alex_london0
Lord Fatshit
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 135
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
wat are all the sppeds of the NVIDIA 5700LE...its an nforce chipset??
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
speed of graphics card (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter alex_london0
- Start date
sikeveo
back after sem2
that's quite an old card. Google for the speeds. Motherboards have nforce. Not graphics cards.
alex_london0
Lord Fatshit
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 135
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
lol soz i cant find exact speeds
um the chipset is a geforce fx chip
every site has a dif speed
um the chipset is a geforce fx chip
every site has a dif speed
SashatheMan
StudyforEver
the speed = slow
i can tell u that much
i can tell u that much
Yeah, for the current crop of games, a GeForceFX (the 5700 you talk about) just wont really cut it.
If you're looking for a card to purchase, tell us your budget, and we'll recommend some good value cards.
If you're looking for a card to purchase, tell us your budget, and we'll recommend some good value cards.
alex_london0
Lord Fatshit
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 135
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
no budget really.....im just looking for a new card and ill save for it....im looking at x800 and the nvidia equivalent and i like em both but 6600 is alil outa dat enow...isnt it
SashatheMan
StudyforEver
how much are nvidias 6800 gt s ???? i am waiting for the price to drop below 300
The FX5700s are pretty out of date, as already said. The LEs are also a budget range of nVidia's lineup, so that makes it worse. A nice value card are the 6800GTs or the 6600GTs. Speaking of X800s, I personally have an X800XT, they're great but there certainly are better value for money cards out there. Plus the Geforce 6s support Shader Model 3.0 while the Radeon X000s support 2.0b at best, so the longevity of the 6th generation nVidia cards will be slightly better (assuming you don't intend to upgrade for awhile).
If you have no budget, then get a Geforce 7800GTX or a Radeon X1800XT, they're currently the top-end cards. But be prepared to upgrade all your other specs unless you don't care about being bottlenecked.
If you have no budget, then get a Geforce 7800GTX or a Radeon X1800XT, they're currently the top-end cards. But be prepared to upgrade all your other specs unless you don't care about being bottlenecked.
insert-username
Wandering the Lacuna
For graphics cards, clockspeed really isn't that important. More important are the number if pixel and vertex shader pipelines and the particular architecture (some games just like NVIDIA cards over ATi, and vice-versa). Example - the current NVIDIA 7800 GTX is clocked at around 430 Mhz. Its main competitor, ATi's x1800 XT, is clocked at about 600 Mhz, almost 33% faster than the NVIDIA part. However, the cards are pretty much equal in gaming tests - framerate and image-quality wise. The difference is that the GTX has 24 pixel pipelines, compared to the x1800's 16 - the extra pipes give it the ability to match the ATi card despite the speed differential.
I_F
I_F
I know where you're coming from, but in my opinion I think both can be very important.. and even your point illustrated it.. i.e both pipeline count or clock speed can make up for the poor performance if it's deficient in the other. (e.g for X1800, lower pipeline count, hence bump up the clock speed, 7800GTX, lower clock speed, hence bump up the pipeline count).insert-username said:
Remember the X800XT-PE was the original competitor to the flagship 6800 Ultras.. not the X850XTPE. By the time ATi released the X850, nVidia couldn't be bothered with another NV40 style competitor (although they did release that 512MB version of the 6800U.. prolly for die-hard Doom III fans who insist on having 512MB to be able to run the game on the Ultra setting.. which of course was bullcrap anyway). If anything I thought the X800s were pretty much on par with the 6800 Ultras. Infact, the X800PRO was pretty dissappointing compared to the 6800GTs so if anything if people were gonna go ATi in the last gen, I would certainly hope they went X800XT. Performance-wise overall I didn't think anyone kicked the other's butt either.. X800 did well in some and 6800U did better in others etc. (well, if we want to generalise let's just stick with the good ol' Direct3D & OpenGL). Plus ATi was dogged with a poor implementation strategy since they were seriously understocked in manufacture components for the cards.. which in the end resulted in minimal availability to impatient buyers for many months. So in the end, it seemed pretty much like an anti-climax paper launch. Finally, the X800s were criticised by more advanced hardware gurus as having less longevity than the 6800U due to it not incorporating SM3.0. Don't worry, I'm not biased against ATi if I sound like it, I mean I have an X800XT myself... just that for the last gen-cards.. if anything most people I have talked to tend to agree nVidia blew ATi out of the water for that round, rather than the other way round.Minai said:
As for X1800 being a dissappointment, always be skeptical of the hype! Although I was secretly hoping for a massive performance result over the Geforce 7s.. deep down I guess I was expecting similar performances. But atleast ATi's new card has SM3.0 (infact, initial SM3.0 evaluation seem to have ATi in the lead with the new Model performances.. which to me atleast is surprising since this is ATi's first crack at it and for the 7800GTX it will be nVidia's second generation SM3.0 card). Most importantly in my opinion, ATi has struggled very hard to ensure this time round the new card on the block isn't just a paper launch.
