MSI GeForce FX 5950 Ultra
Benchmarking Results: Gaming applications
From synthetic applications, we are now moving on to analyzing the performance of the graphic boards in real gaming applications.
The anticipated absolute equality of results for the three cases has been achieved.
At that, the situation is even more interesting. The overclocked NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 board leaves the counterparts well behind. You can also see a definite lag of the 53.03 driver as compared to 52.16.
In our new gaming benchmark which we'll use instead of Return to Castle Wolfenstein onwards, Call of Duty also uses the modified engine Quake 3: Arena, we can observe a small lag of the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 board, as well as a small gain achieved by MSI FX5950 Ultra VTD256 based on the ForceWare 52.16 driver.
There is a small advantage achieved by the new ForceWare 53.03 driver.
A definite noticeable lag of the "overclocked FX 5950 Ultra".
A complete parity on all fronts.
Like in the previous test, a compete parity on all fronts.
The differences in results can be safely attributed to the measurement error.
But Half-life 2 demonstrates a quite noticeable gain with ForceWare 53.03.
Final Words
Tests of the new NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (NV38) chip have shown that we get an absolutely the same NV35 but which has undergone a more thorough screening for operation at higher speeds. Our tests have shown that if we average the results, then we see that the same performance level as in video cards built on the NV38 can be obtained through overclocking a regular card built on the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 chip, which is logical because no architectural novelties have been implemented in NV38. The performance boost attained due to "overclocking the NV35" is of course attained, but in most cases this is not what is anticipated from NVIDIA. Currently, the company does need a new chip and, as it seems to us, it will be made in full conformity with the HLSV architecture (forget about the Cg) because the Canadian rival is now taking stronger positions. What is left to us is merely have a look at tests of the new NVIDIA's flagship solution implemented by MSI, then look at the prices, breathe in deeply and patiently wait for NV40 =).
Regarding the MSI FX5950 Ultra VTD256 board. An excellent product with a remarkable package bundle (traditional for MSI). MSI FX5950 Ultra VTD256 appears to be a complete replica of the reference design, and implementation of such complex PCB like that in NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra is the most optimum solution. Despite the operation of the NV38 chip at the extreme speed, the MSI FX 5950 Ultra VTD256 board shows quite good overclocking results. What is left to the end users (who are not so many for this goods because of its extremely high price) is to be guided first by the product price offered by other manufacturers, since other manufacturers are very unlikely to make something out of the ordinary with graphic boards built on the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra. In this case, subjective factors like the brand name of the manufacturer and the package bundle come into play. At that, MSI has every reason to be a good buy.
MSI GeForce FX 5950 Ultra was presented by 3Logic.
Read more on this topic:
 ATI VGA Roundup `2003
3DMark2003 build 320 vs 340: A rare moment of truth?
Tests of ForceWare 52.16: FX 5900 versus Radeon 9800Pro
ASUS RADEON 9800 XT: a turning point
Tests of ATI Radeon 9800 PRO
FX 5900 versus Radeon 9800Pro
FX 5600Ultra versus Radeon 9600Pro
FX 5200 versus Radeon 9200
Forum:
3DMark2003 build 320 vs 340: A rare moment of truth? (2 3)
Discussions of drivers for NVIDIA video cards (2 3 4 5 6 7)
Discussions of drivers for ATI video cards (2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 11)
Benchmarking methods:
"DooM 3" as a benchmark
3DMark 2003: see the future
"AquaMark 3" Benchmarking Package
"Unreal Tournament 2003" as a benchmark
"Max Payne" as a benchmark
"Serious Sam" as a benchmark
 |
Content: |
 |
|
|
Top Stories: |
|
 |
|
MoBo:
|
|
|
|
VGA Card:
|
|
|
|
CPU & Memory:
|
|
|
