9600 pro vs FX5600ULTRA

[Q-Bert]

pricewise the 5600 is about 50 more...is it worth it?

[jankerson]

This should give you a general idea of how they stackup:

Click Here

[Shuffl@]

I have a 256mb Geforce FX5600 Ultra (Leadtek vivo edition)

And with 2xAA and 4xAF and gaming at 1280x1024 all of my games i play unreal2 etc smooth as a babys bum!

[sam_fisher]

Originally posted by Shuffl@
I have a 256mb Geforce FX5600 Ultra (Leadtek vivo edition)

And with 2xAA and 4xAF and gaming at 1280x1024 all of my games i play unreal2 etc smooth as a babys bum!

you probably won't be able to do that with the 128mb version.
thats pretty good for 5600U dude!

sam.

[Shuffl@]

Yes the 5600 i really like the picture quality ingame is amazing.

I wont upgrade for a while now im happy and i have clocked it using the Winfast 2 rev clocker to core=365 mem=576

Nice stable all day long great stuff and for only £145 . Lovley.

[sam_fisher]

with the two 9700ps in my main rig and my HTPC @ 350/345 i can run all my games with details maxed out, in the game and ati control panel for quality at 1280x1024x32 8xAA FSAA, and never miss a beat.
my pny 5900 ultra should be in tomorrow, so i'm going to do some benching and let everybody here know the details on it.

this is exciting!

sam.

[DSennin]

I love my 9600.

what card will you be upgrading from?

[MuFu]

9600 Pro gets my vote. Cheaper, faster, less IQ hacks, better CVBS/SVHS output etc.

MuFu.

[sam_fisher]

9600 Pro gets my vote. Cheaper, faster, less IQ hacks, better CVBS/SVHS output etc.

ditto to that my friend. the 9600p gets my vote also.

sam.

[sam_fisher]

just so all of you know, if the 5900 is a piece of sh\t, i'm RMAing it very quickly..or sell it for a lot more than what i paid for it.

sam.

[Armaphage]

Damnit, I just ordered a 5600 Ultra. I think the place has a good return policy though...

jankerson, is the 5600 on your link a 5600 Ultra or just a 5600?

As to why I ordered the 5600, look here

How can such a slow card run faster in Doom III?

What do you guys think - send it back for an ATI or keep it?

[jankerson]

Originally posted by Armaphage
Damnit, I just ordered a 5600 Ultra. I think the place has a good return policy though...

jankerson, is the 5600 on your link a 5600 Ultra or just a 5600?

Looks like the Ultra.

[Q-Bert]

right now i have a radeon 9000. but games are coming out like half life 2 that i wont be able to handle though my pc is fast (in my sig) so i figure in a couple of months ill pick up a new GC.

price is a big factor. the sapphire atlantis 9600 pro is only 151 at newegg and in a couple of months should be less even. saving even 50 bucks is significant at this point in my life so i'd really like to get the best bang for my buck.

i really want a 9500 pro but now they are around 190 and it seems wont be going down but up even if u can find them down the road.

[transtrem]

Watch out for the FX5700, it's going to be on a 256 bit memory bus.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...723054322.html

As we reported some time ago, NVIDIA plans to renew its graphics product lineup this Fall in order to compete with the rival ATI Technologies more effectively. The NV31 is reportedly to be replaced with the product code-named NV36 that seems to be based on the GeForce FX 5900 aka NV35 technology.

The new graphics processor for performance mainstream and mainstream segments is expected to be a bit more powerful compared to the predecessor and will surely bring the new level of speed into the market at its price-point, an NVIDIA PR agents would have tell you. Things about NV36 that are not supposed to be told by marketing people are the following:

Number of transistors: 82 million;
Rendering pipelines: 4;
Core-clock: Roughly 500MHz;
Memory clock: Around 325MHz;
Memory bus: 256-bit;
Initial tape-out: May 2003;
The graphics chip is expected to be made using IBM’s 0.13 micron fabrication process in East Fishkill, New York, facility. This seems to be the first chip made by IBM for NVIDIA.

I think the chip will be more powerful compared to the NV31 in calculating Pixel Shaders, just like the GeForce FX 5900 is more powerful compared to the 5800 when operating in 32-bit FP mode. I also believe that the NV36 – dubbed NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 – will be hugely more powerful compared to the predecessor in FSAA modes thanks to wide 256-bit bus and increased core-clock.

The GeForce FX 5700 will definitely be faster compared to the RADEON 9600 PRO as well, especially in situations when memory bandwidth is stressed hugely, so, ATI will have to boost the upcoming code-named RV360 processor somehow. Excellent Pixel Shader 2.0 speed on the RADEON 9600 PRO is not supposed to be surpassed by the GeForce FX 5700, though.

Keep in mind that since it takes about 14 weeks to re-spin a 0.13 micron chip, the GeForce FX 5700 may start to appear in September, in case only one re-spin is required. If the situation is unfavorable for NVIDIA, expect the GeForce FX 5700 to show up in late Fall.

Reminder: The information is fully unofficial and is based on the assumptions from here. No NVIDIA representatives confirmed or denied the existence of unannounced products.

Pixel shader 2.0 performance will not be up to the level of the 9600 though.

[Todd a]

They have to do something. ATI is sitting there with a very nice Radeon 9600 Pro core that can overclock like a dream. They could up the core easily to compete with absolutely no redesign. Then all they need to do is slap on some faster memory. Think of going from 400/600 to a more respectable 450/650 or even 500/700 would be a possibilty if they really needed to. If faster memory prices drop maybe even a 500/800.