its own products—but it did happen, and the above video is the proof. It shows a group of Nvidia execs in the early ’00s, discussing the Nvidia FX 5800 Ultra, famously nicknamed the “Dustbuster,” “leaf blower,” or “hair dryer.”
The GPU had more than earned its nicknames. It launched to more complaints than just the noise, but the noise made it notorious.
The video, titled “The Decibel Dilemma,” shows a group of Nvidia execs at a roundtable, discussing the FX 5800 Ultra and the possibility of it becoming the “Harley-Davidson of computer graphics.” It implied that the noise, seemingly so iconic, could become a selling point instead of something to hate on. To highlight the point, the video shows the card being used as a hair dryer, a coffee grinder, and a leaf blower, because, well, that’s what it sounded like at full clock speed.
Nvidia’s video was a response to very real complaints from users, but it didn’t highlight why the GPU was so noisy in the first place, nor did it address the fact that some of its biggest problems had little to do with noise.
Why the FX 5800 Ultra became the “leaf blower” GPU
That kind of noise level was almost inevitable.
Was the FX 5800 Ultra always destined to become the “Dustbuster” of Nvidia’s GPU lineup? It’s hard to say, but it certainly had the markings of a noisy card from the get-go.
The FX 5800 Ultra, codenamed NV30, was Nvidia’s first DirectX 9-compliant graphics card. It was manufactured on TSMC‘s then-new 130nm process with 125 million transistors, which sounds like a joke by today’s standards, but was a big deal back in the day, and it nearly doubled the complexity of the previous NV25 chip. Many had high hopes for the FX 5800 Ultra, but old forum threads reveal thorough disappointment.
The card ran at an aggressive 500MHz and 1GHz memory speeds, using 128MB of expensive GDDR2 memory across a 128-bit bus. All that juice needed ample cooling, but also plenty of power, as the card required external power through a 4-pin Molex connector. Forgetting to plug it in meant that the FX 5800 Ultra drastically underclocked itself, which remains a valid power-saving strategy to this day.
Nvidia’s FX Flow cooling system was crammed into a dual-slot design, but it packed a lot in that form factor, with three heat pipes, a ducted fan mechanism, and copper heatsinks. It also had a high-speed centrifugal fan, which, as you’ve now heard, did its very best (and then some).
Old Anandtech data pinned the GPU at 77 dBA when running at full speed. It was louder than competing cards from ATI (now AMD), but unfortunately, all that power didn’t translate to extreme performance.
How ATI made the FX 5800 Ultra look even worse
ATI had the higher ground.
Just as Nvidia and AMD trade blows today (although a new competitor may be on the horizon), Nvidia and ATI, which was later bought by AMD, were rivals in the early days of computer graphics, too. One might say that these days, it’s not much of a competition, with Nvidia holding up to 92% of the consumer discrete GPU market. Back then, it was much more of a heated rivalry, and even Nvidia fans praised ATI when comparing it to the FX 5800 Ultra.
The FX 5800 Ultra launched at a brutal moment, sandwiched between two ATI cards that were arguably better in many ways. One came out around the same time, instantly making the FX 5800 Ultra feel outdated.
ATI had a significant headstart in DirectX 9 gaming, and also some architectural benefits that helped it succeed in benchmarks. Tom’s Hardware noted in its 2003 review of the Radeon 9800 Pro that the FX 5800 Ultra sported a more 4×2 pixel pipeline design as opposed to the 8×1 delivered by ATI. As a result, ATI’s Radeon 9800 Pro could render twice the single textured pixels per clock cycle.
So there we had it: Nvidia’s FX 5800 Ultra, the infamous Dustbuster, may have had some better specs than the Radeon 9700/9800 Pro, but that didn’t help it succeed. Comparable in benchmarks to the 9700, but louder and pricier, it was remembered not for its power, but for its noise levels.
The FX 5800 Ultra still changed GPUs forever
For better or worse.
It’s easy to remember the FX 5800 Ultra as little more than a punchline, but it helped normalize some GPU realities that are still the norm today.
The cooler, although obnoxiously loud, paved the way to flagship GPU cooling as industrial design. Aftermarket coolers used to do the job before (and were actually a better solution than Nvidia’s built-in cooler on the FX 5800 Ultra, according to some forum posts), but the GPU ushered in the era we still live in, one of built-in cooling solutions.
Nvidia also learned crucial lessons from the way the FX 5800 Ultra was received. It launched the FX 5900 series shortly after, with all the fixes the FX 5800 Ultra could’ve only dreamed of.
The 5900 had a wider memory bus (256-bit vs. 128-bit). It had slightly lower clocks, but it could still keep up with the Radeon 9800 Pro. It used cheaper DDR memory, which sounds like a downgrade, but it contributed to lower manufacturing costs, and at the time, most users didn’t see the benefit of using GDDR2. Crucially, it had a much quieter cooling solution, finally putting the Dustbuster moniker to rest.
For the Nvidia FX 5900 Ultra to be able to run, the FX 5800 had to crawl its way through a limited market run and fade into irrelevance. Nvidia’s video made it much more timeless than any technical specs.
The video was a rare example of a large corporation having a sense of humor and acknowledging user feedback in a funny way. Can you imagine it being made today?
