The GeForce FX 5700 Ultra

As we have mentioned, the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra is based on the NV36 GPU. The core speed of the GPU on the eVGA card we tested was 475MHz. With 128MBs of DDR2 RAM running at 450MHz (900 MHz effective data rate), there is plenty of bandwidth to be had from this solution. As far as cooling goes, we can take a look at a typical 5700 Ultra board layout to see what we can expect:

The heatsink fan combo is fairly low profile, and this card will fit into an AGP slot without disturbing the neighboring PCI slot. Of course, we recommend leaving that slot open anyway, but its nice to have the option to use it if you need it. Though its not visible in this image, there is a heatsink on the back as well.

As far as the GeForce FX 5700 non-ultra version, we expect the clocks to hover somewhere around 425 core, 275 (550 effective) memory. NVIDIA has informed us that they are leaving these timings up to the OEMs, so we may see some variation in the playing field.

For testing our GeForce FX 5700 Ultra, we used the exact same setup as in our previous 9600XT review.

Now on to the architecture…

Index Architecture
POST A COMMENT

112 Comments

View All Comments

  • XPgeek - Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - link

    Today I purchased this eVGA GF FX 5700 Ultra. i have no complaints of image quality. i am using the 52.16 betas, and Battlefiled 1942 and its XPacks run great, as do the rest of my games. The only issue i have is its length. in my case, the power connector nestles right up to one of my hard drives. but it does fit. barely.

    To re-itterate, this is a very nice card. no, i havent tested a 9600Pro / XT myself, but o well. no i dont work for AT or any other reviewing site. and no im not biased. i actually went to Best Buy to get a 9600 Pro, but saw the 5700U instead. so i wont get HL2 for free. o well, i'll just buy it when it comes out.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    you misspelled comparing 110, doh! rofl you sux! Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    106, if you read the review and don't get the impression that it's a rushed and shoddy job, well then you're just not a particularly smart or insightful person. which is ok, no one said you had to be. again, i'm camparing this to the old AT from 2,3,4 years ago. read some of the older reviews, and you'll see what i mean. or maybe you won't, whatever. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    that'd be earth 106. and you? thanks 108. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    #104 you mispelled the word fuck. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    ...nvidia sucks. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    #104, you're officially an idiot. AT didn't spend "much time"? What planet are you living on. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    Firingsquad has a decent image quality article up today. You can draw your own conclusion from the screen shots. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    why does anandtech use these anonymous forums? it just encourages all of this nonsense. wtf are you yelling at eachother fanboy-this and fanboy-that? grow the fuk up.

    that said, i think anyone who has been a fan of AT (like myself) must be concerned with the recent nature of the graphics card reviews. i'm an owner of both nvidia and ati cards, and am too damn old to be a fanboy (maybe i'm a fanman). ATs recent reviews have been rubbish. I understand about trying to get info out in a timely fashion, but these reviews read like they were written the night before they were due (so to speak). i mean, if i were grading these as college papers or something, AT would get a D at best. i'm mostly comparing this to previous AT work, not other websites. i'm still an AT fan, i'm not goin anywhere.

    for some reason, the problems seem to be with the graphic card reviews more than anythng else. maybe because this is the most competetive market, and they have to pump it out ASAP.. it just feels like they're not giving much time to their reviews.

    the posters that have done the metrics on the review seem to have the right idea. specifically, it looks most like a tie to me, with 5700ultra being best in opengl situations, and 9600xt being best in other situations (ok, maybe that's not a tie :)
    the "TKO" conclusion certainly is baffling.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Sunday, October 26, 2003 - link

    Stop acting like a fanboy #102, you look stupider by the second. Oh, and I'd like to see you try to keep my mouth shut. Ahhh, too bad, the little geek has no control over the situation. lol Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now