There is no denying that everyone wants to get their hands on one of the latest and high-powered graphics cards released from either nVidia or ATI. Unfortunately a lot of people cannot afford this luxury and for these people the release of these new high-end cards has brought with it a slight price drop in some of the older model of cards which we intend on focusing on here. Today we are looking at nVidia's GeForce FX 5900XT and 5700, both from very well respected video card manufacturers - Albatron and Prolink.
We will be looking at the cheaper 5700 Turbo card from Albatron with 128MB of memory onboard. Although instead simply just being a vanilla 5700, Albatron choose to beef up the product by overclocking over default with some additional cooling and giving it the label the Albatron 5700P Turbo.
On the other end, we have the latest Prolink PixelView 5900XT with 256MB of memory onboard which has quite a mean looking heatsink fan combination and an interesting temperature display device included.
We know that the 5700P Turbo from Albatron is going to be slower then the 5900XT in our tests but apart from these two cards we've included benchmarks from a number of other recent nVidia based cards from different market segments which should give you a good idea of what you want to purchase this year.
Let's have a look at what these graphics cards offer us and how they compare to a range of others.
PRICING: You can find products similar to this one for sale below.
United States: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon's website.
United Kingdom: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon UK's website.
Canada: Find other tech and computer products like this over at Amazon Canada's website.
- GeForce FX Comparison - Page 1 [Introduction]
- GeForce FX Comparison - Page 2 [The Cards - Albatron 5700P Turbo]
- GeForce FX Comparison - Page 3 [The Cards - Prolink PixelView 5900XT]
- GeForce FX Comparison - Page 4 [Benchmarks - Test System Setup and 3DMark 2001SE]
- GeForce FX Comparison - Page 5 [Benchmarks - 3DMark 2003]
- GeForce FX Comparison - Page 6 [Benchmarks - Aquamark 3]
- GeForce FX Comparison - Page 7 [Benchmarks - Jedi Knight 2]
- GeForce FX Comparison - Page 8 [Benchmarks - Unreal Tournament 2003]
- GeForce FX Comparison - Page 9 [Benchmarks - Unreal Tournament 2004 Demo]
- GeForce FX Comparison - Page 10 [Benchmarks - Comanche 4]
- GeForce FX Comparison - Page 11 [Benchmarks - Quake 3]
- GeForce FX Comparison - Page 12 [Final Thoughts]
- We at TweakTown openly invite the companies who provide us with review samples / who are mentioned or discussed to express their opinion of our content. If any company representative wishes to respond, we will publish the response here.
Latest News Posts
- ASUS ROG Strix XG32VQ: 31.5-inch 1440p 144Hz FreeSync
- GALAX GeForce GTX 1070 Katana: hands-on with the ninja
- GALAX GeForce GTX 1080 Ti HOF Limited Edition detailed
- GALAX shows off GTX 1080 Ti HOF OC Lab Edition
- MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Lightning Z in detail
- Intel Introduces X299, Kabylake-X, and Skylake-X
- Lian Li PC-Q25B - distance between stand and edge of case
- LaCie Bolt3 2TB Thunderbolt 3 Review
- Asrock X99 Extreme11 reports only 48GB instead of 64 GB
- H270m Pro4 Can't boot with my SSD, stuck on splash
- HyperX expand DDR4 memory with higher density kits up to 4,000MHz
- Western Digital to deliver world's first client solid state drives with 64-layer 3D NAND technology
- Qualcomm fuels IoT growth by currently delivering more than 1 million chips a day into a wide range of connected applications
- Team Group announces theme for COMPUTEX 2017 showcase: go beyond the limit and reach for the top
- SAPPHIRE announces PULSE Radeon RX 560 graphics card