Nvidia FX Series- what is bad/good about them?


Jul 30, 2003
Ok, I need opinions/facts on what is so good/bad about the Nvidia FX Series. I always hear that some Ti cards are faster than FX cards, but I think this is only true for DX 8 games. When DX 9 games are the norm, I believe that the FX series cards will seriously outperform any Ti card.

Also, are any of the Asus FX5600 cards Rev. 2 aka ultra?

is Rev2 = ultra?

I can't seem to find any Asus FX5600 rev 2 cards.


Geforce FX 5200 GPU:
Good: Cheap, DirectX 9 hardware, low performance hit for AA compared to contemporaries
Bad: Too underpowered for DirectX 9 games

Geforce FX 5600 GPU:
Good: affordable midrange GPU, DirectX 9 hardware, revision 2 of ultra is one of the best cards in it's class, good AA/Anistropic performance
Bad: poor performance in old revision 1 versions, not always faster at some tasks than the Geforce4 Ti midrange cards it replaced

Geforce FX 5800 GPU:
Good: Haha
Bad: Loud as hell, underpowered compared to it's contemporaries, Loud as hell, expensive

Geforce FX 5900 GPU:
Good: tied for fastest chip available with the radeon 9800, amazing AA and anistropic performance, amazing high resolution performance
Bad: high price

A good Ti card will beat a GeforceFX 5200 any day of the week. I suspect a Ti will kick a 5200's ass in, say, Doom3... despite the fact that advanced games make heavy use of pixel/vertex shaders. The 5200 is simply too weak..

As far as the 5600 GPU goes, we'll see in future games. I don't think they're that much of an improvement over the Ti series. but you have to remember, the Ti was the Flagship GPU in the pre-FX days... while the 5600 is a midrange offering.

I actually think the 5600's are pretty good, it's just that the Geforce4 Ti's are so very good and cheap now that they stand the test of time very well.
Not to mention that the 5600s are competing with Ati's 9600, which are also very good cards.

BY THE WAY... Revision 2 does NOT = Ultra...
First there was a Geforce 5600 and Geforce 5600 ULTRA
Then Nvidia revised the line... now there is a Geforce 5600 ULTRA revision 2.
The first 5600 ultra wasn't so good, but the 5600 ULTRA rev. 2 is a very good card.

Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
Very Well said. Too bad we can't make that a STICKY!



- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:


hey, thanks Apeman.

Maybe I'll copy and paste it into my "copy and paste answers to common questions for THG forums" document... ;)

Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439


Jan 4, 2003
Asus doesn't even have Ultra card right now, so dont even think about Rev.2 LOL

Proud Owner the Block Heater
120% nVidia Fanboy
PROUD OWNER OF THE GEFORCE FX 5900ULTRA <-- I wish this was me
I'd get a nVidia GeForce FX 5900Ultra... if THEY WOULD CHANGE THAT #()#@ HSF


IMO anyone thinking remotely to get DX9 performance out of FX5600s needs to get fixed. That inclues Rev. 2. Already they have troubles in Gunmetal, and that is just the start.

Let's face it, and Grape agrees with me on this, so I am not making anything new nor do I look for any approval, current cards, FX or Radeon will NOT make the pinnacle of gaming on DX9. They won't. Trust me. If ya can't play a new DX9 game (mind you, a REAL DX9 game with full effects, not just a couple of vertex shaders in there just so the damn character can move his lips right!) without resorting to under 30FPS gaming at full settings at 1024*768*32 with an FX5900, you DO NOT have a real DX9 performer. Heck, if it can't sustain 60FPS, the real playable barrier, it just isn't right. And you can forget about FX5600s or 9600PROs. They are designed to play current games just right at max, but they are only there in DX9, if you want to play at low FPS but still enjoy seeing some of the effects.

This may be a bashing post, but it's the truth IMO.

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink:


Jul 16, 2003
First thing you do is look at the games video card support that they tested the game with and go from there,look at the highest card they list and you will see the true story,of what cards will run the game nicely.



Oct 29, 2002
another thing to note is that the 8500 was proved to be substantially faster at rendering 1.4ps compared to the 5200ultra, and even 5600ultra rev1 in some cases. that shows a weakness to me. the selling point of the cards, and yet they underperform previous generations

the 9600pro in <A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDU4LDY=" target="_new"> HardOpc Shadermark test </A> is clearly faster at some ps2.0 functions. for example, when combining per pixel ansiotropic filtering and diffuse bump mapping the 9600pro acheives 173 fps, and the 5600ultra rev.1 gets 26 fps.

its only a benchmark, and very different from real world situations of course.. especially sinse a few driver revisions have been released sinse then which has more than likely increased performance alot for teh 5600ultra. i dont think teh "Rev.2" arguement is applicable to the shadermark test beacuuse the only difference is clock speed. a 50mhz increase in core clock and 100 in memory wont make a card go from 23fps to 170fps, imho

dont put alot of weight on that bench. BUT, its definately something to consider because it definately has some truth to it


no siggy applicable