PDA

View Full Version : GeForce FX 5600 256MB review at TR


garikfox
05-07-03, 05:54 PM
Heres a good review, and lets hope the LATER in the review is right and LETS hope nvidia can pull out some GREAT FX drivers :)

Conclusions
First, let's look at NVIDIA's GeForce FX 5600 in general, then we'll address BFG Tech's particular implementation of it.

As a mid-range graphics product, the GeForce FX 5600 has a lot going for it. For as low as $169 online (for the 128MB version), the GeForce FX 5600 is capable of bringing a DirectX 9 feature set to mainstream gamers and mid-range markets. On its own, the GeForce FX 5600 is a solid product that's even capable of running the "Ultra" version of NVIDIA's sexy Dawn demo at what looks like about 25 frames per second. 25 frames per second is definitely better than the slideshow that NVIDIA's budget GeForce FX 5200 produces with Dawn Ultra, giving the GeForce FX 5600 more legitimate DirectX 9 functionality than its low-end cousin.

The GeForce FX 5600, however, does not exist in a vacuum. ATI's Radeon 9500 Pro is still available online for as low as $160 and its replacement, the Radeon 9600 Pro, is just now becoming available for under $195. The Radeon 9500 Pro likely won't be available for long, but with the impressive Radeon 9600 Pro taking its place, the GeForce FX 5600 faces stiff competition regardless.



Performance-wise, the Radeon 9500 and 9600 Pro lay down a beating on the GeForce FX 5600, even when the latter is equipped with 256MB of memory. As far as features go, there are few practical ways that the Radeons are really lacking. The Radeon 9500 and 9600 Pro only support pixel shader programs up to 64 instructions in length (which is the limit of the pixel shader 2.0 specification), and they only offer 96-bit pixel shader precision rather than the 128-bit precision available to the GeForce FX 5600. However, those "onlys" have very little practical value. After all, it will be some time before games and applications start taking advantage of pixel and vertex shader versions 2.0 with regularly, and the 3DMark03 image quality tests suggest that the GeForce FX 5600 doesn't have the horsepower to take full advantage of the extra pixel shader precision it has available.

Really, about the only area that the GeForce FX 5600 has a practical advantage over ATI's mid-range Radeons is in multimonitor software. NVIDIA's nView software is far superior to ATI's Hydravision, which could make the GeForce FX 5600 more appealing to multimonitor fans. Otherwise, I can't recommend the GeForce FX 5600 with a clear conscience; ATI's mid-range Radeons are faster, priced in the same class, and have at least comparable—if not better—image quality. Those only concerned with multimonitor software can always opt for a much cheaper GeForce FX 5200, which also supports nView.

The fact that BFG Technologies' Asylum GeForce FX 5600 256MB is based around the GeForce FX 5600 puts the card at a disadvantage right off the bat. Simply adding extra memory and VIVO ports to the card doesn't make the GeForce FX 5600 GPU competitive with the Radeon 9500 or 9600 Pro. At $249 on Pricewatch, the Asylum GeForce FX 5600 256MB is $50 more than the Radeon 9600 Pro and nearly $80 more than the cheapest 128MB GeForce FX 5600. I'm all for the VIVO port, which is worth a bit of a premium, but the extra memory probably isn't—not for most of today's games. Although 256MB of memory appears to be useful for antialiasing at high resolutions with high detail textures, the GeForce FX 5600 doesn't have the horsepower to produce playable frame rates in those situations.

With competition like the Radeon 9500 and 9600 Pro, there's little reason for gamers, enthusiasts, or even casual consumers to buy a graphics card based on the GeForce FX 5600 today. Newer, more mature drivers from NVIDIA could improve the GeForce FX 5600's performance, but there are never any guarantees in that department. Considering that GeForce FX 5600 cards rigged with 128MB of memory are available for around $169 online, the Asylum GeForce FX 5600 256MB isn't even an especially attractive offering among GeForce FX 5600-based graphics cards (unless you have a particular memory-intensive graphics application in mind for it). If the price on this Asylum card were to drop by a fair amount, the card's extra RAM and VIVO capabilities could make it more appealing than GeForce FX 5600 cards from other manufacturers. At least for now, though, any GeForce FX 5600 will be comparatively slow versus the mid-rage Radeon cards.


These are the Conc. from tech-report.com

garikfox
05-07-03, 07:01 PM
FULL article here.

http://tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/geforcefx-5600/index.x?pg=1

bkswaney
05-07-03, 07:56 PM
Yep... NV better hope they can fix thses issues with the new drivers.
All there new cards are getting there ass handed to them by ATI.
If not NV is in for a long hard road.

garikfox
05-07-03, 08:00 PM
No crap man, Im still sweating on paying this much ever(249.00 US for my 5600) my 9500 Pro cough lol, The 50.xx BETTER do waht they say uptoo 50% in Perf. thre out all appz. Ok if so THEN YEs my 3DMark 2003 score would be same or BETTER then my 9500 Pro like its supposed too replace.

