Video Card Questions
Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:39 pm
Sorry guys but I couldn't resist being a smacktard and starting a new thread! But I have a question....
I recently purchased an ASUS Nvidia Geforce FX 5700 256Mb DDR off of Newegg. I was hoping that someone could tell me if this card is a good card or not because I do not know that much about video cards. I look to play PlanetSide, BF1942 (of course) and Halo and other graphic games. Here is the link to this card. Feedback is greatly appreciated!
Geforce FX 5700 256MB
I guess we could use this thread for general video card questions as well lol.
I recently purchased an ASUS Nvidia Geforce FX 5700 256Mb DDR off of Newegg. I was hoping that someone could tell me if this card is a good card or not because I do not know that much about video cards. I look to play PlanetSide, BF1942 (of course) and Halo and other graphic games. Here is the link to this card. Feedback is greatly appreciated!
Geforce FX 5700 256MB
I guess we could use this thread for general video card questions as well lol.
Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:36 am
That's a decent video card which easily holds it's own against the 9600 in various benchmarks. I think the limiting factor with your system is the lack of memory. If I were you, I would purchase an additional 512mb if you can. BFV on my second computer, which is a P4 3.06 with 512 pc2100 ram and a 9800pro 128mb does horribly in BFV for instance because of the lack of memory.
The card should hold you over, however you might want to consider a Ati 9800 Pro 128mb or a 5900Se 128mb for almost the same money. On NewEgg, the 5700 256mb is $193.00, and the 9800 pro 128mb is 199.00 ( http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-268&depa=0) and the 5900SE 128mb is $199.00 as well ( http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?catalog=48&DEPA=0&submit=property&mfrcode=0&propertycode=&propertycodevalue=5184,3668 )
Just some options for you, hope this helps.
Mike
The card should hold you over, however you might want to consider a Ati 9800 Pro 128mb or a 5900Se 128mb for almost the same money. On NewEgg, the 5700 256mb is $193.00, and the 9800 pro 128mb is 199.00 ( http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-268&depa=0) and the 5900SE 128mb is $199.00 as well ( http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?catalog=48&DEPA=0&submit=property&mfrcode=0&propertycode=&propertycodevalue=5184,3668 )
Just some options for you, hope this helps.
Mike
Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:46 am
the 5700 wasn't a good choice, I'm afraid. it's slow in DX9 games...slow when you enable AA/AF...it's just not a good card.
if you're looking for a card that has good performance/price ratio, the 9600XT is for you. it's fast in DX9, allows you to use some AA/AF, it's an all around better card. if you're looking for a bit more of performance, consider the 9800pro. don't even look at the 9800XT though-it's still way too overpriced.
if you're looking for a card that has good performance/price ratio, the 9600XT is for you. it's fast in DX9, allows you to use some AA/AF, it's an all around better card. if you're looking for a bit more of performance, consider the 9800pro. don't even look at the 9800XT though-it's still way too overpriced.
Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:03 am
The 5700 Ultra is definitely not the best performer in DX9 games, however there are a very few games on the market that are 100% DX 9.0 compliant. Most can actually be counted on one hand, and by the time more are released, PCI-X will be available to the masses. Here is a review of the 5700Ultra, which recieved an 87% from Thresh's Firing Squad and ousted the 9600XT in most tests when battling against it.
5700 Ultra
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_fx_5700_ultra_review/
That review dispels many of the AA/Anio myths that Nvidia did have with pre-Forceware drivers. In reality, the 5700Ultra is ahead of the 9600XT in every single game benchmark with the same graphics settings throughout all resolutions.
I own both the 5950 and 9800Pro, and to be quite honest, there isn't a game I currently own that slows the 5950 down with 4xfsaa/8anio. I can crank my 9800pro higher in the AA and Anio areas, however, the fps drops off incredibly to where it isn't playable. My 3dMark03 score is 7158 and 3dMark2001 is over 21,000 on my 5950. The only DX 9 game that seemed to be a threat was HL2, however after playing the Alpha version, I can attest that my card was running it flawlessly without any glitches with everything turned up. Now that HL2 is about 6-12 months away, the 6800 seems to have that problem solved, even adding PS 3.0 and 128bit precision support on top of incredible AA and Anio (Halo is playable at 2048x1536 res at around 30fps on the 6800 Ultra)..
The new Forceware drivers from Nvidia correct a lot of the earlier problems with DX 9, and the issues that once plagued the FX series has dimished slightly, however I admit they are still there.....but slight at best.
I plan on getting the 6800 as soon as it's available on the market. Talk about a monster!!!!! That card is literally two times faster than the 5950 AND 9800XT! 12,500 3dMark03 score......can someone say BFV at 1600x1200 everything maxed???
