PDA

View Full Version : nV News GeForce FX 5900 Ultra preview!


Pages : [1] 2

volt
05-12-03, 09:04 AM
It's up folks.

http://www.nvnews.net

Dazz
05-12-03, 01:07 PM
Anyway so what do you guys think? I am kinda alittle disappointed, i think it could be alot faster but i guess it's down to it being CPU bound, i mean 28GB/sec bandwith is insaine.
I guess Intel and AMD better get cracking :D

volt
05-12-03, 01:09 PM
Compression isn't as efficient as they say it is. Nice Aniso though :) I'm overall satisfied. Let's just sit and wait for DetXP :)

Dazz
05-12-03, 01:15 PM
Yeah theres quite a big dirrence between High performance & quilty. I am a little off put that there seems to be a bug with 4x AA & 8x AF.
http://img.hexus.net/FX5900/48.jpg http://img.hexus.net/FX5900/Ras48.jpg
I might buy the FX5900V :)

StealthHawk
05-12-03, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
Yeah theres quite a big dirrence between High performance & quilty. I am a little off put that there seems to be a bug with 4x AA & 8x AF.

What bug?

volt
05-12-03, 02:40 PM
Yea, the blurriness in high performance. Driver related maybe.

bofh1971
05-12-03, 03:10 PM
This quick release of a new card has had me thinking.

With all the delays of the original FX, it really makes you wonder if pressure from customers/media/competition made them release a product they rather wouldnt?

The new card looks wicked.
I will save up for the Value, as with 4pc's to take care of, I can't blow everything on just one machine. (the kids would steal my machine)

The specs are more than satisfactory, as said before the processors may be holding it back.

64bit Processors go to market this year, they should hopefully be able to give the card a run for its money.

I am confident that the drivers will perform more than adequately when fully released.
Its extremely rare to have any problems with dets.

ragejg
05-12-03, 05:53 PM
alright!

finally a card I can forecast buying x-mas time!

:)

The Baron
05-12-03, 06:32 PM
Wheeeeeeeeeeee!

It didn't suck! I'm so glad I didn't get my hopes up for NV35 because it didn't disappoint me :D

Now when the 6000 Ultra comes out in a few months with G/DDR2... time to buy.

mikechai
05-12-03, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by volt
It's up folks.

http://www.nvnews.net

Very nice review by nvnews, well done!
Just one error, the third NV35 line up should be FX 5900 value(not FX 5800).

:)

Neova
05-12-03, 09:50 PM
That was one of the BEST previews I've read in a long time. I've read Anandtech and Tom's and by far, this review captures the interests of the intended target audience: savvy gamers who want to know how and if the GFFX 5900U will impact current and future game experiences.

Bravo.

I would love it if you can add comparisons to a Radeon 97/9800 Pros and perhaps to Ti4200, R9000s and FX5200 in a future full review so guys like us can see how much "boost" we may get if we choose to upgrade.

marcocom
05-13-03, 12:06 AM
methinks that either nvidia or ATi is requesting or demanding that direct comparisons to the 9800Pro not be allowed. wonder why.

StealthHawk
05-13-03, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by marcocom
methinks that either nvidia or ATi is requesting or demanding that direct comparisons to the 9800Pro not be allowed. wonder why.

What gives you that idea? The sites that didn't compre the two cards probably either didn't have time or didn't have the cards.

Rampant CL
05-13-03, 02:41 AM
I think that the 20-30% improvement over the ultra is acceptable and should be sondiered a success, especially when you consider the time g#frame involved.

What im happiest about is the fact that our FX's get a nice increase as well :)

StealthHawk
05-13-03, 07:21 AM
Is 4x FSAA blurring only when used in conjunction with AF? Or does it always blur?

volt
05-13-03, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by mikechai
Very nice review by nvnews, well done!
Just one error, the third NV35 line up should be FX 5900 value(not FX 5800).

:)

The value card will be the FX 5800 (I will double check that, but I'm almost positive about that).

digitalwanderer
05-13-03, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by volt
The value card will be the FX 5800 (I will double check that, but I'm almost positive about that).

Eeeeew! Gads, I hope you're wrong....me thought the 5800 was being abandoned in it's entirety. :(

volt
05-13-03, 10:32 AM
I hope I'm not wrong lol. I can't take a peek at the docs though. Gimmie until 1 PM EST :)

Cotita
05-13-03, 12:16 PM
AFAIK the value 5900 will be a basically a 5800.

128 bit bus, 128mb DDR 1 and nv35 gpu.

No dust buster of course

GamblerFEXonlin
05-13-03, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Rampant CL
I think that the 20-30% improvement over the ultra is acceptable and should be sondiered a success, especially when you consider the time g#frame involved.

