FX5900 (NV35) Specs Revealed

[wdd1040]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20030508151057.html


As X-bit labs told you a couple of months ago, the NV35 aka GeForce FX 5900 GPU does not have too many differences from its predecessor, the GeForce FX 5800. As we expected, the main performance booster of the part is its 256-bit memory bus that will skyrocket speed of the graphics card compared to the previous high-end solution from NVIDIA. Probably ATI’s RADEON 9800 PRO in its current implementation will also be slower than NVIDIA’s flagship offering by up to 80%, according to NVIDIA, though, wait for our very own review to find out more exact performance figures of both products.


GeForce FX 5900 Ultra: NVIDIA NV35 GPU clocked at 450MHz and 256MB of DDR SDRAM clocked at 850MHz and utilizing 256-bit bus. All graphics cards will be equipped with DVI-I, D-Sub and VIVO connectors. The ESP for the part is 499 Euros or Dollars, expected time of availability if June.

Yeah riiiiight... 80%
Doesn't seem like much of a change at all. Looks like I'm only going to be buying chipsets from Nvidia from now on.....

Technical specs, well sort of.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20030415075522.html

[Major]

The R9900 is just around the corner too.

I've lost faith in Nvidia regaining the crown in any forseable future.

[felix88]

so are they going to be .13 micron chips now? not that it really matters, i've gone back to ATi. :p

[jmke]

same busspeed, higher memory & core speeds..

/me thinks it will outdo the R9800Pro performance wise :)

[RuKK]

Uhh.. yeah.. the same way the 5800 Ultra outdid the 9700 pro.

[Ragnarok]

only with h4x0red drivers..

[RuKK]

Uhh, please to be getting ir0ny. Do I need to post a disclaimer?

[XtremepH]

well nVdia might be just able to on par with the 9800 pro but like xbitlabs said let's all just wait to see the benchmarks.

[SupaMan]

Originally posted by felix88
so are they going to be .13 micron chips now? not that it really matters, i've gone back to ATi. :p

yeah, .13. They finally have TSMC's .13micron process running with decent efficeincy.

the 80% is BS

and so is xbit :)

[CCW]

Originally posted by jmke


/me thinks it will outdo the R9800Pro performance wise :)

if it even does which is unlikely, the 9900 will be out soon :D

[Johnny Knoxvill]

80% faster than the ati 9800 pro? you got to be kidding me
Nvidia are 2 cycles behind, if it is 15% faster than the 9800 pro then Nvidia will have a huge success.

what the article doesn't say if it still has the leafblower? :banana:

[saaya]

http://www.tt-hardware.com/article.php?sid=4316 geforce fx 5900 ultra benchmark!

didnt nvidia say something like nv35's performence will be 2 times the performence of a 5800 ultra at the same clockspeed?

in this bench its just 20% faster compared to a 9800Pro in 3d2k3... and it still needs some freaky and massive heatsink.

:stick: nvidia has lost like 90% of its credibility for me...

they still didnt reply to wether the nv30 is 4.2 or 8.1 or explained what they mean when they say its both.

they still didnt reply to the questions whether the newer detonators make the nv30 work with 64bit floting precision to increase the performence. if it does only run in 64bit mode then its out of the directx9 specification.

its not that their lying, they just dont comment it. the result is the same...

[CCW]

it doesnt have the leaf blower any more apparently

[saaya]

well if it needs this huge heatsink to run @ stock speed you prolly need a 2nd prometia to oc it...

[faruquehabib]

for cripes sakes, what is nvidia gonna do about the r9900 pro?? psh, i dont think they know what they are up against in ati, man

[CCW]

this could be similar to 3D-FX, nVidia are lsoign the market bad, heh, matrox pulled through but there cards are for CAD now, no gaming

[I3lackCoffee]

Uhh.. yeah.. the same way the 5800 Ultra outdid the 9700 pro.

HAHA!

Yeah Nvidia loves to keep telling themselves that. (idiots).

[Ruantic]

Nvidia's new logo...


We Do The Overclocking For You!

[jmke]

Originally posted by RuKK
Uhh.. yeah.. the same way the 5800 Ultra outdid the 9700 pro.

