ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 and NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5650: Taking on DX9
by Andrew Ku on September 14, 2003 11:04 PM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
NVIDIA – GeForce FX Go5600 and GeForce FX Go5650
For high-end mobile systems, NVIDIA brings the GeForce FX Go5600 (NV31M), which is appropriately based on the GeForce FX 5600 (NV31), the specs of which can be found here. The specification of the Go version compared to its desktop big brother is virtually the same. As we cited in our preview, it is produced on a 0.13 micron process, is a full DX9 part, shares a number of similarities with the NV30, and consumes 1.0V while running.
The original GeForce FX 5600 Ultra graphics processor, which includes the Go part, are supposed to be clocked at 350MHz core clock and 350MHz memory clock (700MHz effective). However, we have only been aware of original GeForce FX Go5600 shipping at the highest of 270MHz core clock and 300MHz memory clock. The reason why we use the term “original” is because the GeForce FX Go5600 has undergone a refresh. Like the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra, the Go part has two versions now. One is the GeForce FX Go5600 and the other, the GeForce FX Go5650. The first of the two is based on the wire bond design, and the second is the flip-chip. The flip-chip design allows the GeForce FX Go5650 to hit higher frequencies when compared to its predecessor. The flip-chip version of the desktop GeForce FX 5600 Ultra is clocked at 400MHz core and 400MHz memory (800MHz effective). As of late, we have only seen a shipping version of the GeForce FX Go5650 clocked at 325MHz core clock and 295MHz memory clock. So basically, there are two versions of the desktop NV31 and the NV31M. Though, the desktop version doesn’t have a new name incantation like the mobile line. NVIDIA has informed us that they have already started the transition, and we expect to see all future mobile systems (and those announced within a few weeks) to hit the shelves with the new flip-chip version of NV31M.
In the GeForce FX Go5200 and GeForce FX Go5600 preview, we mentioned the support for component output and a MPEG2 decode assist engine. However, we still have yet to test these two features, and will report back once we do, accordingly. For a more detailed look into GeForce FX Go5200 and GeForce FX Go5650, read our original preview.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
#25 those benchmarks were performed at 1280x1024 with 4x AA and 8x AF. They provide a better theoretical test than lower settings because the test will be more GPU-limited than CPU-limited: if you wanted to play the game at good frame rate you would not be using such high settings.However I agree we need to see real-world numbers too: what settings are necessary to see reasonable frame rates out of this (say 40-50 FPS)?
Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
#18 what are you talking about? Isn't that the opposite of what I (#17) said? Or did a post get deleted to cause numbers to get out of sync?#19 Andrew so you admit these numbers don't actually tell you how the game will perform using the "appropriate" code path for the 56x0? Even though that reduces image quality so shouldn't really be compared directly to the Radeon, it still would be nice to see real-world numbers for the sake of comparison.
Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
"The scores that we achieved in AquaMark 3 are similarly reminiscent of our scores in Half-Life 2 but without such large margins. In AquaMark 3, the GeForce FX Go5650 achieves sub 10 fps scores in all but one of the scenarios. Meanwhile, the Mobility Radeon 9600 on the average is situated in the mid teens. Minimally, though, the Mobility Radeon 9600 shows its clear lead over the GeForce FX Go5650 with a 58% lead. At its best, the Mobility Radeon 9600 doubles the margin between its counterpart, and this just reinforces the GeForce FX Go5650’s trouble in true DX9 benchmarks."I really think there is a misinterpretation of the AquaMark 3 numbers. What is the point of being able to one gpu outperforms the other in up to 58% if none of them can push numbers above 24 fps? The reviewer should have noted that none of theses solutions will do when it comes to all DX9 games even in low quality setups.
The honest recomendation would better be: wait for the next gen DX9 mobile chips because there is not such thing as true DX9 mobile solution neither from Nvidia nor from ATI.
dvinnen - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
<<<We are currently revising our graphics benchmark suite in the anticipation of future DX9 stuff. These two GPUs are full DX9 parts, and we are benchmarking them accordingly. UT2003 and our current line of benchmarking titles are DX8, and therefore aren't specifically appropriate for this context. Why are our choices of benchmark titles odd? The Mobility and Go mobile graphics parts are no more than mobile version of desktop processors (clocked down, better power management features and in the M10 case integrated memory package).>>>I understand that. But the whole suite dosen't have to be dx9 to get an idea how it will play. I agreee with HL2, Warcraft3, and Splinter Cell, because lots of people play them. (Or in the case of HL2, will play.) AquaMark3 is also a good choice. But not all games are going to be Dx9. OpenGL is still a viable choice. Doom3 is going to use it and many games will be using the engin in the comeing years. I also brought up UT03 because lots of people play it. Quake3 is rather usless now, I agree. It became outdated long ago and now people are pushing 500 fps on it. But a OpenGL benchmark (like RtCW:ET, and yes I know it's still based on Quake3 engin, but you don't get the insane FPS) would be apprciated.
Andrew Ku - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
#20: Please look at our test configuration page. The divers we used are the newest available drivers for testing, at per the time of the head to head. Remember, mobile drivers need to be vailidated by the mobile system vendor, not the graphics part vendor.Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
No drivers are going to make up a 400% differential (!). Nvidia had better get their act together for NV4x.Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
Ugghh...I just purchased a Dell Inspiron 8600 with the 128mb Geforce Go 5650. Was looking forward to having a mobile platform to play some of the upcoming games. How disappointing to realize that the 5650 just won't be up to snuff. Nvidia should be ashamed of themselves...
I would have liked to have waited until a ATI radeon 9600 came out for a dell system, but I got a good deal on the laptop and the 9600 card just doesn't seem to have wide distribution yet except in some very expensive custom laptops. Maybe I'll be able to switch out my Nvidia card for an ATI card when it becomes available from Dell?
Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
I would like to know if this was done using the Rel 50 drivers that aren't "publically released". I remeber hearing comment that these drivers were made for DX9 Games (I think) and that NVIDIA stopped research on the current drivers in DX9 months ago. I really think it would skew the results and the benchmarks do about as much good as the ones posted on HL2 benchmarks a couple days ago. (Sept 12th I think)Also, that comment on openGL makes me think.
Don't get me wrong NVIDIA isn't looking to good,
But if the drivers aren't the upmost recent on there card I'd like to know how it's a head to head test?
Andrew Ku - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
#17: The article was subtitled "Taking on DX9." Therefore we benchmarked in DX9 as we stated on the Half-Life 2 page.Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
#17: Yes you are correct. We should all run our monitors at 30Hz too, any more is a waste.