World's First GeForce FX 5800 Ultra Review
Posted by Steven Parker on 26 January 2003 - 21:57 · 36 comments & 4514 views
- 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
-
#1.1 Posted by Kombatant on 26 Jan 2003 - 22:13
- [neoquote=#1.0 by Dazzla]Umm, wow, what happened to the 20000+ 3Dmark scores? That doesn't seem all that impressive, I get between 14000 and 15000
[/neoquote]
Yeah, but do you also get a dustbuster free of charge? Didn't think so
-
#1.2 Posted by 99 to Life on 26 Jan 2003 - 23:31
- must be old drivers or something....these benchmarks look fishy.
-
#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?
-
#10.1 Posted by 99 to Life on 26 Jan 2003 - 23:29
- this review doesn't look right to me, and I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing it. They might be using old drivers or god knows what. Not to mention it's not in English. LOL
-
#10.2 Posted by Kombatant on 26 Jan 2003 - 23:45
- Ehmm.. I am surprised that you didn't notice then that by having all this extra time due to the delays, nVidia and the GFFX could in fact have the most tuned drivers than any other new generation product in their history..
As for the comment about the review not being in English, and thus not being credible...
-
#10.3 Posted by 99 to Life on 26 Jan 2003 - 23:57
- that's right....if it's not in English it's not credible. Germany don't allow people to play Quake or Doom or Wolfenstein! You think I'm gonna trust a review from a country that doesn't like id software?? No way pal.
-
#10.4 Posted by Neobond on 27 Jan 2003 - 00:41
- [neoquote=#10.3 by 99 to Life]that's right....if it's not in English it's not credible. Germany don't allow people to play Quake or Doom or Wolfenstein! You think I'm gonna trust a review from a country that doesn't like id software?? No way pal.[/neoquote] Wake up and smell the coffee beans "Pal" !! the games you mentioned are not banned. If anything they very understandably removed the reference of Nazism from the games and anything that would discredit the German nation. France also dis-allows Nazism (in any form) more strongly in fact than Germany itself.
-
#10.6 Posted by 99 to Life on 27 Jan 2003 - 01:08
- Yeah, yeah.... so what they don't allow it, that's their loss! They're great people don't get me wrong, but the fact that they're so uptight about that kinda stuff is annoying as hell. Just give me a review by an American site and I'll be happy. And no I'm not pro-America. Screw Bush and his stupid war for oil. That's all I have to say...
-
#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.
-
#17.1 Posted by CCtaylor on 27 Jan 2003 - 04:34
- [neoquote=#17.0 by destrox]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.[/neoquote] Yeah cause Nvidia does not want anyone to see the Crap scores it is getting!!
-
#17.2 Posted by 99 to Life on 27 Jan 2003 - 05:51
- from your logic, that's saying that the ATI has even more crappy scores than the Geforce FX, is that right?? if the Geforce FX beats it and it is crap, then ATI must be real crap. Rethink what you said...it makes no sense. You can say it's not much of an improvement for now, but you can't say it's crap because then you're saying that everything that scored less than it is crap too.
-
#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!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
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
- SPECviewperf 7.0
- 3DMark2001 SE Pro 1024x768
Benchmarks used:
- 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.