nV News Deals Shop Archive Search Files Forum Feed Articles IRC Chat GeForce.com


Search Site
Ads by Google
Links To NVIDIA
Drivers
Products
Communities
Support
NVIDIA Blog
News Room
About NVIDIA
GeForce Technology
CUDA
DirectX 11
Optimus
PhysX
SLI
3D Vision
3D Vision Surround
Articles
GeForce GTX 580
GeForce GTX 570
GeForce GTX 560 Ti
GeForce GTX 480
GeForce GTX 465
GeForce GTX 460
GeForce GTS 450
GeForce GTX 295
GeForce GTX 280
GeForce GTX 260
GeForce GT 240
GeForce 9800 GTX
GeForce 9800 GX2
GeForce 9600 GT
GeForce 8800 Ultra
GeForce 8800 GTX
GeForce 8800 GTS
GeForce 8800 GT
GeForce 8600 GTS
GeForce 8500 GT
GeForce 7950 GX2
GeForce 7950 GT
GeForce 7900 GTX
GeForce 7900 GS
GeForce 7800 GTX
Watercooling Project
My Book 500GB
Raptor Hard Drive
Guide To Doom 3
EVGA Stuff
EVGA E-LEET
EVGA Precision
GPU Voltage Tuner
OC Scanner
SLI Enhancement
EVGA Bot
EVGA Gear
Reviews and Awards
Associates
Benchmark Reviews
Fraps
GeForce Italia
GPU Review
Hardware Pacers
LaptopVideo2Go
MVKTECH
News3D (NVITALIA)
OutoftheBoxMods
OSNN.net
Overclocker Cafe
PC Extreme
PC Gaming Standards
PhysX Links & Info
TestSeek
3DChip (German)
8Dimensional
Creative 3D Blaster 5 FX5900 Review - Page 2 Of 3

TEST CONFIGURATION

Competing with the 3D Blaster 5 FX5900 in this review will be a recently purchased 128MB GeForce FX 5600 Ultra from XFX. The GeForce FX 5600 Ultra is at a disadvantage since its limited to a 128-bit memory bus and based on the original implementation of NVIDIA's CineFX Engine.

XFX GeForce FX 5600 Ultra

I ran performance tests on two Athlon based systems. System A has some components that are a few generations behind.

System A Configuration:

  • AMD Athlon XP 1700+ (JIUCB) @ 166FSB ~ 1.91GHz
  • ABIT KR7A-133R Mainboard - VIA KT266A Chipset
  • 256MB Samsung TCB0 Stepping PC2100 @ 166MHz - Loose Timings
  • Maxtor 40GB ATA-133 Hard Drive
  • Sound Blaster Audigy OEM using KX Drivers
  • Windows XP Corporate without Service Pack 1

Sandra2004 performance for System A:

  • Arithmetic: 7241 MIPS, 3004 MFLOPS - close to the reference Athlon XP 2400+
  • Multimedia: 17482 Integer, 17967 Floating Point - between the reference Athlon XP 2200+ and 2400+
  • Memory Bandwidth: 2235 ALU, 2087 FPU - adequate, but KT266A memory bandwidth isn't a strong point
  • Cache Memory: near the reference Athlon XP 2400+

System B is a mid-range PC with an up-to-date chipset and 512MB of memory. It is owned by Jeff Bailey, who co-authored this review, and was primarily used for synthetic benchmark testing. A majority of the gameplay tests were done on my system (System A).

System B Configuration:

  • AMD Athlon XP 1700+ (JIUHB) @ 200FSB ~ 2.2GHz
  • Soltek 75FRN2-L Mainboard (nForce2 Ultra 400 Chipset)
  • 512MB Samsung TCB3 Stepping PC2700 @ 200MHz, Loose Timings, Dual Channel
  • Western Digital WD400BB 40GB ATA-100 Hard Drive
  • Onboard AC97 Audio
  • Windows XP Corporate with Service Pack 1

Sandra2004 performance for System B:

  • Arithmetic: 8388 MIPS, 3471 MFLOPS - right around the reference Athlon XP 3200+
  • Multimedia: 20216 Integer, 20340 Floating Point - right around the reference Athlon XP 3200+
  • Memory Bandwidth: 3005 ALU, 2805 FPU - where it should be for a dual-channel setup
  • Cache Memory: right at the reference Athlon XP 3200+ levels until the 512KB block tests

SYNTHETIC BENCHMARK RESULTS

Performance testing begins with synthetic benchmarks from Futuremark, SPEC (Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation) and NVIDIA. Futuremark's 3DMark2001 and 3DMark03 are DirectX 8 and 9 game-like benchmarks and provide an overall score referred to as the number of 3DMarks.

SPECviewperf measures CAD related application performance under OpenGL. Results are in frames per second and are based on a weighted geometric mean.

Tests were conducted at resolutions of 1024x768 and 1280x1024 without antialiasing (AA) and anisotropic filtering (AF), no AA and 8X AF, and 4X AA and 4X AF.

3DMark2001

In 3DMark2001, the 3D Blaster 5 FX5900 shows improved processor scalability over the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra. Without AA and AF, the increase in 3DMarks from System A (slower) to System B (faster) on the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra was 13% at 1024x768 (from 10324 to 11709) and 19% at 1280x1024 (from 8002 to 9551).

With the 3D Blaster 5 FX5900, performance improved by 25% at 1024x768 (from 11487 to 14390) and by 31% at 1280x1024 (from 9581 to 12591).

