A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Video Cards » Nvidia Videocards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FX Series differences



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 4th 03, 11:24 AM
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FX Series differences

Please excuse my ignorance. Can anyone point me to a webpage that shows a
comparison of hardware features for the FX series of Nvidia cards? What I am
really after is the hardware differences between:
5200
5200 Ultra
5600
5600 Ultra
5800
5800 Ultra
5900
5900 Ultra

I'm not terribly interested in the framerate stuff, I just want to know
'what's under the hood' before I buy.

Cheers

Phil
NZ
[I'm from down under. Who cares if you've got a 200kph car - how many
cylinders has it got?].


  #2  
Old September 4th 03, 01:25 PM
J.Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:54:04 GMT
"Lenny" wrote:


Please excuse my ignorance. Can anyone point me to a webpage that
shows a comparison of hardware features for the FX series of Nvidia
cards?


There are no real feature differences between the various FX cards, in
the sense that some cards gives a better image quality than others;
that is not the case. They all support the same directx 9 feature set.
That said however, more expensive chips have some under-the-hood
features that increases 3D rendering performance, that is true, but
the produced image looks the same on all chips.

I'd suggest you look at ATi's products instead though, as they tend to
be(often considerably) faster. 5200 is particularly poor from a
performance viewpoint, it supports dx9 sure, but at speeds that are
approaching slideshow framerates even at fairly low resolutions.

[I'm from down under. Who cares if you've got a 200kph car - how
many cylinders has it got?].


I'd say the opposite's more interesting. Simplified: if you got 2 cars
doing 200km/h, one with a 12-cyl engine and the other with a 4-cyl
engine, you'd most likely want to go with the 4-cyl engine car since
it is less likely to suffer mechanical failure (fewer moving parts),
weighs less and consumes less fuel.


Can't resist commenting. There is much more that goes into the
reliability of engines than parts count. Suppose the 12 is a large
displacement water cooled ironblock turning 3500 RPM at that 200
km/hr, but the four is an air-cooled turbocharged aluminum block
turning 12,000 RPM to get you to that speed? Now which is less likely
to suffer mechanical failure? As for weighing less, reverse
it--ironblock large-displacement low-speed four vs aluminum-block small
displacement high-speed 12. As for fuel economy, put a carbureted
low-compression four against a fuel-injected high-compression 12 and
you'll find that there are other factors that have a greater effect on
fuel economy than internal friction in the engine.

--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  #3  
Old September 4th 03, 04:54 PM
Lenny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Please excuse my ignorance. Can anyone point me to a webpage that shows a
comparison of hardware features for the FX series of Nvidia cards?


There are no real feature differences between the various FX cards, in the
sense that some cards gives a better image quality than others; that is not
the case. They all support the same directx 9 feature set. That said
however, more expensive chips have some under-the-hood features that
increases 3D rendering performance, that is true, but the produced image
looks the same on all chips.

I'd suggest you look at ATi's products instead though, as they tend to be
(often considerably) faster. 5200 is particularly poor from a performance
viewpoint, it supports dx9 sure, but at speeds that are approaching
slideshow framerates even at fairly low resolutions.

[I'm from down under. Who cares if you've got a 200kph car - how many
cylinders has it got?].


I'd say the opposite's more interesting. Simplified: if you got 2 cars doing
200km/h, one with a 12-cyl engine and the other with a 4-cyl engine, you'd
most likely want to go with the 4-cyl engine car since it is less likely to
suffer mechanical failure (fewer moving parts), weighs less and consumes
less fuel.


  #4  
Old September 5th 03, 09:46 AM
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Amen. That almost brought a tear to my eye.... :-)

However, any links to sites showing the comparisons of the feature sets of
the nvidia cards?

Phil
[I am not interested in ATI]


"J.Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:54:04 GMT
"Lenny" wrote:


Can't resist commenting. There is much more that goes into the
reliability of engines than parts count. Suppose the 12 is a large
displacement water cooled ironblock turning 3500 RPM at that 200
km/hr, but the four is an air-cooled turbocharged aluminum block
turning 12,000 RPM to get you to that speed? Now which is less likely
to suffer mechanical failure? As for weighing less, reverse
it--ironblock large-displacement low-speed four vs aluminum-block small
displacement high-speed 12. As for fuel economy, put a carbureted
low-compression four against a fuel-injected high-compression 12 and
you'll find that there are other factors that have a greater effect on
fuel economy than internal friction in the engine.

