My experience with 5600fx

[Dza]

Ok so I decided to get some of this "new" technology after seeing something I didn't see before, 256mb on a video card. I got Pentium 4, 2.4Ghz with 256ram. Bought PNY Geforce fx5600 agp for $200 and now I don't know what to do with it. At first sight it was ok, I was able to play Need for speed HP2, Rainbow six Raven Shield in 1024x768 resolution with graphics on high which my old Geforce mx440 couldn't handle, but performance didn't improve much, I still have ocasional slow downs and stuff like that, and I don't understand why older games like Medal of Honor and Battlefield have good frame rates, but slow downs in 1024x768 and 1280x720 and Battlefield 1942 doesn't show much performance improvement at all, while other games like Delta Force Black Hawk Down run fine on high res and graphics with some rare slow downs. So I don't know what to do, wether to get extra ram for the computer (I wonder whats the point of 256ddr on the card then) and overlock the card, or return it to the store, loose $35 on shiping and restucking fee and get something more expensive, either radeon 9800 pro, or 9700 pro. So which one is an ideal card for my system that I can play in high res, with steady frame rates, excluding fx 5900 ultra because its way too expensive.

 

[Schadenfroh]

something wrong with your system for you should be able to see a good performance increase going from a geforce4mx to a 5600

 

[Dza]

of course there is a performance increase, but its just not what I was hoping for. maybe i just have high expectations to play everything in hq, but otherwise i think its just not worth paying extra $200 for an upgrade, and still not being able to play some games.

 

[nRollo]

A FX5600 is a crippled 5800, half the fill rate, with the same 128 bit memory constraint. When you buy crippled, budget cards, you can't really expect to be saying "Wow! This roxorz my boxorz!" You can OC that card all you like, but all modern games multitexture and the 5600 is going to have to make twice as many passes to render the same scene with it's 4 pipe/1tmu per design as a nV30 or nV35 with their 4 pipe/2 tmu design, or the R9700/9800 with their 8pipe/1 tmu per design.
Make sense?

 

[Pete]

You swallowed the 256MB marketing ploy hook, line, and sinker. Take the $35 hit and buy a card you'll be happy with: a ~$200 Radeon 9700 or ~$250 9800. There's 128MB on each of 'em, and that's enough for the speed they'll give you.

 

[nemesismk2]

I'm surprised that most people here havn't mentioned that these days you need more than 256mb system memory for smooth gameplay. Extra memory is especially important if you have alot of other programs running in the background.

Do you find that your computer is always accessing the hard drive when your playing games? If it does then lack of memory is the reason for your choppy gameplay.

I also suggest that you try out the latest drivers, nvidia is due to release the v45 drivers shortly and they contain alot of bug fixes for the whole Geforce FX range. I've been using the v45.20 drivers recently and they are excellent.

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I'm surprised that most people here havn't mentioned that these days you need more than 256mb system memory for smooth gameplay. Extra memory is especially important if you have alot of other programs running in the background.

Do you find that your computer is always accessing the hard drive when your playing games? If it does then lack of memory is the reason for your choppy gameplay.

I also suggest that you try out the latest drivers.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I'm surprised that most people here havn't mentioned that these days you need more than 256mb system memory for smooth gameplay. Extra memory is especially important if you have alot of other programs running in the background.

Do you find that your computer is always accessing the hard drive when your playing games? If it does then lack of memory is the reason for your choppy gameplay.

I also suggest that you try out the latest drivers, nvidia is due to release the v45 drivers shortly and they contain alot of bug fixes for the whole Geforce FX range. I've been using the v45.20 drivers recently and they are excellent.

512MB will probably do more for BF1942 than a newer graphics card if you're going from 256MB -> 512MB.
BF1942 likes RAM.
Get a 128MB GFFX5600 if you still want one of those (or a 9700 non-pro if you can afford it), and get an extra 256MB for your system RAM.

 

[Mem]

Dza,you`re probably better going for a 9700NP or 9800NP depending on your budget,both will give a big increase over your fx5600.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Get the memory too though -- 512 MB will help in BF1942 and probably others. A 9800 non-pro is a good choice even at stock speeds and you can try overclocking for a little extra speed.

Anyone have a link to one of the good nvidia driver-cleaner programs? Dza probably doesn't want to do a fresh Windows install

 

[Mem]

Anyone have a link to one of the good nvidia driver-cleaner programs?

Driver Cleaner 1.9 ,does both Nvidia and ATi drivers .

 

[Dza]

I was thinking about going from fx 5600 to ati radeon 9800/9700 pro versions, buying non pro didn't really cross my mind, but why everybody suggesting non pros? They are cheaper and slower so whats the point, and pros have better upgrade value, but I'll probably just buy extra ram and wait for new drivers.

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: Dza
I was thinking about going from fx 5600 to ati radeon 9800/9700 pro versions, buying non pro didn't really cross my mind, but why everybody suggesting non pros? They are cheaper and slower so whats the point, and pros have better upgrade value, but I'll probably just buy extra ram and wait for new drivers.

