Upgrade GF3 to FX5600...no improvement?!?!?

knowley · Sep 13, 2003

Hi all

Upgraded a Dell Dimension 4300s' (P4 1.8Ghz 512MB Ram) graphics card from the Dell issued Geforce 3 Ti200 to an MSI FX5600-VDTR and can't actually notice any improvement, specifically in UT2003.

This is on Windows XP Prof. with all updates installed, and have tried the latest detenator drivers from MSI (ver 44.03) and some newer ones from Guru3d (ver 45.23).

In UT2003 we seem to range from 40FPS to 80FPS depending on the quantity of action, this FPS is exactly the same with either card installed.

We also run the standard benchmark and the bot match dropped by 1, however the flyby improved by about 20.

Please help before MSI have their stupid card sent back!

Thanks very much!

p.s. Reviews of this particular model have been excellant from various websites... so either they are being bribed or I have installed something incorrectly??!?!

:disgust:

knowley · Sep 13, 2003

Like this review!

magomago · Sep 13, 2003

*cough*9600pro*cough*

knowley · Sep 13, 2003

Yeah the ATI maybe better, the shop didnt have it, and suggesting a different make does not explain why a brand new 128MB FX5600 performs the same as a 64MB GF3 ti200!

Any thoughts?

ta

DaveSimmons · Sep 13, 2003

> In UT2003 we seem to range from 40FPS to 80FPS depending on the quantity of action, this FPS is exactly the same with either card installed.

Did you change the screen resolution?
Did you turn on AA/AF?
Did you turn up any other quality settings?

Any of these would cause a huge hit to performance. Saying the cards perform "the same" if you went from 800x600 low quality to 1280x1024 high quality with 4x FSAA and 8x Aniso doesn't really make sense

knowley · Sep 13, 2003

All windows resoltuions and refresh rates are exactly the same. 1024x768 in windows desktop, and using 800x600 in UT2003, both with the monitor set to 100hertz refresh rate

All detail levels in the game and ini files are left exactly the same, which is everything on min. for best performance.

Also we used the NVidia Desktop icon thingy to turn every towards MAX performance, i.e. AA/AF/FSAA etc turned off!

It wouldnt have been a fair comparison if any settings were changed!

Thanks m8

knowley · Sep 13, 2003

I know theres a genius on here that can explain, or better still suggest a solution

Lonyo · Sep 13, 2003

Better solution: quite a lot of UT2k3 revolves around the processor, hence the most difference in performance woul dprobably come from upgrading the processor.

While an FX5600 isn't a great leap up from the GF3, the processor is most likely also contributing to the lack of a huge leap in performance.

Nocturnal · Sep 13, 2003

Dude, that's exactly what I did. I went from a Geforce 3 to a Geforce FX 5200 Ultra. It was crap. I went and bought a Radeon 9800 Pro because of the $100.00 price difference I paid at Comp USA.

Return the card and go with a 9600 Pro if you can, or even a 9700 Pro. RacerX has a Hercules 9700 Pro he's selling. Top notch card.

knowley · Sep 13, 2003

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Better solution: quite a lot of UT2k3 revolves around the processor, hence the most difference in performance woul dprobably come from upgrading the processor.

While an FX5600 isn't a great leap up from the GF3, the processor is most likely also contributing to the lack of a huge leap in performance.

Yeah I agree that UT2003 is heavy on the CPU, but it is a 1.8Ghz already.

When I upgraded from a Ti4200 to a Ti4800 (with a 1.67Ghz cpu) I noticed more of an improvement than the GF3 to Fx5600 upgrade on this machine! I just don't understand how a GF3 ti200 can perform the same as a card thats not next gerenation but the one after

knowley · Sep 13, 2003

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
Dude, that's exactly what I did. I went from a Geforce 3 to a Geforce FX 5200 Ultra. It was crap. I went and bought a Radeon 9800 Pro because of the $100.00 price difference I paid at Comp USA.

Yeah but this is a FX5600, should be better than a GF3?

zephyrprime · Sep 13, 2003

If you use lowest quality settings, then the only thing that will matter is the processor. You may have been processor pegged even with the gf3.

But even so, I took a look at the Anand review of the 5600 and it really doesn't look very good.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797&p=6
Even the 9500 pro is much faster.

Codename49 · Sep 13, 2003

On a directx 9 game? Yes, probably.

On a directx 8 game? Most likely no, in fact I woudln't be surprised if gf3 is faster then non ultra 5600.

knowley · Sep 13, 2003

OH DEAR :disgust:

Time to take it back then :frown:

magomago · Sep 13, 2003

Originally posted by: knowley
OH DEAR :disgust:

Time to take it back then :frown:

9600pro :music:

Just remember to jack up the settings

knowley · Sep 15, 2003

ALL SORTED NOW THANKS FOR THE HELP!

We took out the MSI 5600, installed an 18month old AGPx4 Ti4200 and realise almost 3 times the performace of the Fx5600 (and GF3 ti200)... so its running nicely now.

Shame Geforce have taken two steps backwards with their FX cards, I'll definately be sticking to my AGPx8 Ti4800 untill they sort it all out!

xSauronx · Sep 15, 2003

Originally posted by: knowley
All windows resoltuions and refresh rates are exactly the same. 1024x768 in windows desktop, and using 800x600 in UT2003, both with the monitor set to 100hertz refresh rate

All detail levels in the game and ini files are left exactly the same, which is everything on min. for best performance.

Also we used the NVidia Desktop icon thingy to turn every towards MAX performance, i.e. AA/AF/FSAA etc turned off!

It wouldnt have been a fair comparison if any settings were changed!

Thanks m8

800x600 is a useless resolution to run on a 5600, even though it may not be way better than the gf3

honestly. at that low a res the card isnt even trying, my brother did the same with his 9600pro and i literally slapped him in the head.

yes, he spent $150 on a video card (by far the least of his upgrade needs) to play RtCW (GAH!) and left the resolution at its lowest

*sigh* that child

knowley · Sep 15, 2003

Took the card back and got our cash back

The bloke in the shop reckons everyone plays on Xbox's now neway...LOL :disgust:

dmw16 · Sep 15, 2003

Get a 9600pro. Buying into Nvidia right now is a bad move.

Shade4ever · Sep 15, 2003

I tried the same thing, found out the same thing, bit the bullet and bought a 9800 Pro. Haven't looked back since.

knowley · Sep 15, 2003

Originally posted by: dmw16
Get a 9600pro. Buying into Nvidia right now is a bad move.

Well its only for ut2003, so 2nd hand GF4 Ti4xxx does the job well enough!

skace · Sep 15, 2003

Yea, those GF4s were sweet, Still running a TI4400

.

knowley · Sep 15, 2003

aye... I got the agpx8 ti4800 just before they stopped selling them here....thank the lord!

bernse · Sep 15, 2003

Originally posted by: Codename49
On a directx 9 game? Yes, probably.

On a directx 8 game? Most likely no, in fact I woudln't be surprised if gf3 is faster then non ultra 5600.

Maybe a bit faster, but not enough to buy a new card.

The 5200/5600 blow. The ATI solutions absolutely blow Nvidia out of the water this round. It's not even a competition.

Upgrade GF3 to FX5600...no improvement?!?!?

Senior member

Senior member

Lifer

Senior member

Elite Member

Senior member

Senior member

Lifer

Lifer

Senior member

Senior member

Diamond Member

Member

Senior member

Lifer

Senior member

Lifer

Senior member

Diamond Member

Member

Senior member

Lifer

Senior member

Diamond Member