PDA

View Full Version : GeForce FX line...confusing!


mr_oh_so_ice
11-15-03, 08:33 PM
Could someone post speeds, memory bit interfaces, and relative performance to Radeons on the entire GeForce FX Line?

I see the 5950, 5900 and 5700, Ultra and non-Ultra. But there used to be the 5600, and 5800? What about that cheap 5200? How do these boards compare to Radeon 9xxx line PRO and non-PRO? I want a new graphics card, but I have a Radeon 8500 which is like GF3 Ti500, I also have a GF2 MX which is just too old. Give me a hand here.

Richteralan
11-15-03, 09:40 PM
hmm.........
seems ATI Radeon product line is more confusing.......

Edge
11-15-03, 10:37 PM
Yeah, I think the current ATI cards are even more confusing, but the FX series can get pretty confusing as well. Just remember this: as long as the low-end cards have 128 bit memory bus, they'll be fine. But unfortunatly, there appears to be some really crappy low-end cards with 64-bit memory busses around, which cuts the performence in half (or less!). If you're thinking about buying a FX5200 or an ATI 9600 (especially the "SE" brand), for the love of god make sure it's not a 64-bit card, there's been a number of topics on this board from people angry about their FX5200 card's performence only to find out it's one of the crappy 64-bit versions.

Anyway, the FX series is in reality fairly easy to understand, just think of it as FX5200<FX5600<FX5700<5900<5950. The difference between the FX5200, the FX5600, and the FX5900s are pretty big, but the FX5700 and FX5950 are just slightly faster versions of the card that came before it (around 15%-20% faster). As far as raw speed compaired to ATI cards go, the FX5200 is about equal to the 9200, the FX5700 is about equal to the 9600, the FX5900 is about equal to a 9700, and the FX5950 is about equal to a 9800. However, ATI cards have faster Anti-aliasing/Anisotropic, so if you're going to use either of those features much then the ATI cards will be faster. The ATI cards also have faster DX9 features, though it's not as big of an issue as it was a few months ago (before the Det50 drivers were availible). As far as ultra/pro versions of the cards, they're basiclly the same as the base card except around 10% faster, so there wont' be that big of a deal between them anyway.

Memory busses are as follows: FX5200/FX5600/FX5700/9200/9600 are normally 128 bit cards, while the FX5800/9700 and above cards are 256 bit. HOWEVER, look out for "SE" versions and the specs on some of the lower cards, usually the "SE" means "half the bit-rate, half the performence"! And as I mentioned, some crappy versions of the lower-end cards (especially the FX5200) may be 64-bit versions, especially if they're from a generic company ("real" FX5200 cards are 128 bit).

Oh, and the ATI 9000/9500/FX5600/FX5800 are all discontinued to make way for the refreshes of the cards (i.e. the 9600 replaced the 9500, the FX5700 replaced the FX5600, etc.). If you use AA/Aniso a lot, I'd say get a 9800 non-pro (if you can find them, best bang for your buck), and if you don't, try getting an FX5900 non-ultra (should be a bit cheaper then the 9800). If you can't find either of those cards though, then I'd recommend the 9600, with the FX5700 coming in close behind.

ragejg
11-15-03, 10:55 PM
5200's have the nv34 core, which sports ~GF3 gaming performance ... providing it has 128bit memory and is fairly overclockable...
Some 5200's have a 64 bit memory interface, which kicks the card down muchly in performance. ~5k 3dmarks(01) with 64 bit version, ~8-11k typically with 128bit version.

5200 Ultras perform a little better, and when overclocked around the level of a stock 64mb ti4200... But there is to my knowledge slightly less of a performance hit from AA and AF on the present low end nvidia cards vs nv2X... ~9-12k in 3dmark 2k1...

DX9 performance is not very good at all in the nv34, but DX8 perfomance and IQ is decent...

For the right price, these cards are worth it to those wanting to make an upgrade from a GF2ti/GF4MX/Radeon700/7200/7500...

...

5600's have the nv31 core, which features the addition of hardware assisted color and z compression, which equates to better memory bandwidth optimization than the nv34. Performance on a stock clocked 5600 is just a little higher than the 5200U. ~11-14k in 3dmark01, ~2.5-3.1k in '03...

5600 Ultras are just higher clocked than the standard ones... some reach speeds of ~490 core/~900mhz memory. ~12-15k in 3dmark '01, ~3.0-3.5k in '03...

nv31 benifits well from clock speed increases. They are also very proficient in OpenGL games...

4XAA is a viable option in quite a few games with these cards, as is 8XAF... I'd have to say that the nv31 is good for heavy DX8/OpenGL gaming, and decent for DX9, but some users may want to kick the pixel shader version down to ~DX8 IQ in order to maintain properly playable framerates...

...

5900's (nv35) feature additions such as a 256bit memory bus, CineFX2.0 and Ultrashadow... clockpeeds range from 400/700 to 500/1000mhz in decent OC's of Ultras...

Performance hit of AA and AF is even less on these cards, and the 256bit memory bus really helps in high resolution situations...

