Nvidia GeForce FX 5900 Ultra Preview *Updated*
Posted by: [PM] on: 05/12/2003 10:16 AM [ Print | 29 comment(s) ] · 2800 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
|
Jaybo Unregistered |
#43633 Posted on: 05/12/2003 10:41 AM
Nice. |
Comment
|
Phantom69 Unregistered |
#43634 Posted on: 05/12/2003 11:18 AM
Hmmm... So they compared the latest Nvidia GPU with ATi's last-but-one GPU? Why not compare it with the 9800Pro that would be more beneficial, then I could make a more sensible decision about which to buy. I somehow doubt I will be able to buy a 256MB 5900Ultra for the price of a 9700Pro. Hardly a like-for-like comparison is it?! P69 |
Comment
|
Phantom69 Unregistered |
#43635 Posted on: 05/12/2003 11:22 AM
Oh good, now the Polish web-site have done a comparison based purely on 3DMark03, the one benchmark Nvidia refuse to endorse, and hence, allegedly, cheat on. That really helps me. |
Comment
|
Rancho* Member Posts: 39 Joined: 2003-03-21 |
#43636 Posted on: 05/12/2003 11:22 AM
Well they might not have a 9800 Pro at their disposal. |
Comment
|
illumin Junior Member Posts: 3 Joined: 2002-03-02 |
#43637 Posted on: 05/12/2003 11:23 AM
Yeah i was thinking the same thing, why didnt they use a radeon 9800 in their tests? Maybe its because the 9800 beats the geforce 5900... |
Comment
|
hinkle Unregistered |
#43638 Posted on: 05/12/2003 11:36 AM
very nice inded. I wonder how good the card will perform when the newer and much faster 50.xx drivers are used. Reports say that performance can go up to 25% with those drivers. Anyway, it's already decided that I will drop my planned 9800 Pro in favour for the 5900 Ultra  |
Comment
|
rocco66 Unregistered |
#43639 Posted on: 05/12/2003 11:50 AM
wow - a 256mb model - compared with the previous ati - and it produces very similar results, about a year later, clocked much higher. YEAH, NVIDIA's NEW driver will give about 600 % more juice, and the next one, will give 1200 % ... just as the 5900, would perform 80 % faster - in nvidia's pipe(line) dreams ... well pit it against a 9800 - same settings, and i 'm sure it won't be any better. CATALYST's 3.4 are coming out and they will give a 5-10 % more juice ... ooops did i mean 50-100 % ??? hahaha (nvidia style..) nice - c'mon ati give as a .13, 256 part at 400 Mhz, it should be fun to watch nvidia in to the pit ..... nvidia - should make a new chip - because right now they're building a RUIN !!! |
Comment
|
DJ_MrM Unregistered |
#43640 Posted on: 05/12/2003 11:57 AM
What the F*ck are you on about ? ATI's 9800Pro *IS* their new product, and certianly ain't their old product, *****. And the preview DOES show scores from a 9800Pro >ATI Radeon 9800 Pro | Catalyst 3.2: 5.496 >FX 5900 Ultra | Detonator FX: 6.678 See ? use your friggin eyes. And it STOMPS the 9800Pro. Laughs at ATI owners. And wheres the digitalW moron with his usual pathetic remarks about NVidia ? |
Comment
|
rocco66 Unregistered |
#43641 Posted on: 05/12/2003 11:59 AM
ehm we 're talking about the avault preview dude, and believe me results, are a bit different there ... go see - with your own "FRIGGIN" eyes.... |
Comment
|
MagamiAKO Unregistered |
#43643 Posted on: 05/12/2003 12:11 PM
If there's one thing I've always noticed, Nvidia has always delivered on their promise to provide high end performance. The fact of the matter is, the 5800 would not've flopped had it not been for the TSMC delay in using a .13 process. If TSMC was not having delays, wed've seen this card around the R9700 or before the R9700. You honestly can't really blame nvidia, as the 5800 was a whole production cycle too late, and we all know the performance differences between production cycles. Nvidia will get back into the swing of things when the new manufacturing processes are perfected. |
Comment
|
hinkle Unregistered |
#43644 Posted on: 05/12/2003 12:13 PM
funny to see now how Ati fanboys are eagerly defending their beloved company saying that it's impossible for any other graphiccard company to release a card which can beat their 9800 Pro. Like as those guys are fearing something How arrogant if I do say so.