128bit vs 256bit

that killed the FX 5800 ..
nVidia learned from that mistake

I'm hoping that the 5900 will be the fastest GPU on earth, this will only push ATI to make an even faster one

which is only good for us, the consumer

[Maelstorm]

I'll wait for some real, official benchmarks before I take this information to heart. Perhaps NVIDIA has learned from their mistake with the NV30, I really hope they did. If NVIDIA gets back in the game (as far as high-end gaming cards go), then, as said above, this just creates more competition, which is better for us. Lower prices and faster equipment.

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

[felix88]

i'll be waiting to see some real benchmarks as well.

[saaya]

well what do you mean with learned from their mistakes? its not like they decided to create a gpu that can reach 100°C under full load even with some massive cooling, and that everybody will love that ferrari-like rooaring comming from the pc when switching to 3dmode.

they did their best, and for some reason it was a bad gpu. im sure they improved the gpu a lot, but it still has all those incredible features that programmers can use to improve their games, but any game that would make use of those details would look incredibly nice, but run with 10fps.

i hope they realize that after all you need fps, the shiniest effects wont help you sell a card if the games run with about 20 frames.

[DoGMaN]

That site pulled the benchmarks. Anyone have them backed up?

[antipop]

Originally posted by felix88
i'll be waiting to see some real benchmarks as well. Me either, it's the same thing every time. The nmbers on parpers looks great and everybody will say it'll rock (remember matrox or the FX) and when it's in real life it's a piece of ....

[felix88]

Originally posted by antipop
remember matrox

yay! the Parhelia is here to kick everyones asses!! :rolleyes:

i still want one. :p

[CCW]

the parhelia image quality must be awesome!

[antipop]

Originally posted by CCW
the parhelia image quality must be awesome! It's too bad that it's not as fast as the other cards, otherwise it would have rocked

[felix88]

it'd still be a decent card. probably faster than my GF3. it's surely faster than the Matrox G400 i'm running right now. :eek: :p

[zakelwe]

I think the 80% bit might be a translation problem as Xbit is Russian.

Maybe they meant to say the 9800 Pro has 80% the performance of the nv35, which would be more realistic than the nv25 having 80% more performance.

Regards

Andy

[bigjohns97]

I don't see the problem as the nv35 might be UP TO 80% as not being 80% across the board but only in one aspect in 3d rendering. I'm pretty sure it won't be in AA or AF performance, and it probley won't be in loudness of the cooling system :stick:

[Evil_Spork]

nvidia and ATI are in teh same battle as amd and intel. amd and ati are using a super efficiant cure design, while nvidia and intel are using the brute force technique. as we see obviously the brute force didnt work with nvidia, and it looks similar with intel and amd. thats why i faith that amd will prevail and come out on top.

just an observation.

[saaya]

naaah i dont think so, ati is more like using the brutal force and nvidia is using the latest and newest. ati is sticking with what they know works, and improve it, just like amd. nvidia is always looking to set new standards and trying build up something new using the latest and newest methods and techniques, just like intel.

i have the image of the 5900 benchmark if anybody wants it pm me

[QuadDamage]

ati can't afford a single mistake, while nVidia could, simple as that. I hope ati has enough money to switch to .13u proccess:D. I've been waiting for decent video since ti4600 and it looks like my upgrade is almost here.

[SupaMan]

Originally posted by QuadDamage
ati can't afford a single mistake, while nVidia could, simple as that. I hope ati has enough money to switch to .13u proccess:D. I've been waiting for decent video since ti4600 and it looks like my upgrade is almost here.

9600, shipping now, .13

[Giant]

Originally posted by DoGMaN
That site pulled the benchmarks. Anyone have them backed up?

Its still on OCAU, third post down
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?s=&threadid=167740
For anyones who cant see it, it shows:
3DMark 03 @ 1024*768
GF FX 5900Ultra w/ Det 50 (looks like those dodgy drivers...) = 6678
GF FX 5900 Ultra = 5981
GF FX 5800 Ultra w/ Det 43.51 = 5429
R9800 Pro = 5496

[sysfailur]

If you ask me, it LOOKS badass: http://www.maximumoc.com/img/hardware/NV35

And it still has the leaf blower (whoever said it didn't) :P

[CCW]

Originally posted by sysfailur
And it still has the leaf blower (whoever said it didn't) :P

im the culprit sorry, i read they had got rid of the leaf blower

[sysfailur]

Originally posted by CCW
im the culprit sorry, i read they had got rid of the leaf blower

Hehe, although you are kinda right, it's not really blowing leaves through the exhaust, its now just blowing over the mem. Well it can be a uhh.... mmmm case dust blower! Yes that's it! In any case, it's still got that fan on it, and I'm sure it's going to be a loud bastard like the FX.

