The Last Bout of ‘03 – NVIDIA’s GeForce FX 5700 Ultra
by Derek Wilson on October 23, 2003 9:30 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
C&C Generals: Zero Hour Performance no AA/AF
The 5700 Ultra shows a bit of a performance edge over the other two NVIDIA cards we tested here, but still falls short of anything ATI. Oddly though, it looks to me like there is an issue with the different ways these cards are handling timing the frames. The ATI cards all have instantaneous maximum frame rates into the hundreds, while the 5700 Ultra only reaches 76. The 5600 and 4200 don't even make it over 60.
All of the cards have the same minimum frame rate at 15 frames per second.
C&C Generals: Zero Hour Performance 4xAA/8xAF
We see a similar trend with ATI cards coming out ahead of the NVIDIA solutions, but the 5700 Ultra does a good job of approaching the 9600 Pro in this benchmark. With the exception of the 4200 card, the min frame rates were again at 15.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
114 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link
these anonymous forusm are always a hoot.Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link
Derek takes it in the pooperAnonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link
#62 making 60k a year is still below the threshhold of being able to spend money on whatever you want and not giving a f&5k....if you made 1mil a year I highly doubt you wouldn't drop the $500 on the best card without thinking twice. So don't call other's dumb for buying video cards...maybe that's how they want to spend their money....If you saved some trips to the "Blue Oyster" I'm sure you'd have a $500 card as well.Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link
The message is damn clear, nvidia is using DDR2 memory to fill in the performance gaps.. Nvidia shuckhs!Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link
doesnt anon mean something in french?Live - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link
Anon postings should be disabled. If people dont have the energy to register the energy awarded to there post is likely to be the same minimal amount.Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link
#64, that makes perfect sense, just don't visit AnandTech. After all, it's not like you've just given them a page impression. lolSeriously, AnandTech will never lose readers or respect as long as they keep doing what they're doing. The critics here that break down every minute detail about what this review did "wrong" aren't gamers. If they were, they would realize that the IQ "differences" are so minuscule it's like trying to argue that nForce2 is incredibly faster than KT600, when the reality is that nForce2's attractiveness comes from its superior sound (APU), overclockability, and stability, most certainly not its “earth shattering” performance. nForce2’s better performance is simply a bonus to any half-intelligent hardware enthusiast, not its main selling point.
Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link
watchu' talkin'bout willis?!Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link
Look, some of us see that these reviews seem to no longer reflect reality. What to do? Quit visiting the site, quit giving AT page impressions. Find reviews elsewhere; god knows there are enough other hardware sites to choose from.Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link
stop crying about the IQ. as #62 said "ESPECIALLY fps games where constant movement makes it almost impossible to notice the IQ differences". i would add - the difference between fx5950u and radeon 9800XT.i spent about 1/3 of the last 10 years playing games. i can call myself a GAMER. i want to play my games at at least 55-60 FPS and nothing else matters. i got radeon 9600pro. that's what i can affort. if fx5600u was faster i would've got it instead. brand doesn't matter if i got 60FPS at 1024x768.