Revised GFX 5600 Ultra, review

[solofly]

@ hardocp (check it out)

 

[Schadenfroh]

linked for the lazy

conclusion c/p for the even more lazy


"The new GeForceFX 5600 Ultra spec is definitely a competitive product. Unofficially it is the GeForce4 Ti 4600 replacement and it does well in earning that recognition. The new packaging (no not the box it comes in for those of you that skip to the conclusion) allows the GPU to run cooler and clock higher than the original 5600 Ultra GPU that for the most part never came to market.

The stock speeds on the new GeForceFX 5600s will be 400Mhz core and 400Mhz memory (800Mhz DDR). As we found while using this card it does not get very hot at all. If heat was previously any concern of yours, rest assured the new 5600 Ultra has no problems what so ever with heat. In our testing the backside of the core as well as the heatsink only got warm to the touch. In 2D mode with its clocked down core speed the fan does not need to run at all, allowing you ?silent? desktop operation. When you engage a 3D application the fan quickly springs to life without being a distraction or even really being heard. This card is simply not audible for the most part.

We were quite impressed with the overclocking ability achieved with this BFG GeForceFX 5600 Ultra. Even with this less then robust HSF cooling system we achieved a 92Mhz core overclock! Ti 4200-like enthusiast overclocking is re-born in the newer GFFX 5600 Ultra. With these 2.2ns modules RAM overclocking was also very delightful. Achieving a 72Mhz memory overclock from 400 to 472.5Mhz. At these speeds the GeForceFX 5600 Ultra is definitely a performance contender within its pricepoint.

At stock speeds, our results remained solid, but our 5600 Ultra did trade some victories with our ATI cards. We noticed that in UT2K3 at 1024x768 the GFFX 5600 Ultra typically lead the pack. However once we raised the resolution and enabled AA and AF the 9500 Pro was able to beat the GeForceFX 5600 Ultra in Antalus and Inferno. There were even a couple of instances the 9500 Pro beat the GFFX 5600 Ultra when overclocked! Even Serious Sam 2 showed this same pattern of increasing resolution and AA/AF giving lead to the 9500 Pro. Wolfenstein showed a dramatic drop with both ATI cards when AA and AF were enabled, however as the resolution increased along with AA and AF the 9500 and 9600 Pro were able to edge out above the GFFX 5600 Ultra in 4XAA/8XAF. Splinter Cell clearly put both ATI cards on top in performance, providing that the shader performance of both ATI cards is faster then the GFFX 5600 Ultra.

In Synthetic testing this shader speed difference was further proved with 3DMark03 and Shadermark. 3DMark03 showed us a faster Vertex and Pixel Shader speed with the 9600 and 9500 pro compared to the GFFX 5600 Ultra. Shadermark clearly showed us that Pixel Shader 2.0 performance is strongest on the 9500 Pro video card and slowest on the GeForceFX 5600 Ultra video card. Even Code Creatures confirmed these results.

When it came to CPU Scaling tests we found that there really wasn?t any lick of a difference in performance between a 3Ghz P4 with an 800Mhz FSB and a P4 2.53Ghz CPU with a 533Mhz FSB. As might be expected, our video card becomes the system bottleneck in the examples shown.

BFGTech has a very solid card with their GeForceFX 5600 Ultra. I experienced no problems with it at all and the overclocking as we said is top notch. With an estimated retail price of $199 this card is poised for the performance mainstream market and is very competitive.

However, if I had to put one card as a winner in these tests it would clearly have to be the 9500 Pro. Its performance cannot be denied, the numbers do not lie. It is stronger in vertex and pixel shader speed. It is faster then the GFFX 5600 Ultra as the resolution and AA/AF level increase. That being said, the 9500 Pro?s days are numbered as the 9600 Pro will be taking its place in the ATI product line up. The 9500 Pro is still a great buy and a great performer, but when it is gone, the 5600 Ultra will very much move into the vacancy left and wear the mainstream performance crown.

The GeForceFX 5600 Ultra does have stronger fixed function performance. If you play a lot of current games, or older games this card will accelerate them very well. Considering its overclocking potential, it does have room to grow with newer games. Surely as you saw in the Shadermark results overclocking BFGTech 5600 Ultra did yield higher PS 2.0 results.

Anyway you look at it, the BFGTech GeForceFX 5600 Ultra is a great enthusiast card and a purchase that you will likely be satisfied with."

 

[cjsketchy]

nice overclock... seems interesting. Wonder when it'll actually hit the market

 

[Wag]

That's great- I'm seriously considering this card as a replacement for my 8500.

One problem- the manufacturers are marketing the Ultra version well over $200- definately not worth it compared with the <$200 5600 pro.

 

[Tab]

Wonder what the difference betweent he 5600 and 5600 Ultra will be...

Otherwise, that card may be in my computer soon

 

[selfbuilt]

Good to see Nvidia coming out with something more competitive ... however, they still need to work on quantity to get the price down. Around here, 5600 non-ultras (and presumably the older ones at that) still cost as much or more than 9500pro and 9600pros!

Until they can produce ultras in sufficient quantities to lower the price considerably, they won't really be competitive.

 

[Lonyo]

Would like to see overclocked 9600Pro Vs overclocked 5600Ultra, could be an interesting battle

 

[Wag]

The 9600 non-Pro could be the real winner when it comes to price/performance.

 

[Mem]

In the first screen comparison above we have lined up the GeForceFX 5600 Ultra, Radeon 9600 Pro and Radeon 9500 Pro in Serious Sam 2 with mip-maps highlighted using Trilinear filtering to show you how they compare. It is clear from the picture that Trilinear Filtering is equal between the cards with the default driver settings on each card. The second picture enables 8X AF and shows the same comparison. All cards are equal in terms of filtering with the GFFX 5600 Ultra using ?Quality? mode and the two ATI cards using their default ?Application Preference? and ?Quality AF? settings.

Nice to see no complaints with image quality.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

yeah, its definately a bit pricey considering the $200 9700 non Pros out there...

 

[Megatomic]

I so can't wait to get one of these cards for my system. This is THE card I've been waiting for. :heart:

 

[SharkB8]

Is this the Leadtek version of this card?? Isn't this it second from the bottom at Newegg.com??

 

[nutxo]

that version has been for sell there for weeks,.not the new revision I think.

This will be my next card I think if the 5900u is out of my price range (determined by thickness of wallet , not actual price) .

 

[Mem]

I so can't wait to get one of these cards for my system. This is THE card I've been waiting for.

I`m going to wait for the FX5900 value @ $299,it really depends on how well it performs for the price before I decide on my next card in July.

 

[Megatomic]

$300 is too rich for my blood, I'll wait a few months to get the 5600 Ultra at <$200.

 

[GTaudiophile]

You can already buy a Radeon 9600 PRO for as low as $168. People are having no problems OCing it passed 500mhz, so I think it's still the winner.