The only difference between a nonpro and a pro is the clock speeds and the price. If you want to save money you can simply buy a non pro version and then overclock it to pro speeds, thus giving it pro performance while saving you money.

 

[walk2]

No matter what system you have you are not guaranteed 60fps at all times in all games.

Some games are not made very well. Or some games will run great normally but during a large battle on a map that wasn't very well designed you may get slowdowns.

The GPU isn't doing all the work either, the CPU still does a lot even with today's games. AI, scoring, hit-tracking, player updating, network I/O, and most of the sound FX stuff is all done by the CPU and passed over the system bus.

1280x sounds a bit high even for modern graphics hardware. Try 1024 or 800x600. Personally I'm not happy with FPS deathmatch type games (Wolf, BF1942, UT2K3 etc) unless I get a solid 50FPS or above so I usually play in 800x600 and lower the quality settings some.

System RAM is important too, heed the words of those here. I was playing Unreal2 on my system with 512MB just fine, then one of my SIMMS went bad and I'm left with a 256MB system for now, and Unreal2 is totally UNplayable like this, constant swapping and glitching...

 

[walk2]

Oh 1 more thing. The 5600 looks like a great card for the price. I'm about to buy a 5600-Ultra 128MB for $189. It should definitely be a lot faster than the GF4 MX. I don't feel like spending $500 for a 5900 so there you go. ATI is totally out of the question (sorry, personal thing for me, seen far too many issues with them - sure the benchmark #'s are good, but they cut too many corners to get those).

 

[nRollo]

Modedepe:
There have been many posts about 9800nps not OCing at all. Even if yours does, when you run hardware above spec you run the risk of reducing it's life expectancy significantly.

Walk2:
You make it sound like your only nVidia choices are the "$500 Ultra" and the "$189 5600U". You are wrong about that:

5800regular:Currently $260 from many vendors on Pricewatch. The "real" chip the 5600 is half of, MUCH higher performance for less than $70. more. I'm using one as I type, works great, runs fast and quiet, blows doors off all 5600s.

Gainward 5800 Ultra: ~equal to 9700Pro, 43db instead of 54db noise level, as fast as 5900 at D3, $350 on Pricewatch

5900 regular: Blows away 5600s so badly, can't even really both be considered in same sentence. Better than both 5800s at AA/AF by far also. Starts at $344 shipped.

The texel fill rate of the 5600 is way too low to not spend the $60 bucks more and get a 5800. If you have the money, I can't see buying anything but a 5900 regular right now if it has to be nVidia.

BTW- what corners is ATI cutting? I loved my 9700 Pro, imagine I'll love my 9800 Pro when it gets here Tuesday.

 

[Pete]

walk2, for all your talk about 60fps minimum, why would you waste money on a 5600U? Go for a 5800 or 5900. 5900s already go for $350 AR in B&M stores, and someone pointed out a Chaintech 5800 for $230 at Googlegear. No point in spending $190 for a 5600U when you can get basically double the fillrate in the 5800 for $40 more. The 5800 should also retain resale value better than a 5600 (though neither card will age as well as the Radeon series, IMO, as I think ATi will really be faster in DX9 games).

As far as ATi cutting corners, I think you have them confused with nVidia? The past few months have shown nVidia cutting as many corners as possible to reduce the six-month lead ATi had with the 9700.

 

[ICMAN]

I think 9700pro and 9800pro REAL ROCKS, I like the quality of the picture which is much important to me than the fps (what is the difference between 150 and 170 fps for the human eye anyway????)

 

[walk2]

ATI is notorious for gimping features to improve their performance (or to cover their half-assed hardware implementations of DX features). I suppose they might have improved in the last 6 months? I'm speaking from working in the QA dept of a major Games company for the last 7 years - ATI cards are ALWAYS the ones that give us trouble. They just don't support DX features like they are supposed, drives our DX programmers CRAZY!

As for the 5800, I looked at it.. Too big, too loud... too hot.. needs its own freekin power supply? WTF? No thank you. Fill rate is not the limiting factor at lower resolutions (10x7 and below) anyway.

Bottom line is I'm on a slim budget. If I had a bit more money to spend on this, I'd get one of the 5900-non-Ultra 128MB cards for $350. The 5800 is a decent price at $250? I grant you that, I just don't want one of those beasts in my machine, I'm going for cooler and quieter.

 

[nRollo]

As for the 5800, I looked at it.. Too big, too loud... too hot.. needs its own freekin power supply? WTF? No thank you

You mean you have to plug it into the power supply? Are there any good cards you don't have to?! I don't know what the heck you're talking about loud and hot, I can't hear it, and the temperature is set to downclock if it reaches 140degrees, I don't think I've ever seen it above 60?
You seem bent on buying a 5600, go nuts. I was only trying to help you get a decent card for about the same money.
Googlegear has a Chaintech 5800 for $229 now, but I suppose it would make more sense to buy a card that is half as powerful for $30-$40. less.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

the 5600 is a good mid range card, ans should be capable of playin most games smoothly.
512ram makes a huge difference though i would deffo get sum more ram.

also yes u fell for the 256mb marketing....yes 256 is good and is a lot for a graphics card, but in truth 256mb graphics memory is neither use nor ornament. while playing i bet at least half of the memory on the 5600 is jus sitting there doin nothing except burning a hole in ur wallet because of its extra cost.

