Neowin.net - World's First GeForce FX 5800 Ultra Review

World's First GeForce FX 5800 Ultra Review

Posted by Steven Parker on 26 January 2003 - 21:57 · 36 comments & 4514 views

Thanks rastachops for this via email. Who would of thought that it would be a german professional IT website to publish the world's first GeForce FX review? TECChannel.de has posted it. The test sample was provided by Nvidia Germany. But sadly the introduction adds tension to what many have foreseen.

Quick Roundup:

GPU: GeForce FX5800 Ultra
128MB DDRII
Core clock: 500Mhz; Memory clock: 1Ghz
Board weight: 600gr
75 watt power consumption under full load!
Excessively loud in 3D mode (see details)
DVI; S-Video; VGA connectors
Provided driver: 42.63

Benchmarks used:
SPECviewperf 7.0
3DMark2001 SE Pro 1024x768

View: German TECChannel GeForce FX 5800 128Mb DDRII Review

View: English Translation by Babelfish

News source: Warp2search

Quake 3 Arena 1280x1024
Quake 3 Arena 1280x1024 4x FSAA
Unreal Tournament 2003 1280x960
Unreal Tournament 2003 1600x1200
Codecreatures Benchmark Pro
Serious Sam 2

TECChannel judges the GeForce FX as innovative but massively overhyped. It is in most terms faster than an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro but also about 20% more expensive. They also doubt that there will be massive driver optimizations in the future.

Hide additional information

About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline

Total votes: 0

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Advertisement

(3 replies) #1 Posted by Dazzla on 26 Jan 2003 - 22:04: Umm, wow, what happened to the 20000+ 3Dmark scores? That doesn't seem all that impressive, I get between 14000 and 15000

#2 Posted by pringlex on 26 Jan 2003 - 22:05: It's still going to sell by the bucket load though

#3 Posted by rastachops on 26 Jan 2003 - 22:08: Not if it costs as much as the rumours say... €600 for the Ultra... I think my money would be going to ATi for the first time every. I really cannot believe this might actually happen Ive always been a strong nVidia fan since the TNT but now overpricing and if true, low performance compared to the hype will lead me toward the ATi camp.

#4 Posted by Evil_Dragon on 26 Jan 2003 - 22:17: And this is coming out when? I gave up a 9700 Pro to wait for this, and now I'm not so sure that was the best idea. If it's really not that much better, plus it takes up two spots, and costs a ton more, than maybe I should just go for the instant gratification of the 9700.....

#5 Posted by LiGhTfast on 26 Jan 2003 - 22:30: maybe i'll upgrade my gf2mx 200, nah still living it up here... i havent found a decent game worthy of a new gfx card, all i play is tfc/cs and battlefield1942 mp demo... all work fine what would you use one of these for then?

#6 Posted by abysal on 26 Jan 2003 - 22:31: Yep, those scores look like crap, it's marginly better then the 9700 pro. I won't buy it.. looks like it generates too much heat, takes up two slots.. i don't have room for that anyways :/ For now I'll stick with my 4600 ti, then I may upgrade to a 9700 pro or what ever else is faster.

#7 Posted by Boogiman on 26 Jan 2003 - 23:02: - 2 slots - Power drain ( 75W ) - scores - price + It`s a beast. Look at that thing. That is going to look really good in my Casemod

#8 Posted by uniacid on 26 Jan 2003 - 23:14: yea man those scores are crap. anyways It's too bulky, and I need my power

(1 reply) #9 Posted by 99 to Life on 26 Jan 2003 - 23:22: 3D mark is crap.... plus to say there won't be any driver optimizations is like saying there won't be a new Service Pack out for Windows. It's just stupid! Not to mention there aren't any games yet to really take advantage of it yet. This review isn't even in English.... and the translation is horrible. I'll wait for a REAL review by sites I trust like Anandtech.

(6 replies) #10 Posted by leebobs on 26 Jan 2003 - 23:27: I think the VERY POOR performance can be put down to early drivers!! Otherwise why spend €600 when you can get the ATI Radon 9700 Pro for €350 with compariable performance?

#11 Posted by Jolo on 26 Jan 2003 - 23:40: Remember that these benchmarks are based on a 5800 [b]ULTRA[/b] card. So... What's suposed to we have to wait for the 5800 "normal" version, or the more cheaper versions? A lower performance than the 9500 PRO? :disappoin

#12 Posted by djze on 27 Jan 2003 - 01:25: 75 watt power consumption?!?!?! is this a video card or a miniature power-plant? doesn't look good at all after all the hype

#13 Posted by altezza on 27 Jan 2003 - 01:54: I thought GeforceFX benchmark would highly outperformed 9700 Pro but after seeing the benchmark...it does not make much difference I think guys at ATI will release the updated version of 9700 Pro to combat GeforceFX One thing about GeforceFX.....its PRICE TAG! :disappoin

#14 Posted by glix81 on 27 Jan 2003 - 02:39: Could it not be a beta board, not something made by the pros, like MSI or asus? Could it be beta drivers? Could it be a machine not really optimized for the geforce fx? Could it be that there is a reason why the FX is main stream? THIS GUY THINKS Yes don't believe this crap represents the final product. Its like comparing whistler to XP you get an idea, but not the full effect.... The card is going to rock Moores LAW

(1 reply) #15 Posted by Kosh Naranek on 27 Jan 2003 - 03:45: Well ... What really surprises me is the poor AA performance of the FX. One thing 3DFX was really good at was AA ... so I'm puzzled as to why the FX is so poor at it compared to the Radeon 9700.

#16 Posted by iomayho on 27 Jan 2003 - 04:09: hmm....doesn;t look all that impresive to me....^^ i'm happy with my ati 9700 pro, i think i might stay with this card for a while.....^^

(2 replies) #17 Posted by destrox on 27 Jan 2003 - 04:14: If you read the maximum PC issue this month, you'll see these FX cards ppl are getting ARE BETA AND NVIDIA DOES NOT WANT PEOPLE BENCHMARKING PUBLICALLY. beta, non-specific drivers != good for public view.

#18 Posted by V_F on 27 Jan 2003 - 04:18: *sigh* can just imagine all you gamers lifes revolve around 3d mark :/

(1 reply) #19 Posted by 99 to Life on 27 Jan 2003 - 05:58: a much better review here http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,846356,00.asp

#20 Posted by dfua on 27 Jan 2003 - 08:23: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDIxLDI=

#21 Posted by Jasco on 27 Jan 2003 - 10:52: bad drivers and 3dmark aint optimized. nuff said.

#22 Posted by David3k on 28 Jan 2003 - 07:43: Don't you guys get it?!? Its best to run it on nForce Chipset Mobo's! that means AMD Athlon Xp 2800+, then you'll get your 20000+ 3Dmarks!

[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Scroll to the Top