PNY GEFORCE FX 5600 256MB DDR Review @ Driverheaven

Zardon · Jun 26, 2003, 01:50 PM

Staff member Veridian3 has reviewed a PNY Geforce FX5600 256MB DDR and has taken a look at the performance in various benchmarking programs, along with the overclocking capabilities and talks about the Detonators.

Since we received the PNY FX 5600 two weeks ago I have spent a great deal of time looking at 3 of the most recent driver sets. It should be noted that the two sets not used in this review (43.40 and 44.03) caused various image quality concerns. Some were minor however some were serious which not only lessened the quality of the end user experience they also skewed the benchmark results for the card. In the latest beta drivers, from an end user perspective, these issues appear to have been addressed. How exactly these issues were addressed we have not had time to investigate for this review. Iâ€™m sure there will be many investigations into this when the drivers leave the beta stage by sites far more qualified to do so than us. So for this review we shall be using the recently leaked 44.65 beta drivers.

Read the review here and post your comments on our forum

Dom · Jun 26, 2003, 02:02 PM

Can see you worked very hard on this, veridian, excellent work.

Gardinen · Jun 26, 2003, 02:05 PM

Very nice review indeed. It's good to now that Driverheaven got guys that can make proffesional reviews to

But will you really be needing all that 256 mb of ram on the GFX card??? Is it worth the money?

Zardon · Jun 26, 2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gardinen
Very nice review indeed. It's good to now that Driverheaven got guys that can make proffesional reviews to

But will you really be needing all that 256 mb of ram on the GFX card??? Is it worth the money?

256 isnt really needed just yet, but I guess its future proofing .......

Gardinen · Jun 26, 2003, 02:15 PM

hehe ok. I've heard that 128 mb is only necessary if you're using dual monitors. If only one monitor it's good enough with 64 mb ram on GFX card

Zardon · Jun 26, 2003, 02:19 PM

not really, its game textures that eat up the memory especially if you are playing at 1600x1200 with all the eye candy AA and aniso on ...... but certainly dual monitor at super high resolutions is a good test of a video card.

***Veridian3*** · Jun 26, 2003, 03:55 PM

What someone needs to do is write a tool that monitors the usage of gfx memory...

Stu

Zardon · Jun 26, 2003, 04:17 PM

thats actually a very nice idea. if its feasible.

kinetic · Jun 26, 2003, 06:48 PM

Thanks for the review Veridian, nice job!

No_Style · Jun 26, 2003, 07:42 PM

I really like how this card looks. It seems to be approximately the same size as a 9500 PRO? Anyways, when you did play with the overclocking, did you hit the "Auto Detect" several times? Some review sites pointed out that the "Auto Detect" is as reliable as one may think.

***Veridian3*** · Jun 26, 2003, 10:47 PM

Yeah, i tried it manually too with powerstrip...no joy.

Stu

mike2h · Jun 27, 2003, 01:11 AM

good reveiw. no silly bul...., & very informative. thx.

evergreen · Jun 30, 2003, 03:00 PM

Nice review Veridian.

digitalwanderer · Jun 30, 2003, 03:07 PM

The review is looking good, but I got a question:

Who is Veridian3? I'm not trying to be mean, I just thought I knew all the staff here.

I gotta go finish up the review, I'm still trying to figure out if the 9600 or 5600 is the better card. (I'm leaning towards the 9600 Pro right now just because they're a bit cheaper and I like ATi a WHOLE lot better than nVidia right now.

)

FuNsTeR · Jun 30, 2003, 08:17 PM

excellent reveiw mate

i think i'll stick with my current card

RaWShadow · Jul 1, 2003, 02:50 PM

nice review. I think future games that make use of 256mb of memory would run to slow on this card, so 128mb would have been enough. Leadtek's winfox can show you how much gfx memory is being used but i think it only works on leadtek cards.

digitalwanderer · Jul 1, 2003, 03:40 PM

Which is better? The 9600 Pro or the 5600 Ultra?

