fx 5600 no better than a gf-4 my @$$!

[IR1]

I agree. Run 3dmark01 and then go to the orb. infact... im going to go myself right now and look at how other peoples 5600s fair agianst others 4600s.

so far though I think the whole FX budget line is a joke, and so far I dont know what the hell to think of their highend cards, with the cheats and reviews using doom3... which is retarded....

anycrap...

 

[Konnan10101]

the 5600 was in all respects a mess up on nividias part, and people at nvidia have admitted it. It was a card that was rushed and had soem seriosu problems in the beginning. In nvidias defense though there new 5900 ultra running on the nv35 (as opposed to the 5600's nv30) is supposed to be amazing it outperforms the 9800 in almost ever instance and outperforms the 5600 by a long shot.

check out the review http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821

that explains everythign very well

 

[walldow]

well i guess it's time to bow down.

i have tried everything even got the card to run 390/1000 yes thats 1 gig (thats if nvidia's showing the actual clock speeds correctly on the card) on the memory and the damn thing still wont beat my ti 4200 running 335/600.

geforce 4 ti 4200 335/600 @14743


geforce fx 5600 ultra 390/1000 @13163


unreal tournament 2003 on the fx5600 ultra

1024x768

flyby=173 fps
botmatch=56 fps

well i guess i just got a 230$ piece of crap! maybe newegg will let me exchange it?

 

[ninthebin]

5900 ultra running on the nv35 (as opposed to the 5600's nv30) is supposed to be amazing it outperforms the 9800 in almost ever instance and outperforms the 5600 by a long shot.

the 5600 is the NV31 - and about the 5900Ultra outperforming the 9800Pro is dubious the only thing I have seen it beat it in with a clear margin is Doom 3 everything relies on lower resolutions, lower quality for it to perform better and your not going to be buying a card like that to play half-life on the lowest settings at 640x480


dear walldow,

where did you arrive to your original conclusion of the 5600 being the dogs dangleys?

 

[walldow]

dear walldow,

where did you arrive to your original conclusion of the 5600 being the dogs dangleys?

well i have a ti 4200 that smokes 14743 in 3dmark 2001 and most ti4600's can't touch it!
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6383077

and the ti 4200 was hiting 2018 in 3dmark 2003
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=658390

and the fx 5600 hit 3722 in 2003
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=802030

i'm not talking about the overal score because i know that the ti's can't complete all test. but i'm talken indevidual test if compared the fx slammed the g-force 4by i even looked up all other ti's running stock voltages on the orb and they couldn't touch it.

i have this fx 5600 card running at 390/1000,(fully over clocked) thats 1000mhz on the memory clock or nvidias lieing about there clock speeds.

the card handles complex rendering great! it pushed 134 frames on the nature in 3dmark 2001 when the ti 4200 was strugling to hit 115 frames. but in the simple rendering were the ti uses the cpu instuction set to help with rendering. the ti clearly has the uperhand. it's like the fx is not using and cpu instuctionset and is totaly indepedent from the cpu. thats were the down fall of the card is! if you ask me. mabe i'm not looking at it corectly but thats my thoughts.

 

[new_novice]

did you change the driver??

 

[walldow]

did you change the driver??

there are only three drivers out right now that support the fx line 43.45, 43.51, and the 44.03. the other drivers are not recognised by the card! the 42.68 recognises the card as NV-31 instead of a fx 5600 and is veary unstable i think this was one of the first drivers in beta for the card thats why nvidia through a fit when it got leeked!

 

[DarkOneX]

14305 3Dmarks in 3dmark2k1 with my Leadtek A310 FX 5600 Ultra. Beats my old score with my GF4 Ti4600 which was 12938. Check it out @ http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6561481

 

[gokickrocks]

darkone, did you bench both cards on the same rig?

i also saw in your sig...p4 3.0c @ 3.2 and an asus p4c800...you have a lot more overclocking headroom, why not shoot for more?... i have a 2.4c thats currently running at 3.6, still using the stock intel hsf (and still waiting for my intel adapter for the prommy ), but with the 3:2 divider...yours could probably reach 4ghz

 

[walldow]

