Neoseeker : : : : NVidia GeForce FX5900 Ultra P/Review

NVidia GeForce FX5900 Ultra P/Review - PAGE 10

, Howard Ha
- Monday, May 12th, 2003
Like Share


What's Next?




Get updates when we publish new articles

Comments

Sort by date: ascending descending
0 thumbs!
^
RichC May 12, 03
Just a note about the conclusion section. I think giving nVidia the "3D crown" for the 5900 simply because you didn't have a 9800 for testing doesn't make a whole lot of sense. nVidia owned 3D for the longest time, and it was a huge and decisive victory when ATI wrested it from them with the 9700 Pro. I don't think nVidia should be able to claim that title back without an equally decisive performance against the current ATI flagship product.

Assuming the 5900 and the 9800 are close in performance, I think many people would prefer the form-factor of the 9800. In fact, depending upon the final dimensions, many systems may not even accomodate the 5900 without some compromise or sacrafice.

I would rewrite the conclusion and make the proclamation of victory a little more conditional. Otherwise it sounds like the article was written by an nVidia fanboy, and in doing so loses some credibility.
0 thumbs!
^
Redemption May 12, 03
Good points RichC, as usual, but initially I had tweaked the conclusion after I saw results of the 9800PRO versus the FX 5900 from other launch articles. On reviewing the idea, I think it makes more sense to rely on our own data to draw these kinds of conclusions since we do use different hardware and I don't like to rely on anyone else's numbers too much. I came to different conclusions than some other reviewers though. You'll find the 9800PRO and 5900 are pretty well balanced though the scale appears to tip towards the 5900 IMO. I also don't see as much of a difference in quality as other people have seen in their image quality at 4X AA & 8X AF - 4 of us have been staring at various screenshots we made, zoomed in, zoomed out, and yes, there are differences, but in terms of AA quality its not easy to judge who has the definite advantage as we've seen failed anti-aliasing of various objects on both families of cards - the 9800 may well tip the scale here.

Check out HardOCP's Doom3 benchmarks for a real eye opener though, at one point the 5900 is 50% faster than the 9800PRO in those numbers. I think that drivers may be one cause for such a huge discrepancy, but certainly the 5900 looks very good right now in those tests. I wish WE could get Doom3 benchmarks... that would REALLY show what the cards are made of.

As for the form factor, I suspect the final boards will still be somewhere in the neighbourhood of the 4600 card in length... which is to say damned big for its class of performance - but in my experience the 4600 is not a problem to install for someone building their own system... maybe proprietary systems like a Dell or desktop model would pose some problems, but I hardly think that this is a deal breaker for someone seriously motivated - that motivation might well depend on how well the 5900, 9800PRO and ATI's Q3/Q4 R3XX cards perform in the final release of Doom 3 since the Doom 3 engine will likely spawn a whole generation of games in 2004 and onwards.

This message was edited by Redemption on May 12 2003.
0 thumbs!
^
dvrocc May 13, 03
So the FX5900 Ultra has DDR1 !!! I guess DDR2 is still being optimized and the tests clearly show that DDR1 is still a good choice at the moment, From the reviews I have read recently that DDR2 would be a good choice on future video cards, several tests show that DDR2 128-bit has less bandwidth than DDR1 256-bit but things are changing and if Nvidia and ATI will be using this in future cards then we are in for some good years ahead of us in the PC market and I am totally down for that! Having 256mb on a video card is a little hefty for me, I could see running 3 memory hungry programs at once then there will be smooth performance, and with this kind of memory configuration I could see the AGP aperture going away in the future. I am so looking forward to reading more reviews, the Neoseeker TEAM has done an outstanding job of keeping us up to date in the PC market I know its tough, Great job everybody.

D.R.
0 thumbs!
^
joe momma May 26, 03

NVIDIA ADMITS CHEATING
Its all over the net how nvidia optimized its drivers to make the 3dmark benchmarks higher.
The fact is that the 5900 ultra is neck and neck with the 9800 pro.
But ATI will soon pull away as the r360 core will be released this summer and is said to be a leap up from the 5900 ultra.
Then qtr 4 ATI is releasing the r400 aka 9900 pro.
Navidia has lowered them selves to an all time low trying to rip off the consumers by cheating to make there card look better than it is.
who will pay 100.00 more fore a 5900 ultra that is eqaul to performance of a 9800 pro that is 100.00 cheaper.
also whats with the latest detonators and all these artifacts.
this site is a bs site also as it states the quality between the radeon and fx ultra are eaqual when in fact every other site that has reviewed the fx 5900 ultra has stated that there are a lot of atifacts at 800 x 600 and less resolution.
when the radeon is clear across the board.
also look at nvidia crappy tv out that is worse quality than a broken vcr.
I have bought 4 generations of geforce cards ,my last a ti 4600, but i can tell you my next card will be the 9800 pro.
how can we ever trust nvidia when they cheat to look good.
more here:
http://www.techspot.com/vb/showthread.php?s=bc9fbad7443ba26f1d49fca174c468e2&postid=45821#post45821
0 thumbs!
^
joe poppa Jun 12, 03
Moron, ATI cheated also. Do some thorough reading. And frankly, who gives a damn about 3d mark? It's all about gaming right? And the better the drivers, the better the gaming experience.
0 thumbs!
^
Redemption Jun 12, 03
There's no need to get so emotional... The bottom line is that both cards are fast and will let you run your games at high resolutions with AA and AF turned on. The details of who is faster by 5% is not so important except as required for bragging rights and performance purists.