(I'm serious, I'm honestly uncertain. BTW-HI VERIDIAN3!

)

***Veridian3*** · Jul 1, 2003, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
BTW-HI VERIDIAN3!

Do i know you???

Stu

Wolffvet · Jul 5, 2003, 11:38 PM

I recently purchased the PNY fx5600 and have to say that it really sucks compared to my old geforce 4 ti4400!!! Games crash all the time now and the graphics are horrid!! I have tried tweaking various settings with no avail! I am currently running the 44.03 drivers

my system
2.4 P4
abit mobo
768MB PC1066 RDRAM
2 60GB maxtors ata133
audigy soundcard
PNY fx5600 256MB video card
Windows XP Pro

madman66 · Jul 10, 2003, 02:15 AM

I admit that i was a sucker for the fx 5600 but when i benched with 3dmark2001se i came up with a score of 6589 then i benched my ti4200 64mb card and wow 10450..same settingson both cards. i do believe that this card has got some problems with it. well it does not take a rocket scientist to figure this one out, the fx5600 went in a box for a back up. maybe i can sell on ebay. :evil

System Specs.

AMD Atlon XP 2200+
Soyo KT400 Ultra Mobo
2- 80 GIG WD Drive
512 PC2700 DDR 333 Memory
SB Audigy

Wolffvet · Jul 12, 2003, 07:22 PM

I took the fx5600 back and got a ati 9800 pro and I love it. Sorry Nvidia but your new cards suck!! lol

Jun 26, 2003, 01:50 PM	#1
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	PNY Geforce FX 5600 256MB DDR Review @ Driverheaven Staff member Veridian3 has reviewed a PNY Geforce FX5600 256MB DDR and has taken a look at the performance in various benchmarking programs, along with the overclocking capabilities and talks about the Detonators. Since we received the PNY FX 5600 two weeks ago I have spent a great deal of time looking at 3 of the most recent driver sets. It should be noted that the two sets not used in this review (43.40 and 44.03) caused various image quality concerns. Some were minor however some were serious which not only lessened the quality of the end user experience they also skewed the benchmark results for the card. In the latest beta drivers, from an end user perspective, these issues appear to have been addressed. How exactly these issues were addressed we have not had time to investigate for this review. Iâ€™m sure there will be many investigations into this when the drivers leave the beta stage by sites far more qualified to do so than us. So for this review we shall be using the recently leaked 44.65 beta drivers. Read the review here and post your comments on our forum

Jun 26, 2003, 07:42 PM	#10
No_Style Styleless Wonder Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 6,034 Rep Power: 0	Great Review I really like how this card looks. It seems to be approximately the same size as a 9500 PRO? Anyways, when you did play with the overclocking, did you hit the "Auto Detect" several times? Some review sites pointed out that the "Auto Detect" is as reliable as one may think. __________________ "The Best Style Is No Style" Specifications Here

Jun 27, 2003, 01:11 AM	#12
mike2h DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: norcal Posts: 6,483 Rep Power: 91 System Specs	good reveiw. no silly bul...., & very informative. thx. __________________

Jun 30, 2003, 03:07 PM	#14
digitalwanderer Colour Commentator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Highland, IN USA Posts: 5,619 Rep Power: 0	Veridian3? The review is looking good, but I got a question: Who is Veridian3? I'm not trying to be mean, I just thought I knew all the staff here. I gotta go finish up the review, I'm still trying to figure out if the 9600 or 5600 is the better card. (I'm leaning towards the 9600 Pro right now just because they're a bit cheaper and I like ATi a WHOLE lot better than nVidia right now. ) __________________ WTF is up with the sigs?

Jun 30, 2003, 08:17 PM	#15
FuNsTeR Caledonian and Proud Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darkest Ayrshire Posts: 1,305 Rep Power: 88 System Specs	excellent reveiw mate i think i'll stick with my current card __________________ "They say when you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear satanic messages ..... but that's nothing, if you play it forward it will install Windows"

Jun 26, 2003, 02:02 PM	#2
Dom DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,940 Rep Power: 0	Can see you worked very hard on this, veridian, excellent work.