3DMark2001 Benchmark Results

With 4X AA and 4X AF enabled, the 3D Blaster 5 FX5900 blew past the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra on both systems courtesy of its 256-bit memory bus. On System A, the 3D Blaster 5 FX5900 beat the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra by 25% at 1024x768 (from 6996 to 8748) and by 55% at 1280x1024. On System B, the number of 3DMarks increased by 41% at 1024x768 (from 7802 to 10971) and by 61% at 1280x1024.

3DMark03

Processor and memory capabilities are less of an influence in 3DMark03 as Futuremark focused their attention on developing a benchmark that targeted graphics card performance. These results mirror the previous statement as the difference in performance of each graphics card between System A and System B only ranged from 2% to 4%.

With no AA and no AF, the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra achieved an overall score of 3064 on System A and 3137 on System B, which is a difference of 2%. The difference in the performance of the 3D Blaster 5 FX5900 between System A (4889) and System B (5041) was also 2%.

3DMark03 Benchmark Results

However, when the performance of both graphics cards is compared on each system, the difference between them is significant. On System B with 4X AA and 4X AF, the 3D Blaster 5 FX5900 outperformed the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra by 61% (3055 vs. 1901). Again, the improvement comes from the 256-bit memory bus and more powerful shader processing units of the 3D Blaster 5 FX5900.

ChameleonMark

NVIDIA's ChameleonMark was specifically developed to showcase the new features of the GeForce3 and measures the performance associated with DirectX 8-based pixel shaders. Pixel shaders are used to generate the three skins of the Chameleon.

A real skin.

ChameleonMark - Real Skin

A glass skin.

ChameleonMark - Glass Skin

And a shiny skin.

ChameleonMark -Shiny Skin

The ChameleonMark tests were run without AA and AF.

ChameleonMark Benchmark Results

Noticing that there is a minimal difference in the performance between System A and System B without AA and AF, it is unlikely that the greater memory bandwidth of the 3D Blaster 5 FX5900 gives it a significant advantage in ChameleonMark. Therefore, we are left to assume that the advantage is either a result of the superior shader performance of the 3D Blaster 5 FX5900, or more than likely, that the shader performance of the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra was lacking.

SPECviewperf

The Specviewperf tests, which run at a resolution of 1024x768, reveal that the capabilities of the CPU and memory subsystem play a much greater role in determining performance than the GPU.

SPECviewperf 7.1 Benchmark Results

With either graphics card, System B outperformed System A by 58% in Lightscape (~10 to ~16 fps), 80% in Data Explorer and Pro/ENGINEER 2001, and 100% in DesignReview.

GAMEPLAY PERFORMANCE

DirectX gameplay performance was conducted using the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles demo, Unreal 2, Halo, and Gun Metal, which makes use of NVIDIA's Cg (C for graphics language). OpenGL gameplay performance was analyzed using Serious Sam: The Second Encounter.

Halo

FRAPS was used to generate the average frame rate during gameplay. My primary objective during gameplay was to stress the graphics subsystem by enabling the highest quality in-game graphics options. There were cases where I might not have actually played with a specific setting enabled due to its impact on performance. With the exception of the TMNT demo, all games were played on outdoor levels for added stress.

Gameplay Results - 1024x768

Halo confirms that the shader performance of the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra is lacking. Halo uses a mix of pixel shader 1.1, pixel shader 1.4, pixel shader 2.0 half-precision and full-precision, all of which perform significantly faster on the 3D Blaster 5 FX5900.

The second area where the 3D Blaster 5 FX5900 clearly outperforms the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra is when AA and AF are enabled. Here we find increases ranging from 13%in SS:SE to 48% in Gun Metal. The increases would have been greater had I been able to test gameplay on System B.

Next Page: Image Quality, Overclocking and Conclusion

Last Updated on December 18, 2003


Table of Contents

Advertisement

nV News - Copyright © 1998-2014.
Search Products
Search
for


Ads by Casale
Tweaks
Metro: Last Light
PlanetSide 2
Miscellaneous Links
AutoDesk 123 Design
Build Your Gaming PC
FPS vs. Frame Time
Free Games And MMOs
GeForce SLI Technology
HPC For Dummies
PC Game Release Dates
Play Classic PC Games
Steam Hardware Survey
Video Game Designers
TechTerms Dictionary
GPU Applications
AMD GPU Clock Tool
AMD System Monitor
ATITool
aTuner
EVGA E-LEET
EVGA OC Scanner
EVGA Precision
EVGA Voltage Tuner
Gainward ExperTool
GPU-Shark
GPU Voltage Tuner
Fraps
FurMark
GLview
GPU Caps Viewer
GPU PerfStudio
GPU Shark
GPU-Z
MSI Afterburner
nHancer
NiBiTor
NVClock (Linux)
NVFlash
NVIDIA Inspector
NvTempLogger
NVTray
PowerStrip
RivaTuner
SLI Profile Tool
The Compressonator
3DCenter Filter Test
3DMark 11
3DMark Vantage
PhysX Applications
Cell Factor Revolution
Cryostatis Tech Demo
Cube Wall Demo
PhysX FluidMark
Fluid Physics
NV PhysX Tweaker
NVIDIA OPTIX 2
PhysX Downloads
PhysX at YouTube
Add-In Partners
AFOX
ASUS
AXLE
BFG Technologies
BIOSTAR
Chaintech
Colorful
ELSA
emTek
EVGA
GAINWARD
GALAXY
GIGABYTE
FORSA
FOXCONN
Inno3D
Jaton
Leadtek
Manli
MSI
Palit
PNY
Point of View
Prolink
SPARKLE
XFX
ZOGIS
ZOTAC