PDA

View Full Version : 5600 Ultra?


outsider
07-06-03, 02:34 AM
Anyone knows when will 400/400Mhz Geforce FX 5600 Ultra be release? And when will Geforce FX 5900 Value be release?

How does a Geforce FX 5600 Ultra (400Mhz and 350Mhz) compare to a Radeon 9600 Pro?

Is Geforce FX 5900 Value going to take over Geforce FX 5600 Ultra ?

Dazz
07-06-03, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by outsider
Anyone knows when will 400/400Mhz Geforce FX 5600 Ultra be release? And when will Geforce FX 5900 Value be release?

How does a Geforce FX 5600 Ultra (400Mhz and 350Mhz) compare to a Radeon 9600 Pro?

Is Geforce FX 5900 Value going to take over Geforce FX 5600 Ultra ?
1: Nope
2: 350MHz slower & 400MHz faster then the Radeon 9600Pro
3: Nope just fills in the gap from the FX5600U & FX5900.

BigFish7
07-06-03, 05:49 AM
if taking speed as a factor the 5600U (rev 2) is surely a better pick however bang for buck then ATI's should be better ( yet they are very close, maybe 2-1% difference when talking ratio for preformance/price).
if i were you i would get the ultra.

outsider
07-06-03, 06:44 AM
I was wonder whether if 5900 Value is priced at about USD$299 and 5600 Ultra is about $199.

Do you think it is worth spending that exta money to get a 5900 Value? Why or why not?

BigFish7
07-06-03, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by outsider
I was wonder whether if 5900 Value is priced at about USD$299 and 5600 Ultra is about $199.

Do you think it is worth spending that exta money to get a 5900 Value? Why or why not?
i guess that street prices would be 280$~ for the value and
180$~ for the 5600U.
therefore if you have the extra $ and the value would be able to perform as the 5900N when OCed or in its range( meaning 15%slower max) then surely it's a better buy however if it would be just a little faster then the 5600U and much slower then the 5900N ( something like 40$ lag then it's not worth the extra $).
yet i'm sure it would be a great card for the money it should be something like the 9800N.
we will j have to wait and see...

DSC
07-06-03, 07:49 AM
I would wait for NV36/FX5700 first and see what kind of performance it has, 5600 is underwhelming to say the least.

Slappi
07-06-03, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by DSC
I would wait for NV36/FX5700 first and see what kind of performance it has, 5600 is underwhelming to say the least.

How is the 5600 ultra underwhelming? Please explain.

DSC
07-06-03, 08:19 AM
In the 5600 launch, Nvidia clearly positioned it as "Faster than Ti4600 at half the price".

It's obviously NOT. It cannot even beat the Ti4200 without AA or AF, and this is the 5600 Ultra. And this was the 350/350 old core which is clocked much much higher than the Ti4200.

BigFish7
07-06-03, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by DSC
In the 5600 launch, Nvidia clearly positioned it as "Faster than Ti4600 at half the price".

It's obviously NOT. It cannot even beat the Ti4200 without AA or AF, and this is the 5600 Ultra. And this was the 350/350 old core which is clocked much much higher than the Ti4200.

he is right in that case although overall the FX5600U is a better card then Ti4800 (not SE meaning Ti4600 AGP X8)

BigFish7
07-06-03, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by DSC
I would wait for NV36/FX5700 first and see what kind of performance it has, 5600 is underwhelming to say the least.

i'm almost 100% sure that teh 5700 (aka NV36) would be between the 5600U and 5900V performance.

B&R
07-06-03, 12:27 PM
Also 5600U will be costlier than 9600p.

BigFish7
07-06-03, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by B&R
Also 5600U will be costlier than 9600p.
yeap for about +20$-25$, which i find negligible.
it's worth the extra speed for 20$-25$ .

outsider
07-06-03, 12:49 PM
There will be 5700 (aka NV36) ?? when will this be happening? So will it still be using AGP?

Geforce4ti4200
07-06-03, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by DSC
In the 5600 launch, Nvidia clearly positioned it as "Faster than Ti4600 at half the price".

It's obviously NOT. It cannot even beat the Ti4200 without AA or AF, and this is the 5600 Ultra. And this was the 350/350 old core which is clocked much much higher than the Ti4200.


both the fx5600u and radeon9600 pro are slower than a ti4200 without fsaa. Their only thing going for them is faster *with* fsaa and directX 9, both of which no game needs anyway for the time being. I laugh at guys who get fx5600u's and they run 1024x768 with 4x fsaa while I run 1600x1200 on a ti4200 without fsaa and my games run faster and look better too :)

The Baron
07-06-03, 01:19 PM
they run 1024x768 with 4x fsaa while I run 1600x1200 on a ti4200 without fsaa and my games run faster and look better too
FSAA looks better than higher res.

Slappi
07-06-03, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by The Baron
FSAA looks better than higher res.

I agree.

outsider
07-06-03, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by BigFish7
i'm almost 100% sure that teh 5700 (aka NV36) would be between the 5600U and 5900V performance.

According to X-Bit labs, there is an article that says "NVIDIA may call the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra clocked at 400/800MHz as the NV36, just like the company did with the GeForce2 Ultra, renaming it to NV16 from the original NV15 (GeForce2 GTS) after boosting core and memory clocks substantially."

I am not sure it is true or not? Therefore, 5700 is not a new chip.

saturnotaku
07-06-03, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Slappi
I agree.

As do I. If it's manageable I play at 1280x1024 with a minimum of 4xFSAA. I do that on RTCW and with 8x quality aniso and all details maxed out I'm constantly at 75 fps. That game and all my others have never looked better.

BigFish7
07-06-03, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by outsider
According to X-Bit labs, there is an article that says "NVIDIA may call the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra clocked at 400/800MHz as the NV36, just like the company did with the GeForce2 Ultra, renaming it to NV16 from the original NV15 (GeForce2 GTS) after boosting core and memory clocks substantially."

I am not sure it is true or not? Therefore, 5700 is not a new chip.

no way, it's a new chip which will be made aka IBM fab moreover it should be based on the NV35 core therefore i don't think they would just change the name.. (btw the new ultra is can be found on the market already, as a results it's surely not NV36 but NV31U rev2).

BigFish7
07-06-03, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
As do I. If it's manageable I play at 1280x1024 with a minimum of 4xFSAA. I do that on RTCW and with 8x quality aniso and all details maxed out I'm constantly at 75 fps. That game and all my others have never looked better.

yeap AA is surely better then taking the resolution to the next level yet for even more detail you can always cranck up the resolution. it's all about performance drop and personal favor