GeForce FX5700/256

I didn't plan on getting a new video card before replacing my current
system in 12-16 months (P4/2.55ghz, 1 GB, GF 4 Ti-4400/128), but I just
picked up a 19" LCD display with a native resolution of 1280x1024, which
seems to overwhelm my current card when it comes to more
graphics-intense games. I'd rather not fall back on interpolation. Now,
I only rarely play state-of-the-art shooters, but I do play realtime
strategy and roleplaying games, which can be quite demanding on the
video system.

The current generation of video cards (Xx00, 6x00GT) is out of question,
since I don't want to spend that kind of money. I'm a bit partial to
Nvidia, but also looked at the 9800pro and 9800xt ... well, not bad, but
still a tad on the costly side. I also don't know if I need the power.
(The GF4 Ti-4400 works well for all my games in 1024x768, it's just
1280x1024 that is "too much").

What is the ruling on the GF FX5700 with 256 MB? My hardware dealer
seems to have two good offers for that one:

- AGP, 256MB, GeForce FX5700, Gainward FX PowerPack! Ultra/880 TV-Out,
DVI, Retail 149.99 €

- AGP, 256MB, GeForce FX5700, PixelView GF FX5700 Golden Limited, VIVO,
DVI, Retail 159.99 €

Hardware in Germany is more expensive than in the U.S., so the prices
aren't what matters -- just the model and the manufacturer. Can I expect
a significant performance boost from a FX5700 compared to the Ti4400?
And will it tide me over until early 2006?

Lastly, are games of the current generation making use of the 256 MB, or
is this just a marketing thing, and doesn't really result in
significantly better performance? (I vaguely remember that the Ti4200
performed better with 64 MB than with 128 MB.)

Any power supply related issues that I need to consider? I read
something about the card needing an additional "power connector". What
does this mean, exactly? (Yes, I'm incompetent when it comes to
phsysical aspects of hardware! )

Thanks for your thoughts,
M.

ti4400 to a 5700 is not much of an upgrade, not for the price you'll be
paying anyways. Better add the money and get a 9800/5900 type card if you're
going to spend money on it

"Michael Vondung" <mvondung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2tjfs9F20e3hnU1@uni-berlin.de...
>I didn't plan on getting a new video card before replacing my current
>system in 12-16 months (P4/2.55ghz, 1 GB, GF 4 Ti-4400/128), but I just
>picked up a 19" LCD display with a native resolution of 1280x1024, which
>seems to overwhelm my current card when it comes to more graphics-intense
>games. I'd rather not fall back on interpolation. Now, I only rarely play
>state-of-the-art shooters, but I do play realtime strategy and roleplaying
>games, which can be quite demanding on the video system.
>
> The current generation of video cards (Xx00, 6x00GT) is out of question,
> since I don't want to spend that kind of money. I'm a bit partial to
> Nvidia, but also looked at the 9800pro and 9800xt ... well, not bad, but
> still a tad on the costly side. I also don't know if I need the power.
> (The GF4 Ti-4400 works well for all my games in 1024x768, it's just
> 1280x1024 that is "too much").
>
> What is the ruling on the GF FX5700 with 256 MB? My hardware dealer seems
> to have two good offers for that one:
>
> - AGP, 256MB, GeForce FX5700, Gainward FX PowerPack! Ultra/880 TV-Out,
> DVI, Retail 149.99 €
>
> - AGP, 256MB, GeForce FX5700, PixelView GF FX5700 Golden Limited, VIVO,
> DVI, Retail 159.99 €
>
> Hardware in Germany is more expensive than in the U.S., so the prices
> aren't what matters -- just the model and the manufacturer. Can I expect a
> significant performance boost from a FX5700 compared to the Ti4400? And
> will it tide me over until early 2006?
>
> Lastly, are games of the current generation making use of the 256 MB, or
> is this just a marketing thing, and doesn't really result in significantly
> better performance? (I vaguely remember that the Ti4200 performed better
> with 64 MB than with 128 MB.)
>
> Any power supply related issues that I need to consider? I read something
> about the card needing an additional "power connector". What does this
> mean, exactly? (Yes, I'm incompetent when it comes to phsysical aspects of
> hardware! )
>
> Thanks for your thoughts,
> M.

