facebook rss twitter

Review: NVIDIA GeForceFX 5700 Ultra and FX 5950 Ultra

by Ryszard Sommefeldt on 23 October 2003, 00:00

Tags: NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qauj

Add to My Vault: x

Conclusions

GeForceFX 5700 Ultra

It looks like NVIDIA are on to a winner with their new mid-range entrant. Price is what's most exciting, with it being set at $199 (yes, for the 900MHz mem equipped Ultra version) it's a firm competitor to 9600XT. With it beating 9600XT in the majority of our tests, I can clearly see why NVIDIA are more excited about 5700 Ultra than any other FX product so far. This is their money maker, and with IBM on board, a great price that's sure to surprise a few, the NV35 base for performance, they deserve to sell more than just a few.

If you are in the market for a mid-range performance card, maybe as a stop gap between what you have now and what's going to come out next year, 9600XT and 5700 Ultra give this sector of the market more muscle than it's ever seen. Both are recommended buys, pick either up with confidence. 9600XT's Low-K process enhancements and IBM's 130nm trickery imbue both GPU's with the overclocking gift of life, and the Samsung memory on the 5700 Ultra also keeps on giving. Free performance for all, don't be afraid to overclock whichever you buy.



GeForceFX 5950 Ultra

NV38 is more evolution than revolution, being no more than a speed bumped NV35. However it seems to overclock a lot better than the outgoing version, pointing to core enhancements and elimination of hot spots, to give it some headroom. It was interesting to see the overclocked FX 5900 Ultra beat the new board when running at the same clocks, most likely due to memory latency differences between the two.

With a price that's going to be little different to outgoing 5900 Ultra's, it looks like 9800XT is its main competitor. I'm hesistant to recommend 5950's over a 9800 Pro, with ATI's Pro boards comfortably beating 5950 Ultra on any price comparison. But if you must spend a stupid amount of money on a graphics accelerator, 5950 Ultra is as worthy a recipient of your hard earned as any I guess.

I can't help but feel though, since up here in the performance stratosphere it's just speed bump city, that ATI's offerings still have the edge when you are spending over £250. Had NV38 done a little more, I'd have recommended it, but as it stands, it's a cash guzzler that doesn't quite do enough. Overclocking way post 575MHz core conspires to change my mind, but depending on how you play your games, stock clocks are usually more than enough. 5700 Ultra is definitely more impressive.

It's as quick as 9800XT for the most part, something we'll confirm properly with a new suite of tests in reviews featuring boards from retail partners. It's just a little too pricey.



Thanks

Komplett for the digital camera used to take the shots.
Adam and Clive @ NVIDIA


HEXUS Forums :: 7 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Well, I would say that the 5700 Ultra is one of the more interesting Nvidia offering in the recent days..

Anandtech also had a review of the card out today:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1910

The conclusions are pretty much the same. The 5700 Ultra is overall better than the XT it seems.

Looking at their conclusions though, I am glad I picked up a 9700Pro recently :D
The price is of a “mid-high” range card. And yet, it performs pretty much like a high end.
I was initially puzzled how I could continue to read articles on various sites where positions jockey between ATI and Nvidia. But it is now starting to become fairly clear, if you choose older outdated benchmarks (that basically run well enough even on mid to low range ATI and Nvidia cards) then Nvidia review well. If you choose a suite of state of the art Direct X 9 games which at the end of the day are the only reason one should consider buying these high end cards then Nvidia seem to flounder. If anyone has any doubts read the latest article on HardOCP about the 5700 and 5950.
Why would you spend £150+ on a card to only play half a dozen games? The DX9 title base is infinitely smaller than the DX6-DX8 class base.

Given that most DX9 titles aren't really DX9 at all (one or two shaders doesn't count) or poorly ported from a console (GM2, Halo?), and some excellent new titles still use DX8 (Max Payne 2), I really have a hard time accepting the DX9 case for a card purchase sometimes.

However, we endeavour to review using benchmarks everyone likes to read about, so we'll be adding fresher titles to our review lineup in due course.

Cheers for registering to let us know your viewpoint :)

Rys
No one spends big money on a video card without an eye to the future. I have no problem with you including popular DirectX 8 titles, but to make a recommendation to buy a card without commenting on how ones investment is likely to perform in the future is a dereliction of your duty.

Hard OCP actually review Max Payne 2 and the 9800XT is 61% faster than the 5950 at the min FPS (probably the most important measure). You did'nt review perhaps if you had alarm bells may have started to ring.
How did Driver Heavan reach their conclusion and Hexus reach theirs.

So who should consider this card as an upgrade? Put up against the 9600 XT I just can’t recommend anyone to buy the 5700 Ultra. It’s clear that Nvidia can squeeze performance out of the card…3DMark shows that. However people buy cards to play games and there is no way Nvidia can optimise their FX range for performance in every game that is released. Nothing emphasises the situation FX users are going to be in more often than not than Max Payne 2, a game that is a week old and which no manufacturer has had time to optimise for, there really is no competition in the performance here.

It saddens me to say that for another cycle Nvidia don’t have a card to compete with the market leader in the mainstream area. And that is not good for the industry.