DX9 performance is a lot better on the NV30 than the NV30 (FX5800 series which it replaced) and the nv31...

As far as 3dmark performance, ~12-18k in '01, ~5.5-6.5k in '03...

...

As far as the 5700 series, well it has basically replaced the 5600 series... I don't have my facts straight on its architecture or performance yet. And the 5950 is pretty much just an overclocked nv35.

Hope this helps.

I didn't mention the ATI equivalents... Someone else more knowledgeable on that subject might wanna help out on that....

:)

ragejg
11-15-03, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Edge
there's been a number of topics on this board from people angry about their FX5200 card's performence only to find out it's one of the crappy 64-bit versions.

...yup, I was one of em... I decided to experiment, and thought I was getting a 5200U (thats what was advertised) ... instead, not only did I just get a 5200 REGULAR, I got a 5200 REGULAR FEATURING THE 64 BIT MEMORY INTERFACE... grrrr... stilll makes my blood boil... :p


Originally posted by Edge
Memory busses are as follows: FX5200/FX5600/FX5700/9200/9600 are normally 128 bit cards, while the FX5800/9700 and above cards are 256 bit. HOWEVER, look out for "SE" versions and the specs on some of the lower cards, usually the "SE" means "half the bit-rate, half the performence"!

5800's have a 128bit memory interface, Edge...

And "SE"'s not such a bad thing with NV35... ~$180-200 400/700 cards OC'able to ~450core/~800memory are not a bad deal at all...

Edge
11-15-03, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by ragejg
...yup, I was one of em... I decided to experiment, and thought I was getting a 5200U (thats what was advertised) ... instead, not only did I just get a 5200 REGULAR, I got a 5200 REGULAR FEATURING THE 64 BIT MEMORY INTERFACE... grrrr... stilll makes my blood boil... :p


Lol, that sucks. Man, some of these companies advertising FX5200s are REALLY being screwy, everything from advertising higher clocks then it really has to advertising Ultras when the cards are regulars to releasing 64-bit versions (which they shouldn't even be doing unless they name is something different), or any combination of the above. For some reason a lot of low-end cards are basterdised by companies for no reason...do they REALLY want to mar their reputation with blatent false advertising? It seems like the mid-range to high-end cards don't have these problems, I've never seen a TI200 or TI4200 or GF2pro or any card like that have false advertising associated with it, but I've seen some really shoddy GF2MXs, 8500SEs, and FX5200 cards out there.

Oh, and I wasn't aware the FX5800 card was 128 bit, I guess that explains why it sucked so much and was quickly pulled from the shelves. Not that it really matters anymore since you wouldn't be able to find them anywhere even if you looked. It's nice that the FX5900 is a true 256bit card, and probably one of the cheapest availible right now (haven't some places been selling it for under $200?). Though there are some decent value cards out there, many of which overclock quite well and perform decently, even with low memory bus bitrate. I still have fond memories of overclocking my old TNT2M64 and GF2MX cards by about 40% over stock speeds :p

Oh, does anyone actually have the stats on the 128-bit versions of the high-end ATI cards (i.e. the 9800se and the FX5900...uh...whatever the "SE" equivalent is for Nvidia cards)? A card with half the memory bits but 50% higher clocks would only be a little bit slower then the regular version.

ragejg
11-15-03, 11:58 PM
The 5700 is basically a 128bit version of the nv35 AFAIK... and I haven't seen any 5700U vs. 9800SE reviews...

ChrisRay
11-16-03, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by ragejg
The 5700 is basically a 128bit version of the nv35 AFAIK... and I haven't seen any 5700U vs. 9800SE reviews...


Welll a 128 Bit Version of the Nv35 w/o the extra TMU.

4x1 verses 4x2

Ruined
11-16-03, 01:43 AM
Here is a basic overview of the main models, though there have been deviations. Before I get into details, here is a basic overview:

Overview

FASTEST
***
FX 5950 Ultra
FX 5900 Ultra
FX 5900 Ultra
FX 5900
FX 5900SE
FX 5900XT
FX 5800 Ultra
FX 5800
FX 5700 Ultra
FX 5700
FX 5600 Ultra ver.2
FX 5600 Ultra
FX 5600
FX 5600XT
FX 5200 Ultra
FX 5200 (128-bit memory bus)
FX 5200 (64-bit memory bus)
***
SLOWEST


Details

=======
NV30 generation cards (NV30, NV31, NV34)
Mix of integer and floating point shader units

FX 5200 (NV34)
Available with 64-bit or 128-bit memory bus
128mb - 256mb
4x1 pipeline
350mhz RAMDAC
--
FX 5200 - 250mhz core, 400mhz memory
FX 5200 Ultra - 325mhz core, 650mhz memory

****

FX 5600 (NV31)
128bit memory bus
128mb - 256mb
4x1 pipeline
400mhz RAMDAC
--
FX 5600XT - 230mhz core, 400mhz memory
FX 5600 - 325mhz core, 550mhz memory
FX 5600 Ultra - 350mhz core, 700mhz memory
FX 5600 Ultra Ver.2 - 400mhz core, 800mhz memory

