GeForce FX 5200 Ultra & 5600 Ultra Benchmarks

Both the NV34 and the RV350 are supposed to go into integrated chipsets this year.

 

Crap, that was me. *sigh* Stupid cookies

 

Ok, after reading Anands benchmarks....doesn't it look to anyone else like the 5600 Ulta may not even be able to supras the Ti4600??? I mean, its barely beating a 4200 in most of those tests, even when AA and Aniso is turned on :?

 

one has to wonder where the ti4400 stands, those go prety cheap these days.

 

you try finding one for sale - especially in Europe.

 

Hmm...from the Firing Squad article screenshots, the NV34 seems to be having fog problems. I had thought they'd have fixed that in the NV31 and NV34...? Maybe it is purely driver related, but why does it seem to be so persistent?

 

But doesn't the 9600 PR material only mention price points down to $150? Is there any confirmation the statement in the GDC video was anything more than a slip of the tongue (perhaps brought on by the intense excitement of Title Club )?

Doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for a 9200 and a 9200 Pro. Then again, neither does the 5200...

 

Yes, I didn't see anything showing an SRP of less than $149. Obviously there will be lower versions, but considering that its already using 200mhz DDR for the memory, I dont see how much lower they could go, after the usual price markdowns from MSRP through the online distributors.

For some reason people are very persitant on compairing non-retail ATI prices with retail nVidia prices. Doesn't make much sense if you ask me.

 

shh.. again :

I just read the Review from Firingquad. Link :
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/geforce_fx_5200_ultra/default.asp

the PS2.0-performance of the FX5200U is only around 5% of the PS1-performance :

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/geforce_fx_5200_ultra/images/pixel.gif


Despite this the FX5200 manages to perform quite good in 3DMark03. Even in the Mother Nature test the frame-rates are quite good (@640x480)

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/geforce_fx_5200_ultra/images/test4.gif

 

Yeah, but Nvidia had big slides that said "DX9 for $79", and they referred to it over and over. Whereas the thing about RV350 going down to the $100 range was just one single throw-away comment. Pretty much equivalent to the comment that the low-end GFfx 5200 was $99, although at least that was corrected while the $100 R9600 comment, if incorrect, was let stand.

Basically my position is: if it's been written down (slides count!), it's official; if it's blurted out of someone's mouth once, and it contradicts other information, it's suspect.

Although this is rapidly shaping up to be one of those situations where Wavey knows more than us mere mortals but, rather than just coming out with the proof he knows we don't have, instead chooses to torment us in our abject ignorance.

 

Those are two completely different tests (PS 2.0 test from 3DMark03, and pixel shader (PS 1.1) test from 3DMark01). It's not like they're doing the same thing except one with PS 1.1 and the other with PS 2.0; they're doing completely different and uncomparable things. So you can't compare the performance like that.

(Although it is confusing of FS to put them both on the same graph like that.)

 

I'm still wondering a little bit about the R9600 linup, at least after we "know" (=suspect) that the RV350 core is nearly as small as the NV34 core.

How about this lineup :

R9600 : Core 275MHz 64-128MB Memory @ 200MHz-DDR; passive cooling, reuse of the really cheap R9200-PCB (if it is correct that the RV350 is pincompatible with the R200/RV250 ).

R9600Pro : Core 350MHz (or 325 if the yield is low at 350MHz ) 128MB Memory @275MHz-DDR; passive cooling(?); reuse of the R9200Pro-PCB (see above) or using the normal R9600-PCB if necessary.

R9600Ultra : Core 450MHz 128MB Memory @ 350MHz; active cooling; new PCB necessary (= comes out later)

Prices :

R9600 : 64MB-version at $89 ; 128MB-version at $129 (maybe to close to the R9600Pro )
R9600Pro : $149
R9600Ultra : $199

R9200 : <$49
R9200Pro : no longer useful, canceled

 

Er, boards with nVidia graphics chips certainly do have retail prices (by definition of them being sold to end users from the distributors) and nVidia sets a recommend MSRP for them, just as ATI does with their AIB partners.

So if you're talking about an AIB partner then the point still stands. And if you're talking about a direct from ATI card then I certainly didn't see any slides or hear anything in any of the previews of 9600s that indicated an MSRP of $100 for a 9600 card.

If we're not talking about MSRP values then it would stand to reason to compare estimated selling prices for both ATI cards and nVidia cards would it not?

 

Agreed;

 

I must have missed some of the size compairisons, but if the two chips are identical in size while one being on a .13u process and the other on a .15u and the price for a .13u wafer is higher than a .15u wafer, then with equivalent yeilds, the .15u should be less expensive. Since .15 mircron is a much older process, one would assume that the yeilds would be better, but this isn't always the case because it really depends on how well the asic was designed.

The prices you have dont match up to the launch for one. As far as I knew there was no "ultra" version of the 9600. The 9600Pro should be running at 400/300 and MSRP for $199. The non pro is 325/200 and MSRP for as low as $149, while varying ram speeds for the non-pro could move it up to $169.

 

More interesting is that the PS 1.1 numbers don't compare with those from www.hardware.fr, in the latter even the 5600 Ultra gets beaten by the Ti4200, but in the former the 5200 Ultra beats the Ti4200... (The numbers are probably taken at different resolutions, but that shouldn't matter. Both reviews also appear to use the same driver.)