Monster wrote:

> ti4400 to a 5700 is not much of an upgrade, not for the price you'll be
> paying anyways. Better add the money and get a 9800/5900 type card if you're
> going to spend money on it

How about the MSI GeForce FX 5900XT-VTD with 128MB? Costs around 200
Euro here, which is my upper limit. Is the XT (of the Geforce) something
like the MX in earlier series? I glanced at some reviews for this one,
and they all seemed positive.

M.

In <2tjktsF2071uoU1@uni-berlin.de> Michael Vondung <mvondung@gmail.com> writes:

>Monster wrote:

>> ti4400 to a 5700 is not much of an upgrade, not for the price you'll be
>> paying anyways. Better add the money and get a 9800/5900 type card if you're
>> going to spend money on it

>How about the MSI GeForce FX 5900XT-VTD with 128MB? Costs around 200
>Euro here, which is my upper limit. Is the XT (of the Geforce) something
>like the MX in earlier series? I glanced at some reviews for this one,
>and they all seemed positive.

I like the Radeon 9800 Pro. Here is a review of both 5900XT and
9800Pro. No real winner, 9800Pro slightly faster, 5900XT slightly
cheaper.

http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2004/5900xt_9800pro/




--
Henrik Schmidt Christian-Albrechts-Universitaet zu Kiel
Institut fuer Informatik +49 (431) 880 75 - 50 Fax or 43 Phone
Olshausenstr. 40 http://www.ks.informatik.uni-kiel.de
24098 Kiel, Germany email: hbs@ks.informatik.uni-kiel.de

Michael Vondung <mvondung@gmail.com> writes:
> How about the MSI GeForce FX 5900XT-VTD with 128MB? Costs around 200
> Euro here, which is my upper limit. Is the XT (of the Geforce)
> something like the MX in earlier series? I glanced at some reviews for
> this one, and they all seemed positive.

That is the card to go for right now. The XT designator is not as bad
as MX was, it actually has the good side of reducing power
requirements and heat production to a reasonable level - you get a
quiet elegant card, not a small nuclear plant in your PC. I would buy
one like that now if I had not bought 9800pro earlier (I upgraded from
GF4200)
Here is a review:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_fx_5900_xt/

Marcin

"Michael Vondung" <mvondung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2tjfs9F20e3hnU1@uni-berlin.de...
> What is the ruling on the GF FX5700 with 256 MB? My hardware dealer
> seems to have two good offers for that one:

IIRC the 5700 is the one with the "vacuum cleaner" for an hsf. I would avoid
it if only for the practical issues of size and noise. The 5800 is less
noisy but just as big. I would either go for a budget option in the 5600 or
go for better performance (and engineering) in the 5900 or 5950. In this
price/performance range you might also want to consider the Radeon 9800
(non-pro).

> Lastly, are games of the current generation making use of the 256 MB, or
> is this just a marketing thing, and doesn't really result in
> significantly better performance? (I vaguely remember that the Ti4200
> performed better with 64 MB than with 128 MB.)

Current games generally do not use more than the standard 128mb. That might
soon change, but even as it does, you'll most likely find that the GPU
fillrate becomes more of a limitation than the memory size on older cards.
So if it's going to save you money I would take the 128mb and apply the
savings towards a more complete upgrade in the future.

> Any power supply related issues that I need to consider? I read
> something about the card needing an additional "power connector". What
> does this mean, exactly? (Yes, I'm incompetent when it comes to
> phsysical aspects of hardware! )

It means that the card requires a 4-pin molex power connector (the same kind
you plug into a disk drive, for example). Just make sure you have an extra
one coming out of your power supply. If you don't, you will need to get a
splitter.

