agent_x007 wrote on 2025-11-28, 19:36:

I found a bit more difference for '03 for 5600 vs 5200 : NV34U (350/700 = 2215): […]
Show full quote

shevalier wrote on 2025-11-28, 14:57:

In short, nothing worked out. The theory has been completely destroyed. With identical RAM timings, 5200 and the same one reflas […]
Show full quote

In short, nothing worked out.
The theory has been completely destroyed.
With identical RAM timings, 5200 and the same one reflashed to 5500 show completely identical results.
Only the numbers in the name of the video card are more pleasant.

I found a bit more difference for '03 for 5600 vs 5200 :
NV34U (350/700 = 2215):

The attachment 3DMark 03.PNG is no longer available

NV36U (350/700 = 2847) :

The attachment 3DMark 03.PNG is no longer available

Yes, now we can see what the extra transistors were used for.

ciornyi wrote on 2025-11-28, 20:38:

Well if its just driver related issue thats sux. As fx 5600 should be at ti 4200 level . And as i have quite a few of those its scores 11k to 15k.
here is based on pentium4 3ghz

Measuring graphics card performance in 3DMark 2001SE is pointless.
It's highly dependent on the processor.
Just put something like Ryzen in there and you'll get 40,000 points.
HWBOT is full of such "fake" screenshots.

PS. Personally, I have the impression that FХ works terribly if the core frequency is not equal to the memory frequency.
That's why Ultras are so good.

Thanks everyone for digging into this. I wasn't really thinking that they would be identical. I wasn't able to quite reach the memory speed of the FX5600 with my FX5500. I was able to hit the core speed of a reference 5600 with it though. Ended up at 325/472.
With synthetics it still wasn't quite as fast as my Gf3 ti200 on my Tualatin build.

The NV34GL also has a Quadro FX500, which has faster DDR 3.6ns and on them slightly higher clock than the FX5500 - 240MHz. Nominally, they should go to 275MHz.

Ydee wrote on Yesterday, 16:03:

The NV34GL also has a Quadro FX500, which has faster DDR 3.6ns and on them slightly higher clock than the FX5500 - 240MHz. Nominally, they should go to 275MHz.

I have an Asus 5200 (Samsung 5ns memory), and it performs excellently at 275/275 (540).

But that doesn't mean anything - on the previous page, the 3DMark03 result is 1800 points.
I repeat, without memory synchronisation with the core, the performance of the FX series drops significantly, and even the 5500 cannot catch up with the 5200 Ultra.

shevalier wrote on Yesterday, 17:03:

I have an Asus 5200 (Samsung 5ns memory), and it performs excellently at 275/275 (540). […]
Show full quote

Ydee wrote on Yesterday, 16:03:

The NV34GL also has a Quadro FX500, which has faster DDR 3.6ns and on them slightly higher clock than the FX5500 - 240MHz. Nominally, they should go to 275MHz.

I have an Asus 5200 (Samsung 5ns memory), and it performs excellently at 275/275 (540).

like this

But that doesn't mean anything - on the previous page, the 3DMark03 result is 1800 points.
I repeat, without memory synchronisation with the core, the performance of the FX series drops significantly, and even the 5500 cannot catch up with the 5200 Ultra.

My 5500 won't do 275 on memory, I'm sure. But I can synchronize clocks and test it again. See if it makes a difference.
My card is a XFX, looks like this one.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/200780183200

shevalier wrote on Yesterday, 17:03:

I have an Asus 5200 (Samsung 5ns memory), and it performs excellently at 275/275 (540).

Yea, depends on the timing and Vmem. Hynix mems I remember from Radeon 8500LE on Hercules 3D Prophet FDX - they also went high, but only with one version in bios.

my MSI fx5200 128mb 64bit gets only 4757 3Dmarks in 3dmark01 thats with a single core celeron D 360 3.46ghz, 2GB ddr2. i tried over clocking but only tested in 3dmark99, i increased core from 230 to 270 and it scored an extra 100 points, i then went up to 400 and things started getting jumpy so i went down to 350 and it was still jumpy, so finally went to 300, the benchmark ran fine and again the score went up an extra 100 points, so an increase of 70mhz on the core will only net you 200 points in 3dmark99, not really worth it.

ive also got an asus 5200, its got the poor 166mhz memory. its not so great
Re: 3dmark99 MegaThread
looks like shevalier got one of the good ones.