PDA

View Full Version : Do you call this a review?


Lfctony
09-22-03, 11:46 AM
http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review&dId=525&dPage=4


Just read the above article. You will see the review of a 5600 Ultra, compared to a 9600 Pro. I have only read the 3DM2k1 and 2K3 scores. Here we have a 5600U and a 9600 Pro scoring at 17000! points on a P4 3.0C CPU with an i875 motherboard. In 3DM2003 we see the cards scoring at 5000! marks! Damn ridiculous results! When was the last time you saw budget card scoring near and above 13000! in 3DM2001 in 1600x1200? :mad:

rth
09-22-03, 11:56 AM
I went straight to 3dmark2003 page and saw this BS

3DMark 20003 is the latest instalment in the popular 3DMark series. By combining DirectX 9 support with completely new graphics (including the GeForce FX and ATI Radeon 9800), it continues to provide benchmark results that empower you to make informed hardware assessments.

wtf?

bs review.

digitalwanderer
09-22-03, 12:03 PM
In fairness to the reviewer, his conclusion was that the 5600 Ultra wasn't a good card to buy and that the 9600 Pro was a much cheaper and better solution. :)

Lfctony
09-22-03, 12:07 PM
Yes I agree but look at the scores! :confused:

digitalwanderer
09-22-03, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Lfctony
Yes I agree but look at the scores! :confused:
The 3dm2k1se ones for the 9600 I can believe since it's CPU based and they are using a monster of a CPU (I can get 17K with Bubbles on 3dm2k1se at 1024x768) and I didn't notice which drivers they were using for the 5600 but I imagine it was an "optimized-as-hell" set straight from nVidia.

The 3dm2k3 score do bug me a bit, that benchmark isn't anywhere near as CPU dependant as 3dm2k1se and the best I think I've gotten with my 9700 Pro OCed was 5800 at 1024x768. :eek2:

Lfctony
09-22-03, 12:42 PM
Digi, you are using a 9700 Pro and you are getting 17000! I myself use a 2.92Ghz P4 with DDR400, and I can barely break 16000 when I overclock my 5900 to 450/940 speeds! Thats the difference. Take a look at the below review. On the same system setup, the 9600 Pro scores a 12000 in 2001!


http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3211_3079811__6

Absolute BS!

digitalwanderer
09-22-03, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Lfctony
Digi, you are using a 9700 Pro and you are getting 17000! I myself use a 2.92Ghz P4 with DDR400, and I can barely break 16000 when I overclock my 5900 to 450/940 speeds! Thats the difference. Take a look at the below review. On the same system setup, the 9600 Pro scores a 12000 in 2001!


http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3211_3079811__6

Absolute BS!
REALLY?!?! :eek:

(The Dig once again kisses his 9700 and praises Terry Makedon's kindness!)

Lfctony
09-22-03, 12:52 PM
Now you see what I mean? Those scores are impossible.

digitalwanderer
09-22-03, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Lfctony
Now you see what I mean? Those scores are impossible.
What I don't get is why any site would try that? Any numbers you post up really should be able to hold water and be repeatable, I know I'd question the benchmark runs that didn't sort of parrallel what I've seen from similar set-ups.

It just makes me ill, especially the fact that these are the only sites that nVidia will be doing business with for the next year or so. :(

Lfctony
09-22-03, 01:04 PM
LOL
http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review&dId=518
In this review they have a 9600Pro beating a 9700Pro! :lame:

What idiots! :rofl

goblin
09-23-03, 12:22 AM
The benches do seem high on both cards.

But I agree with the conclusion:

"Short and sweet, the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra core in all honesty is simply not up to the challenge compared to a much cheaper alternative, the ATI Radeon 9600 Pro. While on paper the FX series looks the goods, its simply too complex to take advantage of any game that is here now and even for some time to come, and with product cycles lasting as long as they do today, its simply a big money drain for nVidia to keep this product up.

While the core was a disappointment, the card is a masterpiece of engineering, The cooling unit was fantastic, keeping very quiet and cooling extremely effective despite the lack of core overclocking, memory overclocking shows that this system can and does work.

The included VIVO system is pretty much the only saving grace this card can have for anyone wanting an FX, but with ATI looking at All-in-Wonder 9600 cards, the FX could soon be out of business.

Overall the cards poor performance overshadows its technically great cooling design.


- Pros
Best cooling solution for FX based GPUs
Very quiet cooling
Great memory overclocking

- Cons
Slower than cheaper Radeon competitor
Price/Performance ratio just not good"

B&R
09-23-03, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
In fairness to the reviewer, his conclusion was that the 5600 Ultra wasn't a good card to buy and that the 9600 Pro was a much cheaper and better solution. :)