Jun 26, 2003, 02:05 PM	#3
Gardinen DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Trollhättan, Sweden Posts: 512 Rep Power: 0	Very nice review indeed. It's good to now that Driverheaven got guys that can make proffesional reviews to But will you really be needing all that 256 mb of ram on the GFX card??? Is it worth the money?

Jun 26, 2003, 02:15 PM	#5
Gardinen DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Trollhättan, Sweden Posts: 512 Rep Power: 0	hehe ok. I've heard that 128 mb is only necessary if you're using dual monitors. If only one monitor it's good enough with 64 mb ram on GFX card

Jun 26, 2003, 02:19 PM	Thread Starter #6
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	not really, its game textures that eat up the memory especially if you are playing at 1600x1200 with all the eye candy AA and aniso on ...... but certainly dual monitor at super high resolutions is a good test of a video card.

Jun 26, 2003, 03:55 PM	#7
*Veridian3* Administrator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cloaked Posts: 5,028 Rep Power: 181	What someone needs to do is write a tool that monitors the usage of gfx memory... Stu

Jun 26, 2003, 04:17 PM	Thread Starter #8
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	thats actually a very nice idea. if its feasible.

Jun 26, 2003, 06:48 PM	#9
kinetic DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Manchester England Posts: 2,559 Rep Power: 0	Thanks for the review Veridian, nice job!

Jun 26, 2003, 10:47 PM	#11
*Veridian3* Administrator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cloaked Posts: 5,028 Rep Power: 181	Yeah, i tried it manually too with powerstrip...no joy. Stu

Jun 30, 2003, 03:00 PM	#13
evergreen DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: West Virginia Posts: 148 Rep Power: 0	Nice review Veridian.

Jul 1, 2003, 02:50 PM	#16
RaWShadow DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4 Rep Power: 0	nice review. I think future games that make use of 256mb of memory would run to slow on this card, so 128mb would have been enough. Leadtek's winfox can show you how much gfx memory is being used but i think it only works on leadtek cards.

Jul 1, 2003, 03:40 PM	#17
digitalwanderer Colour Commentator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Highland, IN USA Posts: 5,619 Rep Power: 0	Dumb question. Which is better? The 9600 Pro or the 5600 Ultra? (I'm serious, I'm honestly uncertain. BTW-HI VERIDIAN3! ) __________________ WTF is up with the sigs?

Jul 5, 2003, 11:38 PM	#19
Wolffvet DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 8 Rep Power: 0	I recently purchased the PNY fx5600 and have to say that it really sucks compared to my old geforce 4 ti4400!!! Games crash all the time now and the graphics are horrid!! I have tried tweaking various settings with no avail! I am currently running the 44.03 drivers my system 2.4 P4 abit mobo 768MB PC1066 RDRAM 2 60GB maxtors ata133 audigy soundcard PNY fx5600 256MB video card Windows XP Pro

Jul 10, 2003, 02:15 AM	#20
madman66 DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Virginia Posts: 1 Rep Power: 0	I admit that i was a sucker for the fx 5600 but when i benched with 3dmark2001se i came up with a score of 6589 then i benched my ti4200 64mb card and wow 10450..same settingson both cards. i do believe that this card has got some problems with it. well it does not take a rocket scientist to figure this one out, the fx5600 went in a box for a back up. maybe i can sell on ebay. :evil System Specs. AMD Atlon XP 2200+ Soyo KT400 Ultra Mobo 2- 80 GIG WD Drive 512 PC2700 DDR 333 Memory SB Audigy

Jul 12, 2003, 07:22 PM	#21
Wolffvet DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 8 Rep Power: 0	I took the fx5600 back and got a ati 9800 pro and I love it. Sorry Nvidia but your new cards suck!! lol