Well they didnt "fix" the 4 pipelines/2 textures per pass issue as Volts article outlines. Ultra Shadow (cheesy name i think) looks good, AA of shadows and increased performance. As he says "Accurate shadows are key for realistic and believable scenes" means boxy shadows are not impressive.

That means we need polygonal detail also, which I find lacking in even Unreal 2 (!). Just look at the drop-ship for the hero, its static, when it lands no suspension or dampening/animation with the ships feet. And if you look close, its pretty low detail geometry and bad quality textures. No bumpmapping even... I wont mention the awful acting and cheesy dialogues.


Doom3, If the minigun is just as boxy in the final game as in the leaked alpha Im gonna freak out. no just kidding but ill make sure you know its boxy (if i dont get banned from internet first hmmm). come to think, whats so hard about giving an option for very-high geometry in doom3, Carmack/id has a technology that makes bumpmapping out of high detail geometry. What about move the slider a little to the left and give us some taste of

The Way Its Meant To Be Played

http://217.8.136.112/root/pix/Doom3/pinky.jpg
(me bad i know, actionboy)

What im happiest about is the fact that our FX's get a nice increase as well :)[/B]

nja nja just the usual driver optimizations, it happens every year.

hithere
05-13-03, 04:52 PM
I think this card looks bad-ass. Not only does it do as well or better than a 9800 Pro 256 MB in all other games, but it hands the current comptetion its collective ass in Doom 3. This is exactly the kind of press/marketing that Nvidia needs to get right now. I could get this card and rest assured it would serve my needs for quite some time to come.

Whoohoo!! Doom 3 is a system-killer no more, and by the time its out, there'll be reasonably priced cards to run it. I look forward to ATI's response/Nvidia's counter.

hithere
05-13-03, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Neova
I would love it if you can add comparisons to a Radeon 97/9800 Pros and perhaps to Ti4200, R9000s and FX5200 in a future full review so guys like us can see how much "boost" we may get if we choose to upgrade.

The problem with that is the timeframe considerations. Unless you want to be the last site with a preview up, you don't have the time to benchmark all those cards on whatever your current setup is. And putting in older data wrecks the integrity of the review.

StealthHawk
05-13-03, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by StealthHawk
Is 4x FSAA blurring only when used in conjunction with AF? Or does it always blur?

Thanks to MikeC for making some clarifications on the front page. Here is a quote The screenshot on the left is from the in-game screen capture with no antialiasing and 8X anisotropic filtering enabled using the Quality image setting. It is indicative of what one would see when playing Quake 3 on the NV35.
The screenshot on the right is from the in-game screen capture with 4X antialiasing and 8X anisotropic filtering enabled using the Quality image setting. It is not indicative of what one would see when playing Quake 3 on the NV35. The screenshot on the left is a better representation of what one would see with 4X antialiasing and 8X anitotropic filtering enabled.

So it looks like it is a screen capture bug.

I guess the reviewers who pointed out the blur are blind and can't tell the difference between in-game shots and screenshots :rolleyes: Well, this is the same thing that happened with NV30, so why am I suprised? NV20's QCA and 2x FSAA were not captured correctly, reviewers judged the screenshots and said little to no AA was being done. Here we go again in round 2 :D

MikeC
05-13-03, 06:58 PM
Thanks for the feedback. It's very much appreciated.

If you have any special requests (benchmarks, screenshots, gameplay, etc.) for the NV35, please let me know.

One update I'm planning to make to the preview is based on a news post I made a few moments ago. I also e-mailed NVIDIA asking about their progress on a program that would allow screenshots to be captured that are representative of what's actually being rendered. I'll keep you posted.


http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200305/screenshot_1.png

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200305/screenshot_2.png

I'd like to share my findings with you in regards to antialiasing on the NV35 and taking in-game screenshots with Quake 3, which is based on the OpenGL API.

The screenshot on the top is from the in-game screen capture with no antialiasing and 8X anisotropic filtering enabled using the Quality image setting. It is indicative of what one would see when playing Quake 3 on the NV35.

The screenshot on the bottom is from the in-game screen capture with 4X antialiasing and 8X anisotropic filtering enabled using the Quality image setting. It is not indicative of what one would see when playing Quake 3 on the NV35. The screenshot on the top is a better representation of what one would see with 4X antialiasing and 8X anitotropic filtering enabled.

mikechai
05-13-03, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by volt
I hope I'm not wrong lol. I can't take a peek at the docs though. Gimmie until 1 PM EST :)

All other sites had listed it as FX 5900 value with 256bit memory bus.
This actually make more sense than a FX 5800 with 128bit memory bus.