I for one will never buy a nVidia vPU for a long time after I got a FX5200. The card can not even play Tiger Wood's golf without skipping. I am getting a 9800 pro, because right now it is the best bang for the buck I believe. When a new generation FX card has trouble outperforming the MX series and gets killed by the Ti4200 and Ti4600 cards, it should have never been released. nVidia lost all my respect.
Did FX series hurt nVidia?
- Thread starter discodanman45
- Start date
Try the Radeon 9200se. The frames on that are lower then the frames on a 5200U. Ati AND NV both have crap cards on the bottom of their 5xxx/9xxx lines.
FX5200 is a budget card and you know that. Saying Nvidia sucks because the 5200 is slow is like saying ATI sucks because the 9200SE is a piece of garbage. As for your claim that the FX is worse than the GF4 series, can you back that up with benchmarks? According to Tom's Hardware, the high end FX cards crush the high end GF4 cards.
Short answer, yes it hurt them. In many ways.
However, they did a very good job getting thru the past two years without losing much ground. It could have been disastrous for them.
However, they did a very good job getting thru the past two years without losing much ground. It could have been disastrous for them.
I am just saying when you come out with a new generation Video card it should be able to destroy the previously released cards. Especially in a technology market. The FX5200 and FX5600 are complete garbage and should not have been released. They should have just kept mass producing the Ti cards and sold them for the same price. The FX5900 is not that great of a card as well. The FX5950 is good, but the only one in the series that gamers will like.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
It was a stupid purchase, but I bought it cheap because I was strapped for cash. I am not complaining because I bought a crappy card, I should have been smart enough not to buy it. The thing I am saying is that the FX series crashed and burned, and many people lost respect for nVidia. I know many, I mean MANY, people who switched over to ATI because the 9600 and 9800 series destroyed the FX counterparts. I know the 6800 will redeem nVidia, but I think people who would have jumped all over the 6800 are now considering the X800 because of what happened with the FX series.
LOL-
A. I doubt you even know "many many people", let alone many, many people who buy video cards
B. Judging a brand by it's cheapest crappiest card is ridiculous
C. The 9600-9800 series did not "destroy" their FX counterparts at anything but DX9 PS2 games in a year there were no DX9 PS2 games, and on other games at some high settings that neither card could run well.
D. Your post is flamebait
You obviously don't know much about graphics hardware, and I'm guessing aren't very old.
I have a 5950 U and The 9800XT does not destroy it, although the 9800XT may be a little better. I have a 9700Pro that has been nothing but trouble for me.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 31,783
- 31,801
- 146
SneakyStuff
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2004
- 4,294
- 0
- 76
nVidia's FX series (As remembered by me! 
)
Pros: 5900 series, 5700u and 5700, 5500 (As good as anything for roughly the same cost as a 5200)
Cons: 5800 series (Fodder for ATI fanboys) 5600, and 5200 series (Did not deliver what nVidia promised, a performance gain over the geforce 4 series)
Either way, DAPUNISHER is right, nVidia ddn't lose much ground, I myself have 2 FX cards, and they're just fine.
)Pros: 5900 series, 5700u and 5700, 5500 (As good as anything for roughly the same cost as a 5200)
Cons: 5800 series (Fodder for ATI fanboys) 5600, and 5200 series (Did not deliver what nVidia promised, a performance gain over the geforce 4 series)
Either way, DAPUNISHER is right, nVidia ddn't lose much ground, I myself have 2 FX cards, and they're just fine.
Yes, it hurt Nvidia. The original GeforceFX came out a full cycle after ATI's Radeon 9700 Pro. It was also a poor performer, losing to the Radeon in most benchmarks whereas many anticipated that its late arrival would mean that it could blow the 9700 to bits. The rest of the GeforceFX line has not been very impressing either, with the Geforce 5600 Ultra being one of the few bright spots due to its priceerformance ratio. Nvidia's marketing has done a lot of things for them though. They've milked their pre-FX reputation, garnered numerous OEM deals, and focused heavily on the mid to lower range consumers. What is notable, though, is whlie Nvidia's "counterparts" for the last few cards have finally been on par, the availability for several of them have been tardy compared to ATi (9500 line especially, and then the 9600 line). Note how the 5600 and 5200 came out after the 5800. Even in the case of the 5950, Nvidia came out with the 5900, then the 9800XT was pushed out, and Nvidia responded with the 5950.
