PDA

View Full Version : comparing the FX5700U and FX5900NU


Gator
01-05-04, 12:58 PM
So I know the FX5900NU has 256bit memory bus and is priced nearly the same as the FX5700U, but in many benchmarks I'm seeing the FX5700U performs quite admirably and even outperforms the FX5900NU in some tests. From http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/editorial/display/stalker.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/editorial/stalker/escape_1600_pure.gif

And take a look at this chart from http://www.lostcircuits.com/memory/ddrii/2.shtml
http://www.lostcircuits.com/memory/ddrii/timing2.gif

It appears that the FX5700U core and it's DDRII memory makes for a nearly equivalent, if not superior product compared to the FX5900NU.

So I pose these questions:
-Are the FX5700U and FX5900NU nearly the same performance despite different memory bus types?
-Does the DDRII make up for most of the performance?
-Is DDRII essentialy like 4 x SDR speed, kind of like how DDR is essentialy 2 x SDR?
-is the FX5700U superior to the FX5900NU in some ways?
-is there an instance where the FX5900NU would leave the FX5700U in the dust gasping for air?
-What about DX8 and older apps, is the FX5700U better?
-Is Opengl any different between the 5700 and 5900?

DSC
01-05-04, 01:24 PM
5900 is a 4x2 chip most of the time, 5700U is a 2x2 chip most of the time.

DDR2 has higher latencies than DDR, DDR2 can actually be slower due to the increased latencies, eventhough it can provide higher clockspeeds in theory.

While is it possible that the 5700U might be superior in some ways, personally I doubt it. The 2x2 chip configuration doesn't give it raw power like the 4x2 config of the 5900U. Neither does the lower total bandwidth help at all in AA+AF situations.

Run Halo on a 5700U with 4xAA and 8xAF on, and compare it with a 5900. :D

OpenGL should be the same, unified drivers anyway.

I also doubt the accuracy of the benchmarks done. Lets see both cards run on the final product, then we can truly decide.

Deathlike2
01-05-04, 01:29 PM
Gator, let me explain something to you,..

Remember that the NV30 (FX 5800) has DDR II clocked at about 1GHz (if I'm not mistaken)... it was slower than ATI's 256-bit memory solution (ATI's solution consisted of regular DDR)

So.. to answer your questions:

-Are the FX5700U and FX5900NU nearly the same performance despite different memory bus types?

No, if I recall correctly, the FX5900 inherits the 256-bit bus (and regular DDR memory) from the Ultra... this improved the "performance gap" that the original FX5800 had

-Does the DDRII make up for most of the performance?

Probably not. I'm willing to bet that the DDR II controller has latencies can hurt you (example: FX5800)

-Is DDRII essentialy like 4 x SDR speed, kind of like how DDR is essentialy 2 x SDR?

Yes, but almost (remember, it's theortical)

-is the FX5700U superior to the FX5900NU in some ways?

Probably not, it is lower clocked, memory, cpu, (I gotta check the sources, lol), and number of pipelines

-is there an instance where the FX5900NU would leave the FX5700U in the dust gasping for air?

Probably, the answer is the response above this.

-What about DX8 and older apps, is the FX5700U better?

The FX5900 is just as capable as the FX5700U. The FX5900 is better than the FX5700U though.

-Is Opengl any different between the 5700 and 5900?

No. Same architecture, similar performance (dependant on the clock+memory speeds+pipelines).

It matters somewhat of the resulting memory speeds though.

DDR II inherits more latencies... different power requirements (technically good for laptops)... few tweaks internally.. resulting in higher memory speeds.

I hope that helps you.

Edit: Saw some relevent info DSC posted and updated info properly.

Gator
01-05-04, 01:36 PM
Very interesting responses! So basically DDRII is a marketing gimick, and FX5900NU remains the better card. Yes?

Thanks for the speedy feedback. I guess at the current prices, the FX5700U really doesn't make sense. The lowest I've seen it was about $180. If it goes to $150 or less with the FX5900SE still at $190, only then would I consider it.

Thanks :)

Deathlike2
01-05-04, 01:45 PM
I've edited my post too much.. lol

To put it bluntly, NVidia selling its FX5900 for $200 is MUCH better than the FX5700U... I don't see it any other way.

