ANAND'S GeForce FX review: WEAK!!!

[Deeko]

Man....just as I suspected, only WORSE. Come on nvidia, get on the ball, throw in a 256-bit bus, or something, cuz your ass is toast this round. With no AA/ansio, it is a close match, back and forth in average fps, ATI owning on minimum, but man, turn on 1024x768 w/ AA & ansio, a popular mode these days, exactly the settings I run...and ATI simply runs over the FX. And keep in mind that the Radeon 9700 Pro can be found for about the price of the NON-ultra version. And keep in mind the not-too-far-off R350. nvidia seems to have lost this one...their one saving grace COULD be DX8. In codecreatures, it had a good lead, even with AA/ansio. So how will Doom3 run? We all know that will be the next Q3 when it comes to benchmarks. But...Doom3 is being designed around the Radeon 9700. We will see...but for now....I am sorely disappointed.

Article here

 

[CheapTOFU]

Also, don't forget that you can buy a 9500 128mb and hard-mod it to 9700 pro.. all for less than $190..

 

[SpeedyGonzales]

My main reason to invest 399Euro into a Videocard was, that I wanted to play my games with 4AA/16AF. Over weeks I was not sure, if I should buy the Radeon (with the GeforceFX only 3 months away), but finally did after reading the useful comments and advice of some community members here. And I made my decision pro Radeon on the day I first read, that Nvidia decided to go with a 128bit memorybus, therefore providing 20%+ less bandwidth than the Radeon.

I do not believe, that the extended shader programming of the GeforceFX will make a difference at all, because the gaming industry will go with the DX9 specs and make sure, that everything also works on 9700pro, 9700, 9500 pro etc.

I can not say, that the GeforceFX is disappointing, but it is not impressing neither. I am a bit shocked about the heat and noise it produces, that was originally something, that I expected more on the Radeon side.

Nvidia's pockets are deep enough to compensate one late release (last year June the GeforceFX would have been an impressive card) and I am sure, they will catch up again (I hope they will for all of us). Their biggest problem was/is, that they gambled on the 13nm process and lost, it was one release too early.

Cheers
Speedy (happy camper with Radeon9700pro)

 

[CurtCold]

Yes I would have to agree, your not going to notice a difference in these 2 cards, I wish the FX would have been significantly faster, to drop the price of the Radeon cards.

 

[spanky]

Originally posted by: CheapTOFU
Also, don't forget that you can buy a 9500 128mb and hard-mod it to 9700 pro.. all for less than $190..

really? :Q

 

[OatMan]

Wow. Interesting.
There are so many kernels in this article and the other 'reviews' that imply ATI really shoked Nvidia.

Tho this "p"review of a non-shipping sample is dissapointing. I think weak drivers are a big culprit. Nvidia has earned the benifit of the doubt there, and I see this new card matching ATI and pulling ahead marginally.

That would be fine if this shipped back in November. At this point its a bit too little too late. ATI is not scared of this new tech. But the GFX is good enough that ATI can't coast. And Nvidia I think is sporting some wounded pride and will be hell bent on taking back the crown. ATI in turn is confident it can keep it.

VERY GOOD FOR US CONSUMERS!

I'm not dissapointed at all.

 

[OatMan]

Hey 'tofu,

I thought you could mod 9500's to 9500 Pros, not 9700 Pros? The threads are a bit - scattered - so I admit I haven't read them thoroghly. If that's true that you can mod a sub $200 9500 to 9700 Pro, I gots some planning ta do...

 

[Killrose]

Originally posted by: OatMan
Hey 'tofu,

I thought you could mod 9500's to 9500 Pros, not 9700 Pros? The threads are a bit - scattered - so I admit I haven't read them thoroghly. If that's true that you can mod a sub $200 9500 to 9700 Pro, I gots some planning ta do...

Actually it's mod a 9500 128mb non-pro to a 9700. Most cards once modded won't quite do the 310MHz mem speed of the 9700 Pro because of the slower ram. But the cores on these 9500 non pro's are awesome overclockers. Mine does 350MHz easy, even after hours of game play with no artifacts (never tried higher), but the ram side is a different story. 301MHz is my max, and I run it @295 because on occasion it will artifact if I don't.

Also, it's a crap shoot because not all 9500's will do the 9700 dance once modded.

 

[CheapTOFU]

With 9500 pro, you get the same # of pipelines as you do with 9700 pro..
But ddr ram only uses 128 bit, just like Geforce FX.., yes GFX uses ddr 2...

But with hard-modded 9500 non-pro 128 ddr, you get all pipes and 256 bit ddr..., just like 9700 pro..

 

[stockspeedsrule]

For those of you who waited for the FX hanging on to ur GF3/2s or 8500s while others enjoyed 4X AA/ 16X AF during their free time in thanx giving, SUCKERS!!!!
For those who hung on to their GF4s, I would really suggest waiting for the R350 coz the FX most probably be able to touch it even after the expected 10-20% boost with better drivers.

IMHO, I really am disappointed in nVIDIA this time around as I expected the FX to be a clear choice over the 9700 pro upon release but that isnt the case at all. For those of you who are AA AF and DVD quality addicts should definitely choose ATI. For those fillrate addicts, tell me, does the minor FPS advantage in SOME situations really justify spending even $30 more at the moment or even later on? And definitely, the FX is not a choice for those silent PC builders at 77db :Q, or was it 74db? Still!!

In any case, for those who have waited, wait till march for the R350. Besides, Doom3 is coming March 31. However lots of neat titles are expected in feb such as the new RTCW, Tomb raider Angel of Darkness, IGI 2 etc but they really shouldnt be problem on at least an 8500 or GF4s.

