The FX series was trully a blunder but sadly nvidia rushed it's making and thus it got the crappy shader model 2.a which is much weaker than 2.0.
It's shader possibility is mainly made so that you can see dx9 data in programs like 3dsmax but in our days who would use this video card with 3ds max?
@FOGoticus It supports 2.0. 2.0a is an extension to 2.0 because the FX series support some things above straight 2.0, but are not capable of 3.0. The chip is however just really slow for anything beyond PS 1.4.
@FOGoticus It's similar to ATI's SM 2.0b, it's a superset of straight 2.0. Some games do use 2.0, 2.0a and 2.0b. Far Cry and Oblivion do, for example.
I believe the main reason to use 2.0a on FX is it has extra features that can make the FX cards faster. The problem is that FX still won't be as fast as ATI R3x0.
@martonium Are you serious? You expect this to work on such an old card? Oblivion was incredibly demanding on any hardware out at the time of it's release. The RECOMMENDED card was a 7800GTX for smooth framerates. Oblivion struggled in high detail on a 6800ULTRA which was 2 years NEWER than an fx5950 and it also cost a shit load more. On the 5950's release the best games were like UT2k3! NOT oblivion!
It's like saying a TNT2 is shit cos it can't run Morrowind.
@TheVanillatech Well you have to realize that a 9800 Pro can run Oblivion a lot better than this 5950U. I've compared them myself. 9800 runs the game several times faster. You can play at 1024x768 with high quality settings.
@swaaye The 9800pro is pound for pound a better card than a 5950U. I only say this because, as you probably already know, if you benched 30 tests on both cards and worked out the average, the 9800pro would be ahead. Not by a lot, but it would be ahead. The 5950U would outperform the 9800 on OpenGL games, particularly Doom3, Riddick (especially Riddick) and Quake 4. But the 9800pro is the best. Every now and then a game like Oblivion shows a big difference, but thats down to programming.
@TheVanillatech The Radeon 9800 series can run this game a lot better and is from the same generation as the GeForce FX line, which was the comparison that I was going by. Half-Life 2 follows a similar pattern. I think you need to take a chill pill there.
I'm impressed. The CPU is helping the card way too much. I tried to play Oblivion when it was brand new on a FX5600XT and a Celeron 2.4. The result was quite underwhelming hahahaha
@swaaye Yeah I know.I didn't think the CPU made much of a difference until I got a P4 2.8GHz. It was quite a jump from the Celeron. I got a GeForce 7600GS too so that was very cool :D
The FX series was trully a blunder but sadly nvidia rushed it's making and thus it got the crappy shader model 2.a which is much weaker than 2.0.
It's shader possibility is mainly made so that you can see dx9 data in programs like 3dsmax but in our days who would use this video card with 3ds max?
FOGoticus 1 week ago
@FOGoticus It supports 2.0. 2.0a is an extension to 2.0 because the FX series support some things above straight 2.0, but are not capable of 3.0. The chip is however just really slow for anything beyond PS 1.4.
swaaye 1 week ago
@swaaye Go and search online. Shader model 2.0a was made for Direct X 9.0a which got barely used.
FOGoticus 1 week ago
@FOGoticus It's similar to ATI's SM 2.0b, it's a superset of straight 2.0. Some games do use 2.0, 2.0a and 2.0b. Far Cry and Oblivion do, for example.
I believe the main reason to use 2.0a on FX is it has extra features that can make the FX cards faster. The problem is that FX still won't be as fast as ATI R3x0.
swaaye 1 week ago
Cool. I always wondered how Oblivion performed on a 5950!
JoeyJoeJoe5000 3 months ago
Please load a video of COD4 (If it runs)
BarackMcBush 4 months ago
Jesus effing christ.. the FX line has got to be the biggest blunder of the decade
martonium 7 months ago
@martonium Yeah and don't miss its other non-performance in FEAR!
swaaye 7 months ago
@martonium Are you serious? You expect this to work on such an old card? Oblivion was incredibly demanding on any hardware out at the time of it's release. The RECOMMENDED card was a 7800GTX for smooth framerates. Oblivion struggled in high detail on a 6800ULTRA which was 2 years NEWER than an fx5950 and it also cost a shit load more. On the 5950's release the best games were like UT2k3! NOT oblivion!
It's like saying a TNT2 is shit cos it can't run Morrowind.
TheVanillatech 3 months ago
@TheVanillatech Well you have to realize that a 9800 Pro can run Oblivion a lot better than this 5950U. I've compared them myself. 9800 runs the game several times faster. You can play at 1024x768 with high quality settings.
swaaye 3 months ago
@swaaye The 9800pro is pound for pound a better card than a 5950U. I only say this because, as you probably already know, if you benched 30 tests on both cards and worked out the average, the 9800pro would be ahead. Not by a lot, but it would be ahead. The 5950U would outperform the 9800 on OpenGL games, particularly Doom3, Riddick (especially Riddick) and Quake 4. But the 9800pro is the best. Every now and then a game like Oblivion shows a big difference, but thats down to programming.
TheVanillatech 3 months ago
@TheVanillatech The Radeon 9800 series can run this game a lot better and is from the same generation as the GeForce FX line, which was the comparison that I was going by. Half-Life 2 follows a similar pattern. I think you need to take a chill pill there.
martonium 1 week ago
ouch the fillrate!
Now try a FX5200 I DARE YOU
leileilol 8 months ago
I'm impressed. The CPU is helping the card way too much. I tried to play Oblivion when it was brand new on a FX5600XT and a Celeron 2.4. The result was quite underwhelming hahahaha
F2bnp 8 months ago
@F2bnp Yeah your old setup would have been very limited by both GPU and CPU. With the test here I wanted to show only GPU limits.
swaaye 8 months ago
@swaaye Yeah I know.I didn't think the CPU made much of a difference until I got a P4 2.8GHz. It was quite a jump from the Celeron. I got a GeForce 7600GS too so that was very cool :D
F2bnp 8 months ago