256 will be needed sum time in the future but by then the 5600 will be old hat and not much cop.

u wanna good card that aint too expensive? take that thing back loose the $35 and get lookin for 9700pro or non-pro. even in non pro the 9700 whoops the 5600 hands down, and i bet u can find one on the net for the same price.

cheaper still, (and more importantly still whooping the 5600) is the 9500 pro. its basically a 9700 with half the memory bandwidth (128 as apposed to 256 bit) but it still has all the features of the 9700,---Dx9, pixel shader 2.0, 6 x FSAA and 16x Aniso and u can pick these up for less than 200!!!! i got mine for 130 from connect 3d.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Pete
walk2, for all your talk about 60fps minimum, why would you waste money on a 5600U? Go for a 5800 or 5900. 5900s already go for $350 AR in B&M stores, and someone pointed out a Chaintech 5800 for $230 at Googlegear. No point in spending $190 for a 5600U when you can get basically double the fillrate in the 5800 for $40 more. The 5800 should also retain resale value better than a 5600 (though neither card will age as well as the Radeon series, IMO, as I think ATi will really be faster in DX9 games).

As far as ATi cutting corners, I think you have them confused with nVidia? The past few months have shown nVidia cutting as many corners as possible to reduce the six-month lead ATi had with the 9700.

cutting corners? the 5800 was exactly that. one whole 90 degree corner cut up so badly its almost straight. they rushed the 5800 to get it out so that ati wouldnt run away with the market and there 9700. the 5800 was meant to be the next level, it still gets out done by a card released months before, aka the 9700. they went with DDR II ram which was a mistake coz it only had 128bit memory interface and the ati had 256 bit. also the image quality on the 5800 was really poor. sure the 5800 could churn big numbers but that was it, it wasnt a quallity product. but they have got it right with the 5900, its jus too damn expensive!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jeff7181]

Am I the only one it bothes when people don't know the model name of things? It's a GeForce FX 5600... not a 5600 FX... just like ATI's newest card is not a Pro ATI 9800. Maybe I'm just an anal retentive ass =)

 

[nRollo]

cutting corners? the 5800 was exactly that. one whole 90 degree corner cut up so badly its almost straight.

Put down the pipe Otis, back away from the pipe. Have you heard of NA? LOL "one whole 90 degree corner..." WTF?

they rushed the 5800 to get it out so that ati wouldnt run away with the market and there 9700. the 5800 was meant to be the next level, it still gets out done by a card released months before, aka the 9700.

Errr, Otis, the 5800 wasn't "rushed" it was 7 months late due to low yields at TSMC on their first try at .13 micron

they went with DDR II ram which was a mistake coz it only had 128bit memory interface and the ati had 256 bit.

Otis, they went with DDR2 because it can run at higher frequencies, which they knew would be needed due to 128 bit interface.

also the image quality on the 5800 was really poor. sure the 5800 could churn big numbers but that was it, it wasnt a quallity product. but they have got it right with the 5900, its jus too damn expensive!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually one of the main problems with the 5800 is it's TOO HIGH a quality product and cannot be produced at a decent profit margin. The many layered pcbs, 500MHz DDR2, 500MHz cores, and gigantic cooling system just don't come as cheap as R8500 parts Otis. This is all costly bleeding edge stuff. The "image quality" issues? All corrected in a couple months by subsequent driver releases.

Otis, since you don't seem to know anything at all about 5800s, here's what you need to know:
5800 Ultra: Too costly for nVidia to produce, 9700Pro performance up to 12X10 4XAA 8X AF, loses out in higher settings due to 16MB/sec bandwidth provided by 128 bit interface. Loud. Still the 3rd fastest nVidia based card you can buy.
5800 Regular: Approximately 9700np level performance, good value at the $230 it's now available for, quiet. The 4th fastest nVidia based card, a LOT better than any 5600/5200/4600/etc.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: walk2
Oh 1 more thing. The 5600 looks like a great card for the price. I'm about to buy a 5600-Ultra 128MB for $189. It should definitely be a lot faster than the GF4 MX. I don't feel like spending $500 for a 5900 so there you go. ATI is totally out of the question (sorry, personal thing for me, seen far too many issues with them - sure the benchmark #'s are good, but they cut too many corners to get those).

What kind of crack are you smoking? ATi cuts corners to get high numbers?? You seem to be confusing them with nVidia seeing as how it's nVidia that's been "cutting corners" (cheating) to get higher numbers in games and applications.