Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

gfx cards and nforce

Apr 23, 2005 12:48PM PDT

First - would a GeforceFX 5600 128mb be better, or a geforceFX 5500 256mb?

Second - i have an nforce 2 board, if i get a radeon 9600, am i gonna have trouble with the combination? are there any advantages with using a geforce card with an nforce mboard?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
re
Apr 23, 2005 1:01PM PDT

i would get the 9600 as it supports open gl 2.0.

i dont wanna say anything else in case i'm wrong and get corrected by ozos with a super long lecture.

- Collapse -
Cards
Apr 23, 2005 1:28PM PDT

My suggestion is to get the GeForce FX 5600 128MB over the FX 5500 256MB and Radeon 9600. According to Tom's Hardware, in just Doom3 and Half-Life 2, the FX5600 outperforms these:

FX5200
FX5200U
Radeon 9600
Radeon 9600SE

The FX5600 is about on par with the Radeon 5900 Pro.

- Collapse -
Err....correction
Apr 23, 2005 1:33PM PDT

Hit the wrong number.
Should be: The FX 5600 is about on par with the Radeon 9600 PRO

- Collapse -
can i correct you there buddy?
Apr 23, 2005 2:48PM PDT

um...i'd really really really really love to see the day the GeForce FX 5600nU can be on par with the Radeon 9600Pro

nVidia's FX 5600 is supposed to be on par with the 9600np
the 5600 Ultra and later 5600 Ultra (FC) were supposedly capable of competition with the Radeon 9600Pro

however that just isn't the case

the 5600 is an ideal choice over the 5500, as it's probably a few percent faster (THG refuses to benchmark the 9250, 9550, 5500 and 5700LE on the basis that the cards are avliable in too many different variations (Which I don't believe they are avliable in any more variations than any other mid-range segment graphics card)

looking at 3DMark2003 the GeForce FX 5600 is shown as competitive with the Radeon 9500 128MB, and about 100 pts faster than the Radeon 9600 128MB (the Radeon 9500's are faster than the 9600's, but the 9550 is slower than either (if that makes sense)

in Aquamark3 the GeForce FX 5600 is shown as competitive with the Radeon 9600SE....OUCH

in their Doom III benchmark the difference between the 9600Pro and FX 5600 means playable and unplayable, if you dropped the resolution down one setting it'd give you that 8 FPS for the 9600 to play at 30 some odd FPS
however the FX 5600 is under 20 FPS, basically it cannot play that game at that quality setting with out use of a super low res (like 320x280, which would just look godawful)


in Call of Duty the GeForce FX 5600 matches the 9600, and the 5600 Ultra matches the 9600XT, so in Call of Duty the 5600 series cards match their intentended ATI counterparts

in Battlefield Vietnam the FX 5600 Ultra is shown as competition for the 9600np, and the 5600 is unplayable


You have to remember that nVidia's launch of NV30, along with NV31 and NV34, only one card was really a succes, the NV34 FX 5200

the NV30 was too loud and ate up too much power to be practical for all users seeking a high performance part

the NV31 did not deliver enough power (the NV31 and NV34 are just cut down NV30's, but with NV31 they cut too much off for it to be a viable mid-class solution, the NV31 is what a low-range card should be)


the GeForce FX 5600XT, 5600, 5600 Ultra and 5600 Ultra (FC) cards were overall a failure, as they delivered sub-standard performance at a high cost (I believe the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra on release was $200+, and the 5600 was $150, when 5700 was launched the 5600 Ultra (now the FC version) was dropped to $100 and made a perfectly good deal)


the Radeon 9500 and 9600 series are generally better

the GeForce FX 5700 (NV36) was a huge success, as it finally gave nVidia a powerful mid-range card

the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra is comparable to the Radeon 9600np, but usually slower (it cannot hold high FPS in some situations, if a 9200 Pro existed, the 5600U would've made the perfect competition)

as to the FX 5700, the GeForce FX 5700 is comparable to the Radeon 9600Pro with no questions asked, and the 5700 Ultra/9600XT battle rages on as to which is 1% faster in which test at which settings and which system enviroment (no, i'm not getting back into this john, the 9600XT wins imo as it's the only one left for sale, easily found, and at a reasonable cost)

as to nForce and Radeon, it will work fine
I know many people who run nForce2's with Radeon 9500 and 9800 series cards (as they prefer ATI)

