View Full Version : GeForce FX 5700 Ultra any good?
01-20-2004, 10:34 PM
I am an experienced flight simulator player, but I have been playing FS2002 on an old Voodoo card. I am going to purchase the newest version of the simulator and I want a good card that will make smooth edges on the airplanes and allow the game to run smoothly, but I don't want to take a lot out of my wallet. I have been thinking about the GeForce FX 5700 ultra. Is this any good for what I am looking for? Any opinions or suggestions to go differently would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks a lot.
01-20-2004, 11:12 PM
At this time..the geforcefx5700 cost too much for the performance with gives...save yourself some cash and go with the ATI9600XT which hovers around $150, and will give you nicer picture quality than the nvidia cards without much of a performance hit
Or for the price of a 5700ultra (last i checked, the least expensive cost $180) you can get a 5900XT for $190 which would be hell a lot faster than 5700ultra and 9600XT...
Or for $210 you can get a 9700PRO at zipzoomfly which is a tad faster than the 5900XT but the picture quality(like all Ati cards) it has is amazing compared to nvidia's...
there are your choices
01-21-2004, 05:00 AM
I've used ATi & Nvidia cards for as long as they've been available. Both manufacturers are extremely good. Most of the time the differences are only visible in benchmarks. To get yourself up there, you want to get;
AGP 8x (assuming your motherboard supports it)
8 x pixel pipelines (assuming your wallet supports it!)
In terms of MB and what's around; if it's 8 pixel then 128MB will do just fine, if it's 4 pixel then you can probably get 256MB for a slight cash saving.
01-21-2004, 10:27 AM
Word to the wise, don't go buying a high end card these days. There is new technology coming out in April and those cards will cost half as much when the new cards come out. Sticking to the mid-range market which is a high-end market when upgrading from the card you currently have. Your best bet would be a 5900XT, it will cost you between $180 and $205. This card will smoke the 9600XT and perform almost as good as a 5900. The 5900's are going for $220, which is not a bad deal if you are spending $180 already for a card, so here is another option. The 9700 Pro is a good card but old technology, the card is 1.5 or going on two years old. In fact, ATI stop making last year so I would not invest in one of them even if they are good performers. You want something that is still around or new like the 5900XT.
The 9800 is also a good option but about another $30 more than a 5900, so now you are looking at a $250+ video card. You might find it cheaper on one of the many websites but don't count your blessings on that. Be aware that what makes the biggest difference in FS9 is the processor/ram followed by a good video card. So if you have a slow processor and very little ram, you will encounter problems with FS9 even after upgrading your video card. However, with that said, you seriously need to upgrade your video card.
01-21-2004, 02:31 PM
Quote from TheFlightMan
>The 9700 Pro is a good card but old
>technology, the card is 1.5 or going on two years old. In
>fact, ATI stop making last year so I would not invest in one
>of them even if they are good performers. You want
>something that is still around or new like the 5900XT.
Well, the "old" technology of an ATI 9700Pro still beats the "new" 5900XT...why not buy the faster one? Just because its old? Not a very good excuse.....remember, the 9700pro can do many things that a 5900 can't do, one is the shaders like you mentioned on another thread.
>There is new technology coming out in April and those cards will >cost half as much when the new cards come out.
According to history, it usually takes a whole year if not more for the cost of the video to drop down to half of what it was worth when it came out...look at the Geforce4ti4200...I bought mine when it first came out, and it costed me around $180(forgot the actual price)and around october 2003, well over a year since it came out the price of those ti's started to drop to around $100...did the price of those ti's drop to half its cost when the FX series came out, i don't think so...
Another example would be the 9800pro, almost a year since it came out and still cost around $300...do you really think the price of the 9800pro drop to $200 after new gens come out..no it won't
Prices of the current gen cards will never drop by half right after the new gen cards come out, it just won't happen....
Ofcourse i would never ever recommend a person to WASTE $400 or $500 on a new card...why buy a $500 card when you can get 80 to 90 percent of the performance on a card that cost about half as much....
