View Full Version : Is gf fx 5600 ultra worth waiting for?

03 March 2003, 08:53 PM
Who knows when this card will be available? I've read it will be "on shelves" in a week but I'm betting it will be a few more weeks. Browse the web and you will find lots of benchmarks. The overall consensus is that it is slightly slower than a gf4 ti4600 except when aa and af are enabled. It also has dx9 support.

I'm tempted to just go ahead and by a ALBATRON GeForce 4 TI4280P ($150) or even the ALBATRON GeForce 4 TI4680P TURBO ($175) from I'd like to stick with nvidia because of it's stability with 3dsmax.

Unlike the fx 5800 ultra it takes up only one slot and the fan isn't so loud.

Please note that all of these cards blow away my ancient gf2 mx 32 mb card by at least a factor of 6. I will be happy with whatever I get :drool:

03 March 2003, 09:07 PM
I'd been waiting for the FX to be released to replace my ageing GF3 Ti200, but i just got bored waiting and after two months still no show so I ended up buying a Radeon 9700 Pro2 yesterday.

Now I've never liked ATI based cards as there Open GL support had always been ropey. But after reading all the fabulous reviews and benchmarks I decided to take a risk and oh boy am I glad I did, the card is spectacular has not slowed down once yet and trust me I've been trying to get it to crap out.

I'm not saying don't wait but there are other options.


03 March 2003, 05:52 AM
Anyone knows if all the 9700 problems in Maya have gone with lastest driver?
I am also waiting to upgrade my geforce 3 video card too :D

03 March 2003, 06:00 AM
I'd love it if someone with an ATI radeon 9500 pro or 9700 pro would testify that these cards work great with 3dsmax or Maya (I'm only fiddling with Maya PLE). However, I've seen many posts that say otherwise.

BTW some of these issues have already been discussed in this previous thread:[URL]

After reading through this thread it makes me want to go with a quadro based card. Please allow me to :drool: somemore.

03 March 2003, 07:36 AM
Most of the testing done on the new FX cards (Non 5800 Ultra) show them to be rather disappointing next gen cards. If your looking at game scores, their actually slower then even Ti 4200's in some instances. The only time where they really begin to show their stuff, is when you throw dx9 into the mix (Not like we'll see any real dx9 games before the next gen of cards), or turn on both AA and Anisophic filtering.

There are a variety of reviews on the web showcasing some of the downfalls of these new cards...

I find it kinda of sad when a new gen card gets spanked by the previous gen's budget card.

I'm still wondering how nvidia won hardware of the year, considering the 9700 pro pretty much dominated them in most tests, not to mention it was readily available in 2002, which the FX wasn't.

03 March 2003, 07:46 AM
As long as the 9700 pro is at least as good/stable/trouble free as my old geforce 3, I will go for it. But so far I have only heard problems rather than satisfaction about this card in maya :shrug:

03 March 2003, 10:10 PM
Check out these benchmarks of a 9700 into a FireGL X1 card.

03 March 2003, 10:21 PM
And here are some benchmarks of an actual FireGL X1 vs a Quadro 980XGL

Looks like im going the 9700 - FireGL route.

04 April 2003, 12:14 AM
Prepare to be disappointed. :(

04 April 2003, 02:40 AM
from all accounts the geforceFX certainly is dissapointing a lot of gamers, but the quadroFX is doing quite well in terms of an improvement over the existing quadro4 cards. it seems nvidia have gone the shallow and wide approach on this card, aiming not to get 300FPS in the latest quake and unreal game engines, but rather maintain a decent 30-60FPS no matter what scene you throw at the card.

as you'd expect this doesn't make the gamers happy, but from all accounts the CAD/DCC users out there are more than satisfied.

having said that, at this stage buying a radeon9700/9800 and expecting stellar performance from your pro 3D applications will leave you rather dissapointed. don't think for a minute because it's the hottest gaming card that it will automatically take the pro 3d awards as well.

04 April 2003, 05:39 AM
So is the performace of a 9700 into FireGL X1 really that disappointing, right now at home, im running a 64meg radeon8500 le and running maya 4.5. I dont have the money to spend on an actual FireGL X1, so this 9700pro -> FireGL route is really appealing, because its cheaper and saves me enough money to get 512 more megs of ram.

04 April 2003, 06:37 AM
I'm so tempted to go for a PNY quadro4 750XGL. It's only 25-50 USD above a 9700pro. My other more conservative plan is to buy a PNY 64MB gf4 ti4200 at bestbuy for 130 USD this week and then mail in the $40 rebate. I could put the extra $240 I don't spend on a quadro towards a new 19" sony trinitron crt monitor.

