Which cards are claasified a NV35, and which as NV30?
Regards
NV35 = GeForceFX 5900
NV30 = GeForceFX 5800
Aren’t all the FX cards from 5800 down NV30?
-SirKnight
What about 5200 + 5600?
5200 = NV34
5600 = NV31 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797&p=2
EDIT: as far as features are concerned, all these cards have the >= NV30 (dx9, etc…) features. Differences are only on the hardware side (optimization, more pipelines…)
[This message has been edited by tfpsly (edited 07-07-2003).]
I’ve been led to believe:
5200 == NV34 (equivalent of two pixel pipes)
5600 == NV31 (equivalent of four pixel pipes)
5800 == NV30 (equivalent of eight pixel pipes)
5900 == NV35 (equivalent of twelve pixel pipes)
Note that I’m not entering the debate of what “equivalent of” actually means.
So is it fair to say that 35 > 34 > 31 > 30 in terms of features, but not performance?
Originally posted by Shag:
So is it fair to say that 35 > 34 > 31 > 30 in terms of features, but not performance?
No, 30, 31, and 34 are in the same category as far as supported OpenGL extensions. They only differ in speed (clock speed, number of pipes, early z test, etc). 35 has at least one minor feature addition over and above the others (shadow range).
The 5900 differs from other fx cards by having implemented that shadow culling feature in hw. But yeah, that whole naming scheme is off the wall.
If you hadn’t guessed already … I’m looking to upgrade my graphics card - my old Geforce 256 having burnt itself out 
But I don’t won’t to spend money on the wrong product. I simply want a good feature set - and stuff performance.
BTW - Thumbs down to nvidia for a crappy naming scheme. I was under the impression (from very little research) that the 5200 was effectively a baby NV35. WRONG.
So, in summary - if I want the latest features, I must buy a 5900! As for the 15 children … let 'em starve 
Thanks all
EDIT #1 poor speeling
EDIT #2 I’ve been off the scene for too bloody long - crappy Matrox graphics cards!
[This message has been edited by Shag (edited 07-07-2003).]
Shag, from the OpenGL point of view the only feature that the NV35 has that an NV31 or NV34 doesn’t is the EXT_depth_bounds_test extension.
I don’t play games on a PC as a rule … apart from Q2 (which was the first ever game I bought), Q3 … and the next id software release! I assume that a 5900 is the way to go if that’s my intent.
Primarily I want the card to play with OGL … but the other requirement (Doom 3) will be a deciding factor.
Either that or break the habbit of a lifetime and go for an ATI card.
Still deciding … ho hum!
Of the cards out now, the 5900 is the best for Doom3. What will be best when it does come out is another question.
Originally posted by jwatte:
[b]I’ve been led to believe:
5200 == NV34 (equivalent of two pixel pipes)
5600 == NV31 (equivalent of four pixel pipes)
5800 == NV30 (equivalent of eight pixel pipes)
5900 == NV35 (equivalent of twelve pixel pipes)
Note that I’m not entering the debate of what “equivalent of” actually means.[/b]
What’s with the ass-backwards way of numbering these days.
ATI has been doing something similar with their 9xxx line where 9100 is faster than 9200 and 9500 is faster than 9600.
PS: the 5200 is a cut down version of the 5800 and and so is the 5600. I think there are ultra and non-ultra version of th 5xxx line.
The 5900 is suppose to be a fixed up and pump up 5800 (meaning fan noise solved, more powerful)