So, instead of ATi still being the bumbling OEM company that it used to be, there's actually competition now. If the original GeforceFX lived up to expectations, I think ATi would still be known for the OEM cards.
erformance ratio. Nvidia's marketing has done a lot of things for them though. They've milked their pre-FX reputation, garnered numerous OEM deals, and focused heavily on the mid to lower range consumers. What is notable, though, is whlie Nvidia's "counterparts" for the last few cards have finally been on par, the availability for several of them have been tardy compared to ATi (9500 line especially, and then the 9600 line). Note how the 5600 and 5200 came out after the 5800. Even in the case of the 5950, Nvidia came out with the 5900, then the 9800XT was pushed out, and Nvidia responded with the 5950.So, instead of ATi still being the bumbling OEM company that it used to be, there's actually competition now. If the original GeforceFX lived up to expectations, I think ATi would still be known for the OEM cards.
That's how the comp industry works. Some stuff is golden, other stuff turns out to be complete crap. It's up the end user to decide what is right for him/her.
The only really bad hit to the FX line was the dustbuster 5800, IMO. Both ATI and nVidia's low end cards suck.
The only really bad hit to the FX line was the dustbuster 5800, IMO. Both ATI and nVidia's low end cards suck.
Originally posted by: Garfield3d
Yes, it hurt Nvidia. The original GeforceFX came out a full cycle after ATI's Radeon 9700 Pro. It was also a poor performer, losing to the Radeon in most benchmarks whereas many anticipated that its late arrival would mean that it could blow the 9700 to bits. The rest of the GeforceFX line has not been very impressing either, with the Geforce 5600 Ultra being one of the few bright spots due to its price
So, instead of ATi still being the bumbling OEM company that it used to be, there's actually competition now. If the original GeforceFX lived up to expectations, I think ATi would still be known for the OEM cards.
Another one who doesn't know much about hardware. :roll:
I think we all knew at the time that the original FX came out late due to TSMC not being able to produce it when promised, as reported on this site and many others?
A poor performer? It was the second fastest card in the world that you could buy at some benchmarks, and the fastest at others. I see what you mean about it being a "poor performer".
The FX series did have its uses though. If you want to stay up at night, you could pop a 5800 into your rig. If you needed a doorstop the 5900s worked nicely.
SneakyStuff
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2004
- 4,294
- 0
- 76
A. I doubt you even know "many many people", let alone many, many people who buy video cards
Response: I never said many many people, I said many people.
B. Judging a brand by it's cheapest crappiest card is ridiculous
Response: When a new generation card can't play Tiger Woods Golf without skipping, the company who made it shouldn't say the card is an improvement over the G4 series.
C. The 9600-9800 series did not "destroy" their FX counterparts at anything but DX9 PS2 games in a year there were no DX9 PS2 games, and on other games at some high settings that neither card could run well.
Repsonse: If you had a choice between a nVidia 5900XT and a ATI 9800 PRO what would you choose?
D. Your post is flamebait
Response: Yes it is, and I am sorry about that. I know this sounds like an ATI versus nVidia debate, I didn't mean it to come across this way. I loved the old GF2 series, the Ti series, and every nVidia card that came out before this. ATI really started to catch up to, if not surpassing nVidia this year. I guess my dissapointment came from the fact that I was expecting a card better then the Ti series since it was new generation.
You obviously don't know much about graphics hardware, and I'm guessing aren't very old.
Response: I am 26 and know quite a bit about old school VPU's. However, the recent technology I don't know much about. The average customer knows much less then me and if they buy a FX5200 or FX5600 I know they will be dissapointed on the card's performance.
Response: I never said many many people, I said many people.
B. Judging a brand by it's cheapest crappiest card is ridiculous
Response: When a new generation card can't play Tiger Woods Golf without skipping, the company who made it shouldn't say the card is an improvement over the G4 series.
C. The 9600-9800 series did not "destroy" their FX counterparts at anything but DX9 PS2 games in a year there were no DX9 PS2 games, and on other games at some high settings that neither card could run well.
Repsonse: If you had a choice between a nVidia 5900XT and a ATI 9800 PRO what would you choose?
