Fx Benchmarks!!

[Killrose]

Here
Whoops, got a double post out of that one, hehe. But it does'nt look too good for the Nvidia hopefulls if these truely represent the FX's power. Though with early drivers, i'm sure the tweaking abilities of Nvidia will up the ante.

 

[hollowman]

Correct link

 

[Killrose]

Yeah, I corrected mine. Somehow loaded two http//'s in there. LOL

 

[lifeguard1999]

Interesting Items from the article:

- Underclocking: In 2D the card runs at 300 MHz core/mem. In 3D it runs at 500 MHz core/mem.
- It is loud: The fan runs slower in 2D vs 3D, due to the above item.
- It is heavy: It weighs 600 grams vs. 220 grams for an ATI card.
- It beats the 9700Pro in non-AA/Aniso benchmarks, loses in AA/Aniso benchmarks.

Quake3, 1280x1024HQ, 0X FSAA: 291 fps (FX) vs 269 fpa (9700 Pro)
Quake3, 1280x1024HQ, 4X FSAA: 130 fps (FX) vs 146 fpa (9700 Pro)

- Surprisingly it ties (+/- 1 fps) in UT2003
- It does win in Serious Sam II & Codecreatures.

I'll bet it has much hidden potential still left. Better drivers should reveal this over time. I do like the idea that it runs slower, cooler, and quieter in 2D. That makes sense. I wonder why it hasn't been done before.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999 I do like the idea that it runs slower, cooler, and quieter in 2D. That makes sense. I wonder why it hasn't been done before.

because nobody has ever put a hair drier on a video card before.

 

[grabadude]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999 I do like the idea that it runs slower, cooler, and quieter in 2D. That makes sense. I wonder why it hasn't been done before.

because nobody has ever put a hair drier on a video card before.

LOL The cooling system does resemble the hair dryer, at least to me.

 

[tazdevl]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999 I do like the idea that it runs slower, cooler, and quieter in 2D. That makes sense. I wonder why it hasn't been done before.

because nobody has ever put a hair drier on a video card before.

ROFL, I guess nVIDIA could put that as a feature in their marketing material... "Another added FX benefit... blow dry your air while you frag away".

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999
Interesting Items from the article:

- Underclocking: In 2D the card runs at 300 MHz core/mem. In 3D it runs at 500 MHz core/mem.
- It is loud: The fan runs slower in 2D vs 3D, due to the above item.
- It is heavy: It weighs 600 grams vs. 220 grams for an ATI card.
- It beats the 9700Pro in non-AA/Aniso benchmarks, loses in AA/Aniso benchmarks.

Quake3, 1280x1024HQ, 0X FSAA: 291 fps (FX) vs 269 fpa (9700 Pro)
Quake3, 1280x1024HQ, 4X FSAA: 130 fps (FX) vs 146 fpa (9700 Pro)

- Surprisingly it ties (+/- 1 fps) in UT2003
- It does win in Serious Sam II & Codecreatures.

I'll bet it has much hidden potential still left. Better drivers should reveal this over time. I do like the idea that it runs slower, cooler, and quieter in 2D. That makes sense. I wonder why it hasn't been done before.

Didn't read the article, but concerning your UT2k3 comment: If those are the botmatch scores, that would be due to the cpu rather than the vidcard, the flyby scores will show vidcard differences.

 

[EdipisReks]

wow, Sandorski, you're really lucky that your posts count as bumps

 

[TheWart]

Wow, I am very suprised at how close the card is in terms of performance to the 9700.

 

[Soulkeeper]

I'd be more impressed if it had been released last year, but I can just see nvidia taking back the crown for a month or two then ati releasing their R350 and taking it back
I'm wondering If nvidia will regret not going with a 256bit memory solution

looks like this is ATI's year on the Hi end

 

[Killrose]

Any gain Nvidia makes with improved drivers with the FX is going to be in vain. The R350 will use existing Cat's. out of the gate, and they are solid drivers. The R350 will dominate these low scores, hell, an overclocked 9700 Pro would make up most of the deficeits shown in these comparisons.

But of course, I would like to see reveiws from Anand, Kyle and even Tom on this. These could be lower than some of the sites I trust.

 

[Deeko]

I'll wait until some better benchmarks before I pass judgement...but if those are accurate, it is as I suspected...good in situations that don't require bandwidth, poor when it does(aka FSAA), and if you ask me, people who are buying a card like that sure as hell will be using FSAA/ansio. I've said ti before, and I'll say it again...nvidia may have dropped the ball here, if it can't even beat the 9700pro, R350 will mop the floor....

 

[BFG10K]

The results don't show a blinding speed advantage but they also aren't very high detail either. I want to see 1600 x 1200 x 32 with 8x anisotropic (and higher) before passing final judgment.

Also, remember that the UT2003 botmatches are all CPU limited. For a GPU comparison they should be testing all of the flyby benchmarks.

