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
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…
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
114 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link
Ever hear of journalistic integrity? He has a responsibility to be objective. He replies "also, there were no glaringly unplayable image quality issues on either side of the line."What a political answer - glaringly unplayable image quality issues? A $499 card shouldn't have any unplayable issues, heck even a $99 card should be playable.
He's dodging the issue about playable image quality issues - missing or lower quality lighting effects for example. The point is that Nvidia has been caught lowering imager quality - removing the eye candy you are paying for in dx9 cards, and they have continued to do so.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link
Once again "IQ to come in part 2"... mebbe they will ... mebbe they won't... but they don't have a very good track record so far... and what is up with that choice of games? Go read the [H]OCP review... I may have been vocal against [H] in the past but there review of teh 5700 and 5950 is spot on with worthwhile gaming results.....I really fail to see how you recommend 5700 over 9600pro in this.... and skip all the NV 'driver bugs' too.... ah well nm... another nail in the AT coffin....
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link
Hrmm, I see an NVida add on the top right of my screen. Ever see ATI adds ant anandtech? Know what complementary copy is?Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link
Here's my conclusion: if you're gonna bitch and moan, read a different tech site. No one's forcing you to accept Derek's conclusions.I think some of you need to be a little more respectful with your comments and suggestions.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link
How can any conclusions be made without an image quality comparison. The "final words" section is based purely on the framerate numbers? How can you even draw a conclusion?Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link
I'll just copy this from what I wrote at Beyond 3D:I was so confused by this comment from AT:
AnandTech wrote: "In fact, NVIDIA has flipped the tables on ATI in the midrange segment and takes the performance crown with a late round TKO. It was a hard fought battle with many ties, but in the games where the NV36 based card took the performance lead, it lead with the style of a higher end card."
That I tabulated my own results:
NON AA
---------
5700 wins 10 times
9600 XT wins 6
Where the 5700 won, it won on average by 15%
Where the 9600 won, it won on average by 17%
WITH AA / ANISO
---------
5700 wins 6 times
9600 wins 6 times
Where the 5700 won, it won on average by 23%
Where the 9600 won, it won on average by 54%
There certainly is ZERO justification for saying something like: "but in the games where the NV36 based card took the performance lead, it lead with the style of a higher end card."
That characteristic belongs to ATI, not nVidia.
Another way to look at it: What percentage FPS difference is required to declare a "clear winner?"
Let's say that less than 10% difference, the cards are tied. In this case:
NO AA/ANISO
----------------
5700 wins 6 tests
9600 wins 4 tests
When the 5700 wins, it's by an average of 22%
When the 9600 wins, it's by an average of 22%
With AA/Aniso
----------------
5700 wins 4 tests
9600 wins 6 tests
When the 5700 wins, it's by an average of 33%
When the 9600 wins, it's by an average of 54%
I wish Anand's conclusions would actually agree with his data.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link
Hello? where are the hardware, software, and driver specs? Editorial review? What's that?Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link
Separating Image Quality results from the review is completely misleading.Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link
It's not unplayable image quality errors - the pics in the hardocp review show missing graphical features to enhance your gaming - ie walls with computers on them with nvidia with no blinking lights, on the ati it had purple and green blinking lights - yes playable on both - but when you pay $499 you want to see the game the way it was intended by the programmers. Same goes for the flashlight pics on hardocp , nvidia the flashlight beam is a mess, ati the flashlight beam is perfectly round like a real flashlight.Just another case of nvidia removing graphical effects to speed up their cards to compete with ati.
DerekWilson - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link
so, the cheapest 9800 Pro I see on new egg is a refurb for 280...also, there were no glaringly unplayable image quality issues on either side of the line.
give us a chance to get everything we want to get done done wrt image quality. We've got a lot planned.