My advice is to buy a card, even if the cost is $150, $200, or even $250...buy it and enjoy it, because if you are waiting for those prices of the current gen cards to come down, new gens will come out and you probably wait for those prices to come down as well....if you are one of those people, you will always be waiting...and waiting..............and waiting..and end up buying nothing...just buy the card and enjoy for a year or two or until you really need to upgrade...
01-21-2004, 02:59 PM
Before buying a 9700 Pro, I would go for a 9800, honestly. I know it is a good performer but I would not feel comfortable buying a card that has already been discountinued. Simple as that, why invest on something that the vendor or creator no longer maintains.
I've read some reviews that compare the 5900XT to the 9700 Pro, in some cases, it is just as good. However, keep in mind the shader problems with all NVidia cards, that should be resolve in the next generation according to NVidia. If I was to bet on it, I would need to see it first in order to believe it. Reason being, ATI has no shader performance issues at all and can only get better with upcoming releases. That is the only thing that gives ATI an Edge over NVidia and the fact that NVidia might pull completely out of the GPU market if the next generation cards don't workout. If that happens, they will probably focus more on Windows Media Center edition and so forth.
01-21-2004, 03:51 PM
I would also go with the 9800...i personnaly own a 9800 and i love it, i would suggest others to go with the 9800 as well, but unfortunately, the ##### card cost $260 off newegg and quickly disappearing...for 8 dollars more i would buy the sapphire 9800PRO off newegg which would be a better buy...ofcourse it would be a diffrent story if the 9800 costed around $200-$220 at the most, then i would most definately put that card on top of the 5900XT, 5900nu, and 9700pro....Hopefully, nvidia will resolve its shaders performance by the next generation so we can see some serious competition...so far, ati has been one step ahead of nvidia
01-22-2004, 06:16 AM
Let's all remember that the original poster was on a budget, from making an enquiry as to the validity of an FX5700, we've now got mentions of 9800Pros and FX5900s. I'm sure if the budget was that high, the question would have been more, "ATi or Nvidia?"
I'm lucky enough to have a 5950 Ultra but see nothing wrong with a 5700 or indeed the 5600 for your average home PC. There's only so much filtering you can apply to graphics before the difference becomes almost undetectable.
If you have that sort of money to throw after just flight sim, surely you'd get the best processor you could find and stay with a cheaper card?
...Rant over, I feel better now!
01-22-2004, 11:41 AM
True, the original poster wanted an opinion on the 5600 so the answer is "Terrible even for $80 or less." With that said, it is best to wait and go for a 5900XT or 9600XT which are the best possible choices in the low budget category if you ask me. The 5200 is not even worth sticking in your system, so that rules that one out.
01-22-2004, 01:43 PM
He wants an opinion on the 5700Ultra...I say it is a good card, but since it cost way too much, he could go with the 9600XT which is cheaper and in most cases perform better, or even better the 5900XT which will be signifcantly faster than both at the same price of the 5700U...
01-24-2004, 09:58 PM
I seen a 5700 at Bestbuy today for $180 and right next to it a 9600XT for $120. You gotta watch what you buy cause the 9600XT is faster.
The 9700Pro is faster than the 9800 and just behind the 9800Pro in speed and last I heard ATI's partners were still manufacturing 9700Pro cards. They're still available and will be remembered and written about for years to come as a giant leap in the graphics world. A card born before its time and still a top contender and the same basic design as a 9800Pro or a 9800XT. Those two later ones are just overclocked 9700Pro cards anyway.
01-26-2004, 10:09 AM
As I have mentioned before in this post, if you are buying an NVidia card today, you should not get anything less than a 5900XT...period. If you are thinking of a 5700 because of its value, then go with a 9600XT by ATI which is a much better card than the 5700 or 5700 Ultra. Folks, don't throw your money away, seriously. I've read post were users saw a 5600 Ultra with 256mb for $80 and they thought it was such a good deal because of the amount of Ram. That is a bunch of BS, trust me on this one, no matter how much Ram you put on the 5200 or 5600 or 5700 series cards, they are all terrible performers. If you are choosing any of those three models, go for a 9600XT which will leave them all in the dust. If you can afford another $20 to $30 bucks then go for the 5900XT which will leave all of them plus the 9600XT in the dust.