****

FX 5800 (NV30)
128bit memory bus
128mb
4x2 pipeline
400mhz RAMDAC
This particular chipset requires an especially loud cooling solution
--
FX 5800 - 400mhz core, 800mhz memory
FX 5800 Ultra - 500mhz core, 1000mhz memory

*****

=======
NV35 generation cards (NV35, NV36, NV38)
Exclusively floating point shader units

FX 5700 (NV36)
128bit memory bus
128mb
4x1 pipeline
400mhz RAMDAC
--
FX 5700 - 425mhz core, 550mhz memory
FX 5700 Ultra - 475mhz core, 900mhz memory

*****

FX 5900 (NV35)
256bit memory bus
128mb-256mb
4x2 pipeline
400mhz RAMDAC
--
FX 5900XT - 390mhz core, 700mhz memory
FX 5900SE - 400mhz core, 700mhz memory
FX 5900 - 400mhz core, 850mhz memory

bkswaney
11-16-03, 05:57 AM
What's really bad is there r places still selling GF2 MX's.
I saw some at walmart tonight.
There highest end cards was the "mighty 5600U" "LOL" ;)
Or the top of the line ATI 9000. :D hahaha
I really feel for anyone buying a VC there.
They also had a 5200 and 5200u. :rolleyes:

Man they need some 5700u's and 9600Pro's anyway.

The biggest thing I noticed is they had 6 different nvidia cards.
Only 1 ati card.

Nvidia is the market king for sure.
I bet a lot of cards r sold by walmart. I see people buying there pc stuff like mad there.

Dazz
11-16-03, 07:08 AM
Oh you mean the following an't confusing? Done by Peformance.

FX5200 64bit
FX5200 128bit
FX5200 Ultra

FX5600XT
FX5600SE
FX5600
FX5600Ultra

FX5700
FX5700Ultra

FX5900XT
FX5900SE
FX5900
FX5900Ultra

FX5950Ultra

Ruined
11-16-03, 09:13 AM
Don't I even get a 'good job Ruined,' or, 'looks like you put some time into that Ruined,' or, 'you obviously have no life Ruined'? ;)

And why in the hell would Nvidia make a 5600XT/SP? That would be treading into 5200 Ultra territory.

sxotty
11-16-03, 09:20 AM
the XT versions don't exist yet afaik, but there was a reference in the driver or something... that is what I heard anyway.

saturnotaku
11-16-03, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Ruined
Don't I even get a 'good job Ruined,' or, 'looks like you put some time into that Ruined,' or, 'you obviously have no life Ruined'? ;)

And why in the hell would Nvidia make a 5600XT/SP? That would be treading into 5200 Ultra territory.

/me pats Ruined on the back. :)

Ruined
11-16-03, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by sxotty
the XT versions don't exist yet afaik, but there was a reference in the driver or something... that is what I heard anyway.

I actually looked it up and found a 5600xt that does exist by Albatron - 230mhz core and 400mhz mem... Not too fast.

Can't find any 5600SE though.

mr_oh_so_ice
11-16-03, 10:52 AM
Thanks for all the feedback, I think I will hang on to my Radeon 8500 @ 300/300, however, I did some research and I think the Radeons work this way.

FASTEST
--------------------

Radeon 9800 XT
Radeon 9800 PRO 256 GDDR
[has faster memory speed over 128 MB]
Radeon 9800 PRO 128 DDR
Radeon 9800
Radeon 9700 PRO
Radeon 9700
Radeon 9600 XT
Radeon 9500 PRO
[faster than 9600 because it has 8 rendering pipelines instead of 4]
Radeon 9600 PRO
[the All-In-Wonder 9600 PRO has a slightly higher mem clock]
Radeon 9600
Radeon 9500
[the 9600 and 9500 are probably identical here, 9600 has higher clocks]
Radeon 9600 SE
[64-bit memory interface...:(]
Radeon 9200 PRO
[basically a 9000 model with AGP 8X]
Radeon 9100/8500/8500LE
[the 9100 is just the 8500 renumbered, could be faster than 9200]
Radeon 9200
Radeon 9000 PRO
Radeon 9200 SE
[64-bit memory interface...ouch]
Radeon 9000
Radeon 7500
Radeon 7200
Radeon 7000

green_meanie
11-16-03, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Edge
Memory busses are as follows: FX5200/FX5600/FX5700/9200/9600 are normally 128 bit cards, while the FX5800/9700 and above cards are 256 bit. HOWEVER, look out for "SE" versions and the specs on some of the lower cards, usually the "SE" means "half the bit-rate, half the performence"! And as I mentioned, some crappy versions of the lower-end cards (especially the FX5200) may be 64-bit versions, especially if they're from a generic company ("real" FX5200 cards are 128 bit).



The 5800 has a 128 bit memory bus.

Edge
11-16-03, 05:14 PM
Yes yes, I'm aware of that now. Sheesh, give the wrong memory bitrate for a now-defunct card and everyone jumps on you :D