ChrisW
05-07-03, 08:09 PM
When they say "up to 50% increase" they are guaranteeing the increase will not exceed 50%. That means the increase can be just one percent and that statement would still be true. Just because someone claims "up to 50% increase" does not mean it ever increases performance even near 50%.

garikfox
05-07-03, 08:11 PM
I understand alot of WWW sites say maybe only 33% Increase :(

garikfox
05-07-03, 08:16 PM
Umm...Ok wait for 50.xx

StealthHawk
05-07-03, 09:20 PM
Which begs the question. With the NV35 due out soon(launch anyway. Dunno if there will be benchmarks included in "reviews"), which will be the next official nvidia drivers, and when will they be released?

Will it be the 43.51 set which has become WHQLed and is reported to improve the IQ of Balanced AF so it matches up with ATI's Performance mode?

Or will it be the legendary Detonator50s?

garikfox
05-07-03, 10:14 PM
Yep Legenfary -40.xx, and Hail New 50.xx :) Im sure :) of it, there gonna ROCK !!

garikfox
05-07-03, 10:27 PM
Ohh you guyz here thee 5600/5800 core can go upto a BLISTERING 100+ c, wow :)

NVIDIA says 140c on CORE WTF , hmm ok ...man thats nice..

Skynet
05-08-03, 02:19 PM
BLISTERING 100+ c, wow
Now THAT is downright InSaNE in the membrane. The FX core is a horrible design, plain and simple.

Better grab a 9500Pro while you still can. the 9600 is only average I am not impressed by it.

ShotShot225
05-08-03, 04:14 PM
PIECE of sh2t.............
Don't get that junk. I preffer spending my dub in burgers n sh2t.

Dazz
05-08-03, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Skynet
Now THAT is downright InSaNE in the membrane. The FX core is a horrible design, plain and simple.

Better grab a 9500Pro while you still can. the 9600 is only average I am not impressed by it. Yeah buts it's really fast when overclocked :)
Anyway what every happened to nVidias drivers improving the Geforce4's AF performance?

Dazz
05-08-03, 06:19 PM
Every nVidia card i've had i've seen screwed over and i belive this Ti440 will be my last nVIDIA card for awhile, intill nVIDIA buckle up their ideas.

Lezmaka
05-08-03, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
Yeah buts it's really fast when overclocked :)


And when you overclock the 9500 Pro is still just as fast, if not faster than a overclocked 9600 Pro.

Until the 9600 Pro is actually available and cheaper than the 9500 Pro, it's still a better bet to get the 9500 Pro.

StealthHawk
05-08-03, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
Yeah buts it's really fast when overclocked :)
Anyway what every happened to nVidias drivers improving the Geforce4's AF performance?

By all accounts they have many times with different driver versions.

While gf4 owners reported gains with new drivers, gf3 owners like me got nothing.

jAkUp
05-08-03, 08:33 PM
my card never gets near 140c's... as a matter of fact, it never even gets near 60c's... usually stays around 40-50c's... you have to put it in a microwave to hit 140c:rolleyes:

gstanford
05-09-03, 03:10 AM
Hopefully the 5600 Ultra will turn out to be fairly decent.

For those annoyed with CoWBoY and the other fanatics (funny how they prefer nVidia forums to ATi forums...) remember 2 simple things:

1) don't reply (no replies means no quotes of their messages floating around).
2) make use of the ignore list in the user CP.

mbvgp
05-09-03, 10:11 AM
Not exactly an apples to apples comparison is it... Comparing the non ultra 5600 to 9600 and 9500 pro version of the card. They could have as well used the 9700 and done the benchmarks. An apples to apples comparison would be benching 128MB 5600 with non pro version (if they exist) of 9600 and 9500. If they do bench 256 MB one then they should have done with memory intensive (like CAD etc) and not the usual stuff.

Anyway the ultra should be out shortly and people wont be disappointed ;)

Dazz
05-09-03, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by StealthHawk
By all accounts they have many times with different driver versions.

While gf4 owners reported gains with new drivers, gf3 owners like me got nothing. The only game i saw improvments as well as other people was quake 3.

StealthHawk
05-09-03, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
The only game i saw improvments as well as other people was quake 3.

Didn't UT2003 scores go up across the board too?

Dazz
05-09-03, 03:22 PM
Not that i noticed but then again it was unplayable b4 so never even tried.