If you want compatiblilty, go Nvidia since it's driver support and stability across all games is far superior than Ati's. If you're worried about DX9 games down the road (which again by the time they fully run on DX 9.0, PCI-X will be here) go Ati. My Ati 9800Pro is a serious problem with driver/game support (been an Ati buyer since the 9700pro). I was running Omegas (based on 4.2 Cats) and had to change it to Default Catalysts just to get BFV running correctly. It would not load at all with the Omegas, and I kept getting error messages upon executing BFV. An uneeded headache for people unfamiliar with computers and installing/removing/installing drivers.
In the end, any card currently available will fair well in any of today's games and those due out within the year.
I still think you need to up your ram another 512mb
Mike
5700 Ultra
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_fx_5700_ultra_review/
With its 475MHz core and vastly superior memory subsystem, the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra is able to outperform ATI’s RADEON 9600 XT in many situations. As a result, we can definitely say that the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra firmly re-establishes NVIDIA’s presence in the mainstream segment of the graphics market.
That review dispels many of the AA/Anio myths that Nvidia did have with pre-Forceware drivers. In reality, the 5700Ultra is ahead of the 9600XT in every single game benchmark with the same graphics settings throughout all resolutions.
I own both the 5950 and 9800Pro, and to be quite honest, there isn't a game I currently own that slows the 5950 down with 4xfsaa/8anio. I can crank my 9800pro higher in the AA and Anio areas, however, the fps drops off incredibly to where it isn't playable. My 3dMark03 score is 7158 and 3dMark2001 is over 21,000 on my 5950. The only DX 9 game that seemed to be a threat was HL2, however after playing the Alpha version, I can attest that my card was running it flawlessly without any glitches with everything turned up. Now that HL2 is about 6-12 months away, the 6800 seems to have that problem solved, even adding PS 3.0 and 128bit precision support on top of incredible AA and Anio (Halo is playable at 2048x1536 res at around 30fps on the 6800 Ultra)..
The new Forceware drivers from Nvidia correct a lot of the earlier problems with DX 9, and the issues that once plagued the FX series has dimished slightly, however I admit they are still there.....but slight at best.
I plan on getting the 6800 as soon as it's available on the market. Talk about a monster!!!!! That card is literally two times faster than the 5950 AND 9800XT! 12,500 3dMark03 score......can someone say BFV at 1600x1200 everything maxed???
If you want compatiblilty, go Nvidia since it's driver support and stability across all games is far superior than Ati's. If you're worried about DX9 games down the road (which again by the time they fully run on DX 9.0, PCI-X will be here) go Ati. My Ati 9800Pro is a serious problem with driver/game support (been an Ati buyer since the 9700pro). I was running Omegas (based on 4.2 Cats) and had to change it to Default Catalysts just to get BFV running correctly. It would not load at all with the Omegas, and I kept getting error messages upon executing BFV. An uneeded headache for people unfamiliar with computers and installing/removing/installing drivers.
In the end, any card currently available will fair well in any of today's games and those due out within the year.
I still think you need to up your ram another 512mb
Mike
Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:02 am
I had a question a while back about updating, here's the thread.
http://forums.powervs.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6573&highlight=updating
Might find some useful information in there.
http://forums.powervs.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6573&highlight=updating
Might find some useful information in there.
Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:07 am
Ive been looking for a while now and it seems the most reasonable buy would be the 9600xt. My question is, Will I see much of a difference going to a 9600xt from a 9000 128mb. The 9000 only supports 4x AGP and I'm curious to find out if going to a higher bus and 8x AGP will make a difference in game performance.
Side question: For anyone who owns a AMD 'Barton' 3000+ XP CPU (333mhz fsb): What do you set your multiplier to in BIOS? I know that the it has an internal multiplier of 13x built in so should the BIOS reflect that? Right now I have it set at 166mhz/13x multiplier and my comp is only seeing it as a 2700+ and I'm running at 2.1 ghz is that right? Seems just a little off to me.
Side question: For anyone who owns a AMD 'Barton' 3000+ XP CPU (333mhz fsb): What do you set your multiplier to in BIOS? I know that the it has an internal multiplier of 13x built in so should the BIOS reflect that? Right now I have it set at 166mhz/13x multiplier and my comp is only seeing it as a 2700+ and I'm running at 2.1 ghz is that right? Seems just a little off to me.
Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:08 am
Great post. Here is one of the charts, however I must say that on others when the 9600xt beats the 5700Ultra, it beats it by 10fps or so.
Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:12 am
Originally posted by Musashi X
Ive been looking for a while now and it seems the most reasonable buy would be the 9600xt. My question is, Will I see much of a difference going to a 9600xt from a 9000 128mb. The 9000 only supports 4x AGP and I'm curious to find out if going to a higher bus and 8x AGP will make a difference in game performance.