--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



  #5  
Old September 5th 03, 11:19 AM
Ed Medlin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You might just drop over to www.nvidia.com for the feature sets. Comparisons
etc. can be found at www.tomshardware.com , www.guru3d.com and other sites
too. Just do a google search for Nvidia FX video cards.

Ed Medlin

"Phil" wrote in message
...
Amen. That almost brought a tear to my eye.... :-)

However, any links to sites showing the comparisons of the feature sets of
the nvidia cards?

Phil
[I am not interested in ATI]




  #6  
Old September 7th 03, 12:11 AM
Lenny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Can't resist commenting. There is much more that goes into the
reliability of engines than parts count. Suppose the 12 is a large
displacement water cooled ironblock turning 3500 RPM at that 200
km/hr, but the four is an air-cooled turbocharged aluminum block
turning 12,000 RPM to get you to that speed?


Of course I am speaking in general terms. I don't think anything above a
motorcycle engine would revv up to 12k rpm, and then any reasonable
motorcycle engine wouldn't need to spin at 12k to go 200km/h.

You set up a rather contrieved set of circumstances. Basically any 2-litre
watercooled 4-cyl engined car does 200kph minimum these days, this has
probably been true for quite a while. Your large displacement ironblock
12-cyl is likely to be very heavy and fuel hungry in comparison to the 4-cyl
engine..

As for weighing less, reverse
it--ironblock large-displacement low-speed four vs aluminum-block small
displacement high-speed 12.


Jeez man, gimme a mofoing break here. :-D You gonna decide which set of
silly extreme circumstances you want to settle on?

As for fuel economy, put a carbureted
low-compression four against a fuel-injected high-compression 12 and
you'll find that there are other factors that have a greater effect on
fuel economy than internal friction in the engine.


....Like I said, you gonna decide or what? Why do you constantly aim for
extremes? On AVERAGE, I am pretty sure you'll find 12-cyl engines to be:

*heavier
*thirstier
*less reliable

You wanna argue against that, try not to pit extremes against each other and
change your angle of attack from case to case. For example, i'm pretty sure
you can find several cases where a packmule wins against a 12-cyl engine
vehicle, but it wouldn't really be a fair comparison now would it? ;-)


  #7  
Old September 7th 03, 01:12 AM
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks Ed. I found basically what I was after at TomsHardwa

July 2003
GeForceFX 5200 64-/ 128-MB 128-bit DDR (250/ 400); official price: $99.
GeForceFX 5200 Ultra 128-MB 128-bit DDR (325/ 650); official price: $149
GeForceFX 5600 128-MB 128-bit DDR (325/ 550); official price: $179.
GeForceFX 5600 Ultra 128-/ 256-MB 128-bit DDR - (400/ 700); official price:
$199
GeForceFX 5900 Value 128-MB 256-bit (?) DDR (?/?); official price: $279.
GeForceFX 5900 128-MB 256-bit DDR (400/ 850); official price: $399.
GeForceFX 5900 Ultra 256-MB 256-bit DDR (450/ 850); official price: $499.

I'm sure each manufacturer has slight variances on the above and the prices
are obviously changing regularly.

Thanks to all.

Phil

"Ed Medlin" wrote in message
...
You might just drop over to www.nvidia.com for the feature sets.

Comparisons
etc. can be found at www.tomshardware.com , www.guru3d.com and other sites
too. Just do a google search for Nvidia FX video cards.

Ed Medlin

"Phil" wrote in message
...
Amen. That almost brought a tear to my eye.... :-)

However, any links to sites showing the comparisons of the feature sets

of
the nvidia cards?

Phil
[I am not interested in ATI]






  #8  
Old September 7th 03, 01:18 AM
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My initial point was:
If all cars did 200kph, what would you rather be driving - a 4-Cyl or a V8?
I prefer a car that revs graciously and would rather leave the shopping
carts to my little sister. The cost of petrol is not a problem when it comes
to class.

