GeForce FX 5600 question...

fx 5600 ultras definitely are better than a regular 5600

"GO" <aa533 RemoveThis @remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:HL5cb.34519$Lnr1.10798@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
 > One of the local computer shops has a GeForce FX 5600 on for a really good
 > price but I'm trying to do a little research on the card but can't seem to
 > find anything on it. All of my searches have just come up with the Ultra
 > version of the same card. Could someone point me in the direction of
some
 > good reviews for this card or just inform me on how it compares with other
 > cards in it's range. Also, is the Ultra card much more improved over just
 > the standard version.
 >
 > TIA,
 >
 >
 > Greg
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: GeForce FX 5600 question... 

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:05:00 +0200, "Gladiator" <gc12 RemoveThis @nospam.noos.fr>
wrote:

Hi,

 >Just for the sake of comparaison, I used an older platform which is
 >PIII-1000Mhz 256Mb Sdram@100 and BX Chipset.
 >
 >The results were quite surprising in 3DMARK2001SE:
 >
 >GeForce 4200ti 64Mb
 >No FFSA= 6287
 >2x FFSA= 5641
 >
 >FX5600 128Mb
 >No FFSA= 5713
 >2x FFSA= 5071
 >
 >To think that an older 4200ti is faster than a FX5600 blows my mind !
 >
 >
Yea maybe with an old Pentium 3 1.0Gb but with a modern P4 2.6 800
the results are slightly different.

3D Mark 2001SE:

Geforce 3 64MB 7432
GeForce FX 5600 Ultra 13739

3d Mark 03

Geforce 3 64 MB 1008
Geforce FX 5600 Ultra 3215

both tests without any AA.

You see 3d Mark 2001 SE is best suited to those cards which can only
use Direct X 7 or 8. Whilst 3D Mark 03 tests those best in Direct X
9. But even my humble tests show that the FX 5600, in laymans terms
is three times faster than the Geforce 3.

regards,

Ian.

__<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: GeForce FX 5600 question... 

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:08:45 GMT, iancarmNOSPAM.DeleteThis@blueyonder.co.uk (Ian)
wrote:

 >On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:05:00 +0200, "Gladiator" <gc12.DeleteThis@nospam.noos.fr>
 >wrote:
 >
 >Hi,
 >
  >>Just for the sake of comparaison, I used an older platform which is
  >>PIII-1000Mhz 256Mb Sdram@100 and BX Chipset.
  >>
  >>The results were quite surprising in 3DMARK2001SE:
  >>
  >>GeForce 4200ti 64Mb
  >>No FFSA= 6287
  >>2x FFSA= 5641
  >>
  >>FX5600 128Mb
  >>No FFSA= 5713
  >>2x FFSA= 5071
  >>
  >>To think that an older 4200ti is faster than a FX5600 blows my mind !
  >>
  >>
 >Yea maybe with an old Pentium 3 1.0Gb but with a modern P4 2.6 800
 >the results are slightly different.
 >
 >3D Mark 2001SE:
 >
 >Geforce 3 64MB 7432
 >GeForce FX 5600 Ultra 13739
 >
 >3d Mark 03
 >
 >Geforce 3 64 MB 1008
 >Geforce FX 5600 Ultra 3215
 >
 >both tests without any AA.
 >
 >You see 3d Mark 2001 SE is best suited to those cards which can only
 >use Direct X 7 or 8. Whilst 3D Mark 03 tests those best in Direct X
 >9. But even my humble tests show that the FX 5600, in laymans terms
 >is three times faster than the Geforce 3.

I believe that the O.P. was comparing a GeForce FX 5600 to a GeForce
*4* Ti 4200 rather than a GeForce *3*.

- -
Gary L.
Reply to the newsgroup only<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: GeForce FX 5600 question... 

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 14:46:40 -0700, Gary L. <nospam.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:

 >On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:08:45 GMT, iancarmNOSPAM.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.co.uk (Ian)
 >wrote:

HI,

  >>On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:05:00 +0200, "Gladiator" <gc12.TakeThisOut@nospam.noos.fr>
  >>wrote:
  >>

  >>
   >>>Just for the sake of comparaison, I used an older platform which is
   >>>PIII-1000Mhz 256Mb Sdram@100 and BX Chipset.
   >>>
   >>>The results were quite surprising in 3DMARK2001SE:
   >>>
   >>>GeForce 4200ti 64Mb
   >>>No FFSA= 6287
   >>>2x FFSA= 5641
   >>>
   >>>FX5600 128Mb
   >>>No FFSA= 5713
   >>>2x FFSA= 5071
   >>>
   >>>To think that an older 4200ti is faster than a FX5600 blows my mind !
   >>>
   >>>
  >>Yea maybe with an old Pentium 3 1.0Gb but with a modern P4 2.6 800
  >>the results are slightly different.
  >>
  >>3D Mark 2001SE:
  >>
  >>Geforce 3 64MB 7432
  >>GeForce FX 5600 Ultra 13739
  >>
  >>3d Mark 03
  >>
  >>Geforce 3 64 MB 1008
  >>Geforce FX 5600 Ultra 3215
  >>
  >>both tests without any AA.
  >>
  >>You see 3d Mark 2001 SE is best suited to those cards which can only
  >>use Direct X 7 or 8. Whilst 3D Mark 03 tests those best in Direct X
  >>9. But even my humble tests show that the FX 5600, in laymans terms
  >>is three times faster than the Geforce 3.
 >
 >I believe that the O.P. was comparing a GeForce FX 5600 to a GeForce
 >*4* Ti 4200 rather than a GeForce *3*.
 >

Was this a FX 5600 Ultra card or an ordinary FX5600.

So? the fact is that the Geforce 4 Ti 4200 is still a Direct X version
8 card whilst the FX5600 is a Direct X version 9. 3D Mark 2001 SE is a
Direct X version 7 or 8 benchmark program and a direct X 7 or 8 based
card will show better. The FX5600 is a Direct X 9 based card and works
best with a Direct X 9 benchmark program aka 3DMark 03.

Also, as far as I know, the old Pentium III based system is unable to
run any Direct X 9 programs. Which would show the reality between a
Direct X version 7-8 based card and a Direct X version 9 based one.

regards,

Ian.

__<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: GeForce FX 5600 question... 

 > Was this a FX 5600 Ultra card or an ordinary FX5600.

I was originally asking about the ordinary FX5600, which I ended up buying.
The store had a sale ($100 off) which expired on the 25th, so I decided to
jump on it. So far I am quite happy with it and have seen a great boost in
performance.

Thanks to all who replied.


Greg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: GeForce FX 5600 question...