 

[OatMan]

For those of you who waited for the FX hanging on to ur GF3/2s or 8500s while others enjoyed 4X AA/ 16X AF during their free time in thanx giving, SUCKERS!!!!

Ok, you earned your bragging rights. But there are no games compelling me to pitch my 128MB 8500. When I hit a game(s) that really is crippled, I'll go get the most $100 - $150 will get. I think I'll easily last until R400, and I hope I can get a good R350 or perhaps a retooled NV card then. I don't need 300fps Q3, 150fps is fine.

How many games really utilize DX8.1 now? DX9.x is theory until its in da game. Buying tech early is expensive! Why pay more for something that is largely unused (ok i know the FSAA, AF and such is a real benefit now) Its worth $400 to you now(well 3 months ago), and I can wait 6 months and get it for $150.

anyway 'nough babbling.

 

[niggles]

very disappointed with this. I'm off to get an ATI right now.

 

[Deeko]

Just glanced through Tom's review

Paints a different picture...although I'll take Anand's word first.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I'll reserve judgement until i see the card benched with actual shipping drivers.

 

[Corsairpro]

i don't know too terribly much about video cards, but if ATI is getting the same scores roughly as the FX but at a significantly lower clock speed, is it the more bandwidth available that is responsible or is it similar to the AMDvsIntel IPC discussion?

 

[Killrose]

One things for certain. If you own a 9500PRO, Ti4600 or 9700 anything, there is really no reason to buy an FX. although if you are an Nvidia die-hard and have to have the fastest Nvidia card available it's you're only option.

 

[cmdrdredd]

In Tom's Article look at the Serious Sam benchmarks with AA and Ansio. The 9700Pro wins. In Direct3D (UT2003) the GFFX is slightly ahead, but not much. I wonder if ATI has a better OGL driver than Nvidia does and Nvidia has a slightly better handle on DirectX apps? Or maybe the reduced Z-Buffer Precision for the GFFX in Serious Sam's OGL is a factor?

It's clear that Nvidia is hurting in this one.

I did want to know about this...Anand used a P4 for the benchmarks and Tom a Athlon. Would this make any difference in the performance of a GPU over another for better or worse?

 

[anazoal]

After Tom's "doctored" (pun intended) a pic of a P4 a few months ago, I've taken their reviews with a grain of salt.

 

[teiresias]

I wonder if ATI has a better OGL driver than Nvidia does and Nvidia has a slightly better handle on DirectX apps?

I would find that rather hilarious considering Bioware was attempting to blame ATI's "incompatible" OpenGL implementation for the problems Neverwinter Nights has had running on ATI hardware.

 

[SickBeast]

I can just see the ATI engineers giving each other high fives right now...

Seriously though, this card "blows" (pun intended). 5 months after the 9700 it beats it by 5% at best (with AA/AF). Add to this that ATI's anisotropic looks better, and that the 9700 will cost much less, and you can't help but realize that there is NO POINT in buying a GFFX, unless you're one of those crazed fanboys.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I mean optomization of the driver not he way the driver "talks" to the GPU and handles the instructions. Bioware as we all know has been using non standard and sometimes Nvidia specific instructions. If they adhered to standard OGL specs the 9700 would be able to do the water effects 100%

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I can just see the ATI engineers giving each other high fives right now...

Seriously though, this card "blows" (pun intended). 5 months after the 9700 it beats it by 5% at best (with AA/AF). Add to this that ATI's anisotropic looks better, and that the 9700 will cost much less, and you can't help but realize that there is NO POINT in buying a GFFX, unless you're one of those crazed fanboys.

not to mention the fact that the 9700Pro beats the GFFX by up to almost 30% in some cases. That is clearly a winner. I still remember when ATI had "beta" and "Unmature" drivers when the 9700Pro previews were up and it still beat the Ti4600 by 200% in some tests so the fact that Nvidia has a driver which is not tweaked is not even an excuse.

I also shudder to think about Nvidia's 2D performance and IQ and what about DVD playback.

I'd still like to see a fully tweaked (overclocked) 9700Pro vs a fully overclocked GFFX at MAX AA and AF at 1600x1200 and see where they stand. I bet ATI would come out on top of that one.

 

[Lonyo]

Not only is the card not very good at AA/AF, but this R&D for this card line (NV30-NV39) means that the 128 bit bus and poor AA/AF and IQ is not all that likely to change even with the next bunch of cards, I fear.
ATi's next big change will be with their next major release and will see them to .13micron (the RV350, I'm not talking about the R350), and that could give them more of a lead on nVidia.
I doesn't seem like the future will be all that kind to nVidia, unlike the last few years, time for them to work for their position.

 

[Sarge1]

I'll reserve judgement until i see the card benched with actual shipping drivers.

Me too. When Anand first reviewed the 9500 Pro sample, the results were pretty disappointing with the drivers available at the time. Once the card shipped with updated drivers the results were significantly better. Probably the best bang for buck card out today.
That said, I don't expect any major increases in performance as I believe Nvidia has pushed the FX to it's max just to get the numbers above the 9700 Pro. I guess I haven't reserved judgement have I?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Sarge1

I'll reserve judgement until i see the card benched with actual shipping drivers.

Me too. When Anand first reviewed the 9500 Pro sample, the results were pretty disappointing with the drivers available at the time. Once the card shipped with updated drivers the results were significantly better. Probably the best bang for buck card out today.
That said, I don't expect any major increases in performance as I believe Nvidia has pushed the FX to it's max just to get the numbers above the 9700 Pro. I guess I haven't reserved judgement have I?

I still remember when ATI had "beta" and "Unmature" drivers when the 9700Pro previews were up and it still beat the Ti4600 by 200% in some tests so the fact that Nvidia has a driver which is not tweaked is not even an excuse.

do you remember that?