Side question: For anyone who owns a AMD 'Barton' 3000+ XP CPU (333mhz fsb): What do you set your multiplier to in BIOS? I know that the it has an internal multiplier of 13x built in so should the BIOS reflect that? Right now I have it set at 166mhz/13x multiplier and my comp is only seeing it as a 2700+ and I'm running at 2.1 ghz is that right? Seems just a little off to me.
Yes, you will see a very nice gain in performance going to the 9600XT. Bus +Frequency+Architecture = nice improvement for ya.
I wish I could answer your AMD question. My FTP is a XP2100+ on an Abit KX7-333, and that's as far as my AMD knowledge goes these days....sorry bro.
Mike
Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:16 am
Wow yeah just looking at that chart I can see the difference thanks for posting that. This topic couldnt have come at a better time as Newegg is having a blowout sale on the 9600xt for like $167 down from $199 think I might splurge a little on it.
Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:22 am
I wish I would have posted it sooner. For under 200 bucks anyone even considering the 5700 or the 9600 would be crazy not to go with a 9800 or a 5900SE for that kind of cash. It may only be 128mb versions of the cards, however there really isn't a game out today (Doom 3 maybe?) that will truly utilize 256mb of video ram. I may be wrong on that, but I still think a 9800pro or a 5900SE for less than 200 bucks is definitely the way to go for anyone looking to purchase a videocard.
Mike
Mike
Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:06 am
if you check on ebay you can find some good deals on video cards....i just bought a 9600xt for 120...but ive even seen some 9700 pro's go for as low as 150 very recently...5900xt is a nice card as well..
Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:03 am
Listen to Toe Jam. Spend the extra six bucks and get a 9800PRO. Except for the XT version or the Nvidia 6800 you have the best card on the market.
Re: Video Card Questions
Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:07 am
Originally posted by slayer_1
Sorry guys but I couldn't resist being a smacktard and starting a new thread! But I have a question....
I recently purchased an ASUS Nvidia Geforce FX 5700 256Mb DDR off of Newegg. I was hoping that someone could tell me if this card is a good card or not because I do not know that much about video cards. I look to play PlanetSide, BF1942 (of course) and Halo and other graphic games. Here is the link to this card. Feedback is greatly appreciated!
Geforce FX 5700 256MB
I guess we could use this thread for general video card questions as well lol.
If it is not too late, I would suggest sending it back and getting this one instead - http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-150-051&depa=1
The 5900SE or XT with 128MB will considerably outperform the 5700U with 256MB.
Jim
Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:25 am
Originally posted by Musashi X
Ive been looking for a while now and it seems the most reasonable buy would be the 9600xt. My question is, Will I see much of a difference going to a 9600xt from a 9000 128mb. The 9000 only supports 4x AGP and I'm curious to find out if going to a higher bus and 8x AGP will make a difference in game performance.
Side question: For anyone who owns a AMD 'Barton' 3000+ XP CPU (333mhz fsb): What do you set your multiplier to in BIOS? I know that the it has an internal multiplier of 13x built in so should the BIOS reflect that? Right now I have it set at 166mhz/13x multiplier and my comp is only seeing it as a 2700+ and I'm running at 2.1 ghz is that right? Seems just a little off to me.
1. IMO, and AFAIK, current apps/games don't fully utilize AGP 4x's bandwidth, so the move to 8x is not going to offer any boost in and of itself. However, the diff. between 9000 and 9600 is great, and very much worth it.
2. I own a 400FSB barton 3000, and it runs at 2.1Ghz, so you're fine. If you want further proof, look here: http://139.95.253.214/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/?St=8,E=0000000000153716632,K=6321,Sxi=19,Solution=3913
It states a 3000+ at 333Mhz should be running a 13x multi. You probably need to update your bios to get it to show the correct model #.
3. Did anyone else notice how the 9700pro, and nearly 2 year old card, still kicks a 5700's a**, and beats the 5800/5900's (and even a 9800 non-pro!).
Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:01 am
Originally posted by Musashi X
Side question: For anyone who owns a AMD 'Barton' 3000+ XP CPU (333mhz fsb): What do you set your multiplier to in BIOS? I know that the it has an internal multiplier of 13x built in so should the BIOS reflect that? Right now I have it set at 166mhz/13x multiplier and my comp is only seeing it as a 2700+ and I'm running at 2.1 ghz is that right? Seems just a little off to me.
What mobo is it? Try updating the bios. Many mobo's don't recognize Bartons with older bios.
You sure it's a Barton 3000?? What are the numbers on the cpu? The xp2700 TB runs at 2.17 ghz, the Barton 3000 2.16.
Get the latest bios and it should recognize it as a Barton. If your memory run at 400, for the heck of it, try running setting bios 200 x 10.5 and see what it reports. A 333 Barton will run at 400 FSB np.
Bullhead, what FPS do you get in BFV? I played for about an hour and recorded with Fraps. The average is always over 70. I posted a reply in the BFV forum.