• PC World
• » Components

NVidia's GeForce FX 5200 Ultra and GeForce FX 5600 Ultra graphics chips bring DirectX 9--the newest version of Microsoft's application programming interface for rendering 2D and 3D graphics--to the masses. The chips are now showing up in sub-$150 and sub-$200 graphics cards, respectively. Unfortunately, major DX9 games are not due until later this year, and without those games to make the chips look good, PC World tests show that they aren't particularly impressive.

We looked at two NVidia reference boards, each carrying 128MB of RAM (shipping boards should be available by the time you read this). Both produced largely middling performance, although early drivers may be partly to blame. For example, in our Return to Castle Wolfenstein test, at a resolution of 1600 by 1200 and at 32-bit color depth, the 5200 Ultra board reached 27 frames per second--just 2 fps faster than a shipping 64MB Asus AGP-V8170DDR card using the NVidia GeForce4 MX 440 chip, the 5200 Ultra's predecessor. In contrast to the 5200 Ultra's numbers, a shipping version of a 64MB VisionTek Xtasy card bearing ATI's Radeon 9100 chip achieved 39 fps (the Radeon chip does not have DX9 support, however).

The 5600 Ultra didn't fare much better on the same test, delivering 30 fps. Meanwhile, a shipping 128MB AOpen Aeolus board using the older GeForce4 Ti 4200 chip hit 46 fps; a shipping 128MB VisionTek Xtasy with ATI's Radeon 9500 Pro chip scored 55 fps.

At lower resolutions in the Castle Wolfenstein test, the NVidia chips were more competitive. At 1024 by 768 resolution and 32-bit color, the 5200 Ultra hit 57 fps and the 5600 Ultra reached 61 fps (compared with 64 fps for each of the ATI cards). The MX 440 card reached 55 fps and the Ti 4200 hit 66 fps.

At the same settings, Unreal Tournament 2003 tests yielded 74 fps for the 5200 Ultra and 134 fps for the 5600 Ultra, compared with 72 fps for the 9100 and 157 fps for the 9500 Pro. The MX 440 board hit 56 fps and the Ti 4200 card reached 132 fps.

The NVidia boards also failed to impress in our subjective tests for antialiasing, which smooths jagged edges of on-screen items, creating a more natural-looking image.

Overall, the 9500 Pro scored best, the Ti 4200 was next, and the 5600 Ultra placed third. In the entry-level chip race, the 9100 squeaked past the 5200 Ultra, and that chip, in turn, surpassed the MX 440.

Though NVidia stumbled earlier with its disappointing high-end 5800 Ultra chip, the company appeared set to redeem itself with its DX9-ready mainstream products. Judging from these early tests, however, that redemption may have to wait. Budget graphics aficionados will get more oomph from existing NVidia- and ATI-based cards, and even more options are on the way: By the time you read this, replacements for ATI's 9100 and 9500 Pro should be available.

SUMMARY

NVidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra and GeForce FX 5600 Ultra (Preproduction cards, not rated) New chips support DX9, but so-so performance is hard to overlook. Price when reviewed: FX 5200 Ultra, $150; FX 5600 Ultra, $200

• See more like this:
• New Products,
• New Products: NVidia Budget Graphics Chips Disappoint,
• NVidia Budget Graphics Chips Disappoint,
• graphics chips,
• graphics,
• graphics chip,
• nvidia,
• nvidia geforce fx 5200 ultra,
• nvidia geforce fx 5600 ultra,
• graphics boards,
• graphics board,
• graphics cards,
• graphics card,
• geforce fx 5600 ultra,
• geforce fx 5200 ultra