The FX5700 is a mainstream card = "upper middle" performance whereas the FX5900 is "lower" high-end performance)

Nutty
01-05-04, 02:22 PM
5700 is a newer core than all the others. While talking to an NV contact about nv38, he said it was nothing special, but nv36 (5700) was the new chip to look for. I think it has some of the poor performance problems of the nv3x series fixed, which accounts for its great performance.

Gator
01-05-04, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Nutty
5700 is a newer core than all the others. While talking to an NV contact about nv38, he said it was nothing special, but nv36 (5700) was the new chip to look for. I think it has some of the poor performance problems of the nv3x series fixed, which accounts for its great performance.

so if they made a 256bit memory bus version of the nv36 (5700) it would blow away all the other cards, yes?

DSC
01-05-04, 02:31 PM
No, because it's still only a 2x2 chip vs the 4x2 chip of the 5900.

You can compare the Shadermark/Onionmark/whatever Pixel Shader benchmark results, 5700U trails the 5900 eventhough the 5900 is only 400MHz vs 475MHz on the 5700U.

Gator
01-05-04, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by DSC
No, because it's still only a 2x2 chip vs the 4x2 chip of the 5900.

You can compare the Shadermark/Onionmark/whatever Pixel Shader benchmark results, 5700U trails the 5900 eventhough the 5900 is only 400MHz vs 475MHz on the 5700U.

AH, true! I forgot about pipeline difference. :D

mrgoodcheese
01-05-04, 03:41 PM
Check out this and some other tests here:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_fx_5900_xt_review/page12.asp

It gives a better outlook of how the 5900nu and the 5700u stand.

FYI: the first link / bench pic. you showed was for a leaked alfa version of the game STALKER, which is no where near completion (May-June estimate), therefore that bench is pretty worthless.

Cotita
01-05-04, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Gator
Very interesting responses! So basically DDRII is a marketing gimick, and FX5900NU remains the better card. Yes?

Thanks for the speedy feedback. I guess at the current prices, the FX5700U really doesn't make sense. The lowest I've seen it was about $180. If it goes to $150 or less with the FX5900SE still at $190, only then would I consider it.

Thanks :)

DDR II is not necessarilly a marketing gimmick, but its potential is still not reached. DDR II was supposed to be faster and cheaper than DDR mainly because DDR was no supposed to reach speeds higher than 400mhz (800 effective). DDR2 can hit 1ghz but higher latencies make it as fast or even slower than 900mhz DDR on some situations.

As DDR II speeds increase, and DDR reaches its limits, DDR II will be a better choice.

That is... until DDR 3 comes out.

Unit01
01-06-04, 06:33 AM
At what century did DDR-II suddenly become 4xSDR?

Maybe i'm just way after everyone else, but i thought DDR-II was just a evolved form of DDR that allowed for higher speeds, lower power consumption at same clock and lower heat etc etc.

QDR anyone?

Gator
01-06-04, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Unit01
At what century did DDR-II suddenly become 4xSDR?

Maybe i'm just way after everyone else, but i thought DDR-II was just a evolved form of DDR that allowed for higher speeds, lower power consumption at same clock and lower heat etc etc...


Yes, DDR-II is just an evolved form of DDR, I created this post because I didn't understand the diagram above and wanted to know if this made the FX5700U superior in some way. No, DDRII does not mean 4xSDR

Athena
01-06-04, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by DSC
No, because it's still only a 2x2 chip vs the 4x2 chip of the 5900.

You can compare the Shadermark/Onionmark/whatever Pixel Shader benchmark results, 5700U trails the 5900 eventhough the 5900 is only 400MHz vs 475MHz on the 5700U.

All the reviews I have read say the 5600 was a 4x1 chip why did they bump down to a 2x2 design for the 5700? :confused:

MUYA
01-06-04, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Athena
All the reviews I have read say the 5600 was a 4x1 chip why did they bump down to a 2x2 design for the 5700? :confused:

In certain situations, the nv36 is 4X1, Beyond3d found that in multitexturing, the nv36 behaves in a 2X2 fashion. Read their preview.