[CCW]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12663

in there Felix88 said no m ore hairdryer cooling, its another thread bout the new FX card

[gokickrocks]

same fan as the 5800ultra, just not encased

[Zroc]

Guys, the 5800 gpu itself was actually quite good. Where nvidia screwed up is investing so much into integrating DDR II so early. It was a gamble, and it didn't pay off.

Where they screwed up is in the memory bandwidth department. This is why you'd see the 5800 FX beating the 9700 Pro in low res/no AA/AF, but losing in high-res and AA/FF. The 9700 Pro had a 256bit interface, and 19.6GB/sec of bandwidth, where the 5800 FX had a 128bit interface, and only 16GB/sec of bandwidth...basically choking their GPU.

The 5900 is simply a correction piece, which is why they can get it out so fast. They went back to DDR 1 for the time being (cheaper), and doubled the bus to 256bit. With a 425 memory clock at 256bit, it'll now have a fat 27.2GB/sec of memory bandwidth. This is compared to the 16 the 5800 had, the 19.6 the 9700 Pro had, and the 21.8 the 9800 Pro has.

Dunno...I can see the 5900 being really fast, if it ships with that serious of bandwidth.
From the looks of it, the 5900 FX will be what the 5800 should've been, if they hadn't gambled on DDR II being ready for prime-time.

[wdd1040]

Did the 5800 have ddrII?

[felix88]

Originally posted by CCW
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12663

in there Felix88 said no m ore hairdryer cooling, its another thread bout the new FX card

well, somewhere in that arcticle at xbit it said no more noisy cooling. of course the arcticle is gone now. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by wdd1040
Did the 5800 have ddrII?

yeah it did. 1000MHz memory i believe.

[saaya]

lol people dont even remember the 5800 specs :D

and they didnt only screw with the memory.

memory was too expensive, running too hot (needed 2cm tall copper heatsinks) and only connected to the gpu via the screwed 128bit bus, the gpu was running extremely hot (up to 100°C) and needed a massive heatsink and a noisy 5000rpm fan to cool it. the gffx cooling is actually strong enough to cool an xp2400+!!!

and they didnt just doubled the bus, and changed the ddr2 to ddr1, the nv35 has a bunch more transistors then nv30.

its like the geforce 3ti compared to the geforce 3...
the geforce fx ti ...

[twiztdskatr]

i wanna see orb benchies too, i wouldnt mind getting a new nvidia product if it would finally put out as well as the GF4 Ti product line did.

[CCW]

"lol people dont even remember the 5800 specs "


was 500/500 (1000) and apparently could do 48gbps bandwidth with compression.....:bs:

[saaya]

the radeon 9700 does 69gb/s with compression right? or was it 96gb/s?

[wdd1040]

ok if they developed the technology to use ddrII then why switch back if you're the only one who can? just doesn't make sense to me. Why not use the 256bit bus and ddrII, raise costs a bit, and try to regain some ground in the VPU catagory? Or do you think the GFfx6000's (or whatever) will be 256bit bus with ddrII?
Wes

[saaya]

ddr2 is like 50% more expensive, and they are not the only ones who can make a ddr2 card. the 9700 already supported ddr2, but they never uswed it because its too expensive. the 9900pro will be a 9800pro with higher clockspeeds and maybe ddr2 but i guess theyll use ddr1 as well because

1. they dont need faster memory to beat nvidia
2.too expensive
3.not accesbale in large quantities
4.would have to redesign the pcb=extra costs

[Zroc]

Yes, it used DDR II. DDR II is the same speed as DDR I at equal clockspeeds. DDR II can just HIT higher clockspeeds (i.e. the 5800 was 500/1000, the 9800 pro is 340/680).
That LOOKS like an advantage...but the bus is twice as wide on the 9800 (256 v 128), so double the 9800 number.
So the 9800 has 21.8GB/sec of bandwidth versus the 5800's measly 16GB/sec...big bottleneck.

