fx5950 a disapointment, but fx5700 has potentional

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12020


fx5900 is 450/850
fx5950 is 475/950


wha? Nvidia must be having yield and heat issues on the core! all rumors pointed to 500/1000 as the min since the fx5800u had that, but I guess Nvidia could not get enough 500MHz chips, plus they ran too hot and unstable.

fx5600u 400/800(if you get lucky with a revision2)
fx5700 475/900

ok now thats not too shabby a clock increase and the 900MHz, even of 128 bit provides serious bandwith increases over the 9600xt. Its ironic that Nvidia's shaders are weak since at those ram clocks, it could easily eat a 9600xt. It may indeed eat the 9600xt in dx8 games and 3dmark2001 making the fx5700 a good card for 3dmark2001 and older games, especially with aa/af. I wonder how much it eats the ti4200, it better by alot for the price and even in 3dmark2001 at that

I don't care how high Nvidia clocks there cards, remember the short lived 9800 Ultra's high clock speeds did not help it much , all I would want to know is will it suck at newer DX9 apps like the rest of them?:(

agreed. the fx5950 is a total waste, but would the fx5700 be worth for anyone to get? at least ya gotta give nvidia credit for making the ti4200........best card ever.......in terms of value :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
agreed. the fx5950 is a total waste, but would the fx5700 be worth for anyone to get? at least ya gotta give nvidia credit for making the ti4200........best card ever.......in terms of value :p

---

Maybe in your country but here in Canada a 9600 Pro is cheaper than a old Ti4200 still.:eek:

$227 9600 Pro

$262 Ti4200

No big deal though I dont think this site never sold a Nvidia card in the last 7 months anyways.

The 9800 and Ti4600 are the same price also.LOL