The Matchup: FX5700 Ultra vs Radeon 9600XT

[Jim]

Today we'll take a look at the latest mid range entries into the video card market. Specifically the sub $200 class Radeon 9600XT and the Nvidia FX5700 Ultra. Of course when we're talking ATI and Nvidia it's oil and water, Frazier vs Ali, or Cowboys vs Redskins. Basically, the Cold War revisited. We'll try and referee this match and see if we can determine a winner. The contenders today are the PNY FX5700 Ultra and the Asus Radeon 9600XT. The competition will feature Gun Metal, Comanche 4, X2-The Threat, Halo-Time demo, UT2003, Final Fantasy XI, AquaMark and finally 3DMark 2003.

Let's have a quick look at the cards.

PNY FX5700 Ultra

http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/FX9700_FRT.JPG
http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/FX9700_BK.JPG

Quick Specs

PERFORMANCE FEATURES
NVIDIA® CineFX™ 2.0 engine
256-bit graphics core
475MHz core clock
128-bit DDR2 memory interface
450MHz memory clock (900MHz memory data rate)
14.4GB/sec. memory bandwidth
1.9 billion texels/sec. fill rate
356 million vertices/sec. setup
4 pixels per clock (peak)
16 textures per pixel(max)with 8 textures applied per clock
Dual 400MHz RAMDAC's
Maximum display resolution 2048 x 1536 x 32 bpp at 85Hz
Flat panel display support with resolutions up to 1600 x 1200

What's Included:

Verto GeForce FX 5700 Ultra graphics card
Quick Installation Guide
CD which includes
Detailed Installation Guide (PDF file)
NVIDIA® GeForce™ FX drivers
Microsoft® DirectX® 8 and DirectX® 9
NVIDIA® GeForce™ FX demos
Verto® 3D World Desktop software
NVIDIA® NVDVD™ multimedia software
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell
DVI to VGA adapter
S-video cable
'Y' adapter power cable

[Jim]

Asus Radeon 9600XT

http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/960XT_FRT.JPG
http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/9600XT_BK.JPG

Quick Specs

Chipset: ATI Radeon 9600 XT
Memory: 128 MB DDR
Memory Interface: 128-bit DDR
Memory Clock: 600MHz(300MHz DDR)
Engine Clock: 500MHz
RAMDAC: 400MHz
Res: Max 2048x1536
BUS: AGP 2x/4x/8x
SMARTSHADER™ 2.1 expands advanced abilities of vertex shader 2.0 and pixel shader 2.0
Microsoft® DirectX 9 and OpenGL 2.0 support
Ports: VGA + DVI + VIVO

What's Included

Asus radeon 9600XT/TVD graphics card
Gun Metal
6 in 1 Game Pack
ASUS DVDXP
Power Director Pro
Media Show
Cool 3D
Photo Express
DVI to VGA adapter
Multi-Video in &TV out adapter
ASUS Utilities & Driver CD including:
Asus Game Face
Digital VCR II
Smart Doctor II
Video Security II
*Half-Life 2 Coupon*

[Jim]

Test system


Asus P4C800-E Deluxe 1011 bios
P4 2.4C @ 3.3MHZ/
OCZ 2X256 3700 Gold DDR 2.5-3-3-6, 5/4
WD Raptor 36gb/Sata
XP Pro/SP1
Directx 9.0b
52.16 Detonators - From Nvidia's site.
3.9 Catalysts - From ATI's site.

All hardware including the 2 Graphic cards are retail boxed and the same as would be purchased off the shelf.

Each card had a fresh install of XP Pro/SP1. All tests where possible were ran at 1280X1024 resolution, this the prefered resolution for the test 19" Planar LCD. AA and AF on Graphic cards were set to software controlled except for the last set of tests.

Bench Mark Time

Bench Marks were run in 3 groups:
Factory Clock settings
Over Clocked settings
Over Clocked setting with 4XAA and 8XAF

Lets get to the numbers !!

[Jim]

Gun Metal 1280X1024


FX5700 Ultra @475/906
Min FPS = 10.51
Ave FPS = 18.46
Max FPS = 68.90

9600XT @499/594
Min FPS = 8.47
Ave FPS = 14.71
Max FPS = 57.14

[Jim]

Comanche 4 1280X1024

FX5700 Ultra @475/906
60.19 FPS

9600XT @499/594
59.11 FPS

X2 - The Threat 1280X1024

FX5700 Ultra @475/906
68.35 FPS

9600XT @499/594
60.18 FPS


Halo - Time Demo 1280X1024

FX5700 Ultra @475/906
21.56 FPS

9600XT @499/594
21.19 FPS

[Jim]

UT 2003 - [H]ardOCP Benchmark 1280X1024


FX5700 Ultra @475/906
____Antalus_____Asbestos___Citadel
Low = 54.03---------58.9-------57.77
Ave = 91.67---------124.9-------98.37
High = 193.8---------402.3-------217.96