5900 is fixing that...going 256bit as well, and back to DDR I (again, DDR II is just too expensive right now), but at 425/850 speed. That's some pretty damn fast DDR I. And the resulting bandwidth will be 27.2GB/sec, which is pretty huge.

Neat video card roundup here:
http://www.tech-report.com/etc/comparo/graphics/index.x?sort=rpeakbw

[XtremepH]

http://www.3dnewsnet.com/comments.php?reviewID=257
was this the benches ppl saw earlier on b4 it was yanked?

[antipop]

Originally posted by saaya
ddr2 is like 50% more expensive, and they are not the only ones who can make a ddr2 card. the 9700 already supported ddr2, but they never uswed it because its too expensive. At the time nvidia thought it was a smart move to go to ddr2 as memory is becoming the biggest bottleneck, too bad they did it the wrong way (128bit bus is lame)

[Keeper]

I’m pretty sure that what we saw was a typo, the correction was; With the help of X-bit labs NVIDIA hopes to produce enough hype about their new FX 5900 ultra to steal an 80% share from the popular ATI Radeon cards regardless of performance.

[PimpJack]

Not that its a bad thing but ATI's and Nvidia's speed war is pretty pointless. There are no games that need these monsters and the only thing they can do for now is give u high numbers on 3dmark. The 9700p is fast enough for gameing in my oppinion. But then again i like to have badd ars speeds in 3dmark so i'm not complaining. it just seems childish for ati and nvidia to go at it and leave game makers in the dust!!!!!! They should wait until the technology and speeds are needed.

[antipop]

Originally posted by Keeper
I’m pretty sure that what we saw was a typo, the correction was; With the help of X-bit labs NVIDIA hopes to produce enough hype about their new FX 5900 ultra to steal an 80% share from the popular ATI Radeon cards regardless of performance. ROFL, that wouldn't surprise me from nvidia

[I3lackCoffee]

Wow looks like those Ultra Detonator 50xx driver's did the trick for the CARD. Will these driver's also prove worthy for GF4 cards as well?

Hell, I'm sure noone knows this by now but just asking.

[Maelstorm]

well what do you mean with learned from their mistakes? its not like they decided to create a gpu that can reach 100°C under full load even with some massive cooling, and that everybody will love that ferrari-like rooaring comming from the pc when switching to 3dmode.

As said already, one of the biggest mistakes that NVIDIA made with the NV30 was going with DDR-II combined with a 128-bit bus than DDR with a 256-bit bus. The GeForce FX GPU really has a lot of potential; the inadequate memory bandwidth was probably the main suspect of what was keeping the NV30 from being everything that it should have been.

Hopefully, with the NV35, NVIDIA will have made the correct decision and will be more successful.

This goes to everyone in the thread, can we please stop being so unreasonable? I agree that we probably shouldn't overhype this card, but we should at least give it a chance at the same time.

[Keeper]

First off, and this goes to everyone in the thread, can we please stop being so unreasonable? I agree that we probably shouldn't overhype this card, but we should at least give it a chance at the same time.

I don’t think anyone is really being unreasonable, after the NV30 NVIDIA lost a lot of credibility, and it just can’t be won back with the old “trust me” line. I have been a NVIDIA fan for along time, but now its like I am from Missouri, show me. We will all change our tune “if” the NV35 thoroughly kicks butt and doesn’t need a prommie to cool it.

[Roop]

yeah who cares if the geforce 5 cards suck? nvidia doesn't suck. how many of you have an nforce2? that's what i thought. it has great onboard sound and lan (low cpu usage on both). nforce3 should be better.

(note: i run a 9700pro)

[Johnny Knoxvill]

Originally posted by PimpJack
it just seems childish for ati and nvidia to go at it and leave game makers in the dust!!!!!! They should wait until the technology and speeds are needed.

doom 3 will need it

[CCW]

doom 3 requires geforce 3 but will workwith geforce 4 ti cards

[TerroH8er]

Well, although I agree with everyone about nVidia making their recent cards barely overclockable at all, but you have to think about it from a marketing point of view. If Joe Sixpack goes to the store and asks a salesperson "what is faster", and the FX 5900 is faster than the R9800 Pro, then the salesperson will say the FX 5900 even if the R9800 Pro is way more overclockable. nVidia only cares about making their card the fastest STOCK card out there, enthusiasts like us only make up a VERY VERY small portion of the market. I think nVidia just wants to run the card's hardware to the limits, because the faster the card's stock speeds = the more word that gets out from the nerd-wannabe who tells all his friend about how fast it is = more money for nVidia.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd be very dissapointed if this card is as overclockable as the FX 5800.. I'm just trying to say that it's not entirely nVidia's fault. It would be unfair to the average person to buy a card with a large amount of untapped speed, and the only way to unlock the speed boost is to be an experienced PC user.

