Side-by-Side Spec Comparison
Here's a table comparing the nVIDIA FX5600, FX5600 Ultra, ATI R9600, and R9600 Pro.
| Graphics Engine | FX5600 | FX5600 Ultra | R9600 | R9600 Pro |
| Process | 130nm | 130nm | 130nm | 130nm |
| Core Clock | 325MHz | 400MHz | 325MHz | 400MHz |
| Memory Clock | 550MHz | 800MHz | 400MHz | 600MHz |
| Memory Interface | 128 bit | 128 bit | 128 bit | 128 bit |
| Memory Bandwidth | 8.8 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s | 6.4 GB/s | 9.6 GB/s |
| Pipelines x tex. unit | 4 x 1 | 4 x 1 | 4 x 1 | 4 x 1 |
| Fillrate (pix. & tex./sec) | 1.3 billion | 1.6 billion | 1.3 billion | 1.6 billion |
As you can see, the two line of cards are actually VERY similar. They all have the same number of pipelines and texture units per pipeline. The core clocks of the non-Ultra/non-Pro are both 325MHz while the Ultra/Pro are both 400MHz. Beside the 5600 and 9600's differing native architectures, the only notable difference is the cards' memory clocks. ATI's non-Pro/Pro cards have memory clocks roughly 25% slower than their nVIDIA non-Ultra/Ultra counterparts.
Box, Contents, Card
I was totally surprised by XFX's box; this thing is a true work of art! It seems their entire line of FX cards come in this "X" shaped box. They all also have this "extreme gaming" theme going on. A little corny perhaps, but I certainly don't mind the pimp artwork.
This is some serious packaging, no doubt. These things would sell at any retail store like Best Buy instantly. Opening up the "X package" from the side reveals a smaller holding box. The last picture shows more clearly the "extreme gaming" theme XFX has.
More importantly, here are shots of everything you get minus the card, and a close-up of the VIVO adapter:
Here you've got your standard software CD, user's manual, multi-language install guide, one-year warranty card, VIVO adapter guide, DVI-VGA converter, two s-video extension cables, and the VIVO adapter. The VIVO adapter is rather weak compared to the conventional s-video/rca "hub" we are used to seeing. Something like this is what I mean. For those of us who are still using older TVs with rca inputs only, s-video to rca converters can be an annoying expense. Now lets get a good look at the card itself.
Overall, very clean looking and not too over the top; shiny silver heatsinks on a cool blue PCB. I'm not too fond of the bulky, one-piece hunks of aluminum manufacturers like to call coolers these days, so the XFX 5600 Ultra's cooling definitely fits my style. Notice the ramsinks are larger on the front of the card than the back? Some people say the ram on the front of the card runs hotter than the back, but my theory is simply that ramsink size is only effective to a certain point (ie. the sinks on the back). When they go beyond a specific size AND are left passively cooled (as in this case), the actual gain in heat dissipation is minimal; the larger sized ramsinks are there to just look good and give a false sense of security when overclocking the ram. I of course, don't have a problem with that! In the next picture you'll see that one of the fins on the upper-left corner of the heatsink is bent out of line from the rest.
I don't know how this could have happened, but since it's not touching anything, it isn't too big a deal. Some closer shots of the GPU sink and ram sinks:
In the middle picture you can see white thermal paste just barely coming over the edge of the core. In the third picture, I've boxed what unmistakably must be white thermal epoxy coming over the edge of the ram. Here are pics of the DVI, VGA, and VIVO connections and onboard molex power supplement connector.
Unfortunately, XFX didn't include a 4pin power cable. If careless, it can be pretty easy to damage these onboard 4pin power connectors. And lastly, here's a shot of the video decoder/encoder:
XFX uses the Philips SAA7114H chip to power the card's VIVO functions. I've already seen at least one other brand 5600 Ultra with this chip, so it's probably pretty common.