9600XT @499/594
____Antalus_____Asbestos___Citadel
Low = 39.97---------70.51-------65.22
Ave = 69.88---------130.7-------104.9
High = 230.9---------368.2-------303.3


Final Fantasy XI 1280X1024

[c][h50][c]

[Jim]

AquaMark


FX5700 Ultra @475/906
Total Score = 29444

9600XT @499/594
Total Score = 31441

3D Mark 2003 V330


FX5700 Ultra @475/906
Total Score = 4071

9600XT @499/594
Total Score = 3865

3D Mark 2003 V340


FX5700 Ultra @475/906
Total Score = 3498

9600XT @499/594
Total Score = 3858

I included version V330 and V340 of 3DMark 2003 as Nvidia's Unified Compiler technology may or may not be crippled by the V340 version depending what news item you read. In any event both versions were tested to show the different results for the Nvidia and ATI based card.

[Jim]

Let's OverClock both cards and see what they have left. For the FX5700 the "old reliable" Coolbits was used. For the Asus 9600XT, ASUS SmartDoctor which is included with the card was utilized. Coolbits test settings feature came up with the FX5700 capable of a 521 CPU core with a 1000 Memory setting. With SmartDoctor Max allowable settings are 533 CPU Core with a 648 Memory setting for the 9600XT. These seem a bit conservative for the Asus card, although probably to be expected for a manufacturer O'clock program.

Here's a screenie of ASUS' SmartDoctor program.

http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/Smart_Doctor.JPG


Gun Metal 1280X1024


FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
Min FPS = 11.46
Ave FPS = 20.15
Max FPS = 54.19

9600XT @533/648
Min FPS = 9.70
Ave FPS = 15.91
Max FPS = 56.26

[Jim]

Comanche 4 1280X1024

FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
62.49 FPS

9600XT @533/648
59.69 FPS

X2 - The Threat 1280X1024

FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
73.74 FPS

9600XT @533/648
64.21 FPS


Halo - Time Demo 1280X1024

FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
23.68 FPS

9600XT @533/648
22.62 FPS

[Jim]

UT 2003 - [H] Benchmark 1280X1024


FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
____Antalus_____Asbestos___Citadel
Low = 54.12---------63.9-------34.29
Ave = 101.5---------138.2-------108.6
High = 223.4---------401.8-------276.4

9600XT @533/648
____Antalus_____Asbestos___Citadel
Low = 41.15---------75.54-------64.12
Ave = 86.67---------141.6-------113.3
High = 248.2---------405.7-------303.1


Final Fantasy XI 1280X1024


FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
Total Score = 5299

9600XT @533/648
Total Score = 4957

[Jim]

AquaMark


FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
Total Score = 32488

9600XT @533/648
Total Score = 33675

3D Mark 2003 V330


FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
Total Score = 4447

9600XT @533/648
Total Score = 4158

3D Mark 2003 V340


FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
Total Score = 3815

9600XT @533/648
Total Score = 4156

[Jim]

AA set to 4X - AF set to 8X

Gun Metal 1280X1024-4XAA-8XAF


FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
Min FPS = 9.56
Ave FPS = 17.44
Max FPS = 47.24

9600XT @533/648
Min FPS = 5.67
Ave FPS = 11.22
Max FPS = 43.60

[Jim]

Comanche 4 1280X1024-4XAA-8XAF

FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
38.32 FPS

9600XT @533/648
28.87 FPS

X2 - The Threat 1280X1024-4XAA-8XAF

FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
45.8 FPS

9600XT @533/648
46.38 FPS

[Jim]

UT 2003 - [H] Benchmark 1280X1024-4XAA-8XAF


FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
____Antalus_____Asbestos___Citadel
Low = 38.35---------33.04-------37.49
Ave = 50.96---------70.85-------60.00
High = 124.74---------158.26-------161.69

9600XT @533/648
____Antalus_____Asbestos___Citadel
Low = 30.03---------41.01-------35.34
Ave = 46.23---------73.85-------56.80
High = 210.7---------211.2-------228.7


Final Fantasy XI 1280X1024-4XAA-8XAF


FX5700 Ultra @521/1000
Total Score = 4454

9600XT @533/648
Total Score = 4497

Even at 1280X1024-32 and AA4X/AF8X both cards do a pretty god job with the frame rates in all games except for Gun Metal. But how good does it look? Time to take a look at some screenies.

[Jim]

3D Quality:
No comment until the end of the review. View the 5 pictures yourself renderred by each card below. Make your own choice on what's best. Pictures are in game frames captured using Fraps at approximately the same spot in game. A key revealing which card rendered the frames will be provided at the end of the review.