D. Your post is flamebait
Response: Yes it is, and I am sorry about that. I know this sounds like an ATI versus nVidia debate, I didn't mean it to come across this way. I loved the old GF2 series, the Ti series, and every nVidia card that came out before this. ATI really started to catch up to, if not surpassing nVidia this year. I guess my dissapointment came from the fact that I was expecting a card better then the Ti series since it was new generation.
You obviously don't know much about graphics hardware, and I'm guessing aren't very old.
Response: I am 26 and know quite a bit about old school VPU's. However, the recent technology I don't know much about. The average customer knows much less then me and if they buy a FX5200 or FX5600 I know they will be dissapointed on the card's performance.
Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
There goes Rollo again, fervently defending his 5800
It is kind of like waving a red flag in front of a bull, isn't it?
I don't know why I like the 5800U so much. The 6800NU I'm using now is superior to it and any other card I've owned, and yet I still miss the 5800U at times.
I did decide to sell it though, somebody can turn it into a Quadro and get some use out of it. My four year old won't get any benefit from it playing Sponge Bob and the like, the noise would probably annoy him as well.
Originally posted by: Rollo
Originally posted by: Garfield3d
Yes, it hurt Nvidia. The original GeforceFX came out a full cycle after ATI's Radeon 9700 Pro. It was also a poor performer, losing to the Radeon in most benchmarks whereas many anticipated that its late arrival would mean that it could blow the 9700 to bits. The rest of the GeforceFX line has not been very impressing either, with the Geforce 5600 Ultra being one of the few bright spots due to its price
So, instead of ATi still being the bumbling OEM company that it used to be, there's actually competition now. If the original GeforceFX lived up to expectations, I think ATi would still be known for the OEM cards.
Another one who doesn't know much about hardware. :roll:
I think we all knew at the time that the original FX came out late due to TSMC not being able to produce it when promised, as reported on this site and many others?
A poor performer? It was the second fastest card in the world that you could buy at some benchmarks, and the fastest at others. I see what you mean about it being a "poor performer".
Thank you for your kind words. I'm familiar with the reasoning behind its proces, it's .13 micron process, its RAM issues, ramping up production for these "new technologies," etc etc... If you remember those things, then hopefully you haven't mentally blocked out the pain that people felt when they found out that their delay was for naught. When you wait 6 months for something, even if new features aren't added during that timespan, "we all knew" that it was because of the new technology that they were ramping up that was supposed to make the difference between the 9700 and the 5800. On paper, it had a higher fillrate, more bandwidth, and overall better specifications and people expected it to beat the Radeon 9700 Pro hands down. This was far from the case. And yes, it was a poor performer. It wasn't neck and neck with a card that came out 6 months earlier. It was a clear marginal loss for the 5800. It lost most benchmarks to older cards and the benchmarks that it was "the fastest" at, it was by a frame or so. Then the 5800 line, soon after production finally stabilized, was axed due to its sound, its lackluster performance, and even its size. Nvidia soon began to focus on the more mainstream markets instead of besting ATi's highest card. When the 9800 came out, Nvidia did not have a card that could decisively beat it either. It has only been in the last cycle that Nvidia can say that their cards can marginally beat ATI's cards.
Considering that ATI was strictly a second tier company (in terms of performance) in the later 90's and early 2000's, I would say that Nvidia's inability to smother the competition, as it had done so with Geforce 2, 3, and 4, certainly hurt it.
Rollo, I think you should know that not only do some of us know about the 5800, but unlike you, some of us were quite ticked off about it.
Originally posted by: SneakyStuff
nVidia's FX series (As remembered by me!
Pros: 5900 series, 5700u and 5700, 5500 (As good as anything for roughly the same cost as a 5200)
Cons: 5800 series (Fodder for ATI fanboys) 5600, and 5200 series (Did not deliver what nVidia promised, a performance gain over the geforce 4 series)
Either way, DAPUNISHER is right, nVidia ddn't lose much ground, I myself have 2 FX cards, and they're just fine.
I agree with you, the best card in the 5900 range imo is the 5900 xt, you just can't beat it for price and performance!
True, but the average customer is fine with their dell. RESEARCH is the key. If they do not care to know enough about the card they are buying, they will be duped. It's just like car salesmen. It does not hurt nVidia's image when people who do not do their homework end up with a bad card. If your friends buy a 64-bit 5200/5600, find out it sucks and switch to a 9600pro/9800pro, of course they are going to think ATI is way better than nVidia.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter