HardOCP 5700U review is up.

[Blastman]

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTQwLDE=

I like the use of newer games and custom demos.

The 5700U sure is huge compared to the 9600XT. Along with that very fast 450Mhz memory it?s hard to see how the 5700U will be competitive cost wise with the 9600XT. The 9600XT should head towards the 9600pro price wise pretty fast as it?s really no more expensive to manufacture.

5700U and 9600XT are quite close with the 9600XT taking 5/8 benches. Although they were using AA/AF in all the benches and the 9600 tends to do proportionally better with AA/AF.

 

You've got to be kidding me.
How crappy do those graphs look.... Can barely make most of them them out and some just look like a childs coloring book.
However, just looking at the numbers below can tell the story.

GM

 

[Tab]

Uh, you can look at the numbers you know :|

 

[jiffylube1024]

That definately is huge for a "value" card.

Originally posted by: gorillaman
You've got to be kidding me.
How crappy do those graphs look.... Can barely make most of them them out and some just look like a childs coloring book.
However, just looking at the numbers below can tell the story.

GM

The graphs give you more than just a number, they give you the continuous fps from card to card, making them extremely useful for spotting where bottlenecks occur, where one architecture has advantages over the other, etc.

Instead of just judging it, how about you at least try to interpret it?

 

Originally posted by: Tabb
Uh, you can look at the numbers you know :|

Did you read only 2/3's of my post?
Please read 3/3 next time.

 

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
That definately is huge for a "value" card.

Originally posted by: gorillaman
You've got to be kidding me.
How crappy do those graphs look.... Can barely make most of them them out and some just look like a childs coloring book.
However, just looking at the numbers below can tell the story.

GM

The graphs give you more than just a number, they give you the continuous fps from card to card, making them extremely useful for spotting where bottlenecks occur, where one architecture has advantages over the other, etc.

Instead of just judging it, how about you at least try to interpret it?

OK, you guys are officially wacked. Nobody thinks the graphs are sloppy right? Oh brother.....
I understand what it represents Jiffylube. I dont know why you think I didn't. Might as well be looking at oscilloscope readouts.

But, you guys are the smart ones..

 

[reever]

I dont think the graphs are sloppy at all, it's a much better way to show fps than the regular way, i think every review site should include histograms in all of their reviews

 

[Mem]

How crappy do those graphs look.... Can barely make most of them them out and some just look like a childs coloring book.

Actually I thought the graphs looked terriable,they could of made it look neater and a lot better IMHO.I`m still not too impressed with the 5700 Ultra,too little too late in my books.

 

[Nebor]

I didn't go to the link, but I know that their graphs have always looked terrible.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: gorillaman

Originally posted by: Tabb
Uh, you can look at the numbers you know :|

Did you read only 2/3's of my post?
Please read 3/3 next time.

They represent the amount oif time spent @ a certain FPS.... If you think they arent nice go make your own.

 

[UCSDHappyAsian]

dont know about that yo.... 5700 does have good reviews....

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: gorillaman

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
That definately is huge for a "value" card.

Originally posted by: gorillaman
You've got to be kidding me.
How crappy do those graphs look.... Can barely make most of them them out and some just look like a childs coloring book.
However, just looking at the numbers below can tell the story.

GM

The graphs give you more than just a number, they give you the continuous fps from card to card, making them extremely useful for spotting where bottlenecks occur, where one architecture has advantages over the other, etc.

Instead of just judging it, how about you at least try to interpret it?

OK, you guys are officially wacked. Nobody thinks the graphs are sloppy right? Oh brother.....
I understand what it represents Jiffylube. I dont know why you think I didn't. Might as well be looking at oscilloscope readouts.

But, you guys are the smart ones..

I never said they were beautiful, just that they're useful. True, the graphs have the top cut off in a couple images, which is a major bummer, plus clicking on them makes no difference. However, what's there is still very informative.

Also, just because they look a tad sloppy you deem them to be worthless with your dismissive post.

How crappy do those graphs look.... Can barely make most of them them out and some just look like a childs coloring book.
However, just looking at the numbers below can tell the story.

Basically this tells me you looked at the pictures, thought to yourself "meh," and then just checked the numbers. I'm saying, why not try to pay a bit of attention to the graphs, since there's some good info in them.

Also, "just looking at the numbers below can tell the story." Thanks for that - I'll put it right up there on my obvious comment of the week list.

 

[hurrikaane]

I find their graphs very useful. I wish all sites used them.

 

Allright Jiffy. I can tell that your Mr. Congeniality. I never dismissed the graphs as inaccurate. I said they looked crappy. My mention of the numbers below was to let the slow folks know that I did not dismiss the results just because of the ugly graphs. I guess you must of thought that I was unhappy with the results
and was trying to damage the credibility of the benchmarks by saying they looked terrible. You would. Obviously you did and even said so..

What is your problem please...

 

[nemesismk2]

This review by Beyond3D of the 5700U is much more interesting!

It features a 5700U, FX5600U and a GF4 Ti4200. I'm really glad they included a Ti4200 because most reviews these days just feature the latest hardware.

BTW:I also think that the graphs in the hardocp article are really ugly!

 

[Pete]

I think the graphs look nice with the thicker lines, but I hate the abbreviated Y-axis. I understand Brent may want to show more detail in the interesting parts of the graph, but not starting at zero or even showing the max lines (some graphs had some cards mostly off the scale!) isn't very accurate. A graph is a visual tool, and, as presented, those graphs don't help me visualize the whole truth. The bold italicized legends look nice, but white on black is too bright--they need to change that white to a less eye-searing beige.

As for the review, I thought it was alright. I didn't like forcing AF from the CP for all apps, as Brent didn't note that doing so limits you to 2xAF for anything but the first texture layer in D3D games. I liked Brent's 5950U review more.

 

[Genx87]

Graphs look like your brain waves on drugs lololol
Or the person who made them were.

Thank god for the numbers. I dont really understand the purpose of the graphs. I am looking at the Max Payne 2 graph. It starts at 75 then the lines go up and down and up again off the graph. How can you make a graph and not include the high data points????

Hilarious!

Oh and it should be noted the 5700 U is a very strong competitor to the 9600 XT.

 

[BudAshes]

That card is a ripoff you can get a 5900 for almost the same price.