Gun Metal BenchMark 2



http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/GMmark2_2003-11-18_23-35-08-54.JPG



http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/GMmark2.JPG

[Jim]

Comanche 4 BenchMark

http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/ati.JPG
http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/Nvid.JPG

[Jim]

X2 The Threat BenchMark


http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/X2-Demo_9600_12-14.JPG
http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/X2-Demo_5700_12-14.JPG

[Jim]

UT2003 [H] BenchMark

http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/ut2003_1.JPG
http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/ut2003_2003-11-19_17-25-35-00.JPG

[Jim]

Final Fantasy XI BenchMark

http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/FFX1.JPG
http://users.adelphia.net/~jimscomp/FFXiWinBench_2003-11-19_17-33-01-31.JPG

[Jim]

Conclusion

Well, two pretty evenly matched cards. Both have no problem burning through the older game titles but are severely stressed by Gun Metal . I believe the 9600XT probably has a lot of headroom left with a better O'clock program and the FX5700 will continue to benefit from future drivers.
Both include the standard amenites in the box but Asus goes a little further with their added software package. Most notably of course a free copy of Half-Life2 when it becomes available.
2D and 3D IQ is excellent on both cards but again I would give the edge to the 9600XT, although the FX5700 may give you a few more frame rates. By the way, which screenies did you like the best for 3D IQ? The 9600XT shots are on top of the FX5700 shots for each in game screenshot comparison.
I think I'll keep both cards for now and see which plays Half Life 2 the best. ;)
That's it for now, hope you enjoyed. PF :D

[Jim]

Originally posted by RotorHead

The X2 screen shots are really different, any thoughts on that?

Rotorhead , I've changed the X2 screens to better shots. There was simply too much going on in the previous screenies to capture like images using Fraps manually. :wave:

[RotorHead]

Sweet! Awesome detail on those Astroids! :D

[DAPUNISHER]

From those screenshots I think the IQ winner swings back and forth between them depending on the game. Some I thought the top looked better and others the bottom. All this hoopla over nV is old news in my book and people need to find another dead horse to beat :p This one's already being served@Denny's and you can still see the marks where the fanATIcs were beating it :D

BTW, awesome job PF!!!! You cut right to the chase, no blathering on about the entire last year's soap opera in the graphics sector like big sites tend to do, and then telling me why I'm a fool for buying an nV card :rolleyes: most refreshing! :cool: I also like the FPS display instead of the various bar graphs many others use. Sometimes the bar graphs will give the illusion 1 FPS is a substantial lead! :mad:

The XT is definitely the better value since they include HL2 coupon, but I don't think I could recommend either to prospective buyers given that the 9700PRO or 5900 can be had for $200 +/- a few dollars if you look around.

[RotorHead]

Agreed on the dead horse thing. I’ve seen a lot of reviews that look at a close-up of a particular screen shot then still have to point out the difference. If you have to go to that much trouble to point out visual quality, is the average gamer really going to notice it?

[pointreyes]

I'm relieved to see this review. Yesterday I ordered the eVGA FX5900SE which is equal and sometimes better than the FX5700U. I like ATi cards but once again I got hit with an incompatibility problem so back to nVidia I go for one of my systems. Sold my 9800np in order to pay for this FX5900SE and I'm really not out anything since I still have an AIW 9800 Pro. :)

Hopefully what I got is as good as this one: http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/112/1/

Note: That the FX5900XT and FX5900SE are the same thing, it's just that some manufacturers like AOpen choose XT over SE which I don't blame them after the 'Slow Edition' models from ATi.

[Jim]

Originally posted by pointreyes
I'm relieved to see this review. Yesterday I ordered the eVGA FX5900SE which is equal and sometimes better than the FX5700U. I like ATi cards but once again I got hit with an incompatibility problem so back to nVidia I go for one of my systems. Sold my 9800np in order to pay for this FX5900SE and I'm really not out anything since I still have an AIW 9800 Pro. :)

Hopefully what I got is as good as this one: http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/112/1/

Note: That the FX5900XT and FX5900SE are the same thing, it's just that some manufacturers like AOpen choose XT over SE which I don't blame them after the 'Slow Edition' models from ATi.

Looks like the 5900SE runs at a slower core /memory speeds than the 5900nu, but still performs quite well. Post us up some numbers pointreyes ! :wave:

[pointreyes]

Originally posted by ProfessorFate
Looks like the 5900SE runs at a slower core /memory speeds than the 5900nu, but still performs quite well. Post us up some numbers pointreyes ! :wave:

My numbers are actually rather useless. :p Here's why. :)
http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=638682#post638682
You will see the results I ended up with along with some other happy campers with the card. BTW: I even ran a bench on that thread using the 32-bit 3DMark01 on the 64-bit Windows XP OS. :smokin:

BTW: This FX5900SE is an extremely nice card compared to anything else I have had in this system. :)