Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

**NEW** FX5600 Ultra Performance

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Performance
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 19, 2003 10:11:02 PM

Hello everyone!

This is my first post and I hope you guys/gals can help me out. The following are my computer's spec's:

Epox EP-4SDA5+ motherboard
Intel Pent 4 2.4 Ghz 533 FSB
512MB PC2700 DDR memory
(2)Western Dig 40Gig ATA100 7200RPM in RAID 0? "Stripping"
"BRAND NEW" PNY GeForce FX5600 Ultra 128MB AGP 8X
(400Mhz Core Clock 800Mhz memory clock)
Creative Sound Blaster Live 5.1
CD-ROM, CD-Burner, & LS-120 Super Disk Drive
350Watt Power Supply

So, my problem is that the BRAND NEW PNY FX5600 Ultra is not getting the scores I expected in 3DMark 2001 v330. My system is not slow at all and it's performance is way below what I expected after reading THG's VGA card review.

I got scores of 9,600 when I first installed it and after doing a clean Windows XP installation I'm getting 10,600 points.

Another website got 13,500 points out of the card using a faster system but their system was only a little if at all faster. I was looking for 12,000 points at least but I feel something might be messing it's performance up.

Note: THG using an Athlon XP 2700+ got over 100 Fps(768x1024 No AA or AF) out of UT2003 while I could only muster 40-55 Fps using the same settings.

Please help...what's going on with this card??? I spent $180 and the card seems not to be working any faster than my old ATI 8500 64MB AGP 4X card. Otherwords...$180 that seem to be a waste to me now.

Note:
Drivers used were 44.03
Changing video card performance to favor performance Vs quality does little to nothing to change the FPS?

HELP!!!!

THANKS IN ADVANCE!!!

More about : fx5600 ultra performance

August 19, 2003 11:05:22 PM

when nvidia first released the fx 5600, it got constantly whooped in benchmarks, was a very poor performer, slow clock speeds, and pratically no overclocking potential. This was called revision 1. Nvidia then released another card called revision 2, which higher clock speeds, making it a much better performing card.
Now, coming from this angle, if you had a rev.1 card, then that may be a reason for your scores being what they are. I don't really know, as I havn't looked at the benchmarks for sometime......I'm just speculating here. I'm sure someone here can add a little more wisdom.

This is just what I though when I read your post, although I could be wrong.............NAH!!! NEVER!!!!!
August 20, 2003 12:12:46 AM

THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT!!!

Yeah, I know about Rev 1...so I bought a Rev 2 card...but it seems that it's under performing...maybe it's my system...but I don't think so...
Related resources
August 20, 2003 12:33:37 AM

I think thats about the norm for your card,be happy you got that high a score.

TREAD SLOWLY IN DANGEROUS WATERS
August 20, 2003 1:40:20 AM

aren't rev 2 5600 Ultras clocked at 450/800??


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
August 20, 2003 1:59:35 AM

Nope, 400MHZ core.


--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.
August 20, 2003 2:07:41 AM

Upon looking at Epox' website, I found you owned a 648 SiS chipset mainboard.

Now, we're looking at two possible reasons here, as you own a high-quality and performance card:
1) The 648 chipset is dated and performs slightly worse than the i845PE by Intel. The best chipset for 533MT FSB boards was the i850E. It could very well be due to a weak chipset performance. Have you downloaded the latest chipset drivers from SiS, which include AGP drivers?
If not, go <A HREF="http://download.sis.com/sisdlc/driver_select.jsp" target="_new">here</A> and retrieve the appropriate ones.
Next up, verify your AA and Aniso settings. Make sure they are all disabled. And get the new 45.23 drivers.
Check if your system is too hot. IIRC the FX serie throttles its GPU clock when it's too hot.
Same thing for your P4, if it's too hot, it will throttle clock speed.

2)It could be your RAID array. I know little about it though, but if you can try it without RAID and report any results, it would be great. If it's a backup drive RAID, I don't know if it's a safe and good thing to do though.

Which Windows do you have?

IF, and ONLY IF, you have exhausted all possibilities, my best recommendation would be to return the card and try an ATi one. Out of curiosity, what was the score for your 8500, and was it conforming to standard overall (similar system config) 3dMark scores around the web?
If so, it's very likely it's an nVidia hardware issue conflicting with your system config, which I would be rather surprised to see.

Good luck!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.
August 20, 2003 2:39:49 AM

Nice of you to do all that digging for him Eden.
I simply refuse to go through all the trouble anymore when all the user is trying to do is improve his 3DMark score.
If he had a serious system malfuntion it would be a different story.

I <b>help</b> because <b>you</b> suck.
August 20, 2003 2:42:49 AM

AS ALWAYS, THANKS FOR YOUR HELP AND INPUT!!!

I run Windows XP Pro and I do have the latest Sis AGP drivers, I'll have to try the rest of the chipset drivers also.

My ATI RADEON 8500 was getting scores of 8,400 on 3DMark 2001 SE v330.

I've seen the FX5600 Ultra "NEW REV 2" get scores of 13,500 so I think it might just be my system???

THANKS FOR ALL YOUR INPUT!!!
August 20, 2003 2:42:55 AM

If he wants a score like some of the other guys have, he needs to set everything in his driver control panel to 'performance', and make sure he doesnt have aa & af enabled.
I dont feel like walking him through it, maybe someone else does.

I <b>help</b> because <b>you</b> suck.
August 20, 2003 2:50:27 AM

The issue is that the 13600 score was obtained on a Barton 2.2GHZ.

But even then, that is far from warranting 4000 points more for the CPU.
His case is confusing to say the least.
I am positive if he gets this much less, his gaming will also have odd results.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.
August 20, 2003 2:51:32 AM

Quote:
I simply refuse to go through all the trouble anymore when all the user is trying to do is improve his 3DMark score.

Actually he does have a problem in an actual game. UT2003 suffers severly.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.
August 20, 2003 2:56:41 AM

Your results are very low, far from being justified.

Is your RAM at CAS2?
And do report back on the nVidia driver settings. It has to be at performance to attain such levels, usually.

I do think your system has an issue. The 8500 with 8400 as a score is stunning, and it also demonstrates that yes, it's a card issue with the system, because the previous one performed right on target.

When you load WinXP PRO, make sure you got little loaded as well. 3dMark 2001 conflicts too easily when lots of programs are open, I remember my Ti200 losing easily 300-500 points just for having too many programs opened at the same time.

Still, I can't find for the life of me how can such a score occur. Are you running an effective 8X AGP? (4X is fine too) Do you have Fast-Writes disabled, and side-band addressing as well?


--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.
August 20, 2003 5:09:10 PM

First, let me say that I thank everyone that gives me their input. And for this guy/gal....well...I'll just ignore him...

Anyway, the reason I'm asking is simply to see if anyone has had similar problems or can help me figure out mine. I know a LITTLE BIT about computers and I'm just looking for some input from others on the THG community.

AGAIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP!!!

I just recently tried to set the card to "Performance" over "Quality" and the scores only improved by about 160 points. With some more tweaking I got it up to 10,951 (350 more points) but I belive it's still below what it should be.

My FPS in Unreal Tournament 2003 are still in the 35-60 range which is WAY OFF THG's 120 range. I'll contact PNY and see what they think about this.

Also, I'm not just looking for better scores on 3DMark 2001. My FPS are not any better than the ATI 8500 and since I spent a good amount of money on this card all Im doing is making sure I get what I paid for. Any WISE consumer would...

THANKS AGAIN EVERYONE....MINUS ONE
!