Neoseeker : : : : Gigabyte GeForce FX 5700 Ultra Review

Gigabyte GeForce FX 5700 Ultra Review - PAGE 1

- Wednesday, January 28th, 2004 Like Share


next: The Card »




Get updates when we publish new articles

Comments

Sort by date: ascending descending
0 thumbs!
^
alex-the-cat Jan 30, 04
I saw some questionable benchmark results.
How come a 5900 perform BETTER with 4xAA/8xAF than noAA/noAF on X2 Rolling demo?!
Where are the results from Comanche 4 with noAA/AF?
What resolution did you use in Jedi Knight:Jedi Academy?
Why there is no 1024x768 result for Aquamark3?
What Control Panel setting did you use to perform the benchmarks?

Could you please clarify?
0 thumbs!
^
Ace Jan 30, 04
quote
[originator=alex-the-cat]I saw some questionable benchmark results.
How come a 5900 perform BETTER with 4xAA/8xAF than noAA/noAF on X2 Rolling demo?!
Numbers got mixed up during graphing for AA/AF / default results. That's been corrected, thanks for pointing that out.
quote
Where are the results from Comanche 4 with noAA/AF?
Commanche 4 results with no AA / AF are not particularly interesting and there is very little performance difference. We have not been publishing non AA / AF scores for a while now

quote
What resolution did you use in Jedi Knight:Jedi Academy?
On the Taspir Demo, we run at 1600x1200
On the Rift demo, resolutions are listed at the bottom of the grpahs

quote
Why there is no 1024x768 result for Aquamark3?
we choose to test at 1280 and 1600 only.

quote
What Control Panel setting did you use to perform the benchmarks?
dont know what you mean by this. all the quality settings are left at max. AA/AF is turned on when appropriate. vsync is disabled. desktop is left at 1024 @ 60hz

0 thumbs!
^
dvrocc Jan 30, 04
So the FX5700-ultra is going to replace the FX5600-ultra? the FX5700-ultra would be the perfect upgrade for the Geforce4 TI4200/4400/4600 owners. Its a decent card and I like the GPU cooler alot but I thought the FX5700-ultra was a smaller form card but seeing it next to the FX5900?? its fairly huge and I did not see any noticeable differences between the two cards except in the benchmarks of course. Due to the current situation with ATI and Nvidia's driver issues and benchmarks with 3DMark03 all benchmarks are questionilbe but they tell a story of the cards, I like all those cards and even the FX5900 took a huge performance hit when more options were enabled but still sttod its ground with the FX5700 not fare behind. For FX's high clock speeds I exspected more in the benchmark both FX5700-ultra and R9600XT "what they take away from other areas of the card gets made up in the huge clock speeds". The FX5700-ultra would be a good choice for P4 2.4ghz or less I think faster CPU's you would lose performance kinda like what I am dealing with now, 2.8ghz/800 and MSI5900SP-VTD128. Its a cool card and I would buy it Nvidia has done well.
0 thumbs!
^
EddySean Jan 31, 04
Would be nice to see how the 5700 non Ultra performs as alot of major players dont make a 5700 Ultra. (MSI, Asus for a couple)

0 thumbs!
^
Ace Feb 1, 04
quote dvrocc
So the FX5700-ultra is going to replace the FX5600-ultra? the FX5700-ultra would be the perfect upgrade for the Geforce4 TI4200/4400/4600 owners.
the 5700 Ultra would be a good upgrade for GF4 owners yes. The 5900 non ultra would be even better though and is well worth the extra few dollars

quote
Due to the current situation with ATI and Nvidia's driver issues and benchmarks with 3DMark03 all benchmarks are questionilbe
that is the exact reason why we use a lot of custom benchmarks and try to avoid synthetic ones (only synthetic we use is aquamark). the majority of the benchmarks we perform are from custom demos from in game situations
Sort by date: ascending descending
Add your comment:
Name *:  Members, please LOGIN
Email:  We use this to display your Gravatar.

Sign in with
Comment *:
(0.0921/d/web6)