PS. Artifacts show up in any card... we've see them in both Nvidia and ATI cards.
0 thumbs!
^
thugjabi Jun 19, 03
Silly Joe Momma ATI-Boy. True that the FX 5800 was accused of cheating, but in a later report, 3dMark released statements which withdrew their claims. The latest nVidia drivers merely optimized the performance of the card, not cheated. And yes, ATI also did cheat. Although their drivers did not have a significant upgrade from the old ones and did not specifically increase performance for that one model, both major companies did "cheat" if you will, the 3Dmark tests. But when the FX 5800 got a higher benchmark, it simply meant that nVidia did a better job of improving their drivers.

The FX5900 Ultra costs more because of the extra 100MB of video card ram. Also, it has a higher GPU clock, as well as a faster memory speed. Who would care about the size of the card? It must obviously mean that your case is either horribly cramped, or you need to lay off the MATX motherboards. I have a TI4600 at the moment, and it fits in my case fine. It doesn't interfere with my memory modules, or any other cables. And there isn't such a big disappointment about the extra power needed to the board of the card. The 9700 also needs additional power.

What really confuses me is the fact that people are feuding about the cards. It's good to have competition. More competition drives the companies harder to make better products, and lowers the prices. AMD has been keeping up with Intel for quite some time now, and CPU prices keep going down, and the speeds keep going up. Competition is good, but when people start getting obsessed to the point that they start picking favorites in cards. You don't have to side with a company, just the best graphics card. Right now, that belongs to the FX5900. I have been switching back and forth between the companies and their cards for many years now. Everytime a new card was released from another company, I would sell my old one, and buy the latest. I am still keeping my TI4600 for the time, because of the upcoming release of the FX5900. However, if I did have to pick favorites, I would pick nVidia, I have trusted them for many a years, and I know that they will continue to make powerful cards.






0 thumbs!
^
Norminator Jun 29, 03
An excellent article! Well done NEO!!

The only thing is the 9800 PRO is not working harder at Aniso Filtering........it's working harder at Antialiasing. I'm sure it's just a slip of the keyboard.

The FX5900 is working it's tail off at Aniso Filtering and it's doing it well with speed to spare!!

Keep up the good writing!!

Looking forward to NV40 this Christmas!!

0 thumbs!
^
GhOsT_301 Aug 19, 03
Really a good review ! so fantanstic ! I also love this card very much cause it cooling fan is beautiful !

But I have one question . is all the FX based graphic card will show their temperature in the control panel ? ( i can't find it and i had installed the coolbits . I am using GeForce FX5200 by MSI .) Please tell me how to get it. Thanx .
0 thumbs!
^
DarksideCommander Aug 20, 03
The 5900 and the 9800 are great at games and give great framerates. This fact no one can dispute.

I have a question then...

Who can see all of these great graphics when your monitor sucks? Instead of spending too much money on the latest video card, why don't you upgrade that dusty old computer monitor and play your games at high resolution so when you get the newest video card, it will look fantastic. Can your current monitor handle games at 1600x1200 or better at 100hz+? I bet your video card can already. This is one thing to consider before getting any new card.
0 thumbs!
^
Master of the VG Aug 20, 03
I don't think there are any monitors that support 1600x1200 @ 100 Hz. Not everyone has enough room for a 20 inch monitor either (17 inch monitors don't have 1600x1200). If you bought a monitor in the last three years, odds are that there is no need to upgrade it unless you want a bigger one.
0 thumbs!
^
Cheesysoapopra Aug 20, 03
Actually there are quite a few 17inch monitors that display 1600x1200 (but everything would be very small)

And just because your res cant go high doesnt mean it wont look good. My games look fine at 1024x768 and if i want them better ill just put on AA
0 thumbs!
^
Master of the VG Aug 20, 03
I usually don't notice any difference until I reach 4x AA with 1028x768 resolution. I usually have 8x AF and texture sharpening enabled all the time though.
0 thumbs!
^
DarksideCommander Aug 21, 03
My point is that with every launch of the next Nvidia card comes a higher standard for the end user to take advantage of. From my experience, the last thing people upgrade is the monitor. I own the shadow card, the ugly freak 5800 FX. This card is very good at whatever it does and shares many properties with the new 5900. Along with the new "Intellisample" compression technology comes less of a need for using AA at all at higher resolutions. I never use AA because I really don't have jaggies or anything like that when I play.

I'm not saying that you suck if you don't upgrade, I'm just saying that you should not only look inside your machine to make your games better, but look at what you play them with. (If anyone is curious as to what my monitor is, here is a link: P95f+, I got it cheap)

Anyway, is anyone planning on buying the 5900? I know that it is a very big step from the G4Ti's performance level. Nvidia has finally realized that 256 bit memory is a lot better than 128. I almost bought an ATI because Nvidia was having problems with the 5800 ultra overheating and people complaining about the loud fan noise and the benchmarks weren't that great sometimes. The new card also has the quieter fan and is almost like the G4Ti, but with more heatsinks.
^
Sponsored
Sort by date: ascending descending
Add your comment:
Name *:  Members, please LOGIN
Email:  We use this to display your Gravatar.

Sign in with
Comment *:
(0.0782/d/web3)