NVIDIA GeForce FX5700 Ultra Review
Test configuration
Test software:
Synthetic benchmark:
- 3DMark2003 v340;
- 3DMark2001SE v320;
- Village Mark
- Codecreatures v1.0.0 (a DirectX 8.1 application, shaders on, Hardware T&L);
- RightMark Video Analyzer v0.4
- AquaMark 3 (DirectX 9.0, Vertex Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Pixel Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Hardware T&L, AquaMark3 Triscore mode);
Old games:
- Comanche 4 Bench
- Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo (Direct3D, Hardware T&L, vertex shaders, Dot3, cube texturing.);
- SSAM The First Encounter (OpenGL);
New games:
- Gun Metal Benchmark 2 v1.20s (a DirectX 9.0 benchmark, Vertex Shaders 2.0, Pixel Shaders 1.1, Hardware T&L);
- X2: The Threat Demo (Direct3D, multitexturing, Dot3, running in the benchmark mode embedded in the demo version);
- Final Fantasy XI Official Benchmark 2 (a benchmark for assessing the performance in the future game Final Fantasy XI. The developers haven't presented any data on the gaming engine);
- HALO: Combat Evolved 1.2 (DirectX 9.0, Vertex Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Pixel Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Hardware T&L);
 Cards under test: ASUS Radeon 9600XT, NVIDIA FX5700 Ultra, ATI Radeon 9600ProOverclocking
The video card was overclocked with the RivaTuner utility. The operation stability in overclocking was verified with the comprehensive benchmark Aquamark3. First, the memory was overclocked. Once distortions appeared on the screen ("broken" pixels, stripes, lines etc.), then we pushed the memory frequency down. Upon getting the highest stable memory operation frequency, we started a sequential overclocking of the core. No additional cooling was used.
Therefore, we were able to overclock the NVIDIA FX5700 video card to the following clock speeds:
| Video card |
Core/memory
standard |
Core/memory
Max Over |
Excess |
| NVIDIA FX5700 Ultra |
475 MHz / 900 MHz |
570 MHz / 1080 MHz |
120/120% |
This is quite substantial overclock. In this benchmark, FX card traditionally loose to respective Radeon cards. And FX5700 Ultra was no exception. We wanted to find out how it would be possible to raise it in this benchmark:
Aquamark3
AFx4 1024x768 |
900 DDR2 |
950 DDR2 |
1000 DDR2 |
1050 DDR2 |
1080 DDR2 |
1090DDR2 |
| 475 MHz |
29288 |
29630 |
30043 |
30381 |
30573 |
artifacts |
| 500 MHz |
|
|
|
|
31503 |
|
| 520 MHz |
|
|
|
|
32639 |
|
| 540 MHz |
|
|
|
|
33215 |
|
| 560 MHz |
|
|
|
|
34533 |
|
| 570 MHz |
|
|
|
|
34953 |
|
| 580 MHz |
|
|
|
|
artifacts |
|
Again, the same 20% of free advantage. The same table made up as a 10-stage 3D graph looks like this:
Superposing the results for the 21st card gives us the general idea of FX5700 Ultra "ranking".
Very nice results :). ABIT FX5900 128Mb currently costs 320$. Right behind it, there goes overclocked FX5700 Ultra at $240 with a 1500 tri-score points (1.5 fps/sec).
Seems like this time NVIDIA overdid with the performance of its mid-end solution. Then where should sellers put their old stores of FX5900? There is no other way than reducing the prices :-).
 |
Top Stories: |
 |
 |
|
MoBo:
| |
|
|
VGA Card:
|
|
|
|
CPU & Memory:
|
|