Take it easy rocco, we're not talking here about life and death. In fact it doesn't even matter if ATI or nvidia has the best card because it's a natural cyclus that every company has its downs and ups. That's the way of life. Let's wait a few more (p)reviews until giving a final judgement on the nv35. Don't forget that the card even hasn't been officially announced
|
Comment
|
hinkle Unregistered |
#43645 Posted on: 05/12/2003 12:15 PM
good point, haven't thought of that in this aspect. Indeed the 5800 Ultra should have shipped latest September 2002 to be in direct competition with 9700 Pro. |
Comment
|
rocco66 Unregistered |
#43646 Posted on: 05/12/2003 12:26 PM
oh yeah ??? well - it was pumped to death - with ddr2 and overclocked - and it sucked - do you know what would really be cool by either ati or nvidia - a 256 mb, 256 bit bus, ddr2 part @ ???? memry speeds.... but that d prob be 1??? $ wouldn't it ? right now. Well for all i know -Ati got R300 out last summer. NV30 was getting finallized- it's Nvidia's ~Dx9 offering, same generation, just delayed by a production cycle. both of them have a very similar, performance, nvidia has a bigger market sector, more money and a clumpsy PR dept... oh and it had a big leaf blower on top ..... too . i allready have a 9700pro, so i 'm happy - had it since last summer... it's Great dude, that it takes NVIDIA a year to come up with somethin nearly as good as ATi .... that's Leadership for ya ... a new re-A li-TI - Ati is rewriting the rules ..... |
Comment
|
rocco66 Unregistered |
#43647 Posted on: 05/12/2003 12:31 PM
i aint loosing any sleep dude, but hey - i hate nvidias PR, they 're clueless, the lie - they are goofy... and they were number one for so long, now that's arrogance. i already got a card that has lasted, me for almost a year now , and will still be cool for another at least .... i'm cool .. but yeah, i was a 3dfx freak, now i 'm a fanATIc ... |
Comment
|
wb22gprix Unregistered |
#43648 Posted on: 05/12/2003 12:37 PM
OK this is from the first preview: "Looking at this comparison chart you probably note with some shock that the NV35 powered GeForce FX 5900 Ultra takes a step back in certain areas from the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra. Most notable is the 425MHz DDR-I memory instead of faster DDR-II and the lower GPU clock speed. While the inclusion of a 256-bit bus does make up for the loss of performance, I still find it very interesting that Nvidia opted for rather slow 425MHz memory when ATI is using 620MHz - 680MHz memory for their high end cards." Is this guy an idiot? Does he honestly think that the FX 5900 Ultra uses 212Mhz (425Mhz) DDR? Or does he honestly think that the Radeon 9800 Pro uses 680Mhz (1360Mhz) DDR? Hello, MCFLY! The FX 5900 Ultra uses 425Mhz (or possibly 450)Mhz DDR, the Radeon 9700 Pro uses 310Mhz DDR, and the 9800 Pro has 340Mhz DDR, come on really, is it THAT hard? You'd think that he'd know this if he actually HAS a "preview card" |
Comment
|
wb22gprix Unregistered |
#43649 Posted on: 05/12/2003 12:44 PM
Oh man, I missed the part right after that...he actually says that the FX 5900 Ultra has less memory bandwidth than the FX 5800 Ultra, hahah. I also like how his main explanation of the 256-bit memory bus is that it allows the card to support 256MB of DDR. |
Comment
|
hinkle Unregistered |
#43650 Posted on: 05/12/2003 12:54 PM
yeah, the author f$$k up that part. He should get fired for not knowing the difference between 128-bit and 256-bit busses
In reality the 5900 Ultra has almost the double bandwidth than the 5800 Ultra (27.2 gb/s in contrast to 5800's 16 gb/s |
Comment
|
rocco66 Unregistered |
#43651 Posted on: 05/12/2003 01:27 PM