Woah ok!
I don't know too much about hardware, but I'm wondering why the X1800's only have max 16 p/pipelines when the earlier released 7800's have 20 and 24?
I guess pipelines dont mean everything, but you'd think ATi would at least match them there..
I don't know too much about hardware, but I'm wondering why the X1800's only have max 16 p/pipelines when the earlier released 7800's have 20 and 24?
I guess pipelines dont mean everything, but you'd think ATi would at least match them there..
insert-username
Wandering the Lacuna
Most importantly in my opinion, ATi has struggled very hard to ensure this time round the new card on the block isn't just a paper launch.
It's a pity that they haven't been as successful as NVIDIA - the 7800 GTX and GT launches were superb, with product ready to go on launch day. The R5- series on the other hand was a little slower off the block - ATi had a hard time matching NVIDIA on that note. It'll be interesting to see what NVIDIA's next-gen 0.09 micron silicon can do compared to ATi's planned R580 - the G72 core from NVIDIA is due out early next year as an update to the 7-series, and the R580 is due out around the same time.
I don't know too much about hardware, but I'm wondering why the X1800's only have max 16 p/pipelines when the earlier released 7800's have 20 and 24?
I guess pipelines dont mean everything, but you'd think ATi would at least match them there..
It's mostly to do with hardware and architecture - NVIDIA focused on having as many pixel pipelines as they could (which I'm pretty sure means you can't jack up the clockspeed as high), whereas ATi worked on getting less pixel pipelines to do more work (i.e. work at a higher clockspeed). End result was basically that ATi's cards are clocked faster and NVIDIA's cards are clocked slower. Mind you, even though the performance levels are pretty much the same, on a practical scale, the x1800 XT comes in a double-slot design whereas the 7800 GTX is single slot (I still don't know how NVIDIA managed that) - making the GTX more compact and easier to fit into a PC. The double slot design for the x1800 XT is a result of the higher clockspeed - as Intel CPUs have proven, the higher you clock your chip, the hotter and more power-hungry it gets, meaning bigger fans and more juice needed.
I_F
It's a pity that they haven't been as successful as NVIDIA - the 7800 GTX and GT launches were superb, with product ready to go on launch day. The R5- series on the other hand was a little slower off the block - ATi had a hard time matching NVIDIA on that note. It'll be interesting to see what NVIDIA's next-gen 0.09 micron silicon can do compared to ATi's planned R580 - the G72 core from NVIDIA is due out early next year as an update to the 7-series, and the R580 is due out around the same time.
I don't know too much about hardware, but I'm wondering why the X1800's only have max 16 p/pipelines when the earlier released 7800's have 20 and 24?
I guess pipelines dont mean everything, but you'd think ATi would at least match them there..
It's mostly to do with hardware and architecture - NVIDIA focused on having as many pixel pipelines as they could (which I'm pretty sure means you can't jack up the clockspeed as high), whereas ATi worked on getting less pixel pipelines to do more work (i.e. work at a higher clockspeed). End result was basically that ATi's cards are clocked faster and NVIDIA's cards are clocked slower. Mind you, even though the performance levels are pretty much the same, on a practical scale, the x1800 XT comes in a double-slot design whereas the 7800 GTX is single slot (I still don't know how NVIDIA managed that) - making the GTX more compact and easier to fit into a PC. The double slot design for the x1800 XT is a result of the higher clockspeed - as Intel CPUs have proven, the higher you clock your chip, the hotter and more power-hungry it gets, meaning bigger fans and more juice needed.
I_F
Last edited: