Ge Force 5700 256mb VS Radeon 9600 pro

[cavill]

I recently got a new computer with a Geforce 5700 256mb, the Geforce costs more than the Radeons now so i thought it might be better but i am only getting a Benchmark score of 2360 on High and i have a P4 2.8 with 1GB of RAM, i also have a Radeon 9600 pro at the work house on 1 of the other computers so im just wondering if anybody would know if Radeon 9600 pro is better before i try changing the cards around..?

[ashdam]

ive got 4100 in high with 9600XT AMD 2800 XP 1GB RAM

[Cometgreen]

My specs:

AMD Athlon XP 3000+ 400 fsb
768 mb RAM
GeForce FX5700 Ultra 128 mb

Benchmark: 4772 on High, with some background apps open

Do you know if you have the FX5700 Ultra? The FX5700 non-Ultra is just one of the cheap and crappy versions that are given the same name. If you do, then make sure you have updated drivers and all that, and that there are no programs taking up CPU power.

As for the question whether 9600 Pro is better than FX5700: They're pratically the same. The 9600 does a bit better in DX9 games, but FX5700 does well in both DirectX and OpenGL. You should be fine with what you got...

Cometgreen

[cavill]

Originally posted by Cometgreen
My specs:

AMD Athlon XP 3000+ 400 fsb
768 mb RAM
GeForce FX5700 Ultra 128 mb

Benchmark: 4772 on High, with some background apps open

Do you know if you have the FX5700 Ultra? The FX5700 non-Ultra is just one of the cheap and crappy versions that are given the same name. If you do, then make sure you have updated drivers and all that, and that there are no programs taking up CPU power.

As for the question whether 9600 Pro is better than FX5700: They're pratically the same. The 9600 does a bit better in DX9 games, but FX5700 does well in both DirectX and OpenGL. You should be fine with what you got...

Cometgreen

Im not sure if i have the ultra or not, does it show that in the system information?
Its probably the non-ultra judging by my benchmark score.. im aiming to get 4000+ score before i start playing so i really need to find out this problem.
With my specs i should get 4000+ because other people have practically the same stuff on here as me and they get double my score.. only thing i can think could be wrong is this ultra thingo.. The Geforce cost me $250 Australian, i got it cheap, its usually $320 i think. So maybe around $200 US.

[Kyuubi]

well right now, i dont know a single game that utilises 256mb of ram on your graphics card. so having a larger pool of ram on your graphics card is pretty much useless. also if its a non-pro version of th fx5700, it'll be more likely than not that the 9600pro will be faster.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1910&p=10

the website shows ffxi benchmarks for several cards. have a look. although they dont evaluate the non-ultra version of the 5700, im relatively sure that the 5700 non-ultra is not as powerful as either the ti4200 and the 5600 ultra. hope this helps.

[cavill]

Well i have used a computer with the following specs:


Pentium 4, 2.8
1000+ mb RAM
Radeon 9600 Pro

Benchmark: 4500 (approximately) on High. Using a 23" Monitor running at the highest resolution 1920x1200 and it runs beautifully! Apart from the overheating problem the graphics are great!

But i will probly try and get the Radeon or ring up the computer shop and find out if they gave me the ultra.

[Ramen]

There is a common misconception that having 256MB of RAM on a graphics card will make it very fast. This is not true. It very well could be the opposite. All the memory does not come into play unless you use the highest resolutions, (1600x1200+), and the highest AA modes. Those resolutions and AA modes can make the best cards out today choke. Having 256MB on a card like the 5200/5600/5700/9500/9600 is a complete waste because these cards lack the power to game at these modes. It is purely marketing. What companies may do is use slower, cheaper memory modules on graphics boards to make the quantity larger. This means that performance can even be slower compared to a "normal" 9600Pro with 128MB because a 256MB version may be using slower memory. As a general rule of thumb, 256MB is overkill if you do not have a video card that costs over $300 US.

Even so, a 5700 should be able to pull at least 4000 on high, ultra or not.....unless they castrated the memory bus to 128bit to offset the cost of the added memory.

Since its a new system, did you remember to install your motherboard drivers (4in1s or nForce drivers)? If you forgot to do install them, it'll kill 3D performance.

[GSDragoon]

Originally posted by Ramen
There is a common misconception that having 256MB of RAM on a graphics card will make it very fast. This is not true. It very well could be the opposite. All the memory does not come into play unless you use the highest resolutions, (1600x1200+), and the highest AA modes. Those resolutions and AA modes can make the best cards out today choke. Having 256MB on a card like the 5200/5600/5700/9500/9600 is a complete waste because these cards lack the power to game at these modes. It is purely marketing. What companies may do is use slower, cheaper memory modules on graphics boards to make the quantity larger. This means that performance can even be slower compared to a "normal" 9600Pro with 128MB because a 256MB version may be using slower memory. As a general rule of thumb, 256MB is overkill if you do not have a video card that costs over $300 US.

Even so, a 5700 should be able to pull at least 4000 on high, ultra or not.....unless they castrated the memory bus to 128bit to offset the cost of the added memory.

Since its a new system, did you remember to install your motherboard drivers (4in1s or nForce drivers)? If you forgot to do install them, it'll kill 3D performance.

It was like that for the GF4 Ti4200's. The 64MB versions ran at 550 MHz, while the 128MB versions were clocked at 500 by default. Luckily I got a 128MB card with 3.6ns memory and runs at 570MHZ just fine.

[cavill]

Originally posted by Ramen
There is a common misconception that having 256MB of RAM on a graphics card will make it very fast. This is not true. It very well could be the opposite. All the memory does not come into play unless you use the highest resolutions, (1600x1200+), and the highest AA modes. Those resolutions and AA modes can make the best cards out today choke. Having 256MB on a card like the 5200/5600/5700/9500/9600 is a complete waste because these cards lack the power to game at these modes. It is purely marketing. What companies may do is use slower, cheaper memory modules on graphics boards to make the quantity larger. This means that performance can even be slower compared to a "normal" 9600Pro with 128MB because a 256MB version may be using slower memory. As a general rule of thumb, 256MB is overkill if you do not have a video card that costs over $300 US.

Even so, a 5700 should be able to pull at least 4000 on high, ultra or not.....unless they castrated the memory bus to 128bit to offset the cost of the added memory.

Since its a new system, did you remember to install your motherboard drivers (4in1s or nForce drivers)? If you forgot to do install them, it'll kill 3D performance.

Yeah i thought even my card and my pc specs id still be able to get at least 3000.
Perhaps i need the latest drivers for the video card or something? I dont actually have the internet at home so everything on my computer are retail versions, i cant even play FFXI yet, im waiting till i can get the internet soon.