Phil


"Lenny" wrote in message
...

Can't resist commenting. There is much more that goes into the
reliability of engines than parts count. Suppose the 12 is a large
displacement water cooled ironblock turning 3500 RPM at that 200
km/hr, but the four is an air-cooled turbocharged aluminum block
turning 12,000 RPM to get you to that speed?


Of course I am speaking in general terms. I don't think anything above a
motorcycle engine would revv up to 12k rpm, and then any reasonable
motorcycle engine wouldn't need to spin at 12k to go 200km/h.

You set up a rather contrieved set of circumstances. Basically any 2-litre
watercooled 4-cyl engined car does 200kph minimum these days, this has
probably been true for quite a while. Your large displacement ironblock
12-cyl is likely to be very heavy and fuel hungry in comparison to the

4-cyl
engine..

As for weighing less, reverse
it--ironblock large-displacement low-speed four vs aluminum-block small
displacement high-speed 12.


Jeez man, gimme a mofoing break here. :-D You gonna decide which set of
silly extreme circumstances you want to settle on?

As for fuel economy, put a carbureted
low-compression four against a fuel-injected high-compression 12 and
you'll find that there are other factors that have a greater effect on
fuel economy than internal friction in the engine.


...Like I said, you gonna decide or what? Why do you constantly aim for
extremes? On AVERAGE, I am pretty sure you'll find 12-cyl engines to be:

*heavier
*thirstier
*less reliable

You wanna argue against that, try not to pit extremes against each other

and
change your angle of attack from case to case. For example, i'm pretty

sure
you can find several cases where a packmule wins against a 12-cyl engine
vehicle, but it wouldn't really be a fair comparison now would it? ;-)




  #9  
Old September 8th 03, 11:51 AM
Lenny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Phil" skrev i meddelandet
...
My initial point was:
If all cars did 200kph, what would you rather be driving - a 4-Cyl or a

V8?
I prefer a car that revs graciously and would rather leave the shopping
carts to my little sister.


It speaks more of your own ignorance if you think you need an 8-cyl engine
to "rev graciously". There's plenty of 4-cyls with good torque, if that's
what you desire. The Saab 2.3 high-output turbocharged engine does 350nm of
torque at 1900rpm.

The cost of petrol is not a problem when it comes to class.


And apparantly you care as little about the environment as you do about
economics...
Class indeed. *ptooie*


  #10  
Old September 10th 03, 03:21 PM
Coyoteboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


It speaks more of your own ignorance if you think you need an 8-cyl engine
to "rev graciously". There's plenty of 4-cyls with good torque, if that's
what you desire. The Saab 2.3 high-output turbocharged engine does 350nm

of
torque at 1900rpm.

The cost of petrol is not a problem when it comes to class.


And apparantly you care as little about the environment as you do about
economics...
Class indeed. *ptooie*


J.Clarke - Its not even worth bothering, people who dont understand the
desire for a V8 will never be converted - its something you are born with.

The point everyone here is missing is that a large displacement engine will
run FAR more unstressed than a low displacement at the same speed. This
leaves room for either a) longer life or b) massive upgrade, whichever
floats your boat.

As for the environment - theres little point in worrying about it, it'll
sort itself out in the end. If that means destruction of the species, well,
thats just tough - the price of success. I personally view believe that, as
we are all natures creatures, everything is essentially natural.

JB


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
pc problems after g card upgrade + sp2 ben reed Homebuilt PC's 9 November 30th 04 02:04 AM
Gigabyte NVIDIA 6600 Series: Bringing GeForce 6800 features to the mainstream! Gigabyte USA Marketing Gigabyte Motherboards 0 October 28th 04 11:04 PM
Difference Between PC3200 400MHz 2-64x64 Dual Channel Ultra Series DDR Tokyo Otaku Asus Motherboards 2 October 5th 04 12:20 AM
state of PowerVR Series 5 R420 Ati Videocards 22 May 28th 04 05:24 PM
CATALYST™ Release Notes Version 3.8 Pluvious Ati Videocards 17 October 12th 03 03:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.