Nvidia GeForce FX 5900 Ultra Preview *Updated*
Posted by: [PM] on: 05/12/2003 10:16 AM [ Print | 29 comment(s) ] · 2823 views
Astonishingly the gaming website Adrenaline Vault has posted a detailed preview of Nvidia's upcoming flagship graphics processor NV35. The preview covers the details of Detonator drivers v44.03, a whole lot of screenshots of the graphics card itself and most surprisingly a load of benchmarks as well.
Nvidia is going to announce NV35 at E3 - the Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles starting off this week. NV35 will be produced in 0.13 micron technology and features the long awaited 256bit wide memory bus while operating at 450 MHz / 425 MHz core and memory speed. The FX 5900 Ultra will be equipped with a thermal solution that is similar to the Quadro FX cooler and according to Avault is even more quiet than some Ti 4600 cooling units. Here is a snip from the article:
As you can see, the NV35 builds upon the features of the NV30 GPU that powered the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra, adding in some new features and revamping other areas entirely. A wider memory bus, new CineFX 2.0 and Intellisample engines, UltraShadow programmable hardware shadow engine, improvements in Pixel and Vertex shaders, 8 render pipelines, as well as a new physical design and thermal management solution mean the FX 5900 Ultra is a new card from the ground up... [Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo] In a bit of head-to-head action, here you can see the R300, NV30, and NV35 cards and how they performed at the highest quality settings. Not only did the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra seriously correct the shortcomings of the FX 5800 Ultra, but it has a solid performance lead on the R300 powered Radeon 9700 Pro. Read the full blown 15 page preview / review at Adrenaline Vault. I just noticed that polish website VidiLab IT has posted details on the raw performance of the new card. Test system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ EPoX EP-8RDA3+ (nForce2 Ultra400) 512 MB DDR400 80GB Maxtor 7.200 o/min Results: ATI Radeon 9800 Pro | Catalyst 3.2: 5.496 FX 5900 Ultra | Detonator FX: 6.678 FX 5900 Ultra | Detonator 43.51: 5.981 FX 5800 Ultra | Detonator 43.51: 5.429
As you can see, the NV35 builds upon the features of the NV30 GPU that powered the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra, adding in some new features and revamping other areas entirely. A wider memory bus, new CineFX 2.0 and Intellisample engines, UltraShadow programmable hardware shadow engine, improvements in Pixel and Vertex shaders, 8 render pipelines, as well as a new physical design and thermal management solution mean the FX 5900 Ultra is a new card from the ground up... [Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo] In a bit of head-to-head action, here you can see the R300, NV30, and NV35 cards and how they performed at the highest quality settings. Not only did the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra seriously correct the shortcomings of the FX 5800 Ultra, but it has a solid performance lead on the R300 powered Radeon 9700 Pro. Read the full blown 15 page preview / review at Adrenaline Vault. I just noticed that polish website VidiLab IT has posted details on the raw performance of the new card. Test system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ EPoX EP-8RDA3+ (nForce2 Ultra400) 512 MB DDR400 80GB Maxtor 7.200 o/min Results: ATI Radeon 9800 Pro | Catalyst 3.2: 5.496 FX 5900 Ultra | Detonator FX: 6.678 FX 5900 Ultra | Detonator 43.51: 5.981 FX 5800 Ultra | Detonator 43.51: 5.429
« E3 2003: Breakdown & FIFA Soccer 2004 Screenshots · Nvidia GeForce FX 5900 Ultra Preview *Updated*
· ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB »
2 pages 1 2
Comment
|
wb22gprix Unregistered |
#43661 Posted on: 05/12/2003 04:21 PM
If I didn't have a Radeon 9700 Pro now, then I'd probably be willing to pay $499 for either an FX 5900 or Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB. |
Comment
|
Comment Member Posts: 23 Joined: 2002-12-21 |
#43664 Posted on: 05/12/2003 05:36 PM
Personally, I do not have a problem with the absolute price (~$499) of modern cards. It is more of a question of what I will get in return for it. I paid close to this for my GF4Ti4600 and I have not had any regrets. I have been very tempted to buy the Radeon 9700/9800/AIW Pro cards as well as the GeforceFX, but this has more to do with "something to mess around with" and not a genuine need for such a device. However, the time for an upgrade is definitely nearing and it is probable that I will purchase the Geforce FX 5900 Ultra or the next ATI Radeon iteration (R390?). Just to add another point: I find it somewhat peculiar that people are quarreling over what amounts to a few percentage points in performance and then go into tirades about image quality when there are other interesting aspects of the feature sets. One of the most interesting parts about the Radeon R3xx series is the video shader. This is something that interests me and I can see a benefit in. I suppose it makes sense to only focus in gaming performance if that is all you want/need and will discard the unit when the next generation ships, but if you hold on to a card for 12 months then this should be a point of interest. BTW: I am long time Nvidia user and have come to feel very comfortable with their products. I put off buying the GeforceFX the moment I read (heard?) about the cooling system. At that point I stopped loking at the performance numbers. I am allergic to noise like that unless I am looking to quickly dry my hair. I may be biased, but it is not a blind performance issue. It is simply experience leading to comfort with how the drivers will operate and what to expect. One of my main interests in Radeon 9700 was that I have longed to be totally blown away by something "new" like that moment I first put a Voodoo 2 or Geforce in one of my systems. Just a little background and possible fuel for the flaming.  |
Comment
|
chris_exe Unregistered |
#43687 Posted on: 05/13/2003 12:17 AM
well if it had been launched then it would have been an even bigger embarrassing mess than it was when it was launched earlier this year. |
Comment
|
rocco66 Unregistered |
#43693 Posted on: 05/13/2003 01:30 AM
avault aint poor geeks ?!!?! |
2 pages 1 2
