Disappointed with FX5700

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I had a GeForce 3 Ti200, and decided to go with a DX9 compatible graphics
card.

The GeForce 4 FX5700LE 128 looked fine for $93, and got rave reviews in
NewEgg.

Well, in testing the 2D an 3D performance, it's slower than the Ti200 in 7
categories out of 9! Complex 3D is the worst, and is not even close to the
old Ti200. 2D lines is the best, but just slightly better than the Ti200. TV
out is noticeably better then the Ti200.

The only thing I did was change video cards, so the test is apples and
apples.

Is the FX5700LE just a dog, or am I missing something?

System:
Intel P4 2.8C @ 3.2 Ghz
Asus P4C 800E Dlx
512 MB Samsung PC333 Dual Channel
WinXP

Bob

Remove "kins" to reply by e-mail.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

> The GeForce 4 FX5700LE 128 looked fine for $93, and got rave reviews in
> NewEgg.

Video cards ALWAYS get great reviews at Newegg. Know why? Because most
people who buy one are upgrading from a much older card, and of course
the new one flies in comparison.

> Is the FX5700LE just a dog, or am I missing something?

My guess is it should run slightly better or maybe about the same as a
5200 ultra, but I'm not sure.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

93 Dollars is a very good price for that card. I have the MSI FX5700 and
pay 190 euros for it!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Note : mine is the 256 Mb VIVO version.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:09:36 +0100, "NSA" <silva.adsl@sapo.pt> wrote:

>Note : mine is the 256 Mb VIVO version.
>

Mine is the 128 Mb CHEAPO version.

Bob

Remove "kins" to reply by e-mail.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:21:01 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:


>
>If it came with the passive heatsink you might try an active 'sink.

It's an XFX card, and has a fan. I also have a 120mm fan blowing cool room
air right on the heat sink.

Just wondering if DX9 slows things down. I ran my tests for the Ti200 on DX8
and the tests on the 5700LE with DX9. Do you have a feel for differences in
DX9 and DX8 performance in entry level boards?

Oh well, I'm not a gamer anyway. The 5700LE has slightly better 2D, which I
appreciate.

I'll never trust that bunch of NewEgg Polyannas again!

Bob

Remove "kins" to reply by e-mail.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

The 5700LE is a very slowwwed down 5700. The 5700 is a slowwwed down 5700
Ultra. Yes, your card is slow.

--
DaveW



"Bob Adkins" <bobadkins@charter.net> wrote in message
news:brjfc0dge8qkh9ts8hhr50nni7b1t6ri30@4ax.com...
>
> I had a GeForce 3 Ti200, and decided to go with a DX9 compatible graphics
> card.
>
> The GeForce 4 FX5700LE 128 looked fine for $93, and got rave reviews in
> NewEgg.
>
> Well, in testing the 2D an 3D performance, it's slower than the Ti200 in 7
> categories out of 9! Complex 3D is the worst, and is not even close to the
> old Ti200. 2D lines is the best, but just slightly better than the Ti200.
TV
> out is noticeably better then the Ti200.
>
> The only thing I did was change video cards, so the test is apples and
> apples.
>
> Is the FX5700LE just a dog, or am I missing something?
>
> System:
> Intel P4 2.8C @ 3.2 Ghz
> Asus P4C 800E Dlx
> 512 MB Samsung PC333 Dual Channel
> WinXP
>
> Bob
>
> Remove "kins" to reply by e-mail.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:14:11 GMT, "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote:

>The 5700LE is a very slowwwed down 5700. The 5700 is a slowwwed down 5700
>Ultra. Yes, your card is slow.

Yea, it sure is slow. BUT... it sure is cheap!

Hell, my Ti200 cost me $40 more than the 5700LE, and it's only $10 faster.
So the 5700LE is still a great card for the money.

Bob

Remove "kins" to reply by e-mail.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Bob Adkins <bobadkins@charter.net> said:

>>The 5700LE is a very slowwwed down 5700. The 5700 is a slowwwed down
>>5700 Ultra. Yes, your card is slow.
>
> Yea, it sure is slow. BUT... it sure is cheap!

You could buy a R9600 for a little more and it would be much faster.
--
Mac Cool

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:16:13 -0500, Bob Adkins <bobadkins@charter.net>
wrote:


>It's an XFX card, and has a fan. I also have a 120mm fan blowing cool room
>air right on the heat sink.

Well there's two ways of looking at it, you can be happy or return/sell it
while you have the chance to recoup the $.

If you did keep it, you might find the original heatsink is just slapped
on there carelessly, I rarely find any heatsink interface that does well,
either they used quite thick phase-change material or put too much or too
litte grease on it... it's just odd that, given it's not hard to get
right, it never is right.


>Just wondering if DX9 slows things down. I ran my tests for the Ti200 on DX8
>and the tests on the 5700LE with DX9. Do you have a feel for differences in
>DX9 and DX8 performance in entry level boards?

Don't know, you might try a different driver version though as nVidia has
been toying around with performance-related settings in past versions due
to ongoing PR about image quality and cheating in games, etc, etc. I'd
use DX9 anyway, though I've never had an FX5700.


>Oh well, I'm not a gamer anyway. The 5700LE has slightly better 2D, which I
>appreciate.

If you still have the GF3Ti200 there was an article at
http://www.anandtech.com a year or two ago about removing the card's
output filter capacitors to improve image quality... they're quite tiny
surface-mount chip caps, a pair of tweezers would sufficiently crack them
in half though I suppose desoldering is the safer method of removal.

>
>I'll never trust that bunch of NewEgg Polyannas again!

Some of those reviews crack me up... I've seen some case reviews where
they act like it's the best thing since sliced bread but I've worked with
same cases and thought them about as poor as it gets. Then again I"m
pretty picky about cases, I'll spend an hour modding a sturdy 6-year old
one one before paying $10 for something made of tin-foil.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:32:18 GMT, Mac Cool <Mac@2cool.com> wrote:


>> Yea, it sure is slow. BUT... it sure is cheap!
>
>You could buy a R9600 for a little more and it would be much faster.

I don't do ATI. Too many bad experiences with driver weirdness. Besides, I
already bought the 5700LE. I have a Ti200 on the shelf, I don't want to add
the 5700LE to gather dust.

Bob

Remove "kins" to reply by e-mail.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Bob Adkins <bobadkins@charter.net> said:

>>> Yea, it sure is slow. BUT... it sure is cheap!
>>
>>You could buy a R9600 for a little more and it would be much faster.
>
> I don't do ATI. Too many bad experiences with driver weirdness.

That's in the past. It appears that ATI have learned their lessons well.
Enjoy the LE, it's a good card if not much is demanded from it.
--
Mac Cool