 

[ChrisOjeda]

This is what I would say. Consider that if you buy at least 3 games a year and/or play them online (thus put in some decent time) then you must think about how the FX would do for future games. Most of the features that would give an extremely higher fps are based on directx 9.0 games/applications. While it may be neck and neck with todays ATI card, I'll bet it would leave that same card in the dust in directx 9.0 games. I read that it's Doom benchmarks were off the charts compared to ATI flagship and that was put out by ID. The only bad thing is that we don't have any games to do comparisons on that will tell us where it stands going forward. Doom will be a great game and both the FX and 350 will be out. That should be a good point in time to do a comparison that is actually meaningful. I'd be perfectly happy if the FX performed at this level with current and old games because it is fast enough. What matters more to me is the future games, after all I am a serious games and do like to play at 1600x1200 when possible. I think everyone should take all that into consideration. Both ATI's new flagshipa nd Nvidias new flagship will be out by the end of April so I hope that we can get a great Directx 9.0 game soon. The last thing to consider is general compatibility issues and support. I've owned both ATI and Nvidia products about equally since my first 200Mhz pc. I've had far more compatibility issues with ATI drivers than with Nvidia. I always choose stability as priority number one. Nothing like not being able to play a game you just purcahsed for $50. As far as driver support, I've gotten pretty great gains on Nvidia cards because of their new drivers (which has saved me some $ by letting me put off upgrading to another card).

To base your judgement and purchase on old games and legacy games would simply be foolish....

That's my $.02

 

[daywalker]

Everything happen pretty much as i expected: Nvidia's blender card is obviously, no big deal.

Not only the card has minimal increase in performace compared to the Radeon9700Pro, but it also packs A LOT and i mean A LOT of heat. If there isnt adequate case cooling and a good power supply, we are talking about putting the system's stability and health into a risk. And i am not the one who is going to take it.

Actually this is a moment that i was looking for, for many years now. Not only Nvidia lost its monopoly but also its performance crown. With the R350 being available next month to reviewers, I see Nvidia getting outclassed in every aspect... once again. Not even a driver refresh will save its mess.

Nvidia: R.I.P

A bit harsh, but thats how i see it

 

[kilmanjaro]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
The results don't show a blinding speed advantage but they also aren't very high detail either. I want to see 1600 x 1200 x 32 with 8x anisotropic (and higher) before passing final judgment.

Then look no further...Anandtech's Review. Doesn't look so good...

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: kilmanjaro

Originally posted by: BFG10K
The results don't show a blinding speed advantage but they also aren't very high detail either. I want to see 1600 x 1200 x 32 with 8x anisotropic (and higher) before passing final judgment.

Then look no further...Anandtech's Review. Doesn't look so good...

HOLY where did that come from????? Reading it now...

 

[sandorski]

Ouch! This almost makes it the most overhyped card ever.

 

[TimisoaraKill]

The card is not the 9700 killer , that's for sure , is barely better , i realy expected 30-40% more performance so this is sad .
Also card does not overclock well and push out huge heat , for this he need that hair drayer fan .
This means for me that this core is pushed to max and allready overvolted .
In AA/AF the 9700 look better in both image quality and performance and after all you don't pay 400$ to play in the ugly mode !
If i take in consideration all this i came to the result that this card is still a huge beta and they need at least 4 monts and 2 core revisions to fix the problems .
My bro was extremely excited with this card and he pre-ordered one 1 week before , today he called me and say that he will cancel the preorder , he hawe now a overclocked Saphire 9700 non pro in his rig.
Nvidia failed this time and i think that is the first time ,to bad .

 

[Creig]

Actually, Nvidia has had a problem with EVERY new GPU. The TNT1 had to be clocked lower than initially planned, same with the GeForce 256. Now they're a whole development cycle behind where they should be.

I just can't believe how much HEAT this thing puts out. I mean, one of the advantages of going to the smaller die (besides price) is usually lower power consumption and lower heat output. TimisoaraKill hit the nail on the head with his speculation of overvolting/overclocking. Nvidia definitely didn't get the speed they were looking for and had to hotrod the core in order to get overall performance up to 9700 Pro levels. They HAD to do this, however. After all the development money invested and time spent, who would purchase it if it couldn't beat the 9700 Pro in at least SOME benchmarks?

 

[DefRef]

ATI Fanboys are sooooooooooo happy right now.

(Too bad that chicks aren't impressed by this stuff.)

 

[cremefilled]

It's gonna be a long, long time before a Geforce FX/econo-class version is able to be hardware tweaked to run like an Ultra--such as we can do with the $150 ATI 9500.

Unfortunately for ATI, this high-end stuff is still well under 10% of the market. But the mind-share is important, and a lot of us are recommending 8500's over 440's, 9500's over 4200's, and 9700's over 4600's, and now it looks like the R350 cards over the FX's. If ATI is able to crank out 9500's that are essentially 9700's under the cover and sell that at a profit, they've got a lot of room to compete on price.

 

[spanner]

I would like to see how the non-ultra turns out cooling wise. The real competition is not in the very high end so I think the fx 5800 and the cost of the regular Geforce 4's is what is going to make or break it for nvidia. i think nvidia moving to .13micron and to DDR2 will probably give them nvidia an edge in the future. For now it seems nvidia is still in the experimental stage with the FX.

 

[Quixfire]

Argh! I don't have time today to talk about this. I feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy moved the ball away.

I now must go back to saving lives!