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 - 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.