Michael Vondung <mvondung@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2tjktsF2071uoU1@uni-berlin.de:

> Monster wrote:
>
>> ti4400 to a 5700 is not much of an upgrade, not for the price you'll
>> be paying anyways. Better add the money and get a 9800/5900 type card
>> if you're going to spend money on it
>
> How about the MSI GeForce FX 5900XT-VTD with 128MB? Costs around 200
> Euro here, which is my upper limit. Is the XT (of the Geforce)
> something like the MX in earlier series? I glanced at some reviews for
> this one, and they all seemed positive.
>
> M.
5900XT is a good buy, it's close to ATI 9800Pro, 5900XT is slightly slower
in DirectX, but faster in OpenGL. From NVidia cards it's probably the best
choice right now. Unless you want to wait for 6600GT, which is supposed to
be only slightly more expensive than 5900XT while being much faster.

Alex.

Michael Vondung

I didn't plan on getting a new video card before replacing my current
system in 12-16 months (P4/2.55ghz, 1 GB, GF 4 Ti-4400/128), but I
just
picked up a 19" LCD display with a native resolution of 1280x1024,
which
seems to overwhelm my current card when it comes to more
graphics-intense games. I'd rather not fall back on interpolation.
Now,
I only rarely play state-of-the-art shooters, but I do play realtime
strategy and roleplaying games, which can be quite demanding on the
video system.

Michael: I'm in the same extact boat as you. I just picked up a Sony
19" LCD & with all 19" monitors, it has a 1280x1024 native resolution.
I currently had a ATI Radeon 9500 Pro & it was doing ok, but I need a
little more zip in the higher-res. department.

I went with the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (256 MB) for $220.00 (US) You can
also score the 128 MB version, which will do just fine with today's
games. I bought this card with the idea to get me another year on my
aging AMD Athlon XP1700, 512 MB RAM etc. It's working so far. Also, I
sold my 9500 Pro on ebay for $100.00!!!

Here's a link to the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (128 MB/256 Bit):

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...-131-247&depa=1

Here's a link to the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (256MB/256 Bit):

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProdu...-102-361&depa=1

If I was you. Just go with the 128 MB version. It's plenty fast & it
will keep you up to speed for another 18 months or so.

Good Luck!


Alex

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:26:58 +0200, Michael Vondung
<mvondung@gmail.com> wrote:

>What is the ruling on the GF FX5700 with 256 MB? My hardware dealer
>seems to have two good offers for that one:

Just got it with 128MB, with my new system 2.8Gig CPU P-4,
and I found it runs everything I got nice, I am sure with more memory
on board of it, it will do even better.

In article <47qcn0lr30ol8todfdvtrihn49j7graru3@4ax.com>,
oldsalt@usintouch.com says...
> >What is the ruling on the GF FX5700 with 256 MB? My hardware dealer
> >seems to have two good offers for that one:
>
> Just got it with 128MB, with my new system 2.8Gig CPU P-4,
> and I found it runs everything I got nice, I am sure with more memory
> on board of it, it will do even better.

Pretty much the only thing more memory does is let you play with
prettier textures. It won't make your games faster unless the textures
are too big and there's a lot of swap along the motherboard's bus - and
face it, 128megs is going to be something developers will be targeting
for a long while yet. By the time having 128megs of video RAM is a
problem, your video card is probably going to be slow for the times
anyhow. The reason why sometimes video cards with more memory are slower
is generally attributable to those video cards having /slower/ memory.

I'm not saying /not/ to get the 256meg version - as I said, you'll get
to play with prettier settings. I'm just saying that more memory
won't make the card faster. I personally think that visual quality is a
high priority when considering a video card purchase.

By the way, the 5700 Ultra was considered the loudest video card in the
world. I don't know about the 5700, but to the original poster - know
what you're getting into.
--
-==[UDIC]==-
http://www.fictionpress.com/~wtcher
Note: This post is composed of 100% post-consumer material.
This birdy likes no spam. :>