I run a GeForce FX and an nForce2, and have no issues with the system, but with an ATI card i'd have no issues either
I have no advantages to having the GeForce FX/nForce combination (Except when I install all my drivers, I get to see the nVidia logo about 30000 times before all is said and done (let's see, gfx driver, chipset driver, IDE driver, sound driver, SATA driver, ethernet driver...did I forget anything?)

it's really your choice between nVidia and ATI
in normal use (1 monitor, 1 graphics card) they are evenly matched, and you basically have to choose which name sounds better, and which has a part in your price range, that you like (performance wise)

I choose to use nVidia because I prefer their multi-monitor software, and because I like having nView (which makes WindowsXP sort of like Mac OS X, in that you get simmilar effects and features as far as GUI enhancements)


as to OpenGL 2.0 support, i'm not sure what ATI's big claim on that is...but iirc when the Radeon 9 series was launched OpenGL 2.0 didn't exist


and if you want to get into a pissing contest over which has the most current support
nVidia builds the only DirectX 9.0c generation part
ATI builds DirectX 9.0b generation parts (they can run 9.0c, but cannot support all of it's features)

- Collapse -
Yes....
Apr 24, 2005 1:33AM PDT

Hi Ozos,

Re: "um...i'd really really really really love to see the day the GeForce FX 5600nU can be on par with the Radeon 9600Pro".

Well, look at Tom's Hardware and in their test with Doom3 at 1024x768, High Quality 4xAA/8xAF the FX 5600 is at 12.7 FPS and the Radeon 9600 Pro is at 11.8 FPS, so the FX5600 is above par. However, you are correct that the Radeon 9600 Pro is slightly ahead of the FX 5600 in Call of Duty and probably some others, and I stand corrected as I was looking at the Doom3 figures when I said, "The FX 5600 is about on par with the Radeon 9600 PRO".

I tend to use Tom's Hardware Tests of cards in games rather than benchmarks. My other statements seem to be in line with Tom's hardware, ie:

"According to Tom's Hardware, in just Doom3 and Half-Life 2, the FX5600 outperforms these:

FX5200
FX5200U
Radeon 9600
Radeon 9600SE"

Thanks for the other information you provided.

- Collapse -
do you know what 12.7 FPS would look like?
Apr 25, 2005 12:22PM PDT

complete and utter crap
also
i'm going by THG's non-AA/non-AF tests
as hardly any previous generation mid-range card can handle that with newer games

the FX 5600 vs 9600Pro is unfair, the 9600Pro is more capable (kinda odd that an ATi card got beat by a GeForce FX in AA/AF testing (normally Radeon 9 whipped GeForce FX in AA/AF)

i'd avoid the 5600 though
the 5700 is faster than the 5600 Ultra, and is roughly on par with the 9600Pro

- Collapse -
works for me
Apr 25, 2005 4:17PM PDT

i have an integrated geforce4 mx400 64mb and the card i mentioned doesn't cost much at all. the newest game i have is UT2k3 o_O so it'll work great for me. i've already ordered it and a logitech mx700 mouse. i finally get to play games without fighting with the cord and getting tendonidis in my wrist. yay for me

- Collapse -
Yes,
Apr 25, 2005 5:12PM PDT

I know, those FPS are THW figures, and I was replying to his initial post and giving what Tom's hardware shows for those initial cards.

He later brought up the FX 5700 vs 5600 and nerdyboy answered. I agree with you and nerdyboy that the FX5700 is the better.

Saitokokeimei now says, "....the card i mentioned doesn't cost much at all. i've already ordered it and a logitech mx700 mouse."

I assume he is talking about the FX 5700, but now think it may be the Radeon 9600, 256MB 128 bit DDR for $78 which Tom's Hardware game tests just slightly above the FX5200 on Call of Duty, and Doom3.

- Collapse -
sorry about that
Apr 26, 2005 3:36AM PDT

i meant the radeon 9600 256mb i had posted a link to on newegg

- Collapse -
thanks, lower price range though
Apr 23, 2005 4:27PM PDT

i'm only wanting a card close to $60-70. i'm going by pricewatch, so that'd mean a FX 5600, 5700, or a radeon 9600, no pro or ultra models. i can't seem to find a card in the radeon 9600 listing that isn't SE though, so i'm thinking 5600 or 5700. is there much of a different between those two? thanks

- Collapse -
re
Apr 23, 2005 4:38PM PDT

i would go for the fx5700. look in ozos review as the 5700 was a big success while the 5600 was kinda a failure for nvidia.

- Collapse -
what about this one?
Apr 23, 2005 4:43PM PDT
- Collapse -
re
Apr 24, 2005 2:59AM PDT

i would get dat as its a great price and decent performance for games.