no they give em just the results of some benchmarks to publish :P |
Comment
|
wb22gprix Unregistered |
#43652 Posted on: 05/12/2003 01:29 PM
The guy probably lives in Greenland and has never seen an NVIDIA representative in his life. |
Comment
|
Comment Member Posts: 23 Joined: 2002-12-21 |
#43653 Posted on: 05/12/2003 01:36 PM
The NV35 looks interesting and Nvidia sure could use an outright winner to stop the excessive bashing they have been getting. As many already stated, the reviewer at AVault seems somewhat confused by his own subject. It would be prudent to reserve judgement on this product until it is launched and coupled with Detonator 50.xx drivers. At that point it should be compared to other top-of-the-line products and by a competent reviewer before drawing any conclusions. It seems many people fail to either observe or comment on the fact that this latest batch of cards are so powerful that there really is no software to challenge them. The real test with come with the arrival of the next killer apps such as Doom 3. Who cares if you can run Quake 3 at max settings and get 300 fps? What will matter is getting the most out of the next generation of games. For the record, I enjoy a good FPS on a GF4ti4600 that I have owned since its launch. It still works great and the need for a card like the Nvidia GeforceFX 5900 Ultra will only really come with software that can bring it to its knees (oddly enough). |
Comment
|
digitalwanderer Junior Member Posts: 3 Joined: 2004-02-22 |
#43654 Posted on: 05/12/2003 02:29 PM
..is actually pretty simple, I just think all they could get their hands on to test it against was the 9700. Whenever you see an oddball comparison like that it's either biased to show off the card or some poor geek who's trying to put a review together with him and his buddies kit, so they tend to use whatever they can get a hold of rather than the optimum comparison.  (I DEFINATELY fall into that latter camp. :lol: )
|
Comment
|
digitalwanderer Junior Member Posts: 3 Joined: 2004-02-22 |
#43655 Posted on: 05/12/2003 02:32 PM
Sorry I'm late, I over-slept this morning and am still playing "catch-up". :rolleyes: Not only me first pot-o-coffee, I'm still on me first cup! :eek: I don't got any of me usual pathetic remarks about nVidia yet today, I'm sort of holding back judgement on 'em 'til I see a few more reviews. I've actually heard/think that nVidia has got a hell of a contender on it's hand this time in the 5900 FX and am glad about it, but I'm reserving judgement until I see a few more reviews/the 256MB 9800 Ultra Pro comes out. (You KNOW ATi is going to be releasing a higher clocked, faster memory model 9800 Pro very soon, right? ) It's gonna be a fun geek Monday either way. |
Comment
|
digitalwanderer Junior Member Posts: 3 Joined: 2004-02-22 |
#43656 Posted on: 05/12/2003 02:39 PM
Yeah, you do raise a good point. I remember playing with a 9500 Pro and wondering why the heck anyone would need anything faster, the sucker ran every game I threw at it just great with AA & AF enabled.
I still am sort of hung-up on the whole "$499" aspect of this new card....I really COULD build a decent gaming rig for that kind of cash and really wonder how many people will be willing to shell out the cash for this new toy? |
Comment
|
digitalwanderer Junior Member Posts: 3 Joined: 2004-02-22 |
#43658 Posted on: 05/12/2003 03:08 PM
Damn, it's actually laughably bad! The card don't look bad, but that was a crap presentation of it! |
Comment
|
wb22gprix Unregistered |
#43659 Posted on: 05/12/2003 03:11 PM
Oh yeah, I don't think anyone has said this yet...but he did the test with a Barton 2700+? A CPU that doesn't exist? |
2 pages 1 2