01-26-2004, 11:36 PM
>I've read post were users saw a
>5600 Ultra with 256mb for $80 and they thought it was such a
>good deal because of the amount of Ram. That is a bunch of
>BS, trust me on this one, no matter how much Ram you put on
>the 5200 or 5600 or 5700 series cards, they are all terrible
Let me say my thoughts of this...256MB on ANY card that exist today is no faster than its 128mb "sister" card. the extra 128mb on the Card is useless even on the 9800XT and the FX5950....don't waste your money on buying a card that has 256mb...its a waste...save your cash and buy the 128mb card...
just one thing I had to point out from your post....the 5200 and 5600 may be poor performers but the 5700Ultra isn't...its just overpriced...The performance of the 5700ultra is almost identicle to the 9600XT so if you call the 5700ultra a poor performer, so u are saying the same thing to the 9600XT..
The problem that most 256mb cards are slower is that most "midrange" cards sold with 256mb are UNDERCLOCKED drastically and pipelines may be cut in half as well as its memory bandwidth....that is why 256mb on a midrange card are VERY terrible performers...
Quote from BigShot
>They're still available and will be remembered and written about >for years to come as a giant leap in the graphics world. A card >born before its time and still a top contender and the same basic >design as a 9800Pro or a 9800XT.
I Love your quote about the 9700pro...why? because its all true even after a year and a half, this card is still a top dog in the "high end" range...Quote "A card born before its time" :) ;)
01-27-2004, 10:15 AM
The 5700 is a poor performer because of the shader problems it suffers from. Therefore, the 9600XT is a much better card in that sense since it does not suffer from any shader performance issues. Now the 5900XT or above, even with shader problems as well, will out peform the 9600XT. Hence, my comment about the 5200, 5600, and 5700.
The way I see it, the 5700 will be the low end card or entry level card for NVidia and we will soon see the 5200/5600 disappear from the market.
01-27-2004, 09:52 PM
What is this shader problems you keep bringing up!! :-mad
The only shader problem it has is in DirectX9...it doesn't do PS2.0 shaders as good as the ATI cards...put it this way, all current nvidia cards can't support DirectX9 PERIOD...tell me what game out there TODAY that uses DirectX9 features......none
Games out there TODAY use shaders found in DirectX8.1...so in terms of performance in TODAY's games, the 5700Ultra is close if not identicle with the 9600XT...the 5700Ultra does DX8.1 shaders just as good as the 9600XT, thus making it a good performer compared to the 5600Ultra...
The first game that will come out with DirectX9 features is Half Life2...which won't come out, last time i heard, till Q3 of 2004...You can call the 5700Ultra a bad performer when half life 2 comes out when the 9600XT will crush the 5700U as well as the FX5900s in performance with the DX9 features
01-28-2004, 06:42 AM
This thread is getting boring now.
1. If the packaging for a video card states "Designed for DirectX 9", "Ensures the best performance and application compatability for all DirectX 9... applications.", and "Microsoft DirectX 9... optimizations and support." then we can surely assume that the card supports DirectX 9!!! These exact quotes were taken from the box of an FX5600 in the store (couldn't find a 5700).
2. Yes, there isn't yet a 'proper' DX9 game to fully test the features available on these cards, but there are the likes of Aquamark3 and 3DMark03 which provide a good guide. What about Gunmetal which uses DX9 features too? It's no use arguing the toss for DX9 performance when you benchmark a card with the likes of 3DMark2001 which is distinctly 'old school'. Time will be the leveller.
3. The majority of current mid to high end cards are more than adequate for anything anyone on these forums is likely to need.
And for Half Life addicts:
[link:www.half-life2.org.uk/|Half-Life 2 is still due for release on 2nd April 2004. It seems that this software "leak" will have cost Valve dearly, missing the Christmas release will probabbly mean that HL2 sales will be less than what they could have been.]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.