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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |