News Headlines
- Thu, Jul 29
- Sony outlines PS5 M.2 SSD storage expansion requirements
- Wed, Jul 28
- PlayStation 5 sells over 10M units worldwide since launch
- Tue, Jul 27
- Activision Blizzard employees to stage strike on July 28
- PAX West 2021 to require COVID-19 vaccination for all attendees
- Mon, Jul 26
- Activision Blizzard employees call for corporate accountability following lawsuit allegations
New Articles
Related Articles
NVidia GeForce FX5900 Ultra P/Review - PAGE 8
Neumann Lim, Howard Ha- Monday, May 12th, 2003 Like Share
Unreal Tournament (no AA, no AF)
Perhaps of little interest to most of you, but still necessary from our perspective, are the raw numbers for Unreal Tournament 2003's flyby benchmark.
I want to add that for UT2003 we use a version of HardOCP's ini file for quality settings. We were given to know that those settings, which employ Triple Buffering, act as a handicap for the FX5900 with the current driver set. In the results we present there is no detrimental effect, but against the 9800PRO the difference might be enough to put the 5900 under an unfavourable light. NVIDIA has worked out a fix for this "inequality", but their drivers have not been released yet. When it comes time for us to benchmark against the 9800PRO we will factor this point into our tests.
Unreal Tournament (4X AA, 8X AF)
Here we chose to do a cross section of results at 1280x1024 with 4X AA and 8X AF enabled. The FX 5900 is a very strong performer in this regards and gives no quarter at any resolution.
Unreal Tournament 2003: Effect of AA and AF at 1600x1200
In this final chart we illustrate the effect of 4X AA and 8X AF on framerates, independently and together.
With this particular set of numbers we chose the highest resolution possible to better illustrate how the high end cards distance themselves from now older cards as you add AntiAliasing and Anisotropic Filtering. The Ti4600 and even the FX 5600 do not relate with suitable framerates for play at these resolutions once AA and AF are enabled. The 9500PRO on the other hand will have the bare minimal framerates for relatively useable play. In fact, if you load up a game of Unreal Tournament 2003 with these settings at 1600x1200 you will find your framerates can range from a low of 5 to a high exceeding 30, depending on map and location. The FX 5900 has a significant lead here over the 9700 once everything is turned on - nearly 26%.
May 29th Update: UT2003 results with Triplebuffering disabled
The below chart is an updated version of the AA/AF chart from above, except that the tests were run at High Quality settings with Triplebuffering OFF. You will also note that we snuck in our 9800PRO results, which we have taken from our upcoming FIC 9800PRO review. I also want to note that we are using Catalyst 3.4 in these results, which as you can see is faster than the catalyst 3.3 results for the rest of the review.
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.
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.
D.R.
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
PS. Artifacts show up in any card... we've see them in both Nvidia and ATI cards.
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.
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!!
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.
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
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.