14305 3Dmarks in 3dmark2k1 with my Leadtek A310 FX 5600 Ultra. Beats my old score with my GF4 Ti4600 which was 12938. Check it out @ http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6561481

please use patch 330 for 3dmark 2003 when publishing on the orb. build 320 and erlier are giving false scores dew to nvidia drivers not rendering properly (cheating) and giving higher scores than should be. build 330 corects this and forces the drivers to render all of the benchmark properly. please use build 330 so everyone searching the ORB can compare acuratly. thanks, walldow

patch for build 330 3DMark 2003

http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark03patch330.shtml

 

[james.miller]

14305 3Dmarks in 3dmark2k1 with my Leadtek A310 FX 5600 Ultra. Beats my old score with my GF4 Ti4600 which was 12938. Check it out @ http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6561481

12.9k with a 3.2ghz p4 and a ti4600? ROFL. you did something seriously wrong there.

 

[DarkOneX]

Gokick rocks nah it only hits 3.5Ghz but my benches are slower @ 3.5Ghz then at 3.2Ghz. I'm guessing that's because @ 3.2Ghz I still have a 1:1 memory ratio and PAT enabled. But When I go above that I hafta use a 5/4 memory ratio and PAT only works with a 1:1 ratio.

Walldow, that was 3DMark 2001 I published, not 2k3. I can't publish my 3dMark 2k3 scores as I don't have the full version of the software.

james.miller, I guess I forgot to mention that when I benched my Ti4600 it was on my old system which was a 2.4Ghz P4 @ 2.7Ghz with 512MB RDRAM.

 

[james.miller]

still looks too low. not that it matter though. as long as your happy

 

[DarkOneX]

uhm, 9700's are better then Ti4600 last time I checked. I did just check other peeps scores with Ti4600's on 2.7Ghz machines and j00 were right on that, most peeps on there have over 14k. Not sure why, maybe they were cheating? I had my system tweaked out as I always do so not sure what else I coulda done. Anyway, all I know is I'm luving this Leadtek 5600 Ultra more then my Ti4600.

 

[shiltz]

geforce fx 5600 ultra 390/1000 @13163

well that definatly owns my ti4400 score wise, when I ran 3Dmark2001 SE I got about 10500ish (forget the exact number off hand) and my 2nd computer with a ti4400 only got around 8700ish, and that's overclocked somewhat on my main computer, though I think the card is a screwed up cause I can only get it run at 290/580 stable, anything past 290 for the core and it locks up on 3dmark, and that's water cooled not the stock cooler.

 

[PreservedSwine]

well that definatly owns my ti4400 score wise, when I ran 3Dmark2001 SE I got about 10500ish

That seems a bit low too....

 

[Atari]

Yea I kinda have to agree that those numbers seem a little low.. Maybe your not pushing your card high enough.. I mean I'm running a XP @2.38ghz and a GF3 Ti500 (oc'd to... I forget) and I am running 11057 on 3dMark.

 

[Ugmore Baggage]

If this thread proves that a $400 card can beat a $100 card by 10% we'll all run out and spend $400... But I'll get the $400 card that beats the $100 card by 30%

I don't see why this is worth an argument, unless you want a ATI Vs nVidia debate.

 

[DarkOneX]

Nvidia pwnz!

 

[TheGr8s1]

Game 1 - Car Chase (low detail) - fps 236.3
Game 1 - Car Chase (high detail) - fps 83.1
Game 2 - Dragothic (low detail) - fps 321.0
Game 2 - Dragothic (high detail) - fps 177.5
Game 3 - Lobby (low detail) - fps 214.6
Game 3 - Lobby (high detail) - fps 94.5
Game 4 - Nature - fps 118.9
Fill Rate (single texturing) - MTexels/s 1978.0
Fill Rate (multi-texturing) - MTexels/s 3140.7
High Poygon Count (1 light) - MTriangles/s 88.7
High Poygon Count (8 lights) - MTriangles/s 20.0
Environment Bump Mapping - fps 198.8
DOT3 Bump Mapping - fps 231.4
Vertex Shader - fps 230.0
Pixel Shader - fps 221.1
Advanced Pixel Shader - fps 242.1
Point Sprites - MSprites/s 43.6
Total 2DMark 2001 score 17198


That's my score with just a mild o/c. I'm waiting for my OCZ PC3700 Gold to come in the mail and then we shall see what an ATI can REALLY do. This is my N/P 9700 score. Any FX owners wanna compare?