04 April 2003, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Lance22
So is the performace of a 9700 into FireGL X1 really that disappointing, right now at home, im running a 64meg radeon8500 le and running maya 4.5. I dont have the money to spend on an actual FireGL X1, so this 9700pro -> FireGL route is really appealing, because its cheaper and saves me enough money to get 512 more megs of ram.

it's been discussed to death:

if you are serious about your 3d work, and by that i mean if it is your bread and butter, and without it your rent/mortgage/dinner doesn't ge paid for then mucking about with soft mods is a recipe for disaster. the elvis law of computing is that things will crash when you least expect and need it; ie: 2 hours before a deadline.

if you're a student or part-time fiddler/enthusiest, then by all means go with the soft-mod option. just don't be surprised when things start to break at the 11th hour.

remember also that soft-modding is not covered by warranty, tech support, etc, etc. if you are a business (one-man, small, medium or large) this is often reason enough to stay away from such things.

so without further ado, could we please get this discussion back on track. if anyone wants to talk about soft-modding, open another thread and do it there. please keep this discussion about the geforceFX5600, as the title refers to quite plainly.

04 April 2003, 09:00 AM
I wouldnīt recommend a Geforce FX or Quadro FX right now, but more precisely I mean the technology on the card. Nvidia is going that cycle for some time now, they start introducing technology in the first, nv20 and nv30 for example, next gen is a more effective version of the technology introduced before like Geforce 4 or Geforce 2. I wouldnīt bother with NV30 for now if I were you, there are better solutions available like a Geforce 4 or Quadro 4. You may wait for the NV35.

For a softquadroed Geforce 4 I didnīt noticed any issues in a 1 year period with different applications Inventor, Rhino, Maya, almost anything worked without any issues, I canīt tell you for SoftFireGL modification but I think you canīt be wrong if you follow one basic rule: "Stay away from ATI professional solutions", they mean trouble in my eyes.

For the fact that there maybe trouble ahead when using a computer for your professional work you shouldnīt bother at all with a workstation, I donīt see the connection to softquadro on this topic. There are thousand other ways to f*** up your system unintended. Especially when youīre using windows systems disaster is one click away. For me stability and reliability is the most important thing, you realise how much you can do in 3 hours when you see "Unknown error at unknwon adress".


04 April 2003, 07:52 PM
Thx for the reply Elvis, i totally understand that, and cg isn't bringing home the bread for me right now, im just a student w/ a crappy 8500 le :thumbsdow . Me, like everyone else, is just wishing for a solution that would be fast w/ games and 3d apps. But i guess even if i did run softfire alright for a bit, it would be a lot of work and stress on the card to get it back into 9700pro form in order to play games everytime i wanted to.

04 April 2003, 09:25 PM
I'm with GregHess on this one. I am extremely dissapointed concerning the performance in 3d studio max. Here is the deal: For games, the 9700 is great. So far every game i've played has run smoothly and no issues. Now ,for 3d, its another matter. In direct3d for max, speed varies. A shaded model of 500,000 polygons runs as smooth as could be. A shaded + wireframe runs slow as hell. A wireframe runs rather slow. If u are in meshsmooth, just forget dealing with high polygons (greater than 5,000). Its atrocious and frustrating. In opengl, its practically the same except for shaded runs slower. This card is very heavily biased toward D3D. I also modded my card into a FireGL X1 and a 9800 and have had little improvement in max or maya. My old geforce 2 gts did equally well in opengl as this card does. I really regret buying this card and i hope to buy a Geforce FX soon. So, my point is: avoid the 9700 if u want solid, fast 3d in applications!!

04 April 2003, 09:46 PM
thank you all for the info, so i guess now the question is, get a true firegl x1 or a quadro card? I dream of making complex million poly scenes with little to no slowdown, and I think its time to focus more on cg and less on gameplaying.

oh and btw...

Just recently there was a maya users group near me, (in San Jose CA, it was the last friday of GDC) that my teacher and some classmates went to(and i couldn't make it to), and i guess nvidia was there showing off the quadro fx and they showed off its ability to display really good on the fly texturing/lighting, something of that sort, im not sure if it was with using ipr or not, but him as well as some of my classmates were very impressed with the technology. Ill try to find some more indepth info on this for everyone.

EDIT-- Im not too sure if this is news for anyone, but it might help someone else

04 April 2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Lance22
And here are some benchmarks of an actual FireGL X1 vs a Quadro 980XGL

Looks like im going the 9700 - FireGL route.

All FireGL X1 numbers have been pulled by the workstation OEMs from

That card is really getting its ass kicked at the moment in performance and stability and it looks like they have now been caught cheating on their viewperf 7.0 numbers.

I have read that the biggest point to 7.1 was to address the cheating on earlier viewperf versions. Based on the current viewperf postings, I would guess this has hit ATI FireGL more than the other guys.

04 April 2003, 10:14 PM
This week BestBuy has a BFG gf4 ti4200 128MB for 109.99 USD after rebates. I bought one yesterday, installed it, and did a few game related benchmarks. My 3dmark 2001se scores went from 2900 to 8100, while my UT2003 demo scores for antalus flyby improved by a factor of 4. My home rig has an AMD 1400MHz CPU, 384MB of PC133 SDRAM, and a 100MHz FSB which explains the 3dmark score below 10,000.

So don't wait for the new gf fx cards and buy a cheap ass ti4200 today!

BTW I got my first job - a small architectural rendering for a friend!

If I can line up more work and more money I will be saving up for new hardware - including a professional quadro type card.


CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 07:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.