VOGONS

FX5700 Ultra in a 440BX board

Topic actions

First post, by Cosmic

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Would an FX5700 Ultra work in a typical 440BX board with an AGP 2x slot? TechPowerUp shows the card as AGP 8x though it's keyed for 3.3V and 1.5V. I've had no problems running an FX5200 or FX5500 in an Asus P2B-B, both of which are also listed as 8X cards with the same NV34 core, though they show up as "AGP 4x @ 2x" in GPU-Z. The biggest physical difference I can see is the 5700 requires external molex for power.

I know it's overkill for a P3 system, but I just wanted to play around with it, benchmark it, and make sure there's no issues before plugging it in for testing. Cheers :]

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce … -5700-ultra.c70

Last edited by Cosmic on 2024-06-08, 21:23. Edited 2 times in total.

Rigs: Harris 286-16 [WIP] | Am386 DX-40 | i486 DX4-100 | MMX 233 | K6-III+ 600 | P!!!-S 1.3GHz | XP 3200+ 2.3GHz | Q6600 3.2GHz

Reply 1 of 3, by The Serpent Rider

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

External power is actually better.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 2 of 3, by Cosmic

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Thanks Serpent!

The card works great, I think this is the fastest card I've ever run with a P3. Definitely still CPU bound in many games (e.g. Sims 2, San Andreas, Halo CE, Morrowind) but seems I can crank the graphics settings up a bit and still have reasonable FPS. UT2003 runs awesome, around 60-70 FPS with 6 bots at 1024x768.

Some initial 3DMark 99 benchmarks on Windows XP SP3 with 124MHz FSB (P3-S clock 1300 MHz). I didn't note the driver versions, but I think the faster CPU results were on 45.23 and the rest on 56.64.

Update: Added 900XGL, it still seems to outperform the 5700 Ultra at least in 3DMark99.

  • Quadro4 200 NVS = 8441 3D, 19299 CPU
  • Quadro FX500 = 8484 3D, 19113 CPU
  • FX5500 = 8254 3D, 18406 CPU
  • FX5700 Ultra = 8902 3D, 18231 CPU
  • Quadro4 900XGL = 9058 3D, 18678 CPU

Rigs: Harris 286-16 [WIP] | Am386 DX-40 | i486 DX4-100 | MMX 233 | K6-III+ 600 | P!!!-S 1.3GHz | XP 3200+ 2.3GHz | Q6600 3.2GHz

Reply 3 of 3, by Cosmic

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I ran a couple more benchmarks to compare the 900XGL vs FX5700 Ultra. Looks like they're pretty close except for in AquaMark 3 where the FX5700 performs much better. If you know of any other good benchmarks to run let me know. I tried Quake 3 Arena timedemos but they were within 1 FPS of each other, and 3DMark 2003 and 2005 failed to start on the FX card.

Benchmark			Quadro 4 900XGL	GeForce FX5700 Ultra
3DMark 99			9058			8902
3DMark 2000			8322			8089
3DMark 2001			7492			7777
3DMark 2003			1426			0
Aquamark 3			2310			3555
Aquamark 3 CPU		4024			4161
Aquamark 3 Total	17955			24917

Both are very CPU limited in the later benchmarks, so I'd expect higher scores all around on a faster CPU.

Rigs: Harris 286-16 [WIP] | Am386 DX-40 | i486 DX4-100 | MMX 233 | K6-III+ 600 | P!!!-S 1.3GHz | XP 3200+ 2.3GHz | Q6600 3.2GHz

Go to top of page Go to top of page
Back to Video
Close window
Close window