[Johnny Knoxvill]

Originally posted by CCW
doom 3 requires geforce 3 but will workwith geforce 4 ti cards

i'm sure it will work with a geforce 4 mx too, but if you want to play with all the settings turned on then be prepared to want a ATI 9900 pro

[XtremepH]

ya i can't wait to get my hands on doom3 to give my radeon 9700 Pro a workout

[saaya]

I’m pretty sure that what we saw was a typo, the correction was; With the help of X-bit labs NVIDIA hopes to produce enough hype about their new FX 5900 ultra to steal an 80% share from the popular ATI Radeon cards regardless of performance.
mwhahahah rofl :p

well the gpu has a lot of potential ...if they manage to make it run cooler! afaik nv30 gpus can only be oced like 5%.

and the reason why ati cards are extremely good overclockers is because they were designed to run faster, but there was no need to clock them that fast, so the clocked them lower then planned. the cards are still fast enozugh to beat nvidias cards, and the lower clockspeed means higher yields for ati=more money. remeber the radeon 8500? that card was meant to run at 250/250 as the name suggests, but the geforce 3 was more powerfull then expected so the released the card at 275/275.
the first radeon 8500 cards could only be oced to 290mhz, they were already running at their limit. thats about the same reason why the latest cards from nvidia dont oc too well...

well the 5900 pro will be released in about a week, well see what potetnial this card has then.

so far i enjoyed chatting about the card :)

its not that i hate nvidia, i just like and support underdogs, especially when they release such great and cheap alternatives like amd, ati and linux . :)

[XtremepH]

Originally posted by saaya


its not that i hate nvidia, i just like and support underdogs, especially when they release such great and cheap alternatives like amd, ati and linux . :)

i am with you on that.

[RichBa5tard]

Originally posted by Johnny Knoxvill
doom 3 will need it

Lol, we've been using that excuse since the GF3 Ti500 times.

"Yeah i need to spend 500$ on a GF3 Ti500. You might not see the difference in current games, but you will in Doom ]|[!" How many vidcards did we buy in the mean time? ;)

[saaya]

the first card of a dx generation will not be able to really run any games written for that dx, just try to play black hawk down on a radeon 8500 or ti500 , and thats not even a full dx8 game...

just like carmack said, if you want the best card to play doom3 go get one when doom3 is out :)

[charlie]

OK
So you've caught my attention, when will it ship???
C

[saaya]

no idea... id said that there are fully concentrating on the game development so the4y will not prepare something special for e3, just a video and screenies. would be a nice surprise if theyd release it on the e3, but i dont think so. so they will probably release it on halloween or in the christmas time.

[CCW]

Originally posted by Johnny Knoxvill
i'm sure it will work with a geforce 4 mx too, but if you want to play with all the settings turned on then be prepared to want a ATI 9900 pro

an MX most proabaly wont

420:

Core - 250
mem - 166 (333)

440:

core - 270
mem - 200 (400)

460:

core - 270
mem - 250 (500)

[saaya]

i just downloaded the leaked alpha agin, and i cant get it working on my g4mx from gainward... well the game is there, i can load all levels and i hear the sopubnd but i dont see anything, it just stays grey... tried all settings, maybe its the detonator driver? the alpha works on a geforce 256 with ddr, so it should be able to run on a g4mx...

@ccw i have a gainward g4mx golden sample :) (400/350=700 no mods) and i get about 9K in 3dmark2001. this card is much faster than my radeon 8500 w64mb and 9100w128mb in splinter cell and black hawk down... a lot faster!

[CCW]

mine is just over 7.5k no OC on card

[TerroH8er]

I'm pretty sure I tried it (DOOM III) on a GeForce2MX400 and it worked.. although it probably moved like 2 fph (frames per hour)