Final Words

After testing the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra, we have been very pleasantly surprised by NVIDIA. We mentioned last week that the 5700's new architecture might help to close the gap. In fact, NVIDIA has flipped the tables on ATI in the midrange segment and takes the performance crown with a late round TKO. It was a hard fought battle with many ties, but in the games where the NV36 based card took the performance lead, it lead with the style of a higher end card.

We are still recommending that people stay away from upgrading to a high end card until the game they are upgrading for is available. By that time, either new cards will have trickled out, or the prices will have fallen. We still don't have a way to predict what card will be best for you in the future. If you are dead set on getting a DX9 card, we recommend you look to the midrange cards.

Neither card can touch the 9700 Pro for price/performance right now. If the 9700 Pro is in your price range and you're looking for a better than midrange performer for a near midrange price, go ahead and pick one up.

The GeForce FX 5700 Ultra will be debuting at $199 after a mail in rebate. If $200 is your hard limit, and you need a midrange card right now, the 5700 Ultra is the way to go if you want solid frame rates.

If $200 is still a bit much, the Radeon 9600 Pro is a very healthy option; we have yet to see how the non-Ultra 5700 performs as it may also deserve some attention once it hits the streets.

What will also determine our recommendations in this segment is what clock speeds add-in card vendors actually ship the products at. We’ll be keeping an eye on that and update our recommendations accordingly.

Of course, we still have more to come in the form of image quality analysis. Our findings in that arena will affect what we recommend just as much as pure speed. Stay tuned for more.

X2: The Threat Performance
Comments Locked

114 Comments

View All Comments

  • XPgeek - Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - link

    Today I purchased this eVGA GF FX 5700 Ultra. i have no complaints of image quality. i am using the 52.16 betas, and Battlefiled 1942 and its XPacks run great, as do the rest of my games. The only issue i have is its length. in my case, the power connector nestles right up to one of my hard drives. but it does fit. barely.

    To re-itterate, this is a very nice card. no, i havent tested a 9600Pro / XT myself, but o well. no i dont work for AT or any other reviewing site. and no im not biased. i actually went to Best Buy to get a 9600 Pro, but saw the 5700U instead. so i wont get HL2 for free. o well, i'll just buy it when it comes out.
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    you misspelled comparing 110, doh! rofl you sux!
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    106, if you read the review and don't get the impression that it's a rushed and shoddy job, well then you're just not a particularly smart or insightful person. which is ok, no one said you had to be. again, i'm camparing this to the old AT from 2,3,4 years ago. read some of the older reviews, and you'll see what i mean. or maybe you won't, whatever.
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    that'd be earth 106. and you? thanks 108.
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    #104 you mispelled the word fuck.
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    ...nvidia sucks.
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    #104, you're officially an idiot. AT didn't spend "much time"? What planet are you living on.
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    Firingsquad has a decent image quality article up today. You can draw your own conclusion from the screen shots.
  • Anonymous User - Monday, October 27, 2003 - link

    why does anandtech use these anonymous forums? it just encourages all of this nonsense. wtf are you yelling at eachother fanboy-this and fanboy-that? grow the fuk up.

    that said, i think anyone who has been a fan of AT (like myself) must be concerned with the recent nature of the graphics card reviews. i'm an owner of both nvidia and ati cards, and am too damn old to be a fanboy (maybe i'm a fanman). ATs recent reviews have been rubbish. I understand about trying to get info out in a timely fashion, but these reviews read like they were written the night before they were due (so to speak). i mean, if i were grading these as college papers or something, AT would get a D at best. i'm mostly comparing this to previous AT work, not other websites. i'm still an AT fan, i'm not goin anywhere.

    for some reason, the problems seem to be with the graphic card reviews more than anythng else. maybe because this is the most competetive market, and they have to pump it out ASAP.. it just feels like they're not giving much time to their reviews.

    the posters that have done the metrics on the review seem to have the right idea. specifically, it looks most like a tie to me, with 5700ultra being best in opengl situations, and 9600xt being best in other situations (ok, maybe that's not a tie :)
    the "TKO" conclusion certainly is baffling.
  • Anonymous User - Sunday, October 26, 2003 - link

    Stop acting like a fanboy #102, you look stupider by the second. Oh, and I'd like to see you try to keep my mouth shut. Ahhh, too bad, the little geek has no control over the situation. lol

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now